SDD: For once, I am going to have to keep this relatively short. for on the whole I entirely agree. I would just like to pick you up on two points.
You open your quite admirably worded reply by explaining, in great detail, as to how the human mind is inherintly biased and can therefore ignore logic in making a judgement about a situation where blame can be apportioned. Is that a good summary?
But, whilst your general point about people enjoying finding fault in others is pertinent, what I attempted to address was why an otherwise relatively unbiased person would be swayed by a hunger strike too.
I addressed its effect on already opinionated people by saying it provided a focal point. And with already opinionated people, it isn’t really difficult to explain at all. If they would already be of the opinion that Israel is unfairly treating Palestinians in general, then they will almost definitely believe that they are imprisoning them unfairly, and that therefore any protest they make about their incarceration is justified. That’s easy to understand.
But what I attempted to explain above is that when somebody without any particularly strong pre-existing opinions about the situation hears of a hunger strike, why aould they ignore logic and support them? Your post may perhaps also pertain to them, but you seem to focus on the biased. And to that I explained that since one party is both the underdog and displaying what appears to be the courage of their convictions, a natural response is for this to sway them.
Perhaps you said this yourself, but the central point of your message didn’t seem to suggest this.
And secondly, the final section of your response appears to do exactly what we have both agreed is unecessary, and provide a logical breakdown of the facts.
It’s not that I have any fault with your reasoning. It’s just I, and from the first part of your answer, yourself too, appear to agree that we are dealing with an emotional, not logical repsonse. Perhaps you are dealing with the logical part of the question. But it is my view that these protests are not based on logical arguments, and in the most part on emotion alone.
The only part of the issue where I believe logic is employed is in prbably one of their most common arguments. That is, as I have alluded to above, that since virtually all of the protesters were already of the belief that these prisoners have been wrongfully incarcerated, a belief that itself probably isn’t logical, but at least stems from a wider, if flawed, ideological viewpoint (Which I would be happy to elaborate on, but would rather keep this ‘succint’), they are easily swayed as to the justice of their protest. Since they are already set in their mindset as to the righteousness of these prisoners, their protests simply serve to focus the mindset and provide a further rallying point. At no point does logic come in, simply that this, like the Flotilla, Gaza, Har HaBayis or whatever issue you care to mention, is simply a platform from which they can shout, protest and perpetrate violence. This is especially, but not exclusively, pertinent to Israel.
And as a quick footnote, I would like to add that, continuing on from what I have said about them simply using it as a platform, a death of a prisoner is a bigger story than force feeding a prisoner, even though both generate strong reactions, and therefore, force feeding is preferable. Imagine how much stronger the current Israeli protests would be if the prisoner had died, and was not just being forcibly fed?