BBC (Tuesday): Palestinians 'foiling militants'

[Jack Rabbit]

From the BBC Online
Dated Tuesday March 22 15:10 GMT (7:10 am PST)

Palestinians "foiling militants"

A senior Israeli intelligence official has praised Palestinian security forces for preventing as many militant attacks as their Israeli counterparts.

Brig Gen Yossi Kuperwasser was speaking to the Knesset foreign affairs and defence committee.

However, he gave no figures and did not say whether he was referring to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip or both.

His comments came a day after Israel handed over security responsibility for the West Bank town of Tulkarm.

Read more.

[On the Road]

1. This is Good News

but the Palestinians have got to see some gains in the next year or so for it to continue.

[Lithos]

2. Very good

Very good!

L-

[eyl]

3. But..But I thought

the PA security forces couldn't fight the terrorists without tanks and helicopters!

[Violet_Crumble]

5. You thought wrong...

Why would you think something that's, well, kind of strange?

And have you read the article? I'd be interested to know whether you think this is a positive development...

Violet...

[eyl]

7. I was being sarcastic

because that's exactly the argument someone here made when I argued that the Palestinians, if they so willed, could stop terrorism more effectively than the IDF without the need for heavy weapons.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. No shit...

I never would have guessed!! I just looked at the link you supplied Newyorican and it is NOT 'exactly the same argument' that Bemildred was making. Bemildred doesn't make simpleton arguments. And even if it was Bemildred's view, how on earth does that become the sort of universal view that clumsy attempt at sarcasm made it out to be?

You didn't answer the question I asked about whether or not you consider it a positive development...

Violet...

[eyl]

10. Re your first point

I pointed out that Palestinians did not need the same heavy equipment the IDF needs to fight terrorism; which bemildred dismissed as "baseless opinion" and "bullshit" (and so did you). As I noted, I also encountered that in at least one other thread, but I can't find it (I had to look through the threads one at a time to find the first one).

As for your second question; of course it's a positive edvelopment. But it's only a start. Sooner or later, the Palestinians will have to disband the "militants", and as yet there is no indication they are even considering doing so.

From Haaretz
:
But Kuperwasser, like Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon, who spoke after him, noted that the PA is not yet taking proactive steps to collect arms from the gunmen of the armed organizations, as PA policy gradually is to bring the armed men into newly reformed PA security forces.

Ya'alon complained to the MKs that the reforms have not begun in earnest, and that the PA is now saying it will need six to eight months to complete the restructuring.
:
Kuperwasser said they had managed to shut down 18 smuggling tunnels in Rafah, but Ya'alon told the MKs that "the PA is not fighting the terror infrastructure and is not collecting the weapons in the hands of the terror groups."

[Violet_Crumble]

12. You pointed out nothing of the sort...

I pointed out that Palestinians did not need the same heavy equipment the IDF needs to fight terrorism

No, you didn't. This is what you pointed out that I said bullshit to."In the past the Palestinian security forces have proved quite effective blocking terrorists; their limiting factor has always been political will, not capability." How has that magically turned into reading as saying something about heavy equipment? Based on what appears to be producing comments from folk that say something completely different, until I get shown evidence of people saying that exact thing, I will give them the benefit of the doubt when someone else is accusing them of saying things...

And still on my first point, can you please answer the question I asked you: 'And even if it was Bemildred's view, how on earth does that become the sort of universal view that clumsy attempt at sarcasm made it out to be?"

Onto point #2 - You speak about things only being a start. Do you have the same reservations regarding Israel, or is this 'talk and no action' thing only something that happens on the Palestinian side?

btw, what do you think the words 'proactive steps' mean in the article?


Violet...

[eyl]

13. Read

posts 15 and 16 in that thread (15 and the first line of 16 in particular).

I never claimed it was a "universal" view; that's your interpretation. But I've encountered that attitude both here and in quite a few other discussion forums.

As for your second point; sure, there are more things that Israel needs to do. The difference is, however, that in the case of the Palestinians it's not even "talk and no action" - Abbas has publicly declared on more than one occassion, that he would not disarm Hamas and co. Israel at the very least is paying lip service to the road map, and I do know of actions and preperations for action being taken, a lot of which doesn't make the news.

As for "proactive steps" - I believe the intent is for the PA to initiate operations against the terrorists, rather than just just react (for example, going after them to disarm/arrest them, rather than just stopping them when they happen to enounter a patrol).

[Violet_Crumble]

19. The person in question did NOT say what you claimed...

Even the person in question has informed you of that. What has happened appears to be that your interpretation of what someone else says is not at all what they were saying, even though you said it was 'exactly'...

As I said before, until you produce links to something that actually says what it claims you say, I'll err on the safe side. Once bitten, twice shy :)

Israel at the very least is paying lip service to the road map? Bullshit! There's articles in this thread about the settlement activity. Is there some reason why both sides should not be held to the same standards?

Interestingly enough, but I don't recall Israel taking any 'proactive steps' to stop Israeli terrorists. In fact, there's not even been much in the way of going after them when attacks are carried out on Palestinians in the West Bank...

I sometimes suspect the intent is to insist on courses of action that will be bound to fire up a civil war amongst the Palestinians. If disarming of militants (and a newsflash here: armed Palestinians who attack military targets, not civilians, are NOT terrorists.) can be achieved by negotiation, persuasion, and as little force as possible, I think there's going to be some bloodthirsty folk who are going to be very disappointed indeed...

