How do you defend this kind of behaviour?

Your question is misleading in the sense that you are trying to imply that that this behaviour, assuming it occurred, would, in fact, be defended. In other words, your question is specifically worded in a manner in which you are trying to damn pro Israel advocates here, by assuming that they would defend it. This is not the first time you have done so either.

If you noticed, I said "assumed". That is because I actually did a check on Google News to see if I could find any sort of legitimate news sources that have the same story. I could not. I assure you that if settlers were behaving badly in such a manner then it would be reported in the Israeli media and elsewhere (e.g. CNN, Reuters, Associated Press, etc.).

Another thing I find curious, even if we assumed that Press TV is correct that they did set fires, how does Press TV know their motivations? In other words, they say "As part of an Israeli scheme to scare away the Palestinians from their properties..." How do they know what the so called "Israeli scheme" is? Did they consult a settler spokesperson? Did they talk with any settlers at all? (You know, the basics of journalism...?)

So, in the interests of completeness and actually answering the question, I do not condone any bad behaviour on the part of settlers, assuming it did happen, which, as of now, I have my doubts.

Update:

That being the case, Nada, can you point to a question or two here on Yahoo Answers concerning "settler bad behaviour" where MOST of the pro Israel answers defended such behaviour?

As is the case, reading through the answers so far to THIS question, we actually see the opposite: Most of the pro Israel answers here do NOT defend such behaviour, they only doubt its veracity, as I do.

You seem to not get it regarding "legitimate sources". My problem with Press TV (and others) has nothing to do with their ethnicity. It has to do with what is considered a legitimate source of journalism. This is an entirely separate question of reliability. There are numerous times legitimate organizations get the story wrong.

As is the case, in my experience, if there are cases of "settlers behaving badly" that are actually true, they are almost always reported in Israeli media and usually mainstream media. Therefore, if the only source of a story that I can find happens to be in a non legitimate source then I have serious doubts as to whether it is true.

Yes, the absence of the reports does not make it untrue, but that being the case, upon whom is the burden of proof lie? Is it my responsibility to prove it is untrue? Or is it your responsibility to demonstrate that it is true? Since neither of us were there and neither of us are journalists none of us can say for sure, but I'd say that the one who brought up the question in the first place and who provided a poor source of information needs to be the one to come up with better sources.

As to their motivations, that is precisely the problem. Journalism is not about guessing someone's motivation. Its about reporting facts. They report their motivation as a fact. The only way they can know that is that a) they explicitly asked them (highly doubt they did) or b) settlers released statements saying what their statements were (then one wonders why they didn't quote them).

So, I am fairly certain that what they were doing is merely guessing what the motivation was. Which, BTW, is not journalism, its editorializing (and a very poor example of it as well).

I can come up with an alternative motivation: They were simply hooligans (Hooligans do not need a real reason). Its similar to the idiots who spray paint in the park near where I live. They do it "just because" and not because they want to "push out the residents and take over the park".

Update:

Well, I looked over your two links fairly carefully, and very few of the pro Israel answers actually gave answers that actually condoned bad behaviour (even implicitly), certainly not most as you wish to characterize it.

Well, the wording should matter to you. When you read the line where Press TV surmised what the motivations of the settlers were did you in your mind think that that is Press TV's opinion of what their motivations were (thus recognizing for what it is, editorializing without any basis) or did you just blindly accept that statement as fact, much as you do the actual setting of the fire? I'm inclined to think that its the later, rather than the former. If your regular news source is that loose with their "journalism" then maybe you'd be better off looking for a better source of information or at least read it more critically.

And yes, I wouldn't put it past Press TV to lie about something like that or at the very least pass on a story that is composed of lies. (And for the record, are they the original source for the actual story [i.e. they had actual reporters look into the story] or did they source it from somewhere else? And if so, what was that original source? And is THAT original source credible?)

BTW, I agree, if such an incident occurred, then it would be a criminal act, I used the word "hooligan" in context of what the motivations could have been.

Update:

Actually, CNN, like many other news organizations, try to avoid the "T" label, even though it is quite apparent that Hamas is a terrorist organization and is defined as such by many countries (yes, I know you disagree). I can't recall them either describing what they would assume the motivations were unless they had a specific statement by Hamas to back it up.

In any event, had CNN done so without any source, that would also be an example of really bad journalism. No editor should allow such a thing to be written in a news story.

Now, you may have been able to discern that they inserted their opinion into a straight story without any basis, but many others would likely not and just read it as if it were true.

That is why most journalists DO (or are supposed to) make the difference between news and opinion.

Ha'aretz, which you linked to, seems to follow this rule (this time) for their story, and opts for actual quotes.

In any event, to reiterate my view and to answer your base question again, I do not condone any bad actions on the part of anyone.

Primitive sports have primitive fans. Why did they go to Slovakia? All croatian citizens (no flag, no scarf, hahaha, as i told - primitives) were prohibited from going to stadium by UEFA. That was clear. So, why did they go there? Just for fighting? "The only good thing is that 8 cops were injured and one of them was in serious condition. " - yes, just for fighting!

Once again, when this kind of criminal behavior occurs in South Africa or Zimbabwe, it gets new coverage. It's easily verifiable whether it is happening. But once again, like the orthodox Jews spitting on Christian priests and crosses in Jerusalem, there is nothing but media silence and approval by the pro-Zionists on this board when Israel is involved.

Zionists attempt to defend it by saying they are innocent victims who have to protect themselves.

They say this as a lame excuse for killing, maming, and otherwise terrorizing the Palestinians whose land they stole.

Getting the American people to approve of the billions of dollars of welfare they give to Israel depends on such excuses.

Hopefully many Americans are starting to wake up.

Arson is not a defensible behavior, I cannot see how it could be justified by anything with merit like self-defense, etc.

I don't trust presstv.ir , but if its a true story (despite the bias language) it is a criminal act that should be dealt with accordingly.

The behavior is criminal. However I have problem to trust Arab sources.

More press tv? In that case I will ask the tooth fairy and santa claus to feed pickles up my asss.

I have trouble believing the most biased source online.... Even if this were true, "Palestinians" are free to move to their REAL homeland: Jordan.

I am sure they can go to the other countries from which they came, such as Syria, Egypt, or any of the 22 Arab countries...

You can't; it is indefensible. The obvious comparison is to the activities of the American Ku Klux Klan in the 1920's. Make that comparison and Zionists have no adequate response so they merely shriek insults and that old "anti-semitic" slur they invariably fall back on. The fact is Zionism is racist and fundamentally so; and the activity you reference is what is now known as ethnic cleansing.

to us human beings it is criminal act that should be condemned. but sabrina's and kishmet's nazi answer tells us so much about jewz and how they justify their terrorist actions. if this was done against the jewz they would be screaming "antisemitizm". how disgusting

"lets transfer all arabz to jordan"

even a nazi would feel ashamed to make such racist anti human statement!