www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Crimes Against Humanity

Dear Bob,

I don't have to check into anything, I know my sources. First of all my grandson has a very close friend from Saudi Arabia. My grandson was told bluntly that the Arabs want to restore the Caliphate.

This wealthy Saudi also has a girl friend and he wants her to go back to Saudi Arabia with him. She has been warned by everyone, including her mother and my son, not to dare step in Saudi Arabia. First of all the women must cover their faces, and are not allowed to drive. But forgetting that, even if my grandson were to go, he would have to wear that long white so and so, (forgot the name). Yet as a man, he would be free to go wherever he wants.

Okay so we all have our customs, and no one should be imposing their own customs on another. But about three months ago, a writer; Maria Khouri, who had written many pro-Palestinian and anti Israeli articles in the past, and was constantly collecting money in order to help build homes for the Christian Palestinians so they would not leave, wrote something quite different.

It seems that a Muslum girl had become pregnant by a Christian man she worked for. The girl was killed by her relatives, and a group of about 16 men went to his village and started burning the homes of anyone that was related to him.

Now Maria's husband owns a brewery and she said that she was in front of it arguing with the thugs for three hours so that the fruits of their years of labor would not be burned.

She told them how it was beneficial for them to have businesses such as hers in Palestine, etc. etc. She also wrote how shocked she was at those actions, considering that her son had a Muslim friend that she considered a second son, etc. etc.

Now she was told that the authorities were not able to come sooner to stop the burnings because they had to proceed through the Israeli area and they were delayed....and so on and so on.

Well, the mayor or whoever was in charge apologized and said it was good that no one was killed... but not once did he or anyone show any concern towards the girl they killed. And this understandably upset her.

As for CBN, thank heavens it exists.

Zenovia

Dear Bob you said:

"And it turns out the Kurds are sitting on land also claimed by Assyrians and Iraqis and that there are regular clashes between the competing groups."

I say:

Actually, the idea of nations within defined borders, (or so I believe), is purely European. England decided to draw the lines in the sand at the end of WW I when the Ottoman Empire was defeated.

When Suddam attacked Kuwait, what he wanted to do was to unite all the Arabs into one state. Now that's understandable. Everyone wants their own culture to become a great power or an 'empire' and control the world. It's human nature.

Now Lawrence of Arabia had an affinity for the Arabs. He preferred that they have the oil, and decided not to carve out a 'Kurdistan' from the defeated Ottoman Empire. The Kurds were left without a universally recognized border that would encompass a territory that they could call their own. They have been suffering since.

You are right though about one thing. It has always been the poor suffering Kurds in Iraq under Saddam, and the terrible murderous Kurds in Turkey. Yet in Turkey, the deaths amount to something like 3,000 Turks, and 27,000 Kurds.

Politics, always politics.

Zenovia

In more ways than one!

Dear Bob,

I made a mistake in a previous post. I said a mob of 16 men started torching houses in a Christian town in Palestine, when it actually was 300 men.

Here is the web site:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/KhouryTaybeh.php

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Dr. Eric,

I hate those insinuations. I have the authorized biography of Lawrence of Arabia, which is a wonderful book, (I only wish that I had the energy to find the name of the author). He said that in no way was Lawrence of Arabia a homosexual...as so many want to believe.

What his best friend told the author, (and he himself was an admitted homosexual that loved Lawrence), was that it was a different era. Homosexuality was unheard of and Lawrence would have been completely repulsed at the idea.

Actually though, I think that when Lawrence was captured by the Turks, (they never realized who he was), he was probably raped because his hatred for them was intense.

You know and to be blunt, I frankly cannot perceive a homosexual as having the leadership qualities that someone like Lawrence or especially Alexander the Great would have. Do you know that the Egyptians as well as the Greeks were furious with the movie by Oliver Stone. They said that Alexander had harems, and his wife was considered the most beautiful woman in Iran. He undoubtably was in love with her.

Zenovia

Maria Khoury is a good friend of mine and I previously posted her address and the address of a priest in Taybeh for contact. I stayed there for an extended period of time and saw what brutality the Israelis inflicted on the town. The town also suffers from neglect from the Palestinian administration in nearby Ramallah. Since here is at least one Palestinian Christian in the administration we are hoping for better things.

In the interests of disclosure, Maria's husband ran for the position of mayor. There were many, many candidates. Democracy is alive in Taybeh.

You selectively chose a few points of her article and ran with those.

Is it you or is it just a coincidence that people on the extreme right have been playing up this incident for the last month as part of a coordinated national campaign?

The mayor of the town is a Christian. Taybeh is a 100% CHristian town, in fact.

The Israelis held the Palestinian police at a checkpoint while the riot began and the Israelis did not intervene to stop the rioting. Palestinian police--presumably majority Muslims--would have intervened earlier had they been able to.

