+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

WATCH: Settlers assault Israeli in West Bank, tell soldiers to shoot

On Saturday morning, Israeli Ta’ayush activists accompanied Palestinian residents of the village of Shweika in the South Hebron Hills to their grazing and farm lands in a valley near the illegal Eshtamoa outpost. According to Guy, a veteran activist and documenter, settlers and Israeli soldiers have been obstructing or preventing access to the land in recent weeks, despite the fact that Israeli authorities recognize the valley as private Palestinian land and have restricted any Israelis from entering it.

Just before 11 a.m., 10-15 settlers came down from the outpost into the valley – most of them with their faces covered to avoid identification – and began throwing stones, some of them using slingshots. As can be seen in several videos below, three of the settlers violently assaulted one activist, with one of the settlers  using a club. Watch the second video to the very end: You can see a soldier slowly making his way up to the settlers who run off after the attack. He did not try and stop them, does not run after them, and in fact pats one on the shoulder in a friendly, not disciplinary manner. This kind of dynamic not only makes the double standard in treatment of Palestinians clear, but shows that it is in fact the settlers who run the show in these parts.

 

 

The activist was badly bruised on his arms, legs and back. According to Guy, soldiers in the area looked on and did nothing to prevent it, nor did they detain the settlers or demand to see their faces and identify them. Guy, along with the victim and another activist, went to the Kiryat Arba police station to file a complaint. The police said the incident will be investigated.

Two of the soldiers who were in the valley at the time of the incident also happened to be at the police station. They told Guy that an armed settler screamed at them to shoot at the Israeli Ta’ayush activists, threatening to do so himself if they refused his order. Unfortunately, based on over a decade of Ta’ayush experience with similar incidents, the chances that these settlers will be brought to justice is next to nil, despite clear evidence.

Several Israeli news sites reported on the incident in Hebrew. According to Haaretz’s report, the IDF Spokesperson responded by stating that the video was “tendentiously edited” and that the soldiers on the scene responded as per protocol: they “distanced the residents” [presumably they mean settlers] and called the police to investigate the suspects.

As far as Guy knows, no suspects were taken into custody – certainly not at the time of the incident, when it was most crucial.

Read more:
WATCH: IDF soldiers escort masked settlers attacking Palestinian village
Palestinians catch settlers allegedly attempting a ‘price tag’ attack

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Ginger Eis

      BREAKING NEWS

      The British Supreme Court (following the French Supreme Court) has just dropped a huge BOMBSHEL and it’s echoes are still roaring and reverberating throughout the walls of the International Legal Communities: ‘Israeli Companies in Judea and Samaria do NOT violate the Geneva Conventions or any other part of International Law’ (!!). This is yet another devastating EARTHQUAKE for the BDS-movement and the enemies of Zion.

      http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/177224

      Reply to Comment
      • Philos

        No, silly troll, that is not what the ruling means. They didn’t rule if the occupation is a violation of the Geneva Convention or not – they ruled that that wasn’t a sufficient excuse for violating the Holy Law of Private Property in the United Kingdom of Tyranny

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          Why do BDS-supporters love name-callings and nastiness? Anyway: (1) the Court ruled that the BDS-criminals were dully convicted of criminal offences. According to the Court the “evidence” provided by the defense is NOT evidence of crime in Int. Law by the victim! Your claims that said evidence was “not sufficient” is patently false; (2) I did not claim that the British Court ruled on the “occupation”. I said that it ruled that Israeli Companies in Judea and Samaria do not violate the Geneva Conventions or any other part of Int. law (as BDS claimed). Obviously the Court understands IPL and knows who is (not) bound by it (something your post reveals that you don’t. Hence, your confusion); (3) If you want to debate the legality of the “occupation”, PLEASE be my guest. Make your LEGAL arguments and I will counter. Let the readers be the Judge. This is a challenge. Be a man and debate!

