+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Colonizing the West Bank in the name of security and religion

In defending their hold on the West Bank, the Israeli government and public often present arguments relating to its purported religious significance or to security considerations. A historical and pragmatic analysis of those arguments prove they fail to stand the test of reason.

By Lorenzo Kamel

Ramallah — With settlements in the West Bank expanding continuously, any vision for a feasible agreement in the region is fading. The solution of the settlement issue would not automatically bring about a full-fledged peace, but it is a necessary step in that direction. And even though no state recognizes Israel beyond the 1967 “lines,” the present Israeli government continues to justify the settlements through two central arguments: religion and security. Both are, however, applied selectively.

Religion, on the one hand, is evoked by settlers and the religious right as justification for the colonization of the West Bank, which they call “Judea and Samaria,” because – as they argue – “it represents the heart of the historic Jewish homeland.” If this is the reason for colonizing land, however, Israel should give up the coast between Ashdod and Ashkelon, which has never been part of the ancient Israelite kingdoms. The numerous archaeological expeditions carried out over decades in Ashkelon – one of five ancient Philistine cities, which today encompasses what was, until 1948, the Palestinian village of al-Majdal – have confirmed that it was never conquered by the ancient Israelites. One verse in the Book of Judges seems to refute this, indicating that the area was conquered and subdued for a handful of years, but this verse itself is contradicted in the very same chapter of the Book. And even if one assumes that there was a conquest, the occupation of an area for a few years does not mean that it represented part of the “historic Jewish homeland.” Otherwise, the many Philistine raids and sometimes occupations of Israelite towns as far east as the Jordan River valley would also make these areas “less” Israelite.

The “security” argument, which glosses over the economic exploitation of the West Bank, may be even more important than the “religion” argument, since it is employed by the Israeli government in the international arena. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently claimed, “In Israel, it’s not possible to go back to the 1967 lines – because these lines are indefensible.” The Israeli prime minister and most of his constituents believe that what happens beyond the “separation barrier” is justified in the name of security.

This “barrier,” in some places a cast of eight-meter high concrete and in others ditches and barbed wire, has been an important contribution to the quelling of Palestinian terrorism. This is a statistically proven fact. The psychological humiliation and exploitation of natural resources that are taking place beyond it, however, cannot in any way be justified by the legitimate need for Israel to rely on safe “borders.” Even today, as confirmed by this recently filmed video by European and Israeli activists, dozens of quarries are currently active in the West Bank, providing some 12 million tons of stone, gravel, and dolomite annually, 75 percent of which is used for construction inside Israel. Millions of Palestinians are deprived of their freedom of movement, thanks partly to dozens of checkpoints throughout the West Bank. Moreover, in the Palestinian territories, new drilling of aquifer systems for the consumption of settlers and Israeli citizens are being built. Finally, in about 60 percent of the West Bank, there is exclusive control of the Israeli authorities over every aspect of civil life. Only a simplistic approach, or one marred by bias, could accept such a reality in the name of “security.”

Besides religion and security, a third argument is often evoked against a Palestinian state: the specter of a “Jew-free – Judenrein” West Bank. On September 23, addressing the United Nations Gernal Assembly, Netanyahu used the term “Judenrein” to explain the possible scenarios that would arise if the West Bank became part of a Palestinian state: “The Jewish state of Israel will always protect the rights of all its minorities, including the more than one million Arab citizens of Israel. I wish I could say the same thing about a future Palestinian state, for as Palestinian officials made clear the other day – in fact, I think they made it right here in New York – they said the Palestinian state won’t allow any Jews in it. They’ll be Jew-free – Judenrein.”

This last statement is extremely important to consider, in so far as it shows a fairly common feeling in Israel. To understand the view of those behind the wall I turned to Nazmi Jubeh, one of the most outstanding living Palestinian archaeologists, now head of the department of History of Birzeit University in Ramallah: “I think,” Jubeh said, “that slogans are not useful and do not explain the complexity of things. Any Jew who wants to live in our community, following the rules which this entails, must be free to do so. It’s quite a different story, however, to request that the settlers who arrived here by force and in defiance of international law can ipso facto be entitled to see their actions justified. In other words, those who want to live in a future Palestinian state must do so under the law and not as colonialists. When Israel was created, the Palestinians were already here, and accounted for the vast majority of the local population. This is why there are now over one million Palestinians in Israel, many of whom are known as ‘internally displaced persons’ [IDPs]. In constrast to this, settlers arrived in the Palestinian territories through violence and incentives received in recent years from Israeli governments. Equating the former to the latter is not only simplistic, but also morally reprehensible.”

