Muhamed al Durah, a Pallywood Fake?

From the Second Draft's blogsite, Augean Stables:

Muhammed al Durah alive? Who knows?
Filed under: Pallywood, Arab-Israeli Conflict, Media — RL @ 11:05 am
On December 12, 2005, Maariv, one of the Israeli newspapers without English translation, ran an article by Amir Rappoport on Muhammed al Durah. Below, I provide a translation.

IT MAY BE THAT MUHAMMED AL DURAH IS ALIVE

Findings that were presented by the head of the committee to investigate the death of child managed to raise doubts for the head of the National Security Council.

“The boy Muhammed al Durah didn’t die at all, he is living in Gaza,” so claims the physicist and right-winger Nahum Shahaf, who presented his findings recently before the head of the National Security Council, General (res.) Giora Eiland. The investigation claims that the photos documenting the death of al Durah were staged by the Palestinians for propaganda purposes.

The head of the National Security Council said to Maariv that after reviewing the findings, he did not rule them out. The right-wing physicist also tried to convince Eiland that Israel take the official position that the child did not die. However, in the words of Eiland, “It is difficult to remain indifferent in light of Shahaf’s findings, however, there is no ablsolute proof that the findings of the investigation are correct.”

Muhammed al Durah became the symbol of the intifada when he was caught with his father in the crossfire between IDF soldiers who were trapped in the post at Netzarim Junction, and a Palestinian mass moving in on them. The boy took cover behind his father’s back and in pictures documented by French television, he is seen waving his hands until he is shot and killed.

Up until today there was no argument regarding the question of whether or not Muhammed al Durah actually died, and Nahum Shahaf himself was at the head of a committee appointed by the former head of the Southern Command, Yom Tov Samia, who already in 2001 investigated the question of whether Muhammed al Durah was shot by IDF or Palestinian fire. The Shahaf committee then established, based on analysis of ballistic findings and calculations of the angles of the shooting, that Muhammed al Durah was killed by Palestinian and not IDF fire.

Nahum Shahaf didn’t give up and continued to investigate the matter. According to him, he has recently received new testimonies which establish not only that IDF soldiers did not shoot at Muhammed al Durah, but that actually, the boy is alive. According to him, he managed to gather findings according to which Muhammed al Durah was seen until at least a half a year ago in the marketplace in Gaza. “People were in the habit of calling him Muhammed al Durah, because they thought that he only resembled the boy who was killed, but it is really the real Muhammed.”

THE PALESTINIANS REJECTED SHAHAF’S FINDING OUTRIGHT

Nahum Shahaf is considered a man of the right, and in the past there were claims that his political views swayed his findings. Among other things, Shahaf has voiced claims regarding the findings relating to the murder to Yitzchak Rabin z”l. His full position on the Al Durah affair will be presented today on the “Reaction Time” program of Avi Jacobovitz on Radio Kol Chai.

Jacobovitz himself claimed yesterday that he interviewed Jamal Al Durah, the father of the boy, who told him in a recording that will be broadcast today that “The boy is alive.” In a conversation with “Ma’ariv” the father explained that the boy was killed, but that according to the Muslim faith he lives in the next world.

According to General (res.) Eiland, after he looked deeply into the material, three possibilities exist. One possibility is that despite everything IDF soldiers did nevertheless kill the boy. The second possibility is that he was killed by Palestinian fire, and there exists a possibility is that the event was actually staged. “He aroused enough doubt in me that perhaps he is correct,” Eiland said. Shahaf’s findings were dismissed yesterday outright by the Palestinians.

Comments:

For those who might think that the Israeli media represent a monolithic voice defending Israel, note the repeated references of the journalist to Shahaf as a right-winger (my favorite — “is considered to be a man of the right” — that kind of writing will get students an F in a history paper… agency! WHO considers…?), to his position on the Rabin’s assassination, and to the Palestinian dismissal of his claims (without attribution or substance). As a student of mine remarked about Ha-Aretz’s coverage of this issue, “Why does it sound like a Palestinian paper?”

The article shows the lamentable state of an Israeli journalist’s knowledge of the affair: Rappoport thinks that the footage shows the boy “shot and killed,” when it shows nothing of the kind. He thinks that “up until today” no one had suggested that it was staged when, according to Shahaf, he’s been arguing “staged” from the beginning, and a furious controversy has been waged on this front for well over three years. (Note: when, in late 2004, I had the chance to speak with Amram Mitzne, then the favored candidate for Labor party after Peres, about the al Durah affair, he had never even heard of the “staged” hypothesis; in the Spring of 2005, Dennis Ross apparently didn’t know, and if he did, he had already pushed it out of his mind as a conspiracy theory.)

Eiland, although careful to hedge his bets (note his reference to “absolute proof,” has come out with a statement that significantly changes his public position on this: previously he had accepted the probability of Israeli culpability, a statement that Charles Enderlin has repeatedly used to insist on the validity of his broadcast, There he identifies the father and son as “the targets of fire coming from the Israeli position,” a claim for which he had no evidence at the time, other than Talal’s “testimony.” For Eiland to take even these cautious steps represents a major shift in attitude at the top of the Israeli government which has, till now, been extremely reluctant to touch this third rail.

Shahaf’s insistence that the boy is alive continues to get attention (note that the article leads with that claim), but, I suspect, continues to alienate most people who come across it (note the journalist’s visible hostility to Shahaf). Our position at Second Draft is that we cannot know what happened after the film was shot that day at Netzarim. The last time we see Muhammed on film, he is alive and apparently quite well. So we’re willing to argue, less tentatively than General Eiland, that we do not see him shot on film. But what has happened to him since is not something we think it makes sense to speculate on, much less make sensationalist claims about.

On the other hand, the fact that no journalist has seen worthy to investigate further suggests a) the laziness of the “investigative” wing of journalism on this score, all happy, like Rappoport, to adhere to the court version of the Emperor’s new clothes; and b) the intimidating atmosphere in Gaza, where the journalist would have to search for evidence debunking a martyr. As for the IDF and the famed Israeli intelligence services… where are they?

Quibbles aside, all told, it’s nice that things continue to cook on this case. Who knows, maybe the Israeli media will begin to come out of hibernation and begin to address it. Except for the war-mongers in the Arab and Muslim world (and their admirers on the radical left like Ramsey Clark), everyone would benefit, not just including, but especially the Palestinian people.

Oh my stars!!!

I just watched the "Pallywood" movie for the first time. I'm speechless. I mean, I always knew most of these things were staged and I heard of these raw footage movies showing it but it has to be seen to really appreciate it. All I can say is "Wow." Great job whoever put that together. Just wish it would get greater attention.

LOL! The neologism "Pallywood" gets 22,000 hits on Google

This story is known since more than 1 year, some main media reported about it. Others keep their mouth shut, afraid they are their reporters could be murdered or they are just antisemites.

Also look into
http://www.truthnow.org/
and several articles in french on:
http://www.menapress.com/

Also Jeune Afrique reported the full story on:
http://www.jeuneafrique.com/jeune_afrique/article_jeune_afrique.asp?art_cle=LIN23015lhorrelupin0
(now only accessible to regsitered users)

I don't care even if it WAS real. Innocents die in war all the time, but since the world community thought the Jews did it, they got all huffy. Whenever its Jewish children who are killed, they don't bat an eyelash or when it's these Islamonazis who declare that they should "burn the Jews like Hitler", the silence is deafening. An Arab boy gets killed during wartime, big flipping deal, I will shed tears for their children once the world community sheds tears for ours.

OF all the pallywood movies produced with the aid of foreign journalists, this one takes the "Oscar" by a long shot.
Bullets do not travel around corners, as every logical person knows. But with the anti israeli western press and certainly with the pal propaganda machine, scientific logic and truth mean NOTHING. All facts must be made to suit the doctrine or ignored totally.
Even if a matured Al Dura is running aroung Gaza, exposing this may instantly shorten his Life as Hamas would have no qualms in sending him to ALLah as a shaheed for the sake of damage control.
I have been urging Charles at LGF not yo let this one die and become enshrined in the Blood libels againsts the Jews and Israel.
Thank you Robert for refusing also to let this outrage die away.

Watching that video almost makes me accept the conspiracy theories that many nationalistic Christian Palestinians have expressed to me.

They claim that Israel created Hamas and Islamic Jihad to undermine the secular nationalists of the PLO/PFLP and that many of the battles between Hamas and the IDF are faked. The end result is that Israelis get to demand more foriegn aid and donations from American Jews to fight this "threat" while Hamas can play itself to the Muslim world as great fighters against Zionism. Meanwhile the Christians, the Israeli center, and the moderate Muslims are all sidelined and the peace process destroyed.

Watching these Pallywood actors shoot thier movies while not a single shot was fired at the Israelis or back at them from the Israeli command post would seem to back this theory up. When I saw the Israeli officer offer these Hamas operatives food, supplies or "anything you need" except weapons (which they already have) it was amazing. A Jihadist firing into an empty room while ignoring the Israeli post up the street is eye opening. Maybe the intifada has been stage managed to the profit of both sides.

I used to dismiss these conspiracy theories as bizarre but now I'm going to have to do some serious rethinking.

It is extremely important that this be cleared up asap. This is because it will be absolute proof of how Islamic disinformation(see lies) has now spread into video manipulation. Surely some video expert can solve this one?

For >1400 years they have been lying, to both us and themselves, mostly about us and our multiple crimes against the "peaceful" Muslims. A brief look at the recent crap put out by the Iranian lunatics is enough to confirm that. But the problem is that most Muslims and many westerners believe this. Just look at the true history of the crusades as well as that of once christian ME and North Africa and the commonly perceived history of both and you will see what i mean.

Learn the lesson that Islam's ONLY contribution to the world of invention (and a dubious one at that)is PROPAGANDA and that Muhammad started it.

This is (IMHO) absolute proof of the inherent lack of general ethics of basic Islam where they are allowed to lie so often that they believe in their own lies. What a disgusting abortion of a political system hiding behind a religious facade!

"almost makes me accept the conspiracy theories that many nationalistic Christian Palestinians have expressed to me."
-- from a poster above

This posting, like the one by the same poster under the article about the undoing of Bethlehem as a city for Christians, makes one wonder at the apparent willingness of this poster to believe what he describes as "nationalistic Christian Palestinians" offer him as the most transparent conspiracy theories.

Remember that "Palestinian" Arabs, including the Christians, exhibit all the classic features of dhimmis. They long ago had to not only learn, and parrot, but to convince themselves to deeply believe, that their woes began and ended with the cursed Israelis. Most of them simply are incfapable of throwing off that world-view, and bring with them to the West their animosity toward Israel. The exceptions, the remarkable "Paletinian" Christians, whether Nonie Darwish or Walid Shoebat or others (look at their websites, by googling them, and look too at the website of the Maronite Christian, not an Arab but a user of Arabic, Brigitte Gabriel, to hear truth-tellers rather than those "islamichristians" who have grown so usedto parroting part, if not all, of the Muslim view of Israel).

Your Arab Christian informants are transparent. They cannot give up their conpsiracy theories, the kinds of things that are rampant in the world of Islam, surrounded by Muslims, in which they grew up (Islam, which does not encourage skepticism or free inquiry, naturally creates a susceptibility to wild rumors, and to conspiracy theories of very sort, to the denial of obvious truths and the willing acceptance of obvious implausibilities).

It would be a pity if, in your own life, no doubt surrounded by a good many Arab Christians, you did not realize that while they cannot drop their anti-Israel attitudes, or do so only slowly, over a long period, or possibly in the next generation, they are now realizing, and in the Western world feeling and expressing, their deep resentment of Muslims as well. But they cannot quite see that the problem always was Islam. For generations they have cultivated Mulsms. What you call their "nationalistic" tendencies are no different from the Ba'athism that the Christian Michel Aflaq helped to create as a way to escape from the problem of being a Christian Arab in a Muslim sea, and tryinig desperately to carve out some new ideology that would permit Christians a place and a voice. "Palestnian" nationalism is a fraud, but one that appeals to "Palestinian" Christians (who, in the area, now constitute less than 2% of the "Palestinian" Arab population, so precipitous has been their drop, as those Christians flee, though still bearing their congenital malice toward Israel, and consequently a continued misudnerstanding of the problem).

It beggars belief that the Israelis would be in a "secret conspiracy" with Muslims, and even more absurd is the idea that the Muslim Arabs would be in a "secret conspiracy" with the Israelis about anything. You are in danger of allowing yourself to be led by the nose by these various Arab (I.e. "Palestinian" Arab) Christians, with whom, clearly, you associate. Robert Spencer has never had that problem -- of being affected by such peopole with whom he comes in frequent contact. Perhaps you should be a little more skeptical, and emulate him, and hew to the theme -- and the theme is Islam, and those who, including Arab islamochristians, aid and abet the Jihad for all sorts of reasons, including self-preservation and the inabilty to throw off old, ingrained prejudices, inculcated from birth.

Give it a try, anyway.

Hugh,

Actually most of the Palestinian Christians I know are not anti-Israeli at all. In fact, many are Israeli citizens and make sure their children learn both Hebrew and Arabic. What they cannot fathom is why the Israeli government fails to see any difference between Christians and Muslims. Many have family members on both sides of the green line and see that many Israeli Likudniks actually want the Christians to vanish so that there will be only a Jewish vs Muslim issue to deal with. Jews and Christians should be natural allies but that can only happen if we honestly face the issues that divide us. It is not anti-Israeli malice to legitimately criticize wrong policies of the Israeli government. Policies that have placed Christians into an untenable situation.

Nor does it beggar belief that the Israelis would be in a "secret conspiracy" with Muslims when it is to their mutual advantage. Actually, I should have written "some Israelis" since clearly such a policy would not have support from the majority of Israelis. Still, the Israeli government freely admits that they helped support the rise of Hizbullah in Lebanon as a counter to the PLO to their later regret. Such short term policies are common in politics. Both the US and Israel suppported Islamic Jihadists in Afghanistan against the Soviets and later had to face the blowback. This may be a similar situation.

It was these Christians who as far as two years ago were saying that these events were faked. Now this "susceptibility to wild rumors" is being validated by facts! Clearly the almost personable meeting of an Israeli officer with Jihadist leaders to offer them food and supplies while a "battle" supposedly is waged is stunning. Look at the subtitled text "Mustafa, tell Stephan I'll authorize anything that has to do with food...anyone who wants to take something, I'll authorize it. I told him so. Explain to him that he can take anything he wants to 'Wadi Burkan' except for weapons" and you can see who is clearly in control of the situation.

It is amazing to me that you want to throw the accusation of exhibiting "all the classic features of dhimmis at Christians who have suffered under Islam but never at the Middle Eastern Jews who were even more likely to adapt to dhimmitude. The Jewish "Sheiks" of Baghdad come to mind as well as Jews who supported the Caliph of Cordoba against the Christain reconquista of Spain. Yes there are IslamiChristians (i.e. the Anglican church of Jerusalem) but there are also Islamizionists who will sell out Jews and Christians for thier own political power. Both cases are tragic and criminal.

If we are to stand firm against Sharia, both Christians and Jews have to honestly confront the shortsighted policies that divide us. Christians have to shed all attitudes of anti-Semitism and bigotry while Israeli Jews have to end all discrimination against Christians. Then we can see each other as what we truly are, members of a common cause, with common origins resisting a common enemy. To do so is equally pro-Palestinian Christian and pro-Israeli.

The PLO is only secular in appearance only, but beneath it all lies Islam. The only role the Christians had in that organization was to act as mouthpieces to the Christian (specifically Vatican) West in order to convince them to support the Arab cause. As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed, the Marxist mask slipped, for everyone to see. The PLO used Marxism in order to gain the support of the Third World and Europe and it was very successful in that regard.

The PFLP was more of a Nasserite organization than Marxist. Yes it adopted socialist models of government but much like Baathism and "Arab Socialism", the socialist models would have to be compromised if they ever gained power due to the reality of Islam. Habash dreamed of a new awakening in the Arab world, one that envisioned a technological boom, an end to Western controlled despots, and equality of its citizens. He was speaking more of a Christian here than a Marxist because he knew that if things continued the way they had, then the Arabs would remain backwards and the Christians would still be under fire. This new enemy (the Israelis) gave the Muslims and Christians a common cause and it gave the Christians a chance to prove to the Muslims that they were Arabs first and Christians second. So Habash seized the opportunity and became a staunch Arab Nationalist. To Habash, Arab Christians would be safer under the banner of Arab Nationalism rather than Islam, and he was right to certain extent but there was a flaw with his reasoning. The only reason why the Alawites are "safe" under Baathism is because they are the military elite and the Christians are safer there too because the Alawites can trust them more than the real Muslims. A similar scenario does not exist in Palestine vis-a-vis the Christians. Being an intellectual or wealthy elite just can't cut it in the Muslim world. The Copts used to be both in Egypt but they were usurped and look at them now, not safe at all. So although Habash did think he was fighting the Israelis for the safety of the Christians, he was really doing it for the Muslims because Muslims would never submit to Christians ruling over them unless the Christians had the military prowess to subdue the Muslims (which they did not have in "Palestine").

That is why this idea that Hamas in cahoots with Israel is completely absurd. Although it is true that in the past Israel did try to promote Hamas over the PLO it was because Israel thought that Hamas was too extreme that they would never be accepted as a legitimate political movement and negotiating partner. How wrong they were. You have to remember at the time (late 80's, early 90's), that nobody said anything bad about the PLO, it was legitimate and the Soviets had taught them how to manipulate the media and sell their war as Third World liberation instead of a religious conquest. At the time, causing dissent in the Palestinian society seemed like a good idea even if the enemy of your enemy was your enemy. Hamas wanted to end the jihad through conquest and glory whereas the PLO wanted to end it with terrorism and demographics even if it meant compromise with the Israelis. By becoming more "moderate" the PLO was gaining credibility in the world community but losing it at home, a new movement arises and it speaks the truth to power and accuses the PLO of cowardice and corruption, so the Israelis try to use this to their advantage in order to prevent further "Palestinian" unity, but we didn't see the results of this until very recently with Arafat's death, and new problems arose (i.e. Hamas being legitimized).

Don't kid yourself, "secularism" in the Muslim world means a dilution of Islam, not its eradication, in society. The dhimmi will still exist, the Christian minority will still be persecuted, and Islamic family law will never change. No matter how closely Arab Christians allign themselves with Muslims, the Muslims will see them as Christians first and Arabs second, not the other way around, the way Arab Christians wish to be seen themselves. It is folly for Arab Christians to fight for Arab Nationialism or "secularism" in a Muslim country because their status will not improve.

Thanks Igor, I agree 90% with you. As for Hamas and Israel being in cahoots being absurd, that is philosophically true but as you said "Israel did try to promote Hamas over the PLO" for its own reason that you outlined. Unfortunately, Israel has the same flaws as any other Western-style democracy: a diversity of action and conflicting policies which allow rogue elements to act for their own interests and not for the interests of the nation. I'm afraid that might be what we are witnessing here.

Provo,

I think Israel made a huge error in trying to prop up Hamas, but given the circumstances at the time I kind of understand why they did it, it doesn't mean that I agree with their reasoning but it wasn't a completely illogical move either. I think we need to make it clear that there is a difference between "promoting" and "actively supporting". The notion that Israel actively supported its worst enemies (Hamas and Hezbollah) like Syria and Iran did is just wrong. There never was a close relationship and I don't see how some of the Israelis could have profited from this relationship either. Some of them profit from the PLO relationship (i.e. Peres), but that's a different story. And I think it's been established that Peres is probably the most corrupt and amoral Israeli politician in history, so no surprises there.

If you read "Islam and Dhimmitude" and above all -- which if you have not read, I urge you to do so before Christmas, "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" (Bat Ye'or's best work of history) -- you will see all the classic mental maneuvers by which communities of dhimmis tried to accommodate their Muslim masters.

Some groups of Arabic-speaking Christians, those with the longest histories, the largest populations, the most coherent sense of themselves, are immune, or less prone, to internalizing the anti-Israel attitudes (including rumors, conspiracy theories, and all the rest -- such as the idea that some Israelis virtually "created" Hamas, etc.) that come with the territory of living in a Muslim sea. Maronites have been best at resisting, psychologically, this temptation; Copts come second, but in Egypt they tend to parrot with enthusiasm the party line on Israel (once safely in the West, things can change).

Of all the Christian communnities in the Middle East, it is the "Palestinian" Christian Arabs who threw in their lot wholeheartedly with the Jihad -- for them described as a "Palestinian" nationalist uprising. It was nothing of the sort. It was, in its original motivation, and remained, even post-1967 when the local Arabs were carefully transformed into that "Palestinian people" that had never before meen mentioned by any Arab spokesman anywhere. The whole business of disguising the Arab Muslim Jihad, in order to make it more palatable to the powerful (and, it was believed by Arabs, the Christian) West, by emphasizing not Islam but the "two-tiny-peoples-each-struggling-for-its-homeland" idea, was given impetus. Arafat himself, a complete crook, was not deeply devout man, much more a simple crook who nonetheless had the usual Muslim view of the world ("Palestine itself does not interest us. It is a drop in the Arab sea from Morocco to the Gulf." etcetera), but formed by Nasserite pan-Arabism, which itself was the product of a particular histoircal moment, one where the Arabs had had their so-called "Awakening" (in George Antonius's preposterous phrase) but, before 1973 and the OPEC oil bonanza, and the mass migration of Muslims behind enemy -- Infidel -- lines, had no idea they could dream about the spread of Islam everywhere, even within that seemingly impregnable and powerful West, so they settled for a subset of pan-Islamism, which is to say, pan-Arabism. Arafat, of course, like all the local leaders (Nasser, Assad, even Saddam Hussein) was most interested in his own power and wealth. He knew that the 20% of the local Arabs -- ooops, "Palestinians" -- who were Christian were more advanced, linguistically more adept, and could offer a more plausible and presentable face for the Jihad against Israel and the local shock troops of that Jihad, the "Palestinian" Arabs. And he exploited them to the fullest, and they wanted to be exploited. They wanted to prove themselves to their Muslim "brothres" so that they would be accepted, they would have a permanent place.

Of course, we all know how that little gamble ended. It ended, as it will always end for all non-Muslims, in tears and worse. The growth of Hamas took place outside of Fatah, but Islam itself had never left Fatah. Think of the armed group most identified with the late Arafat and his successor Abbas -- the redundantly-named Islamic (is there another kind?) Jihad. The charge that all of these woes of the "Palestinian" Christians with whom you apparently talk, and who cannot ever face the fact that it is they, and their gamble on the Muslims, and their falling in with the notion of "Palestinian nationalism," that explains their plight, and their disappointment, and their continued intellectual and moral inability to get out of the anti_Israel attitudes that they have imbibed since birth, lead them to draw all sorts of silly conclusions, believe all sorts of things.

Have the Israelis themselves been particularly brilliant? No. Have they always and everywhere taken the side of the local Christians? No. Think of Nazaareth, where they did not initially try to stop the building of that mosque. But the situation in Bethlehem, now so terrible for Christians, became terrible once the P.A. took control, and the old order of Freij passed, and there was nothing the Israelis could do. Did a few Israelis think, idiotically, once Hamas was created, that possibly, because on the local level, the micro-level, it was a force for anti-corruptioon, it could be worked with in a way that the permanently meretriciious Arafat, the most corrupt of all Arab mini-caliphs, could not be -- yes, very briefly, and only by a very few (and this becomes exaggerated in the heated imaginations of some "Palestinian" Christians), but was soon corrected.

What is completely forgotten by your quite misleading informants, those "Arab Christians" to which you keep referring, is their own role, over many decades, as loyal promoters of the Muslim agenda, the Jihad against Israel, which they have only now, in exile, in the West, begun to realize never had a permanent place for them, but was only a matter of exploiting them for Muslim purposes. Now, in that same West, they do not have to lie, nor believe the lies which they were taught, could hardly avoid, in the Middle East. They are free to see that where they erred was in not fully understanding the malice and malevolence of Islam toward all non-Muslims. And they might just begin to understand, as Bishop Moubarac of Beirut so clearly understood in 1947 (see Bat Ye'or's "Islam and Dhimmitude" for the text of Bishop Moubarac's remarks on why he supported, why the Maronites, why other Christians in the area, should suport Zionism and the nascent state of Israel -- at that point, with the Maronites still dominating Lebanon, he could from a position of security not only see the truth, but state it openly)-- that all the non-Muslims in a Muslim sea had an identity, not of views, but of interests, and that is would be fatal for them to try to strike their separate deals.

What those "Palestinian" Christians unwilling to confront their own long history of collaborating with the Muslim oppressors are doing is projecting onto the Israelis their own mistakes and political miscalculations. They should be dneouncing not only the gun-running Hilarion Cappucci, but also going around to Christian groups and working against Naim Ateek (still busily promoting the Muslims, as he will until the end of time), and Hanan Ashrawi, and all the others who still don't get it, won't allow themselves to get it, about the real prospects for Christians under Muslim rule in "Palestine" or anywhere else.

Time to wake up. Time to recognize the real threat to Christians -- including those who persist (they just can't help it) in identifying themselves as "Palestinians" as if a geographic term were an ethnic one. In the Middle East, what counts is confession. If you are not a Muslmi, whether or not you use Arabic (and are thereby inveigled into believing that you must, therefore, be an "Arab" -- a definition that many Maronites properly reject)-- and that Arabic languge was in turn imposed, in an act of cultural and linguistic imperialism, by the Muslim Arabs who conquered all the peoples of Mesopotamia, Syria, Judea, Egypt, the rest of North Africa, convincing all those Christians and Jews (but not managing to do so, curiously, with the Zoroastrians of Sassanian Persia, who had a sense of themselves as inheritors of an empirre and a national history) who converted immediately or slowly, over time, that they were "Arabs."

There is no reason for you, an American, whatever your close contacts and daily dealings with "Palestiinian" or other Arab Christians, to accept their world-view, distorted as it is by a long history, individual and family and civilizational, of the classic attitudes of the dhimmi. And in the Middle East, for the last few decades, that classic attitude has required blaming Israel, the Jews of Israel, for everything -- including the bleak results of the Christian Arabs's own attempts to fit in by placating the Muslims, by parroting (and believing) the Muslim view of things, and the refusal to accept an Infidel state in the midst of dar al-Islam.

Eventually, some of those Christians will begin to read and think. They may find Habib Malik (the son of Charles Malik) enlightening on the subject of Christians in a Muslim sea. They may read "Islam and Dhimmitude" if they are readers. They may discover, with a shock of undeniable recognition, the truths uttered by Walid Shoebat and Nonie Darwish (two "Palestinian" Christians, the first a convert from Islam), or Brigitte Gabriel (a Lebanese Maronite now in this country). The honest ones will admit the truth of what these peopole have to say. The dishonest ones will simply continue to be variants on the present "Christian" mayer of Bethlehem, or even stick to the Ashrawi-Ateek line of further self-abasement before Muslim masters.

Why not try to help them get out of the intellectual dhimmitude (servitude to Islam) that some persist in, despite now living in the Western world? Why not, instead of accepting their strange views, get them to read Bishop Moubarac, to read "Islam and Dhimmitude" and "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" and the writings of Habib Malik? Why not, in other words, tru to undo the effects of coming from a world where one had to internalize the Muslim view of things, including the rumors and conspiracy theories that, in this country, will simply subject one, in the long run, to ridicule, and furthermore, what is worse, make people regard some Arab Christians with the same suspicions that they do, with reason, Arab Muslims? Why not help them throw off those mind-forged manacles, by not accepting but rejecting their crazed conspiracy theories vis-a-vis the Israelis?

That is what a good shepherd would do for his erring flock. Ingratiating oneself by agreeing to wander along with them only helps lead them further astray. They need instruction. They need to have the mental habits of a lifetime undone. Help them.

In addition to all of the above -- I have always been at a complete loss to understand why incidents such as this video have the ability to galvinize world opinion, and especially the opinions of Westerners, while images of persons jumping from the 109th floor of the World Trade Towers or other staggering atrocities seem to fade in memory, and show no similar ability to galvinize opinions...

Is it the relative simplicity of the Palestinian footage? The desperate iconography of a Father and Son under seige (real or otherwise)? The bite sized digestability of the images?

Some might cynically suggest that the murders hundreds of Jewish children (many in the aftermath of this single incident, many justified post facto by this incident) is perhaps mitigated by the "occupation" of Arab lands by the Jewish State... This is an odious position, but I recognize the premise, and see the slim possibility of the issue being debated, although the deliberate targeting of children by Muslims is truly the greatest crime of Islam and Muslims... Leaving this incendiary topic for a moment, I still wonder about the other stories where Muslims have committed abominations of a far more horrid scale that what may be depicted in this tape... Furthermore, the other incidents, some of which require imagination, but many of which are far more thoroughly documented than this sordid little incident don't seem to have much effect in forming the larger non-Muslim opinions about Muslims and Islam.... WHY?

If you imagine the dozens of children murdered in 9/11 (mainly in the planes where they and their entire families met the most brutal, hateful extermination) or the hundreds massacred in Beslan by the actions of Muslim monsters, much of which was caught on tape... Or the images of hundreds of Mothers and their children being forced to defecate in the orchestra area by those poisonous "black widows" the verminous spawn from Chechnya in the theatre seige in Moscow... Sure, in comparison, the images of this single pathetic incident (staged or not) holds little resonance for me by comparison to these vivid uncontested documents of Muslim poison, Muslim hatred, Muslim vengeance, Muslim atrocity!

Why do these images fail to spark something in the larger world audience? They witness the endless stream of images of Muslim atrocities against children and innocents, and yet remain ambivalent, it seems, to the presence of Muslim, or the significance of Islam in these incidents. Why no resonance? Why no traction? I am at a loss to understand...

I'm left wondering about what the quality is, which I can only describe as a type of self loathing, which permits Westerners to be far more touched and affected by footage or stories of Muslim and Arab victimization (remember the trumped up lie of "The Massacre of Jenin" -- the thing that never happened which nevertheless galvinized Europe to fervent and unprecedented support for the Jihad against Israel...) Why -- What's wrong with us? What flaw on our side permits so many on our side to reserve their ultimate sympathy for the enemy constituency which unabashedly avows hatred of our side, and which acts on that hatred, and which openly prays for our annihilation? What flaw resides in the hearts of so many Westerners to ignore or forget the harrowing images of the victimization of OUR citizenry, of OUR children at the hands of all the hateful Muslims?

Excellent post Hugh.

I think it's very important that we be frank with those who call themselves "Arab Christians" and explain to them that their position on Israel is illogical at best and detrimental to their community at worst. I think Provo is kind of upset that Israel hasn't stood up for the Palestinian Christians but he has to realize that it was the Palestinian Christians who sided with the Muslims first before the Israelis designated them as their enemy. The myth that that all the Palestinian Christians were so scared of the Muslims that they had to side with them needs to be debunked. Yes they were oppressed, but how do we explain the ascendancy of Palestinian Christians in the propaganda wing of the jihad, how do we explain their prominent positions in the nationalist movements? They were active participants and volunteers, they were not coerced. They tried so hard to fit in with the Muslims that they even aped their attitudes (namely anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism), and as a result they degraded themselves and became illogical people. That is why they blame every Muslim atrocity against the Christians on Israel for "provoking them". They can't bring themselves to see that the Muslim Arabs don't see them as Arab brethren, but rather Arab infidels. And the Muslim/infidel divide is more important to the Arab Muslims than nationality, regardless of how devoted you are to the "Arab cause". It's hard for the "Arab Christians" to break free from this mental restraint because of all the Arab propgadana out there but also due to the failure of their last great hope, Arab Nationalism, which is about as good as dead right now since there is no more Soviet Union to fund it. The PFLP still exists but it has become so marginal now and it will never overshadow Islamic movements like Hamas or phony secular movements like the PLO. Arab Nationalism is a failed ideology but the "Arab Christians" don't want to believe that because if their best chance to co-exist with the Muslims is now gone, then what does the future hold for them?

Hugh,

Criticism of Israeli policy is not being anti-Israel. Israel missed the opportunity to forge an alliance with indigenous Christians by failing to distinguish the vast differences between the Christian and Muslim communities in Palestine. What I am arguing is: Hopefully there is a chance to rectify these past wrongs but in order to do that, we must address the injustices of the past.

Christians and Jews have the same enemy in Islam, so we must honestly face those problems that have led so many Arab Christians to this situation. The fact is, even under the oppression of the Turks, Christians in Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jenin, Haifa, and Nazareth held on tenaciously to their homes, orchards and other properties. Even under dhimmitude, Christians remained the majority in many areas of Palestine and Ramallah remained an overwhelmingly Christian city up to 1967. It was during the time of Israeli control that Muslims made their gains in Ramallah and Bethlehem. Now that they have political control, they are simply finishing off the last vestiges of Christianity. For creating this situation, I hold the dominant power responsible and that is Israel. Many Christians are quite justified in believing the Israelis favour the Muslims to the Christians.

As someone who cares about the future of Israel, I must not hesitate to criticize wrongful policies. Christians and Jews should not stand by while either is returned to Dhimmitude. Nor should we accept the equivalent of dhimmitude to each other. Jews and Christians must stand together as equals against the Islamic threat. The Christian Kingdom of Jeruisalem by its wrongheaded discrimination against Jews, drove many of them into supporting the Muslims, and today it seems that Israel is making this same error in reverse.

Strangely enough, my advocacy of a Christian specific (and anti-Islamic) Palestinian nationalism finds more support from Israeli Jews than from Christians or Jews in the West. Perhaps, this is because Israelis are not hesitant to loudly criticize misguided policies of their own government while many American supporters of Israel wrongly confuse any criticism of Israeli policy with opposition to Israel itself.

We must stop looking at the area as if there are two communities based on ethnicity or citizenship: i.e. Jews and Arabs and realize that there are THREE separate communities based on different historical, cultural, and religious circumstances: Jewish, Muslim, AND Christian. If Israel would adopt a proactive policy in this regard and quit lumping all Palestinians together as simply Arabs, then perhaps the dwindling Christian minority will be able to energize itself and confidently resist the conditions of Dhimmitude. Arab Christians and Israelis need each other more than ever, esapecially in Bethlehem and Ramallah, so that is why I will continually call on Israel to end its shorsided policies and support Christian nationalism throughout the Middle East beginning with the areas under its control.

Personally, I would like to see a specifically Christian education system adopted for our communities in Bethlehem, Ramallah, Nazareth etc. Just as early Zionist restored the almost dead Hebrew language as a base of national revival, this could restore the Aramaic language to Palestinian Christianity. Remember, many Palestinian Christians only adopted Arabic (and became "Arabs") in the last few centuries. A condition of overthrowing Dhimmitude is the ending of its impositions, whether cultural, religious, linguistic as well as political.

Until 1967, Christians were the educational and economic backbone of the Palestinians. This must be restored. The Muslims of Fatah had to reach out to Christians because they had no other choice (and they also wanted to sideline the Christian controlled PFLP). Now they no longer need Christians and so the true nature of Islamic control shows its face.

On the other hand, Israelis need Christian allies more than ever so they must make the effort to win them over. Then Hanan Ashrawi, Bishop Hilarion and the rest will have the choice of getting on train or being left behind as a real Palestinian nation with true historical roots rises up, in close friendship with a democratic Israel, to replace this contrived Arab Palestine conceived in the minds of the Muslim oppressors.

"Hanan Ashrawi, Bishop Hilarion and the rest will have the choice of getting on train or being left behind as a real Palestinian nation with true historical roots rises up..."
-- from a posting above

Of course Ashrawi, Naim Ateek, gun-running Cappucci and the others will never change their spots. How could they? How could so many of those Arab Christians who, even having left the Middle East, but after a lifetime of enduring inculcation in anti-Israel views (views which persist as in their amazing attempt to place the blame for Muslim outrages against Christians on the Israelis, for god's sake).

As far as this "real Palestinian nation" with "true historical roots" -- that requires centuries, and is impossible. There is not now, never was, and never will be a separate "real Palestinian nation" if by that you mean some identity that will transcend that of Arab Muslims. There are so few Christians left, that they will either see the light, and help if not identify with, Israeli Jews at long last -- and I think only the most intellectually and morally advanced will do so -- or they will continue to suicidally promote the Jihad against their only sure protector in the Muslim sea, the Jewish state of Israel (look around -- look at what has been and is happening to Christians all over North Africa, the Middle East, and Turkey -- during this past century. For god's sake look around).

Hugh,

I don't really disagree with you. That's why I insist that the Christians (and the few Samaritans) are the only true non-Jewish Palestinians. The Muslims in the PA are simply invaders from Arabia.

But until Israel will recognize the Christians as a unique people and stop lumping them all together on the PA Reservation, where can they go. The Muslims want to dhimmitize them and the to many Israelis refuse to recognize their separate existence (to the joyful gratitude of the Islamists running the PA). Changing this is not an easy process but it is absolutely essential.

Both Israelis and Christian Palestinians have to do some serious re-assessment of their relationship. Either they reach out to each other from both camps quickly, or they will all be swallowed by the Islamic tide.

"until Israel will recognize the Christians as a unique people and stop lumping them all together on the PA Reservation, where can they go?"
-- from a posting above

It is Israel that must accommodate in some way those "Palestinian" Christians who made their pact with the devil by always and everywhere supporting Arafat and the so-called "Palestinian" cause, and helped disguise the Jihad against the Infidel state of Israel as a "nationalist" movement? Why shoult the Israelis make a move -- and what should that move be? Should they offer citizenship to all "Palestinian" Chrstians who until a minute ago, and even today, are working against Israel in such places as the World Council of Churches, the Episcopal Church, the Presybterian Church? If they are unwilling to distance themselves from, and to denounce, those islamochristians such as Hanan Ashrawi and Naim Ateek (the most successful of those beavering away in the American churches, along with a little help from a "Palestinian" Arab minister or two, highly-placed and determined to promote the Lesser Jihad).

What exactly does Israel, or for that matter what exactly to the real Christians, and not the islamochristians -- real Christains such as Habib Malik in Lebanon, for example -- owe these local Arabs who, though officially converts to Christianity over the past century or so, have in fact never wavered in their essential identification of their ethnic "Arabness" with the attitudes, atmospherics, and hostilities of Islam, and which they only dislike insofar as that Islam finally has been revealed as hopelessly against them?

You tell me. Pretend you are an Israeli. Or pretend you are simply a Christian Maronite. Or pretend you are simply a Christain in Dallas or Atlanta or Boston or Montreal or Sydney or London. What do you owe "islamochristians" who are, and have been, promoters of such things as the "Palestinian" cause? You owe them nothing. They are phonies, using their so-called "Christianity" to promote an Islamic agenda and Islamic worldview. Only those Arabic-speaking Maronites and to a lesser extent Copts, and others, including those former Muslim Arabs who in the West have converted to Christianity, are likely to be trustworthy, and to have earned any political trust.

We are not quite as naive aw we were even a year or two ago. And the understanding of the phenomenon of the "islamochristian" becomes much clearer once one has read, and assimilated, two books by Bat Ye'or which you should get hold of: "Islam and Dhimmitude" and "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam." Books of history, but fresh as the morning dew.

Hugh,

I don't understand why you are so against the indigenous Christians. This blame the victim mentality is exactly why Islam is winning. If you have a long-term fight with a harassing and oppressive neighbor, it's not likely your going to suddenly become a supporter of the armed robber in your house just because he's going to attack that hated neighbor as well.

As long as Israeli policy treats Christians exactly the same as Muslims (a perception you seem to support) then the Christian Palestinians remained trapped between two hostile forces. It is time Israel end its hostility toward Christians and the Christians realize that a mutually satisfactory alliance can be formed with Israel.

There is a much too long history of failure between Christians and Jews and as I said above, BOTH have to make efforts in reaching out to each other. Jews in Israel need not make the same mistake the Christians of Spain made during the Reconquista, driving the Jews into the arms of Muslims by being equally hostile to both.

As for the now-defeated Maronites, they actually had a chance of winning when Michel Aoun took control. Sadly, in one of the unholiest acts of defacto cooperation, Israel withdrew its air dominance over Beirut just long enough for the Syrian airforce to come in and remove Aoun from power. Right now we see the same thing happening with the PA. How can you expect Christians to risk what little they have left in order to take on the PA, when it is the Israeli government pushing the vicious falsehood that the PA represents all Palestinians.

How can a small and dwindling people be expected to support a government that refuses even to recognize that they even exist as a separate and unique people.

Remember, it was only when Israel forcefully liberated the Jews of Yemen, Iraq, and Syria from their dhimmitude that these Arabized Jews were able to break free of the Islamic imposed attitudes similar to the ones Bat Yeor chronicles so well. Now it is time to expand the front against Islam.

So... Yes, it is up to Israel to make the first move to "accommodate in some way" these Christians because:
1. Israel is the dominant power ,
2. Israel has much to gain and nothing to lose in doing so, and
3. Unlike the Muslim powers, Israel has a moral foundation and it is the right thing to do!

If I limit my critiques to the policies and attitudes of Jews and Christians, it is because both have a mutual responsibility towards each other. To argue with Muslims is a waste of time but Jews and Christians can come together as allies if both of us are willing.

One last thought:

Earlier you wrote "Time to wake up. Time to recognize the real threat to Christians -- including those who persist (they just can't help it) in identifying themselves as "Palestinians" as if a geographic term were an ethnic one"

Just what in Hell are they supposed to identify themselves as? Nigerians? Kuwaitis? Martians? They sure can't be Israelis since, as you contend, Israel shouldn't offer them citizenship or accomodate them in any way. Not even Hamas is that openly negative to their existence. Interestingly, under the Ottomans, Jews of Jerusalem were considered Palestinians and I'm sure you've heard of the Palestinian Talmud.

The basis of any nationalism is ultimately geographic and these Christians were calling themselves "Palestinians" ever since their expulsion from the synogogues in the First Century AD/CE when the Orthodox Rabbis declared the new sect of the Christians to be the "same as Philistines" causing them to take that slander as an honour. The early Fathers referred to the Christians of Syria-Palestina well before Muhammed was born.

Indigenous Christians, Jews, and Samaritans are the true Palestinians, just as Copts are the true Egyptians. The Muslims are just Hagarene invaders from Arabia.

---------------------------------------

"only a Jewish-Christian alliance will be able to ensure the survival for both the Jews and the Christians in the Middle East"
- Walid Phares, president of the World Lebanese Organisation www.yahoodi.com/peace/christians.html

"Just what in Hell are they [local Arabs who renamed themselves after the 1967 war as "the Palestinian people"] supposed to identify themselves as?"
-- from a posting above

The point is this: not that the local Arabs cannot use the term "Palestinian" but that they failed to do so for a very long time, because in the world of Arab Islam, the identity that matters is not that of the nation-state, or it matters very little. The nation-state is alien to the Arab and Muslim consciousness. That does not mean that local leaders, in order to preserve their own control over local resources, mainly for themselves, will not be happy to rule over the administration which seems, to outsiders, to mimic the Western nation-state. But no Arab Muslim country is really a nation-state. Do you believe that an Arab in Fallujah thinks of himself as an "Iraqi" or as a Sunni Arab? Which identity is more important to him? Does he feel more, or less identity, with a fellow Sunni Arab in Amman, or for that matter in Ramallah, than he does with a Sh'ia Arab in Najaf, or with a Kurd in Kirkuk or Mosul? You know the answer to that.

Particularly suspect is the fact that the local Arabs, in all of their tens of thousands of speeches, and declarations, and documents, and so on, never -- not in 1880, not in 1900, not in 1920, not in 1940, not in 1960, ever called themselves "Palestinians." Nor did a single Arab representative at the U.N., nor any declaration by the Arab League, nor any statement, by any Arab, anywhere, until after the 1967 war. Either they simply called themselves "the Arabs" or "the Arabs of Palestine" (the word "Palestinian" was always used by the Jews in Palestine) or adjectivally as the "Palestinian" Arabs -- as opposed to the Jordanian or Syrian or Egyptian or Saudi Arabs.

Why you think we should all accept the political masquerade which would have us accept the notion of a "Palestinian people" who have no distinct language, culture, religion, or any other thing to distingusih them from Arabs across the Jordan River, or for that matter to Arabs north and south either, is curious. For if there is to be understanding of the world-wide Jihad, there must be an undrstanding of the Muslim nature (aided and abetted by collaborationist, fearful islamochrisetians, who have always done the Muslim bidding and even internalized the Arab Muslim worldview except insofar as it reads them, those "islamochristians," right out of the Arab national narrative) of the local JIhads, including the Lesser Jihad (which got started earlier, before the trillions in OPEC oil money, and the Muslim migrants within Infidel lands, made possible much larger plans and schemes by Muslims -- the plan to finally come to dominate the entire world. Yes, it is a fantastic idea, but that doesn't mean a lot of us will be greatly harmed as they attempt to realize that desire for conquest -- now through non-military means -- and subjugation).

I don't give a damn if every last Israeli starts using the phrase "Palestiniain people." It remains a historic fiction, made up to score political points and make geopolitical gains.

Not buying.

Hugh
You didn't read what I actually wrote:

NOT: "Just what in Hell are they [local Arabs who renamed themselves after the 1967 war as "the Palestinian people"] supposed to identify themselves as?"

BUT: "Just what in Hell are they [the Palestinian CHRISTIANS] supposed to identify themselves as?"

As I stated over and over, I don't consider Muslims to be Palestinians, or Egyptians, or Syrians etc. They are simply the offspring of Hagarene invaders from Arabia who occupied these Christian lands.

So what national identity should these Christians have, if not as the real Palestinians. The important thing is to force the world to recognize there are three communities and not just two. I am dissapointed that you don't want the Israelis to accept these Christians and have joined the Muslims in relegating them to part of the Umma. Even the use of the bigoted, hateful, and impossible term "Islamochristian" sounds like something that could have been invented by Muslim apologists to insist there is only one Arabic culture. This is completely false.

Christian Assyrians are a real historical and unique nation, Copts are the true Egyptian nation, and these Christians are the true Palestinians. I've often wondered if the Palestinian Christians ought to adopt a more ancient ancestral term for their ethnicity. That the three communities in the Holy Land might better be called, the Jewish Israelis, the Muslim Arabs, and the Christian Israelites. Of course, if I had my way, all these Christians would be part of the restored Byzantine nation but that's not going to happen any time soon, so "Christian Palestinian" is all we've got.

You wrote "the local Arabs, in all of their tens of thousands of speeches, and declarations, and documents, and so on, never -- not in 1880, not in 1900, not in 1920, not in 1940, not in 1960, ever called themselves "Palestinians."

Exactly!!! Because neither in Turkish nor British controlled Palestine, was the historical and national rights of the Christian Community taken into consideration. The attitude seemed to be that the Christian right to self-determination was extinguished along with the independence of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. This is also false.

A nation does not require a state to be a true nation but it does require a degree of territorial sovereignty in order to exercise its national rights. Just because the Muslims twice conquered the Land by force and the British and now the Israelis have chosen to accept the Muslim conquerors as if they are the only other claimant, does not mean the legitimate national claim of the local Christians are invalid. The heart of every indigenous Palestinian Christian does and should beat for Jerusalem, just as the heart of every Christian should still beat for Bethlehem, Nazareth, Antioch, Damascus, Carthage, Alexandria and Constantinople or anywhere else where we we overwhelmed by the Islamic tide.

Now is the time for Christian (especially Orthodox and Catholics) to abandon the false identity of the secular nation-state and adopt a confessional nationalism that indentifies the struggle or persecution of any fellow-Christian anywhere in the world as our own. With this mindset, we can join in absolute friendship with our Jewish, Sikh, Hindu and Buddhist compatriots in a common holy war against Islamic agression wherever it may raise its viscious head.

Hugh,

As I re-read my posts and yours, I think sometimes when we are going back and forth, we sometimes forget we're on the same side. We're only debating strategy not goals.

The only disagreement we've had that has no solution was over the guilt or innocence of a rocketeer who is long dead and now judged by God. Nevertheless, I really enjoy an intelligent debate with someone who comes back with facts and not invective. This site is rich in that regard.

So I apologize for the harshness of my rhetorical question. I should have asked simply "What should they call themselves?" and left out the expletive.