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Why do BDS-supporters love name-callings and nastiness?

            To compensate for the lack of reasoning and legality, obviously.

            Reply to Comment
          • TobyR

            Well, even if I took evaluation of this case from radical settler websites and Israeli nationalist newspapers – which are so far the only ‘sources’ for this – seriously, I still wouldn’t take seriously the regurgitation of these ‘news’ by someone who cannot even spell.

            What I would rather do is look up the details on the Supreme Court’s officially published list of decided cases. (By the way: ‘Breaking news’ it ain’t, it’s four days old, and naturally you only dug it out to troll around a bit.)

            Well I did look up the ruling and what do I read there, among other things?

            ‘That offence derives, as the defendants said, from the Fourth Geneva Convention of
            August 1949 relating to the protection of civilians in time of war. If therefore a person, including the shopkeeper company, had aided and abetted the transfer of Israeli civilians into the OPT, it might have committed an offence against these provisions.’

            http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0198_Judgment.pdf

            So:
            “Make your LEGAL arguments and I will counter.”

            No, you make a legal argument first – you have made none so far, you merely quoted some things from the ‘news’ article on the issue, not from the actual ruling. Make a legal (and legible, which your previous statements barely are) statement, and we may counter.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            TobyR., I shall reply in two posts. Here is the firs. The CORE of the Ruling is as follows: (a) Int. law primarily binds States and, to an extent, International Organizations; (b) actions of actors not subject to Int. Law may constitute a breach of Int. Law ONLY IF specific, legal requirements are met; (c) said requirements, IF MET, would void the illegality of the offences for which the accused are charged with. The Court considered all the “WAR CRIMES” arguments raised by the accused to justify their criminal activities and found: (1) that the allegation that the occupier (i.e. Israel) commits “war crimes” is NOT proven and EVEN IF proven (2) that the mother- and the retail companies (based in Israel/West Bank resp. the UK) are NOT subject to Int. Law, while aforementioned requirements under which the activities of these companies may constitute breach of Int. Law are also not met. Hence, the defendants are guilty as charged. End of story.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Toby R., here is the second part of my response: I am more than happy to break-down legal stuff to you. But you MUST stop using obvious typos/errors to engage in personal attacks, because, inter alia, as evidenced in your own post, your English writing and comprehension aren’t that good (for a person whose mother-tongue is English and who speaks no other language than English)! Let’s leave ad hominem attacks out of the equation and have a civilized discussion re “occupation”, “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing”, BDS, etc. We may also have the discussions in Hebrew, German or Dutch if you command any of these languages. What say you?

            Reply to Comment
          • TobyR

            a) Wrong. The ruling is only peripherally concerned with international law. It was about a trespassing offence. If you think otherwise: Please quote, as I did, from the actual ruling and stick to it – instead of drawing conclusions that are 95% based on your imagination.
            b) What ever gave you the false impression that my mother tongue was English? It’s the language of this forum, so it’d be impolite and impractical to use any other. *Obwohl das fuer mich natuerlich kein Problem waere.*
            c) “firs”, “it’s echoes”, “BOMBSHEL”. Yeah… if I thought I needed additional English language courses, I’d look elsewhere.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            TobyR. See my reply to Greg below. That would answer ALL of your questions. For the rest I would remark the following: (a) what you call “imagination” is actually ‘Public International Law 101’ for 1st year law students. It is pure legal science within which judicial Ruling are- and must be interpreted. But a loud-mouthed buffoon wouldn’t know that, no? (b) You capitalize on “3” obvious typos to launch cheap personal attacks, but your OWN original post shows that you don’t even have basic knowledge of English writing, e.g., you do not know where to place the ‘commas’ and ‘full stops’, how to make use of ‘brackets’ and ‘hyphens’, etc. Even your attempt at German points to a ‘google-translation’. How pathetic! Ya know, an apostate Jew would tell you this: “You hypocrite! First, take the log out of your own eye; then you will see clearly, so that you can remove the splinter from your brother’s eye!” But, again, a loud-mouthed buffoon wouldn’t hear that, no?

