This afternoon an Israeli was stabbed to death in his jeep while waiting at the Tapuach Junction (in Judea and Samaria). Who was this terrorist? He was a PA police officer. This, while the PA is calling to increase their security forces (see last week’s speech by Fayad). So, what are we to conclude? That the PA is using its security forces to perpetrate state-sanctioned terrorist activity?

Latest posts by dahlia (see all)

About the author



  • “That the PA is using its security forces to perpetrate state-sanctioned terrorist activity?”

    seems highly unlikely. fayyad & abbas have staked a lot on keeping order, this is a big embarrassment for them.

  • “I’m shocked, shocked, that gambling is going on here!”

    Capitain Renault, Prefet de Police

    This is only an embarrasment for Ab-ass because it was a cases of rouge “sudden jihad” syndrome.

    OF COURSE the PA is using its security forces to perpetrate state-sanctioned terrorist activity. The PA is a terrorist organization from top to bottom and it always has been, and every single member of the PA is a terrorist by definition. It’s just an embarrassment when things get out of hand and the true face peeks out from under the mask.

    They are just biding their time hoping to fool naifs like X (and apparently, Middle as well) that they have reformed. When they think the time is right, or when circumstances force their hand, they will show everyone (those who hasn’t been paying attention, anyway) who they really are, and people will be scratching their heads going “I wonder what happened? Must be those nasty Israelis”.

    Grow up, would you?

    Fortunately, they have their hands full with Hamas and now Al Quaeda, who are even more bat-shit crazy than they are. Let us hope they all just kill each other off and save Israel the trouble.

  • “and every single member of the PA is a terrorist by definition.”

    thanks for setting me straight, ephraim

  • realistically, a high percentage of the PA police force were members of the Tanzim or the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, so it does make sense that many of them would continue with their terrorist activity after joining the police force (after all, who’s going to stop them? the police? they are the police).

  • Ephraim, x and Middle are all right. For now, the PA has every incentive to act like an emergent, grown-up government with control over its security forces– whatever one thinks of its ultimate intentions.

  • Exactly. You will all recall my superb posts about the Palestinian endgame. 😉

    It does not serve the Palestinians to let the cat out of the bag just yet. This was an embarrassment to them, but only a fool would believe that the long-term intentions of the PA with their newly trained army are to keep the peace.

  • To make peace, Xisnotx. To make peace. If there was a realistic prospect of peace tomorrow, a Netanyahu government would take it. Such a deal would even include compromise of sorts on Jerusalem. There isn’t a political leader in Israel who would be able to turn away a realistic peace deal. It is what the public wants more than anything as poll after poll have shown for decades. Consider that Ehud Olmert, a lifelong Likudnik, once he was PM offered a deal that was comparable and in some ways sweeter than Barak’s at Taba.

  • I agree with themiddle on this one. i think israel does want peace. i do not believe that the palestinians do. however, i, also, agree that for them this was a huge embarassment. it’s difficult to pawn the idea that they are only trying to make peace when their own police don’t.

  • Middle, thinking about posting on the Sullivan-Wieseltier contretemps?

  • Yes, but reading through Wieseltier’s ode to anti-Semitism, my eyes drooped and I began to make gentle snoring sounds.

    Actually, my favorite aspect of the whole debate is that Stephen Walt of Walt & Mearsheimer fame wrote a post on his blog claiming brotherhood with Sullivan of the “Innocents Victimized By Jews Who Call Us Anti-Semites Even Though We Only Made a Few Generalizations” club.

  • Tom must have been reading the PLO Covenant:

    “For now (this is just temporary, we’ll get around to destroying Israel later), the PA has every incentive to act like an emergent, grown-up government with control over its security forces (ACT like one, not actually BE one)– whatever one thinks of its ultimate intentions (to destroy Israel).”

    I just don’t understand why people like X and Middle are so taken with what Middle, at least, knows very well is just a sham, a Kabuki “strictly for the goyim”, so to speak.

    I’m not impressed. The PA may have every incentive to pretend to be all those things, but since it doesn’t have any incentive to actually BE those things, why should allow myself to be fooled into not looking at the man behind the curtain?

