The saga of the olive trees

[Sauron]

I believe I reported this a few weeks ago:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/651690.html

Who will deal with the tree destroyers?

The illegal outposts, which the government has refrained from dismantling, are home to lawbreakers who, in addition to seizing lands that do not belong to them, are in the habit of assaulting their Palestinian neighbors, and the Palestinians' property and plantings, on the assumption that the arm of the law is too short to reach them.

In recent years, the olive harvest season has become a time of delight for some outpost residents, and the amount of destruction that they manage to wreak - with no interference - on Palestinian olive groves is mind-boggling. In the village of Salem alone, some 180 olive trees were torched in May, while 250 trees were chopped down in July and another 200 in October. On Monday, village residents discovered a group of Israelis, whom they recognized as residents of an outpost near Elon Moreh, using an electric saw to cut down dozens more olive trees. In total, some 900 olive trees have been destroyed in Salem alone over the last half year.

The destruction of olive trees is not just a mortal blow to the livelihood of rural Palestinians; it is primarily an evil act that reflects a desire to assail one of the most prominent symbols of the Palestinians' hold on the land and an attempt to prove that the settlers indeed intend to inherit these lands and expel their inhabitants. But the destruction of these trees also symbolizes the apathy, not to say cruelty, of the Israeli occupation and the law enforcement agencies' criminal disregard for the settlers' actions. The harm done to the trees is just the tip of the iceberg of the ongoing abuse that the outpost residents inflict on their neighbors. Since April, the nonprofit organization Yesh Din has submitted 84 complaints to the Samaria and Judea Police, covering incidents of murder, physical assault and other forms of abuse against Palestinians. Five cases have already been closed. Not one is being heard in court, and nobody has been arrested.

Now the right-wing settlers "defend themselves" in typically transparent dishonesty:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/668683.html

Experts: Palestinian trees were vandalized, not pruned
By Amira Hass

Palestinian olive trees in the West Bank are clearly being vandalized rather than pruned, two experts said yesterday.

They were responding to the Yesha Council of settlements' contention that Palestinians sometimes label pruned trees as having been vandalized in order to smear the settlers, who are believed responsible for the vandalism.

Professor Shimon Lavee, an expert in olive tree cultivation from the Hebrew University's agriculture department, refuted this claim after examining photographs of trees taken by the B'Tselem organization in Salem, near Nablus, and Tawana, south of Mount Hebron. According to B'Tselem spokeswoman Sarit Michaeli, Lavee said that trees as young as the ones in the photographs would not normally be pruned, and they had therefore evidently been vandalized. He also said that the damaged trees would take eight to 12 years to recover fully and produce as much fruit as they had before.
[..]
According to the police, 733 Palestinian olive trees were vandalized in 2005. But according to a partial list of damaged trees throughout the West Bank compiled by B'Tselem, Yesh Din and Rabbis for Human Rights, the real number is much higher. These organizations say that at least 2,750 olive trees were vandalized in various ways last year, including being uprooted and stolen, being torched and being chopped down.

Trees.

Yes, it's just trees. But they're olive trees, which take many years to grow before they produce anything. And for an agrarian economy, these acts of vandalism are just as damaging as -- for example -- burning down a store or a restaurant would be for an urban economy.

Again: this is why bombs go off in Israel: because this kind of injustice goes on, and the Jewish authorities are complicit.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Trees.

Yes, it's just trees. But they're olive trees, which take many years to grow before they produce anything. And for an agrarian economy, these acts of vandalism are just as damaging as -- for example -- burning down a store or a restaurant would be for an urban economy.

More. A building can be rebuilt within a year; an orchard takes at least five.

Again: this is why bombs go off in Israel: because this kind of injustice goes on, and the Jewish authorities are complicit.

One of the reasons. It sounds rather similar to the post-Reconstruction American South.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Again: this is why bombs go off in Israel: because this kind of injustice goes on, and the Jewish authorities are complicit.

