Question of the week: Fatah and the use of violence

Yassir Arafat founded Fatah in 1959. From the end of 1964, Fatah engaged itself in attacks against Israeli, Jewish, and later (in the 1970s) western targets. There is no doubt that Palestinian attacks helped attract international attention to the Palestinian problem. But, after all those years as a Palestinian state has yet to emerge, one has to wonder:


Did the new (post-1948) Palestinian leadership made a right choice to resort to violence? Could they have gotten Israel to negotiate with them, or perhaps even reach statehood, had they turned to diplomatic efforts only?


This is a hypothetical question (a "what if" question that historians usually don't like to answer), of course, so there is no right or wrong answer here. You may also choose to answer this question from a philosophical perspective: is it wise to use violence, or extreme measures in general, to achieve a certain goal. 

Question of the week: the failure to reconcile after 1948

The war of 1948 ended with a clear Israeli victory. Historically, military conflicts have many times ended not only with a ceasefire, but actually with a peace treaty. The Israelis expected that this would happen after 1948, yet despite various attempts to negotiate in the late 1940s and early 1950s, no Arab state made peace with Israel. Our question is therefore: 


Why didn't Israel sign a peace treaty with its Arab neighbors in the aftermath of the 1948 war?

If you are taking this course for credit, please consult D2L before answering this week's question.