I make no apologies for this long blog, but the world is constantly being hoodwinked by clever planning by the Palestinians to ensure Israel is always painted in a bad light. "Facts" are created without any relevance to reality and then when Israel reacts to the illegal action, as it has to, the Palestinian propaganda machine goes into top gear.
The following story from CAMERA clearly describes the lengths to which Palestinians will go to, to ensure maximum coverage of their "story".
=======================================================
Those Christian “peace” and “justice” activists and their allies
in Christian news outlets are at it again. They are passing on
anti-Israel propaganda offered to them by Palestinian Christians in the West
Bank as the gospel fact. The logic is, if it cuts against Israel, it must
be true, because well, you know how those Israelis are (and their Palestinian
friends would never mislead them).
Right now activists are broadcasting a story about the
the destruction of trees in the West Bank. The trees, which were uprooted on
May 19, 2014, were planted by the Nassar family, which has been operating a
farm in the West Bank since the early 1900s, when the Ottoman Empire
controlled the territory.
The farm, known as the Tent of Nations, is a popular destination
for pro-Palestinian activists from North America and Europe who attend
workshops and talks about the evils of the Israeli government and of Israelis
who live nearby.
The activists who attend these talks dutifully take photos and
repeat what they are told to church audiences upon their return home. During
these talks, members of the Nassar family recount their legal
battles with the Israeli government over title to the land.
Ready Made Conduit
As a result of these talks, the Tent of Nations had a ready-made
audience when the story broke.
Daoud Nassar, who was touring the U.S. when the trees were
uprooted, gave a hastily organized conference call sponsored by Churches for
Middle East Peace the day after the Israelis uprooted the trees. The websites
of two Christian magazines, Sojourners and Relevant, published
articles about the IDF's actions after the conference call, as did Al
Jazeera's blog, The Stream, and the Presbyterian Church' (USA)'s news
service.
The main thrust of these stories and alerts is that by removing
the trees, the IDF behaved in a lawless manner and that the Tent of Nations
farm is the victim of a great injustice at the hands of the Israeli
government. The Sojourners article, for example, described the farm where
the demolition took place as “in the vortex of the ongoing terrible
Palestinian suffering.”
The Story They Tell
The story told by Nassar and his allies in the the U.S. and
Europe is that Israeli military officials removed 1,500 trees from a valley that the family
has owned for generations – since the days of the Ottoman Empire.
Adding insult to injury, the IDF removed these trees one week
after the Nassar family's lawyer allegedly filed an appeal with the military
court that should have prevented their destruction – at least temporarily.
Daoud Nassar told listeners on a conference call organized by Churches for
Middle East Peace the appeal was filed on May 12, 2014.
A post on the Facebook page of the Tent of Nations said the same
thing.
Problems with Story
But this story has some problems.
a) Israeli officials have communicated through the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs that the appeal about the valley where the trees were located
which Nassar and Tent of Nations said was filed on May 12, 2014 was never
filed.
This places the onus on Tent of Nations to prove that in fact an
appeal was filed (and that this appeal relates to the valley in question),
but so far the organization has ignored repeated requests from two
researchers to produce the document.
Note: Jonathan Kuttab, attorney for the Tent of Nations has since
provided a copy of the first page of the complaint filed on May 12, 2014.
b) the Tent of Nations and their allies have exaggerated the
number of trees removed by a factor of five. Aerial photographs indicate that
about 300 trees were removed from the valley.
c) a court ruled in
December 2012 that the Nassar family does not have title to the land where
the trees were removed. Moreover, aerial photographs of the plot indicate
that terraces were built in the valley in 2006 and trees were planted
beginning in 2007. If the Nassars have owned the land since the early 1900s,
why did they wait so long to cultivate it?
Echoes of Deir Istiya?
There is very little downside for the Tent of Nations to plant
trees on land that does not belong to the Nassar family. If the plantings
were left unchallenged, they could at some point say the valley was theirs.
And if the Israelis did come and uproot the trees as they ultimately did, it
would provide fodder for more publicity.
Such cynicism may appall some readers, but there may
be precedent. Edwin Black alleges that Palestinians have been paid
by outside activists to plant trees in a nature preserve near a West Bank
village called Deir Istiya. The goal was to generate bad publicity for Israel
when soldiers removed the trees from property that has been a nature preserve
since the days of the Ottomans. (Judging from this link, the strategy
worked.) Black tells the story in chapter eight of his 2013 book, Financing the Flames: How Tax Exempt
and Public Money Fuel a Culture of Confrontation in Israel. He
writes:
Israeli
attempts to protect the nature reserve by removing unauthorized, newly
planted trees made for plenty of bad optics and dramatic condemnation on the
blogosphere.
Ultimately, the conflict resulted in a series of legal actions
in the Israeli court with a decision to remove the some 1,400 trees from Wadi
Kana. Such a removal would be a well-photographed and highly publicized
spectacle of the mighty Israeli state versus the humble Arab-planted trees.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Background and Details
Today at 08.00, Israeli bulldozers came to the fertile valley of
the farm where we planted fruit trees 10 years ago, and destroyed the
terraces and all our trees there. More than 1500 apricot and apple trees as
well as grape plants were smashed and destroyed.
We informed our lawyer who is preparing the papers for appeal.
Please be prepared to respond. We will need your support as you inform
friends, churches and representatives when action is needed. Please wait for
the moment and we will soon let you know about next steps and actions.
Thank you so much for all your support and solidarity.
Blessings and Salaam,
Daoud
Subsequently, the organization posted another announcement
thanking people for the emails and other expressions of support it had
received in response to its previous announcement. This announcement
reiterated Tent of Nations' request that its supporters prepare themselves
more action on behalf of the farm.
The organization also posted a statement from its lawyer
accusing Israel of removing the trees one week after the farm had filed an
appeal that he insists should have put a stop to the demolition. “This action
is illegal even according to the draconian military laws in place,” he wrote.
The posts on Tent of Nations' Facebook page elicited powerful
emotional responses from its supporters, many of whom had visited the farm.
A supporter commented as follows:
Dear
Daoud, I'm shocked by this news and it makes me sad. I remember my visit to
Tent of Nations very well, and your speech in Driebergen last year also.
There was and is so much inspiration and power in your way of living the
gospel of peace and reconciliation. Destroying so many of your trees, partly
sponsored by people all over the world longing for peace, feels like an
attack, a brutal attempt to destroy that very same gospel. I pray for you and
your family to overcome this disaster, to find the strength to fight a legal
fight, and to keep the spirit alive "we refuse to be enimies."
[Sic].
The story had exactly the impact its purveyors hoped it would.
People, Christians especially, got angry and started talking about those
terrible Israelis who don't live up to the requirements of the Jewish faith,
destroy the gospel, and break their own laws to boot.
It's great propaganda.
Exactly How Many Trees?
One clue about the propagandistic aspect of the Tent of Nations
story is that the number of trees being destroyed keeps changing from one
source to the next.
For example, Citing Al-Quds, a Palestinian newspaper, POICA, an
organization that monitors Israeli activities in the West Bank, reported that the "Israeli Occupation Army
(IOA) razed 8 dunums of Palestinian land and uprooted 300 olive trees in Wadi
Salem area in Nahhalin village, west of Bethlehem city. During the operation,
the IOA declared the area as ‘close[d] military zone.'”
The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) reported that 500 trees, varying in age from 10
to 20 years, were removed. (On the age of the trees, the PCHR simply cannot
be right because the land was not cultivated until 2007.)
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (OCHA) reported that it was 600
trees that were destroyed.
Aerial photographs of the valley provided by the Israeli
government indicate that approximately 300 trees were present in the valley.
Apparently, a new miracle has taken place outside of Bethlehem.
Israeli bulldozers have turned 300 fruit trees into 1,500!
Conference Call Allegations
The story of the uprooting of the trees, which had generated a
lot of traffic on Facebook and Twitter, got more traction as a result of the
previously mentioned conference call organized by Churches for Middle East
Peace. During the call, CMEP's executive director Warren Clark
introduced Nassar as a Palestinian Christian who runs the Tent of Nations, an
educational center that promotes non-violence.
One of the points made repeatedly on the CMEP conference call is
that the Nassar family has legal title to the valley where the trees were
uprooted. Speakers described the valley, which had been uncultivated prior to
2007, as part of the farm, located on a nearby hilltop that had been the
family since the early 1900s.
The farm that Nassar works, Clark said, “has been the subject of
protracted legal battles over the title for this land for which his ownership
goes back nearly 100 years.”