Violet...

[eyl]

20. Bullshit right back atcha

Post #15 on that thread said "The PA forces don't need all the capabilities of the IDF to stop terrorism." and went on to explain why that was so. Post #16 replied "More baseless opinion presented as though it were fact." Usually, when you say something is a "baseless opinion", you mean to negate that opinion, at least as I understand the English language. I'm prepared to believe bemildred was not totally in opposition, but that's how I read it. You don't want to believe me, so be it.

Armed Palestinians who exclusively attack military targets are not terrorists. They don't get to flip-flop their status depending on their target of the moment (leaving aside the issue of collective responsibility of combatants, which is part of the reason you can initiate an attack against a combatant in the first place).

The Bat Ayin cell , for one, may be surprised to hear Israel never took steps against terrorism. So might Noam Federman and Yehuda Pas.

As for your comments about "articles in this thread about the settlement activity", do you understand the definition of "lip service"? Has Israel pronounced it would not remove any settlements? And it's funny you should mention being "held to the same standards". Pretty much the entire world (and many on this board) is demanding Israel freeze the settelemnts, yet when it comes to the Palestinians I keep seeing those same players deciding that the declaration of a truce by Hamas and similiar measures (note, for instance, the note on which the conference in Britain ended) are sufficient for the Palestinians to fulfill their end.

I don't care how the Palestinians disarm Hamas and co; for all I care, they can place the decision down to a rugby match. But when they declare they will not, under any circumstances, do so, I'm inclined to worry.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Bemildred did NOT claim what you said originally...

That's the bottom line here. I don't believe what you said because when you provided the link bemildred was saying something different to what you'd originally claimed...

Excuse me, but trotting out some examples of Israel taking some form of action against Israeli terrorism does NOT negate the fact that there is little to no action being taken on the majority of attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank...

Do you understand what it needs to take for a FAIR and lasting peace to happen? Israel continuing to build settlements while demanding the Palestinians lick it up and live with it wihtout any protest or resistance is NOT 'lip service' in any way shape or form. To be blunt, yr interpretation of what other people say on this forum is of zero interest to me anymore, as I'd rather read what they have to say without someone else giving me a completely different take on what people are saying...

You should give a shit how Hamas is disarmed. You should care that if civil war breaks out, it'll mean even more suffering for the Palestinian people. If you don't give a shit about any of that, then why would you expect people to give a shit about Israelis?

Violet...

[newyorican]

6. I believe...

it's the IDF they can't fight without tanks and helicopters. I'd ask for a link to anyone stating what you assert, but having been on this forum for quite some time, I know you can't.

[eyl]

8. Well,

here's one. I remember at least one other thread, but I can't find it at the moment (searching the threads isn't exactly simple)

[bemildred]

11. Where we would continue to disagree is on

the idea that the terrorists have been or will be stopped,
or that if one stipulates for a moment that they have been
stopped, then it was by force of arms rather than a voluntary
act on their part, of uncertain duration. This is not to say
the the PA authorities may not have had some success, as
these things go.

What I see right now in this story is political babble which
is part of the current "peace offensive". What actual results
will come of that remain to be seen, although it is clear enough
that some of the Palestinian factions are, umm, reluctant.

Nevertheless it is a good sign that the Israeli government seems
willing to be somewhat conciliatory at this point and to allow
some improvement in Palestinian lives, and that cannot but help
with the violence.

I take it as a compliment that you remembered my blatherings, and
I hope I did not offend you then, I enjoyed the discussion and
appeciated the opportunity to discuss it with you, however I may
have chosen to go on about it.

That is all I will have to say about it for the moment.

[eyl]

16. Oh, I wasn't offended n/t

[newyorican]

14. Nice try...

But it has already been noted that the post you link does not assert what you said.

But..But I thought the PA security forces couldn't fight the terrorists without tanks and helicopters!

It's unfortunate that you have to be reminded of your own words, but such is the level of discourse hereabouts.

On second thought, it wasn't even a nice try.

[bemildred]

15. Well, that's true, what I said was rather the opposite of that.

The implication was hardly that better arms would do the job.

The problem is that the Palestinian sense of injustice is well
founded, and it isn't going to go away until it is addressed
honestly, and no amount of violence will fix that since violence
just increases the sense of injustice, voilence is the foundation
of the present impasse. To suggest that you could arm one part
of Palestinian society to repress another for you in the hope it
will bring "peace" is wildly unrealistic.

[eyl]

17. see my reply to Violet above

[number6]

24. tanks and helicopters!

yes, I don't think that anybody said they needed them
them to fight terrorists, just that they were short
of resources and authority ....

[bemildred]

18. Helps to read the whole thread too:

I did not counter your claim that "the PA don't need as much military
muscle as Israel to fight terrorism" because I don't disagree with it.
I see no point if trying to make the PNA a military match for Israel,
I am more in favor of de-militarizing Israel and the PNA both and
working out a political settlement, as I said before.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=85111&mesg_id=85111&listing_type=#85219

[DFWdem]

4. Like the villains in movies...

"Curses! Foiled again!"

[Darranar]

22. Excellent news. Progress seems to be being made...

I hope it can be maintained.

[bemildred]

23. Yeah, better attitudes, fewer dead people, what's not to like? nt