Israel cooperation puts Palestinian forces in a tough spot

[dexterm]

The o.p is basically correct in as far as the Palestinian authority forces are in a bind. They are seen as collaborating with the Israeli army. Things are out of their hands though. There is clear incitement from the Palestinian leadership, which was instrumental in the intifada starting. Hence the Palestinian leaders have put their own security forces in a difficult position seeing as the Israelis are bound to go after suspected terrorists. Should Abbas ratchet things up too far I could see either Israel annexing the entire West Bank, or should they neglect to,do this and the Palestinian authority forces lose control then Hamas or even ISIS may fill the void. Abbas may then find his own head on a pole. If I were him I'd be making retirement plans in his native Country, Jordan.

I for one would welcome Israel formally annexing the West Bank, then subjecting all its inhabitants Jewish and Palestinian to the one same Israeli civil law, rather than discriminatory arbitrary military laws for Palestinians only under whose aegis at the moment the OP was conducted. Gaza and Hamas they could deal with separately down the road, with a plebiscite for the Palestinians there, once they see the benefits of peace with Israel in one country, just as it has always been in reality for the last 50 years. It's still on the table but I think Israel has missed its chance for a 2 state solution.

There would be teething troubles from extremists on both sides, and maybe the army would be needed from time to time, but hopefully on the whole a joint Palestinian/Israeli police force could manage the population.

It would ultimately save a lot of suffering.

[Scott]

Off-topic, inflammatory posts and replies removed.

[wabothai]

Why even respond to these IDF guys. Same old same old.

[JingerBen]

The o.p is basically correct in as far as the Palestinian authority forces are in a bind. They are seen as collaborating with the Israeli army. Things are out of their hands though. There is clear incitement from the Palestinian leadership, which was instrumental in the intifada starting. Hence the Palestinian leaders have put their own security forces in a difficult position seeing as the Israelis are bound to go after suspected terrorists. Should Abbas ratchet things up too far I could see either Israel annexing the entire West Bank, or should they neglect to,do this and the Palestinian authority forces lose control then Hamas or even ISIS may fill the void. Abbas may then find his own head on a pole. If I were him I'd be making retirement plans in his native Country, Jordan.

I for one would welcome Israel formally annexing the West Bank, then subjecting all its inhabitants Jewish and Palestinian to the one same Israeli civil law, rather than discriminatory arbitrary military laws for Palestinians only under whose aegis at the moment the OP was conducted. Gaza and Hamas they could deal with separately down the road, with a plebiscite for the Palestinians there, once they see the benefits of peace with Israel in one country, just as it has always been in reality for the last 50 years. It's still on the table but I think Israel has missed its chance for a 2 state solution.

There would be teething troubles from extremists on both sides, and maybe the army would be needed from time to time, but hopefully on the whole a joint Palestinian/Israeli police force could manage the population.

It would ultimately save a lot of suffering.

Zionist intransigence against a two-state solution will lead to this eventually... a single state with Jews as an unpopular minority.

The more things change in this world, the more they stay the same.

Edited February 27, 2016 by JingerBen

[Ulysses G.]

Zionist intransigence against a two-state solution will lead to this eventually...

Wishful thinking on your part. It won't ever happen.

[Steely Dan]

Zionist intransigence against a two-state solution will lead to this eventually...

Wishful thinking on your part. It won't ever happen.

Very revealing wishful thinking nevertheless.

[Morch]

Israel has de facto annexed the West Bank and holds the Palestinian people under a brutal occupation and apartheid conditions.

My gut feeling is: well you Israelis claim the West Bank as part of Israel, then you look after security and your duty of care towards the residents under the Geneva Convention. Why should the Palestinians do your dirty work for you? It would certainly cost Israel more money, manpower and hassles. That's the price you pay when you invade another's land. Som nam na.

Maybe the gloves would be off then, and we would see more clearly on the social and international media what thugs the IDF terrorists are, and could hasten the end of this monstrous injustice.

But I also feel that would cost more Palestinian lives, if the PA police weren't protecting some of their own as best they can against IDF atrocities. I would not want to see that.

Must be something you ate. Your "gut feelings" with regards to these issues are merely an extension of the usual propaganda, and rarely (if ever) materialize.

Setting up the various Palestinian security forces was in accordance with Palestinian wishes during negotiations. If anything, public opinion in Israel was generally negative of the notion. The original slogan was "Don't give them guns!", changed later on, during and after the Second Intifada to "Who gave them guns?!". Ignoring the fact that the Palestinian security agencies fulfill a wider role than just doing Israel's bidding is all very well for the usual agenda, but does not conform to reality.

While you may think it a good idea for Israel to take charge of all security aspects of Palestinian life, there is no such general sentiment among Palestinians. The som nam na angle could only come from someone who will not be adversely effected by such changes. But of course, the additional suffering such moves might cause is negligible compared to the propaganda value of more tragedy, right?

The last bit is hilarious as it is clueless - where does the idea that the Palestinian security forces play a protective role of the Palestinian populace against the IDF come from? More creative imagination,,,,

[Morch]

I DO know history. If the Arabs had not started murdering Jews in the first place and lived in peace, there would have been no need for separate countries. They made their own bed.

you probably wanted to write : and LEAved in peace,

There would need separate countries : israel doesn't want a single country which will have more arabs than jewsish...when the english gave them the land I am quite sure some people were already living there, right?

and i am not sure anybody asked them if they were ok to leave their land, would you?

Not that the above is on topic, but there is no overwhelming support for a peaceful one state solution among either public. Most of those advocating this are either local fringe elements or foreign commentators with less the realistic grasp of relevant conditions. This usually goes hand in hand with favoring "justice" over workable solutions.

But as said, nothing much to do with the OP - which deals with the opposite: finding ways to handle less than perfect situations.

[dexterm]

Israel has de facto annexed the West Bank and holds the Palestinian people under a brutal occupation and apartheid conditions.

My gut feeling is: well you Israelis claim the West Bank as part of Israel, then you look after security and your duty of care towards the residents under the Geneva Convention. Why should the Palestinians do your dirty work for you? It would certainly cost Israel more money, manpower and hassles. That's the price you pay when you invade another's land. Som nam na.