After recounting the conflict Nassar has had with Israel, Clark
reported that “just yesterday, members of the Israeli military bulldozed many
of the trees on his farm.” (Emphasis added.)
When Nassar spoke, he described the history of his farm, stating
that his family registered its claim to the land with officials from the
Ottoman Empire in 1916. He also stated that the Nassars have documents from
the Ottomans, the English, the Jordanians, and the Israelis establishing the
family's ownership of the farm.
Nassar then described his family's legal battle with the Israeli
government to keep the farm, which had initially tried to confiscate the
land, which had fallen into disuse, in 1991. Under the law inherited from the
Ottoman Empire, most farmers maintain claim to their land through continued
cultivation.
After a few years of non-cultivation, the title reverts back to
the state, which in this case is Israel, which controls the land in question
as part of the Declaration of Principles it signed with the Palestinian
Authority in the 1990s.
Because the Nassar family had documentation proving its ownership
of the farm, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in its favor and ruled that the
Nassars had the right to register their land with the Israeli government.
Nassar stated that Tent of Nations received a “cultivation stop
order” for the valley in question about two months previous to the conference
call and that on May 12, 2014, his lawyer filed an appeal to the order.
According to Nassar and his lawyer, this appeal should stop any
actions on the part of the Israeli government to enforce the order. “Just
before giving a date to the court, they came on the 19th of May
and they smashed the trees.”
Sojourners repeated this charge,
stating that the Nassar family was “awaiting word on an appeal submitted
after military orders to stop cultivation; bulldozers came before a legal
response.”
Relevant magazine also repeated the accusation,
citing Tent of Nation's Facebook page. Neither Sojourners nor Relevant
make any mention of contacting Israeli authorities in an effort to check out
the veracity of the story they told.
The Presbyterian News Service (PNS) also repeated the allegation,
stating that an appeal was filed on May 5, 2014, contrary to the date of May
12, 2012 that Nassar gave on the conference call. The PNS did not mention
whether it attempted to contact Israeli officials about the allegations,
suggesting that it probably did not.
In sum, it appears that three Christian news outlets – Sojourners,
Relevant and the Presbyterian News Service – broadcast the story
handed to them by Tent of Nations without verifying the facts and without
asking the Israelis their side of the story.
Interestingly enough, Al Jazeera's blogger at The Stream
did contact the Israeli government about the controversy, but did not get an
immediate response.
Since the story broke, Israeli officials have stated that they
have not received an appeal regarding the valley in question.
Note: Jonathan Kuttab, attorney for the Tent of Nations has
provided a copy of the first page of the complaint filed on May 12, 2014. It
is appended below.
Maybe the appeal got lost in the bureaucratic shuffle, but the
one entity that should be able to produce the text of appeal, and proof of
receipt by the Israelis, is the Tent of Nations.
This writer and one other researcher have asked Tent of Nations
(via email and Twitter), to provide a copy of this complaint, but have not
received any response.
The Tent of Nations remains free to produce the appeal for
inspection so that outsiders can confirm (a) that it exists and (b) deals
with the valley in question.
Legal Title to Valley?
The underlying question is whether or not the Tent of Nations has
title to the valley where the trees were planted. Information provided by the
Coordinator of Activities in the Territories (COGAT) indicates that the
answer is no.
What none of the publicity surrounding the Tent of Nations story
reveals is that there are two legal controversies in play.
-
The first
controversy involves the hilltop property upon which the farm (“Tent of
Nations”) itself is located. COGAT reports “On this plot buildings comprising
an outpost were constructed without the required building permits. A legal
proceeding is ongoing concerning this plot.”
-
The second
controversy relates to the valley where the trees were planted. COGAT reports
that in a separate proceeding before the Appeals Committee, which came to an
end in 2012, the Tent of Nations failed to establish its ownership:
The
December 2012 decision states clearly that the encroachers did not succeed in
proving their claims of ownership in the Appeals Committee and therefore their
petition was rejected, making it possible to remove the trees. As noted, this
plot is designated public land.
So what is going on? It appears that the Tent of Nations and its
supporters have used the story about its struggle over the hilltop farm to describe
what is happening in the valley where the trees were planted and then
removed.
Tent of Nations has characterized the valley in question as part
of the farm to which it holds title. Aerial photographs, however, indicate
that the valley was not cultivated until 2006. Images from 1990, 1999 and
2004 show the land was not cultivated at these times. This helps explain why
the Appeals Committee ruled the way it did. (These photos are appended below,
as is a statement from COGAT.)
