O crazy town of Bethlehem

The leaders of four main British churches, the CofE, Roman Catholics, Free Churches and the Armenians flew out to Israel today for their visit to Bethlehem, welcomed by their counterparts over there. But the mask of "peace and good will" this well-intentioned visit presents to the world disguises a turbulent nest of suspicion, anger and fear - on all sides. Archbishop Rowan Williams is viewed with suspicion because of his vote supporting the General Synod boycott of Caterpillar. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor is a President of the Council of Christians and Jews, which criticised the Synod action, but some say that privately he has backed Dr Williams. One of the fears in Israel is that this visit will be used to explore once again the possibility of punitive action against Israel.

Yet when it comes to the undoubted plight of Christians in the Holy Land, it is strange that there is so little criticism of Hamas, under which a tiny minority of Christians are struggling to survive, and so much of Israel, where Christians in general flourish.

Melanie Phillips is among those who have taken Dr Williams to task after his interview with Tablet editor Catherine Pepinster. Dr Williams told her: "I would like to know how much it matters to the Israeli Government to have Christian communities in the Holy Land. Are they an embarrassment or are they part of a solution? That's a question."

Leaving aside the unfortunate use of the word "solution" in this context, I find it baffling that this is a question put to the Israeli government rather than the Palestinian one. Anyone with the slightest interest in Israel, or who has been there, knows that Christians are a valued presence in Israel. Quite apart from any other reason, they bring in vast amounts of cash as tourists. Ok, some of Israel's Christians are a bit more troublesome than others. Bishop Riah for example. But at least they don't go blowing themselves or others up in suicide bombings. As Melanie says, the Christians who have fled Bethlehem have not been forced out by Jewish Israelis, they have been forced out by Muslim Palestinians. The Mail on Sunday recently reported the "creeping Islamic fundamentalism" that is driving the Christians out.

The whole problem with the current tenor of the Christian world's approach to Israel is it tends to see Israel itself as the problem. This, unfortunately, rather tends to put the search for the "solution" into the hands of Israel's enemies. And we have seen before where that can lead. Irene Lancaster, now in Haifa and taking an active interest in the visit, recommends this Middle East blogspot which gives a liberal defence of Israel.

But just before anyone thinks I'm making a fuss out of nothing, and putting an unnecessarily negative slant on what is, I agree, a mission undertaken in hope and faith, just look at a few of the things happening in the UK around this area. In St Ives, the well-know Live Crib event has been abandoned by the local Roman Catholic church. Instead, they have erected their own "wall". This protest exemplifies the views of so many Christian communities outside Israel. Melanie has also taken this up on her blog.

Two polls to be released tomorrow by the OpenBethlehem organisation might clarify some of the confusions. Or they might not. The poll showed that most Americans believe Bethlehem is a mixed Muslim-Israeli community. Few realised it was a mixed Christian-Muslim community, or even precisely where it is. But it just shows the PR battle ahead for Israel. Even in America, only four out of ten people believe the wall has been erected for Israel's security.

There is some little hope on the horizon. Dr Williams' recent comments on the Holocaust denial conference in Iran indicated a possible shift in his position since talking to Pepinster.

Meanwhile, the campaign to release Israel's kidnapped soldiers goes on. We are not just celebrating Christmas at present, it is also Channukah. The church leaders' Christmas vigil at Bethlehem is prominent in the news at present. Less so is the recent Board of Deputies Channukah vigil, protesting at the fate of the Israeli soldiers, all but forgotten now by the world, and at the utter obscenity of that conference in Iran. Iran supports Hezbollah, whose kidnapping of the two soldiers in July sparked the war in Lebanon in the summer.

And lest anyone is still in any doubt that we have reason to worry, the Board's latest comment today is on the release of Holocaust denier David Irving. President Henry Brunwald QC said: "Many European states criminalise Holocaust denial, viewing it correctly as a threat to history and democracy by extremists who wish to resurrect Nazism. That Holocaust denial retains its potency for extremists was demonstrated by the recent Iranian conference which brought together Nazi sympathisers, several of whom are convicted criminals and militant Islamists, in a futile attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel.

"Irving’s reputation as a Nazi sympathiser, prepared to pervert the truth to promote his extremism, was further strengthened by his belated attempt to curry favour with the Austrian court by retracting his past views prior to being sentenced. Confronting such extremists with the truth therefore remains the most powerful weapon against their lies."

My Christmas and Channukah wish today is that all of you who feel drawn to comment on this will aid me and all others attempting to confront these lies with the truth and thus defeat them. It really is the only way.

Comments

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Hi, Jean. Thanks for suggesting job possibilities for me in Haifa, but I already have one and so I don't need your help and assistance, but thanks any way.

Apart from suggesting job possibilities for me, you have also posted some remarks about me which are untrue and I suggest that you get a grip on yourself, because not everyone is as forgiving and accepting of human folly (in this case your own) as I am.

The more I see and learn about Haifa University the more I realise that UK universities could learn a thing or two from it. Under very difficult circumstances, it has done its best to integrate all students including those from the ethnic and religious minorities into the whole student body and has promoted academics from the ethnic and religious minorities to some of the most important positions at the university.

The last time I saw any university students being abused, it was Jewish students at Manchester University UK, and not Arab students at Haifa. And if I did see any Arab students being abused, I would intervene, believe me.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those people, organisations and agencies who are working hard to enable meetings between Jews and Arabs (including those in the PA-held territories) and regret that this thread has become a forum for unsubstantiated hateful diatribes.

I was just talking the head of the Jewish-Arab Center at Haifa University only two days ago, and he also regrets the negative energy which is flying around at the moment from those who wish to destroy rather than build bridges.

[joe]

As it happens, 'no-one is free until everyone is free' is a direct quotation from Martin Luther King Jr.

I did not enslave anyone. I do not defend British empirialism, and have moral qualms about the extent to which western civilisation is built upon the misery and death of others. You are right to the extent that I cannot defend my own existance - but then as an American, you can't either.

And the really sad part is that you are so blinded by your extreme ideology.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear Joe,

Your calling the Arab Moslems cockroaches does a disservice to the insect. Cockroaches are simply unsightly while the Arab Moslem adds homicidal suicide and mutilation of the enemies to his most endearing characteristics.

The Arab will not have his land between Bagdad and Gibraltar and deprive others of theirs. Not content with having two holy cities already, he has to make Yerushalayim, the capital city of Israel, a holy city too. Maybe Leicester or Nottingham will be next on his list.

I'm not going to go over history with you because that's useless. All I can say is that no UK citizen is qualified to discuss land grabs given your history. The Arab is a religious imperialist and has been that since Mohamed came into being.