Maybe the gloves would be off then, and we would see more clearly on the social and international media what thugs the IDF terrorists are, and could hasten the end of this monstrous injustice.

But I also feel that would cost more Palestinian lives, if the PA police weren't protecting some of their own as best they can against IDF atrocities. I would not want to see that.

Must be something you ate. Your "gut feelings" with regards to these issues are merely an extension of the usual propaganda, and rarely (if ever) materialize.

Setting up the various Palestinian security forces was in accordance with Palestinian wishes during negotiations. If anything, public opinion in Israel was generally negative of the notion. The original slogan was "Don't give them guns!", changed later on, during and after the Second Intifada to "Who gave them guns?!". Ignoring the fact that the Palestinian security agencies fulfill a wider role than just doing Israel's bidding is all very well for the usual agenda, but does not conform to reality.

While you may think it a good idea for Israel to take charge of all security aspects of Palestinian life, there is no such general sentiment among Palestinians. The som nam na angle could only come from someone who will not be adversely effected by such changes. But of course, the additional suffering such moves might cause is negligible compared to the propaganda value of more tragedy, right?

The last bit is hilarious as it is clueless - where does the idea that the Palestinian security forces play a protective role of the Palestinian populace against the IDF come from? More creative imagination,,,,

No need to be rude if you want a civilized discussion.

Palestinians recognized the right of Israel to exist in peace and security during the 1993 Oslo Accords negotiations you refer to and wished for a lot besides their own security in return including peace, while Israel promised much but delivered little. It was all just a smokescreen and stalling tactic to expand their illegal occupation and build more colonies.

Your third paragraph contradicts your last.

[Morch]

Israel has de facto annexed the West Bank and holds the Palestinian people under a brutal occupation and apartheid conditions.

My gut feeling is: well you Israelis claim the West Bank as part of Israel, then you look after security and your duty of care towards the residents under the Geneva Convention. Why should the Palestinians do your dirty work for you? It would certainly cost Israel more money, manpower and hassles. That's the price you pay when you invade another's land. Som nam na.

Maybe the gloves would be off then, and we would see more clearly on the social and international media what thugs the IDF terrorists are, and could hasten the end of this monstrous injustice.

But I also feel that would cost more Palestinian lives, if the PA police weren't protecting some of their own as best they can against IDF atrocities. I would not want to see that.

Must be something you ate. Your "gut feelings" with regards to these issues are merely an extension of the usual propaganda, and rarely (if ever) materialize.

Setting up the various Palestinian security forces was in accordance with Palestinian wishes during negotiations. If anything, public opinion in Israel was generally negative of the notion. The original slogan was "Don't give them guns!", changed later on, during and after the Second Intifada to "Who gave them guns?!". Ignoring the fact that the Palestinian security agencies fulfill a wider role than just doing Israel's bidding is all very well for the usual agenda, but does not conform to reality.

While you may think it a good idea for Israel to take charge of all security aspects of Palestinian life, there is no such general sentiment among Palestinians. The som nam na angle could only come from someone who will not be adversely effected by such changes. But of course, the additional suffering such moves might cause is negligible compared to the propaganda value of more tragedy, right?

The last bit is hilarious as it is clueless - where does the idea that the Palestinian security forces play a protective role of the Palestinian populace against the IDF come from? More creative imagination,,,,

No need to be rude if you want a civilized discussion.

Palestinians recognized the right of Israel to exist in peace and security during the 1993 Oslo Accords negotiations you refer to and wished for a lot besides their own security in return including peace, while Israel promised much but delivered little. It was all just a smokescreen and stalling tactic to expand their illegal occupation and build more colonies.

Your third paragraph contradicts your last.

What "discussion"? You have nothing to offer on-topic.

All you posted are the same old propaganda bits, and the same old copy pasted slogans. Obviously, not much by way of any real in-depth understanding relating to the OP. The only contribution is more of the repetitive "Israel Bad" stance.

There is nothing in the job description of the various Palestinian security forces which amounts to protecting the local populace from the IDF, or from Israeli illegal settlers. Making things up to back the usual agenda will not change that. If you see a contradiction that would be due to the ignorance of both facts and their implications. Suggesting Palestinian security personnel going rouge and carrying out attacks on Israelis is neither beneficial for the Palestinian populace nor usually condoned by anyone seeking a resolution. Either way, it got nothing to do with protecting the Palestinian populace from the IDF.

[Morch]

Back to the OP after numerous phony history ramblings. Would love to respond but I fear we would be drifting off topic.

Since the OP story had widespread coverage in AP I tried to find out whether the detainee Ahmad Sallaj had actually been charged with any crime that warranted his home trashed and his family distressed and left uninformed in the middle of the night, or has he joined the other 6,700 other Palestinian political prisoners in the democratic state of Israel's jails, many of whom have been jailed indefinitely without charge.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/prisoners.html

This is not the way to win the hearts and minds of Palestinians in order to lessen tensions and restart peace talks.

So you do not actually have any details on whether he was charged or not? .

All the Palestinians held by Israel are "political prisoners", then? No wrongdoing whatsoever? How's about Palestinian being held by the PA - do they fare better in terms of rights?

Winning hearts and minds is not a realistic option. Just a slogan. And there's a lot both sides could be doing to lessen tensions, if this was a goal. Naturally, the this is a one way street as far as your posts are concerned.

[Ulysses G.]

Naturally, the this is a one way street as far as your posts are concerned.

As per usual. They project utter hypocrisy.

[Morch]

The o.p is basically correct in as far as the Palestinian authority forces are in a bind. They are seen as collaborating with the Israeli army. Things are out of their hands though. There is clear incitement from the Palestinian leadership, which was instrumental in the intifada starting. Hence the Palestinian leaders have put their own security forces in a difficult position seeing as the Israelis are bound to go after suspected terrorists. Should Abbas ratchet things up too far I could see either Israel annexing the entire West Bank, or should they neglect to,do this and the Palestinian authority forces lose control then Hamas or even ISIS may fill the void. Abbas may then find his own head on a pole. If I were him I'd be making retirement plans in his native Country, Jordan.

