Jewish Settlers Burn Down 400 Olive Trees

[Purveyor]

BETHLEHEM, (PIC)– Jewish settlers set on fire hundreds of Palestinian olive trees in Jaba village, south west of Bethlehem, on Saturday morning.

Local sources said that the settlers started the fire in the olive trees south east of the village that burnt down 400 trees owned by three Palestinians.

In another incident, Jewish settlers attacked and destroyed a Palestinian house in the Old City of Al-Khalil.

http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/jewish-settlers-burn-down-400-olive-trees/

[liberal N proud]

1. Guess they didn't want to extend the olive branch.

[enough]

2. Burning ancient fruitful trees, what a wonderful way to improve life on earth and

further the cause of humanity.

[kestrel91316]

3. That's just evil. I stopped supporting Israel a long time ago because of crap like this.

[oberliner]

4. That's the whole article, huh?

Really great reporting!

Not even a name on the byline to thank for their attention to detail.

[Purveyor]

7. Here this one has a name so make sure you scurry to your files and see what kind of dirt you

can find on Muhammad Hamdan or WAFA for that matter.



BETHLEHEM, July 20, 2013 (WAFA) – Israeli settlers Saturday set olive trees on fire in the village of Jabaa, southwest of Bethlehem, according to a local activist.

Muhammad Hamdan told WAFA that settlers burnt down olive tree fields in the Palestinian village destroying 400 trees.

Residents, he said, were able to extinguish the fire before it has reached other fields in the area.

http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=22842

[Shaktimaan]

17. So you believe this then?

That settlers started a huge blaze that consumed hundreds of trees before locals managed to somehow extinguish the fire without any firefighting equipment or hydrants or anything. And it's certainly true because it was observed by a single person, yet remains unreported on by any real news organization, like the ones in Israel that always report on acts of vandalism by settlers (as its a huge issue there.) Despite the myriad of legitimate and respected pro-Palestinian activist groups in the West Bank no one managed to get any photos of this incident.

[Purveyor]

18. "like the ones in Israel that always report on acts of vandalism..." Oh indeed 'they' do...lmao.

[shira]

19. Like Haaretz. n/t

[Shaktimaan]

23. Yes. They do.

In fact, here's a list in case you were unaware.

http://www.justvision.org/organizations

So what's the story? Are you just completely unaware that these organizations exist? You believe there was a huge fire that nobody at all thought was newsworthy? Incidents like graffiti are always reported yet arson somehow slipped through the cracks?

I'm the last person who'd defend settler acts of vandalism or violence. But you can't deny that fabrications like this one are commonly posted. If there was even scant evidence then real news orgs would be reporting it. Remember the "Jenin massacre?"

[roody]

28. Please direct us to a 'real news

organization'.

[Shaktimaan]

29. Ok.

You've never heard of ha'aretz? Or Al Jazeera?

But honestly, there are plenty of respectable NGOs who report this kind of stuff that you can look to as well. Like btselem, peace now or many of the other orgs on the list I previously posted. All are more trustworthy than the source of this OP, who also once admonished Israel for using nuclear weapons against the Palestinians.

[azurnoir]

30. well you know full well

if Israel doesn't report it, it did not happen because those Arabs all lie





well at least according to some here

[Larkspur]

5. We won't see this story on the US mainstream media outlets

But if it had been the other way around, it would have been sensationalized by the media and demands for the Palestinians to be bombed into submission would have cried through the Israel-can-do-no-wrong mob.

[Purveyor]

8. Fox News would have went to a 24 hour continuous loop of the incident, indeed. eom

[mitchtv]

6. that's some pretty lame stuff

It will not get covered here, thereby making it deny able

[PDJane]

9. It's business as usual. Earlier this month, they cut down 1,150 belonging to 25 families:

Zionist settlers cut down 1,150 olive trees belonging to 25 families in Awarta – Nablus
JULY 11, 2013 BY OCCUPIEDPALESTINE 0 COMMENTS

Maan News Agency | July 11, 2013


108046_345x230[1]NABLUS (Ma’an) — Israeli settlers on Thursday cut down 1,150 olive trees in Palestinian groves near Nablus, a Palestinian Authority official said.