The Latin priest in Taybeh--he has a website--and Fr. Kobti--he also has a website--both remain steadfast in support of Palestine and neither has said anything about the incident which leads me to any other conclusion that what they and Maria have already drawn: this was regrettable and tragic but of limited signifigance beyond the usual politics of occupation.

This was not about Muslims vs. Christians and any attempt from any side to paint it that way is misguided and perhaps even racist. It was not Maria's intention to do this and she did not, in fact, say that it was about Muslims vs. Christians.

This was not the first extended family or clan conflict in Palestine with innocent victims. It will not be the last.

In Maria's home there is a great photo of her husband and Arafat embracing. Her loyalty to Palestine should not be questioned by anyone.

So, you heard something on CBN about a Christian-only tax and some relative of yours has some friend who says that some Arabs want a Caliphate back. In some inexplicable way these issues merge for you. And having those sources frees you from having to research the issues and from having to ask people in Palestine directly involved about this vague report about the imposition of a Christian-only tax there.

And you think I'm naive.


Be well.

bob r.

About Lawrence: I heard from a "reliable source" that he was gay. But it seems after a quick internet search that that may be questionable. But it does appear that he was a masochist. So I will take back my insinuation.

Sorry, TE Lawrence.

As for Alexander the Great, almost all of the Historians agreed that he was bisexual. But so were all the Greeks then! I think that modern Greek Culture is more from Constantinople than Athens. So no hate e-mails!

Bob,

I don't believe the presemt president was the president in the 1980's. While we should have acted differently toward Iraq and its tyrant much earlier than we did but to compound our past evil by more evil makes no sense.

CDL

CDL--Let's see if I can untangle the words here and get to a concept.

I never said that Bush was President in the '80s and I never blamed the Republicans solely for the war. See my previous posts and links provided. I have not been sparing in my criticism of the Democrats and I have supported UFP&J bird-dogging Senator Clinton.

At the insistence of the moderator, and in order to help move the discussion along, I tried to provide some steps for disengagement. And I added the provision that no one knows what will work, but that I think that I know what doesn't work from reading the daily press.

I should have added to my wish list freedom for Apo and freedom of movement for the Kurdish Workers Party and guarantees that organizations like Tudeh can meet in neutral host countries without intereference.

I asked for those who are prowar, or at least supportive of the present course, to map out for me how the competing claims between Kurds, Iraqis and Assyrians in the region should be settled. I should have added that such prowar or war-supportive people should resolve the question of whether Iraq should be federalized, centralized or cease to exist altogether here and to my satisfaction. This is the burden of occupation and no one has yet offered their scenarios and the citations to back up their points of view.

I cited one Bishop and one veteran and one reporter as sources, provided a link to a page with Catholic social teaching on the war and links to the peace movement and on other threads provided links to Palestinian groups and pro-Palestinian efforts. I have suggested here at least two easily accessible journalists who will give critical alternate reads on what's going on; I can provide several more. Moe provided a link to Common Dreams, which is great, an Daniel provided some links as well. The administrator responded to some of these but the lack of engagement on sources has been instructive to me. The New Criterion & Co. are hardly sources. You cited, I believe, a tv show and responded to my alternative with some low-level sarcasm.

I also took the step the administrator condemned Daniel for not taking: I slammed Saddam. I went further and criticized Democrats.

In your post you referred to the anguish of Iraqis you witnessed via tv. I did not question this or call it propaganda; I supposed that these suffering people were Kurds and leftists. I asked if you supported the Iraqi left and the present coalition government and the predominate, or least loud, call in that government for a withdrawal of occupation forces. I'm hoping for an answer.

We have all known about Kurdish suffering for many years and our support for the Kurds has been tepid at best. Anyone watching Iraq in recent years has known of the repression directed at the left there and the human cost of this repression. Again, support for human rights in Iraq by today's occupying powers has been tepid at best.

There were those of us who, many years ago, were actively supporting the Kurdish Workers Party and the Iraqi left. Many of us supporting these groups called for arming and actively supporting these forces internationally--not as proxies for imperialism, but for simple human solidarity. Strong support for the KWP and the Iraqi left 10 or 20 years ago might well have prevented the present war. This is not intervention but it is support for one conflicting party over another.
It does not seem contradictory to me. History is full of possibilities; a different set of negotiations and a different political constellation might exist today had there been consistent support for the KWP and the Iraqi left.

Support for the KWP in the US is now against the law.

I fail to see a contradiction here.

Be well.

bob r.

Dear Dr. Eric you said:

"As for Alexander the Great, almost all of the Historians agreed that he was bisexual. But so were all the Greeks then! I think that modern Greek Culture is more from Constantinople than Athens. So no hate e-mails!"

