Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Nor would Pan-man deny this basic point. The crux of his argument runs like this:

By assisting in any way, nations external to the conflict minimize the impact of conflict on the participants, attempt to stop conflict when it happens and impede the violence when and where they can -- and by so doing prevent the participants in that conflict from finally bleeding each other white long enough to truly realize that there has to be a better way. By limiting the conflict in the short term, we aid in its long-term continuation.

This is a draconian measure -- but it makes sense on one brutal level. Only when the terrorist is absolutely convinced that no "dint of effort" will actually drive all the Israelis into the sea we she/he cease. Since a majority of Israelis are already convinced that they cannot eradicate Islam, they're probably a short step or two further down this road of realization than are the Palestinians and their supporters. Europe largely abjured war as a means of conflict resolution following the conclusion of WW2. Care to count the cost of that realization?

Not sure it'd work, and I'm certain that lots would die -- but it isn't as though anything else that has been tried since 1946 has done any better.
Okay, thanks for explanation (although words like crux, draconian and abjured rather test my vocabulary ) I still don't think so many deaths would be justified....