            Reply to Comment
          • TobyR

            a) You’re just continuing to make claims without any connection to the actual ruling – which you had not even read before I linked to it. You most certainly haven’t quoted it, as I asked you to. Most likely you haven’t read it at all.
            b) I’m a native speaker of German.
            c) You seriously think your incoherent ramblings riddled with spelling errors are grounds to give others lessons on proper language use.

            Conclusion: It is no use to try and communicate with people who are as out of contact with reality as you are. I’d advise you to seek professional help.

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            Whoa! Did you just quote the New Testament? Matthew 7:5? The Testament that Jewish MK Ben Ari ripped out of a Bible and said was responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews? Since you’re Jewish, how could you quote such a horrible thing, such a CHRISTIAN thing?? Ugh, Christians! Right?

            Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          It is always an exercise in futility to argue the law/legal science with someone who does not have legal background (of any kind). But I will take a leap of faith and hope that you have enough analytical power to analyze the Ruling embedded below. Pay particular attention from 2:50 onwards. Here you go:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLqda26Gr30&feature=player_embedded

          Let’s hear your arguments based on (a) what you have heard and (b) IPL (Int. Public Law).

          Reply to Comment
        • You would fare better, Philos, by excising the nullification British law as such, which otherwise places you outside of most political discourse. A law may be wrong, a decision wrong, but to claim that private property is wrong will hardly win hearts.

          I’ve read the provided link and viewed the video. It seems that those convicted of trespass (a rather loud and staying trespass) claimed that they acted individually to prevent an ongoing crime, which is indeed a defense obviating trespass. If I see an assault being committed on private property I can trespass therein to interdict the crime. The Court seems to have ruled that there was no real interdiction here, even upon the premise that a crime under the occupation is being committed. The panel left open the possibility that evidence that Ahava was actively recruiting residency into the territories could constitute a war crime, but even here the selling of a product lawfully entering the country does not remove trespass. Similarly, if the shop was selling ivory somehow lawfully entering the country, the same trespass would be actionable, even if the ivory was harvested against international law. As the court summary says, the blame and redress action rests with the government allowing the import.

          This decision is not, however, and EARTHQUAKE, nor even just an earthquake. It simply says that third party assaults on property interdicting lawful business do not generally reach, say, seeing a murder in the making, which would immunize a trespass.

          I think the best way to think of BDS is as an extension of the labor strike and its ancillary support. A picket line is a call to boycott, a call to fellow workers and others sympathetic to the cause. A boycott has nothing to do with chaining oneself inside a store; nor does advocating a boycott within the State of Israel, which is now a civil offense in Israeli law. There is no parallel between a call to boycott as in a call to strike and the action considered by the UK Court here. Boycotts and strikes performed outside of the target property are generally lawful in the West, but not in Israel. Similarly, divestment is a personal act of boycott and involves no trespass; I simply remove the offending material (say a stock) from my property. Sanction is solely a State or international convention affair and is, in most instances, a political matter. One could, for example, sanction against the making of clothes under inhospitable conditions by banning their import.

          Nothing is gained by lumping the action of the petitioners as BDS as such. It was not. It was, rather, an attempt to alter the political environment, failing of the moment. It is my opinion that BDS is a personal decision which loses when imposed as mandatory ideology. Muzzling a call for boycott–inside or outside Israel, muzzles free speech and association. This has nothing to do with sustaining conviction for trespass onto private property, except in so far as those so acting have hijacked BDS beyond its range of enjoyment. As I do believe in civil resistance, I can admire their commitment unto jail; but that admiration in the abstract is contingent on them indeed going to jail.