The Arab in the land of Israel has the west Bank and Gaza . Not content with that, not content with Jordan, they want the whole of the land. If they can't adjust, they will die unless our weaklings listen to people like you.

"No one is free unless all are free" is an childish, foul idea coming from a hypocrite son of a hypocrite nation. You enslaved 25% of the world and you lecture me? Peddle it someplace else. This is my last post on this thread.

[Frank Schnittger]

Well said Joe. Unfortunately some Zionists do see Palestinians as cockroaches to be dumped in darkest Africa if that. Emanuel has been advocating a holocaust against Palestinians (or at the very least their ethnic cleansing from the region) on these pages for quite some time. He revels in needling others - whether Christian or Jew - who have moral qualms about this. He preys on the week minded liberalism and good manners of the British who allow him to post his bile here and even respond to his hatred and contempt. He doesn't realise that every time he posts, more people are turned off the Zionist vision of a Palestinian free Israel occupying all of Palestine. He will get his holocaust in due course, of course. Regrettably it will include both Palestinians and Jews, except those Jews safe in their havens in the US. However they too will be reviled for their central role in starting the third world war in which many millions of innocents will be killed. The racism we all so abhor is what he so avidly fosters. And it is he who will ultimately be its victim.

[joe]

You know nothing of my relationship with Jews. Kindly assume nothing that you don't know about me, and I will do the same for you.

And I will not keep silent. Plenty of people were silent whilst ruthless thugs massacred Jews throughout Eastern Europe.

I will not keep silent whilst you arbritarily label generic 'arabs' as enemies within and without. I will not keep silent whilst people are arbitarily kept from their lands that have been in their families for thousands of years. I will not keep silent whilst people are kept at checkpoints on the way to hospitals for so long that they die. I will not keep silent whilst the lot and lifechances of the Palestinian amounts for rather less than a plate of beans.

Would I have kept quiet whilst Jews were treated in this way? No. Am I supporting armed conflict as a solution to anyone's problems? No. Am I even suggesting that the Palestinians are entirely blameless for their current situation? No.

But I will not treat someone in the way you suggest because of their nationality or religion. Not now, not during the holocaust, never. Not the generic Jew, not the generic Arab, the generic African nor the generic man who comes from deepest darkest Peru.

Nobody deserves to be treated like a worthless prisoner in the West Bank and Gaza any more than any Jew deserved to be herded into ghettos, the Tutsi deserves to be cut down in the street, the Kurd to be gassed or the Englishman to live in a castle.

'Arabs' are not given carte blanche. I condemn anyone that resorts to violence, but having seen what the Palestinians put up with, it does not surprise me.

I don't know why you are surprised. Even if one believes that you have a divine right to the land between the Jordan and the Med - did you really think you could drive people from the land they have occupied for thousands of years and have no reaction? That they would just roll-over and die?

When you decide to make a distinction between those whose human rights are worth upholding (ultimately only Jews, it appears from your posts) and those who are cockroaches that should only be stamped on, it is not me that is perverse

No-one is free until everyone is free. As someone famous once said.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

To Israel's enemies here,

Your spleen is is only smaller than your ignorance.

Irene Lancaster doesn't have a "job" monitoring anything except as a mild hobby, just like your desire to post here after my comments.

To those who find my views on "law and commentary " strange, you do so because there aren't that many Jews in Britain and certainly not that many that you'd socialize with. Most of the ones who express themselves try to maintain an pacifistic idea that everything can be negotiated.

Sorry, some things cannot be. The Holocaust happened because of our lack of imagination. We simply could not believe that the non Jewish world was so perverse. Now, that it has been shown for what it is, it 's the height of stupidity to carry on with the same tactics. The more you talk about "peace", the more war you'll get.

My views on "victims" has nothing to do with archetypes but with actual events on the ground. I don't want your pity but a decent silence.

The weak, pacifistic views expressed by some Jews here as to what should be done with the Arabs is a formula for a nation's disaster. Few other nations when faced by enemies without and a fifth column within would tolerate the condition. Yet, infinite patience is demanded from Israel while the Arab is given a carte blanche. Blast that.

[joe]

E said 'The rest is commentary'.

You are the only Jew I have ever heard of who regards the law and prophets as 'commentary'.

The generic Arab is not a victim any more than the generic Jew is a victim. Nobody can wear the mantle of victimhood because of their nationality. This is absurd.

[Jean]

Fran - Irene hs stated on a previous thread that it is her job to monitor Ruth's and other religious websites for any anti-Israel comments. Her normal modus operandum is to portray Israel as a normal democratic society where all are treated with dignity and respect and she has frequently contrasted it favourably with the racism and anti-semitism she says she frequently encountered in Britain. I don't have a problem with someone acting as a political tour guide and presenting a tourist brochure version of life in Israel. Many people are paid to promote their countries abroad and for others it is a pleasure and a patriotic duty. I am happy that she is happy in her work and happy to be living there. I do however take everything she says with a grain of salt! After all, it is not her job to respond to anti-Palestinian posts on this blog and present a Palestinian perspective on events, although she sometimes claims to speak for the Palestinians she meets as well.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear Dr Kaufman,

Moses our teacher's first act in history was to see the Egyptian overseer abusing a fellow Jew. He reached out and killed him. The rest is commentary.

The Messiah's job in our writings was to liberate Israel from foreign oppression using divine force that none of our enemies would be able to withstand.

Your writings betray a slave's mentality of always wanting to gain the foreigner's favor by bowing, scraping, and rhetoric. Nations are not formed that way. If you're living in Israel now, the logical thing is for you to leave for the Exile. That's where you belong given your mindset. If you're living outside of israel, good, stay there and leave those who'd rather be independient stay that way.

Given the history of our nation in the 20th century, it's grossly perverted to portray the Arab as "victim" just as you'd portray the German in similar light.

[Fran]

Jean,

The suggestion that another well established poster on this blog was writing in support of Israel because she was being paid to do so (by whom - or were we supposed to know?) is on the same debating level as suggesting that anyone who opposes the policies of Israel must therefore be an anti-semite.

Such comments seem to me to be quite unnecessary - particularly as you weren't responding to her post at the time.

[Fran]

Hi Julie

Very interesting perspectives they are too! I refuse to believe that your views are irrelevant - but fair enough if you don't want to share them.

[Julie]

Fran, I've just been presenting some different perspectives, though undoubtedly these are as polarised as any personal opinions appearing on this board. My own thoughts are irrelevant; it is far too easy to fall into traps of one's own creating, particularly with such kind encouragement as yours.

