Conference taveng::bagels

John, thank you for posting this as otherwise I would never have known of the
abstensions and absentees:

>Abstaining: Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands.
>
>Absent: Albania, Barbados, Cameroon, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Mali,
>Monaco, Niger, Palau, Panama, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia,
>Turkmenistan, Zaire, Zambia.

Now, I wonder if anything is being done about Albania, Zaire...........etc..?

Alright, I know, one thing has nothing to do with another,  but .......

OK, I'll get back to worrying about Digital. Seems to be safer
ground....................  I think??

Shalom
Baruch (from a stormy Israel - rain that is!)

It's truly unfortunate that the Palestinians have to resort to violence to
defend themselves from Israel's latest violation of international law.

/john

By a vote of 13 in favor, one abstention (Costa Rica), and one veto (the U.S.),
the Security Council has failed to adopt a resolution demanding that Israel
immediately stop construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East
Jerusalem, as well as all other Israeli settlement activity elsewhere in the
occupied territories.

I am reminded of Chamberlain's acquiescence when Hitler invaded the
Sudetenland.

/john

I have received mail complaining about my latest replies.

I in no way condone terrorist attacks anywhere or by anyone.

"Unfortunate" is clearly not a strong enough word to describe the
killing of innocents.  But terror against innocents seems to be all
too common.

Terror can be carried out just as effectively, if not as dramatically,
with bulldozers as well as with bombs.

And terror by one side will usually cause terror by the other side.

/john

    John, your response, to the mail (including mine) complaining about
    your previous insensitive reply, is "unfortunate", to use your word.
    
    The murder of three innocent young women (one pregnant) in an
    indescriminate bombing should be condemned unreservedly by anyone with
    goodwill to his fellow man!
    
    There is no reasonable explanation to allow for the linking of building
    work with terror bombing.  Doing so, is, at best, insensitive!  
    
    Baruch

A terror bombing is certainly an unreasonable response to a terror bulldozing,
and is to be condemned in the strongest terms.

But the illegal bulldozing should also be condemned in very strong terms
as well.

/john

There is no such thing as "terror" bulldozing. There is, however, such
a thing as "apologist for the terrorists".

Dave

    UN decretes are not LAW...by chance if you think about the way these
    decretes have an automatic majority as soon as they are against Israel.
    
    If a country is BEING ATTACKED and as a result of this attack he defend
    himself and conquers additional lands, then this land become his own. This
    is the law, which I admit is not always equal to justice.
    However, Jordan declared war to Israel in 1967 and Cis-Jordan became
    Israel's, according to this law.
    
    You may want to discuss whether the land belongs to the Britsh, to
    Jordans, to the Arabs, to Arab Palestininans, the Jewish Palestininan,
    to Israelis or to anybody else; but this would be a discussion based on
    justice, law, decretes, history, current situation, etc. and not on Law
    only.
    
    Negociations means giving and receiving so Cis-Jordany will be split in
    parts and the name of the game is to separate the Jewish and Arabic
    populations (at least for a few generations). It is not a surprise to
    have some settlements which close down or are being moved and others
    which built up.
    
    /TH
    

>    If a country is BEING ATTACKED and as a result of this attack he defend
>    himself and conquers additional lands, then this land become his own. This
>    is the law, which I admit is not always equal to justice.

This is not true.  International law requires a peace treaty before any
change of sovereignty over conquered land is recognized.

Under the Geneva Convention, East Jerusalem is not part of Israel, but is
rather occupied territory.

Moving civilian populations into occupied territory is forbidden by the
Geneva Convention.

/john

    John -
    
    I'm a little confused as to which sovereign country these lands
    were "occupied" from by Israel. The only possibility which comes to
    mind is Jordan with regard to Judea & Samaria and Egypt wrt the Gaza
    strip. Egypt refused to take the Gaza strip back in 77, and Jordan
    relinqushed all demands on J&S a few years back after the failure of
    the London agreement. Also, while these countries were "occupying"
    these lands, I didn't hear any demand for "returning" these lands.I
    also don't recall any breaches of the international law bing waved
    around. Oh, and aren't there peace treaties already signed with BOTH
    Egypt & Jordan ?
    
