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

I second Brian on this. One's sexual orientation is irrelevant when it comes to leadership qualities.

On the other hand, it may just happen to be that Brian and I know a far wider range of homosexual people and thus do not rely on prejudice, pre-conceived notions and stereotypes.

Dear Bob you said:

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

I say:

The solidarity between Muslims and Christians have stretched thin many, many times, and way before any Israelis occupation. Actually, it's stretched so thin under the Muslim occupations of the past, that the Christians became a minority long before now. I think that it's in the Koran, that no one should have 'lordship' over a Muslim. Excuse me, wasn't Lebanon predominantly Christian not too many years ago?

Now there are many instances when things are not reported to their fullest in the media, in order not to arouse hatred against the Muslims...and that's understandable...our economy you know! For instance: The intense desecration of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Had it been shown, and emphasized, surely there would have been quite a strong anti-Islamic reaction in this country. But then again, the church is under Orthodox control, and that could have been a factor on why it was not given much publicity.

What was 'deliberately' done to the inside of that church was unimaginable. Now can you imagine if Christians or Israelis were to do that to a mosque, or if the Israelis were to have shot at it at the time?


The problem here is, that when people such as Maria Khoury and priests condemn things such as the fence put up by the Israelis and the hardship it is imposing on the Palestinians, they do not mention the terrorists. What do they expect? That the Jews should just allow them to come in and blow them up?

You know I'm tired of having to defend the Israelis. It seems everything is relative. If we were to relate Israel to the U.S. or Europe, S. America or any Christian nation, we would find them quite out of bounds in everything.

The problem comes about when we relate them to that religious/political entity called 'Islam'. They then become 'angels' in comparison...and it's costing us plenty. Actually, if Islam didn't exist, maybe we could be a little more condemning of Israel and its actions.

Zenovia

Dear Edward you said:

"I second Brian on this. One's sexual orientation is irrelevant when it comes to leadership qualities."

I say:

First of all, I am not condemning one's sexual orientation, although I do consider homosexuality as we know it, a disorder, and if practiced 'sinful'.

What you did though, was miss the whole drift of my post. It is not that homosexuality does not exist in the Near and Middle East. Actually, it was far and is more common, than it ever was in Christian Europe...and that goes back to the ancient Greeks. It is in Christian Europe that it was unacceptable. So much so, that it 'rarely' existed.

The drift of my post is that it was not known in pagan Greece, nor is it known now in that part of the world, as it is known here. Only a permanently 'passive' partner is considered a homosexual; and they were and are 'mocked'... to put it bluntly! Nasty cultures you know. In that sense, someone that would be mocked, certainly would not have the leadership qualities required to gain the respect of one's army.

Another element of my post, is that when something is unacceptable in society, it rarely exists. Now when Lawrence of Arabia's friend said that in that era, homosexuality was almost unheard of and frowned upon, he was correct. I have a magazine by the Metropolitan Museum of Art on the 'Belle Epoque', and they said the same thing. Homosexuality was frowned upon and unheard of.

Yet even experts sometimes can be wrong about certain things. Some paintings of the artists of that era, depicted women hugging and kissing one another. They automatically assumed that 'lesbianism' was acceptable. Well I have to differ with them. I read in the Brothers Karamasov that one woman was so delighted that another woman was willing to give her back her fiance, that she grabbed her and kissed her on her mouth. It seems that girls and women were allowed to be far more affectionate than today.

I also noticed that kissing on the mouth was so acceptable in the past, that Charlie Chaplin did so continuously in one of his movies with a boy that he was fond of. Certainly none of the churches, even the 'puritanical' ones, didn't seem to object.

What it all comes down to, is that we should not interpret everything according to our own present day culture.

If I have offended anyone, then I wish to apologize and ask for their forgiveness.

Zenovia

Daniel,

Thanks for your post.

You wrote: I suppose that in your opinion the virtuous man should spend his energy denouncing the sins of his neighbors and excusing his own.

I agree very much that the virtuous man should not spend his energy denouncing the sins of his neighbor while excusing his own. I suspect that we disagree on how this principle applies to the current situation.

There are several questions that need to be answered here, in light of your claim that America is committing �crimes against humanity� in Iraq. The first question is �Is the unintentional taking of life in the effort to liberate a people who are suffering at the hands of a murderous dictator on the same moral level as the murders intentionally committed by the dictator?� Since you have accused America (in general) and President Bush (in specific) of committing crimes against humanity because of unintentional deaths then it seems that you believe that a person (or country) who is engaged in an act of liberation of another individual (or country) from harm�s way and unintentionally causes death is the moral equal of someone who intentionally causes death. You need to explain this because I don�t think that this idea is rooted in Catholic theology. The closest one could come to it is to adopt the pacifist position of some of the early Christians, who believed that the use of force that could cause death even to defend one�s self or one�s family was morally unacceptable. I don�t hold that pacifist position but I do respect those who do. But you have stated several times that you are not a pacifist, so you need to provide a good explanation of your logic in this case.

Now it is possible that your statement I quoted back above is meant to be understood that because we in America have our own moral failures (especially evils like abortion) we have no right to speak to the ills of people in other countries. Yet it seems to me that the Lord calls us to good whenever and wherever we are able. I am a sinful man. But at what level does my sinfulness mean that I should refrain from alleviating another from his sufferings? Does my sinfulness legitimately mean that I should be like the Levite or the priest and not like the Samaritan? Should Washington have refrained from creating an independent America (freeing America from an unfair England) because he himself owned slaves? Should Wilson and Roosevelt have refrained from actions to help our European allies before WWI and WWII (respectively) because we had so many sins here at home in America (separate but unequal for blacks, and etc.)? Should Bush 41 have refrained from freeing Kuwait and Clinton refrained from the Kosovo war because of the great moral ills of our current American society (abortion, pornography, and etc.)?