I say:

Actually there is a difference in concepts of what a homosexual is or was in that part of the world, and what it is here, and I think that's what infuriated the Greeks, Egyptians, and no doubt the Iranians, etc. Men liked, (and undoubtably many still do), both boys and girls, but being a 'passive' partner, or what we would consider a homosexual, was looked down on by the 'martial' Macedonians.

Now Lord Byron was also thought to be a homosexual by some, yet he was a 'reknowned' womanizer. No doubt he liked both boys and girls and found the morals in that part of the world more to his taste. But it did not mean he was a homsexual in our sense of the word.

As an example, during his first voyage to Greece, this Turkish Pasha made quite a few advances towards him, after all Lord Byron was exceptionally good looking. The Pasha invited Byron to visit him at night, yet Byron merely made mention of it in his writings...nothing else.

See...no hate mail!

Zenovia

No hate mail, just, uh, what? an aplogia for promiscuous bisexual coupling?
-Daniel

Dear Bob I'm going to take one paragraph that you stated and respond to it:

"The Latin priest in Taybeh--he has a website--and Fr. Kobti--he also has a website--both remain steadfast in support of Palestine and neither has said anything about the incident which leads me to any other conclusion that what they and Maria have already drawn: this was regrettable and tragic but of limited signifigance beyond the usual politics of occupation."

I say:

Don't you find it odd that they will not mention an incident in which a young woman is killed, and no one is persecuted for it? Instead, all that was mentioned by the Palestinian authority at the time, is that thankfully 'no one' was killed. In other words, a Muslim girl is 'no one'.

And of course the authority would then blame the Israeli police, and of course Maria would mention it...as if to enforce what she has been writing for so many years. Now tell me, what would happen to her, her family, her husband and her livlihood if she said differently?

It seems to me though, that through fear of the Palestinians, the Israeli's are held to a different standard. Here 300 Palestinians are burning the homes of the Christians with total indifference, yet the authorities nonchalantly state that the Israelis are to blame and Maria Khoury, (out of inner fear no doubt), states that the Palestinian authorities would have stopped the thugs if they were given access by the Israelis sooner.

Then again, why did she have to explain to them that their thriving brewery is good for Palestine so that they shouldn't destroy it?

Okay look! I understand her predicament. If she condemns the Israelis, she loses nothing . They are certainly not going to shoot her. But if she condemns the Palestinians, who knows?

The truth is though, that we should have compassion for the few Christians left in that part of the world. They are suffering!

Zenovia

Dear Daniel you said:

"No hate mail, just, uh, what? an aplogia for promiscuous bisexual coupling?"

I say:

Hey! It's not an apologia, I was just explaining the difference in concepts. We're talking about 'pagans' you know!

Zenovia

You can write to Maria Khoury and ask her these questions. And you can also write to Hind Khoury, the female Christian Minister of State for Jerusalem Affairs, and ask her. See http://www.nad-plo.org/inner.php?view=news-updates_2601t for details. Neither woman has ever indicated that they are afraid of being attacked by Muslims on these issues.

No compassionate person can support or excuse honor killings. This is not just a Muslim phenomenon, but that isn't the point, and it happens throughout the region and in Greece also--but that isn't the point either. Its evil.

Palestinians want the rule of law like anyone else.

Samah Jabr is studying to be the second Palestinian female psychologist. The Israelis make her life miserable. She is one of the strongest voices against honor killings. Do you support her? Would you help pay for her education or protest against the way the Israelis treat her? I'll be glad to facillitate the support.

Just before I went to Palestine there was an incident in which a young Christian guy hit and killed a Muslim child with his car. It was an accident. The guy fled back to his village. There are no authorities with power to appeal to so the clans in each village met. The Muslims could have asked for blood by custom. Instead, their council required the Christian guy and his family to appear before them. There was a lot of tension. The Muslims said, "Look, we see that we have lost a child and that this young man is truly sorry. We forgive." The Muslims then required that the Christian family have coffee with them. The tension slowly dissipated.

But in Taybeh when I would go to sleep at night in the Latin convent I would hear wild dogs run through the town. One night they killed a goat nearby. The sound was horrible. Where did the dogs come from? The Israelis left them behind when they witrhdrew from occupying the village. Why can't the Palestinians get rid of the dogs? Because they are not allowed to have guns and do not have a police force with power to act.

Where are a Christian's chances better? With Muslims who can forgive or under an occupation which doesn't allow for basic necessities?

And you will admit, I hope, that basic human solidarity between Muslims and Christians can stretch thin under occupation.

Be well.

bob r.

Well this concept may spring from one's own prejudices. The reaction from Egypt etc about the film may spring more from denial and machismo then reality although homosexuality as an orientation is unknown in those cultures.