;-)

[Dr. Mordecai Kauffman]

Emanuel - What do you know of the Messiah? Nothing! He does not come bearing nuclear weapons! Neither does Israel's Salvation require the conquest of another people. That is the way to ongoing and terrible war where everybody loses. You would drag Israel down to the level of the worst of the Arab terrorists. In fact you are their mirror image. You want us in Israel to fight your wars for you - while you sit safe in the US - where you will soon turn that great nation against us because of your hatred and contempt. Your kind have already turned Europe and most of the rest of the World against us. You think there is safety in military might. It is that very technology that is destroying us: Turning us into a nation of war mongers, putting our own children into the firing line. Whilst we enslave ordinary Palestinians who have done us no wrong - many of whose forebears allowed our forebears to settle here. You will not be happy until you have killed them all - and then you will answer to the Messiah!

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear "Dr. Mordechai" (if that is your real name)

As you should know, 99.9% of all Jews in the Moslem Middle East have been cleared out. Those who wish us ill always point to a pitiful remanant to "prove" that the Arabs/ Moslems are not so bad.

Bagdad, in 1941, was a Jewish city akin to New York. Today, there are 1 to three remaining. However, this is "proof" that Arabs are not too bad. You spend your time excoriating me, bowing and scraping before your enemies, so that you can maintain your pitiful possessions in exchange for your self respect. What nation, besides Israel, would tolerate a bunch of blood thirsty enemies living in its midst? It's this cowardly manner of trying to appease one's enemies that may eventually bring Israel down.

You are unhappy that I advocate separating the two nations since they can't live together. What I should do, in your eyes, is tolerate constant violence and abuse until they drive all of us out. Then , we can live like you do, adhering to some vague Leftism or non national religious Judaism praying for the Messiah to come down from heaven to relieve us. What a joke. The Messiah has arrived and has established Israel back in its own home. You're upset that the Messiah took the form of a mass group party and that we actually resorted to military force to live our own life.

You cry for the enemy and never shed a tear for your own. What kind of man are you except a pitiful renegade?

[Emanuel Appel]

a postscipt from America

re the treatment of Arabs/ Moslems in Israel

We are open enough to allow a Moslem from a country with which we don't have relations to win one of our sporting events. They, in turn, strip him of his citizenship.

See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467674340&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[joe]

Actually you are wrong on a number of counts, Emanuel. There are small numbers of Jewish in Lebanon, Syria and even Iraq. In Iran there is one Jewish MP and reportedly 20,000 Jews.

And Arabs are not an amorphous group of people, as distinct as French, Italians and British within Europe.

Someone from Scandinavia coming to the UK claiming that that the land was theirs due to ownership pre 1066 would have as much right to the land as most Jews in Israel. Palestinians are not recent occupants but have been there for many generations.

Many people had a part to play in the holocaust. This is not an excuse for current behaviour in the occupied Palestinian territories. If it was, there should be most redemptive violence by Jews in western europe, not the persian gulf.

Irene, you might be interested in this BBC article.

I quote "In her December 2005 trial, Tali Fahima pleaded guilty to charges including contacting a foreign agent with intent to harm Israel's security, relaying information to the enemy and illegally entering Palestinian-controlled areas."

I reiterate, it is illegal for most Israelis to be in the Palestinian controlled areas of the West Bank under Israeli law. Regarding the travel of Palestinians in Israel, see this document from the US government. Most Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza are not allowed to travel in Israel. This is a simple fact.

Many Palestinians have trouble travelling between towns in the West Bank, never mind into Israel. If your Catholic priest was able to meet you in Jerusalem he must have had a very covetted 0-0 pass.

[Dr. Mordecai Kauffman]

As Jean forewarned warned you, Adriano Albertazzi, Emanual Appel, well known Zionist terrorism supporter is onto you as well. Although he lives in the US he just "knows" that all Palestinians living in Israel are Hamas supporters and deserve all the racial abuse they get - and a lot more if emanuel had his way. In fact emanuel has previously advocated that Palestinians should be expelled to Chad or Mauritania or somewhere interesting like that. Fortunately Emanual (despite his delusions of grandeur) is not Chief Rabbi of Israel, and not all Israelis are Zionist racists and terrorist supporters - in fact the majority aren't. Which is why emanuel peddles his bile here. The Israelis aren't listening to him!

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear Signore,

After a nation, the Arab, who's killing Jews almost every day, who's been trying to destroy Israel for 80 years, complains of harsh treatment, I have to laugh at your comments.

After all, the Arab is entitled to kill the Jew, isn't that right? After all, you showed no racism whatsoever when you sent your Italian Jews to the gas chamber.

Haifa and northern Israel has a large group of arabs who are openly enjoying the benefits of the Israeli educational system. The Arabs you're referring to were openly supporting the Fatah, Hamas, Plo nonsense.

There are no Jews in the Arab world. There are plenty of Moslems/ Arabs in Israel. Isn't it funny that Jews are supposed to be kicked but the Arab immune?

Peddle your nonsense someplace else.

[Jean]

Adriano Albertazzi - you can't be right. Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA who is paid to monitor this blog for any anti-Israeli sentiments lives in Haifa and practically runs the place at this stage. She daily assures us what a wonderfully tolerant, democrat, multi-racial, multi-religious soceity Israel is, and how grateful Palestinians are to be allowed to live there (in their own land!).

I'm afraid comments like yours are simply not allowed. You must be a terrorist sympathiser. Expect to have difficulties with your visa next time you try to visit. Dr. Lancaster, late of Manchester, is on to you!

[Adriano Albertazzi]

I recently visited India.

The Indian caste system is surely the most discrimanting and disgraceful class based system in the world.

Muslims are perhaps treated the worst along with Christians and Dalits.

I have also visited Israel on many cases. My girlfriend studies in Haifa.

When visiting, I was amazed at the open racism and lack of tolerance shown by many Jewish students towards Palestinians - Christians and Muslims. One time, Jewish students even had a group of Palestinians evicted from the students union because they couldn't "stand their ugly terrorist faces". This was not just one incident but one of many. At the bus stop, 2 seven year olds were disgracefully spitting and kicking an elderly Palestinian women whilst others looked on and ignored this behaviour.

I found no evidence of any aggressive behaviour by Muslims towards anybody or any group but quite the opposite.