In a post on an earlier page you seemed to state that the moral limit of our involvement in another society is one of encouragement to the good people in that society, but that any direct intervention was wrong. How would you have applied this to our relationship with Hitler prior to and during WWII? It seems to me that not helping those in need when we are able to is a sin of omission, one that can be a moral evil greater than a sin of commission. If one sees a gangster raping and pillaging one�s neighbor can one morally justify not helping to subdue the evildoers because of one�s personal sin? I don�t see ground for you to issue a judgment of �crimes against humanity�. At best you can legitimately state that you don�t approve of the current effort, believe that we should have done something else, and either specify that something else or acknowledge that you have no idea what else could be done.

You wrote: Why is it so odd to assign the Iraqi war dead to America? It is as sensible as blaming Hussein; Iran was flexing its muscle, we armed and supported the Iraqi war against them.

Using this logic one must also blame America for the deaths caused by Stalin during and after WWII because we supplied with the armament he used. Do you actually assign to America the moral culpability for all the deaths caused by the Soviets during WWII and those killed afterwards with the arms that we supplied to Stalin?

One must apply moral principles to a given situation. And sometimes there are no easy answers. The Iran/Iraq wars were very much a part of the larger Cold War. War is always a horrible thing but sometimes not fighting is even more horrible. Sometimes you need to participate with those doing evil to combat an even greater evil.

Exercise of thought: You come across a burning house with people on the upper floors crying for help. There is a ladder handy, but you cannot lift it by yourself. The only other person on the scene who can possibly help is the local abortionist. He will only help you if you first give him $100 cash. Do you pay him the $100 so that he will help you save the people from being burned to death? Or do you refuse to pay him the $100 and walk away and say that you are morally good because you refused to give money to an abortionist, letting the people be burned to a crisp but knowing you encouraged them to band together to solve their own problem?

Add to this: You decide that your conscience would rather let the people burn to death then give the abortionist $100. After you walk away from the people being burned alive someone else comes along, pays the abortionist $100 and saves the people from death. Is it morally justified for you to condemn him for committing �crimes against humanity� because 1) he did not save everyone (he accidentally let go of the ladder as an old woman was descending and she fell and died) and 2) the abortionist used the $100 to purchase equipment with which he later used to murder babies? It seems to me that your refusal to cooperate with the lesser evil to do what appears to be a greater good could possibly be a moral evil in itself.

Admin

Dear Brian you said:

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

I say:

First of all, I want to apologize for not sticking to the subject of 'Crimes Against Humanity'.

Now I explained what I meant in my post to Young about 'homosexuality' and what and how it is considered in that part of the world. Now the reason I mentioned the film about Alexander the Great by Oliver Stone, is because what was irrevalent about him, was made relevant, and visa versa. For what reason, and what agenda, only Oliver Stone would know. But I have my suspicions.

First of all, we have the New Testament in 'Hellenic' Greek. We have Saint Paul speaking Greek. We have the Fathers of the Church writing and thinking in Greek. We have the 'gentiles' (Greeks) in Israel and throughout the Middle East. We even have Cleopatra being a Ptolemy, a totally Greek descendant of Alexander's General, (brothers married sisters, an Egyptian custom), and yet we don't know why.

Now that's the problem, and that was what was important about the conquests of Alexander the Great. It was the abosorption of Oriental concepts into the Greek world and thereby changing it from a purely Western culture into the 'Hellenic' one of the Bible. In other words, it was these concepts that formed Christianity, and for that reason, Alexander is considered by the Orthodox Church, (or at least by the Greeks) to have been within God's plan for humanity.

Yet because of ignorance, and the agenda's of Oliver Stone, and who knows who else, what should be relevant to us has become irrevalent.

No wonder the movie was such a flop.

Zenovia

Dear Bob you said: (Boy I can't stop writing can I?)

"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 withdrew from occupying the village."

I say:

Now this is either being just plain silly, or it has become a tit for tat thing. You know, some of those Israeli soldiers can be quite obnoxious...believe me, I've had the experience.

You said:

" 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."

I say"

If I recall, the guns that were, and are still being used by the Palestinian authority, were given to them by the Israeli's before the antifada started. Let's not forget we hear the shots whenever we see the Palestinians on TV. If the Palestinians can shoot in the air when they celebrate, they can shoot the dogs. Besides, they can always poison them.

Look, do you think it's any better here. We have skunks walking back and forth in our back lawn, and we can't kill them. Can you imagine wearing an expensive coat in the winter and having that cross your path? You know, even the police are not allowed to kill them. We're supposed to call animal control.

We now have cayotes, wild turkeys flocking all over the back lawn. And to think people are going hungry. What a dinner they would make.

We also have racoons with rabies, and lo and behold, what did I see walking in the back lawn the other day...a fox. Well we're quite careful now when we let the dog out...and mind you, I live in Westchester County, right outside of NYC.

Then again, North New Jersy was even worse. We had bears. Quite frightening, especially at night when leaving my car. Oh and let's not forget the lazy ground hog, the one that decided he would rather fight me then run away. Thank heaven for my neighbor and her handy rifle.