Residents of Itamar settlement used chainsaws to cut down the trees north of Awarta, said Ghassan Daghlas, who monitors settlement activity in the northern West Bank.

The trees belonged to 25 Palestinian families and were planted in a 600-dunum grove, Daghlas said.

This is the agricultural miracle in action.

[ladjf]

10. Rampant thuggery. nt

[pansypoo53219]

11. terrorism.

forget jail. expel them PERMANENTLY. that would be the ultimate punishment for these RACISTS.

[shira]

12. Consider the racist source. Jews bad 24/7/365 n/t

[Purveyor]

13. I trust you are referring, incorrectly of course, to the article source, eh? eom

[shira]

14. Yep. n/t

[madrchsod]

15. can`t find any independent source on this story

i did find this which is interesting...

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/20137207591214685.html

and this from the nyt and oxfam

http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/the-plight-of-the-palestinian-olive-tree/

[oberliner]

16. Maybe it's BS?

Though given past incidents, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

Some other journalists ought to attempt to write a better article.

If this story is true, whoever is responsible should be held accountable.

It would be a shame for people to make generalizations about groups based on the behavior of a few of them.

[shira]

20. One witness, no photos, & who put out such a big blaze?

Ridiculous.

[oberliner]

25. It still could certainly true

Settlers have been known to do this sort of thing.

I, again, hope some real reporting can be done to get to the truth of this particular incident.

[Israeli]

44. maybe it is oberliner...

maybe its not
and " given past incidents, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. " either .

Some other journalists ought to attempt to write a better article.

some have ,
try here :
http://rhr.org.il/eng/2012/12/rhr-olive-harvest-report-2012/

I would love to see you deny reports from Rabbis for Human Rights as you do deny those from 972 .

If this story is true, whoever is responsible should be held accountable

LMAO .

[oberliner]

45. That report is from 2012

Do you have anything from Rabbis for Human Rights or any other group confirming the incident described in the OP?

Not sure why you brought up 972 as they do not appear to have reported on this story either.

Also, I have never denied any reports from 972 mag with the exception of anything written by Larry Derfner who has no credibility.

For instance, I completely believe that the biggest day of Ami Kaufman's life was getting his name posted on some weird internet list, as he claimed. Or maybe he was just kidding around. It's hard to tell the serious reporting from the gags on that site sometime.

They do put out a lot of material, though, so it's surprising they haven't covered the incident described in the OP.

If you can provide any sort of independent confirmation that it actually took place, I would appreciate it. As I said, based on the link you provided, and the countless other similar incidents in the past, I would have no trouble believing that it did. But I haven't seen any good reporting on it. Please share what you have.

[shira]

46. The whole point of delegitimization is to bash. Plain and simple.

This isn't about honesty & facts.

Never has been.

So the rightwing fanatics and fascists from Hamas and the PLO do it to demonize the hated Jews they all want dead, and all their left and right winged fascist friends join in for the ride.

[Israeli]

49. I'm perfectly aware ...

that the report was from 2012 ...which is why I said " given past incidents, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. "

Do you have anything from Rabbis for Human Rights or any other group confirming the incident described in the OP?

Nope .
These things take time to confirm ... and if you really care keep checking the links I already gave ... the truth always comes out oberliner but by the time it does who really cares ?

[Israeli]

21. next time source here Purveyor

http://www.btselem.org/topic/settler_violence

and here :

http://www.alternativenews.org/english/

[shira]

22. So nothing from B'tselem on this alleged incident either.

One would think those mean settlers were bad enough that stories wouldn't have to be fabricated about them.

[Shaktimaan]

24. He can't use them.

They don't make false allegations. That's the problem with legit peace organizations. They're committed to honesty.

