Hypothetical situation: Post-Palestine

Let’s say Bush’s plan goes through and a Palestinian state is created in 2005. Let’s further suppose that the terrorism by Hamas and other groups does not cease (as we know it won’t, since the majority of the established Palestinian terrorist groups don’t appear to accept the legitimacy of any Israel). What would be the world reaction to these terrorist attacks? Will the European nations and Arab countires continue to blame Israel for everything?

Discuss, please.

What’s the point of answering a question when it clearly is just a troll? Why not try to rephrase in a less inflammatory way?

Sorry, didn’t mean it to come out that way. Ignore the last sentence, please.

Eh, I don’t see any trolling in the OP, just a legitimate “what if” question.

That Palestinian terrorism will not cease by 2005 is a given, admittedly. How we eradicate it depends on our and Israel’s attitudes towards it, and towards this new Palestinian state.

(personally, I don’t think a seperate Palestinian state will do the trick, I think the key is the conversion of Israel into a secular state, not a Jewsish one. But that’s just my tuppence ha’penny, so feel free to ignore)

Well, it’s unrealistic to expect terrorism to stop straight away (but the other part of statement that object to is the assumption that it will contiune as normal).

The world reaction to the terrorist attacks would probably be more sympathetic to the Israelis than it is now as rather than being seen to have policies that increase terrorism against them, they would be seen to of taken steps to decrease it.

The conditions for the successful “road map”.

So, if Israel and the Palestinians can “make nice” enough to actually get a Palestinian state established, and if Hamas & Co. still continue their program of terrorism after that, then I would guess that the rest of the world’s response to that blatant terrorism would be the same as the world’s response to any other blatant terrorism–official statements condemning it.

The thing you have to remember is that Palestinian terrorist attacks aren’t intended to force Israel to negotiate, they are intended to make it impossible for Israel to negotiate. If Israel felt they could negotiate with the Palestinians then a comprehensive peace that was acceptable to a majority of Palestinians could be accomplished. But of course that is anathema to the Palestinian radicals and many other Arabs, since any negotiated peace would neccesarily legitimize the existance of Israel. The people behind the suicide bombings don’t want a Palestinian state side by side with Israel, they want a Palestinian state via the eradication of Israel.

So the closer we get to peace, the more intensive Palestinian terrorism is going to be. And if a peace deal was ever concluded, terrorism would not stop, since Israel would still exist. So why should Israel sign a peace deal if signing the peace deal will not actually bring peace? What exactly does Israel gain?

They gain at least a theoretical peace with the Palestinians at large, in addition to wider acceptance in the (dare I hope - Muslim) world. I believe the **majority **of Palestinians would cease their support of the terrorists if they had their own homeland.

Also, with Palestine established as a separate country, they (the Palestinians) would be able to rebuild their infrastructure to the point where they could do their own anti-terrorism operations, or at least, would have no more excuses when they failed to do same.

Yes, they’d have no excuses when the terrorist attacks failed to stop. And then what would happen? Do you think Israel would allow an independent Palestine to be used as a launching pad for terrorist attacks? No, of course not. When the attacks didn’t stop, they’d declare war on Palestine and send in the troops. And then we’d be right back where we are now, except now the independent state of Palestine would have even less right to exist in the eyes of Israel. If Palestinians want to create a Palestinian state, they have to do something to convince Israel that it would bring peace. As things stand today, the vast majority of Israelis think that creating a Palestinian state would not bring peace, but instead change the equation from occupation of disputed territories to occupation of a sovreign state.

You raise an interesting point, but do you have a cite for that last statement? From what I have read, the majority of Israelis support the idea of a Palestinian state (or are the two statements not mutually exclusive?).