Peace to you my brother, and to all others oppressed by wild dogs and beasts...Oh I forgot about the tarantula's that were 2 to 3 inches in diameter. In the house mind you. (That was in N.J.). Boy am I glad I moved. So forget about the dogs. They have it good in Tehbeh.

Now to be serious! I recall one post by Maria Khoury where she called the Palestinian suicide bombers 'martyrs'. Now when one starts using the same terminology as the Muslums, it is being done either to please them out of fear, or they are adapting their concepts. Remember, we as Christians, believe martyrs are people willing to die for their faith under persecution. It is not someone willing to kill another while committing suicide.

Zenovia

Zenovia thinks that Israelis releasing wild dogs on a Christian village which cannot do animal control is somehow funny and chides me for being concerned about the people and their livestock there. And Zenovia does not bother to either contact Maria Knoury or the Latin priest or visit the websites of Palestinian clergy who can better inform her of what life is like there.

I hope that others reading this will have more concern for our Christian people in Palestine, do the research and have softer hearts.

Zenovia charges that the Israelis gave the Palestinian Authority guns. I believe that some police received some arms in some areas and that the US trained some Palestinian police. But note: the Palestinian police in the region of Taybeh do not have Israeli-provided weapons and do not have unimpeded access to the village. That was the subject under discussion and Zenovia cannot respond with facts.

Zenovia insinuates that either our priests and Maria Khoury support terrorism or are being forced to make statements they do not really believe. Since she did not contact any of these people or go to their websites and is unwilling to take the word of observors the insinuation is baseless and insults the integrity of these good Christian people.

Zenovia trots out the story that the Church of the Nativity was desecrated by the fighters and observors who took shelter there. I am not an expert in Church law, but I believe the fact that there were guns and firing and death there is, in fact, a sort of deseceration. I'm certain that others on this list will amplify or correct us on these points. Remember that the fighters retreated into the Church under fire. But was there intentional religious desecration of the Church by Muslims and observors of the fighting motivated by religious animosity?

When I was there I asked priests and monks and was told no, there was not. I was told that some rather stupid observors--people from the west--behaved badly in the Church and were censured by the fighters. If there is another truth here, that is inexcusable. But even if these fighters had desecrated the Church, they did not do so in the name of Islam and they did not speak for Muslims, the PA or Palestinians.

Now, just around the corner from the Church of the Nativity lives a family whose 14 year old son was an altar boy at the Church. He worked in a coffeeshop, served as an altar boy and went to school for a few hours daily. His name was Jonni. One day on Manger Square he picked up a younger brother and was fatally shot by an Israeli settler. I visited this family, mourned with them, and they told me that Israeli tanks park next to their house and turn the turrets of their tanks so that their front windows are frequently broken and that they are pressuring the family to move. The oldest son of this family is poor fellow you see in the Church of the Nativity talking to himself and acting oddly, an emotional wreck. If you visit, please be sure to give him a few dollars.

The Muslim charities have donated a bit to this family, at least as much or more than Christian institutions have.

If you visit the Catholic university nearest the church you will note that the statue of Mary on top of one of the central buildings has been damaged by shells. These were Israeli shells.

When you refuse to do the research, belittle the anguish of the people and spread stories you denigrate our Christian people and the birthplace of our Lord.

bob r.

Dear Bob,

I can't help but feel that you consider the Israeli's killed by the Palestinian suicide bombers and terrorists as non-humans. Shouldn't you be saying that the terrorists should stop their action, so that the Israelis can stop retaliating.

It seems to me to be a one way street here. The terrorism against the Israelis and the desire of the Palestinians to see them thrown into the sea, is fine, but any retaliation and protection on the Israeli side, is not.

Not once did you mention all the Israelis killed by terrorism which would be equivalent in population to having a World Trade Center bombing each and every day in our country.

Now I have heard Israelis concerned about the suffering of the Palestinians, but I have yet to hear any Palestinian concerned about the innocent Israeli's being killed in those terrorist attacks...which by the way is the reason the people in Taybeh and other places are being inconvenienced by the wall.

Also, I don't see the Israeli camera's focusing on the bodies of their dead for five minutes when an attack occurs in order to arouse world sympathy, yet I have seen that done by Al Jazeera when something happens to a Palesinian.

And to say even more, why are those Palestinian boys being sent and allowed to throw stones at the Israeli soldiers? Obviously the Palestinians want to have retaliations in order, again, to arouse world sympathy. Frankly the Palestinians themselves are the one's that are causing the suffering of their own people, and the Christians are caught in the middle. Enough is enough! Let's call a spade a spade. We have seen exactly how concerned the Palestinians are about peace in the recent elections. Once again they are drawing the 'sword'.

As for the Church of the Nativity, I heard that there was so much desecration, and deliberate desecration at that, that it will take forever to repair. But then again, that was what was first said by the Orthodox priests, and then of course it was hushed. I guess they realized saying the truth would be suicide.

Also as far as the Israeli soldiers pushing the Christians out of their houses, it is because the Palestinians are deliberately using those houses to shoot at the Israelis. So tell me, what are they supposed to do? Now tell me, why aren't you blaming the Palestinian so called 'freedom fighters' and 'martyrs' for using Christian homes to launch their attacks?

Look, I know it's hard and the Christians are in a spot. We can sympathize with them, but it doesn't mean that we should destroy the nation of Israel in order to do so. FRankly, I can't understand your one sided hatred towards the Israelis. Even if you don't like them, they are still human you know.

I heard that there is a book called 'The Bloody Borders of Islam'. I haven't read it, nor do I know who the author is, but it seems that what is happening with the Muslims in Palestine is not limited only to Israel. It's a world wide phenomenom.

