AHC/CHC: A competent PLO leader:

The challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to find a leader of the PLO or an equivalent movement to represent Palestine during and after the Cold War who is competent in either the military or the political senses, preferably both. This man has to rise by skill in things other than killing his rivals off. What would the impact of such a man be on the whole Israel-Palestine issue, and how might such a thing impact the relations of Israel and the PLO in this kind of scenario? What would the neighboring Arab states make of this? Personally I think that a politically competent PLO leader would be preferable, as he'd be able to undermine Israel's greatest strength, namely its military juggernaut nature relative to its Arab state neighbors, and to forestall the Arab states' inevitable distrust of an independent Palestine in their own right, by appealing to political factors. And it would also be enough of a challenge to forge a unified Palestinian organization in its own right that asking for this *and* a militarily brilliant figure seems to verge outside probable realism factors. However I do not think that such a man would end the existence of an Israeli state or anything near it, due to the aforementioned military juggernaut factor.
 
I wouldn't say impossible, but it's very hard. Early-mid 1990s means Hamas is already strong and their different policies make reconciliation nearly impossible. At best you get earlier and stronger division between PLO on West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, each running their own fiefs. Of course two such organisations mean what one does will be rejected by other and Israel using Hamas' actions as a reason to refuse to deal with Palestinians in general.
 
What would be interesting in this case would be if you had a PLO leader who went the route of Gandhi and lead a non violent movement. The Israeli's would have lots of problems with world and their own people's opinion.
 
Arafat did very well up to the point where he declared the second intifada. People forget that Israel was returning town after town to Palestinian rule, that he had built up an administration that ah administered both territories, and he had international recognition and support.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
A dark horse...
But what about Abu Nidal, he seemed to be ruthless enough to keep the various factions in the PLO unified, and with the whole organisation at his disposal, he would be able to play arab regimes against each other, and aviod a ruinous dependancy on only one state as he did in OTL.

Of course on the downside the PLO would be far more terrorist and savage than OTL, and Israel might not even contemplate making peace with Abu Nidal's PLO.
 
I wouldn't say impossible, but it's very hard. Early-mid 1990s means Hamas is already strong and their different policies make reconciliation nearly impossible. At best you get earlier and stronger division between PLO on West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, each running their own fiefs. Of course two such organisations mean what one does will be rejected by other and Israel using Hamas' actions as a reason to refuse to deal with Palestinians in general.

For the PLO to be effective requires earlier PODs than the 1990s, as far back as the 1960s, IMHO.

What would be interesting in this case would be if you had a PLO leader who went the route of Gandhi and lead a non violent movement. The Israeli's would have lots of problems with world and their own people's opinion.

My guess is that it really doesn't work and Israel just starts shooting and doing what it did to the non-violent aspects of the OTL Intifada, and that Israel wouldn't be deterred by public opinion here any more than Helen Hunt Jackson's book deterred the USA in the last phase of the Indian Wars.
 
Arafat did very well up to the point where he declared the second intifada. People forget that Israel was returning town after town to Palestinian rule, that he had built up an administration that ah administered both territories, and he had international recognition and support.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

True, but Arafat was a major part of the problem with the OTL PLO in the first place, given his tendencies to violence and treachery earned the PLO more enemies than it needed at the time.

A dark horse...
But what about Abu Nidal, he seemed to be ruthless enough to keep the various factions in the PLO unified, and with the whole organisation at his disposal, he would be able to play arab regimes against each other, and aviod a ruinous dependancy on only one state as he did in OTL.

Of course on the downside the PLO would be far more terrorist and savage than OTL, and Israel might not even contemplate making peace with Abu Nidal's PLO.

Perhaps, but the OTL PLO was pretty violent and savage as it was, and Israel still went through the Oslo Accords with it.
 
For the PLO to be effective requires earlier PODs than the 1990s, as far back as the 1960s, IMHO.

Ah, I misread your OP, thinking you are asking for Arafat to be removed in late 1980s-early 1990s and replaced with somebody else. :eek:

But I agree with you, it would take an early POD. The problem is that Palestinians are likely to be splintered with various camps backed by various states, giving Israel perfect opportunity for divide-and-conquer policy.

And once you get islamic groups thrown in the mix the chances of successful leader who would be able to unify everybody grow slim.
 
Top