          For what it is worth, I have lately purchased two coins from Israel. One is South African, dated 1990, the year of Mandela’s release, the date being the reason for purchase, actually; the other is Israeli with a semi-abstract representation of Ben Gurion and incoming refugees. So, in my incredibly tiny universe, I do not “practice” BDS against Israel proper. I guess if I did absolutely, I would have to refrain from commenting on 972! Which some would probably think a fine passing thing.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            You still don’t get it. I will try again in a more simplistic way. This is the core of the Ruling (i.e. currently the law of the land: (1). Israeli companies operating (a) are not committing war crimes and/or (b) aiding and abetting war crimes by (c) operating in Judea and Samaria and (d) employing people who live in Judea and Samaria or come over from Israel to work there. (2) Selling so-called “settlement products” is not aiding and abetting war crimes. (3) Buying so-called “settlement products” is not aiding and abetting war crimes. Aforementioned takes away (a) the moral- and (b) legal arguments of the BDS-movement for boycotting Israeli products made in Judea and Samaria. This is why the Ruling is an EARTHQUAKE! But I understand that 99% of the people here choose to ignore that and believe in whatever phantasy that makes them feel good. I am not surprised at all.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Correction

            “(1). Israeli companies operating (a) are not committing war crimes and/or …”

            Pls. remove the word “operating” (thank you).

            Reply to Comment
          • Ah, the Dominatrix, who says things like

            ” I am more than happy to break-down legal stuff to you. But you MUST stop using obvious typos/errors to engage in personal attacks, because, inter alia, as evidenced in your own post, your English writing and comprehension aren’t that good (for a person whose mother-tongue is English and who speaks no other language than English)! Let’s leave ad hominem attacks out of the equation…” and “It is pure legal science within which judicial Ruling are- and must be interpreted. But a loud-mouthed buffoon wouldn’t know that, no?” to TobyR, above (with of course no ad hominem attack at all). Perhaps there is an awards ceremony in it for you. With a whip.

            No, the Court did not say there were no war crimes, but that irrespective of that trespass is not annulled. By saying that inviting Israelis to move to the Bank the corporation might be engaging in a war crime, the Court leaves open the issue of population transfer as a crime. So the phrasing “come over from Israel to work there” does not obviate the State’s complicity, as occupier, in allow that to occur.

            Even if the corporation did actively recruit Israelis to live in the West Bank, this would not in itself annul the trespass for which petitioners were convicted. Transacting in the product derived from a crime (which would here be the placement of settlements in which Israeli workers or managers or owners reside)need not itself be a crime; or, if it is, does not obviate trespass, this latter case being enforced solely by the State. Trespass is lawfully annulled when it prevents actual harm in the making (so I break down a door when I hear a cry for help). The phrase the Lord uses in his summary is “highly attenuated,” meaning there is no direct actual harm to be prevented which would compel a trespass.

            That’s why I used the example of ivory. It may be illegal to kill elephants, but once killed, absent an overt legal ban on the selling of ivory, there is no crime in the selling. And, even banned, the crime as such is not a matter of impending harm to person or property, so trespass applies nonetheless. So here, the UK, as a political matter, would have to decide to ban the product import.

            There is no EARTHQUAKE, just a simple application of UK trespass law, really back to the common law. But you keep using capitals and it will be so.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Greg, what you just did is why people fail bar exams. Any law student who annotates a Ruling the way you just tried to, gets a “0”! See my reply below to both yourself and AndrewR. Anyways, we are not in law school here and as such are allowed to argue whatever we want, however we want and have fun doing it. That’s what counts. You have a point re the TobyR-issue. But, as you can see I did offer TobyR a bridge to walk over to civilized discussions. Instead of doing that, he dug himself dipper in nastiness. I usually do not turn the other cheek more than once. Tip: always limit your post to not more than 11 lines (for initial post) and 9 lines (for replies) on an A4 paper if you want all of it to be posted. You need to redact and make all the arguments in a few sentences. I know you can do it.

