I was thinking about the differences between the way the Israeli and the Palestinian forces engage one another.
Historically when a small army is faced with overwhelming odds they adopt guerilla tactics. Israel is a wealthy country that gets collosal amounts of money from abroad, making it possible to maintain a large, well equiped army. The Palestinians can't possibly fight Israel on equal terms so as a result you get these terrorist groups springing up. Obviously that's a simplification and it's not a justification, but it must be a factor.
One thing I'd like your opinion on:
During the Northern Ireland Peace Process we had this situation where some of the people who were involved in terrorism came in from the cold and are now 'respectable' politicians. This means that they're willing to pursue their aims peacefully through the legitimate channels of Government.
For a lot of people that was hard to stomach because, even though these individuals fronted the political wings of terrorist groups and so weren't directly involved in the violence, clearly they had some association with the cells that were going around blowing people up.
On the other hand, it was necessary because you couldn't have a credible peace process that didn't involve dialogue with representatives of these terrorist organisations.
It was a tricky process, because it was an attempt at breaking a cycle of violence which had a lot of momentum. Fortunately it does appear to be working and the longer there is peace in Northern Ireland the harder it will be to go back.
So, hypothetically, taking Northern Ireland as a model, would you be prepared to accept figures from Hamas and the PLO as Palestinian leaders and representatives if these groups were willing to commit to a long-term ceasefire and eventually disarm, with the aim of forging a diplomatic solution? Or is wiping the slate clean in that way an anathema?
