US Report: Infantry Needed to Fight Hizbullah

From: Middle East News Line

The U.S. Army has commissioned a study that concluded
that conventional ground forces would be required to battle the
Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah.

The Rand Corp. has relayed a study to the U.S. Army that analyzed
Israel's 2006 war with Hizbullah. The report, titled "Military Capabilities
for Hybrid War," concluded that Israel's air combat strategy against
Hizbullah was flawed and that infantry and armor would be required to fight
the Lebanese-based militia, trained by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps.

"Finally, heavy forces -- based on tanks and infantry fighting
vehicles -- are key elements of any force that will fight sophisticated
irregular opponents, because they reduce operational risk and minimize
friendly casualties," the report, released on April 9, said.

The report was part of a project by the U.S. Army to assess emerging
insurgency threats based on Israel's wars with Hizbullah and Hamas over the
last four years. Rand said both Israel and the United States were facing a
so-called hybrid opponent, or a force that combined conventional and
guerrilla capabilities.

"Although the U.S. security situation is much different from that of
Israel, similarities do exist," the report said. "Both nations believe they
must prepare for challenges across the range of military operations.
Therefore, the following insights from recent Israeli experience have
relevance for the U.S."

A key finding was that Israel's air combat doctrine has been ineffective
against either Hamas or Hizbullah. The report asserted that air strikes must
be combined with a significant infantry and armor component to minimize the
insurgency use of civilian shields.

"The basics of combined arms fire and maneuver are necessary for
successful operations against sophisticated hybrid opponents who, like
Hizbullah and Hamas, have a modicum of training, organization, and advanced
weapons, particularly if they are operating 'among the people,'" the report,
authored by David Johnson, said. "Additionally, precision, standoff fires
are critical, but not sufficient, to cope with sophisticated hybrid
opponents. Furthermore, responsive and adequate air, artillery, and unmanned
aerial system support are critical components of the combined arms fight
against hybrid opponents."

Rand concluded that the Israel Army had underestimated Hizbullah's
capabilities to combine military maneuvers with sustained rocket fire. The
report cited Israel's long counter-insurgency campaign in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip and the military's assessment that conventional warfare would not
return to the Middle East.

"The U.S. presence in Iraq following OIF [U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003], coupled with low threats from neighbors except Syria, encouraged a
belief that Israel was beyond the era of a major war and that the primary
role of ground forces was LIC [low-intensity conflict]," the report said.
"Some of the political and military elites in Israel have reached the
conclusion that Israel is beyond the era of wars. It had enough military
might and superiority to deter others from declaring war against her; these
would also be sufficient to send a painful reminder to anyone who seemed to
be undeterred; since Israel did not intend to initiate a war, the conclusion
was that the main challenge facing the land forces would be low intensity
asymmetrical conflicts."

The result was that Israel's military budget had been slashed, main
battle tanks and mechanized infantry became idle and training declined, the
report said. The best army commanders were used for CI operations, and air
force tactical air control capabilities were removed from infantry brigades.
"In Lebanon, the Israelis faced terrain and enemy conditions for which
they were not prepared," the report said. "Hizbullah, although not 10 feet
tall, was trained and organized into small units and armed with
sophisticated weapons, including anti-tank guided missiles, RPGs --
including RPG-29s -- rockets, mortars, mines, IEDs, and MANPADS."

Rand said the Hizbullah and Hamas threat required what the report termed
integrated joint air and ground intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance capabilities "similar to those used against conventional
adversaries, but at a reduced scale." The report said the army's command and
control system must also be revised to battle Hizbullah.

Israel's military was said to have renewed its heavy armored force to
confront Hamas and Hizbullah. Rand cited the resumption of production of the
Merkava Mk-4 main battle tank and the launch of the Namer infantry fighting
vehicle, based on the Mk-1. These assets were used in the Hamas war in
December 2008 and January 2009.

"The single most important change in the IDF between the 2006 Second
Lebanon War and the recent operation in Gaza was the clear understanding by
senior Israeli political and military
leaders that ground operations are an essential component of military
operations," the report said. "They no longer believe standoff attack alone,
principally by air, can create success. Thus, from the beginning, it was a
given to Israeli political and military leaders that ground forces would
have to fight in Gaza -- putting troops on the ground was a necessary
precondition to achieving their military and political objectives."