In October 1995, Benjamin Netanyahu, then leader of the Likud in the opposition, spoke in the Knesset, addressing then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin: “You said the Bible is not our land registry. I [Netanyahu] say: The Bible is our registry, our mandate, our proof of ownership.” Rabin and Netanyahu at the time were already living in two different realities. The first was convinced that international law takes precedence over “biblical legitimacy.” The second was and remains convinced of the exact opposite: “We will continue preserving the settlement as well as the law,” Netanyahu clarified just last week, “and there is no contradiction between the two.” Despite the untimely death of Rabin, the “two souls of Israel” are still alive today, perhaps more than ever. Only if the first one – embodied by Rabin and his memory – will have the upper hand, a defusion of the current “zero-sum game” will be possible: a “game” that tears apart the Palestinian people and makes Israel increasingly isolated from the rest of the international community.

Lorenzo Kamel is a Visiting Fellow at Birzeit University. He holds an MA in Israeli Society and Politics from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an MA in Philosophy from La Sapienza University of Rome, and is presently a PhD candidate at Bologna University. He is the author of many academic articles and two books. He writes for the American think tank Aspen and the Italian daily newspaper Europa.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Ben Israel

      The motives that brought Jews to build Tel Aviv are the same motives that bring Jews to build Hevron/Kiryat Arba and Beit El and Silwan. If a Jew has a right to be in Tel Aviv then he also has a right to be in Hevron. If a Jew has no right to be in Hevron, then he has no right to be in Tel Aviv. The future disposition of the West Bank must take into consideration the rights of ALL peoples living there, both Jews and Arabs. Any agreement that does not allow Jews to continue living in the settlements under some sort of arrangement to be worked out by both sides will not bring peace.
      One possible solution was envisioned by the UN Partition Resolution 181, which I understand it viewed both states having a customs union and a porous border in which people with citizenship in either state would have easy access across the border and would even be able to live on either side while maintaining their citizenship.

      Reply to Comment
    2. aristeides

      Ben Israel won’t make sense until he takes the word “Jew” out of the equation. The right term is “human being.” The problem comes from separating “Jew” from “human being.”

      .
      Human beings have the right to reside within a state if the laws of the state allow. Most human beings who are Jews have the right to live in Tel Aviv because the state of Israel gives them this right. Some but not all human beings who are Jews have the right to live in Australia because the state of Australia gives them this right. But there is no violation of right if the state of Australia refuses to allow a particular Jewish human being to immigrate and settle there.

      .
      In the state of Palestine, a human being would have the right to live in Hebron if and only if the state of Palestine allows it. There is no connection between the right of an individual to live in Tel Aviv and the right of that same individual to live in Hebron, and whether or not that individual is Jewish makes no difference.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Miriam

      Ben Israel, following the article I would turn your perspective in this way: if a settler claims that he/she has the “historical/religious right” to build his house in Yitzhar, Migron or Itamar (just few examples) he/she should be coherent, and push Israel – from which he/she receives a lot of money and benefits – to give up the coastal plain on which that very same “historical/religious right” cannot be applied. In other words you cannot say “I want everything”, and then complain because the other side do not accept it. Moreover it is a utter simplification to “hide” the issue of the settlements – and the exploitation of the West Bank – behind Hebron/Mamre, because most of the settlements do not have any historical connection with the Bible, a Book that is holy for me and for many other millions of human beings: not for the entire mankind.

      Reply to Comment
    4. RichardNYC

      The author doesn’t address Israel’s security concerns at all. He just says that Israel does some things in the West Bank that are not security-related. Extremely lame.

      Reply to Comment
    5. BEN ISRAEL wants to replace widely-agreed-to international law with the religious predilections of a single fairly small group, colonization-minded Jews.

