SDD: I have fully answered the opening post, which asks why we don’t just let them die. I did refer to hunger strikes worldwide, and provided the real world situation, as well as an explanation that, whilst relatively insignificant in the long term, in the short term, due to its strong message, it results in a focal point that leads to losses both in the media and on the ground. And I explicitely referred to Maggie.
So the only way I can see a fresh point is if you’re asking why this should be the case. I believe I have adressed this, but for the sake of clarity:
A popular movement, be it Irish republicanism or Palestinian nationalism, cannot subsist on the strength of their cause alone. Since they rely on popular support, in terms of PR, money and members, a cause celebre, such a a hunger strike ostensibly in favour of their cause, can galvanise their public base, and provide a platform from which to persuade others to join them. For example, a big news story enables them to hold press conferences and make statements and protests that get their point across to a wider, more engaged audience. And this, in turn, leads to a growth in their support. The size of the government in question is irrelevant, especially when dealing with a hidden, widespread public network. The IRA, for example, like most terrorist cells, operate in secrecy and rely on public approval and support to achieve their goals. It’s not as if the government can simply shut them down. Israel in particular, for all its military strength, is bound by PR constraints.
And in future, SDD, please read fully the post you are responding to. It increases cohesion.