Rand warned that Israel's war with Hamas did not prove that the
military was certain to defeat Hizbullah. The report said Hamas was not as
capable as Hizbullah, and the Gaza Strip was flat while southern Lebanon was
hilly.

"Hizbullah defended its positions," the report said. "Hamas frequently
retreated. Hizbullah had advanced ATGMs and used them to good effect; Hamas
seems not to have had many and used few, if any, relying mainly on small
arms, RPGs, mortars, rockets, IEDs, and mines. Finally, Operation Cast Lead
[Israeli war against Hamas] was a relatively small-scale operation for the
Israeli Army, involving only a handful of brigades, one division, and the
Southern Command."

See more on this at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Remembering Israel's Fallen Soldiers in Munich, Germany

by Noam Bedein

Following the volcanic eruption in Iceland, I found myself stranded in Europe on Israel Memorial Day. Along with tens of thousands of other Israelis waiting in airports across the ash-clouded continent, I had the strong desire to get back home, in time at least to celebrate Israel's Independence Day.

My journey first began at the railway station at the Hague in Holland, where I had been recently visiting at the Israeli Embassy and Parliament House and contacting key people during a Sderot awareness campaign set to counter the Gaza narrative, the topping of the Palestinian public relations campaign.

The eve of Israel Memorial Day for me this year began in Amsterdam, on a night train to Munich, traveling on the same railroad tracks that the Jews of Holland traveled to their deaths 65 years ago. At 9 am, the train arrived to Munich, where I had a three-hour standby until the next train departed to Verona, Italy.

As a veteran traveler, I did not miss the opportunity to visit around the city of Munich. To be in Germany, the country where the design for the destruction of the European Jewry took root, on the same day as Israel's Memorial Day for fallen soldiers and terror victims, was a deeply strange and ironic experience. I recognized even more strongly the importance of the Israel Defense Forces and all those soldiers who died to secure the state, so that Jews would have a homeland to protect them from the ugly waves of anti-Semitism and violence that had culminated in the Holocaust.

Around the same time that the memorial siren went off in Israel, I somehow found myself in front of the building that served as the Nazi headquarters where the signing of the infamous Munich Agreement between Adolph Hitler and Neville Chamberlain had taken place. The attempts for a ceasefire with Germany and the world's willingness to blindly believe in such a ceasefire, brought to mind events of today. The continued attempts of leading world powers to stop Iran's building of an atomic bomb either through economic sanctions, international pressure, or diplomatic dialogue strikes an all too familiar chord. The same appeasing approach that was used with Hitler that allowed for the killings of millions including Jews, is a process that the world is repeating yet again--this time with Iran.

Indeed the Netherlands Jewry paid a heavy price for the appeasement plan as 90 percent of the Jews were massaccred in Nazi death camps.

I recall the words of Professor Bernard Lewis, one of the most respected post-war historians on Islam and the Middle East today. Lewis compared radical Islam on one side to the Nazism and Communism put together. "Today we [the world] are in a much worse situation than in 1940. Then we knew who are enemies were and who we were...today, however, we do not know who we are or who our enemies are."

This can be attributed to the fact that we live in an age where the term 'radical Islam' and jihadists are not deemed politically correct when describing terror acts committed by Muslims. Case and point: the White House administration under President Barak Obama has banned the term 'radical Islam' from their lexicon. Pres. Obama's former mentor and spiritual leader, Rev. Dr. Jermiah Wright has frequently referenced Israel as an apartheid state, calling Israel " a dirty word." Terms like 'terrorists' and 'Nazis' are used freely and unquestionably used by critics and Israel-haters to demonize the Israeli government and the IDF.

Standing in front of the Munich monument to the victims of Nazi terror, in the same city where Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat's terrorists murdered 13 Israeli athletes, it is clear that today's western world does not fully understand the meaning of terrorism.

The obligation to define terrorism in the 21st century is left to us, those Israelis living on the Sderot-Gaza border, who have been subject to the silent terror of constant rocket attacks coming from Gaza, on our families and communities.

Palestinian terrorism uses civilians on both sides of the border to advance the goals of the radical Islamic leadership in control of Gaza. How many political leaders and media networks are actually aware that 97 percent of the rocket attacks from Gaza are launched from within civilian populated areas where Palestinian women and children live, as assessed by the Israeli Air Force?