Are you suggesting there'd be no bombs going off if this kind of injustice didn't go on, or if it went on without complicit authorities? Because that seems highly dubious to me.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Are you suggesting there'd be no bombs going off if this kind of injustice didn't go on, or if it went on without complicit authorities? Because that seems highly dubious to me.

I said nothing about this being the only and exclusive reason.

Having said that, though, westerners frequently underestimate the value of the land (gardens, orchards, crops, etc) to the Palestinians. Land is everything to them. Complicit authorities only make it worse.

[TomJoe]

Well, whether this is a reason bombs go off or not is of little consequence (at least to me). I agree that this should not happen, and that if it's not a direct means to kill off a population, it has similar long-term intentions. However, be that as it may ... everytime the Palestinians set off a suicide bomb and kill dozens of innocents, they hurt their cause.

Shoot at these vandals? Sure.

Raise awareness about what is happening here? Sure.

Kill innocents in suicide attacks? You lose any moral high ground you might have.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Well, whether this is a reason bombs go off or not is of little consequence (at least to me). I agree that this should not happen, and that if it's not a direct means to kill off a population, it has similar long-term intentions. However, be that as it may ... everytime the Palestinians set off a suicide bomb and kill dozens of innocents, they hurt their cause.

Shoot at these vandals? Sure.

Raise awareness about what is happening here? Sure.

Kill innocents in suicide attacks? You lose any moral high ground you might have.

If you shot the vandals and killed them, how would that be any different? A death would still occur.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Now the right-wing settlers "defend themselves" in typically transparent dishonesty:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/668683.html

Actually, if I read this article correctly ... most of it is aimed at refuting the settler claims. The experts clearly agree with the Palestinians, that the trees have indeed been vandalized.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Sauron

I said nothing about this being the only and exclusive reason.

You said "this is why bombs go off in Israel," which certainly implies if not outright states that the sole reason for Palestinian violence is Israeli injustice. This is why your rhetorical flourishes bug me, Sauron. When you take a closer look at them instead of just writing them off as Sauron being Sauron, they're basically appeals to emotion packaged as reasonable political assessments.

Anyway, on topic, I think the owners of the damaged and destroyed trees should sue. Perhaps the Israeli NGOs who compiled the damage list can help them get some legal attention.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Sauron

If you shot the vandals and killed them, how would that be any different? A death would still occur.

The vandals at least are responsible for crimes against the Palestinians. One could very well argue that the destruction of these trees is a long-term attempt at killing off a Palestinian presence in the area.

Not saying it's an ideal solution (it's not), but it's certainly better IMO than running off and killing innocents in bookstores, or restaurants, or buses.

BTW: For the record, I said "shoot at", not "shoot and kill". It's pretty easy to shoot and miss. I would be surprised if many vandals, having been "shot at" would return in the near future to make another attempt.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

The experts clearly agree with the Palestinians, that the trees have indeed been vandalized.

They're not governmental experts, though. The only references to government action in the article are the police refusal to intervene and the know-nothing-fingerpointism at the end.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

They're not governmental experts, though. The only references to government action in the article are the police refusal to intervene and the know-nothing-fingerpointism at the end.

It should mean something at least in the realm of popular opinion though, no? IIRC, most Israeli's are sick of the whole thing, and just want to be left alone. So ... as long as the Palestinians play to popular opinion, and use Israel's own experts for evidence, this is a "Good Thing", no?

[livius drusus]

Oh, I definitely agree. I suspect NGOs like B'Tselem and Rabbis for Human Rights are closer to mainstream Israeli opinion than the settlers ever could be, which is why I think they should cooperate to work a civil law angle while they chip away at police inertia.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Actually, if I read this article correctly ... most of it is aimed at refuting the settler claims. The experts clearly agree with the Palestinians, that the trees have indeed been vandalized.

Yes, that was the reason why I posted it.

