a) Having a state, however, submits the Palestinians to a national and international law. The ideological weapon is only effective because the Palestinians do not have a viable state -- Egypt and Jordan abandoned ideology in order to have peace. Syria is interested in doing so as well. Land is more important than ideology. The Palestinian people are not radical because of Islam or even Israel's existence, but because their own conditions have created a situation of desperation. A legitimate Palestinian state would be compelled by international norms (and the constant pressure of Israeli intervention) to effectively suppress "anti-Israeli operations" in order to maintain its own survival. Just as Egypt and Jordan abandoned the Palestinian "cause" when more important interests compelled them (territory, and the basic survival of the state), I would imagine that a Palestinian regime would do the same.
b) Why would the West defend a Palestinian state if it shielded terrorist organizations? It would not be politically viable to ignore Palestinian terrorism internationally if the Palestinians became a state-sponsor. And I think the Israelis would have more other-than-security options to isolate terrorist organizations in the Palestinian territories by pushing for the enforcement of laws which punish state-sponsorship of terrorism. That's simply more leverage to hold over a Palestinian regime that would be interested in the survival of its state rather than conflict with Israel (hence the importance of maintaining control of key resources). Right now, it appears as if the Palestinians have just cause, even if the methods are deplorable, so the West can write it off as something it can ignore.
c) That's the nature of politics. Peace is not always brought about or maintained by moral means.
Bookmarks