Zenovia

Dear Administrator- Thanks for your post, and for refraining from accusing me of holding positions that I don't in fact hold. At last we are talking...

Our fundamental assumptions are so far apart I am not sure we are going to convince each other of anything.
But here goes:

Of course the unintentional taking of life in a struggle for justice is not the same as intentional killing. That is not what I am talking about when I mention war crimes. [albasrah.net] Of course as that is an Islamic site you may wish to dismiss the evidence there. I cannot of course verify most of these stories, but if one tenth of them have substance we have a problem. And here is a conservative American site [iraqwar.org] with many of the same allegations.
In the end, it is perhaps anecdotal stories from men who were there that will tell the the extent of atrocities. According to the Catholic Peace Fellowship [catholicpeacefellowship.org] one in five returning veterans report being responsible for civilian deaths. Some of these, perhaps most of these, may be unintentional. However, as the last two Popes have argued, the very nature of modern warfare renders it problematic. In every war since World War II civilian deaths have greatly outnumbered military deaths.
Even military deaths, of course, can be a war crime. I have a good friend who served in the first Gulf War. He was a gunner on a helicopter. You probably remember the photos after that lopsided victory of military vehicles burned out in the desert. My friend was part of that operation and tells of the fate of the soldiers who were in those vehicles. They had fled their trucks and tanks, thrown down their weapons and were running for their lives. My friend and his unit mowed them down by the hundreds. A devout Evangelical, he is haunted to this day by what he did. He is a good man, but in warfare otherwise good men do evil things if ordered more often than they resist.
I have offered links on torture of prisoners and the use of deleted uranium [cadu.org.uk] in our weapons, with callous disregard not only for Iraqis but for our own servicemen and women.
There are reports now of secret prison camps for detainees, of "outsourced" torture, and of systematic abuse of prisoners. Doesn't it bother you that the vice president opposed McCain's antitorture bill? That when President Bush signed it he did so with a wink and a nudge, that they define "torture" as anything that causes death or permanent organ damage, anything else being permissable? Would you want American prisoners subjected to sleep deprivation, "waterboarding" and the rest? Shouldn't there be one single moral standard? Isn't it absurd to claim that detainees are not covered by Geneva Convention rules because they are not uniformed members of a national army? But don't human rights adhere in one's humanity, not in one's citizenship? Have they forgotten that our own Revolutionaries of 1776 were guerrilla fighters, not uniformed soldiers for the most part?
Just this past week an American serviceman was convicted of killing an Iraqi general by suffocating him. The sentence? A reprimand. His defense team argued that he interpreted his instructions from his superior officers to leave room for the sort of abuse he was committing. A military tribunal found that his actions were a reasonable interpretation of his orders. Doesn't that bother you?
Or that the President bypasses the judicial structure to conduct wiretaps on American citizens, in defiance of the law?

Strategic alliances with the wicked have caused a lot of evil in the world. Perhaps we should have let the Russian winter take care of Hitler without our aid; certainly Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler, and the Soviet Union brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster.
And American and British intelligence recruited and trained the precursers of Islamic terror when they allied themselves with the Muslim Brotherhood against the USSR and Arab nationalists. And of course the roots of Al Queda are in our training of the mujahideen in Afghanistan. So we constantly are training groups who end up a bigger problem than the problem we originally had...See the recent book Devil's Game by Robert Dreyfus for a detailed history of US/British involvement in the rise of radical Islam.

In the end, you and I begin from such different starting places. The benevolence of America and the nobility of our efforts in Iraq are like articles of faith to you.
I see a neoconservative cabal who long ago began charting a course of American dominance [I linked to some of their writings earlier]. Their position papers are littered with names like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perl, Wolfowitz- the architects of the Bush presidency. Bush said before he was elected that he was going to be "a war president" and neocon writings long proposed a war with Iraq [odd, they hardly mentioned freedom, stressing this only when WMDs and ties to Al Queda were not tenable]. 9/11 was like a gift to them, the excuse they needed to pursue their long time goals.
Of course for public consumption it is all talk of spreading democracy, liberation, etc.
Our history shows such noble ideals have never been central to our foreign policy. Watch as they bring down, one way or another, the democratically elected Hugo Chavez and other Latin American rulers who are unfriendly to America and American corporations.

Christ Our Lord never guaranteed us an earthly kingdom, and the burden of proof is on those who claim their war is just. The Holy See has proclaimed this war is not just, and the more I see of its effects the more convinced I am that the Popes are right.
-Daniel

And please note that in the Islamic site I cite above, most of the links are to Western sources...
-D

Dear Daniel you said:

"Shouldn't there be one single moral standard? Isn't it absurd to claim that detainees are not covered by Geneva Convention rules because they are not uniformed members of a national army?"

I say:

I know that in WW II if one did not wear a uniform he was shot as a spy. But that's besides the point. Wasn't it these detainee's that said their goal was to kill the same soldiers that were detaining them? Since those prisoners are not concerned about their life, and want to go to a Muslim 'paradise', aren't they a little more dangerous as prisoners, and shouldn't we be concerned about our soldiers safety?

You said:

"Even military deaths, of course, can be a war crime. I have a good friend who served in the first Gulf War. He was a gunner on a helicopter. You probably remember the photos after that lopsided victory of military vehicles burned out in the desert. My friend was part of that operation and tells of the fate of the soldiers who were in those vehicles. They had fled their trucks and tanks, thrown down their weapons and were running for their lives. My friend and his unit mowed them down by the hundreds. A devout Evangelical, he is haunted to this day by what he did. He is a good man, but in warfare otherwise good men do evil things if ordered more often than they resist."

