Ning's got a funny threading system, so I'm responding here to Fred Schlomka's note posted elsewhere about an hour earlier.
I had elsewhere suggested for a demonstration of cooperation a joint IDF-PA patrol to secure the next olive harvest without further obligations or promises implied.
Fred responded, "James -
The PA police and security services are not permitted to operate in Area 'C' where the violence against Palestinian farmers occurs."
I'm sure there are other obstacles as well, and perhaps they should be addressed and attenuated.
Certainly, restrictions may be excepted for select personnel involved in a well defined joint exercise.
Other provisions and rules may be developed to produce field communications and safety all around--again, the test is of mutual cooperation and, to a lesser extent, settler restraint. The basis is simply the allowance afforded the harvest: if it's permitted as is, it needs to be kept secure as is.
Off-the-wall parallel: it is illegal in my state to interfere with a hunt, the possibility of harrassment included. The law was incorporated into code to keep those who don't like hunting from endangering hunters and themselves in the fields as well as interfering with the experience. It's hard to believe law had to be created to address that behavior, but people are passionate about their causes and at times incautious about their boundaries.
My suggestion isn't to have the PA take over IDF responsibilities in sensitive perimeters but to prove a potential for cooperation over a small rather than sweeping matter.
What I have in mind is a period of co-located patrols, assembled at common points, sent out in the same transporation, and held to a simple mission, which is to protect the harvest.
Is that asking too much, and of which camp? Or both?