The problem was that Arafat wanted to be a guerilla leader, not the father of a nation. Had one of the many well-regarded Palestinians come forward in 1963 (without fear of murder by Arafat or Habash's thugs) and articulated to the world the legitimate greivances of the Palestinians, before the hijackings and the bombs, and the shooting up of airports and Olympics and before "PalestinanTerrorist" became all one word, they could have shamed Israel to the negotiating table the way India did the Brits. American Jews would have supported them and there would have been a lot of support in Israel for getting this settled.

But Fatah set the agenda - and did it on a generation of Israelis who really did not respond well to threats of annihilation. Once the bombs started, it was only going to get settled by the sword. Bad choice for the Palestians. I believe that they could have had a state by 1970 if they had taken a different path.


>>>>
>>>>Not a bad strategy, actually. But that also does not mean it is illusion. I don't think the generals are insane, I think they are just unpersuaded by the Jimmy Carter's of the world that 'peple are the same everywhere' and that negotiations are always possible. They know better. Do you really think Carter understood Arafat better than Sharon or Nettenyahu ( or my cat ) did ?
>>>
>>>That's if you buy into the alternate reality in which Arafat was just a villain and these guys were the good guys. Then it's easy to understand ;).
>>
>>C'mon. Arafat was a thug even with the bar set as low as we tend to set it for Arab leaders. He was corrupt at a level offensive even to a culture that took corruption for granted. His leadership and the murderous way he maintained it prevented thousands of more qualified Palestinians from directing what could have been a successful statehood movement by the end of the 60s and intimidated most Palestinian intellectuals into exile. His launching of the second Intifada was a disaster for the Palestians and pretty much guaranteed the success of Hamas in splitting the Palestinians. A villian? You're damn right he was. Maybe compared to George Habash or Abu Nidal he was 'moderate' but his negative influence on the progress of his own people was a lot more than just bad PR. The Israelis play tough, but they were never deceived by Arafat because they actually understood what he said in Arabic, not just what he said in English. He was definitely spiritual kin to his uncle, the Grand
> Mufti al-Husseini
>
>I agree with most of that. Arafat was a thug, no question. OTOH he did force the Palestinian issue to the forefront of international debate, which I'm not sure would have happened without him. The desperately oppressed generally don't have the luxury of conducting themselves like Eton gentlemen. They're easy to ignore that way.