The current situation is not exactly new. The same elements appearing in the OP were there before the current so-called "Knife Intifada" came about. The difference between the previous situation and the current one is that due to new settings (mainly different profile of attacks and perpetrators, but also public sentiment) the PA security agencies cannot deliver as they used to. That results in more instances of Israel carrying out security operations within areas under the PA's control. Not, mind, that these are particularly effective as well with regard to the "Knife Intifada" attacks.

Regardless of many comments and public addresses seen (and rightly so) as inciting to violence, Abbas directs PA security forces to maintain the coordination and cooperation with their Israeli counterparts. This includes keeping Palestinian public unrest (mainly demonstrations) under control. The degree to which these instructions are followed varies, with local issues and domestic Palestinian political struggles having an effect.

There are quite a few factions making up the Palestinian leadership. Some got their own agenda, some look ahead for the day after Abbas. A lot of things said are posturing relating to domestic politics, rather than reflect actual positions. Using public sentiment to further political goals is nothing new, all the more so when the actual consequences are borne by rivals. Abbas's own incitement speeches are more to do with keeping up, maintaining credibility and relevance. There is very little gained by Abbas domestically on this front. He simply reacts to events as best he can.

Things will need to get a whole lot worse for Israel to annex the West Bank. Right now, ain't going to happen, and doubt its a realistic option under current political conditions. The upshot of Israel retaking full security responsibility in the West Bank will most probably result in further unrest - thus strengthening violent and Islamic elements (such as Hamas and IS). Maintaining the security coordination is in the best interests of all involved.

[Morch]

Why even respond to these IDF guys. Same old same old.

Wouldn't know what is an "IDF guy", but seeing as topic is about security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians, the comment above seems out of sync.

Note that the PA, for all its occasional threats to suspend security coordination and cooperation with Israel, never follows through. The system falling apart during the Second Intifada had harsh consequences, without much to show for it.

[dexterm]

Israel has de facto annexed the West Bank and holds the Palestinian people under a brutal occupation and apartheid conditions.

My gut feeling is: well you Israelis claim the West Bank as part of Israel, then you look after security and your duty of care towards the residents under the Geneva Convention. Why should the Palestinians do your dirty work for you? It would certainly cost Israel more money, manpower and hassles. That's the price you pay when you invade another's land. Som nam na.

Maybe the gloves would be off then, and we would see more clearly on the social and international media what thugs the IDF terrorists are, and could hasten the end of this monstrous injustice.

But I also feel that would cost more Palestinian lives, if the PA police weren't protecting some of their own as best they can against IDF atrocities. I would not want to see that.

Must be something you ate. Your "gut feelings" with regards to these issues are merely an extension of the usual propaganda, and rarely (if ever) materialize.

Setting up the various Palestinian security forces was in accordance with Palestinian wishes during negotiations. If anything, public opinion in Israel was generally negative of the notion. The original slogan was "Don't give them guns!", changed later on, during and after the Second Intifada to "Who gave them guns?!". Ignoring the fact that the Palestinian security agencies fulfill a wider role than just doing Israel's bidding is all very well for the usual agenda, but does not conform to reality.

While you may think it a good idea for Israel to take charge of all security aspects of Palestinian life, there is no such general sentiment among Palestinians. The som nam na angle could only come from someone who will not be adversely effected by such changes. But of course, the additional suffering such moves might cause is negligible compared to the propaganda value of more tragedy, right?

The last bit is hilarious as it is clueless - where does the idea that the Palestinian security forces play a protective role of the Palestinian populace against the IDF come from? More creative imagination,,,,

No need to be rude if you want a civilized discussion.

Palestinians recognized the right of Israel to exist in peace and security during the 1993 Oslo Accords negotiations you refer to and wished for a lot besides their own security in return including peace, while Israel promised much but delivered little. It was all just a smokescreen and stalling tactic to expand their illegal occupation and build more colonies.

Your third paragraph contradicts your last.

What "discussion"? You have nothing to offer on-topic.

All you posted are the same old propaganda bits, and the same old copy pasted slogans. Obviously, not much by way of any real in-depth understanding relating to the OP. The only contribution is more of the repetitive "Israel Bad" stance.

There is nothing in the job description of the various Palestinian security forces which amounts to protecting the local populace from the IDF, or from Israeli illegal settlers. Making things up to back the usual agenda will not change that. If you see a contradiction that would be due to the ignorance of both facts and their implications. Suggesting Palestinian security personnel going rouge and carrying out attacks on Israelis is neither beneficial for the Palestinian populace nor usually condoned by anyone seeking a resolution. Either way, it got nothing to do with protecting the Palestinian populace from the IDF.

I didn't say anything about the Palestinian police fighting the IDF or colonists.

Read what I wrote and dont jump to conclusions.

"But I also feel that would cost more Palestinian lives, if the PA police weren't protecting some of their own as best they can against IDF atrocities."

Moreover, you agree with me

"But of course, the additional suffering such moves might cause"

What additional suffering did you have in mind: carte blanche for IDF thugs once the PA police were not doing Israel's containment work for them anymore.

Palestinian intelligence chief: We've thwarted 200 attacks against Israel

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4755657,00.html

Edited February 29, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

Back to the OP after numerous phony history ramblings. Would love to respond but I fear we would be drifting off topic.

Since the OP story had widespread coverage in AP I tried to find out whether the detainee Ahmad Sallaj had actually been charged with any crime that warranted his home trashed and his family distressed and left uninformed in the middle of the night, or has he joined the other 6,700 other Palestinian political prisoners in the democratic state of Israel's jails, many of whom have been jailed indefinitely without charge.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/prisoners.html

This is not the way to win the hearts and minds of Palestinians in order to lessen tensions and restart peace talks.

So you do not actually have any details on whether he was charged or not? .

All the Palestinians held by Israel are "political prisoners", then? No wrongdoing whatsoever? How's about Palestinian being held by the PA - do they fare better in terms of rights?