There is a well-oiled propaganda machine set on diverting the attention of the Israeli public and international community from the real problems that radical Islam has brought to the people of Gaza and the rest of the Middle East region, including a culture of hate and celebration of death. At the same time, this propaganda battle is working to delegitimize the state of Israel's right to militarily protect its citizens. Thanks to million-dollar public relations campaigns led by left-wing organizations like B'tselem and Breaking the Silence, irreparable damage has been done to Israel's image and state of security. One of the most extreme cases was brought to light when IDF soldier, Anat Kam provided left-wing Israeli journalist, Uri Blau with top-secret information which he then used to publish articles in the Ha'aretz newspaper criticizing IDF operations against Palestinian terrorists threatening Israeli civilians.

By attempting to de-humanize Israeli soldiers and the Israeli military establishment, human rights organizations and left-wing news media completely overlook the psychological challenges and moral dillemas that IDF soldiers deal with when fighting against terrorists stationed amongst civilians. During Operation Cast Lead, IDF soldiers encountered Hamas soldiers dressed as doctors, paramedics, and even as women. The central headquarters of Hamas officials are located in bunkers beneath the Sheba hospital in the center of Gaza, with the sole purpose of using human civilians and patients as shields. How is a soldier to act in such a situation--when the enemy stores its weapons and fires from within civilian areas like mosques and schools?

Indeed many countries involved with battling terror today have sought the help of IDF to learn to employ methods of battle that will cause the least amount of harm to civilian populations caught under the crossfire of terrorists who take cover in areas where families and children are located. A recent UN report that cited that 5,978 civilians were killed by NATO forces in 2009 because of such terrorist strategies.

In light of all this, the facts of Israel's reality needs to come out. We must continue to show the world our support of Israeli soldiers who serve and fight for the only democracy in the Middle East. We must continue to justify our right to live in a country that seeks peace with security with hostile borders and neighbors.

This article is dedicated to the memories of two Israeli soldiers who were killed in Gaza six years ago, Eitan Neuiman z"l, Aviad Deri z"l, graduates of the pre-military academy program that I studied in. They were killed because they did not wish to harm the lives of Palestinian civilians as they were fired upon during a search of weaponry hidden by terror organizations in civilian homes.

What other army in the world would sacrifice its best fighters to avoid harming innocent civilians during battle?

As someone who serves in the IDF reserve duty, I know that the depiction of Israeli soldiers as monsters, is a gross distortion of reality. The IDF is probably one of the few armies in the world who sings songs of peace and reconciliation. It is an army whose soldiers are faced with moral dilemmas every day, and yet at the same time are taught to value life of all people above all else. Standing in Munich on such a solem day, only reinforced my belief in the morality of the state of Israel and in our military establishment which has saved countless Israeli lives following the Holocaust.

Noam Bedein is a photojournalist, lecturer and and founder/director of Sderot Media Center: www. SderotMedia.org.il. He has conducted briefings and tours for government officials, diplomats, foreign press, and students from around the world.


See this report in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this report at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Former Israeli Army Clerk Indicted After Turning Classified Documents Over To Media

Did Washington have Access to the Files?

by David Bedein

Jerusalem - Every day, dozens of documents arrive at the hub of the Israeli Army’s Central Command office - summaries of classified meetings, secret presentations, secret situation assessments and secret investigations.

For a period of at least three years, between 2004 and 2007, all of these documents were seen by one clerk, Anat Kam.

At her desk, Anat Kam perused documents that the director of the Israel Security Agency describes as “the fantasy of every intelligence organization.”

Ms. Kam stored 2,200 of these documents in a discrete file on her Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) computer. These documents included operational orders, orders from the Israeli Army General Staff, summaries of meetings of the IDF General Staff’s forum, troop deployments, IDF emergency assessments, battle drills, intelligence about arms and the operating doctrine for IDF troops.

Seven hundred of these documents were defined as “secret” and “top secret.”

Before her discharge from the Israeli Army, Anat Kam transferred this massive collection of security documents to her personal computer.

In September 2008, after Ms. Kam secured a job on the Internet edition of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, she provided these documents to senior reporter Uri Blau, who covers military and security affairs for the paper.

After Ms. Kam handed over the documents to Mr. Blau, she carefully explained to him the significance of each document that she handed over, including clarifications about the names of operations and their objectives, along with IDF codes and dates.

