Israeli Forests

Tigranes

Armenian
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
10,406
Suppose you are completely neutral about Arab-Israeli conflict. Just a regular guy who carries on with his life and enjoys outdoors, and trees, and life itself. And now you stumbled across the name of this thread. Before reading further ask yourself, what do you feel when you read: "Israeli Forests"? Does it give you warm fuzzy feeling? You know -- trees and stuff. But guess what? Many of these non-native evergreen pine-tree forests have been planted to hide traces of the war crimes -- destroyed and ethnically cleansed Palestinian villages.

Most of this work is done by non-profit Jewish National Fund, which is funded by tax deductible donations collected in Western countries. JNF is portrayed as humanitarian and politically neutral, supporting incontestably worthwhile projects such as planting trees to develop the environment of Israel. It's true that millions of trees were planted by the JNF in Israel in the 1950s and 1960s using donations from diaspora Jews. The narrative promoted by the JNF was that a barren, rocky land was being turned into a green oasis. But the darker purpose of the massive tree-planting project is hidden from many well-intentioned donors. Very few of them realize that wooded parks planted on the sites of Arab villages razed to the ground by Jewish militias in 1947-48.

Here are some examples:

The town of al-Faluja had 5,240 inhabitants. There were shops, cafes, a clinic, a school for boys and a school for girls, with a plot of land for agricultural training. Merchants from the region came to the town’s twice-weekly market to sell their goods. The town was captured in May, 1948. Now it is Plugot Forest.

In early January 2013, the international campaign to Stop the JNF organized its third annual study tour. Activists from the UK, US, and Italy came to Israel/Palestine to learn about the work of the JNF and meet the people organizing to return to or stay on their land. They saw a range or JNF projects from Al-Arakib, an unrecognized Bedouin village facing expulsion to make way for a new JNF forest to Silwan East Jerusalem where a JNF subsidiary helps takeover Palestinian homes and transfer them to illegal Jewish settlers to American Independence Park where the JNF simultaneously covers up the ruins of Palestinian villages that were ethnically cleansed in 1948 and also proudly displays maps of how Zionist militias attacked these villages in October 1948.

The South Africa Forest is one of 86 public parks across Israel that sit on ethnically cleansed Palestinian villages (in this case former village Lubya). In order to remove any physical evidence of the villages’ destruction, the JNF has long been involved in covering villages with non-indigenous pine trees, which had the effect of making the countryside to look more European. Many newly arrived Jewish settlers were from places like Bulgaria and Romania and they were not used to see palm or olive trees, so planting evergreen trees made the habitat look more familiar for those people.

Obviously JNF denies all these sinister motives behind it's activities and threatens to sue any organizations, like Zochrot, who talk about forests obliterating Palestinian villages, so that modern descendants of the original refugees cannot even dream about returning to their villages. What villages? It is all forests now! In case you never heard of them -- Zochrot (Hebrew: "Remembering"; Arabic: "Memories") is an Israeli nonprofit organization founded in 2002. Based in Tel Aviv, its aim is to promote awareness of the Palestinian Nakba ("Catastrophe"), the 1948 Palestinian exodus. The group's director is Eitan Bronstein. Its slogan is "To commemorate, witness, acknowledge, and repair".

 
Last edited:
Because it's your thread and the point of it isn't made apparent.
 
Are you being genuine now? :confused:
 
He is correct that the purpose of the thread is not exactly clear. Are you asking for comments about Israeli treatment of Palestinians? The choice of trees in these forests? Whether or not the forests are in fact hiding things? A bit more clarity would help. :)
 
I am talking about something which is an absolutely obvious moral and geopolitical outrage. And most people would never even think that forest can possibly be used for some dark purposes, pun intended. There are two way to do something bad. You can do some evil simply by doing something evil, like destroy a village and kick out the population. You don't need many threads to discuss that. The second way is to do something bad by doing something good. Like live in New York, pride yourself in being good and charitable man, donating money to plant trees ... Only to discover that they will be used to eradicate the traces of ethnic cleansing. So the point of the thread is: "To commemorate, witness, acknowledge, and repair".
 
What's the evidence that these forests are being planted as a deliberate cover-up, and not just with indifference to whatever had been there before?

You note in the OP that the Jewish National Fund has strongly denied these claims, but you would have that immediately resolve itself into further proof of their wickedness, which is hardly a fair shake.
 
I support and applaud all these actions (assuming they're true - do you have some kind of source?) as I don't see why it's important for Palestinians to be able to 'dream' about going back to their grandfather's house that they've never been to. It's also worth pointing out that the stuff about pine trees not being indigenous to Israel is grade-A feces.
 
Last edited:
Jeez. Are you member of the British Labour Party or something?

Look bud. The Arabs who lived in what is now Israel got a raw deal. They got caught up in a war (many wars actually) and the side that was assigned to them lost - and they were collectively punished for that. Unfair, certainly.

