>>Following the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein agreed to leave Kuwait & drop all claims to sovreignty over Kuwait, in return for support for US support for a peace deal between Israel & Palestine. Following Sept 11, Afghanistan agreed to hand-over Bin Laden if the US showed the evidence they had against him. In both cases your government refused & started a war which killed many people. Why ? I would suggest that one reason would be that it would be seen to be giving in, a small surrender of some degree of power, may be one of the same reasons Arafat declined.
>
>Are you referring to the Wye River Accord? IMO a complete waste of good paper. The problem is that it's based upon a fundamentaly flawed position regarding the nature of mankind. There really are some people who simply want to kill. Man is not fundamentally 'good', the faulty presumption.
>
>The Palestinians also agreed to cease their hostilities didn't they?
>
>The Afghanistans didn't hand bin Laden over, did they? They were repeatedly warned, weren't they. Candidly I think they thought that G Bush was B Clinton. I suppose to their supprise they found that he said what he meant and meant what he said - something I'll gladly admit is not commonin political arenas. <g>
>
>Saddam was also suppose dto let us in to inspect. He hindered that as well - particularly when proof positive was discovered he wa shiding stuff. Please make sure you tell both sides here... <s>

Your missing the point. You asked why the Palestinians accept an offer of 95% of what they wanted. In response, I asked why your presidents didn't accept offers that gave them 100% of what they want, in return for something.

None of them wanted to be seen to be backing down & losing face.

Re. Afghanistan - not exactly a success was it. Unless I'm missing something, replacing the Taliban wasn't on the agenda until they stood up against Bush, the idea was to get Bin Laden - that hasn't been achieved.