[Elisabeth Andersen]

J Pearce

I would take your comments more seriously if you also mentioned the role the West has played in the ME. Remember Shock and Awe? Or the mass slaughter of 600,000+ Iraqis? What about the tonnes of depleted uranium dumped in Iraq which has caused cancer rates in civilians to skyrocket and large numbers of children being born with deformities? Very liberal indeed. Not to forget the 1m or so Iraqis that died prior to Gulf War 2 as a result of Western sanctions. What about the 2m odd Iranians which were killed during the Iran/Iraq war, undoubtedly a war which was exasperated by the US who armed Saddam to the teeth against the Iranians. Suez, US support for the Shah in Iran, US support for the corrupt hated House of Saud. And the list goes on.....

You mention the lack of open liberal Arab societies. If you open your eyes and perhaps visit the region or speak with some Arabs you will realise that much change is sweeping the Arab world. Orthodox Islamic doctrine is being challenged by liberals in countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Morrocco like never before. Debate is encouraged, more women than ever are going to work, several countries have passed laws ensuring all girls are educated to at least secondary school level, GDP of Arab economies is growing at its fastest rate in years. In downtown Cairo, Tehran, Damascus, Islamabad, Beirut, Amman there is a cafe culture where men and women openly mix. Alcohol can be bought. In some wealthier suburbs one can go to the theatre, cinema, restuarants even a discotheque. Many Westerners are buying holiday homes in the ME at present with Turkey, Morrocco, Dubai, Lebanon and Egypt top of the list. Surely, this is a good proxy for a society which is opening up and liberalising.

Granted there is a lot of change that is still required but change does not happen overnight. Perhaps if you found it in yourself to encourage and support the moderates rather than dwell on the worst aspects of ME society you might find yourself being pleasantly surprised.

[Simon]

J Pearce:

If you want "tosh", can I point you in the direction of the Bible? Avaliable in paperback, or free at any hotel.

I guess such things are indeed explained and predicted in places like Matthew 13:14-15 (which of course comes from Isaiah 6:9-10)

:-)

[Fran]

Oooops. Sorry Julie.

In the absence of any accompanying comment from yourself, I mistakenly thought the second post referenced the first.

The Ilan Pappe piece certainly represents one strand of thought in Israeli thinking - is it one with which you empathise?

Musa Ibrahim

A Palestinian Christian from Bethlehem told me in July that Christians voted for Hamas for the same reasons that you and your family did.

What a pity that the only party to promise Palestinians basic social services is also a party which refuses to recognise the existence of its next door neighbour. It's hard to negotiate with groups that won't recognise your existence.

Elisabeth and Sam

Racial and religious violence is appalling wherever it occurs, whoever perpetrates it, and whoever is the victim.

You accuse Ruth and posters here who are concerned by violence perpetrated against groups of people in which you appear to have no interest, of hypocrisy, racism and intolerance. I think this is unjust. Expressing concern for any group's suffering is entirely legitimate, as is trying to look at root causes of the violence.

The truth is that no community in the Middle East remains untouched by the violence of this conflict.

[J Pearce]

Simon,

If you want "tosh", can I point you in the direction of the Bible? Avaliable in paperback, or free at any hotel.

:-)

[J Pearce]

Elisabeth Andersen,

How many oepn, democratic Arab societies are you aware of? What happened after Saddam (a noted arab tyrant responsible for mass murdering his own people) was removed from power? Iraq descended into internecine civil war, based on Islamic sectarianism. The President of Iran has suggested that Israel (a recognised nation state) should be wiped off the map, i.e. he is advocating genocide and he is trying to acquire the means to do it. Saudi authorities maintain their rule through fear of the state police.

Pointing these facts out is supposed to be racism, is it?

You want to talk about dehumanisation? Which religion practices the physical destruction of those who don't believe in it? Which religion operates "courts" where women are sentenced to death by stoning? Care to provide an answer?

Are you surprised that Muslims are suffering a rejection from the countries they have migrated to, when all we see in the Muslim world is a perpetual state of violence and death, derived from a wellspring of Islamic religious fanaticism. Of course, it's the "liberal west" that gets blamed for all of it. How very convenient to scapegoat those who have managed to organise some kind of functioning, reasonably democratic, reasonably free society.

Its so much easier than blaming yourself, isn't it?

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Happy New Year to all.

Ilan Pappe is the person who instigated the attempted boycott of Haifa University for reasons best known to himself (quite a few Haifans who know him have been trying to explain his misguided motivations to me).

In the meantime I have met with my Palestinian Catholic Priest friend again at the Rainbow Club meeting in Jerusalem, so please note that there was no difficulty for him to attend, as implied in an earlier posting.

He told me that he appreciated my contribution to that meeting, which was on the subject of Bonhoeffer, and I will keep you posted on any developments that arise from this meeting, as well as on the symposium being organised by Haifa University's Jewish-Arab Center tomorrow.

[Julie]

Fran, you know you're combining my last two posts to mischievous effect; the contents of one is not intended to relate to the contents of the other, neither did I suggest that they did.

Happy New Year, etc.

[Simon]

J Pearce:

The ancient pagans created the festival of winter, Simon. They understood the significance of the event in a way that people who are fully connected to their reality do.

Then they were forcibly converted to "sky god" (copyright Mr. A McBay) ideology, which was promulgated to suit the ruling class of the period (Rome).

That's such a biased and agenda filled version of history its ridiculous. Christianity spread through word of mouth - not through force! In fact the Romans leaders tried their best to crush Christianity, and yet Constantine's victory was just a landmark in the inevitable spread of the belief that had spread from slaves right through to the aristocracy long before. And sure the Romans sometimes forces their will on the rest of their empire, and once Christianity became the state religion there was the same degree of coercion that had always been employed by the Roman administration. But the actual story of the spread of Christianity is certainly not a story of conversion by force. There are one or two examples of existing pagan sites being destroyed by force (such as a famous incident in 'Germany'), but the various Germanic peoples voluntarily adopted Christianity in late antiquity (when the Roman empire was being over-run by them!) and then took it with them through the 'Migration Period'. Across Europe the towns and villages willingly, themselves, built churches on sites that were previously sacred pagan sites. If you look at the actual history this was a gradual change that happened following migration and wondering monks, not raiding armies. In fact, the Vikings only stopped their raiding into Christian Britain when Christianity itself reached Scandinavia in the late 10th and 11th century.

It was specifically because it was such a natural, gradual and voluntary process that the existing festivals such as the winter solstice (german and celtic) transitioned as naturally as the people into Christian festivals. Its funny how people like to look back on some supposed golden age where the people were wise and peaceful, and were then forcibly converted by the spiritually blind Christians - when the actual reality is that various warring tribes voluntarily chose Christianity as more profound than their existing beliefs.