Mr. Blau used some of the Kam documents in reports that he published in Haaretz’s weekend supplement-reports that were given to the army censor at first and printed only after they were approved. One of these reports published in September 2008 under the headline “Classified IDF Documents: Chief of Staff and IDF Upper Echelons Approve Killing of Wanted Men and Innocent People - Despite High Court Ruling.”

Israeli Security officials read Mr. Blau’s report and were amazed at the “secret documents that had reached Haaretz and began to suspect that the reporter had other classified papers in his possession.

Mr. Blau had initially told Israeli security officials that he had 50 such security documents, and that he would agree to hand them back, so long as there would be no recrimination from the Israeli law enforcement authorities against him. However, in December, when Israeli security officials discovered that Ms. Kam had given him 2,000 documents, Uri Blau fled Israel for London, out of fear of being arrested by Israeli security.

The Israeli security establishment has a number of options available as to what they will do with Mr. Blau, if he refuses to return to Israel.

The first would be to issue an international arrest warrant for Mr. Blau, by means of the Israel Police’s representatives in Europe, with the assistance of Interpol.

The other option is to send out a Mossad hit squad team, as Israel did in the case of Mordechai Vanunu, who was kidnapped overseas in 1986 and brought back to Israel for trial in the matter of highly classified documents that Mr. Vanunu had pilfered and published in The Times of London, concerning the Israeli nuclear facility in Dimona.

Meanwhile, the Israeli security investigation of Anat Kam continues, focusing on her ideological connections to people who protest Israeli security policies.

Israeli security officials are also looking into the possibility that Kam may have shared some of the Israeli security documentation in her possession with her brother in law, Sam Sokol, who is the permanent stringer and translator for The Washington Post’s Jerusalem bureau.

Mr. Sokol used to work for Haaretz

The Israeli District Attorney has meanwhile indicted Anat Kam, saying that she acted out of “ideological motives, with intent to harm state security,” the penalty for which is more than ten years of imprisonment.

A high-ranking Israeli security official says that the exposure of these documents by Ms. Kam “harmed the State of Israel’s security substantially. There aren’t even words to describe the damage that could be caused.”

See this report at Israel Behind the News

LIBEL MANUFACTURED BY HA’ARETZ

by Ben Dror Yemini

Tel Aviv, Israel: Look, many in the media say, this is an important revelation. The IDF, they claim, violated High Court of Justice orders, and conducted targeted killings while violating judicial guidelines. The IDF, they continue to assert, committed war crimes, and there is no journalist out there who would have remained silent, were he or she to receive document proof of this. So let us put aside the thousands of documents that have nothing to do with the leaks and which contain military information without any journalistic value. And let us put aside the fact that the IDF was forced to alter its military plans due to the stolen information. And let us also put aside the fact that the possession of such material constitutes a criminal offense, which an Israeli paper is aiding.

Let us deal with the heart of the matter, this time. This is what Ha’aretz is demanding. Are indeed documents, which prove that the IDF violated High Court of Justice orders, being revealed and brought to the public? The headline, at the time, was “The chief-of-staff and IDF leadership authorized killings of wanted and innocent men.” The expression “innocent” appears almost 20 times in the article in which the documents were published. The impression is that the IDF has been committing war crimes. This is the impression Ha’aretz intentionally attempts to create.

Well, we should rise to the challenge, and examine what exactly these documents show. The main argument, which the paper attempted to promote, was that the High Court of Justice ruled that targeted killings were illegal. There is indeed a ruling, but nowhere is there any ruling that forbids targeted killings. The High Court of Justice did not go down this path, and wisely so. It was no other than Aharon Barak who made the determination in 2006: that it is impossible to determine a priori that all targeted killings are forbidden by international law, just as it is impossible to determine a priori that all targeted killings are permissible according to international law. This is very clear statement that is somewhat at odds with the impression received when reading Ha’aretz back then, when the documents appeared in Uri Blau’s article, and certainly today, as the paper attempts to hide behind the guise of exposing the truth.