Winning hearts and minds is not a realistic option. Just a slogan. And there's a lot both sides could be doing to lessen tensions, if this was a goal. Naturally, the this is a one way street as far as your posts are concerned.

"So you do not actually have any details on whether he was charged or not?"

No. That's why I asked the question. Notice the "or" ...either someone is charged OR they are not charged,.

Do you know whether he has been charged or is he one of the hundreds in Israeli jails detained without charge or trial?

Of course they are political prisoners. Israel made a political decision to illegally occupy the West Bank in 1967 and against international law transferred its own population there. Therefore, all resistance is similarly political and stems from that.

[Morch]

Must be something you ate. Your "gut feelings" with regards to these issues are merely an extension of the usual propaganda, and rarely (if ever) materialize.

Setting up the various Palestinian security forces was in accordance with Palestinian wishes during negotiations. If anything, public opinion in Israel was generally negative of the notion. The original slogan was "Don't give them guns!", changed later on, during and after the Second Intifada to "Who gave them guns?!". Ignoring the fact that the Palestinian security agencies fulfill a wider role than just doing Israel's bidding is all very well for the usual agenda, but does not conform to reality.

While you may think it a good idea for Israel to take charge of all security aspects of Palestinian life, there is no such general sentiment among Palestinians. The som nam na angle could only come from someone who will not be adversely effected by such changes. But of course, the additional suffering such moves might cause is negligible compared to the propaganda value of more tragedy, right?

The last bit is hilarious as it is clueless - where does the idea that the Palestinian security forces play a protective role of the Palestinian populace against the IDF come from? More creative imagination,,,,

No need to be rude if you want a civilized discussion.

Palestinians recognized the right of Israel to exist in peace and security during the 1993 Oslo Accords negotiations you refer to and wished for a lot besides their own security in return including peace, while Israel promised much but delivered little. It was all just a smokescreen and stalling tactic to expand their illegal occupation and build more colonies.

Your third paragraph contradicts your last.

What "discussion"? You have nothing to offer on-topic.

All you posted are the same old propaganda bits, and the same old copy pasted slogans. Obviously, not much by way of any real in-depth understanding relating to the OP. The only contribution is more of the repetitive "Israel Bad" stance.

There is nothing in the job description of the various Palestinian security forces which amounts to protecting the local populace from the IDF, or from Israeli illegal settlers. Making things up to back the usual agenda will not change that. If you see a contradiction that would be due to the ignorance of both facts and their implications. Suggesting Palestinian security personnel going rouge and carrying out attacks on Israelis is neither beneficial for the Palestinian populace nor usually condoned by anyone seeking a resolution. Either way, it got nothing to do with protecting the Palestinian populace from the IDF.

I didn't say anything about the Palestinian police fighting the IDF or colonists.

Read what I wrote and dont jump to conclusions.

"But I also feel that would cost more Palestinian lives, if the PA police weren't protecting some of their own as best they can against IDF atrocities."

Moreover, you agree with me

"But of course, the additional suffering such moves might cause"

What additional suffering did you have in mind: carte blanche for IDF thugs once the PA police were not doing Israel's containment work for them anymore.

Palestinian intelligence chief: We've thwarted 200 attacks against Israel

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4755657,00.html

Read again, and try to comprehend - there is nothing in the various PA security forces job description which amounts to protecting the Palestinians from the IDF.

Nor do they do so "as best they can". If anything, the PA security forces often come a close second on the list of dislikes by Palestinians. This may have to do with the way Palestinians are treated by them, or sometimes, not treated by them. The notion that the PA security forces play a protective role, or that they feel obligated to carry out such a role is just another fantasy.

No, additional suffering stands for additional suffering. That you persistently choose to acknowledge only those elements which relate to Israel is either due to ignorance or adhering to the usual propaganda spewed.

As much as Palestinians resent the PA (and by extension, said security forces), it is widely recognized that not having it around would mean things descending into chaos and lawlessness. Not sure that most Palestinians would prefer anarchy, with armed gangs/militias of former PA security personnel to Israel retaking full responsibility for all security aspects. As said, yours is an outsider's view, which sanctifies the "struggle" and the PR value of things over the actual consequences for the populace. Being a keyboard revolutionary is easy, facing ambiguous choices in reality is harder.

The bottom line is that the security coordination and cooperation, imperfect as it is, amounts to the best overall realistic option at this time, and in the near future. This goes for PA leadership, Palestinian populace, Israeli leadership and Israeli populace (illegal settlers included).

[Morch]

Back to the OP after numerous phony history ramblings. Would love to respond but I fear we would be drifting off topic.

Since the OP story had widespread coverage in AP I tried to find out whether the detainee Ahmad Sallaj had actually been charged with any crime that warranted his home trashed and his family distressed and left uninformed in the middle of the night, or has he joined the other 6,700 other Palestinian political prisoners in the democratic state of Israel's jails, many of whom have been jailed indefinitely without charge.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/prisoners.html

This is not the way to win the hearts and minds of Palestinians in order to lessen tensions and restart peace talks.

So you do not actually have any details on whether he was charged or not? .

All the Palestinians held by Israel are "political prisoners", then? No wrongdoing whatsoever? How's about Palestinian being held by the PA - do they fare better in terms of rights?

Winning hearts and minds is not a realistic option. Just a slogan. And there's a lot both sides could be doing to lessen tensions, if this was a goal. Naturally, the this is a one way street as far as your posts are concerned.

"So you do not actually have any details on whether he was charged or not?"

No. That's why I asked the question. Notice the "or" ...either someone is charged OR they are not charged,.

Do you know whether he has been charged or is he one of the hundreds in Israeli jails detained without charge or trial?

Of course they are political prisoners. Israel made a political decision to illegally occupy the West Bank in 1967 and against international law transferred its own population there. Therefore, all resistance is similarly political and stems from that.

Thanks, so the link in question is simply to add the impression that he was not charged.

I did not make any claims regarding charges being made or not made. Try turning the tables on someone else.

I see, so once again, you justify any violence, if it is carried out in the name of resisting the occupation. Apparently no holds barred this time.