Sense of Proportion?
What makes the controversy regarding uprooted trees in the West
Bank so interesting is that it highlights the obsession "peace" and
"justice" activists have about the Arab-Israeli conflict, or more
to the point, the actions of the Jewish state.
While these folks obsess about Israel, war rages in the
rest of the Middle East. In the past three years, more than 100,000 Syrians
have been killed in a brutal civil war (and that's a low estimate). Islamist
rebels in Syria have mutilated the corpses of their enemies and displayed them on wooden
crosses.
Presbyterian General Assembly
Despite the uncertainty surrounding the story, activists have
already deployed this story in an effort to influence debate at the
Presbyterian Church (USA)'s upcoming General Assembly where delegates will
decide on numerous proposals to divest from companies that do business with
Israel. (Interestingly enough, while there are several overtures related to divestment
from Israel on the agenda of the PC(USA)'s General Assembly, a recent search
of the GA's agenda indicated that no overtures had been presented about the
Assad regime's alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria.)
So, while undeniable atrocities take place elsewhere in the
Middle East, Christian activists have, as of late, spent their time and
energy broadcasting a sketchy story about evil Israelis uprooting trees in
the West Bank – with the predictable references on Twitter to Deuteronomy,
which condemns the removal of fruit trees during a time of war.
At least we know where their heads are at. The destruction of
trees in the West Bank sparks more outrage than the murder of human beings in
Syria.
Will They Learn?
Clearly the events that took place outside of Bethlehem
on May 19, 2014, as described in various Christian outlets, resonated
with the anti-Israel crowd who responded to Nassar's story like lion that has
been thrown red meat.
It was great propaganda that allowed people to feast on their own
pre-existing hostility toward the Jewish state.
Over the years, Palestinian Christians have proven somewhat adept
at providing these types of stories to their supporters in the West over the
years. Outsiders have given them a lot of help in broadcasting these stories.
When will these activists wean themselves from this
unwholesome diet of misinformation?
When will their religious leaders, the people responsible for
their spiritual formation, insist that they change their dishonest approach
to peacemaking when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict?
When will they tell their flocks in no uncertain terms that
peacemaking, when divorced from truth telling, is not peacemaking, but in
fact its opposite?
Appendix One -- COGAT Response
The following information was distributed by COGAT on May 29,
2014.
Additional Background Information on the "Tent of
Nations" Case
(Communicated by COGAT)
The "Tent of Nations" case concerns two separate plots of land in
Area C [Note: According to the Interim Accords between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority, Area C is under full Israeli administrative control.]
A. One plot is entirely on public land. This plot is where the
trees were removed last week (see 1 and 2 below).
B. Another plot is partly on public land and partly on private
land. On this plot buildings comprising an outpost were constructed without
the required building permits. A legal proceeding is ongoing concerning this
plot (see 3 below).
1) Aerial photographs over the years:
A series of aerial photographs taken between 1990 and 2013 (in 1990, 1999,
2004, 2006, 2007 and 2013) contain the following information:
a) Trees were removed only from public land while the trees
on private land were untouched.
b) The series of photos show that over the years, until
2006, the area was completely uncultivated.
c) Beginning in 2006, terraces were constructed. Starting
in 2007 (a process that continued through 2013), the trees were planted.
d) A count of the trees in the aerial
photographs reveals that only about 300 were uprooted and not the 500 or
1,500 that is being claimed.
2) The decision of the Appeals Committee concerning the
plot on which trees were planted:
The December 2012 decision states clearly that the encroachers did not
succeed in proving their claims of ownership in the Appeals Committee and
therefore their petition was rejected, making it possible to remove the
trees. As noted, this plot is designated public land.
3) The Supreme Court's response concerning the
outpost:
a) The petition to the Supreme Court, sitting as the High
Court of Justice, refers to the 2006 case of the “Tent of Nations” outpost
buildings. [The petition makes no reference to the matter of the trees.]
b) As stated in the 2012 High Court decision, it was
decided to cancel the petition with the consent of both parties. This was to
allow the appellant time to legalize his construction.
c) Since the legal process has not been completed, Israel
is not evacuating the outpost buildings.
|
.jpg)