SDD, I applaud your honesty, and apologise for my intransigence. I agree that it is obvious force feeding is better than allowing the terrorists to get their way, either by getting freed or by dying and achieving their propoganda aims. And it is a much better question, regarding why people are swayed by this kind of action, and I hope I have adressed this, if in passing, in some of my earlier posts. Now that we are, if not on the same page, then at least in the same book, perhaps you can tell me if you agree with my earlier excessively detailed reasoning as to why these actions are so successful, PR wise.
But, whilst I am on the subject, I think this is emblematic of a more general issue, which is particularly pertinent with regard to Israel’s current situation, and with many left wing ideological standpoints.
Basically, this issue is that in many cases, simply being the underdog, the sufferer, the one being damaged as opposed to damaging, can lead people to believe their cause is just, or at least has more merit.
The reasons for this, I can only surmise. Most likely, it is because a natural human inclination is to feel pity, and by extension solidarity, with those suffering, or suffering more. So Israel, no matter what the merit of its actions, will always cone of worse when faced with picture of death and destruction, something it cannot just choose to avoid. And logical arguments are much more easily swept aside with somebody with a sense of moral outrage. It is far easier to apply logic to less emotive cases. But trying to argue that there is a situation were Israel can justifiably engage in actions they know will kill children, comes up against an emotional barrier it is very hard to break down.
I myself have called up a radio station, only to be beaten down by the presenter repeatedly invoking the fact that children were dying. To anybody approaching the issue rationally, I came of better, but to many, and I would guess most of his listeners, all they heard was one perosn decrying the death of children, and another defending their killers. And logic has little sway over such imagery.
A similar, if not identical, principle can be applied to hunger striked. What people hear is that people are starving themselves to death over their cause/conditions/imprisonment, etc. A logical approach would not lead to placing any blame on the heads of the government in question. But firstly, a natural human instinct is to feel empathy for one starving to death, which in turn leads that person to assume such drastic action must be taken by a prisoner wronged, as opposed to a prisoner making a dramatic statement. And in what might otherwise be a fifty/fifty argument, or even more in favour of the jailer, the emotion sways it for the prisoner.
Also, most people, especially Westerners reading their morning paper, with no strong feeling either way, or with an existing bias, would simply take the fact that they’re protesting as a sign of the justice of their actions, simply since they are putting themselves through suffering. Illogical, but since when do people read their morning papers with a critical mind or a logical one? It’s all about the outrage, who shouts louder and shocks hardest.
Basically, people like to think individuals, that is to say, your average human being, would only act in such an extreme way if they were acting with integrity. They feel they themselves would only feel compelled to act in such a way if dealt with wrongly, so these prisoners are, in a sense, like them, and therefore likely to be right. And this is even more applicable when the individual prisoner is facing off against an institution, which people are much more willing to accpet as capable of evil. It is precisely this mentality that drives the postivie PR such movements achieve. Not the whole reason, but a good part of it.