J Pearce:

At least Pagans lived in the real world and acted accordingly. Christianity is an ideology based on fear and enforced through punishment and condemnation, "spiritual" or actual. Christians usurped the pagan festival of winter to suit their own selfish pursuits, hence the deviation between December 25th and the actual (alleged) date of Jesus birth.

Again more agenda driven pseudo history. The date of the 25th December comes from the Julian calender - in which it was considered to be the date of the winter solstice. This was when the old Roman festival of the solar deities - Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (the birthday of the unconquered sun) - was held specifically because it was considered to be the winter solstice (bruma). Sure - the fact this became the date on which Christmas is celebrated is related to the Theodosian decrees, but it was Anglo Saxon 'Britain' that became Christian - not Roman Britain! In fact, if you look at the Council of Rome, Canon 9, as late as 743 the Roman Church was still trying to STOP people from celebrating Christmas on the 25th December! Eventually they had to give up because that's what people were doing because its what made sense to them.

Where do you anti-Christians get your so called historical facts from ? I can only assume its from books about how aliens built the pyramids - they usually contain the same anti-Christian tosh.

[Sam Iqbal]

Remember Sabra and Shatila? 3500 Palestinian refugees, mostly women and children were butchered by those peaceful Arab Christians backed by those delightful chaps from the IDF. The hypocrisy of the people posting in this blog beggars belief. I have never read so much deliberate misinformation lies before. An absolute disgrace to all people who want peace and justice in the holy land.

[Elisabeth Andersen]

The West Bank and Gaza have been under seige for the best part of 6 years now. Thousands of Palestinians have died at the hands of the "noble" IDF. Children butchered, women widowed, families left homeless, loved ones taken away and held in prison without charge. And so on. Yet, Ruth focuses on the hardships of Palestinian Christians in the West Bank at the hands of "those terrible" Muslims. This is a lie commonly espoused by Zionists to bring Westerners onside. I Many Palestinians I have spoken to about this supposed maltreatment, both Christian and Muslim have denied this and insisted that they continue to have strong community friendships with the common goal of liberating their homeland. However, I think the hypocrisy of people commenting on this blog is sickening. Most have a racist, intolerant disgusting attitude towards Arabs and Muslims in general. People talk about the supposed intolerance of Arabs whilst we bomb them day and night with our smart laser guided, uranium tipped dirty bombs. Why dont so called neo-liberals focus on issues closer to home - like the story of a Danish Muslim family who had pigs blood poured over their property by their neighbours. How about the numerous Muslim women assaulted around the UK recently or Muslim graduates unable to get jobs in France and UK. Mosques are firebombed, the Sun even blamed Muslims for spreading MRSA in hospitals recently. It seems as if those who claim to be liberals are in fact the greatest enemies of our society today. Their aim being to isolate and dehumanise an entire religion and its followers. Makes you wonder....

[Musa Ibrahim]

I am a Palestinian Christian from Nablus. Last year, my whole family voted Hamas at the elections. Why? Because Hamas is a genuine charity and social organisation set up to care for ALL Palestinians. As well as providing housing, medical care and help for widows and the elderly, they provide schools and sports facilities for the children. Neo-cons and Zionists only ever focus on their military wing, which has protected numerous churches and Christian property so many times from Israeli death squads. I thank God for Hamas but believe that the future of Palestine lies in negotiation not confrontation.

[Fran]

Julie wrote

"As someone said, so much criticism of Israel is about trying to 'hold together the twin emotions of empathy and rage'- that doesn't mean that those who are at risk of becoming enraged don't also hold strong sympathy for the people of Israel."

The Ilan Pappe article to which your last post links doesn't read much like "strong sympathy for the people of Israel" to me.

Still, at least in Israel Pappe's right to express himself (even when he distorts history and misrepresents his government and fellow Israelis) is upheld by law. That's got to be worth protecting.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America,

Dear All,

Well, are you all stuffed with turkey by now? What about New Year's coming up? Let's all drink to happier and more imaginative suicide bombings in Iraq and Bethlehem in the coming year.

Some of the friends of Israel here labor continually on the vain hope that impecable logic and good will will make Israel's case. How naive! The main thrust of our enemies is the destruction of our nation's territory and the return to the Jews' role of bowing and scraping before overwhelming force. That is the thrust of classical Christianity versus Israel. If we're happy, then the Christian message is suspect.

I will admit that there are irreligious Leftists,seculars, and Moslems that share the attitude. Pagan Rome saw us in the same way as she regarded rebellious Gauls. However, it was the universal aspirations of both Christianity and Islam that made life hell for us in the last 2000 years. It was this idea that ALL must think and pray alike that is responsible for the state of affairs today.

Had we lived in India, it would have been much easier to co exist with Hindus.

[Julie]

What does Israel want?

An article from July 17, 2006 by Ilan Pappe, senior lecturer in the University of Haifa Department of political Science and Chair of the Emil Touma Institute for Palestinian Studies in Haifa.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10590

[Frank Schnittger]

"I think someone should make it clear that Israel does not want to rule over the Palestinians and wants them to have their own State"

The difficulty, Irene, is that both Israelis and Palestinians want to have their own state covering much of the same territory. Both have historical claims to it and both show no sign of relinquishing those claims.

There are two ways of trying to deal with this conundrum: Either one side effectively conquers and subjugates the other, and there are plenty of historical examples of this, or both sides agree to live in peace together in the same state covering the same territory.

The continued expansion of Jewish settlements and land grabs for security and others reasons (see Jimmy Carter's latest book) shows that there are Zionists on the Israeli side who will not be happy until Palestinians are totally defeated, marginalised, uprooted, and ultimately settled elsewhere, if at all.

The recurring Intifadas on the Palestinian side shows that some may never reconcile themselves to the Jewish presence in the region. You have no choice but to defeat those or risk being defeated by them.

But the bigger choice is that either you totally defeat and subjugate several Million Palestinians with claims to live in Palestine and (their several hundred million Arab and Moslem allies), or you make peace with them and agree to live on the same territory as them.

Corralling Palestinians into isolated enclaves and refugee camps will never constitute a viable economic or stable political state and will always be little more than a base for an ongoing war against Israel. It is a "solution" designed to put the extremists in charge and with war the only option for survival.

So the choice is yours, war or peace. At present both sides seem to have chosen war. Making peace is a lot more difficult, especially when the situation has been polarising and deteriorating for so long.

I have no doubt that many, perhaps the majority, of both Israelis and Palestinians would choose peace within a stable political and economically viable structure if given the choice. But with modern weaponry, technology and terrorist techniques far fewer people can wage war and make it effectively impossible for the majorities to make peace.