    Sooo, let's go back to the UN partition decision back in 47. As I
    recall, it was flatly turned down by the Arab countries, and I don't
    recall any attempt being made to set up a sovereign nation in the arab
    part. I do recall that an attempt was made to thwart the resolution by
    force. Was there a condemming of such ? There was no peace treaty
    signed  at the time, becuase non of the Arab nations wanted to. In any
    case, whith whom was Israel supposed to sign a peace treaty with regard
    to the lands it conquered land ? With a non-existent sovereign nation ? 

The Arab countries had no right to reject the partition of Palestine in 1947,
and Israel has no right to reject it now.

The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was just as illegal in 1947/8 as the
annexation of the East Jerusalem portion of the West Bank today by Israel.

Egypt never annexed the Gaza.

Israeli bulldozers are seen as weapons of terror by the Arab population of East
Jerusalem, who have seen their homes bulldozed to the ground and have not been
able to get building permits to alleviate their own serious housing shortage
-- yet the bulldozers arrive and build homes for invaders from Israel on what
the entire rest of the world considers to be Arab land.

/john

    The partition of Palestine in 1947 gave the West Bank to the Jewish
    population and the East Bank (Trans Jordan) to the Arabs. So, "the
    entire world" considered the West Bank to be Jewish land.
    
    /TH
    

>    The partition of Palestine in 1947 gave the West Bank to the Jewish
>    population and the East Bank (Trans Jordan) to the Arabs.

No it did not.  The West Bank and other areas were designated to be Arab
territory.  A map of the U.N. partition plan is located at

	http://bulova.zko.dec.com/group/covert/partition.jpg

>So, "the entire world" considered the West Bank to be Jewish land.

Not according to the partition.  You should learn some history and geography.
The entire text of the partition plan is located at:

	http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/peace/part181.html

No one expects a complete return to the borders forseen by that plan, which
are somewhat more favorable to the Arabs than current conditions.

The internationalization of at least part of Jerusalem, with the remainder
divided between Israel and Palestine with free access across the border is
the only hope for peace.

/john

    John -
    
    Given that the Arab nations had from 48 until 67 to create a
    Palestininan nation AND give free access to worshippers in Jerusalem,
    but never got around to it, why should Israel believe that they will
    behave differently ? Interesting that they got all riled up about a
    palestinian nation and Jerusalem only AFTER they could do something
    about it. Brings to mind, "If I can't have it, you can't have it".

It wasn't the responsibility of the Arab nations to create a Palestinian
state; it was the Palestinians' responsibility.

They were just as occupied then by Jordan and Egypt as they are now by
Israel.

Why do you think King Hussein's father was murdered?  You are aware that
this was done by Palestinian terrorists protesting Jordan's invasion of
the West Bank and their prevention of the creation of a Palestinian state,
are you not?

/john

Re: .4

>Terror can be carried out just as effectively, if not as dramatically,
>with bulldozers as well as with bombs.

Any attempt to compare cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians with the
building of homes, legal or otherwise, is repugnant. I'm not surprised
when Palestinian terror groups resort to these depraved analogies but I
do not expect such a perverted sense of morality from a believing
Christian.  I suggest you retract your statement.

>A terror bombing is certainly an unreasonable response to a terror bulldozing,
>and is to be condemned in the strongest terms.

"Unreasonable response" !?
It's a downright evil, abhorrent, sub-human response !!!!

Israel is a sovereign state and has every right to determine where and
when to build within her capital city. You may not agree with that but it
takes a warped sense of justice to label Israel's decision as a form of
"terror" comparable to the bombing of civilians.

                          BUILDING IN JERUSALEM -
                                 BACKGROUND

                             February 24, 1997
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAR HOMA

  1. The planned neighborhood to be built in Har Homa is located in an
     unpopulated area near Kibbutz Ramat Rahel, within the municipal
     boundaries of the city of Jerusalem.

  2. Jerusalem is a vibrant, growing city. The purpose of the Har Homa
     project is to alleviate the housing shortage of both the Jewish and
     Arab residents of Jerusalem. As such, it constitutes part of the
     overall municipal plan to construct 20,000 new housing units for the
     Jewish sector and 8,500 for the Arab sector - a ratio comparable to
     that of the Jewish and Arab populations in the city (see aerial view).

