But surely an action like this, bringing the murderers of three innocent teenagers to justice in the Palestinian Authority's interest.

Should it be that Hamas was not responsible, it puts distance between the PA and the killers, plus it shows that the PA can act in a mature and dignified manner.

It would also give the Israelis no grounds for carrying out attacks.

It appears a win win. Why not do it if, as the PA has said, that it is not involved nor sanctioned the killings?

Edited by matt_himself (07 Jul 2014 5.37pm)

I think the rise of Hamas in popularity among Palestinians is testament to the oppression that they have suffered at the hands of Israel. Israel has never had any intention of allowing a Palestinian state, and given the violence that they have inflicted upon a poor and impoverished people while stealing their land it can come as no surprise that the people have come to believe that their only hope lies in people also prepared to use violence. What would make a difference is if the international community would hold Israel to account for its actions.

Because working directly with the Israelis would be anathema to most Palestinians and would weaken support for the PA itself from within. It is also difficult to believe that any Palestinian that was handed over to the Israeli authorities would receive a fair trial or be treated in a humane way. I also fail to see how it would stop the Israeli attacks, they have never needed a reason to attack Gaza and the West Bank before and had already signaled their intention for collective punishment of the Palestinian people before collecting any evidence. Far from showing that the PA could act in a dignified manner it would demonstrate to the majority of Palestinians that the PA was being dictated to by the Israelis and could not stand up to them.

I'd agree to a certain extent that the rise of Hamas is due to oppression and fear. It's the same reason Israelis have been voting in the right into government....It's a basic human reaction.

However, oppression and fear are hardly new in this situation and what also saw the rise of Hamas was the failure of Fatah on corruption and the forever dire economy.....Of course all they did in reality was vote to make reality worse for themselves.

You say that Israel has never had any intention of allowing a Palestinian state. I think that's factually wrong actually. The 2000 Camp David Summit came very close to a two state solution with Jerusalem a shared capital......Clinton is pretty clear on how close this came....It wasn't Israel who pulled the plug but Arafat.

If that agreement had been signed both sides would have been fighting a civil war with extremists.....Arafat no doubt was far less confident of prevailing.

Israel is a democracy that contains many people who aren't anti two state at all. I think it's over emotional of you to characterize Israel as a purely negative entity.

Hamas however is against democracy (no elections since they took Gaza), anti western and committed to the deaths of all Jews. From my perspective you should be far harsher on them and more balanced on Israel.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Jul 2014 8.05pm)

A common misunderstanding of the Camp David Accords and the reason for the summits failure. The deal presented would have left the Palestinian state split into three cantons with the vast majority of the water sources held within the borders of Israel. Such an agreement would have offered neither economic viability nor the minimal requirements for a politically independent state. Clinton, the supposed 'mediator', allied himself with the Israelis and tried to force Arafat to accept an agreement which the Israelis knew from the outset would be unacceptable to the majority of Palestinians. Clinton was more concerned with posterity then any real concern for the plight of Palestine.
I would also have to disagree that Israel is a democracy. While the people can vote, Israeli Muslims are second class citizens with no political representation and are sidelined in housing, education and employment.
Of course, Hamas is no friend of democracy but a people under daily attack from an aggressive, invading army are hardly likely to worry about the niceties of political processes.

The evidence is all over the internet and I’m sure you could find it with a little investigating. It's all common knowledge among commentators taking an objective view.
Yes, Hamas could set up an election in theory but my point is not that they cannot physically do so but that the constant Israeli attack means that they have a ready made excuse why they are not permitting elections which the Palestinian people will buy. Also, it must be noted that Hamas won an election, they did not simply take power, which means that in the eyes of the people they are a legitimate part of government.
It is certainly true that elections are often held under duress. Those would be the elections such as the one in Syria or in the east of Ukraine which the West then complains are tainted.
The four anti's, that I assume you are labelling Hamas with, are all true, although i think they would argue that 'no peace' is in fact 'no surrender' and the 'anti western' is born out of the wests indifference to the plight of Palestine. Israel could easily be labelled with anti-democratic and anti-peace. It is also anti-Arab, the fact that the two sides have become so diametrically opposed over the years is clearly something that goes back generations......