B'Tselem backs right-wing activists

[oberliner]

Unlikely advocate? B'Tselem Human Rights organization on Tuesday strongly denounced the IDF for issuing administrative restraining orders against 12 West Bank settlers, barring them from the area.

The organization, usually viewed as advocating for the rights of Palestinian, issued a statement, saying: "Undoubtedly, the State should act determinedly against settlers who harm Palestinians and their property, but the way to achieve this is via criminal proceedings and not administrative orders that are based on confidential information."

GOC Central Command Major-General Avi Mizrahi signed off on the orders, following a Shin Bet recommendation to the effect.

The restraining orders were issued following an investigation suggesting the 12 men in question – all known right-wing activists – were involved in devising and executing violent acts against Palestinians, mainly vandalizing mosques, vehicles and buildings, over the past two years.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4103786,00.html

[Violet_Crumble]

1. I agree with B'Tselem on this, but I wouldn't see myself as backing those extremist settlers...

Like B'Tselem I'd like to see action taken against these violent extremists that follows due process and is transparent....

I'm a bit confused about how things work in the West Bank. I thought up till now that Israeli settlers lived under civil administration and it was only the Palestinians who lived under military administration...

[eyl]

4. They live under civil administration for the most part

However, the military still has the authority to impose certain restrictions on them (e.g. declaring an area a closed military zone, or restraining orders such as this.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

7. I agree, Violet_Crumble. n/t

[Jefferson23]

2. "via criminal proceedings and not administrative orders..........."

They're respected because of positions like this.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Very interesting; but a somewhat misleading headline

B'Tselem are certainly not *backing* the RW settlers, but are backing the use of due process in acting against them. They are for civil liberties, for friends and enemies alike. Good for them!

[azurnoir]

5. a misleading headline however if B'Tselem preferring criminal charges over civil ones is 'support'

for the settlers then so be it

[oberliner]

6. Nothing misleading at all about the headline

Note, this is Ynet, not Arutz Sheva.

[LeftishBrit]

8. I wasn't implying that the reporters were pro-settler...

just that I don't think that B'Tselem are actively supporting right-wing settlers. They are supporting civil liberties for right-wing settlers; a very different thing. I wouldn't have made an issue of it, except that on this forum people are sometimes quick to read a headline and little else and jump to conclusions (a classic example is people reading headlines about Avigdor Lieberman, and thinking that they refer to Joe Lieberman! - it's happened more than once).

[azurnoir]

9. The poster was addressing my comment not yours

apparently there was no problem with your comment, normally I would not point this out however in this case I will as I had decided to leave unanswered because if as I said B'Tselem preferring criminal prosecution over civil amounts to 'backing' then I would like to see what is called condemning

[oberliner]

10. That is not true

I was addressing both comments.

DU does not allow a poster to respond to two posts simultaneously so it's best to go with the latter - that way it is clear to a reader that it addresses both similar comments.

At least I would think it would be clear to most readers - not you, apparently.