            Reply to Comment
        • jamal barodi

          Calling him a silly toll was childish….Ginger Eis is right the Left in their supreme arrogance use name calling when they don’t have a sensible response…..

          Reply to Comment
      • andrew r

        ‘Israeli Companies in Judea and Samaria do NOT violate the Geneva Conventions or any other part of International Law’ (!!).

        Did you even bother to read what you linked?

        “But the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, saying that the factory did not contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention simply by being located in a “settlement”, stating that in its view that would only be the case if it actively encouraged people to move there.”

        Going by that one paraphrase, the court admitted the factory might potentially be responsible for warcrimes if it encouraged people to move to a settlement. There shouldn’t even be a lengthy subthread under your original post, given the conclusion you jump to stems from an attack of selective illiteracy.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          Greg & Andrew, Let’s use a thought-experiment to walk through the issues. Chapter I of The Criminal Code of a country called +972.com states: Article 1(1): “it is unlawful to kill a rabbit”. Article 1(2): “a rabid rabbit must be killed”. A kills a rabbit called B. A is charged with unlawful killing of B. A does NOT deny killing B, but claims that B is rabid. If the Court accepts the truth of A’s claim, it must acquit A. If not, it must convict A. “A’s conviction” equals “B is not rabid”. Ok thus far? Now, let’s use this key to unlock the Ruling. UK law states: ‘an act is not illegal if carried out to prevent/stop war crimes’. A & B were charged with trespassing on the business of C. A & B do NOT deny trespassing, but claim rather that C aids and abets war crimes. If the Court accepts the truth of that defense (i.e. C aids and abets war crimes), it MUST acquit A & B. if not, it MUST convict them. The “conviction of A & B” equals “C is not aiding and abetting war crimes”. The “acquittal of A & B” equals “C is aiding and abetting war crimes”. This is the HEART of the Ruling.

          Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            For starters, let’s read the actual ruling, which I’m going to link for the second time in this thread:
            http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0198_Judgment.pdf

            Now, we’re dealing with a little problem called court rulings are more complicated and nuanced than your silly through experiment. Here’s some background:

            Section 68 [which the protestors were convicted under] is concerned only with a criminal offence against the law of England and Wales. (…) In a prosecution under section 68 the Crown is not required to disprove the commission of every criminal offence which could conceivably be committed by the occupant(s) of the land. A specific offence or offences must be identified by the defendant and properly raised on the evidence.

            and this gem…

            Mr Southey’s realistic concession is correct, for not every incidental or collateral criminal offence can properly be said to affect the lawfulness
            of the activity, nor to render it criminal. It will do so only when the criminal offence is integral to the core activity carried on. It will not do so when there is some incidental or collateral offence, which is remote from the activity.

            and finally the big whopper:

            Even if there had been aiding and abetting, and assuming that it could properly be said that the shopkeeping company suspected this
            to be the case, the criminal property offence could not be said to be integral to the activity of selling; it was on any view a collateral matter which did not render selling unlawful.

            So no, sorry, no. This was not a ruling on the Geneva Convention’s applicability to selling products made in the West Bank. The only concern of the court is whether there was an unlawful offense the trespassers intended to disrupt that is integral to the core activity of the store. If you read the whole ruling, it becomes rather clear that the burden of proof is very stringent, possibly to the point the store would have to be set up for the express purpose of aiding and abetting warcrimes for the defense under section (ii) to work in the defendants’ favor.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Ignorance that is also arrogant is a very bad mental infection as evidenced in your latest post. Why bother replying/waste your time and engage in nastiness at the same time. Where is this automatic urge to engage in nastiness coming from? I am done. Take you ghetto-attitude to someone else of your kind.

            Reply to Comment
    2. Bolo

      This is the kind of evidence that needs to be collected for the ICC. Clearly government supported ethnic intimidation. Little cowards.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Vadim

      Violent human trash exists everywhere, in both Arabs and Jews, secular or religious.

