I didn't say it would be easy to enforce. Hamas is like any component of any body politic, if they dislike their situation to a certain extent, they will start to employ violence. This isn't at all to justify what Hamas does, but i am saying that the political dynamics would shift in a situation where Hamas was part of an internationally recognized sovereign Palestinian state. My assumption is that statehood is what most Palestinians will be satisfied with ultimately, and that if the radically anti-Israeli wings will persist on violence past that point, the Palestinian state will be better able and more willing to manage them (to get them to participate in a state at all will likely require some sort of disarmament, or that their combatants would form only a segment of the unified Palestinian military)

Statehood would vastly erode Hamas' position, so long as it was statehood under conditions that the majority of Palestinians would accept. If, say, statehood entails the state agreeing to continue to allow apartheid-style Israeli military checkpoints, then you would continue to see violence

The right peace will become self-reinforcing

Why?  It didn't help before.  There actions have lead to this... and they seem perfectly happy to keep going.

That's a pretty big assumption.  As is "statehood under conditions a majority of Palestinians would accept."

Such a deal might not be possible even if it was soley the 1967 with zero changes.

Do the majority of Israelis approve of aggressive settlement construction into ancient Samaria (West Bank)? A similar case would come into play here. If we included the Palestinian expatriates in the equation, perhaps the math would shift, but i'm betting they'll be willing to embrace the '67 boundaries as a fait accompli at this point, much as how most Israelis seem content with the fact that they aren't just going to be able to swamp the entire West Bank for themselves

None of those mercenaries represented anything sovereign. It's like saying that Switzerland is on the Pope's side because he was protected by Swiss mercenaries. Last I checked, Switzerland was fairly neutral.

As for ethnical cleansing I fully agree. I already agreed that there should have been provisions for the protectoin of the jewish population in whatever they had settled on.

Edit: To me foreign help is fairly well defined as a foreign army or resources (whether it is money or weapons, or other such help). I have wondered before whether Israel woudl have received mroe help, maybe even some army, had the west not been completely decimated by WW2.

Probably not. Even though they weren't inclined to commit soldiers to another military endeavor after such a huge war, they were hardly so bad off that they couldn't have afforded to offer some help in terms of armaments. America, which certainly wasn't devastated by WWII, placed an arms embargo on Palestine out of a desire not to see Arabs and Jews using American weapons to kill one another, while the British just didn't seem to care about honoring the promises they'd made to the Jews.

It remains as bizarre to me as ever that in a conflict between two autonomous groups, you consider a few Czech weapons to be more illegitimate than the intervention of tens of thousands of foreign troops.

Well, i'll put it this way.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=222451

Though last i looked, the majority of Israelis said that giving up any part of Jersusalem was a non starter.

Most people support those settlements... and a lot seem to support others.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3866367,00.html

When you combine that with the fact that most East Jersusalem Palestinians would rather be Israelis... by your own logic you should concede that Jerusalem should belong to Israel.

Self deterimination and all.

Only problem is, that self deterimination gets in the way of what other Palestinians want.

Kinda puts you in a bit of a logical pedicment there.

Actually, a lot of the times they did represent soverign things, as you would hire mercenaries from rulers.  VS the czechs selling weapons to someon for a quick buck.

I mean... they weren't gifted those weapons.  They bought them.

The whole "state intervention" was nothing more then one country selling weapons to another... for profit.

Also, you shouldn't be blaming the west... but the east.  The Czechs were aloud to sell Israel the weapons because Stalin liked Israel... well then until Stalin decided he hated Israel and helped the other side even more in an attempt to crush Israel.

The british tried to sell out Israel almost as soon as they lifted immigration controls.

The US didn't help until Kennedy in the 60's.

Trust me I am blaming far more people than just thew jews. In factthey aren't even close to the top for being resposible for this mess on my list.

You are also right, thuogh for some reason I still thought of Russia as west. Though I don't know how you can say it wasn;t heklpful, then say that Stalin let it happen because he liked Israel. I am also kind of surprised to hear this because I don't remember Russian jews being in the best graces of the communists.

He sold them weapons.

Just how the all those arab armies that were invading Israel all bought their weapons from the British and French and were trained by them.

I mean, where do you think they got the weapons from.

So... yeah.  The Arabs actually had more outside help of the same kind if you count the arab league as "inside".  Espiecally since the west banned all weapon sales to either side, but kept selling to the arabs that attacked.  Meaning the west supported Palestine in the war following the  line of thinking that they were "insiders"

And if you don't... the Palestinians clearly had more help in way of direct forces.

Come on already... as someone who likes to support rationallity you should realize this is a mistaken line of arguement.

The Israelis bought weapons they didn't get "outside assistance."  That's like saying my grocer is giving me food when I buy it.  He isn't.  I'm paying him for it.

I'm assuming to Stalin, a Jewish state meant Jewish people would leave so he didn't object to the Chechs making money.