It does not defy logic. Until the Palestinians have a viable state (one without hardcore Jewish settlers in the middle of it), they will go on bombing the Israelis. And the Israelis will retaliate and the Palestinians will bomb the Israelis and so on and so on. If the Palestinians get a viable state, some of them will carry on bombing the Israelis, but they won’t get any further. Surrendering the whole of Israel is clearly not going to happen. The point is less Palestinians will be antagonised by the presence of settlers right in the middle of their ‘country’.
From a practical point of view for the Israelis, not having to defend the settlements means they can refocus resources on defending Israel proper.
Does history teach us that they were they satisfied with that? No.
Does history teach us that they were they satisfied Gaza was Arab land? No.
Does history teach us that they were they satisfied when the West Banks was Arab land? No.
So what evidence or logic can you use to convince anyone that they will be satisfied with Gaza as a homeland?
As to the idea of settlers antagonizing Palestinians, Gaza has had less conflict that the West Bank or even Israel proper so that argument doesn't fly at all.
Now that Israel has made a concession, logic would tell us that now it's the Arabs' turn to make a concession.
But are they getting ready to make concessions?
No! What they are saying is that this concession by Israel is worthless unless it is followed by more concessions by Israel.
All the MSM pundits are following this line and saying that now that Israel has made this concessions, they should make even more concessions.
Is this logical? Does this make any sense?