      That said, I can’t understand why there is never a single coherent video clip where we can actually understand what’s going on.

      Reply to Comment
      • If some Palestinians had beaten a settler with a club, in plain sight of the IDF, do you think those Palestinians would even be at large right now?

        This is not violent thuggery that might happen anywhere: at many of these outposts, assaulting local Palestinians is practically a Saturday sport, and the army stands there and does nothing. I will never forget one day near the outpost at Havat Ma’on in February 2011, when the kids from Tuba and Maghayir al-Abeed were making the journey home from school. Masked settlers from the outpost were lying in wait carrying clubs. Seriously? You’re grown men and your idea of a nice afternoon is to go out and terrify a bunch of primary-aged children, stop them from getting home? One little girl was so frightened that her whole body was shaking and she was begging to wait for the army. What makes this incident so memorable is that the army has agreed to provide an escort home to these children, because even they recognise the danger from the outpost. But they’re constantly late or they don’t show up at all, so the children are left waiting at the school, having to decide whether to risk getting home alone. What should be a short journey back can take hours. On the day I’m talking about, when the border police finally turned up (after numerous phone calls from the Christian Peacemaker Teams member who was with the children), they chatted quite casually with the masked, club-wielding settlers and informed the CPTer that the children had ‘provoked’ the settlers by trying to walk on the road. We mustn’t let the children be on the road, it’s not for Arabs, they have to walk on the edge. And then they set off driving, with the children following behind. They sped up the jeep when they neared the settlers, leaving the children alone on that road, and they were laughing as though it was the funniest thing they’d ever seen as a gaggle of anxious and tired seven-year-olds who had been waiting for three hours broke out into a run to keep up.

        This is why, even in cases where Palestinians have been shot dead by settlers, the perpetrators are extremely unlikely to face prosecution: under the law they are superior to the people they’re attacking. This is a regime where some people aren’t worthy to tread on the road and harassing them is a spectator sport. This kind of thing is only to be expected.

        Reply to Comment
        • There will be no reply, Vicky. People do not exist, only the People, their enemy and the rules of battle.

          Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >If some Palestinians had beaten a settler with a club…

          err…

          During this particular accident some Jews had beaten another Jew.

          Reply to Comment
          • “During this particular accident some Jews had beaten another Jew.” : Indeed–then the law on assault should be applied fully.

            By the way, a white helping blacks might find them subject to KKK violence as well. Indeed, during the civil rights movement some young whites found themselves thereby dead, at least one Jewish, if I recall right. If one will not defend the assaulted white, what say we of the assaulted black?

            Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >We mustn’t let the children be on the road, it’s not for Arabs, they have to walk on the edge.

          Nearly correct.
          We mustn’t let the children be on the road, it’s not for pedestrians, they have to walk on the edge.

          1. General guidance (1 to 6)
          1
          Pavements (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided. Where possible, avoid being next to the kerb with your back to the traffic. If you have to step into the road, look both ways first. Always show due care and consideration for others.

          2
          If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light and keep close to the side of the road.
          It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you. Cross back after the bend.
          https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35

          Unless, of course, you want to claim that Arab pedestrians demand a special set of rules, including a right to walk in the middle of the road and cause disturbance to traffic.

          Reply to Comment
          • Somehow I doubt that the reason why they descend on small children, masked and carrying clubs, stems from a zealous civic desire to enforce the Highway Code of the United Kingdom on a lane in South Mt Hebron that is lucky if it sees two cars a day.

            Reply to Comment
    4. The Trespasser

      >Two of the soldiers who were in the valley at the time of the incident also happened to be at the police station. They told Guy that an armed settler screamed at them to shoot at the Israeli Ta’ayush activists, threatening to do so himself if they refused his order.

      So, an armed Israeli settler screamed at armed Israeli soldiers so they’d shoot an unarmed Israeli activist.