There will always be some for whom the dream of “total victory” will always be preferable to the risks involved in messy political compromises. There will also be others – mostly outsiders – whose interests are best served by continuing war in the region – because it distracts from problems closer to home or benefits their armaments industry. Some even believe that the conflict is a divinely ordained prelude to Armageddon and their religious vindication.

You live an unenviable dilemma. Do not let others use you to fulfil their dreams but also do not be afraid to dream dreams of your own. However that dream has to include Palestinians as well if there is to be any prospect of peace in the region.

[J Pearce]

Simon said:

"It all fits and works - and the ancient pagans found it remarkably easy to understand and accept the symbolism in a way we now seem to only understand in abstract ways."

The ancient pagans created the festival of winter, Simon. They understood the significance of the event in a way that people who are fully connected to their reality do.

Then they were forcibly converted to "sky god" (copyright Mr. A McBay) ideology, which was promulgated to suit the ruling class of the period (Rome).

At least Pagans lived in the real world and acted accordingly. Christianity is an ideology based on fear and enforced through punishment and condemnation, "spiritual" or actual. Christians usurped the pagan festival of winter to suit their own selfish pursuits, hence the deviation between December 25th and the actual (alleged) date of Jesus birth.

I note Christians continually moaning that Christmas is being hi-jacked by modern capitalists to make it a festival celebrating excess. Ancient Rome would be proud. Everything that goes around...

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I think someone should make it clear that Israel does not want to rule over the Palestinians and wants them to have their own State. What concerns Israelis is the possibility (which is at present a reality) that that Palestinian entity might harbour individuals, groups, or indeed itself might sanction (as it does at present) the blowing up of us on the other side of the border, and by us I mean people in Haifa, Kfar Saba and Tel Aviv, of all races, religions and ethnicities.

[Julie]

Fran,
I am not going to attempt explanations on anyone else’s behalf, rather I would point to this link as being representative of commony held beliefs:

Why I am a Zionist: Gil Troy, Professor of History at McGill University in Montreal

and to some commonly made responses:

Why Zionism is Racism

And yes, it does and should make people uneasy, as does and should the ideological entwining of any fundamentalist religion with a government and its policies. How much room are Zionists willing to give to those who are known as (the contemporary) post-Zionists, to those who can say, this is how it is, and this is how it all became, but how does Israel best evolve, and what could a more ‘mature’ nation state of Israel look like?

As someone said, so much criticism of Israel is about trying to 'hold together the twin emotions of empathy and rage'- that doesn't mean that those who are at risk of becoming enraged don't also hold strong sympathy for the people of Israel.

[Simon]

Alistair:

"Well, Simon, only symbolicly. You love to quote from the Bible but even you can't find the passage that says Jesus was born on 25 December."

Well Alistair :) ... in saying this you prove that you don't really 'get' Christianity. For example you have the seven sacrements. We say the rituals are an outward sign of an inward grace. So when someone gets married - their marriage is not contained in the ceremony or the day it was held on. And when that marriage is remembered annually - the marriage does not become different on that day. It doesn't matter what specific day of the year Jesus was born - even in the Julian calendar. What matters is that its the day we agree to celebrate the event. And the liturgy of the year is a perfect symbolism through birth and death and the coming of the Holy Spirit. It all fits and works - and the ancient pagans found it remarkably easy to understand and accept the symbolism in a way we now seem to only understand in abstract ways.

Alistair:

"Hmm, just what is the 'truth', I wonder?"

That's the same answer Pontius Pilate gave to Jesus - when he said "I am the truth". Truth is something from a world where 1 + 1 = 1. Its a world of absolute and infinities that are strange to us as creatures whose base thoughts are of this relative universe.

Alistair:

"Why shoud anyone believe the 'truth' of the slain and resurrected god of Christianity, when we know that the very same folk tale predates the Christian version in other cultures and belief systems - eg Tammuz, Attis, Adonis, Osiris?"

Because they are merely speckled refractions of an eternal reality. Those who followed the old fragmented reflections seemed willing to accept that Christianity represented something far closer to the actual truth. Its only now that we as a society have decided to chose celebrities, and material gods, as more interesting than the search for truth, that we see Christianity as a comfort blanket for hypocrites. Although Freud was a cocaine taking sexual abuser of his patients, the bit in italics is well worth a bit of Freudian critique!

Alistair:

"There are only four religious truths that I know of, Simon:

1) Jews do not recognise Jesus as the Messiah. "

Yes many have been blinded to their own scripture. This is predicted in their own scriptures. But when a Jew sees it, and becomes a Christian, they tend to understand Christianity even better than those of us for whom it should be part of our own culture nowadays.

Jews always believed (from Ezekiel 37:26-28), that the messiah would build the third temple. He has - and if they looked back into their own scripture they would realise it.

Jews believe that the messiah must be a descendant of David on the male side. The claim of being born to a virgin invalidates that prophesy in Jesus case, they say. But his human side came from Mary - who was descended from David. This fulfils the words of scripture perfectly - just not as was expected.

But more than any of these things, the old testament is written such that there are different layers. Jerusalem becomes the New Jerusalem - which reflects backwards in a hidden way. Gods people, Israel, can be seen in places to include gentiles - even in the very promises made to Abraham and Isaac etc. If you look at the miracles of Jesus - each of them reflects a very specific event in the old testament. Manna from heaven = the feeding of the 5000, walking on water to the disciples in the wooden boat = the crossing of the Jordan of the Ark of the Covenant etc etc. In the same way, Jesus clearly explained how the new temple he had come to build was not one of stone. The Jews have not yet understood this - as was predicted in their own scripture.

2) Protestants do not recognise the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith.

ALL Christians recognise Jesus as the leader of the Christian faith. The pope sits in the chair of Peter, something based on scripture that all Christians recognise but do their best to wriggle out of. All of us rebel against Gods word now and then. Protestants have just made that rebellion into a religion.

3) Muslims do not recognise Jesus as the son of God

No they consider a petty bandit that raided caravans for a living, enjoyed sex with very little girls, legitimised rape of other mens wives as long as those men were conquered in battle etc etc - as being a singular reliable source of Gods word. So much so that every word written or spoken by any of the prophets he espoused is considered to be lies written by the Jews. Anyone who knows the diligence of Jewish scribal tradition, backed up by scholarly archaeological research, would be crazy to accept that all these different prophets were reading a completely different version of events, and accepted it as the word of God, and then it all changed between the time of Jesus and Mohammed such that Mohammeds version is the only correct one! It was either Isaac or Ishmael that Abraham took up the mountain. Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of God - the very reason the Ciaphas handed him over to the Romans, and supported by modern research. No one at the time disputed that Jesus had made that claim - so how on earth can the Muslims say Jesus was a prophet but not the Son of God ? If you are looking for truth - don't rely on Islam!