      Whatever he means by “rights”, it is possible that the international consensus — by recognizing Israel and admitting it as a full member of the UN, upon Israel’s agreement to be subject to the UN’s rules — in its immediately post-1950 territory, created a sort of “right” for Israel to occupy that territory (subject to other rights of others, such as a Palestinian right of return or 1948 refugees). The UN has never, never, never recognized an Israeli “right” to any other land whatsoever — quite to the contrary.

      If BEN ISRAEL wants by “right” to mean something else, something intrinsic, something religious, something unconnected to international law and agreements, well, it is a mis-use of language (as people who are not colonization-minded Jews use language).

      Perhaps, like two-year-old, he means “I want it and therefore I have a right to it”. The passion and lack of analysis would seem to be the same.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Merlot

      “This “barrier,” in some places a cast of eight-meter high concrete and in others ditches and barbed wire, has been an important contribution to the quelling of Palestinian terrorism. This is a statistically proven fact.”

      I would like some evidence of this. Yes, the wall went up and as it went up the number of violent attacks by Palestinians against Israelis went down. However, as is so often pointed out a+b don’t necessarily equal c. Construction of the wall began in 2003 at the same time that levels of Palestinian violence began to decline. However, I would argue that this is more due to coincidence than to the impact of the wall.

      Even now the wall around Jerusalem is not completed. Up until 2009 there was no barbed wire along the top of the wall in the Al-Ram area of Jerusalem. In the morning it was not uncommon to see kids climbing ladders on the Palestinian side of the wall and letting themselves down on the other side using ropes so as to avoid Qalandia checkpoint on their trip to school. If kids could climb the wall up until 2009, don’t you think it would have been possible for someone who wanted to carry out an attack in Israel to do the same thing? The wall has also not stopped workers from finding places where the wall is not completed and using those gaps to slip into Israel. Anyone wanting to carry out an attack could do the same thing.

      Even if we accept that the wall has made it much harder to carry out attacks in Israel, it doesn’t provide security to settlers or settlements but attacks on those individuals/locations also fell dramatically after 2003.

      While the wall has undeniably provided many Israelis with psychological security, there is legitimate reason for questioning how important the wall has in fact been in stopping attacks in Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Mir

      RICHARDNYC, your comment is “morally lame”. The exploitation of the West Bank and, most of all, the life that millions of Palestinians are obliged to carry on on a daily basis due to the occupation is not “some things”, but “the things”. If you don’t notice it is probably because you are typing your comment from New York City.

      Reply to Comment
    8. This “barrier,” … has been an important contribution to the quelling of Palestinian terrorism. This is a statistically proven fact.
      Can’t subscribe to this point at all. Remember the Eilat attacks couple of weeks ago? If Palestinians then wanted to go on they could have went on by using the Jordanien-Sinai rail. Or: Anybody could throw a bag with explosives over the barrier and somebody on the other side takes it. And so on and so forth. The security aspect of the barrier is a myth. Of course it must be praised for it is very expensive, isn’t it? Thus, I support the points made by “Merlot”.

      Reply to Comment
    9. Dan

      Merlot, I think the author is correct, because in the first stage the wall played an important role to quell Palestinian terrorism. Then afterwards, Palestinians understood that their legitimate claims could not be achieved with violence.

      Reply to Comment
    10. Sivan

      security and religion: these are the myths of our times. the article shows that quite well…

      Reply to Comment
    11. RichardNYC

      @MIR
      Your comment is not a response to what I said, sorry. Making personal remarks about where you think I live is a waste of space here.

      Reply to Comment
    12. MIR

      RICHARDNYC, your comment is not a response neither to the article, nor to my comment. I write it again, without the reference to NYC, so that you don’t have any excuse:
      “The exploitation of the West Bank and, most of all, the life that millions of Palestinians are obliged to carry on on a daily basis due to the occupation are not “some things”, but “the things”.
      My reference to NYC was just a way to tell you that I have the strong impression that you never spent more than 1 day of your life in the West Bank (this explain your comment). Am I wrong or is it too personal to ask you this info?

      Reply to Comment
    13. Piotr Berman

      “If a Jew has a right to be in Tel Aviv then he also has a right to be in Hevron. If a Jew has no right to be in Hevron, then he has no right to be in Tel Aviv.”

      “If a Latvian has a right to be in Riga then he also has a right to be in Pskov. If a Latvian has no right to be in Pskov, then he has no right to be in Riga.”

      “If a penguin can poop in Antarctic Ocean, he can poop in the Ben Israel’s apartment. If he cannot poop in the Ben Israel’s apartment, he has no right to swim in the ocean”.

      I have no heart to break the sad news to Ben Israel, but none of the above statements makes sense (although he may be nicely surprised that he does not have to tolerate penguin shit anymore).

      Reply to Comment
    14. Mariana

      “If a Jew has a right to be in Tel Aviv then he also has a right to be in Hevron.” If a Palestinian has the right to be in Hevron, then he also has the right to be in Tel Aviv

      Reply to Comment
    15. Mariana

      A new nationality was born: Jew. No comments.

      Reply to Comment
    16. RichardNYC

      @MIR
      How much time I’ve spent anywhere is not relevant to my comment. The author claims in the heading of this piece that the security arguments for Israel’s occupation of the West Bank are bogus. But he doesn’t address them at all. That is my criticism. This is a separate question from the cost of occupation in terms of Palestinians’ well-being. Of course the two issues are related, but that doesn’t mean that discussing the occupation from a Palestinian perspective substitutes for discussing the benefits to Israelis.

      Reply to Comment
    17. Lars

      Man, oh, man. I’ve got no real stake in this fight but this is just madness. Why subject yourself to such things? If I were you, I’d just leave. There’s seriously no future for you in the West Bank. Israel’s too strong and its pretty obvious after 60+ years that you’re not going to win. How many generations is that? How many more? Best of luck to you in whatever you choose but there’s a job waiting for you here in Canada if you choose it.

      Reply to Comment
    18. Ben Israel

      Mariana-
      Arabs do live in Tel Aviv. Exactly my point.

      Reply to Comment
    19. MIR

      @RICHARDNYC
      It’s relevant in as much you say that occupation and exploitation are “some things” and not “the thing”: you simply don’t know the reality on the ground.
      No, the author claims that in the name of security Israel is oppressing millions of human beings, exploiting their water, land, minerals…ect…
      It means that while you sleep well in the night because somebody told you that they are doing this for security reasons, the are millions of human beings that live a life that no one should live. From the perception of those who suffer this situation the 2 issue are 1 single thing. From abroad, on the contrary, a person can allow himself the luxury to treat them separately.
      Once again, read the article. No one thinks that “security arguments for Israel’s occupation of the West Bank are bogus”. The issue is that in the name of that issue – and, most of all, in the name of a SELECTIVE use of religion – Israel is covering its own internal benefits from the occupation (making the life of millions of persons an hell).
      Sorry if I am too passionate. The fact is that I know what the author is writing about and your comments seems to me so superficials that I feel the duty to suggest to go for a short period in the West Bank: this would be RELEVANT.

      Reply to Comment
    20. hakarathadadit

      Ben Israel and Arabs/Palestinians of Tel Avi,
      As Jubeh clarifies in the article:
      “I think that slogans are not useful and do not explain the complexity of things. Any Jew who wants to live in our community, following the rules which this entails, must be free to do so. It’s quite a different story, however, to request that the settlers who arrived here by force and in defiance of international law can ipso facto be entitled to see their actions justified. In other words, those who want to live in a future Palestinian state must do so under the law and not as colonialists. When Israel was created, the Palestinians were already here, and accounted for the vast majority of the local population. This is why there are now over one million Palestinians in Israel, many of whom are known as ‘internally displaced persons’ [IDPs]. In constrast to this, settlers arrived in the Palestinian territories through violence and incentives received in recent years from Israeli governments. Equating the former to the latter is not only simplistic, but also morally reprehensible.”

      Reply to Comment
    21. MAJDAL

      Kernod,
      Majdal was assaulted by Jewish troops on November 4, 1948, when most of the Arab population of 11,000 had been forced to leave (the Israeli authorities of the time provided many buses in order to make the transfer easier). The rest of its inhabitants (about 2000) where expelled in 1950. Also Ahmad Yasin, the Hamas terrorist, was born in Majdal and expelled with his family to Gaza in 1948.

      Reply to Comment
    22. sh

      Arabs can be said by BI and his ilk to live in Tel Aviv because Jaffa has been hyphenated to it. In the words of the Jewish Virtual Library:
      °
      “Beyond the southside, but really in a class by itself within Tel Aviv, is Jaffa. Located along the coast immediately south of Tel Aviv proper, Jaffa has some 60,000 residents, about a third of them Arabs. It is the only place in Tel Aviv where Arabs live, except for a sprinkling here and there. In parts of the area, especially in the Ajami quarter, Arabs and Jews live next to each other, and for this reason Jaffa has gained the reputation as an example of coexistence.
      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/geo/tatale.html
      °
      The motives that brought Jews to Tel Aviv before the establishment of the State are completely different from those that brought Jews from homes both in Israel and abroad to homes from which they dispossessed civilians with no police or army to protect them, using Israel’s military and police forces as a battering ram.

      Reply to Comment
    23. BERL

      Either Modi’in Illit/Migron/Ariel…ect, or Ashkelon/Ashdod…ect: you cannot have everything

      Reply to Comment
    24. aristeides

      A Palestinian from Hebron is not free to move to Tel Aviv. But an Israeli Jew from Tel Aviv is free to move to Hebron.

      .
      Palestinians are not free to reclaim the houses they owned in Tel Aviv and expel the people currently living there. Israeli Jews regularly claim and confiscate houses and other properties in which Palestinians are currently living and expel them.

      .
      The difference? The monopoly of force and the absence of justice.

      Reply to Comment
    25. RichardNYC

      @MIR
      “you simply don’t know the reality on the ground.”
      I didn’t even claim to – every one of your comments is a personal attack against me and a mis-characterization of the piece. You’re clearly not interested in responding to the logic of what I’m saying.

      Reply to Comment
    26. RichardNYC

      @MAJDAL
      So what. its 2011. Justifying irredentist terrorism based on the events you’re describing does not comport with international law or morality. If the rest of the world followed your reasoning, there would be thousands of other terrorist wars like Hamas’. Not tenable.

      Reply to Comment
    27. MIR

      @RICHARDNYC,
      Oppressing millions of human beings, exploiting their water, their land and their minerals: these are facts. If you think that these are secondary aspects then your logic suffers.
      Nothing personal, but if you don’t know the reality on the ground please don’t expose yourself.

      Reply to Comment
    28. MAJDAL

      Richardnyc,
      reading your comments clear shows that you write without reading. Please show me one single sentence in which I justified any form of terrorism. I just clarified a mistake made by Kernod. He wrote that Majdal was ethnic cleansed in 1953. I wrote him that most of the inhabitants were expelled in 1948.

      Reply to Comment
    29. Bosko

      “oppressing millions of human beings, exploiting their water, their land and their minerals: these are facts”
      .
      Those are not facts. That is simplistic one sided propaganda that ignores all history and context.

      Reply to Comment
    30. RichardNYC

      @MAJDAL
      You’re right. my bad.

      Reply to Comment
    31. RichardNYC

      @MIR
      I haven’t said that Palestinian welfare is secondary to Israeli welfare. But clearly you’re not willing even to talk about Israeli welfare. Ending the occupation isn’t simply a matter of living in denial of the Israeli existence and lamenting Palestinian suffering. The subject-changing/denial strategy you’re going for here is not productive.

      Reply to Comment
    32. RichardNYC

      @MIR
      I’m not saying I have or haven’t been the West Bank, because it doesn’t matter. Trying to trump my credibility with “you haven’t been there” arguments is very high school of you. Its not encouraging that you expect ppl to take this approach seriously,

      Reply to Comment
    33. DHMCarver

      RICHARDNYC. I do not think MIR’s attacks are personal, and s/he raises valid points about the substance of your arguments, issues of whether you have visited the West Bank aside (though there are interesting discussions to be had about the generally hard right stance of many American Jews, individuals who do not have to live with the consequences of the policies they are advocate for Israelis to adopt).

      As MIR stated, “The issue is that in the name of that issue – and, most of all, in the name of a SELECTIVE use of religion – Israel is covering its own internal benefits from the occupation. . .” You tossed out the need to address Israel’s security concerns, but have not addressed Kamel’s (and MIR’s) problem with the rather fluid notion of the security justification.

      Moreover (and I write as someone who has not ever visited the region, though I will be spending ten days in Israel in roughly a month’s time), I have long thought that the “security concerns” is a false argument, and a particularly dangerous one. The international order would fall apart if annexation of territory over security concerns was accepted as a norm (let alone the “historical homeland justification — wasn’t that Hitler’s justification for annexing the Sudentenland and the Anschluss?). There are many nations that eye territory of their neighbors that would surely make defending their nation far easier. But that cannot be a basis on which nations determine their boundaries — this way madness lies.

      Reply to Comment
    34. Fred

      So a few million Arabs don’t have a state. Big deal. Oh no! The sky is falling! Quit acting like Arabs have freedom elsewhere or they ever will. Except in….drumroll please….Israel! Ironic, no?

      Maybe if the Palestinian leaders and they as a society weren’t committed to the destruction of any Jewish presense in this land since the early 1900s, there would be peace and they would have a state. Should Israel commit suicide? Um, no thanks.

      Reply to Comment
    35. Ben Israel

      DHM Carver is quite right that “security concerns” are not a strong justification for holding on to territory. That is why the Israeli gov’t must change its line and emphasize JEWISH NATIONAL HISTORIC RIGHTS in Eretz Israel. I realize that is difficult for the Israeli Left since they don’t really believe in this themselves (e.g. Ze’ev Sternhell who says Jews have no historical rights but the Holocause gave Israel the right to conquer up to the Green Line but not beyond that…but why?) but this is the ONLY argument that justifies Israel existence and hold on all the territories. This was the basis for the Balfour Declaration and the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

      Reply to Comment
    36. BERL

      BEN ISRAEL, so, as written in the article, are you ready to give up Ashkelon-Ashdod coastal plan or is it also part of your selective “JEWISH NATIONAL HISTORIC RIGHTS”? Moreover, there are so many interesting comments on this page that show how weak and semplicistic your position is: you simply ignored it, as a settler would do.

      Reply to Comment
    37. MIR

      BEN ISRAEL@
      The Balfour Declaration, i.e. a Letter, as well the 1947 UN partition Plan never ever mentioned the exclusive right of the Jewish People on this land. Both mentioned that the Jews also have the right, NOT that only them have it. And this is pretty much fair: NEVER happened in the history that this land was ONLY “Israelite”
      DHMCARVER@
      Thank you. Obviously there was nothing personal. But he did prefer to choose to “hide” behind the fact that I had something personal against him
      FRED@
      Too basic/solipsistic, you don’t deserve a reply

      Reply to Comment
    38. aristeides

      Ben I writes: “but this is the ONLY argument that justifies Israel existence and hold on all the territories. ”

      .
      And since this argument is based on a totally bogus premise, it follows that Israel’s existence is unjustified. How satisfactory that works out!

      .
      All this jumping around from one excuse to another, trying to find one that will stick.

      Reply to Comment
    39. Berl

      ARISTEIDES,
      touchè: “from one excuse to another one”

      Reply to Comment
    40. bloom

      excellent article

      Reply to Comment
    41. Wayne

      Jewish people lived in the west bank and were expelled in 1948 as they were expelled also in east Jerusalem. Palestinian religious leaders call for Palestinians to kill Jews. Palestinains want the west bank to not have one Jew living there. They also want every Jew in Israel not to live there. Palestinians would do much better if they learned kindness. “Learn kindness and teach it to your children” Instead they say “we love death like the Jews love life” Shame on the Palestinians.

      Reply to Comment
    42. rose

      Wayne,
      do you think that you can compare many thousands of Palestinians that were expelled in 1948 by Israel with few hundreds of Jews that suffered similar situations in East Jerusalem and West Bank? Even so, does this justify the inhumanity of the occupation? Should I quote you some dozens of Rabbis that justify the killings of Palestinian children ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt13H4GMtaI ) ?
      Do you realize how immoral and weak is your standpoint?

      Reply to Comment
    43. Click here to load previous comments