[danielbenzvi1]

The idea that simply empowering the PLO would have produced peace ignores the reality of what happened when they were empowered. After Oslo, Israel handed over cities in the West Bank and gave the Palestinian Authority control in Gaza. Instead of building the foundations of a peaceful state, the PLO leadership became riddled with corruption, failed to create functioning institutions, and tolerated or even encouraged waves of violence. The Second Intifada, launched under the PLO’s watch, was one of the bloodiest chapters in the conflict and shattered Israeli trust in their willingness or ability to deliver peace.

[ipaddr]

It’s true that the post-Oslo period exposed serious failures in Palestinian leadership, but the picture isn’t one-sided. The Palestinian Authority was granted limited autonomy under Oslo, not true sovereignty. Israel retained control over borders, resources, movement, and security, meaning the PLO never had the conditions to fully build a state. Corruption and mismanagement within the PA certainly damaged trust, but so did ongoing settlement expansion, restrictions on movement, and the lack of progress toward final status negotiations.

The Second Intifada was indeed devastating and eroded faith on both sides, but framing it only as a PLO decision ignores the buildup of frustration from years of unfulfilled promises and worsening conditions on the ground. Empowering the PLO in a genuine way, with real authority, accountability mechanisms, and mutual commitment to peace, might have led to a different outcome.

In other words, both leadership failures and structural limitations played roles. Reducing it to "the PLO blew it" risks oversimplifying a very complex situation.