[elleng]

26. DAMN!

[PDJane]

27. It happened. It was reported in at least five places that I can find.

In fact, during the olive harvest is a time that settler violence increases, as they burn orchards and harvest the olives themselves.

B'tselem does report these items often, and Nablus is a favourite target. It is also a fact of life that the IDF prevent fire trucks from reaching the fires and protect the settlers.

Israel is not an innocent. Sooner or later, this brutal occupation has to stop. It has nothing to do with Israel's security, and it never has.

[Shaktimaan]

31. Really?

In fact, during the olive harvest is a time that settler violence increases, as they burn orchards and harvest the olives themselves.

Did you know that, in fact, the olive harvest doesn't start for another few months? Look, the settlers are guilty of more than enough crimes that have actually occurred. This one seems to be completely fabricated though.

If you saw this reported in five places, I'd ask you why only in five? The two places I saw it reported aren't exactly known for their accuracy. And it seems to me that a huge blaze during the dry season would be a pretty difficult thing to put out, and even harder to keep hidden from the media. Yet there seems to be only one person who experienced the event who is willing to be quoted and no one appears to have thought to take a photo.

Israel is not an innocent. Sooner or later, this brutal occupation has to stop. It has nothing to do with Israel's security, and it never has.

The occupation began following Jordan's military attacking Israel. If it wasn't started for security reasons, then what do you think was the rationale? Because it kind of looks like the war might have had something to do with it.

[PDJane]

32. Someone is starting early.

[Shaktimaan]

33. Perhaps.

Or maybe someone else is just gullible.

I'd be willing to bet hard cash that you were also really convinced that the "Jenin massacre" occurred as well, with the mass graves and women and children being buried alive and the soldiers stealing Palestinian organs and so on. I bet you were super upset about that whole thing. It probably reinforced everything you already knew to be true about the conflict and Israelis in general too.

[PDJane]

34. I bet you get most of your information from the wrong sources

And get most of your exercise jumping to conclusions. I remain unconvinced of the Jenin massacre. However, the damage that rockets and so on do to Israel are minimal, considering the difference in armaments.

However, there are enough atrocities committed by Israelis in this illegal occupation to make them clearly the aggressor. Israel started life as a result of terrorism, and continues to use terrorism as a state tactic.

Israel has confiscated enough land to make it clear that the Palestinians are not going to 'push them into the sea.' The reverse issue is more the case.

[Shaktimaan]

35. Your reply is quite incomprehensible.

I remain unconvinced of the Jenin massacre.

Unconvinced about what aspect of it? That it actually occurred? Or that it did not? The truth about what happened has been known for quite some time now. It isn't exactly controversial at this point.

However, the damage that rockets and so on do to Israel are minimal, considering the difference in armaments.

Which has what? to do with Jenin? Besides nothing at all, that is. And why would the difference in armaments in any way affect the damage Palestinian missiles cause? What on earth does this paragraph even mean?

However, there are enough atrocities committed by Israelis in this illegal occupation to make them clearly the aggressor.

So you think that whichever side commits a certain number of atrocities is what determines who started the conflict? And what makes you think the occupation is illegal? It's not illegal. Also not a really contested point. Maybe you're thinking of the settlements.

Israel started life as a result of terrorism, and continues to use terrorism as a state tactic.

Well, initially the first acts that one would consider terrorism were all committed by Arabs upon the indigenous Jewish population of Palestine. The Haganah followed a pretty strict policy of havlegah.

HaHavlagah (Hebrew: ההבלגה‎, "The Restraint&quot was a strategic policy used by the Haganah members with regard to actions taken against Arab groups who were attacking the Jewish settlement during the British Mandate of Palestine. Its core principles were fortification and abstention from taking revenge on Arabs by attacking innocent civilians.

Israel has confiscated enough land to make it clear that the Palestinians are not going to 'push them into the sea.'

So you DO think the occupation provides a valuable security role!