     In this regard, Prime Minister Netanyahu has recently said (Feb. 20):

          "We will build in Jerusalem, without conditions, without
          restrictions. We will build throughout the city... We are as
          committed to the Arab residents of Jerusalem as we are to
          providing for the Jewish residents. They, too, need housing, and
          we will build, adapting the building plans to the needs of both
          populations."

  3. The Har Homa project necessitated the appropriation of 1,400 dunams
     from Jewish landowners and 450 dunams from Arab landowners. The High
     Court of Justice upheld the government's right to appropriate this
     land in order to meet the housing needs of the public at large.

ROADS

  4. The Ministerial Committee on Jerusalem Affairs decided (February 18,
     1997) to advance the construction of several roads, as part of the
     development of the infrastructure of Jerusalem, in order to reduce
     traffic congestion in the city and to improve access routes both to
     and within the city.

  5. The development of such an infrastructure is necessary to serve the
     growing needs of a Jerusalem as a major city, whose current population
     of 500,000 is expected to increase to 800,000 within the next few
     years. The resulting improvement in transport will enhance both the
     quality of life of Jerusalem's residents and access from the periphery
     to the city center.

  6. The approved roads in the Jerusalem area are:

       a. A new road linking Jerusalem with the coastal plain, which will
          serve as an alternative to the existing, already congested road.

       b. An eastern ring road linking the Arab population centers to the
          north (Ramallah and Nablus) and south (Bethlehem and Hebron) of
          Jerusalem. This road will enable those traveling between these
          centers to bypass the crowded Jerusalem city center, as is
          customary in metropolises throughout the world.

          SEE MAP  (http://www.israel.org/news/jerroads.html)

LEGAL ASPECTS

  7. There is no basis to the Palestinian claims that the planning
     construction constitutes a violation of the agreements between Israel
     and the Palestinians. These agreements do not place any restrictions
     on Israeli building in areas under Israeli control.

  8. Both the Declaration of Principles (1993) and the Interim Agreement
     (1995) state that the issue of Jerusalem will be discussed in the
     framework of the permanent status negotiations, and that the
     Palestinian side has no authority in Jerusalem during the interim
     period. Under these agreements, the Palestinians have no standing to
     demand that Israel coordinate building in Jerusalem with them.

                                                             March 3, 1997

                          HAR HOMA - LEGAL ASPECTS

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

In light of repeated attempts by the Palestinians and others to present the
Israel government approval of the Har Homa project as an alleged violation
of the agreements between Israel and the PLO, the following legal points
should be noted:

BUILDING IN THE TERRITORIES AND IN JERUSALEM

1. The Declaration of Principles of September 1993, the Interim Agreement
of 1995, and all related documents contain no commitment to refrain from
the construction of settlements, neighborhoods, houses, roads, or any other
such building project. Hence, the approval of the Har Homa project and its
implementation do not constitute any violation of these agreements.

2. It should be noted in this context that in the course of negotiations on
the Interim Agreement in 1995, the Palestinian side sought to include in
this agreement restrictions on the building of settlements. This issue was
discussed but was not agreed upon, and no ban or limitation on building --
either in the territories or in Jerusalem -- is contained anywhere in the
agreement.

3. To the contrary. Building is permitted, under the agreement, to both
Palestinians and Israelis, in those areas under their respective
jurisdictions, subject to the provisions of the agreement regarding
planning and construction.

JERUSALEM

4. Israel and the Palestinians agreed that the Palestinian autonomy
authorities have no powers or responsibility in Jerusalem. Accordingly,
their offices and institutions are to be located only in those areas in
which the Palestinian autonomy enjoys territorial authority -- namely,
outside Jerusalem. It was explicitly agreed that the authority of the
Palestinian autonomy would extend over the West Bank and Gaza, to the
exclusion of those issues to be discussed in the permanent status
negotiations, including Jerusalem and the Israeli settlements.

5. In agreeing that the issue of Jerusalem is to be part of the permanent
status negotiations, the parties recognized Jerusalem as a separate issue,
which does not constitute a part of the agreed arrangements for
redeployment and transfer of authorities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Namely, life in Jerusalem, and all this entails, continues, with the status
of the city remaining unchanged so long as no decision to the contrary is
taken in the permanent status negotiations.

