Discuss the below in a 100 words each:
1. Israel was correct to eventually negotiate with the PLO and allow Arafat to enter the political mainstream. After Israel invaded southern Lebanon, Yasser Arafat created the PLO to form a Palestinian government and unite multiple forces against Israel, but then renounced terrorism in 1988. Despite Arafat being the leader of the PLO, he could not control all off the PLO because of the internal splinter groups that broke off, which at times were fighting eachother. As splinter groups formed, there were secret talks between Arafat and Rabin, the Prime Minister of Israel in 1993 to discuss peace agreements. The two sides signed the Oslo Agreement in Washington D.C.; agreeing on the principle of returning all the occupied territories for peace and guaranteeing security for all (Hancock and Weiss 2011). Arafat may have been the leader for the Palestinians during the peace talks, but not all Palestinians agreed. However, some Israelis believed the agreement's giving of land and control to the ‘‘terrorist'' PLO and Yasser Arafat would result in increased acts of terrorism and would endanger the Israeli state (Hancock and Weiss 2011). In addition, the Hamas did not want to compromise with Israel and believed that the agreement was a sell-out and would solidify Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, dashing their vision of a uni?ed Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel (White 2014, Hancock and Weiss 2011). Israel will not be able to negotiate with the Hamas, despite them being part of the political process, because of their stance to destroy Israel and joint terrorist acts with Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).
2. In regards to Yasser Arafat joining promising to join the Cubans in the international revolution of terrorism, Arafat establishes as the Palestinian leader of the PLO who considered that this legitimate political party would be the object towards bringing peace over the lands through the usage of terrorism as Arafat performs negotiations for Israel exist and must be reckoned with.
The Hamas was a new group that became popular during the 1980s, this terrorist group that challenged the PLOs for power; however, during the late 80s, Arafat disowned terrorism and called for peace; however the Hamas was much different during the early establishments of the Hamas being very religious based and did not agreee with the PLO actions and outcomes for which the challenged the PLO.
As far as the different structures that comprise the leadership of the different groups, the Hamas were definitely more violent in their views taken apart from the PLO and became more tactical with the structures of smuggling throughout the lands.
3. Is Hezbollah more legitimate than other terrorist organizations? I think so and here is why. First off, Hezbollah's operations in Lebanon fought Israel to a standstill and forced the ultimate withdrawal of Israeli forces in 2000. Their success afforded them much clout, especially in southern Lebanon, and now they hold 23 seats in Parlaimant. Their influence over events and politics in southern Lebanon cannot be ignored. Are they still a designated terrorist organiztion? Yes, but let's not assume that this designation means anything in the long run, after all it wasn't too long ago that Nelson Mandela, Thabo, Mbeki, and the rest of their ANC brethren were also designated as terrorists. Times change and global events often force us to accept things that may have been unheard of in the past.
4. Hezbollah like Hamas is under their own mandate to crush Israel whenever and however they can. To the people of Lebanon this is more than welcome due to the fact that their country has been invaded by Israel on several separate occasions. With Hezbollah beating Israeli forces back in 2006, this gave them more legitimacy among the people of Lebanon. The more Israel attacks Lebanon and the more Hezbollah fights Israel, the more legitimacy it is going to receive from Lebanon and the Arab world. Even if Israel invades Lebanon to fight Hezbollah aggression, Israel would still be seen as the aggressor. In doing so Hezbollah has become its own economic power house in Lebanon, producing tons of jobs for the people of Lebanon. The some people of Lebanon see Hezbollah as an organization that produces results, in regards of defense and economy. Even though Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and allowing them to build an Islamic state in Lebanon would lead to more violence, many people will see it as a means to an end for the defense and stability of Lebanon against its aggressor Israel. "According to Jaber (1997, pp. 207-212), Hezbollah members maintain that it is not a crime to resist the Israelis. In fact, many Hezbollah guerrillas simply refer to themselves as the "Islamic resistance" (White, Page 229). However even today Hezbollah is a state within a state however, unless the government of Lebanon as a whole comes out and welcomes Hezbollah into the government itself, I don't think it will ever be considered as a legitimate body according to the international community.