SDD, yes I have answered the question posed. The question was why should Israel force feed them, seeing as they are trying to kill themselves and Israel isn’t exactly desperate for them to be on this planet anyway. And those two points are right.
But the reality is that the answer is down to PR, which is why that is the main tenet I have adressed. The PR of a successful hunger strike, by which I mean one given in to or taken to its conclusion, is harmful for Israel. I think we all agree giving in is not the right path to take, as it sends the message that Israel can be blackmailed and opens up the door to other prisoners taking similar action (Since you seem to need everything spelled out for you). And letting them die would lead to a negative impact on ISrael in the short term. This impact would include an increased security risk due to the public strength of feeling, a PR loss amongst the world and local media, which leads to further damage to Israel’s image abroad, and leads to increased sympathy, and therefore increased active support, for the Palestinian cause, be it from governments or the public. If you’re wondering why people are so taken by hunger strikes, it is simply because if somebody is dying, passively, for a cause, people automatically take more attention in that cause, and/or feel that cause obviously is worth dying for, and is as such nobler, in some twisted way. We are not talking of rationality here, as PR never is, but of human psychology, particularly group psychology. It provides a rallying point to stage demonstrations around, to use the platform to highlight other issues, to make Israel appear uncaring and unfeeling. And it will provoke increased terrorist attacks, at least in the short term, by increasing strength of feeling amongst the groundroots of the Palestinian movement. So, to sum up, short term security threat and PR loss, and possible effect on long term security and PR. Force feeding does not eliminate these issues, but it does diminish their likelihood or impact.
I would have thought all of this was obvious from both my earlier posts, especially as I backed it up with a specific example of exactly this situation, with the exact feared consequences detailed above, occuring, and that was the case of Bobby Sands, who despite fighting for a cause that didn’t have majority support amongst the populace of Northern Ireland, despite fighting for a cause that the UK was not going to give into, as had they given it to their specific demands (to be treated as political prisoners), it would have given the terrorists legitimacy, and despite the fact that there wwas no good logical reason why the UK was doing anything wrong in that specific case, or should suffer as a result of the strikers’ actions PR wise, the case still led to the ezact problems detailed above. Which strengthens the case for force feeding, as I put it above, the lesser of several evils.
And, though I am loath to be anything but concillatory in this debate, you have attempted above to poiont out inconsistencies in my reasoning that did not exist, but were simply due to you obviously not having understood or even fully read my above posts. So in future, before responding, please be slightly clearer as to your specific problem with my reasoning, and not just make some vague rebuttal, that, as I have explained above, does not make much sense. Perhaps pick a specific point and point out why it doesn’t stand up, or a faulty piece of reasoning, as opposed to simply saying I haven’t answered the question without explaining why. Thank you, and looking forward.