6. Therefore, the approval of building plans within Jerusalem, or the
implementation of any construction work, does not constitute a change in
the status of Jerusalem; neither does it create a situation which can
adversely affect or influence the permanent status negotiations. In any
event, the existing agreements do not accord the Palestinians any standing
with regard to any actions taken in Jerusalem, and Israel is under no
obligation to coordinate such actions with them or to consult with them.

CHANGE OF STATUS IN JUDEA, SAMARIA AND GAZA

7. In Article XXXI (7) of the Interim Agreement, Israel and the PLO agreed
that "Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the
status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the
permanent status negotiations." Since, as noted above, Jerusalem is not
included in the agreement as part of those arrangements which apply to the
West Bank and Gaza Strip, and since there is no change in the status of
Jerusalem, this article is not relevant in this context.

8. In contrast, any action taken by either side to alter the status of this
area (such as by declaration of an independent state) would constitute a
violation of the Interim Agreement -- allowing the other side to decide
whether to view the agreement as void, thus releasing that side from its
obligations under the agreement.

9. It should be noted that even the letters from the PLO to the President
of the Security Council (5/1997/149 of Feb 21, 1997 and S/1997/165 of Feb
27, 1997) make no claim of any violation of the agreements. Rather, they
refer to a threat to the integrity of the agreements -- this because there
has in fact been no violation.

SETTLEMENTS

10. The position of the Israeli government, since 1967, has been that
international law does not forbid the building of settlements on occupied
territory, and that the standard rules of international law, including the
Hague Rules of 1907, permit the administering authority to utilize public
land and to enjoy the "usufruct" as long as it occupies the territory.
Israel therefore rejects any claim or decision as to the illegality of its
settlements policy.

APPEALS TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

11. The very appeal by the PLO to the international community for
intervention, particularly to the UN Security Council, is inconsistent with
its explicit agreement to settle all issues under dispute directly through
negotiation. This commitment is contained in the letter from the PLO
Chairman to the late Prime Minister Rabin of September 9, 1993, on the eve
of the signing of the Declaration of Principles, as well as in the texts of
the DOP and the Interim Agreement which refer issues under dispute to the
appropriate mechanisms of coordination, cooperation and conciliation
between the parties, without the involvement of outside parties. The PLO's
activity in this matter thus undermines the principles of the agreement,
reflecting the desire to avoid confrontation and to foster relations built
on mutual trust by resolving differences directly between the parties.

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

CAMERA Backgrounder

February 27, 1997

Building in Har Homa

Israel's plans to build new housing in the Har Homa area of municipal
Jerusalem have been widely misrepresented in the media and by Palestinian
spokespersons. The project has been cast as "right-wing", a land-grab, a
violation of the Oslo Accords, and the continuation of an alleged Israeli
policy of "Judaizing" Jerusalem by preventing Arab growth and building in
the city. The facts tell a different story.


* Ownership of the land at Har Homa

1. An area of 1850 dunams (about 460 acres) was expropriated by the
government for the Har Homa project. Of this, 1400 dunams came from Jewish
owners and 450 dunams from Arab owners. Among the parcels expropriated, the
largest (almost 800 dunams, or about 43%) belonged to David Meeri, who is
Jewish.

2. Much of the 1400 dunams owned by Jews was acquired prior to 1948.
Following the 1948 War of Independence, in which Jordan occupied the West
Bank and half of Jerusalem, the *Jordanian* Custodian of Enemy Property
planted a pine forest at Har Homa to prevent misuse of the land by local
Jordanian residents. Since 1967 that forest has been maintained by the
Jewish National Fund.

3. All of the land in question is vacant, most of it forested. No
homeowners, Jewish or Arab, will be displaced by the project.

4. All owners were offered full compensation for the land taken.
Nevertheless, both the Arab and Jewish owners contested the expropriation
in court. The matter eventually reached the High Court, which denied the
claims and ruled in favor of the government.


* Building at Har Homa consistent with Oslo Accords

Yasir Arafat, Palestinian spokespersons, and many media reports have
falsely portrayed Israeli plans to build at Har Homa as a violation of the
Oslo Accords. In fact:

1. Neither the Declaration of Principles nor the Interim Agreement place
any restrictions on Israel concerning Jerusalem. All issues concerning the
city were left to the Permanent Status negotiations, though it should be
noted that the agreements do specifically bar PA authority over Jerusalem:

  1.  ...the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and
      Gaza Strip territory as a single territorial unit, except for:
     
        a. issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status
        negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements... (Interim Agreement,
        Article XVII).