I say:

I was appalled by that. If I recall correctly, I heard that 60,000 retreating Iraqi's were gunned down in the desert. But then afterward's I heard that what they had done to the Kuwaiti's was also abominable. I would just hate to have something like that on my conscience.

Thinking about it now though, I realize that what our military did, might have been with the intent of helping the Shia's in their uprising. Well it didn't!

You said:

"I have offered links on torture of prisoners and the use of deleted uranium in our weapons, with callous disregard not only for Iraqis but for our own servicemen and women."

I say:

I recall hearing reports in Greece about the bombings in Kosovo and what it was doing to the atmosphere and to the nations in that area. They say that deleted uranium was used.

You said:

"There are reports now of secret prison camps for detainees, of "outsourced" torture, and of systematic abuse of prisoners."

I say:

It depends on what one considers torture. Certainly if it is physical, then I would be against it. If it is purely emotional and that it might save anywhere from one to 100-hundred-million lives, then go to it. Remember, one of those lives could be someone you love dearly.

You said:

"Or that the President bypasses the judicial structure to conduct wiretaps on American citizens, in defiance of the law?"

I say:

What if the information from that wiretapping was to save the life of your children. Then what? Would you still be against it?

You said:

"Strategic alliances with the wicked have caused a lot of evil in the world. Perhaps we should have let the Russian winter take care of Hitler without our aid; certainly Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler, and the Soviet Union brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster."

I say:

No one knows what an outcome will be. We can only see the immediate future and try to preserve what we have.

You said:

"Our history shows such noble ideals have never been central to our foreign policy. Watch as they bring down, one way or another, the democratically elected Hugo Chavez and other Latin American rulers who are unfriendly to America and American corporations."

I say:

What if Hugo Chavez tried to halt the export of his oil, and an economist was to tell you that it could cause a world wide depression and that millions upon millions will starve. What would you do? That is if you were president of the U.S. Wouldn't it be on your conscience if you had the potential to do something about him and didn't?

That is why we elect our leaders, to make the right decisions at the right time. Have faith!

Zenovia

Zenovia "can't help but feel" that I consider Israeli's as "non-humans" and she tells me what she thinks I should be saying.

I am naturally sympathetic with the oppressed and with fellow Christians but, like many Jews, I also feel that the occupation has cost Israel its soul.

Zenovia did not bother to ask about my work with Israeli peace groups or past relations with Jews and zionism or how I came to my current position--she simply "Can't help but feel" something and then makes pronouncements on the basis of her assumptions.

Zenovia assumes that I live on a "one way street" politically and culturally and in matters of religion. I would say I do so no more than most people in this forum, but probably less than a few others here. She has the arrogance to tell me what my political line on terrorism should be and she somehow equates Israeli state-sponsored terrorism, carried out with nearly the full weight of the US, with Palestinian terrorism.

For the record, I have consistently opposed terrorism. Had Zenovia studied the links I previously provided or contacted the groups and clergy I provided links for, she would know this.

Zenovia talks about the "into the sea" line as if anyone prominent in Palestinian politics uses this term today and as if I would support this line. In fact, I do not support this line--neither do most Palestinians--but I have not decided in my own mind if I favor a one- or two-
state solution or the kind of federation which some Palestinian Christian religious feel has a biblical basis.

Again, Zenovia could have done a bit of research and saved us her charges and insinuations.

Why must I "mention all the Israelis killed by terrorism?" And whose statistic is it that these dead "would be equivalent in population to having a World Trade Center bombing each and every day in our country?" The "statistic" is not true and has no basis in fact and no real meaning.

We can easily provide internationally verified statistics on the numbers of Palestinians and Israelis killed.

But, you know, the numbers of dead and the dead themselves--all of them and without exception--
do not deserve to be used politically in this way. We should mourn them, remember them, help their families. But I am extremely uncomfortable with disrespecting the dead or making out of them new reasons for violence and revenge or finding in their deaths reason for the current courses of action.

Zenovia says that she has "yet to hear any Palestinian concerned about the innocent Israeli's being killed in those terrorist attacks." She should use some other sources of news than CBN because there are indeed many such reports available. And she should understand that Israelis are often viewed as being settler- colonialists by the people they oppress. Is it understandable that oppressed people might not always mourn the passing of their oppressors? Is it proper for Zenovia to tell Palestinians how to feel and how to mourn for their own dead?

I will grant that some Palestinians have been pushed into a kind of numbness in the course of the occupation. This is not unlike what some Algerians felt under the French and what the great psychologist Frantz Fannon wrote about. When I attempted to send Fannon's work to Palestinians it was seized by the Israelis. It seems that the Israelis feel an interest in allowing this numbness to develop.

Zenovia says that the apparent failure of Palestinians to mourn for Israeli victims of terrorism or terrorism itself--her post is not really clear on this point--"is the reason the people in Taybeh and other places are being inconvenienced by the wall." In fact, no terrorists have come from Taybeh or the region. And if Zenovia would look at a map or read any of the sources I provided, she would see that the purpose of the wall in the Taybeh region is to create a "Greater Jerusalem" out of Jewish settlements and to disenfranchine Palestinian communities and cause them to disintegrate. Some of the primary victims of this ethnic cleansing are Christians.