  • Middle, Jeffrey Goldberg had an interesting take on the Sullivan business, casting it as symptomatic of lefty American thinking about Israel…. That’s perhaps more interesting than trying to peer into Sulky’s soul.

  • I just read Goldberg’s piece, but after having read a bunch of commentators about the whole thing, I’m thinking that this entire, um, debacle, is really about what is and isn’t anti-Semitism in a society such as ours. In Salon, Greenwald talked about how the phrase is diminished or even encouraged when a stream of people like Carter, Walt, Mearsheimer, Juan Cole or Sullivan, Chas Freeman etc. are called anti-Semitic (

    He is right, of course, but it can’t be helped that Cole calls any Jew whose views he dislikes and who supports Israel, a “Likudnik,” or that Carter went on national television and in a conversation about the power of Israel’s supporters and “the Lobby” was hinting strongly to a national anchor that there are “truths” the anchor cannot utter on the air because of unseen and powerful forces, or Walt and Mearsheimer who may have no personal beef with Jews wrote a book essentially aligning every Jew who isn’t one of the 36% (their figure) who openly don’t support Israel with forces that are driving America against its own interests into harmful support of another country that happens to be the stated homeland of the Jews, or that Chas Freeman showed incredibly poor judgment when his candidacy was derailed and he lashed out at…Jews. Etc.

    I believe I’ve written about all of those folks and I didn’t shy away from pointing out ideas of theirs that were indeed anti-Semitic. It doesn’t matter to me whether these people are anti-Semitic or not. However, the ideas which they impart successfully broadly group me and my fellow Jews in ways that are disparaging and negative. It is part of what Wieseltier was attempting to say about Sullivan in seeking to point out that his former protege was grouping Jews and placing some in the “bad” category and some in the “good” category.

    The Goldberg piece pretty much says the same thing about Sullivan, while clearing him of personally being an anti-Semite. This fight, however, isn’t about who is or isn’t an anti-Semite, but about ideas, the meaning of grouping people in certain ways and the manner of expressing motives attributed to those groups.

    What’s interesting is that Sullivan responded so weepily that it is obvious in hindsight that Wieseltier chose the wrong target and has potentially caused much more harm than good (to himself AND the notion of what constitutes anti-Semitism) with his attack because Sullivan, a writer who has no trouble attacking those he dislikes, is suddenly a victim. And by the way, it’s not lost on many that the publication which attacked him has a strong Jewish bench and a strong pro-Israel record….which only fuels the very thing that Sullivan was already doing and which Wieselties was attempting to point out and hopefully to stop.

  • There’s no question that the Left’s fight against Israel has taken a turn that touches on Jews as a group with sometimes anti-Semitic canards. We cover this on Jewlicious fairly often. In fact, it’s fair to say that Jewlicious was founded, at least in part, as a reaction to some of those attacks.

    Those who attack Israel have to tread a fine line sometimes, I understand that. There are many who don’t try to be cautious or who breach that line inadvertently. Usually, you can tell. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out that something is an anti-Semitic idea, because many people just don’t know.

    However, there are those for whom having Israel or AIPAC to bash is very convenient because it absolves them from being careful about what they write. In-fact, it gives them a carte blanche, which some of them cynically use, to say things about Jews they would never say without being able to hide behind “Jewish lobby” or “I mean Zionists, not Jews.”

  • The Nazis ruined the world for anti-Semitism. You can hate Jews and accuse them of being nefarious plotters out to foment wars and the destruction of countries for their own devious purposes, but unless you actually come out an say you want to kill them all you’re not an anti-Semite anymore.

  • Hi , I do believe this is an excellent blog. I stumbled upon it on Yahoo , i will come back once again. Money and freedom is the best way to change

  • Title

    […]that could be the finish of this post. Right here you’ll discover some internet sites that we assume you’ll enjoy, just click the hyperlinks over[…]

  • Title

    […]Every as soon as inside a when we pick out blogs that we study. Listed beneath would be the latest web pages that we select […]

  • Title

    […]Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine some unrelated information, nevertheless definitely really worth taking a appear, whoa did a single master about Mid East has got far more problerms too […]

  • Title

    […]Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine several unrelated data, nevertheless seriously worth taking a look, whoa did one particular understand about Mid East has got far more problerms at the same time […]