It’s been said that the Iraelis should not agree to freeze settlement activity on the West Bank because this would reward Palestinian terrorists and lead to more terrorism.
I would like to see some examples of concessions in a political dispute where terrorism is a factor actually encouraging additional terrorist acts. I can think of terrorist attacks resulting from what they see as provocation, and by hard-liners trying to disrupt the peace process, but not this kind.
(Let’s ignore kidnap for ransom and that kind of thing and stick with political disputes)
This is in GQ because I don’t dispute that this happens, but I need some examples for further analysis.
I’m not sure I got you. Are you saying that ‘giving in’ to terrorism should not lead to more terrorism? ANd you would like an example where people gave in and was ‘rewarded’ with more terrorism (which only seems like the logical conclusion but can’t think of a concrete example right now)?
No, I’m not saying ‘giving in’ does not inspire more terrorism, I’m saying I don’t know and I want to find out.
But as far as ‘giving in’ goes, we might want to make a distiction between, say, terrorists demanding the release of their duly convicted fellow terrorists, and terrorists demanding that you stop oppressing their people.
So perhaps we can debate whether doing the right thing becomes the wrong thing if it’s something that terrorists want.
I’m of the opinion that although giving concessions to the Palestinians might be seen as caving to terrorists, it would still be a much better way to stop terrorism than being stubborn.
Nevertheless, the Israeli people and government always demand vengeance for when terrorist acts are committed against them. If the Israeli government were to cave after a terrorist attack, that government would soon find itself replaced.
My point exactly, *The. But a lot of people are opposed to freezing settlements on the grounds that it would lead to more terrorism. So if terrorism works that way, there ought to be plenty of examples.