Ditches, barbed wire and roadblocks preceded the wall in the region of Taybeh and nearby zionist settlers expropriated Christian land and shoot at Palestinians. The Greek Orthodox abbess who drove me to Taybeh showed me places along the road where people were shot and she drove very fast and in the middle of the road out of fear of soldiers and settlers. To blame Palestinians for this is to blame the victims.

When Turks expropriated parts of Cyprus, Greek Cypriots resisted with violence. Why would Palestinian resistance to expropriation be seen differently?

Zenovia charges Al Jazeera with filming the dead within 5 minutes of their passing. Zenovia has probably never seen Al Jazeera. The films of the dead are provided by stringers and news organizations and organizations and they come in well after 5 minutes unless there is live coverage. This is news in any case. What should Al Jazeera cover? It is news for the Arab world, not world Jewry.

Zenovia asks why "Palestinian boys (are) allowed to throw stones at the Israeli soldiers." A Christian doctor in Palestine explained to me that he seemingly hyperactive son appeared so because of the mass detentions and lockdowns and homebound curfews. The kids get angry and they want to strike out and they want to be heroes. Imagine being confined to your home for days at a time, missing school and being cut off from friends and family--how would you act? And I witnessed Israelis enforcing the curfew with words along the lines of, "Arab dogs! Go to your homes!" What did Greek kids do during the German occupation?

But Zenovia's question is purely rhetorical. She doesn't want an answer because, for her, it is obvious that "the Palestinians want to have retaliations in order, again, to arouse world sympathy." It is obvious to her but not to Palestinians. She could find out what Palestinians think by asking them directly.

World sympthy has indeed not translated into positive action, however. How long must an illegal occupation continue until the occupied are justified in taking dramatic action?

Zenovia gets to her point finally--it is the "Palestinians themselves (that) are the one's that are causing the suffering of their own people, and the Christians are caught in the middle."

We have spent much time here talking about Christian Palestinians; no one can logically counterpose Palestinians and Christians at this point. Here, also, is more blaming of the victims and a baseless charge and analysis.

One can discuss political, tactical and strategic errors made by Palestinians and have a legitimate point of view. We would, of course, all disagree on what these errors have been, but that would not be an irrational decision.

But Palestinians have been given one or perhaps two choices: remain as prisoners in your own land or leave as refugees without a right to return. This has been true since 1948. Palestinians did not give themselves this choice; it was thrust upon them.

Zenovia says that "we have seen exactly how concerned the Palestinians are about peace in the recent elections. Once again they are drawing the 'sword'."

I will soon post something from Maria Khoury on the elections. But also bear in mind that Hamas has been picking up a steadily increasing vote from Christians. Why? Like all Palestinians, Christian Palestinians want an end to corruption, law and order and services. Within Palestine Hamas is generally regarded as an honest opposition.

Polls show that Palestinians want relations and talks with Israel to continue. If this cannot happen through the PA, it may happen through a PLO reconsituted by Fatah and related parties. Hamas is not a part of the PLO and the PLO recognizes Israel's right to exist.

I can provide the polling. Zenovia cannot provide one poll or interview with a leading Palestinian to back up any of her claims

Zenovia "heard" that it will "take forever" to repair the Church of the Nativity. She should check any regional website or just believe me: the Church is fine, thank God! No priests that I talked to, Orthodox or Catholic, told us that the Church had been desecrated or ruined. Believe me, I asked when I visited!

Zenovia slanders the Christian family I wrote about by saying that they are being harassed and having their home wrecked "because the Palestinians are deliberately using those houses to shoot at the Israelis." How would she know this? And shoot with what?--that family and their neighbors have no guns. And shoot where and at whom? The house is one block from Manger Square, as I said in my post.

Zenovia asks what the Israelis are supposed to do. As the big power in the region they can negotiate, withdraw, follow the hundreds of UN resolutions supporting Palestine, tear down the wall and the checkpoints, stop the enclosures of Palestinian villages, recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and negotiate the return of refugees. They will find negotiating partners in the forces seekinbg to reconstitute the PLO. The Israeli Labor candidate for Prime Minister--a really wonderful guy--can do this and more if he wins.

Zenovia charges that "the Palestinian so called 'freedom fighters' and 'martyrs' (use) Christian homes to launch their attacks." This seems to be another baseless charge and is a not-so-backhanded slap at the legitimate Palestinian resistance.

Zenovia implies or states that I favor the destruction of Israel and that I have a "one-sided hatred towards the Israelis." She doesn't know my position and she is not interested in facts. In any case, my feelings are not at issue here.

Zenovia heard "that there is a book called 'The Bloody Borders of Islam'." She hasn't read this book, nor does she know who the author is, but
she assumes that this book has something to do with Muslims in Palestine and that it supports her views. I can suggest many more books which I have read and whose author's names I know which counter her viewpoints.

Be well.

bob r.

Waking Up Under a Green Sky in the Holy Land

By Maria C. Khoury, Ed. D.

An overwhelming shock in the Palestinian Territories was driving to school the day after the elections and seeing the green flags and green banners everywhere in Ramallah. It was announced that the election results would take several days before the final count and no matter how corrupt and negligent the Fatah Party of the late Yasser Arafat has been in the last ten years, it was assumed they would control the majority of the Palestinian Parliament as moderate people who can negotiate peace with Israel. We voted and went to sleep with these comforting thoughts and woke up with 76 out of the 132 seats in the legislative council going to Hamas, the extreme Islamic Resistant Movement recognized by their symbolic green flag. This is the new green sky we must look up to for leadership in the Holy Land.