[PDJane]

36. I remain unconvinced that the Jenin massacre ocurred, although 54 palestinian lives is quite enough.

Israel started the conflict in order to get the state of Israel, and she has continued that conflict in the way that it was started. All the Balfour declaration and the current conflict have done is move the 'Jewish problem' from Europe to the Palestine.

I think that Israel has committed enough atrocities to make her an international pariah if international law were being observed. Pushing people out of the way, using grazing lands for target practice, killing children, settlers lynching Palestinians and harvesting their crops, burning olive trees, jailing children for throwing stones, destroying homes, destroying infrastructure, attacks on the nomadic peoples...what about Israel's policies aren't illegal under current international law?

The Haganah said that they followed strict rules. In the beginning, they did, although the Palestinian settlement was illegal at that time, too. When WWII happened along, they became a well-armed and very vicious group. Partly, I do understand that they felt that they were fighting for their lives. However, as they became better armed and got the support of the UN, again, partly to move the problem from Europe, they started to commit atrocities, and they have continued to do so. Under that same international law, Israel is guilty of crimes against humanity, and the UN has agreed.

The confiscated territories may seem to give protection. They don't. Eventually, they will make Israel less secure. You cannot kill every Palestinian on earth, you can't confiscate every bit of land, and expect to live in peace. It doesn't work that way.

[Ken Burch]

38. I agree with most of that, but...

"Israel started the conflict in order to get the state of Israel"?

[PDJane]

40. Yes. And the continued conflict is simply to annex land.

This was a plan, and even the six day war was a calculated risk; they knew they were better armed. Israel is not an innocent. Don't ever think so.

[Ken Burch]

41. No, Israel as a country is not an innocent player in the situation.

What I was questioning was the assertion that Israel started the conflict in order for Israel to come into existence.

Logically, that sentence doesn't work. A country can't start a conflict in order to make itself start to exist.

Did you mean to say that ZIONISTS started the conflict in order to make Israel exist?

[PDJane]

42. Yes, sorry. Between the zionists, and the British, the Palestinians didn't have much say.

[Shaktimaan]

43. great

It's apparent to me that you don't have any actual source of information about this topic, but instead make stuff up as you go. Nothing in the previous post of yours has any basis in fact and seem to be nothing more than assumptions you've made that fit a viewpoint you arrived at a long time ago; that the conflict was begun by Israel who are also solely to blame for its continuation and for the perpetration of any atrocities committed.

It's frightening that you accuse me of getting my information from the wrong sources while you yourself seem almost allergic to anything remotely resembling accuracy. Literally nothing from your last post has any truth to it.

Israel started the conflict in order to get the state of Israel, and she has continued that conflict in the way that it was started.

So, the first instances of violence between the Arabs and Jews; the events that clearly punctuated the start of this conflict, were solely (literally 100% for over a dozen years), committed by Arabs against Jewish civilians. Beginning in 1920-21 with riots in Jerusalem that targeted indigenous Jews, to the massacres and ethnic cleansing that saw Hebron entirely evacuated of its Jewish population in 1929, to the organized boycotts, protests and ultimately rioting and violence against both the Jews and the British that occurred during the three year long Great Arab Uprising from 1936-39, all of the violence that occurred was perpetrated by Arabs. Bearing this uncontested fact in mind, how exactly do you consider the conflict begun by Zionists against the Arabs? The Zionists not only weren't the ones to initiate violence, but the Haganah actually had a firm policy of restraint barring retaliatory attacks as their core value.

I think that Israel has committed enough atrocities to make her an international pariah if international law were being observed.

I know you think that. But I'm not sure if you understand what an atrocity is or what international law actually says.