You can get all kinds of shite research from people like Dr Robert Beckford and his Channel 4 shows. But the common words you hear all the time are the likes of "I believe...", "what if...", "could it be...". They sound far more like pseudo-historical conspiracy authors than real scholars. Frankly I wish I'd applied to Cambridge, rather than Oxford, if that's the kind of person they give a doctorate to nowadays. Post modernism and procedural rationality are the antithesis of the search for truth. If everyone's opinion is valid then then I can say the moon is made of cheese. There may be some valid sociological reason for considering my claim in serious terms. But the fact is that its a load of crap based on vague whimsical here-say that seems more plausible when its from a text that no one knows anymore - ignoring the fact it was rejected as inaccurate by the consensus of all the most able intellectuals ages ago. What is it we all find so exciting about anything touted as some kind of lost truth ? Especially when it makes us feel that our own failure to live up to our own in-built ideals is all to do with some conspiracy. We are weird creatures, us humans.

4) Baptists do not recognise each other in off-licences or lap-dancing bars.

Maybe that also affects Catholics as I've never seen any other Catholics in off-licenses or lap-dancing bars! Ehem.... :)

Sic transit gloria mundi

[Simon]

Tom Allen

I accept your criticisms of my comments regarding Clinton's proposed deal. Arafat was more ready to talk than any Palestinian leader in the past. If Yitzhak Rabin had not been assassinated he (Arafat) may even have been the one to turn the tide. But he still went back and talked to the Palestinians in a way that he probably had to in order to keep their respect. I remember talking to a Palestinian in Jerusalem a couple of years back who said that Arafat had lost all credibility in his eyes. He saw him as some kind of stooge of America. Its this fear and paranoia that needs to be confronted in the middle east.

People like Rabin and Shimon Perez went back to their people and told them the hard facts about the need for sacrificing things in the cause of peace - even though it made them unpopular in many areas. There doesn't seem to be a critical mass of Palestinian leaders that are equally prepared to stand up for a realistic forward looking solution. Its always about massaging and building up the sense of wounded pride. Watch the speeches, read them. Look into what Palestinian children are taught in their schools - about how glorious it would be if they became martyrs by dying as suicide bombers. Even by their own standards, the Koran may support the murder of those who don't accept Mohammed, but it is against suicide and against the killing of women and children. There is a time and place for anger and fighting, but Palestine's issues will not be solved by anger at this stage. They desperately need leaders who are brave enough to openly stand for a compromise, and explain why its the best thing for their children, for their future and even that of the whole world.

Simon

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear All (especially McBay)

Bethlehem is very boring. Rather, let's focus on "this little town of Avignon" where the real action is.

Mr. McBay, I take my little trips to "Yurp", the land between Russia and Portugal, in November because the weather's perfect and the prices low. Going to the medieval seat of the Popes at Avignon was a real eye-opener. Now, I've given you a hard time in the past over gay this or gay that. I have to apologize.

Walking into the Pope's palace and bedroom made me realize that these dudes had their crib all pimped out at your expense. It was one of the "gayest" places I've ever seen.

The money - the money was literally kept in a small undergound storage room where only the Pope and three other guys had the access. And, only the Pope was allowed to carry a knife at dinner time. Talk about paranoid! Not even Stalin had that rule.

Zut, these "divines" would never stay in Bethlehem without a thorough redecoration. They'd probably get one of the fellows from British TV who's very talented in turning a literal pig sty into an "animal comfort zone".

Isn't it odd that discussions of "soul" and "grace" get one or two comments but say "israel" and 66 people decide it's important. I'm very flattered. Even Ireland doesn't get that much attention.

For those who'd like to armchair travel, click on my web site
http://home.mindspring.com/~irgun43/

[ray douglas]

in all of this debate, do people not realise that a palestinian state allready exists ? in 1922 the state of jordan was created out of 78% of british mandated territory. what the palestinians want is not one state but two! is this not atad greedy?

[Alistair McBay]

"Tonight a child is born to us."

Well, Simon, only symbolicly. You love to quote from the Bible but even you can't find the passage that says Jesus was born on 25 December. We know that particular 'birthday' wasn't decreed to be 25 December until 354CE or thereabouts.

"The easily verifiable fact is that Islam is based on a distortion of the truth"

Hmm, just what is the 'truth', I wonder? What is the 'truth' of Christmas, for example, given the above? Why shoud anyone believe the 'truth' of the slain and resurrected god of Christianity, when we know that the very same folk tale predates the Christian version in other cultures and belief systems - eg Tammuz, Attis, Adonis, Osiris?

There are only four religious truths that I know of, Simon:

1) Jews do not recognise Jesus as the Messiah.

2) Protestants do not recognise the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith.

3) Muslims do not recognise Jesus as the son of God

4) Baptists do not recognise each other in off-licences or lap-dancing bars.

I suppose after Ted Haggard and Paul Barnes affairs, we could now add a fifth : “Evangelicals don’t recognise each other in gay bars!”

[Tom Allen]

Simon
I wonder if I might respond to your one claim to a factual statement in your post - what the Palestinians rejected at Camp David.

You suggest that it was a "reasonable" offer rejected by the Palestinians which perpetuates a myth which not even the Israeli negotiating team would claim.
The talks broke down on three grounds:
1. Araffat was unable to accept the West Bank proposals which Clinton prepared (never mind those of the Israeli proposals)which initially left Palestinine as a series of islands surrounded by Israeli sovereignty which would be gradually be phased away but leaving Israel in charge of the Jordan valley see map here:
http://www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/redeployment/projection_clinton_proposal.html
Having seen the map, other readers will be able to form a view about whether this was a reasonable proposal which the majourity of Palestinians would accept and therefore offer Araffat the support he would need to implement his side of any agreement.
2. Neither side could agree on arrangements for Jerusalem which broke down on the sovereinty of AlAqas mosque and the adjoining Western Wall. To suggest that the Palestinine side wanted the whole of Jerusalem" is not factually correct - it was never on the table. Both sides recorded that they could not agree on the status of Jerusalem.
3. There no agreement (ie both parties)on the issue of the right to return - the issue being who would constitute those who had the right to return and a substantial ( ie 123,000) between those accorded the right.Israel understandbly recognising that such a large return would fundamentally change the demographic balance.
There will always be debate about whether each side could have afforded to give more in the interest of peace, but does not help much simply to record the failure as being the Palestinians side failure to accept a resonable offer.

