Mind you, I tend to think this guy's full of shit, but those who actually are collaborators do so for a variety of reasons, and bravery's got very little to do with it. Self-preservation, greed, power, getting into a position where someone is trapped into doing it, and sheer stupidity in being conned by the occupying force which lies about the outcome in order to gain the collaboration and there's an example of that in what I'm going to post a link to. And if Palestinian collaborators are anything like WWII collaborators, the vast majority of them would shift from being collaborators to engaging in active resistance if they think that the occupying power is on the wane, which is what happened in Vichy France after D-Day...
"We found the same in the case of collaborator Majdi Makawi, who was one of two people officially executed by the Palestinian Authority. (He was executed at the beginning of the Intifada. After the trial, Palestine Television broadcast a live interview with him). Makawi had provided information that led to Israel's killing of his uncle, a Fateh activist, in a premeditated ambush on the outskirts of Rafah in the Gaza Strip. Israeli intelligence officers had convinced Makawi that the information he offered to Israel on his uncle's movements would lead to his capture and that this would be the only way of saving him from death.
This arouses further complex questions. Is collaboration done out of personal or public motives? Are the dealings voluntary or forced? In Europe, some collaborated for no political reason and under no pressure. Rather they viewed the issue as a private game, a way to get money or as their own submission to the power of the occupier. Is collaboration equal in all of these cases? In the event of collaboration under extreme pressure, is there a sort of "legitimization" that justifies a softening of the punishment?"
http://www.palestinereport.org/article.php?article=63Violet...