And to be sure, do you assert that all Palestinians in Israeli prisons are there due to "political" reasons and not, say, any mundane criminal activities?

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full,

Morch wrote...

"Read again, and try to comprehend - there is nothing in the various PA security forces job description which amounts to protecting the Palestinians from the IDF.

Nor do they do so "as best they can". If anything, the PA security forces often come a close second on the list of dislikes by Palestinians. This may have to do with the way Palestinians are treated by them, or sometimes, not treated by them. The notion that the PA security forces play a protective role, or that they feel obligated to carry out such a role is just another fantasy.

No, additional suffering stands for additional suffering. That you persistently choose to acknowledge only those elements which relate to Israel is either due to ignorance or adhering to the usual propaganda spewed.

As much as Palestinians resent the PA (and by extension, said security forces), it is widely recognized that not having it around would mean things descending into chaos and lawlessness. Not sure that most Palestinians would prefer anarchy, with armed gangs/militias of former PA security personnel to Israel retaking full responsibility for all security aspects. As said, yours is an outsider's view, which sanctifies the "struggle" and the PR value of things over the actual consequences for the populace. Being a keyboard revolutionary is easy, facing ambiguous choices in reality is harder.

The bottom line is that the security coordination and cooperation, imperfect as it is, amounts to the best overall realistic option at this time, and in the near future. This goes for PA leadership, Palestinian populace, Israeli leadership and Israeli populace (illegal settlers included)."

You still dont explain what additional suffering would mean."additional suffering stands for additional suffering." ??

As usual you fence sit couched in obfuscation and litotes.

You seem to want it both ways.

" Not sure that most Palestinians would prefer anarchy, with armed gangs/militias of former PA security personnel to Israel retaking full responsibility for all security aspects."

Since the IDF is so benign and preferable, and they caused the situation in the first place with their illegal occupation, then let them take responsibility for the entire security in the West Bank. Or end the occupation, get out and leave the Palestinians in peace to manage their own affairs.

[dexterm]

Back to the OP after numerous phony history ramblings. Would love to respond but I fear we would be drifting off topic.

Since the OP story had widespread coverage in AP I tried to find out whether the detainee Ahmad Sallaj had actually been charged with any crime that warranted his home trashed and his family distressed and left uninformed in the middle of the night, or has he joined the other 6,700 other Palestinian political prisoners in the democratic state of Israel's jails, many of whom have been jailed indefinitely without charge.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/prisoners.html

This is not the way to win the hearts and minds of Palestinians in order to lessen tensions and restart peace talks.

So you do not actually have any details on whether he was charged or not? .

All the Palestinians held by Israel are "political prisoners", then? No wrongdoing whatsoever? How's about Palestinian being held by the PA - do they fare better in terms of rights?

Winning hearts and minds is not a realistic option. Just a slogan. And there's a lot both sides could be doing to lessen tensions, if this was a goal. Naturally, the this is a one way street as far as your posts are concerned.

"So you do not actually have any details on whether he was charged or not?"

No. That's why I asked the question. Notice the "or" ...either someone is charged OR they are not charged,.

Do you know whether he has been charged or is he one of the hundreds in Israeli jails detained without charge or trial?

Of course they are political prisoners. Israel made a political decision to illegally occupy the West Bank in 1967 and against international law transferred its own population there. Therefore, all resistance is similarly political and stems from that.

Thanks, so the link in question is simply to add the impression that he was not charged.

I did not make any claims regarding charges being made or not made. Try turning the tables on someone else.

I see, so once again, you justify any violence, if it is carried out in the name of resisting the occupation. Apparently no holds barred this time.

And to be sure, do you assert that all Palestinians in Israeli prisons are there due to "political" reasons and not, say, any mundane criminal activities?

I asked a simple question.

Clearly he is being held without charge. Otherwise you would have made some capital out of it. If he has been charged, you tell us what it is. You have your ear close to the ground. The Israeli torture track record with political prisoners is well established.

The only people justiifying violence are you and the Zionist apologists.

In the OP the IDF in the middle of the night kidnapped a man without explanation to his family and trashed his home in his own land illegally occupied by these thugs.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

Edited February 29, 2016 by dexterm

[DeaconJohn]

"So you do not actually have any details on whether he was charged or not?"

No. That's why I asked the question. Notice the "or" ...either someone is charged OR they are not charged,.

Do you know whether he has been charged or is he one of the hundreds in Israeli jails detained without charge or trial?

Of course they are political prisoners. Israel made a political decision to illegally occupy the West Bank in 1967 and against international law transferred its own population there. Therefore, all resistance is similarly political and stems from that.

Thanks, so the link in question is simply to add the impression that he was not charged.

I did not make any claims regarding charges being made or not made. Try turning the tables on someone else.

I see, so once again, you justify any violence, if it is carried out in the name of resisting the occupation. Apparently no holds barred this time.

And to be sure, do you assert that all Palestinians in Israeli prisons are there due to "political" reasons and not, say, any mundane criminal activities?

Violence carried out in the name of resisting occupation is freedom fighting by another name.

You can't justify the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands by any legitimate argument.

A propaganda barrage in defense of the indefensible just gives the game away.

Incidentally, as brevity is the soul of wit, so it is of proselytism.

A turgid prose style combined with personal nastiness lets the side down.

[Morch]

Sorry thread full,

Morch wrote...

"Read again, and try to comprehend - there is nothing in the various PA security forces job description which amounts to protecting the Palestinians from the IDF.

Nor do they do so "as best they can". If anything, the PA security forces often come a close second on the list of dislikes by Palestinians. This may have to do with the way Palestinians are treated by them, or sometimes, not treated by them. The notion that the PA security forces play a protective role, or that they feel obligated to carry out such a role is just another fantasy.

No, additional suffering stands for additional suffering. That you persistently choose to acknowledge only those elements which relate to Israel is either due to ignorance or adhering to the usual propaganda spewed.

