The New York Post has an editorial (I don't have the link handy, sorry) that answers your question regarding why the Israelis haven't "taken out" Arafat: Better the enemy you know than the one (or more) you don't...

The division of the West Bank into different fiefdoms under different chiefs may actually create a *worse* situation than they have now. Not that Arafat is a Good Thing, because he is most definitely not, but sometimes you take the best of a set of extremely bad choices. I suspect there is no "good" leader waiting in the wings, only a bunch of thugs.

Jack...thanks. I would really like to understand the reasons for keeping him in place. I would also like a best guess as to how the middle east would be now, if they had killed him 20 years ago. It is the policy of Israel not to negotiate with terrorists, and Arafat is definitely a terrorist.

Anyway, the Middle East is a bigger "mess", than this election is going to be.

Oh well.