THe first article discusses the settler involvement in such actions.
THe second article shows how they lie to cover their tracks.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

The vandals at least are responsible for crimes against the Palestinians. One could very well argue that the destruction of these trees is a long-term attempt at killing off a Palestinian presence in the area.

Not saying it's an ideal solution (it's not), but it's certainly better IMO than running off and killing innocents in bookstores, or restaurants, or buses.

BTW: For the record, I said "shoot at", not "shoot and kill". It's pretty easy to shoot and miss. I would be surprised if many vandals, having been "shot at" would return in the near future to make another attempt.

However, it would still be trading a life for a tree. I don't see your moral argument working very well.

In any event, your claim that the Palestinians lost moral high ground is bogus. Ignoring for the moment teh fact that the Israelis have killed and dispossessed plenty of innocents, there also remains the fact that the Israelis are the aggressors here. So even if both sides kill innocents, the Israelis are still morally worse for

(a) having started this problem and
(b) having the power to settle it but refusing to do so, since the rightwing groups wield so much control.

And finally, as von Clausewitz said, every enemy has a "center of gravity". By that he meant, a nexus of forces that (when precisely targeted) will cause the enemy's warmaking ability to fall apart. Col Harry Summers book (goes into detail about how the North VIetnamese knew that the American's center of gravity was the American public's will for a prolonged war of attrition.

http://www.history-asia.com/%20On_S...e_Vietnam_ War_0891415637.html
The history of smaller movements fighting larger powers shows that this has often been employed with successful results.

* The Algerian resistance knew the same thing, when they fought the French for their independence;
* Finland used such tactics against the Russians during WW2;
* Ireland used such tactics against the UK to gain its independence;
* The Afghans took the same approach when wearing down the USSR and eventually convincing them to pull out;
* The Lebanese used the same tactics to wear down Israel in its occupation of southern Lebanon and eventually get it to also pull out

The smaller, weaker side doesn't have to militarily beat the stronger side; all they have to do is make the stronger side pay a high enough price that they are no longer willing to continue with the war. As Harry Summers points out, in a democracy the 'center of gravity' often happens to be the public willingness to continue prosecuting the war. So that is why the US, the UK and Israel have all seen such guerrilla terrorism tactics - they are designed to hit those countries right in their 'center of gravity': public willingness.

If you happen to be a government with a superior military, then it's all very convenient and self-serving to say that terrorism is illegitimate, etc. But what such governments are really doing is trying to control the rules of engagement, and determine what is (or isn't) a valid way to fight. They know they have a better military. So if they can keep the battle confined to that playing field, then they'll win. If such a country succeeds in defining the battle as being one of conventional military forces, then the game is already over. So instead of this being an act of moral outrage to terrorism, it is instead a military tactic itself. If the militarily stronger country can succeed in characterizing the guerrilla actions of the smaller enemy as being illegal, immoral, etc. - then public opinion will be on their side. (Note also that the militarily stronger country's charges of immoral actions, etc. are almost always while ignoring the larger country's own illegal and immoral acts. Witness Israel's outrage at Hamas attacks on civilians, yet they conveniently forget their own military and police force's acts against innocent Arab civilians.)

The terrorist, on the other hand, isn't going to fight in a game where the enemy has a better hand. If you opponent is a faster runner, never agree to a race. Suggest arm-wrestling instead. If your opponent is a champion arm-wrestler, then suggest a game of chess. Never meet your enemy in battle where he is strongest; a principle from Sun Tzu's Art of War. In a guerrilla war, the smaller side is going to change the name of the game and continue the fight on a playing field where the odds are more equal.

So to summarize:

* many countries we would consider to be upstanding members of the world community have used terrorism in the past, when fighting a militarily superior enemy;
* guerrilla actions/terrorism are good military strategy, if they can strike at the enemy's center of gravity;
* the charge that terrorism is immoral is often leveled by the militarily superior enemy not out of moral outrage, but as a battlefield tactic - the militarily stronger combatant wants to restrict the battle to a playing field where it feels it holds the upper hand;
* the charge that terrorism is immoral ignores the actions of the larger, militarily superior enemy;

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

It should mean something at least in the realm of popular opinion though, no? IIRC, most Israeli's are sick of the whole thing, and just want to be left alone.

