From Billmon:
But there finally came a point when I realized it doesn't really matter what Jewish humanitarians and peace activists think, just as it makes no difference what the moderates on the Palestinian side say or do. In the end, those fully vested in war will always have the final say.
As true here as in Israel and Palestine and throughout the Mideast. He goes on to say that with regard to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict: "Under such circumstances, the truth is the enemy of peace, not its friend."
With regard to our own war in Iraq, though, truth is the enemy of the warhawks. And yet, all they have to do is accuse those who would not have waged this war, those who would withdraw, of cowardice, of cutting and running, for opposition to crumble. That's some powerful rhetoric, that the administration and congress would rather see the Mideast awash in blood and ruin before allowing themselves to be accused of backing away from a fight.
It seems to me that in Israel the rhetoric used by those in favor of continuing the violence would be much more powerful than that used by American warhawks because of the deeper ties to religion and national unity. Knowing how succesful the warhawks in America have used their own less emotionally driven rhetoric, it is scary to think how easy it must be for those intent on war in Israel to scare others into compliance.
Farther down in his article, Billmon makes the point that when people believe the very existence of their state is at stake, that's the strongest motivator of all. It's worth reading.