The Hamas victory in the Palestinian political system simply means that the people were fed up with leaders who did nothing for them. They wanted a change and had limited choices. They want to shoulder the poverty, the poor health care, the Israeli occupation, the 60% unemployment, the absence of a social security system all on Hamas renowned for social services. This overwhelming political gain for Hamas was the only way for the voters to punish the Fatah party that forgot about the people and lived the good life while the majority of the Palestinians suffer to live on a few dollars a day. Even in a small Christian village like Taybeh, 28 votes went to Hamas and I was personally shocked why a Christian would vote for a fundamental Islamic position but it was the only revenge people could take to send a message to the Fatah party that they are fed up and Fatah has simply failed the people with no strategic planning and no political vision for the future.

As a Christian woman under a Hamas government, I am not at all worried that I have to veil up and wear the long skirts, this is the least of my problems and in order to keep walking the footsteps of the Lord, I will certainly follow these superficial rules. What really worries most people on the ground is which way Hamas will focus. Will they select a moderate point of view and transform themselves to be statesmen? Or will they select an extreme religious pro Islamic rule. Is it possible to separate religion from state politics?

In order for the international community to continue support for Palestine, it seems Hamas has no choice but to go moderate and first among all things accept living side by side to Israel. Ramallah is currently one of the few cities in Palestine that is modern, open in culture and thought and has some type of a night life. Most of us want to see Ramallah keep some of these liberal ways of life. Women walking the streets in western clothing have been acceptable. Men and women sitting together in cafes and restaurants do not turn heads. I feel if Hamas wants to be accepted by the world and survive in the long term, it must adjust some of its extreme fundamental view points and at a minimum not change the social and cultural rules in Ramallah. Gaza, Nablus, Hebron and Jenin are opposite social life of Ramallah. It will be very tragic to lose the Ramallah we know and love.

If Hamas selects a strict Islamic position it will isolate Palestine from any financial and moral support that the international community has offered since even before the Oslo Agreement. It will greatly affect our educational system if the Ministry of Education does not allow the current freedom of choice when it comes to the Islamic religion. In private schools, Christian students currently have the choice to take Christian religion instead of Islamic religion. Facing a new curriculum will be a challenge. If Hamas reinforces the strict teachings of the Koran where alcohol is forbidden, my husband better work on a new non-alcoholic Taybeh Beer recipe fast or the Taybeh Brewing Company will be shut down as three breweries closed doors in Iran.

These two alternatives for Hamas will greatly affect our life on the ground. But what worries me more is the struggle that could play out while members of Hamas or others members of the Palestinian Parliament try to influence the leadership for either alternative. We could be at the brink of a civil war or on the road to a moderate and democratic Palestinian state. The first indication of this battle revealed itself the moment Hamas members took down the Palestinian Flag in Ramallah and replaced it with their Party Flag, the green one to celebrate the victory that even Hamas itself did not expect. Of course shooting and fighting followed among all present. This fighting among Palestinians scares me more than seeing Israeli soldiers putting guns to my son�s head on the way to school.

Thus for the moment, all of us on the ground are waiting to see the sky either remain blue or turn green depending which alternative road Hamas will select. Pray for us as we are facing not only the Israeli occupation but the strict Islamic rule. May the ramifications of this political earthquake be bearable. Either way the Christian response if found in Matthew 5: �Love your enemies; Do good to those who hate you; Bless those who curse you; Pray for those who abuse you; Turn the other check to those who strike you.� For the Christian community, the new Palestinian government will be the earthly test for the true witness for Christ.

Note: Dr. Khoury is the chairperson of the Taybeh Orthodox Housing Project which has started to build twelve homes for Orthodox Christian families in Taybeh-Ramallah to help maintain the Christian presence in the Holy Land with the help of the Boston Greek Orthodox Metropolis.

Daniel,

Thank you admitting that the unintentional taking of life in a struggle for justice is not the same as intentional killing. It is good to hear you say this after two years of simply complaining about how evil America is.

Thank you also for making clear that you are accusing America and President of INTENTIONAL �crimes against humanity�. We very much disagree on this.

There is a major problem with your sources.

The www.albasrah.net [albasrah.net] source pretty much accomplishes its �America is evil� and �the insurgents are freedom fighters� agenda by mixing propaganda from sources like Al Jeazeera, Islam Online, Socialist Worker and a number of other very left wing sources together with links to reputable news sources. If you take the time to separate the two, put aside the obvious propaganda ones, and examine the legitimate sources you will come across a very different picture. Most of the linked legitimate newspaper sources are very much anti-war. Yet none of them are issuing the cry of �crimes against humanity� which you have issued against America and our President.

The www.iraqwar.org [iraqwar.org] website is advertised as a conservative website. It is, in fact, run by Steven Martinovich (who also uses the pseudonym �Gord Gekko�). Mr. Martinovich is a libertarian who is rather stranger than Lyndon Larouche. The whole ploy is to present conservatives as anti-war and draw them into libertarianism. The site is not as bad as the first one you linked, but it is mostly editorials. The author of that site is anti-war but appears to be more interested in presenting an argument for American isolationism from the troubles of the world. You�d do far better to stick close to Pat Buchanan for a legitimate conservative viewpoint that is anti-war.

The Catholic Peace Fellowship is a legitimate site. While it does not appear to have the backing of the Vatican it does offer a legitimate Catholic perspective (but not the only legitimate Catholic perspective) towards war and support for Catholic conscientious objectors. It generally promotes Christian pacifism and speaks against war for any reason. It does not provide any support whatsoever for your claims that America and the President are engaged in �crimes against humanity�.

