Arafat had the opportunity to take a good deal from Barak, including a significant concessions of of territory occupied by Israel since the 1967 war. He chose not to take the offer, his rhetoric has conditioned his followers to reject any compromise. He's in an untenable situation. If he had accepted the compromise deal, he would have faced revolt from his followers. But in rejecting the deal and ratcheting up the level of violence, he's put his followers into a postion that they cannot win. As the polarization continues, there will be less and less support for negotiations from the Israeli's, and eventually, this violence will provoke an all out war that the Palestinians cannot win. It's ugly, it's brutal, and it will get far worse before it will get better.
But the fact is, the state of Isreal DOES exist. And the State of Israel has the right to defend itself against those who would attack it's citizens. The Israeli government has shown significantly more restraint than I would have anticipated, and I think the tide of world opinion is turning against the Palestinians. It was up to Arafat to prove he was a visonary leader, not just another politician. He failed.
Yes the Israeli State does exist. Yes, Israel does have a right to defend itself. Yes, more restraint than I would have shown. And yes, the palestinians are burrning bridges faster than they can build them. Question, hypothetically removing suicide bombings mind you, do you think that the palestinians have a right to attempt to retake the land? Do you think they have a legitimate complaint? That is what I have been spouting about this whole thread. Do they have a legitimate beef?
EBUCK