The documents, it should be noted, deal with the need either to arrest or target an Islamic Jihad cell - clearly terrorists, who have committed acts of murder and planned other attacks. They consistently roamed the land with rifles and bomb belts. Any army of a democratic nation would regard their assassination as something both legitimate and desirable. This would not involve any troubles of conscience. According to Ha’aretz, however, it was appropriate to arrest these righteous cell members rather than harm them. However, the documents seem to indicate that the IDF did rigorously abide by the High Court of Justice’s ruling. Not a trigger-happy hand, but rather an indecisive one, perhaps one that reconsiders too much, that considers and then stops to reconsider again.

The documents themselves reveal four matters. First, that OC Central Command Maj. Gen. Yair Naveh orders an arrest rather than an assassination. Only if these turn out to be the Islamic Jihad members that, as stated earlier, are walking around with bomb belts and rifles, and only if events develop into a situation that both necessitates and allows this - should they be assassinated. Second, it appears that the implementing force received an additional order: if there are women or children in the area, assassination must be avoided and only arrests carried out. Here then, argues the sanctimonious Ha’aretz, is the proof that there was an alternative to assassination and that arrests were possible. Nonsense. This proves one thing only: that when there are innocent civilians on the premises, particularly women and children, IDF troops take on themselves a far greater risk. Third, it shows that the IDF places restrictions on the implementing force, in all things concerning the possible harming of innocent civilians. In the course of the meeting conducted by Gen. Naveh it was decided that only if there were as few as two unidentified men in addition to those that are wanted, could the operation take place. In a second meeting, this time under Gen. Tal Russo, it was decided to restrict this further and allow that only one innocent individual may be accidentally struck. The matter reached the chief-of-staff, and there too, Ashkenazi ordered that the operation against the arch-terrorists from Islamic Jihad take place only “if there is no more than a single unidentified individual” on the scene. Not even two. In other words, if there are women and children - the operation is off. And if there are two unidentified figures - the operation is off. And it should be stressed - there is certainly no order to take out the unidentified figure. However, if there is only one unidentified individual - the operation shall proceed. Does this violate the High Court of Justice’s rulings? Let us examine this. In the ruling, Barak states that “collateral damage in which innocent women and children are harmed shall be legal only if it abides by proportional standards.”

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we are talking about the accidental killing of two innocent civilians, compared to the striking of five murderers belonging to a terrorist cell. Is this proportional? Well, the man who was charged with targeted killings in the Pentagon, Marc Garlasco was interviewed on “60 Minutes,” and he told interviewers that when it came to the assassination of a senior Iraqi terrorist, the guidelines were to kill as many as 30 innocent individuals, in order to take the man out. Ha’aretz has failed to explain what it regards as proportional. Nor will it ever explain. This is because its target - the IDF, the State of Israel, has been marked in advance.

The vilified Goldstone argued at the time that he had examined matters and come to the conclusion that the US army conducts itself in strict accordance with international law. This is indeed so, for them it is one to 30 innocent men, and in Israel - permission is only given if there is one unidentified figure on the scene. And no, there is no order take him or them out. There is a huge gulf between Israel and the United States. This Garlasco, incidentally, took responsibility for the killing of some 200 innocent civilians, as part of pursuits after wanted terrorists, all while no terrorist was actually struck. These are the ratios. This is the proportionality. No international arrest warrant was issued against Garlasco. On the contrary, Garlasco himself became a senior member of Human Rights Watch.

Fourthly, it appears that in order authorize every operation against Islamic Jihad members, many deliberations in many different echelons take place. In these deliberations it was determined that innocent civilians shall not be harmed. That arrests should be preferred over assassination. That women and children must be protected. That proportionality must be rigorously defended. And these were not merely debates, the OC Central Command himself could not approve the operation, and the authorization of the chief-of-staff was required. Can this complex process, of wavering, of debate after debate, of orders to safeguard the lives of women, children and innocent civilians, of clear definition of proportionality - be called a war crime, or “murder”? In fact, the entire debate is purely theoretical. In the course of the mission discussed by Ha’aretz, two terrorists were killed, Ziad Tzubahi Mahmad Malaisha and Ibrahim Ahmad Abed-El Latif A'abad. The two, not only according to the IDF, but also according to a statement published by Islamic Jihad, were killed as they attempted to resist arrest, while they were armed with M-16s and conducting a battle with IDF troops. Islamic Jihad regards them as fallen troops. Ha’aretz creates the impression that they were victims of war crimes.