      With all due respect, this is bullshit, plain and simple.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Philos

      I broke my own policy of not feeding the trolls, and for that I am sorry.

      To comment on the article, I hardly think this is surprising. We have to look at the wider context where there is an entrenched discourse of incitement against dissidents that will no doubt enable greater violence

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        I see you have crawled out from beneath the rock you hid after earlier bruising battles, Philo. Well, it is perplexing, isn’t it, that Ta’ayush-gangs feel called upon by their radical anarchist ideology to (a) disobey, insult and abuse IDF-soldiers, (b) not have normal paying jobs, but rather (c) collect HUGE FUNDS from their FOREIGN GOVERNMENT paymasters, (d) wake-up every morning, (e) drive down to Judea and Samaria, (f) seek out “Settlers” and harass and threaten them. Yet, when a few threatened juveniles defend themselves and beat them up, these Ta’ayush-gangs run back to the IDF-soldiers crying like babies: ‘waah, waah, waah, please protect us, the boys beat us up’. Pathetic, no?! Anyways, they whose means of livelihood is to harass and threaten “Settlers” must always remember that “Settlers”, like all humans, have Human Rights too, including the Right of self-defense! The heavily edited video in the article does not tell the whole story.

        Reply to Comment
        • JG

          Why do occupation-supporters love name-callings, insults and nastiness?

          Reply to Comment
    6. sh

      Wonderful diversion to distract from the very obvious fact that a settler is clearly seen bludgeoning someone. Who cares if Ahava activists transgressed the law by trespassing? So they’ll know to protest without trespassing next time.

      Now address the question of settler violence, vandalism and price-tag operations that for some mysterious reason seem almost always to go unpunished although forces of order are usually present. And while you’re at it, the fact that if the situation was reversed the culprit would be found on the spot and jailed without trial or the right to a lawyer even if underage. That total imbalance is, after all, what this article is about.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Common, Sh. This is unlike you. Attacking anyone (with or without deadly weapon) has no place in my world – except in a case of self-defense (I think we agree on that). The video provided to us by Ms. Zonszein is heavily edited. That suggests, at the very least, some kind of manipulations and unprofessional reporting going on. As such, fairness demands ALL of us NOT to form any opinion based on such video clip. (2) The news from the UK I consider a very important debate topic, not “diversion” (you unfairly attribute to me intentions unbeknown to me). The Ruling of the UK Supreme Court has far reaching consequences: it means, among others, that the argument may no longer be made (albeit validly) that selling and/or buying “settlement products” amount(s) to a aiding and abetting war crimes or somehow violates Int. Law. What – given similar Ruling in France – would be the justification to protest “settlement products” in the UK, France and/or elsewhere in the EU?

        Reply to Comment
    7. Piotr Berman

      The fact that activists in UK were fined 250 squid (is it the name of the currency there?) for trespassing does not justify trespassing and assault by the settlers. By the way, I followed the link given by Ginger. Arutz Sheva is a pretty solid news source, even if their commentary is utterly fascists, so Ginger could read it more carefully (perhaps too much to ask, we are talking about reading AND comprehending).

      The British court is cited as “But the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, saying that the factory did not contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention simply by being located in a “settlement”, stating that in its view that would only be the case if it actively encouraged people to move there.”

      To me, it seems that the factory contravened Fourth Geneva Convention if it actively encouraged people to move there. That implies that “moving there to settle” is a crime in the light of 4GC, and this is precisely what the personnel of Ahava did.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Piotr., I shall reply in two separate posts. Here is the first. (1) One violence does not justify another unrelated violence. Agreed. But, (a) I did not say/suggest otherwise; (b) there is no evidence that (only) the settlers engaged in “trespassing”. At best, the land in question is disputed. Nor is (c) the video clip embedded in the article enough basis to conclude that the settlers were engaged in an unlawful act(s) of violence. They who edited said videos want us to see what they want us to see, think what they want us to think and force us, unbeknown to us, to make the conclusions they want us to make. I do not accept that – i.e. manipulating the thought-process of others to one’s own advantage.

        Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        (2) Breaking down Supreme Court Rulings is not an easy task (even for lawyers! Ask any lawyer). While Arutz Sheva’s headline: ‘Israeli Companies operating in Judea and Samaria do not violate Int. law’ is CORRECT, its analysis of how the Court came to that conclusion was not quite so. Above I linked http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLqda26Gr30&feature=player_embedded (i.e. video of the abridged version of the Ruling as read out by the Court). Pay particular attention from 2:50 onwards and (especially) the use of the “even ifs” by the Court. TobyR linked the hardcopy of the entire Ruling. The UK Supreme Court ruled (a) that the alleged war crimes committed by Israel are not proven and (b) even if proven (c) that the legal requirements that would allow the conclusion that the Israeli mother-company based in the West Bank and/or the daughter-company based in the UK aided and abetted such crimes, are not present. The UK Supreme Court does find that “occupation” in and of itself is not a-priori “a war crime”.

        Reply to Comment
    8. Piotr Berman

      Activists and shepherds were in the location where IDF allows grazing, so I assume it was the property of the Palestinians as interpreted by IDF which is not a neutral party here, but with a degree of authority. If settlers dispute it, in no way it justifies a violent attack, and one can be very dubious on what grounds they dispute it.

      It is beyond doubt that an activist was attacked and harmed by the settlers. The deed was filmed and the outcome noted by qualified medical personnel. The settlers have ample opportunity to present their story (and their faces), and they can choose friendly media. So far they are quiet.

      Concerning the British court, what was being addressed is not mere fact of occupation which may be legal, but the act of moving the population of the occupying country to the occupying territory. I guess it is criminal on the side of the government, but the culpability of the folks so resettled is open to interpretation.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        For the record, I have no opinion about the matter BECAUSE (a) the best evidence is being withheld and as such (b) a lot of questions remain unanswered. The best evidence is the complete video. That video exists. They questions you need to answer are these (1) Why is that complete video being withheld? (2) Why are you not interested in the complete video? (3) What transpired before the beating, what did the Ta’ayush “activists” did/say to the boys? (4) did the boys have reasonable fear for their lives? (5) Why do you make assumptions and base you judgment as to what factually happened on said assumption? etc. I understand the need to rush to condemn the IDF and settlers solely based on the claims of those who have a dog in the fight. But I am not going to be a party to that. Period. Beyond that, the Ruling of the UK Supreme Court, as I broke it down, is more than clear to those who have the knowledge to decrypt it. No need to run around circles on that issue.

        Reply to Comment
    9. The Ku Klux Klan also assaulted their self defined enemies while in small groups, hiding their identity. And the police invariably looked the other way.

      Here, however, two men, one with a grey beard, are clearly visible. They could be questioned, to remember nothing.

      If these masked men were Palestinian hitting a single settler they would be in jail. The filmed soldier is in no hurry and does not approach the assaulted individual. The soldier seems to be saying, in his bodily attitude quite near the settlers, “you’ve had your fun, time to go.” The older man shows no signs of distress at all. Things have gone well.

      Another report today on 972 notes that a bill to formally apply Israeli law to settlements and access roads failed in committee. It occurs to me that the IDF, while inviting the police into J&S, can at present informally nix investigations via a phone call of few words. This might not be so readily done if that bill became law. One woman’s just advance can be another’s hindrance.

      Reply to Comment
      • bob wisby

        Greg, your reading of the video suggests that you see prejudicial treatment, wanton disregard for law and complicity in assault-on the part of the Israeli police. Most of us see something else entirely: the Israeli police keeping order, making sure no Jewish victims are persecuted. What on earth can you see wrong in that?

        Reply to Comment
    10. Click here to load previous comments