[Commenter]

I understand you British were subjected to yet more 'al-taquiyya' (the Koranic doctrine of lies and dissimulation to spread a false, 'good' image of Islam) via Channel 4's "alternative Christmas message" of a Moslem woman (?) in the full body masking gear on TV. Her remark that the Koran says that the killing of one individual is akin to the killing of all humanity and thus trying to present Islam as tolerant, just, loving by quoting Koran verse 5:32 should be countered by reference to the very next verse in the Koran which says: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or that they should be imprisoned; this shall be a disgrace for them in this world and in the hereafter they should have a grievous chastisement." As the Koran also states, to refuse Islam is to "wage war against Allah and His messenger" (Mohammad) and, if one is not Moslem, one is therefore the enemy of Islam; thus, babies, children, women, elderly and infirm, as well as anyone who refuses to become Moslem --- all whom we in the Judaeo-Christian world regard rightly as "innocents" --- are nothing of the sort to Islam. It is not just a pity, but a genuine crime against true faith, that so-called "clergy" of the Christian faith are so ignorant of the truly evil ideology of Islam. Those of us who do know are not keeping silent.

[Fran]

Julie

I can appreciate how irritating it must be to feel that voicing opposition to some, or all of Israel’s ‘modes of existence’ will be turned against you into an accusation of anti-semitism. I experience the same sort of frustration when my support for Zionism is interpreted as hating Palestinians or ignoring their suffering.

But the crucial point is there in your final paragraph, ‘ ….their valid questioning of Israel's modes and methods of existence …’. That’s the point at which it’s vital to make a distinction. There is a great deal of difference in challenging Israel’s METHODS of existence, and challenging her MODE of existence.

You write

“I'd say that Israel just is, and from that starting point, her right to exist is unquestionable, but when the question becomes purely theoretical, that 'right' can suddenly be made to appear within inverted commas and then be demolished with relative ease.”

Israel’s right to exist can be demolished with ‘relative ease’, albeit theoretically? Really? I’d disagree profoundly with that, just as I’d disagree with any attempt to delegitimise a nation state formed on the basis of common ancestry and culture and recognised by the international community.

And Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish nation state IS questioned constantly, whether by spokesmen from Hamas, by Jostein Gaardner, or by Iran’s current President. Furthermore, the very aspiration for a Jewish nation state – Zionism - has been condemned by international conferences – by the UN itself, I believe, as racist, and it has been turned in some circles, including some Christian circles, into a term of abuse.

Shouldn’t that make us feel uneasy? Which other nation state formed in modern times – and there are plenty of them - has its legitimacy questioned on the grounds that the very characteristics which define it as a nation state are tantamount to racism? It’s this inconsistency which I have to challenge. What is its root?

I understand the internationalist rejection of the very principal of the nation state. But I don’t see any evidence that the majority of people who oppose Zionism are internationalist. It’s Israel and only Israel whose legitimacy they question: the fact that some Jews, including Israeli Jews, are themselves anti-Zionist, makes this inconsistency no less baffling and in need of an explanation.

[AmieDesFeujs]

WorldNetDaily is hardly neutral, but its comments are worth reading:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48064
Muslim grinches steal Bethlehem Christmas

[AmieDesFeujs]

Some thoughts derived from this thread, which others are welcome to usurp for comment or for blog articles:

There have been allusions (I believe, earlier in this thread, as well as one comment here: http://mcj.bloghorn.com/2820#Comments) to the ironic fact that average Palestinians have (only occasionally) wished for the Israelis back, to relieve the atmosphere of violence brought by their own leaders.

Three examples obtain:

1. The front page of the Wall Street Journal some years ago (about the time of the second intifada?) had a long article in which residents of one West Bank city expressed anonymous relief at its (temporary) re-occupation by the Israelis, as the Israelis at least did not permit the incessant inter-gang warfare and violent personal settling of accounts under the guise of "punishing collaborators." (I regret not remembering more detail of the article.)

2. When Barak offered East Jerusalem to Arafat, there was a rush of East Jerusalem Arabs to take advantage of the right of ISRAELI identity cards (citizenship?). The rush was stopped by intimidation and threats from unnamed Palestinian groups. It is ambiguous whether the motivation of those Arabs seeking Israeli identity was financial (greater social benefits), or political (self-expression, security), or logistical (travel/passport/visa issues).

3. When Avigdor Lieberman proposed gerry-mandering the Israeli-Arab "triangle" into the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli-Arab residents themselves protested that they wished to remain Israeli.

From 1967 to about 1982, it was commonplace to hear Israelis say that they should only consider returning the West Bank to Jordan as opposed to a Palestinian entity, since (the reasoning went) the Palestinian entity was likely to degenerate into chaos. (Compare Leb, Iraq). That reasoning was abandoned as it became clearer neither Jordan nor the WB wanted that outcome. Still, look at the WB -- insecurity, violence, corruption, .... so the reasoning may have been correct.

[Keith Downer]

"The ideal form of the blog would be for you to write on your topic and let us alone to post, comment, and debate freely. Others do it in this paper. Would you get in trouble if you did?"

Can I suggest, Emanuel, that if you are unhappy with Ruth's approach to administering this blog, you find somewhere else to post your contributions.

[AmieDesFeujs.com]

Robin Bather claimed, "together with huge areas of other countries' land ... and annexed ".

Robin is lying in many senses:

1. The current areas in dispute are miniscule and would not fill one good-sized British or American county; "huge areas" simply do not exist between the Med and the Jordan.

2. The Israelis HAVE given up a huge area, Sinai.

3. The Israelis did offer at Camp David to return 95% of the areas in dispute -- an offer rejected by Arafat.

4. The West Bank has NOT been annexed.

5. I can say from personal experience over the years -- as well as poll after poll -- that the majority of Israelis have ALWAYS approved the land-for-peace formula -- they just believe, correctly, that if they return the West Bank they still won't get peace. They're right: They returned Egypt, Gaza, Leb, and every one of those areas has been used as a basis for attacks.

6. The PA's intent to use the West Bank as base for attacks was made clear by import of arms on Karine-A in violation of Oslo. Hamas has made its intent even clearer, in its charter.

7. Nevertheless, Kadima was elected on the basis of withdrawing from most of the West Bank -- until Nasrallah woke up the Israelis to the fact that the fence would not protect them from rockets or more advanced armaments based in the West Bank.

8. Frankly, both Hamas and Hizbullah having declared (as Canadian PM Harper states) a "genocidal war against the Jews, the Israelis would be within their moral right to go much further than they have.