For your source material I highly recommend that you read a variety of legitimate sources, even if just the liberal ones. Liberal American sources (like the New York Times, The Washington Post, the BBC, and etc.) are very much anti-war. If there were evidence that America was intentionally committing crimes against humanity they would be the first to report it. Do you think that CNN would not run with a legitimate video of Americans intentionally committing crimes against humanity if they had it? The closest they have come is Abu Ghrab, something that was horrible but something that was already well under investigation when the press ran the photos. There is no evidence to suggest that the mistreatment of the prisoners of war was ordered by anyone in the command structure. There is no evidence of an ongoing, organized, purposeful attempt to kill innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else. You are left with mistakes, accidents and the occasional evil individual within our midst.

Yes, mistakes do happen in war. Occasionally an individual within the military may either through evil or a mental snap will do horrible things. But you simply cannot leave the people to burn and walk away telling yourself that it is more moral to let them burn then to help them and risk mistakes that might kill.

Does it bother me that the vice president opposed McCain�s anti-torture bill? No. Because I also opposed McCain�s anti-torture bill. First, it sends the signal to our enemies that no matter what they do to us we will treat them with kit gloves. Second, it really does not ban anything as it is written in a way to really prohibit nothing. The issue is that everyone is against torture. But torture needs to be defined properly. Real torture is cutting off fingers and limbs until someone gives you the information you are asking for.

Would I want American prisoners subjected to sleep deprivation, water boarding and the rest? Of course not! But guess what? The enemy in this war has no limits when it comes to torture. They laugh at what we consider torture and consider us to be weak because we balk at real torture. They don�t keep captured Coalition Forces long enough to torture them anyway. They kill them as soon as is possible. They cut off heads.

Isn't it absurd to claim that detainees are not covered by Geneva Convention rules because they are not uniformed members of a national army?

No, not at all. Detainees have their own classifications. We treat almost all detainees much better than the Geneva Convention rules anyway. Look at Club Gitmo. They have three squares, exercise runs, Islamic chaplains and Korans. They are treated better then Roosevelt treated the American citizens who were detained during WWII simply because they were of Japanese ethnicity.

But don't human rights adhere in one's humanity, not in one's citizenship?

Yes, of course! Human rights come from God, not from countries. Are you suggesting that it is respectful of human rights to allow people to remain in a burning building and walk away, knowing that you have encouraged them to help themselves? Where is the Gospel justification for acting like the priest and the Levite? Mistakes will always happen. One cannot refrain from acting just because someone might make a mistake.

I didn�t see the account of the court martial of the American serviceman who killed the Iraqi general, but I will look into it. Was it self-defense? Was it to save the live of others? Was it intentional murder? What was the Iraqi general accused of? There have been a small number of others in which it appears that the individuals charged were guilty and sentenced appropriately.

Do wiretaps bother me? No. Article II of the Constitution gives the President great authority as Commander-In-Chief. The courts have upheld this previously and Congress does not really have the authority to take away rights that the Constitution gives to the president without actually changing the Constitution. The most powerful weapon the Congress has here is to de-fund the effort.

Anyway, there is not a single specific allegation that the wiretap program has been abused. Calls to and from Al Queda members (and other terrorists) are traced. Computer data mining is used to determine if the content of the calls warrant investigation. Members of Congress (both Democrats and Republicans) were briefed 12 times on the program and had no problem with it until the New York Times made it a political football. You might re-read my earlier post in which I outlined how every President did similar things without a hullabaloo. President Clinton�s project Echelon is reported to have been far more intrusive then the current effort.

Again, I come back to the morality of leaving people to burn to death in a burning building because one feels morally unable to pay an abortionist $100 to help lift the ladder to the windows (the thought question I offered in my most previous post). How is this respectful of their human rights? Can you so cavilerly condemn someone for choosing to work with someone who is committing evil to help fight against an even larger evil?

Winston Churchill noted in his memoirs that up to 100 million lives would have been saved if Western Europe had taken out Hitler 3 or 4 years before he started World War II (when it was clear where Hitler was going). He called it the �unnecessary war�. I agree that the world, and especially Europe, was responsible for allowing him to rise to the level where he could inflict such evil upon others. Does Europe�s refusal to act qualify as a �crime against humanity� in your book?

I noticed once again that you used the pope�s words out of context. Yes, he called for a functional pacifism in all cases, but you always seem to forget that he first called on Hussein to cooperate fully with the ceasefire and the demands of the United Nations. Hussein is the cause of the war, not America. Pope John Paul II also left the door open to individual Catholics to support the war effort to liberate Iraq.

You also seem to forget that no one of any official status in the Catholic Church has made an accusation of �crimes against humanity� against America. Until such time that there is real evidence � and not propaganda from anti-war websites � you should refrain from making such accusations.

Why not find a way to actually contribute to the solution? No one wants war. Sometimes it is necessary to take out a bully to free people from suffering.

Admin

Very nice: "similar things", "is reported to have been". Just meaningless, of course. You made the claim directly before, but have been unable to support it. You really ought to get around to that provinding that supporting documentation.

You may also like to be more clear that the claims of the constitutionality of this wire tapping, the court precedents on it, the ostensible Congressional briefings, etc. are just the talking points of the Bush administration, trying to justify what it has done. Let's have some hearings on this matter rather than mere obseqious surrender of our rights. Let's have some actual legal findings by the judicial branch rather that just opinions of White House lawyers. And let's have these investigations and rulings rather than mere parroting of the party line.