But they keep electing governments with hard-right elements, that continue to push this agenda. So "most Israelis" may want to be left alone, but when it comes to voting booth, they keep doing things that make being "left alone" impossible.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Anyway, on topic, I think the owners of the damaged and destroyed trees should sue. Perhaps the Israeli NGOs who compiled the damage list can help them get some legal attention.

Is this really possible? The idea just raises a lot of questions in my mind. Do the Palestinians involved actually have equitable access to the Israeli legal system? This is in the Occupied Territories, is it not? The Palestinians involved would not be Israeli citizens, does that affect their ability to bring a case? Given the travel restrictions in place, can they even make it to a courtroom? Can the rural poor afford lawyers? Who should they sue, the government, police and army for failing to protect their property?

While I like to see people pursuing redress through civil means when possible, it seems doubtful they can just go and file a case and let the wheels of justice churn out a result.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by fragment

Is this really possible? The idea just raises a lot of questions in my mind. Do the Palestinians involved actually have equitable access to the Israeli legal system? This is in the Occupied Territories, is it not? The Palestinians involved would not be Israeli citizens, does that affect their ability to bring a case? Given the travel restrictions in place, can they even make it to a courtroom? Can the rural poor afford lawyers? Who should they sue, the government, police and army for failing to protect their property?

While I like to see people pursuing redress through civil means when possible, it seems doubtful they can just go and file a case and let the wheels of justice churn out a result.

That's exactly my point about a complicit system, working against them. You can't tell someone "take your claims to court, use the system, don't go outside of it" unless that person has a reasonable expectation of being fairly heard in that system.

That reasonable expectation does not exist here, so courts, lawsuits, etc. are not a viable alternative. And what do people usually do, when viable means of peaceful redress are foreclosed?

[fragment]

Sauron, if you can provide answers to any of my questions, I'd be interested to read them.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Sauron

However, it would still be trading a life for a tree. I don't see your moral argument working very well.

First, let me reiterate. I never said "shoot and kill". You took it there. However, even going down that road, it's not a "life for a tree". It's a "life for a life". If I attempt to inject you with a carcinogen, and you tried to kill me ... would it be a "life for a syringe"? The carcinogen may kill you, it may not, and if it did it wouldn't for years to come. It's an attack played out over the long-term, but it's still life threatening IMO.

Originally Posted by Sauron

In any event, your claim that the Palestinians lost moral high ground is bogus.

You're the one that used this tree vandalism to somehow justify suicide bombings, if anything is bogus ... it's that.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

First, let me reiterate. I never said "shoot and kill".

There's not much point in shooting if you aren't willing to take the risk of killing someone. And if you really aren't willing to go that far, then your shooting isn't going to be much of a deterrent to a vandal. Ergo, your suggested solution isn't much of a solution after all, when it is examined for effectiveness.

Originally Posted by Sauron

In any event, your claim that the Palestinians lost moral high ground is bogus.

You're the one that used this tree vandalism to somehow justify suicide bombings, if anything is bogus ... it's that.[/QUOTE]

1. I am not discussing "justification". I am discussing rationale.

2. "Tree vandalism" is your trite way of re-characterizing what is really going on here: destroying the ability to make a living and support a family, in an effort to convince people to leave their homes and lands so that right wing settlers can occupy them. See how providing an accurate characterization puts an entirely new light on the seriousness of the action?

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Sauron

"Tree vandalism" is your trite way of re-characterizing what is really going on here: destroying the ability to make a living and support a family, in an effort to convince people to leave their homes and lands so that right wing settlers can occupy them.