In the very same article Ha’aretz presents the views of mostly three legal experts, Motta Kremnizer, David Kremnizer, and Moshe Hanegbi. They conclude, each in his own way, that the IDF has violated IDF orders, and insinuate war crimes. Based on what? What evidence do they present? Any search will be in vain. Ha’aretz turned to three legal experts whose opinions it knew in advance. They would not have allowed themselves to be bothered by the facts. The aim was to implicate the IDF. The legal experts, all identified with Meretz, and perhaps even left of this, brought home the bacon. However, there was another opinion. Following the report, two attorneys, Michael Shepherd and Avigdor Feldman, approached the attorney general and demanded that the matter be investigated. The attorney general at the time, Meni Mazuz wrote in a reply: “the military sources in the IDF General Staff received constant legal council, were aware of High Court of Justice guidelines, stressed and executed this in every state of planning and approval of the mission.”

However, neither will Ha’aretz allow itself to be bothered by the facts. After all, legal advice is not an exact science. Therefore, the paper chose to approach legal experts who would recite exactly what they sought to hear. These, in turn, certainly did their job. True, there is a contrary decision out there. But this is rendered unworthy in view of the fact that it does not abide by the views of the paper’s commissars.

One could, of course, add that the number of targeted killings in recent years stands at approximately zero. There were targeted killings during the second Intifada, aimed against arch-murderers, and also innocent civilians were killed. However, following the 2006 High Court ruling, the number of assassinations did indeed decline, and the number of innocent civilians killed in the process fell to zero.

And now, in order to justify the view it has long held, Ha’aretz attempts to create the opposite impression, one of mass targeted killings and harming of innocent civilians, contrary to the High Court’s ruling. Anyone reading the paper, and sadly this is a paper that reaches many, may get the impression that the IDF is deeply engaged in the criminal act of assassination. Nothing could be further from the truth. The demonizing, and delegitimising of Israel got some help these past days thanks to Ha’aretz. The paper has the right to hold its views. It has a right to run any story it pleases. However this present affair should be called by its name: a libel manufactured by Ha’aretz.

Ben Dror Yemini, Senior Writer at the Maariv Newspaper in Israek, was born in Tel-Aviv , Israel in 1954, on the eve of Passover. Hence the name, Ben Dror: the son of freedom..

He studied Humanities and History in Tel Aviv University , and later on he studied Law. After his university studies, he was appointed advisor to the Israeli Minister of Immigration Absorption and then became the spokesman of the Ministry.

In 1984, he began his career as a journalist and essayist and published the book "Political Punch" which deals in a critical way with politics and society in Israel. He worked as a lawyer and was a partner in a law firm. Since 2003 he is the opinion-editor of the daily newspaper Maariv and also published many articles and essays in other journals.

In recent years he researched and published "Industry of lies " about publications against the State of Israel and its Jewish character, which he considers false. In this framework, he published a series of research articles about the Israeli-Arab conflict in which he examined the issues of genocide, refugees, Palestinian and Arab capital, the status of Israeli Arabs , Multiculturalism , and the status of women. All these articles included a comparative study about each topic.

According to Yemini, "the modern Anti-Zionism is a politically correct Antisemitism ". He argued that the same way Jews were demonized, Israel is demonized, the same way the right of Jews to exist was denied, the right for Self-determination is denied from Israel, the same way Jews were presented as a menace to the world, Israel is presented as a menace to the world. In his comparative studies, he presents the huge gap between the myths against Israel, from one hand, and the real facts, from the other hand.

See this and more at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Senior Palestinian Official Complains: Current Israeli Army Deployment Makes It “Impossible” To Attack

by David Bedein

This week, Jerusalem Post Palestinian Affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh, provided a telling and important statement from a senior Palestinian official. Nabil Shaath, one of the founders and most influential leaders of the Palestinian Authority and the Fatah, said to Abu Toameh, on the record, on April 5, that Palestinian Authority security forces have every right to launch an attack against Israel (using their American weapons) but that they can’t because the deployment of IDF in Palestinian areas makes this unworkable. In the words of Mr. Shaath, “The option of an armed intifada under the current circumstances, where Israel fully occupies the West Bank and is besieging the Gaza Strip, is impossible.” For example, the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo has not been shelled in more than six years from the nearby Palestinian village of Beit Jalla, since the Israeli army has quietly returned its patrols and surveillance of Beit Jalla, to prevent these very attacks.

See this report in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this report at Israel Behind the News