Pushing people out of the way,

Pushing people is an illegal atrocity?

using grazing lands for target practice,

I don't know what this refers to either, but it also doesn't sound like an atrocity.

killing children,

Killing children is an Israeli policy? That's weird because Israel has one of the lowest civilian to militant death ratios in modern history. If we are going to accuse any side of purposefully trying to kill children in this conflict, it wouldn't be Israel. Unless you think that Hamas thought that pizzerias and discotheques would be targets full of soldiers fort some reason.

settlers lynching Palestinians and harvesting their crops, burning olive trees

I'm pretty sure settlers never actually lynched any Palestinians. That said, the price tag attacks are egregious and indefensible. Which is why the Israeli government flat out condemns them along with the vast majority of all Israelis. In other words, 100% of Israeli policies regarding these attacks are about condemning or preventing them.

jailing children for throwing stones,

Arresting people for attacking soldiers and civilians isn't illegal or an atrocity. Stones thrown against cars has resulted in the deaths of the people in them. It's not exactly a victimless crime.

destroying homes, destroying infrastructure,

Are you referring to something specific that you consider illegal or an atrocity? Because those things tend to happen during war.

attacks on the nomadic peoples

There aren't any "nomadic peoples" to even attack, so I can't begin to dream of what you think is happening with this one.

what about Israel's policies aren't illegal under current international law?

So far you haven't mentioned any actual policies or laws that they're violating.

The Haganah said that they followed strict rules. In the beginning, they did, although the Palestinian settlement was illegal at that time, too. When WWII happened along, they became a well-armed and very vicious group. Partly, I do understand that they felt that they were fighting for their lives. However, as they became better armed and got the support of the UN, again, partly to move the problem from Europe, they started to commit atrocities, and they have continued to do so.

Can you explain how an organization that hasn't existed since the 40s are continuing to commit atrocities?

This paragraph is a prime example of what I mean when I say that you're clearly making your history up as you go. When WWII came along they fought for the british against the Nazis. Following the war acts of terrorism and violence were committed by Zionist extremists like the Stern Gang and Irgun. Groups that the Haganah helped the British find, arrest and in some cases deport in the operation known as "the hunting season." There are no examples of the Haganah committing atrocities, nor did they have "the support of the UN" whatever that means.

Under that same international law, Israel is guilty of crimes against humanity, and the UN has agreed.

What international law is that?

In 2009 there was a UN investigation into operation Cast Lead in Gaza that found that both Israel and the Palestinians MIGHT be guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. After further investigation the lead investigator, Richard Goldstone retracted his claims that there was any evidence of an Israeli policy to target civilians, but that the existence of such a policy on the part of the Palestinians was obvious. Which was a reference to the unguided rocket attacks from Gaza against Israel. More sophisticated rockets that were imported rather than made in Gaza (like the Katyushas), which were actually able to be aimed with greater accuracy were also aimed at residential cities and towns, rather than military installations.

The confiscated territories may seem to give protection. They don't. Eventually, they will make Israel less secure. You cannot kill every Palestinian on earth, you can't confiscate every bit of land, and expect to live in peace. It doesn't work that way.

What is a "confiscated territory?" Do you mean the occupied territories, or the parts that settlements were built on or territory that's been annexed (and considered by Israel to be a permanent part of the country now.)

Also, Israel's given back over 90% of all the land it occupied during the six day war. 20% of their population is Palestinian. They've had a Palestinian president and Palestinian members of congress. I don't think they're trying to kill all of them.

[shira]

47. Those who never condemn the Palestinians & say Israel is a terror-state....

...are almost all, without exception, the biggest supporters of terror, racism, and illiberal policy throughout the rest of the mideast.

[Ken Burch]

39. Deir Yassin was terrorism, and was completely unnecessary.

The people of that town had already signed a permanent non-aggression pact with the Zionists, thus making the attack that destroyed all vestiges of their homes completely unjustified.

Granted that wasn't the Haganah, but it was the military wing of the form of Zionism that dominates Israeli politics today...Revisionism.

[Shaktimaan]

50. Not exactly.

The massacre at deir Yassin was clearly terrorism and a war crime. This is an uncontested fact. That said, the decision to attack and occupy the village was a reasonable tactical decision intended to break the Arab siege of Jerusalem.

There was a peace agreement between deir Yassin and the nearby Jewish towns, not "the Zionists." The attackers intent was to evacuate and occupy the town for logistical reasons. The villagers defended the invasion causing dozens of Jewish casualties. Point being it was not a defenseless town populated entirely by civilians.