That's exactly the argument TomJoe made in the syringe analogy which you cut out of your reply. He's not dismissing the impact of the damage to the trees; quite the opposite, in fact. You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here, Sauron.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

That's exactly the argument TomJoe made in the syringe analogy which you cut out of your reply. He's not dismissing the impact of the damage to the trees; quite the opposite, in fact. You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here, Sauron.

Thanks livius.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by fragment

Sauron, if you can provide answers to any of my questions, I'd be interested to read them.

Freedom of movement restricted:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Freedom%5Fof%5FMovement/

Appeals to the courts useless:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Settl...d_Takeover.asp

Palestinians denied right to seek claims for abuses suffered at the hands of Israeli soldiers, even if the soldiers were found to have acted unlawfully:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/06/24/israb11223.htm

Palestinian residents of E. Jlem not classified as residents:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Jerus...l_Security.asp

Administrative detention of Palestinians:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Admin...e%5FDetention/

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by fragment

Is this really possible? The idea just raises a lot of questions in my mind. Do the Palestinians involved actually have equitable access to the Israeli legal system? This is in the Occupied Territories, is it not? The Palestinians involved would not be Israeli citizens, does that affect their ability to bring a case?

Excellent questions, and I have no idea. AFAIK, you don't have to be a citizen to bring suit in the United States for violations of international law, but I couldn't tell you if the same goes for Israel.

Given the travel restrictions in place, can they even make it to a courtroom? Can the rural poor afford lawyers?

Unlikely in both cases, I would think, which is why Israeli NGOs are a key part of the equation, imo. Doubtless they have access to legal services which could be put to work on the issue.

Who should they sue, the government, police and army for failing to protect their property?

All of the above, plus any settlers caught in the act.

While I like to see people pursuing redress through civil means when possible, it seems doubtful they can just go and file a case and let the wheels of justice churn out a result.

I don't think they can either. I think the NGOs might could figure something out, though.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

That's exactly the argument TomJoe made in the syringe analogy which you cut out of your reply. He's not dismissing the impact of the damage to the trees; quite the opposite, in fact. You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here, Sauron.

Sadly, that is not the argument tomjoe made. Let's review:

1. Tom tried to classify this as "tree vandalism", and then set up a bogus morality-based comparison. By downplaying the severity of this destruction, he wanted to paint a more stark difference between (a) the destruction of the trees and (b) terrorism.

You're the one that used this tree vandalism to somehow justify suicide bombings, if anything is bogus ... it's that.

Setting aside the point that I was not discussing justification -- something I noted earlier that you seemed to miss, liv -- the acts of the settlers are clearly far more than "tree vandalism". The fact that Tom felt the need to offer a revised analogy (the syringe) proves that even Tom realizes that this is more than mere "tree vandalism" - otherwise, why draw the comparison to a carcinogenic syringe? So before we go any further, we can all agree that Tom seriously undersold the severity of this action (red text, above), realized his mistake, and then tried to re-position himself with the syringe analogy. On to the next mistake.

2. Tom was comparing two kinds of attacks: a fast one (gun) with a slow one (syringe). He then goes on to try and claim a difference based upon one being long-term, and the other immediate and potentially not being fatal, but that distinction is irrelevant. Two attempts on a human life have been made, regardless. I might stab you in the chest with a knife, and you might live through it - knife wounds aren't always as deadly as a gunshot to the chest can be - but are you seriously saying that an attempt on your life hasn't been made, merely because of the lesser effectiveness of a knife? And since Tom agrees that both are attacks against a life -- even if he mistakenly believes that one attempt is way in the future -- then he has defeated his own "higher moral ground" argument. The moral gravity of the 'sin' of attempted murder is not morally lessened merely because the chosen instrument of murder isn't as effective as it could be.

3. Tom tried to indicate that "shoot to kill" wasn't a necessity; I showed why the willingness to do exactly that was critical to the effectiveness of the deterrent.

I am not arguing out of both sides of my mouth. Please try to keep up.