The "A" Stands for Assumptions

The "A" Stands for Assumptions by Brian C. Ledbetter on 03-Dec-2008

It's nice to see that, despite the preponderance of evidence suggesting that Palestinians seem to take a singular enjoyment out of the old-fashioned art of "burnin' stuff," my mortal enemy sees fit to assume a somewhat different culprit in today's pictures:

A Palestinian youth looks from a rooftop at smoke rising from a Palestinian area after a fire was allegedly set by Jewish settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron, Wednesday Dec. 3, 2008. Tensions have been high in the divided West Bank city and unrest has taken place around a house where Jewish settlers have holed up in defiance of an Israeli Supreme Court eviction order. There have been clashes between Jewish settlers, Palestinians and Israeli security forces in recent days(AP Photo/Bernat Armangue)

So:—Did those dastardly Jewish "settlers" start this proverbial fire?

All signs point to no.

I wonder if the Associated Press will see fit to clear up their prior misconceptions?

Call it a hunch, but I suspect the answer to that question reads, "See above."

Tags: bernat armangue hazem bader AFP AP #Fact-checking

Comments:

#1 captainfish 03-Dec-2008

Know what happens when you ASSuME !?!?!

#2 upyernoz 04-Dec-2008

i find your posts about what is going on in hebron to be really bizarre. a group of radical israelis stole the land of a palestinian and built a settlement on it. rather than acting violently, the palestinian protested to the israeli government that the seizure was illegal and the israeli courts ruled that it was and ordered them out.

so now this group of hebron settlers have violated the court order and are now being evicted by force. so they're reacting violently, fighting israeli security forces and shooting at any palestinians who come in their sights, all for the cause of keeping the house they stole.

and yet for some reason you seem to think the settlers are in the right, that somehow it is the palestinians fault, and that this whole thing is a big media conspiracy to blame the poor settlers for the mess they created.

seriously, is there any basis for your position on this? do you honestly believe that it's okay for an israeli to steal a palestinian's land, even when the israeli government has declared it to be theft?

#3 Brian C. Ledbetter 04-Dec-2008

Noz,

I'm not condoning the "settlers'" behavior in any way, but the facts in this case are not as clear-cut as you suggest. One side claims that they legally purchased the building, one side claims that they did not. The Israeli supreme court sided with the latter, so on that issue, it's pretty much a done deal. It is NOT, however, an issue of [u]stolen[/u] land, since as far as I've heard, money actually did change hands.

By the way, I'm not aware of any reports that the "settlers" have actually [i]fired[/i] weapons at anyone. You have a source for that information? I guarantee it would've been front-page news, IF it really happened (which is why I'm skeptical).

Stone-throwing, sure. There's plenty of photographic evidence of that particular irritation—And I'll condemn that coming from the Israelis just as strongly as I do whenever the idiots do it at Bilin and Nilin, too. But it's not the same thing as "shooting at" Palestinians by any measure.

Anyway, long story short, don't take any of my comments in the article above as me condoning the settlers' irritable behavior. If they're violent, they're clearly in the wrong—I'm just having a bit of fun exploring how differently violence committed by the "settlers" is handled by the media vis-a-vis how it is handled when Palestinians do it.

Regards,
Brian

#4 upyernoz 04-Dec-2008

"One side claims that they legally purchased the building, one side claims that they did not. The Israeli supreme court sided with the latter, so on that issue, it's pretty much a done deal. It is NOT, however, an issue of stolen land, since as far as I've heard, money actually did change hands."

sure, the settlers claimed that money changed hands, but they couldn't produce any evidence that it had (like, for example, a contract of sale). the palestinian land owner denied he was paid for the land. and considering that the israeli court ruled in his favor, then yes, it has now been legally determined to be theft.

"By the way, I'm not aware of any reports that the "settlers" have actually fired weapons at anyone."

two palestinians were shot:
http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnTRE4B34CF.html

#5 captainfish 04-Dec-2008

EOZ has followed this story over the last year. EOZ has shown that Palestinians who sell land or property to Jews are no better than jewish-lovers. The property owner was probably covering his arse in order to LIVE another day.

But, you are right, if the current owners could not provide clear evidence that money traded hands and have a deed to show for it, then it really did not happen according to the law's eyes.

But, any chance to make Jews look bad...the msm will do it.

The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

Comments: