Hamas--who knew? Well, the Bush administration should have known.
Condi asks "What's a pulse?"
When so many people expressed shock and surprise over the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, my thought was there was no real surprise. And then I found that Condi Rice admitted that the Bush administration was completely clueless about the situation in Palestine, and that definitely was no surprise at all. And then later she made a statement that showed the Bush administration had no excuse for being so clueless, but I'm getting ahead of the story.
Let's begin with these excerpts from a January 30, 2006, New York Times article:
Summary of why Palestinians voted for Hamas
Now, what caused Palestinians to be so hostile to Fatah, their longtime leaders? And how did Hamas appeal to so many voters? Rashid Khalidi, professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, gave a good summary in a January 27, 2006, interview on NPR:
Also from the Dept. of the Bloody Obvious: the reason for the hostility
The matter can be summed up in one word: corruption. Fatah was seen as corrupt, and Hamas was not.
To say that it was no secret that Fatah was corrupt is a gross understatement. Even though I have not done exhaustive research on this subject, and even though I have not tracked down confirmation of what appears in the sources I have found, I am going to present those sources--in chronological order.
A November 13, 2003, Washington Post article discussed the appointment of Ahmed Qureia as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority and noted the following:
The next item comes from a group called the Funding for Peace Coalition, which describes itself as "an ad hoc group of concerned citizens interested in peace and alarmed at the absence of adequate controls and of fundamental responsibility in the management of European aid to the Middle East." The FPC's March 2004 report discussed the findings and perceived inadequacies of a report by a group within the EU parliament which was investigating funding to the Palestinian Authority. Part of the FPC report says
Next on the hit parade is a July 22, 2004, article from the Washington Times.
On July 26, 2004, Brad Nielson published an article on the FPC site wherein he wrote
And now for the best article of all...David Makovsky of the Washington Institute published an article on August 6, 2004, which detailed the various efforts within Fatah to overcome the corruption. Makovsky described opposition to Arafat and the Fatah leadership as coming from three sources: 1) the PA's security chief in Gaza, Muhammad Dahlan; 2) the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades--supposedly the armed faction of Fatah; and 3) Palestinian society as a whole. When one of your top security officers and your own militia oppose you because they claim you are corrupt, that's really bad. But you know, it should be damn bloody obvious that your own people are really upset with their longtime leaders when almost the entire society turns on you:
But I am again getting a bit ahead of the story...
All of the articles in this section at this point predate the death of Arafat, so maybe the corruption had decreased since Arafat's death in late 2004 to the point that the Bush administration's surprise was justified. Then again, maybe not. A January 9, 2006, AP report described Fatah as being "viewed as riddled with corruption[.]" Moreover, as stated in a January 24, 2006, NBC report entitled "For Palestinians, vote is all about corruption," "Fatah — and particularly Abbas — was unable to push aside the old guard installed by Arafat, who stayed in power in part by encouraging corruption and a divide-and-rule culture in the party."
Also, as alluded to by Professor Khalidi, Abbas--and thus Fatah--appeared weak. A November 14, 2005, Newsweek article examined Palestine one year after Arafat's death and found that not much had changed. The article explained how Arafat allowed several different militias to exist with no effort to unify them. This arrangement caused constant chaos that Arafat used to his advantage, but the situation had not improved after his death under the leadership of Abbas:
So there was a party whose history of corruption was well known for years before the election, and that corruption continued after Arafat's death right up to the election. So there was an increasing outcry within that party and society at large to end the corruption, and yet there was no unified force within that party to take charge. However, there was a group within the society that was organized and made corruption the central issue of the campaign.
Enter Hamas.
The AP article cited immediately above said that Hamas had "cultivated a corruption-free image," and the NBC report said that Hamas had "achieved considerable popularity by promising to do away with the deep corruption that grew under Arafat's long reign." As noted in the second section of this post, the Hamas platform was all about ending corruption and showing that it was incorruptible. Given everything else discussed above, there is no way that the Hamas platform and strategy could have been a surprise.
It also should not have been a surprise that Fatah was too fractured to effectively overcome its own image and counter the challenge from Hamas.
In other words, given the history of corruption, the well-documented disgust of Palestinians with the corruption, the lack of unity within Fatah, and the Hamas platform, the success of Hamas in the election should not have been a big surprise.
Condi's last word
On January 26, 2006, Rice made an appearance via video link at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. She stated
And that goes for the rest of the Bush administration.
I am so tired of the incompetency and the bullshit from this administration.
When so many people expressed shock and surprise over the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, my thought was there was no real surprise. And then I found that Condi Rice admitted that the Bush administration was completely clueless about the situation in Palestine, and that definitely was no surprise at all. And then later she made a statement that showed the Bush administration had no excuse for being so clueless, but I'm getting ahead of the story.
Let's begin with these excerpts from a January 30, 2006, New York Times article:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged Sunday that the United States had failed to understand the depth of hostility among Palestinians toward their longtime leaders. The hostility led to an election victory by the militant group Hamas that has reduced to tatters crucial assumptions underlying American policies and hopes in the Middle East.(emphasis added). Yet another statement from the Department of the Bloody Obvious...
"I've asked why nobody saw it coming," Ms. Rice said, speaking of her own staff. "It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse."
Summary of why Palestinians voted for Hamas
Now, what caused Palestinians to be so hostile to Fatah, their longtime leaders? And how did Hamas appeal to so many voters? Rashid Khalidi, professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, gave a good summary in a January 27, 2006, interview on NPR:
It’s worth looking at the Hamas platform on which they actually ran in these elections: reform and change. And they very strictly adhered to not talking about confrontation with Israel, not talking about their charter, not talking about an Islamic state. Neither their strategic program nor their religious program and social program were emphasized in the platform on which they ran. They said, “We are going to stop the corruption. We are running on the fact that we are clean, we are efficient, we are not corrupt."(emphasis added).
...that large majority of Palestinians who don’t agree with their social program and who don’t agree with their strategic program, but who respect them because, unlike Fatah and the PLO, they are seen as having stood up to the Israelis. Unlike Fatah and the PLO, they are seen as being incorruptible. That’s what people voted for...
Also from the Dept. of the Bloody Obvious: the reason for the hostility
The matter can be summed up in one word: corruption. Fatah was seen as corrupt, and Hamas was not.
To say that it was no secret that Fatah was corrupt is a gross understatement. Even though I have not done exhaustive research on this subject, and even though I have not tracked down confirmation of what appears in the sources I have found, I am going to present those sources--in chronological order.
A November 13, 2003, Washington Post article discussed the appointment of Ahmed Qureia as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority and noted the following:
Critics said Qureia and his new government offer little hope of significantly improving relations with Israel or invigorating stalled peace talks Qureia and his cabinet, which has many familiar politicians considered close to the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, came under attack from lawmakers who complained that it was not the sort of independent, reform-minded government needed to fundamentally change the Palestinian Authority, which many Palestinians view as corrupt and hindered by Arafat's autocratic rule.(emphasis added). I figured that if the Washington Post knew about this corruption over two years ago, the Bush administration surely should have.
The next item comes from a group called the Funding for Peace Coalition, which describes itself as "an ad hoc group of concerned citizens interested in peace and alarmed at the absence of adequate controls and of fundamental responsibility in the management of European aid to the Middle East." The FPC's March 2004 report discussed the findings and perceived inadequacies of a report by a group within the EU parliament which was investigating funding to the Palestinian Authority. Part of the FPC report says
There are important signs of 'insider' revulsion at the financial corruption within the Palestinian hierarchy. The resignation speech of former Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, to the Palestinian Parliament last September, for instance, is rich with references to theft from the Palestinian Treasury by 'insiders'...The mayor of Nablus resigned his position last month because of corruption within Arafat's circle. 300 members of Fatah resigned from the organization for similar reasons this month. Did the Working Group pay attention to these voices from within the Palestinian camp?NOTE: Abbas is the current PA president, a position he won through an election. Prior to being president, he was appointed prime minister. While whether the EU Working Group paid attention to those Palestinian voices is open to question, Rice conceded that the Bush administration either did not or failed to comprehend what those voices were plainly saying.
Next on the hit parade is a July 22, 2004, article from the Washington Times.
Opposition is mounting within the Fatah movement to Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat's refusal to implement reforms and end corruption in his security and administrative institutions.(emphasis added). Look at that again--SINCE 1997. And yet the Bush administration "did not have a good enough pulse" on the fact that Palestinians were fed up with corruption in Fatah.*******The issue of corruption in the Palestinian Authority is not new. It has been widely discussed in Gaza since 1997, when the PA's auditing office completed its 600-page report, stating that many PA officials and security chiefs were corrupt and were wasting public money.
On July 26, 2004, Brad Nielson published an article on the FPC site wherein he wrote
During the Spring and early Summer of 2004, The Funding for Peace Coalition has monitored the break up of various parts of the PA empire. The complaints of Fatah members, mayors and others informed the world that the higher echelons of the PA have distanced themselves from the people. Power has become more centralized than ever. Bribery and campaigns of fear are the features of the regime.(emphasis added). Nielson also described reports from various Arab media.
The London-based al-Quds al-Arabi said in a commentary that the confusion and chaos in Gaza could quickly move to the West Bank and accused Arafat of continuing to make "bigger mistakes." The independent Palestinian-owned daily said the Palestinian leader's appointment of his cousin, Mousa Arafat, to head the Public Security Department, was a mistake because the new commander "is not less corrupt than his predecessor and is hated by most of the Palestinian people." The paper said that "when the police commanders are turned into brokers for drug smugglers, it is natural for the police to turn into an enemy of the people, and natural for its commander to be abducted and beaten in broad daylight." The daily, which has in recent years been critical of what it sees as Palestinian corruption, insisted that "all the Palestinian institutions are corrupt and illegitimate." It accused Arafat of allowing "this contagious corruption to spread until it turned the Palestinian political body into a decomposed corpse whose stench is overwhelming."So Arabs and Palestinians were speaking openly about the corruption in Fatah and how the people were growing tired of it, and yet the Bush administration had no idea about how the Palestinian people felt.*******Meanwhile, Qatar's pro-government ash-Sharq daily quoted former Palestinian Legislative Council Speaker Rafiq al-Natsheh as saying that he was removed from his position in March by Fatah, of which he was a member. He said he was "toppled" after he insisted on forming a committee to investigate an alleged $11 million that were transferred to the account of Arafat's wife, Suha, in Paris, and his readiness to unlock corruption issues within the Palestinian Authority. Al-Natsheh told the paper he intended to call on Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayad to reveal information on the alleged money transfers to Suha Arafat. He said he also wanted an investigation into accusations that Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia was supplying the Israeli Abu Ghnaim settlement in Jerusalem, or Har Homa, with cement blocks. The former Palestinian speaker described Arafat as the "protector of corruption and the corrupt." He added that the PA did not need foreign aid, saying there were billions of dollars that were in the possession of the authority, "but no one knows anything about the funds." Al-Natsheh also accused the "corrupt" of "toppling" the government of former Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas 10 months ago "because he had sought to organize matters and achieve reforms."
And now for the best article of all...David Makovsky of the Washington Institute published an article on August 6, 2004, which detailed the various efforts within Fatah to overcome the corruption. Makovsky described opposition to Arafat and the Fatah leadership as coming from three sources: 1) the PA's security chief in Gaza, Muhammad Dahlan; 2) the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades--supposedly the armed faction of Fatah; and 3) Palestinian society as a whole. When one of your top security officers and your own militia oppose you because they claim you are corrupt, that's really bad. But you know, it should be damn bloody obvious that your own people are really upset with their longtime leaders when almost the entire society turns on you:
Polls conducted by the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research show that 85 to 90 percent of Palestinians believe that the PA is corrupt, and only half of them believe that the PA can stem this corruption. Moreover, Arab and Palestinian criticism of Arafat, once unthinkable, has continued nonstop in recent weeks. For example, former Speaker of the PLC Rafik Natshe stated, "We demand that Arafat carry out promises he has made, or explain why he can't fulfill them." Ibrahim Hamami, a prominent diaspora Palestinian based in London, said to Arafat, "You treat the Palestinians like a pair of shoes to be worn or kicked outside as the mood strikes. The solution is for you to pack your bags, take your crooked friends and go somewhere else. Get out of here."This apparently was not enough for Condi Rice to have a clue about the pulse of the Palestinians. Makovsky's conclusion also provided an early indication of why the Bush administration should not have been caught so completely by surprise over Hamas's strong showing in an election some 17 months later: "In light of these developments, it is safe to say that more opposition is likely in the future. Yet, these disparate forces of discontent have yet to coalesce into a single coherent leadership alternative." So, while the Palestinian people in general and people within Fatah specifically were tired of the corruption, there was no unified force to step in and fill the void. Or was there?
But I am again getting a bit ahead of the story...
All of the articles in this section at this point predate the death of Arafat, so maybe the corruption had decreased since Arafat's death in late 2004 to the point that the Bush administration's surprise was justified. Then again, maybe not. A January 9, 2006, AP report described Fatah as being "viewed as riddled with corruption[.]" Moreover, as stated in a January 24, 2006, NBC report entitled "For Palestinians, vote is all about corruption," "Fatah — and particularly Abbas — was unable to push aside the old guard installed by Arafat, who stayed in power in part by encouraging corruption and a divide-and-rule culture in the party."
Also, as alluded to by Professor Khalidi, Abbas--and thus Fatah--appeared weak. A November 14, 2005, Newsweek article examined Palestine one year after Arafat's death and found that not much had changed. The article explained how Arafat allowed several different militias to exist with no effort to unify them. This arrangement caused constant chaos that Arafat used to his advantage, but the situation had not improved after his death under the leadership of Abbas:
In his campaign to succeed Arafat, [Abbas] promised to end "the chaos of guns" in private hands and to impose the rule of law in areas where intifada gunmen had become neighborhood gang leaders.So in addition to being corrupt in the eyes of the people, Fatah also appeared weak.*******In reality, the militias have gained ground in the past year. For the first time since the start of the uprising, as many Palestinians have died in internal violence this year as in clashes with Israel, according to figures published by the Palestinian Interior Ministry. "Arafat encouraged the chaos but also had the stature to control it in some ways," says Alpher, the political analyst. "Abu Mazen has none of this." By not collecting weapons, Abbas also left an opening for the occasional resumption of suicide bombings, which have been slowed by a —shaky ceasefire in place since February. These invariably trigger tighter Israeli sieges in the West Bank and Gaza.
The upshot is that Abbas appears weak compared with his main opponent, the Islamic Hamas group. Fatah, tainted by the corruption and incompetence that has characterized the Palestinian Authority, looks even weaker. And since Arafat blocked the rise of young activists, the party leadership today is mainly a gerontocracy. "Arafat made Fatah a one-man party," says Nofal, the former adviser. "Now Abu Mazen has a problem because he knows all one-man parties die with their leaders."
So there was a party whose history of corruption was well known for years before the election, and that corruption continued after Arafat's death right up to the election. So there was an increasing outcry within that party and society at large to end the corruption, and yet there was no unified force within that party to take charge. However, there was a group within the society that was organized and made corruption the central issue of the campaign.
Enter Hamas.
The AP article cited immediately above said that Hamas had "cultivated a corruption-free image," and the NBC report said that Hamas had "achieved considerable popularity by promising to do away with the deep corruption that grew under Arafat's long reign." As noted in the second section of this post, the Hamas platform was all about ending corruption and showing that it was incorruptible. Given everything else discussed above, there is no way that the Hamas platform and strategy could have been a surprise.
It also should not have been a surprise that Fatah was too fractured to effectively overcome its own image and counter the challenge from Hamas.
In other words, given the history of corruption, the well-documented disgust of Palestinians with the corruption, the lack of unity within Fatah, and the Hamas platform, the success of Hamas in the election should not have been a big surprise.
Condi's last word
On January 26, 2006, Rice made an appearance via video link at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. She stated
We have to remember that the Palestinian people have endured governance that was, by all accounts, not meeting their needs -- and that was the Arafat period which was terribly corrupt -- and I suspect that the Palestinian people are expressing their desire for change.(emphasis added). Look at the emphasized portion. She knew that the Palestinian Authority was not meeting the needs of the people, AND she knew that the Arafat era was terribly corrupt, yet she had no understanding of "the depth of hostility among Palestinians toward their longtime leaders." Either she is lying or she is an idiot.
And that goes for the rest of the Bush administration.
I am so tired of the incompetency and the bullshit from this administration.
posted by WCharles @ 2/07/2006 10:11:00 AM
16 Comments:
Your description of Hamas's tactics sounds eerily familiar... divide the electorate, run on reform (even though your party's been in power) and then squeek by with a victory (determined by a court), which you then claim is a mandate of the people. Creepy, but as you make so clear, we shouldn't be all that surprised. Just a little disappointed.
I'm more than a little disappointed. This is the sort of thing that happens when you put forth myopic idealism detached from all reality. This is the sort of thing that happens when one fails to look beyond only what one wants to see to match the idealism.
Then again, I guess it's easy to understand the Bush administration's surprise. After all, this administration has engaged in lots of corruption and has yet to really be held accountable for it, so I guess they figured the same would be true of Fatah.
On another note, Luth, in the comments to my post about the book One Bullet Away, Ray suggested that you write a book about your experiences in Iraq, and I agreed with him.
This is the first I remember reading about the deepseated corruptness of the PLO and especially the dissatisfaction of the Palestinians with the organization. I think it safe to say that ultimately many involved in the Middle East are corrupt (for example, Kofi Annan's family was on the take with the food for oil program in Iraq), so Hamas winning the election does not surprise me. It's all about power, and power currupts. But, why hasn't the MSM been all over this? Can you say "coverup" because it didn't fit in with the liberal view that the PLO were the good guys and Israel was the bad guy?
But, I'm much less concerned about this turn of events - Israel's hard liners will gain complete control and they will take care of the problem. The bigger issue in the Middle East is Iran and their threat to build nukes. How will we and other nations respond? This is a much larger threat than Iraq ever was to us. And to compound the problem, will Cartoongate effect how others respond?
Yeah Luth, I'd love to hear about your experiences in Iraq. We tend to hear mostly positive opinions about our involvment in Iraq from members of the military since the military tends to be more conservative than the general public. Being at heart anti-war, I'd be very interested in your perspectives. Take a sabbatical from teaching.
"This is the first I remember reading about the deepseated corruptness of the PLO and especially the dissatisfaction of the Palestinians with the organization."
My concern is not about you, but the fact that I cannot imagine to any degree that Rice and others in our government were in the same position as you.
"I think it safe to say that ultimately many involved in the Middle East are corrupt[.]"
You are right about that, and that includes Israeli politics. I have a friend who has really gotten into Israeli politics in the last nine months (and she gets her information from Israeli media), and she tells me that corruption is widespread there. Also, don't be sure about the hard liners getting control. From what my friend tells me, don't be sure about anything.
"But, why hasn't the MSM been all over this?"
Perhaps because the Bush administration sided with Fatah (but did not do concrete things to help Abbas--but that is another story and very much open to debate). If you are referring to the corruption with Fatah over the years, parts of the MSM have covered that. If you really want to stick with the "liberal media bias" position, then check the archives of the NYT and Washington Post. Do a search on MSNBC.com as well. There was coverage. However, with the ongoing war in Iraq, the war on terror, etc., other things got more coverage--and attention from the Bush administration.
As for the "liberal view," by many measures today I am liberal, but I never thought the PLO were the good guys.
I agree that the biggest problem right now is Iran. But all the other problems in the Middle East are close behind. If on a scale of 1-100, Iran is 100, then Hamas gaining control of the PA is 98.
And I can't even get into the cartoons. Thinking about that makes my head feel like it's going to explode.
Yes, pun intended.
You're not concerned about my opinion? I'm deeply offended. Actually, what you have documented is disturbing. We may not have been able to prevent the outcome of the election, if we had tried then it no longer would have been a free election, but we should have seen it coming.
We conservative Christians, due to our end time theology, tend to strongly support Israel as God's chosen people and oppose Arab/Islamic attempts to destroy them. It is easy to view Israel through rose colored glasses. Their leaders are not perfect, either. Ask your friend to post some of her observations on your blog - I'd be very interested in reading them.
Sorry about the offense. ;-)
"We may not have been able to prevent the outcome of the election, if we had tried then it no longer would have been a free election, but we should have seen it coming."
You are right on both counts, but we should have seen it coming and at least tried to do things differently before the election. But when you make the basis for your entire foreign policy on only the ideal of "spreading liberty," it's tough to do practical, pragmatic things.
I'll see if I can get my friend to start her own blog. Then again, maybe I will let her post some here. However, her views on Israel are probably very close to yours, and I just don't know if I can have TWO people participating here that don't always agree with me. :-)
Does your friend play the bass trombone?
No, but her husband is a trombone player. :-)
I better explain a little more about my friend's views--especially before she reads this thread. :-) Although she sides with--for lack of a better description by me--the Jewish religious right in Israel, she is not a conservative Christian sharing the end times theology. Still, I think the two of you would share similar views on Israeli politics.
Hi guys,
Actually I do have quite a belief in end time prophecies. Surprised? I would say that my support and heart is very much with the religous jews. I am not an expert by any means on the subject of Israel, but since I read, listen to news in Israel every day for a while not...I would say I am starting to grasp some of the situation.
I would be happy to lend what little I know. Israel is complex is so many ways.
OK, this was my first post. Talk to you later.
Grr...I spelled "now" not.
"Surprised?"
Indeed.
As for typos, we have not discovered anyway to edit comments, so corrections through separate posts is perfectly acceptable here. However, be aware that correcting your own typos is considered by some (who are still "anonymous")to make you petty, small, antisocial, and a "playground brat." (I'll tell you the story later.)
Oops. Meant to say "any way" and "corrections...ARE perfectly acceptable here."
I'm such a brat.
I always like to start with terms and definitions. So to begin with the present situation in Israel, we must start with the name itself. (I will post links at the end of this that you will be able to go and read/listen/watch video all in English). Hopefully, some of my explanation here will make the information in the links understandable.
Ok, back to the name Israel. You will find Israel referred to as, “Eretz Israel” pronounced “Eretz Yisroel”. Eretz in Hebrew means “land”, therefore, “The Land of Israel”.
But wait, there is more…”HaShlema”, which means “whole” or “complete. The phrase in its entirety is “Eretz Israel HaShlema”.
This is an important phrasing to know because it is used mainly by the religious Jews. They are often referred to as the right wing, settlers, ultra-nationalist, orthodox etc. etc.
Here is where the great argument starts in Israel between the right wing, leftists and arabs. It is about land and God’s promises to his chosen people. By the way the Jews do not write G_d’s name. They use the name God verbally, and call him “HaShem”, which means “the name” when not in prayer or Torah reading.
Many, many Jewish people and Eretz Israel are supported by Christians. I guess you would say they are Christian Zionists ( a lot are Evangelical Christians). Many Christians consider it a gift to support Israel. In the bible, I think Genesis 12:3 God says something about he will bless those who bless you (the jews). Anyway…
The state/government in Israel is not a democracy. It is set up as a parliament (you could say a parliamentary democracy) with 120 representatives of different political parties, elected by secret ballot, which serve 4 year terms and headed by a prime minister. It is called the Knesset. They have secular and religious courts.
It has been a long held belief by some that Knesset members should be crooked types in order to understand and deal with the arabs.
Israel will hold elections at the end of March. Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is only in his current position because they haven’t declared Sharon unable to come back. If they were to admit that Sharon is not able to resume prime minister, officially Netanyahu would be acting prime minister. See…its complicated.
All media in Israel is under state control (state-run). In order to gain a different viewpoint you have to read or listen to the right wing via the internet.
I like to read Arutz Sheva (www.israelnationalnews.com) which is connected to Israel National Radio (www.israelnationalradio.com). Also, an American named Shlomo Wollins who made Aliyah (immigration to Israel) has an incredible website that documented the settlers of Gush Katif being removed from homes last summer. I highly recommend his site. It is full of videos and he is one of the few people who documented what happened (www.israelreporter.com). He currently has a lot up of the recent events in Amona. It is heartbreaking…riot horses bought from Germany (the irony) even kicked one of the Knesset members in the head! One more…(www.hebron.com) explains the history and the community there and also video is posted of the events recently. Hebron is the site of the Cave of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Rebecca, Leah are all buried there. I guess you could say matriarchs are buried there too. Hebron has over 10,000 arabs and less than 500 jews and has been the site of much violence.
I have tons of other sources, but that should keep you busy if you are interested.
Oh, and you will probably notice that there is a missing element of nasty verbal and written exchanges amongst the jews. Do not make the mistake of thinking they are being overly passive or wimpy. For religious jews they must abide by something they call “LaShon Hara”, evil language. It is forbidden or prohibited. One cannot be disparaging of others.
Shalom.
Laura, I'm glad WCharles invited you to join us. I am familiar with much of what you have written, but will search out those links you have provided. I think that many evangelical and more specifically fundamentalist Christians support Israel because they recognize the Jews as God's chosen people and to reject them is tantamount to rejecting God. The land of Israel was given to the Jews as documented in the Old Testament of our Bible and therefore we support the Jews right to inhabit their land. For another perspective check out this website:
http://sites.silaspartners.com/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID306608|CHID556140|CIID,00.html
BTW, if you don't make the occasional typo, we'll feel inferior since we do it all the time. Dubya2, you're babbling. Stop it.
I can tell you that regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the positions taken on the sites Laura cites, you will find plenty of facts and perspectives that we do not hear about here in the U.S.
Post a Comment
<< Home