But welcome to the 20th century. The deal these Arabs got was not any worse than that the millions of Jews who lived in Muslim countries got, expelled from their homes, often with not even enough to cover themselves, as "punishment" for the creation of Israel, which they had nothing to do with. Or the deal th Greeks living in Turkey got. Or turks living in Greece. Or Germans living in eastern Europe. Or Indians living in Uganda. Or ethnic French people living in Algeria.

Note that I'm talking of stuff that happened around the same time as the creation of Israel, give or take a decade or two. While all of the above is deeply regrettable, somehow the Corbynists of the world only care about tiny Israel, which was not by a long shot the worst offender. In fact one could argue that Israel pays the price today of having been comparably benevolent.

So to answer your question: Israeli forests look great, I'd love to visit. And the fact that they were inhabited by Arabs many decades ago would not stop me from visiting any more than knowing that Istanbul was largely inhabited by Greeks and Armenians who got bloodily expelled (or murdered) would stop me from visiting that magnificent city.
 
Wow, the tone is like the racial apologetics and "Thats just the way it is, deal with it." surrounding South Africa in the 80s.
Don't be thick. I just wonder what Israel did that was not done in spades by Turkey, or Algeria, or countless other countries around the same time. I wonder why Israel is singled out for the hatred of Corbynistas, why people who wear a jersey of the Israeli football team are subject to abuse in Paris (happened to my cousin's husband).

The racists are those singling out Israel and "zionism". The racists are Jeremy corbyn, Ken Livingston, half of Momentum.
 
Last edited:
Criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism? Also, the fact that criticism is one-sided does not automatically refute the validity of said criticism.
 
Criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism? Also, the fact that criticism is one-sided does not automatically refute the validity of said criticism.
Unreasonable, one-sided criticism of Israel can be and often is just antisemitism.
 
Sorry, I fail to see any "moral or geopolitical outrage" here.
Who is going to return to a place razed 70 years ago?
How long must ruins stay around before turning them into something else becomes morally permissible in your opinion? :confused:
 
Unreasonable, one-sided criticism of Israel can be and often is just antisemitism.
The current Israeli government has spent the last 20 years telling "reasonableness" and "international treaty obligations" to go shove it, so I'm not feeling much sympathy for Netanyahu and Likud nor the nutjob settler wing they pander to.

The current Israeli government* and their supporters have cried "anti-Semitism" over the mildest of criticisms so often they start to sound like the boy who cried wolf. When simply questioning the legality of settlements becomes "anti-Semitism" then real anti-Semitism sneaks in quite easily. The Israeli government has further not helped its case by consistently and deliberately equating "Israel" with "Jewish" and "Jewish" with "supporter of the current Israeli government". None of those things require the other but Netanyahu, Likud, and others on the Israeli far-right/settler fringe keep insisting that they do require each other and insist that it is impossible to be Jewish and not support the current Israeli government.
 
The current Israeli government has spent the last 20 years telling "reasonableness" and "international treaty obligations" to go shove it, so I'm not feeling much sympathy for Netanyahu and Likud nor the nutjob settler wing they pander to.

The current Israeli government* and their supporters have cried "anti-Semitism" over the mildest of criticisms so often they start to sound like the boy who cried wolf. When simply questioning the legality of settlements becomes "anti-Semitism" then real anti-Semitism sneaks in quite easily. The Israeli government has further not helped its case by consistently and deliberately equating "Israel" with "Jewish" and "Jewish" with "supporter of the current Israeli government". None of those things require the other but Netanyahu, Likud, and others on the Israeli far-right/settler fringe keep insisting that they do require each other and insist that it is impossible to be Jewish and not support the current Israeli government.
No you can criticize Israeli policy just like you can criticize US or Chinese or whatever policy. But weirdly when it comes to Israel "critics" don't stop at criticism. They want boycotts, disinvestment, punishing of Israeli researchers and scholars by denying them talks abroad, etc. That's when racism kicks in. The left-wing criticism of Israel in the west is so hypocritical and so contaminated by unrepentant anti-Semites that the whole thing becomes compromised and hard to take seriously.
 
Far-right Brazilian emigrés living in Texas pretending to care about the internal factional politics of the British Labour Party is some epic concern trolling, I will concede that much.
 
Far-right Brazilian emigrés living in Texas pretending to care about the internal factional politics of the British Labour Party is some epic concern trolling, I will concede that much.
I've been living in Paris for almost 3 years now :D
(With a 6 months Munich interval)

And I'm not concern trolling. I don't give a damn about the British Labour Party nor do I pretend to. Let them go down in flames with their imbecile anti-semitic leader for all I care. Not that I particularly like the Tories or find Theresa May even remotely competent - quite the opposite, really. But oh well.

But let's be clear: I'm not pretending to be criticizing people I like here. I don't like left-wing critics of Israel. I think they are wrong-headed in the best of cases, and often just plain racist, even if they mask their racism in anti-colonial BS, which just makes me dislike them more.
 
Back
Top Bottom