As much as Palestinians resent the PA (and by extension, said security forces), it is widely recognized that not having it around would mean things descending into chaos and lawlessness. Not sure that most Palestinians would prefer anarchy, with armed gangs/militias of former PA security personnel to Israel retaking full responsibility for all security aspects. As said, yours is an outsider's view, which sanctifies the "struggle" and the PR value of things over the actual consequences for the populace. Being a keyboard revolutionary is easy, facing ambiguous choices in reality is harder.

The bottom line is that the security coordination and cooperation, imperfect as it is, amounts to the best overall realistic option at this time, and in the near future. This goes for PA leadership, Palestinian populace, Israeli leadership and Israeli populace (illegal settlers included)."

You still dont explain what additional suffering would mean."additional suffering stands for additional suffering." ??

As usual you fence sit couched in obfuscation and litotes.

You seem to want it both ways.

" Not sure that most Palestinians would prefer anarchy, with armed gangs/militias of former PA security personnel to Israel retaking full responsibility for all security aspects."

Since the IDF is so benign and preferable, and they caused the situation in the first place with their illegal occupation, then let them take responsibility for the entire security in the West Bank. Or end the occupation, get out and leave the Palestinians in peace to manage their own affairs.

Some serious reading comprehension issues here.

Dissolution of the PA (including security agencies) will lead to anarchy, Additional suffering.

Dissolution of the PA and rise of Islamic forces. Additional suffering.

PA security forces taking up arms against IDF, illegal settlers and Israelis in general. Additional suffering.

PA unilaterally cutting off security coordination with Israel. Additional suffering.

Israel retakes full charge of security in the West Bank. Additional suffering.

Acknowledging that things could be worse is not an implication that the Palestinians view the IDF as benign or generally preferable. The Palestinian populace are between a rock and hard place. There aren't any great options here, and non forthcoming on the horizon. Differentiating between what is said publicly as part of the struggle for the cause, and problematic issues stemming from the same rhetoric is important in understanding Palestinian sentiment. That Palestinians are not as one-faceted as you'd wish it to be is indeed a complication from a PR point of view.

What good would it do the Palestinians if Israel was to retake full responsibility for security in the West Bank? (Mind, not what good it would do from a PR point of view). Same goes for Israel unilaterally pulling out of the West Bank - what good would it do for ordinary Palestinians? (and again, not the PR angle or rosy sales pitch). I doubt you could address the actual implications for Palestinians in the West Bank without resorting to the usual diatribe.

And as usual, when you got nothing - back to "fence sitting" (next comes the "besmirching", if I ain't mistaken). Getting upset whenever it is pointed out that things aren't as simple as presented will not change how things are.

[Morch]

So you do not actually have any details on whether he was charged or not? .

All the Palestinians held by Israel are "political prisoners", then? No wrongdoing whatsoever? How's about Palestinian being held by the PA - do they fare better in terms of rights?

Winning hearts and minds is not a realistic option. Just a slogan. And there's a lot both sides could be doing to lessen tensions, if this was a goal. Naturally, the this is a one way street as far as your posts are concerned.

"So you do not actually have any details on whether he was charged or not?"

No. That's why I asked the question. Notice the "or" ...either someone is charged OR they are not charged,.

Do you know whether he has been charged or is he one of the hundreds in Israeli jails detained without charge or trial?

Of course they are political prisoners. Israel made a political decision to illegally occupy the West Bank in 1967 and against international law transferred its own population there. Therefore, all resistance is similarly political and stems from that.

Thanks, so the link in question is simply to add the impression that he was not charged.

I did not make any claims regarding charges being made or not made. Try turning the tables on someone else.

I see, so once again, you justify any violence, if it is carried out in the name of resisting the occupation. Apparently no holds barred this time.

And to be sure, do you assert that all Palestinians in Israeli prisons are there due to "political" reasons and not, say, any mundane criminal activities?

I asked a simple question.

Clearly he is being held without charge. Otherwise you would have made some capital out of it. If he has been charged, you tell us what it is. You have your ear close to the ground. The Israeli torture track record with political prisoners is well established.

The only people justiifying violence are you and the Zionist apologists.

In the OP the IDF in the middle of the night kidnapped a man without explanation to his family and trashed his home in his own land illegally occupied by these thugs.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

You do not ask simple questions, you use them as a rhetoric tool to further your agenda.

Clearly, you have no idea if he was charged, but flattering that you would assume my omniscience. In reality, I have no idea, and haven't even bothered to check, I do not feel obliged to check every "gut feeling" you might have - do your own research. Piling up assumed torture on an assumed no-charges made, and without a shred of support is not going to make your claims credible.

What violence did I justify, lately? Did i ever speak in favor of the Israeli occupation? Did I condone the operations described in the OP? And what. exactly, am I trying to defend? My posts dealt either with the complex nature of the security cooperation (on topic), and suggesting a realistic take on some of the (mostly off topic) views appearing on this thread.

[Morch]

"So you do not actually have any details on whether he was charged or not?"

No. That's why I asked the question. Notice the "or" ...either someone is charged OR they are not charged,.

Do you know whether he has been charged or is he one of the hundreds in Israeli jails detained without charge or trial?

Of course they are political prisoners. Israel made a political decision to illegally occupy the West Bank in 1967 and against international law transferred its own population there. Therefore, all resistance is similarly political and stems from that.

Thanks, so the link in question is simply to add the impression that he was not charged.

I did not make any claims regarding charges being made or not made. Try turning the tables on someone else.

I see, so once again, you justify any violence, if it is carried out in the name of resisting the occupation. Apparently no holds barred this time.

And to be sure, do you assert that all Palestinians in Israeli prisons are there due to "political" reasons and not, say, any mundane criminal activities?

Violence carried out in the name of resisting occupation is freedom fighting by another name.

You can't justify the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands by any legitimate argument.

A propaganda barrage in defense of the indefensible just gives the game away.

Incidentally, as brevity is the soul of wit, so it is of proselytism.

A turgid prose style combined with personal nastiness lets the side down.

ANY violence carried out in the name of resisting occupations is "freedom fighting"? Attacks carried out against civilians within Israel included? Attacks against kids of Israeli illegal settlers are cool too? Anything goes?

I did not justify nor condone the Israeli occupation. Not on this topic or others. In the same way, there was no "defense" of Israel offered in this topic, more a position in favor of maintaining the security coordination. Do keep up before posting nonsense.

I believe Forum rules mention repeated comments on posting style.

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full,

Morch wrote...

"Read again, and try to comprehend - there is nothing in the various PA security forces job description which amounts to protecting the Palestinians from the IDF.

Nor do they do so "as best they can". If anything, the PA security forces often come a close second on the list of dislikes by Palestinians. This may have to do with the way Palestinians are treated by them, or sometimes, not treated by them. The notion that the PA security forces play a protective role, or that they feel obligated to carry out such a role is just another fantasy.

No, additional suffering stands for additional suffering. That you persistently choose to acknowledge only those elements which relate to Israel is either due to ignorance or adhering to the usual propaganda spewed.

As much as Palestinians resent the PA (and by extension, said security forces), it is widely recognized that not having it around would mean things descending into chaos and lawlessness. Not sure that most Palestinians would prefer anarchy, with armed gangs/militias of former PA security personnel to Israel retaking full responsibility for all security aspects. As said, yours is an outsider's view, which sanctifies the "struggle" and the PR value of things over the actual consequences for the populace. Being a keyboard revolutionary is easy, facing ambiguous choices in reality is harder.

The bottom line is that the security coordination and cooperation, imperfect as it is, amounts to the best overall realistic option at this time, and in the near future. This goes for PA leadership, Palestinian populace, Israeli leadership and Israeli populace (illegal settlers included)."

You still dont explain what additional suffering would mean."additional suffering stands for additional suffering." ??

As usual you fence sit couched in obfuscation and litotes.

You seem to want it both ways.

" Not sure that most Palestinians would prefer anarchy, with armed gangs/militias of former PA security personnel to Israel retaking full responsibility for all security aspects."

Since the IDF is so benign and preferable, and they caused the situation in the first place with their illegal occupation, then let them take responsibility for the entire security in the West Bank. Or end the occupation, get out and leave the Palestinians in peace to manage their own affairs.

Some serious reading comprehension issues here.

Dissolution of the PA (including security agencies) will lead to anarchy, Additional suffering.

Dissolution of the PA and rise of Islamic forces. Additional suffering.

PA security forces taking up arms against IDF, illegal settlers and Israelis in general. Additional suffering.

PA unilaterally cutting off security coordination with Israel. Additional suffering.

Israel retakes full charge of security in the West Bank. Additional suffering.

Acknowledging that things could be worse is not an implication that the Palestinians view the IDF as benign or generally preferable. The Palestinian populace are between a rock and hard place. There aren't any great options here, and non forthcoming on the horizon. Differentiating between what is said publicly as part of the struggle for the cause, and problematic issues stemming from the same rhetoric is important in understanding Palestinian sentiment. That Palestinians are not as one-faceted as you'd wish it to be is indeed a complication from a PR point of view.

What good would it do the Palestinians if Israel was to retake full responsibility for security in the West Bank? (Mind, not what good it would do from a PR point of view). Same goes for Israel unilaterally pulling out of the West Bank - what good would it do for ordinary Palestinians? (and again, not the PR angle or rosy sales pitch). I doubt you could address the actual implications for Palestinians in the West Bank without resorting to the usual diatribe.

And as usual, when you got nothing - back to "fence sitting" (next comes the "besmirching", if I ain't mistaken). Getting upset whenever it is pointed out that things aren't as simple as presented will not change how things are.

Israel has had 23 years to work out an orderly withdrawal from the West Bank and the handover of responsibility to Palestinians in the spirit of the Oslo Accords, which established the currently hamstrung PA police force.

Maybe events will dictate the situation and force Israel to take over security in the West Bank completely or get out.

Edited February 29, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

The army viciously invades the home of a man, trashes the place,interrogates terrified children, drags him off into the night without a word of explanation to his distressed parents as to why or his whereabouts.

If that happened in any other western democracy (that Israel professes to be), not only would it be headline news, questions would be asked in parliament, army chiefs would be hauled in for investigation before Senate inquiries.

For 4 days I tried googling all sorts of combinations of his name and other key words...nothing, just the OP.

Just another day in the lives of the Israeli army of illegal occupation. This brutality has become the norm for Israel. It's the seemingly acceptable ordinariness of it all that's so disgusting.

Edited February 29, 2016 by dexterm

[Morch]

Sorry thread full,

Morch wrote...

"Read again, and try to comprehend - there is nothing in the various PA security forces job description which amounts to protecting the Palestinians from the IDF.

Nor do they do so "as best they can". If anything, the PA security forces often come a close second on the list of dislikes by Palestinians. This may have to do with the way Palestinians are treated by them, or sometimes, not treated by them. The notion that the PA security forces play a protective role, or that they feel obligated to carry out such a role is just another fantasy.

No, additional suffering stands for additional suffering. That you persistently choose to acknowledge only those elements which relate to Israel is either due to ignorance or adhering to the usual propaganda spewed.

As much as Palestinians resent the PA (and by extension, said security forces), it is widely recognized that not having it around would mean things descending into chaos and lawlessness. Not sure that most Palestinians would prefer anarchy, with armed gangs/militias of former PA security personnel to Israel retaking full responsibility for all security aspects. As said, yours is an outsider's view, which sanctifies the "struggle" and the PR value of things over the actual consequences for the populace. Being a keyboard revolutionary is easy, facing ambiguous choices in reality is harder.

The bottom line is that the security coordination and cooperation, imperfect as it is, amounts to the best overall realistic option at this time, and in the near future. This goes for PA leadership, Palestinian populace, Israeli leadership and Israeli populace (illegal settlers included)."

You still dont explain what additional suffering would mean."additional suffering stands for additional suffering." ??

As usual you fence sit couched in obfuscation and litotes.

You seem to want it both ways.

" Not sure that most Palestinians would prefer anarchy, with armed gangs/militias of former PA security personnel to Israel retaking full responsibility for all security aspects."