Once word of the massacre reached military commanders it was denounced by not just Ben Gurion (who sent an apology to the king of Jordan), but also by menachem begin, leader of the Irgun. The invading force had been under strict instructions to refrain from killing any women, children or prisoners from Begin, Ben Gurion and Haganah leadership... Which were obviously ignored, but demonstrate that the massacre wasn't the result of policy but perpetrated by the soldiers who invaded alone.

Revisionism doesn't currently dominate Israeli politics at all. You're trying to draw absurd parallels between an isolated event from the 40s and current politics that simply don't exist.

[Ken Burch]

51. The Likud Party is the political voice of Revisionist Zionism. It leads the government

and, unfortunately, seems certain to do so for years to come. No opposition party based on a humanistic, progressive alternative to the hate-based Revisionist vision, a vision that assumes that there can NEVER be a peaceful existence for Israel, is anywhere close to coming to power. The second-largest party, the one led by Lapid, is completely indifferent to the question of ending the war and is totally uninterested in doing anything to lessening the suffering Palestinians experience under the Occupation. If it wins the next election, it will be a victory for the status quo on the I/P front.

And the people of Deir Yassin were doing NOTHING to the people of Jerusalem. They had a right to be left in peace. There was no excuse, in fact, for the destruction of any of the Arab towns that were wiped off the map...destroying those towns was just as wrong as the destruction of Jewish towns in the Pale in the late Tsarist era. It's immoral to wipe the history of a people off of a map.

And that massacre had a lot to do with the distrust that Palestinians developed towards Israel. It would have been natural for them to reject the idea that they should accept a state that was capable of things like that(it didn't help matters that, rather than proscribing all Irgun members from the new IDF, almost all of them were included in it.)

Deir Yassin also made it impossible for Jordan to recognize Israel, something it had been prepared to do before the killings(the king of Jordan at the time of Deir Yassin said as much to Golda Meir during one of their clandestine meetings). Had Jordan been able to recognize Israel at the start, there might still have been some tensions, but the whole character of Israeli/Arab interactions would have likely been far less confrontational, and the rejectionism on both sides(Arab rejection of Israel and the equally noxious and wrong Israeli refusal to admit that Palestinians were a distinct national grouping who had to be engaged with if peace was to come)might have been avoided. Clearly, nothing at all would have been worse. Israel had already won the war, for all effective purposes, before the massacre occurred, and the end of the war would by itself have meant the end of any siege against Jerusalem.

[Shaktimaan]

52. Much of this is incorrect.

At the time of the massacre Israel was unquestionably losing the civil war. Deir Yassin was the very first offensive move on the part of the Yishuv and up until then they'd been seeing all of their remote kibbutzim and towns choked of supplies and cut off.

It doesn't matter if the inhabitants of Deir Yassin personally did anything to Jerusalem. It was a war. Israel had every right to occupy territory to break the siege on Jerusalem. These rules are spelled out in the Geneva conventions and rules of war. Had the inhabitants refrained from fighting they would have likely just been expelled as the attackers' orders stated.

Jordan never stated that it would recognize Israel. Nor did any Arab state have any intention of allowing an independent Palestinian state. Obviously, as they prevented one from existing after the war.

Arab rejection of Israel far predates the massacre as do many examples of massacres and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Arabs. Yet for some reason none of these seem to matter in your assessment. Despite years of these acts against the Jewish population you consider deir Yassin to be the cause of the conflict's intractible nature, even though it happened well into a war begun by the other side.

Btw, Likud was the party to make peace with Egypt, give back the Sinai and Gaza, close all the settlements on that land, and first initiate peace talks with the Palestinians. It's not exactly based on a rejection of peace.

[Ken Burch]

37. Another reason to remove the settlements...NOW.

No one who does that is ever going to be capable of living in peace.

[shira]

48. Are Palestinian terrorist haters & their supporters capable of living in peace? n/t