By the way, when posting anonimously, I often find it useful to take positions a little more radical and undiplomatic than I would in a face to face encounter, in order to spark further debate so I can finesse my opinion. In a personal conversation I am a little more nuanced and respectful. At least I hope I am. You can ask Robert, he might disagree :)

Provo

to Pravoslavni,
The name "Palestinian Talmud" is a name used in English for what in Hebrew is called "Talmud Yerushalmi." That is, the proper translation of the name of this compilation of Jewish law and commentary is Jerusalemite Talmud. I find the name "Palestinian Talmud" to be offensive and inaccurate.
What the Jews called the Land of Israel after Emperor Hadrian changed the official name of Provincia Iudaea to Provincia Syria Palaestina, was Land of Israel. See the discussion at this link:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/12/what-did-jews-call-land-of-israel.html

Hugh,
I can assure you that many many Israelis do not accept the notion of a separate "palestinian people." In conversation, just about everybody except for Media Professionals [who do not have much credibility] speaks of Arabs and HaAretz [= the Land, that is, Israel]. People do not ordinarily use the P word.

Another aspect Middle Eastern history concerning the Arabic-speaking Christians, is the influence of Western powers on these people. The State Dept shot down negotiations going on in the time of Elias Freij to bring Bethlehem into the Jerusalem municipality [where it was by the way under the UN partition plan which proposed a three-way split of the Land of Israel, 1-an Arab state, 2- a Jewish state, 3- the Jerusalem region as a "corpus separatum" under international control [including Bethlehem, Beit Sahur, and Beit Jala]. These talks took place in the early or mid-1970s. Annexing Bethlehem to the Jerusalem municipality would have meant in effect making it a part of the State of Israel. Pravoslavni really does not know the history of these matters as well as he thinks he does. The State Dept shot down the talks. Furthermore, way back in the 1920s, Western interests and institutions in the Middle East encouraged the Arab-speaking Christians to side with the Muslims against Israel. The British military administration in Israel before the San Remo conference formally accepted the Jewish National Home concept [that is, in the period 1917-1920], fostered organization of the Muslim-Christian association [MCA] to bring Muslims and Christians together against Zionism. I believe that Yehoshu`a Porat discusses this in his book on Arab nationalism among Arabs in "palestine." After the Six Day war, various official and semi-official Western institutions and establishments in and around Jerusalem and in Ramallah [i.e., the Ramallah Friends School run by Quakers] discouraged local Christians from cooperating with Israel and encouraged Arab nationalism and the so-called "palestinian" cause or PLO. This is a story that is partially documented but gets much less attention than it deserves.

Eliyahu,

You are absolutely correct about the Jerusalem Talmud, but in English the name has stuck even among Jewish Scholars (see its listing in the Jewish Encyclopedia for example). As for most Jews not using "Palestinian" is natural since at one time to call some on a filistin (Philistine) was actually a curse.

All I am advocating, is limiting the recognition of Palestinian nationhood to those with roots in the land, i.e. Christians and Samaritans (and those local non-Israeli Jews, there are a few), while we should label the Muslims exactly what they are, Arabian invaders. If Christians, Samaritans and ultimately Israel itself are going to survive this Muslim demographic onslaught, we have to take control of the terms of debate.

Actually I do know about that peace plan, and (this may surprise you) I agree with you. I am happy you brought up the late mayor of Bethlehem about whom Jacobo Timmerman wrote

"One of the wisest Palestinians, Elias Freij, mayor of Bethlehem on the West Bank, told a French newspaperwoman during President Mitterrand's visit last March that the PLO needed to recognize Israel at once, without any conditions whatsoever. The European politicians had the same information as Elias Freij, and greater experience." (The Longest War)

Friej, who was elected mayor of Bethlehem by successfully blocking Communist candidates, was the kind of true Palestian who could have built a Christian-Jewish alliance. Unfortunately, he was smeared as "pro-Jordanian" by Fatah and betrayed by the Western powers who preferred to deal with Arafat and the PLO rather than those actually living in the towns of the so-called West Bank.

Had Israel been willing to deal with the Christian Community as a separate people with their own separate and unique claims to Bethlehem, Jenin, Ramallah, etc. then she might have been able to forge an effective alliance that would have undercut the domminance of the PLO/PA. A dominance which led directly to the tragic situation we see today.

Today, more Bethlehem Christians live in the US than in Bethlehem. Those who remain recognize that they've been betrayed by the West. While Jews in the US correctly support Israel and the Muslim countries support these Jihadists, the slow annihilation of Palestinian Christians (the living descendants of the very first Christians) is completely ignored by the west.

The Muslims are the problem and they have the advantage. But Israel with its moral base, has a responsibilty to those under its control. In the past, there has been too much bad blood between Christian and Jews, especially in the Holy Land. Now its time to come together against a common threat.

Pravo,
You say that the Western powers preferred to deal with arafat. Well, in that situation, how could Freij have successfully negotiated the plan that I spoke of? How could Israel, isolated as it was at the UN, have negotiated such a plan? You don't go far enough. You should realize that the Western powers did not want any kind of alliance between Israel and the Arabic-speaking Christians in Judea-Samaria. The Israel Labor Party which was in govt at that time did not have any stomach for defying the State Dept on that issue or most others. Moreover, check out the activity of the Western institutions [churches, charitable, "humanitarian," etc.] that operate out of Jerusalem or Bethlehem or Ramallah. They have a lot more influence than you seem to realize. They have money and media access too.
By the way, Jenin is not and has not been a Christian town. Maybe you're thinking of Jifna north of Ramallah, the ancient Jewish town of Gophna, where there has been a Christian presence, now dwindling.

Eliyahu,

Please excuse my mindfart. I was thinking of the Christians of Jifna (many of whom now live in the US).

You are absolutely right. I've often believed that outside interference (even when good-intentioned) has prevented those parties actually there from finding an agreement.

Remember, it was the US that saved Arafat by arranging his "escape from" Beirut. And you're right that no Israeli government has the stomach to defy the US (the cost of dependence on US foriegn aid?). Both Jews and Christians have been shortsighted in recognizing our common necessities while the Muslims have continued toward their goal without detour. While the Muslim war of threats and terror makes the news, it is demographics that is their most effective weapon. Sadly it seems that not only Christians have emmigrated but many Israeli Jews as well. Something has to be done that will effectively reverse this trend. I only hope it's not too late.

Eliyahu, I just found these statistics although they may be a year old...

Two-thirds of the residents of Zababdeh, seven miles southeast of Jenin, are Christian, belonging to four churches. The founding of the nearby Arab-American University in 2000 has meant economic and demographic growth, adding 1,000 students to the town's population of 3,000.

The Christian population of Nablus is now down to only 700 people.

There are now less than 100 Christians in Burqin and less than 100 in Tubas and only 55 in Jalame.

Jenin itself has a population of 45,000, almost all Muslim, a third of whom reside in Jenin Refugee Camp. There are approximately 200 Christians in Jenin, belonging to various branches of the faith, but all worshiping at the city's one Roman Catholic parish.