Since the IDF is so benign and preferable, and they caused the situation in the first place with their illegal occupation, then let them take responsibility for the entire security in the West Bank. Or end the occupation, get out and leave the Palestinians in peace to manage their own affairs.

Some serious reading comprehension issues here.

Dissolution of the PA (including security agencies) will lead to anarchy, Additional suffering.

Dissolution of the PA and rise of Islamic forces. Additional suffering.

PA security forces taking up arms against IDF, illegal settlers and Israelis in general. Additional suffering.

PA unilaterally cutting off security coordination with Israel. Additional suffering.

Israel retakes full charge of security in the West Bank. Additional suffering.

Acknowledging that things could be worse is not an implication that the Palestinians view the IDF as benign or generally preferable. The Palestinian populace are between a rock and hard place. There aren't any great options here, and non forthcoming on the horizon. Differentiating between what is said publicly as part of the struggle for the cause, and problematic issues stemming from the same rhetoric is important in understanding Palestinian sentiment. That Palestinians are not as one-faceted as you'd wish it to be is indeed a complication from a PR point of view.

What good would it do the Palestinians if Israel was to retake full responsibility for security in the West Bank? (Mind, not what good it would do from a PR point of view). Same goes for Israel unilaterally pulling out of the West Bank - what good would it do for ordinary Palestinians? (and again, not the PR angle or rosy sales pitch). I doubt you could address the actual implications for Palestinians in the West Bank without resorting to the usual diatribe.

And as usual, when you got nothing - back to "fence sitting" (next comes the "besmirching", if I ain't mistaken). Getting upset whenever it is pointed out that things aren't as simple as presented will not change how things are.

Israel has had 23 years to work out an orderly withdrawal from the West Bank and the handover of responsibility to Palestinians in the spirit of the Oslo Accords, which established the currently hamstrung PA police force.

Maybe events will dictate the situation and force Israel to take over security in the West Bank completely or get out.

In other words, you stick with the either/or formulation, without much thought to its implications.

[DeaconJohn]

Violence carried out in the name of resisting occupation is freedom fighting by another name.

You can't justify the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands by any legitimate argument.

A propaganda barrage in defense of the indefensible just gives the game away.

Incidentally, as brevity is the soul of wit, so it is of proselytism.

A turgid prose style combined with personal nastiness lets the side down.

ANY violence carried out in the name of resisting occupations is "freedom fighting"? Attacks carried out against civilians within Israel included? Attacks against kids of Israeli illegal settlers are cool too? Anything goes?

I did not justify nor condone the Israeli occupation. Not on this topic or others. In the same way, there was no "defense" of Israel offered in this topic, more a position in favor of maintaining the security coordination. Do keep up before posting nonsense.

I believe Forum rules mention repeated comments on posting style.

Good to hear that you don't condone the Israeli occupation.

A return to their 1967 borders will be the necessary first step toward ending the bloodshed and security for Israel.

Expanding illegal settlements and driving Palestinians off their land has been a disaster for everybody involved.

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full...

Morch wrote...

"In other words, you stick with the either/or formulation, without much thought to its implications."

If an implication is 50 more years of illegal occupation and stalling by Israel, I am not in favor of that.

Israel created the problem with its illegal occupation in 1967. Having to take full responsibility for security may force Israel to put up or shut up.It may also force the hand of external pressures on Israel.

[Galactus]

"So you do not actually have any details on whether he was charged or not?"

No. That's why I asked the question. Notice the "or" ...either someone is charged OR they are not charged,.

Do you know whether he has been charged or is he one of the hundreds in Israeli jails detained without charge or trial?

Of course they are political prisoners. Israel made a political decision to illegally occupy the West Bank in 1967 and against international law transferred its own population there. Therefore, all resistance is similarly political and stems from that.

Thanks, so the link in question is simply to add the impression that he was not charged.

I did not make any claims regarding charges being made or not made. Try turning the tables on someone else.

I see, so once again, you justify any violence, if it is carried out in the name of resisting the occupation. Apparently no holds barred this time.

And to be sure, do you assert that all Palestinians in Israeli prisons are there due to "political" reasons and not, say, any mundane criminal activities?

Violence carried out in the name of resisting occupation is freedom fighting by another name.

You can't justify the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands by any legitimate argument.

A propaganda barrage in defense of the indefensible just gives the game away.

Incidentally, as brevity is the soul of wit, so it is of proselytism.

A turgid prose style combined with personal nastiness lets the side down.

ANY violence carried out in the name of resisting occupations is "freedom fighting"? Attacks carried out against civilians within Israel included? Attacks against kids of Israeli illegal settlers are cool too? Anything goes?

I did not justify nor condone the Israeli occupation. Not on this topic or others. In the same way, there was no "defense" of Israel offered in this topic, more a position in favor of maintaining the security coordination. Do keep up before posting nonsense.

I believe Forum rules mention repeated comments on posting style.

Palestinians need to stop any kind of Israel cooperation until sanctions to Israel gets tougher. If they start to ban Israelis to travel EU and if they grant them embargo same as Iran, i am sure they will be broken hard and faster than Iran bc Israel has nothign but sand! then peace might prevail over those unfortunate lands.

and yes, exactly we call it freedom fighting, resistance or whatever you name it. bc those people there just trying to protect their own stolen land and their families from Israel backed by foreign powers pushed by rich and affluent Jewish diaspora.

if it is cool for Israel to steal others' land and pushing those people and their 'kids' into poverty followed by radicalism (which turns back to Israel as stabbing or resistance) so i believe it must be normal flow of life if some Israelis get stabbed in the meantime. It is the price to pay, they did not see this coming? Where in the world people are willingly to get their land stolen? haven't they expected a reaction? c'mon!

Bc what i see is phosphorus bombs when Israel wants to protect their land and families, no? what is a knife when you compare with cruel and unmerciful phosphorus bomb?

as i said before, it is a price to pay for Israeli if they want to steal cheap and illegitimate land belong to others forcefully and illegally and if their innocent kids are paying this grim price, shame on their fathers, authorities and politicians in Israel!

again and again, it is the fault of Israelis if a small innocent Israeli kid is stabbed.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Galactus