2. Since Jerusalem, and the final borders between the PA and Israel, were
left to the Permanent Status negotiations, Israeli building in Jerusalem is
no more a violation of the Accords than the extensive Palestinian building
which is taking place throughout PA-controlled areas.


* Palestinian threats of violence violate Oslo Accords

In clear violation of the Oslo Accords, which bar incitement and threats of
violence, Palestinian leaders have repeatedly attempted to inflame the
situation with provocative statements:

	We are preparing for a confrontation. For us, Har Homa
	is the end of the peace process.
	(Ghassan Andoni, Financial Times, 26 February 1997)

	If Israel decides to go ahead with building at Har Homa, 
	the Palestinian response will be hard and violent.
	(Mohammed Jadallah, AFP, 21 February 1997)

	...this decision gives the green light for riots, clashes,
	starting a battle, a war.
	(Faisal Husseini, Paris Radio Monte Carlo, 21 February 1997)

	If Israel continues these unilateral actions (in) Jerusalem... 
	they are undermining not just peace with the Palestinians but 
	peace in the entire region.
	(Hanan Ashrawi, AP, 20 February 1997)

	If Prime Minister Binyamin decides to build in Har Homa this 
	will be a declaration of war on the Palestinians.
	(Faisal Husseini, Yediot Ahranot, 18 February 1997)


Such Palestinian threats of violence are clearly violations of the Oslo
Accords, which require that the two sides:

foster mutual understanding and tolerance, and shall accordingly
abstain from incitement, including hostile propaganda, against each
other...(Interim Agreement, Article XXII) 

...shall take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of
terrorism, crime, and hostilities directed against each other,
against individuals falling under the other's authority... (Interim
Agreement, Article XV)


* Most Israelis support Har Homa project 

Many press reports have falsely portrayed the Har Homa project as "right
wing":

	Under pressure from rightist members of his coalition to 
	proceed with the Har Homa plan... Netanyahu ...
	(Los Angeles Times, 24 February 1997)

	Right-wing coalition partners and several members of the main 
	opposition Labor party have been pressing Netanyahu to give 
	the green light for the project...
	(Reuters, 20 February 1997)

	Netanyahu has been under growing pressure from members of his 
	conservative coalition to build in Har Homa...
	(AP, 20 February 1997)

Contrary to such reports, there is actually broad support in Israel for the
project. In a Gallup poll 46% of respondents favored building at Har Homa,
with only 29% opposed (Ma'ariv, 21 February 1997). A Dahaf poll placed
overall support for building Har Homa at 69%, with 38% for building
"immediately," and 31% for doing so "at the right moment," and only 24%
opposed (Yediot Ahranot, 21 February 1997).


* Labor Party's Teddy Kollek, former Mayor of Jerusalem, supports Har
  Homa project

Reflecting the Israeli consensus on the Har Homa project, prominent Labor
Party member Teddy Kollek, who was Mayor of Jerusalem for 28 years, stated:

	I am in favor of building now. One cannot give in every time
	an Arab leader makes a threat.
	(Ma'ariv, 27 February 1997).


* Rabin and Netanyahu on building at Har Homa

The late Prime Minister Rabin supported plans to build at Har Homa in words
remarkably similar to those of Prime Minister Netanyahu:

	...the land expropriations in Jerusalem were not designed to
	usurp anyone's property, but rather to turn uncultivated areas 
	into construction projects for both Arabs and Jews.
	(Prime Minster Rabin, Ma'ariv, 12 May 1995)

	I want to make clear that we will build in all of Jerusalem, 
	and we will build also in Har Homa...  First of all because there
	is a big housing deficit in Jerusalem, there will be construction
	for both Jews and Arabs.
	(Prime Minister Netanyahu, AP, 25 February 1997)

In accord with these statements, municipal plans for Jerusalem include
20,000 housing units for Jews and 8500 for Arabs, reflecting the
demographic balance in the city (Jerusalem is 71% Jewish).

* In Jerusalem Arab growth rate surpasses that of the Jews

1. Since 1967 Jerusalem's Jewish population has increased by only 105%,
while its Arab population has increased by 156%. In other words, despite
Arab charges that Israel is "Judaizing" the city, Jerusalem is less Jewish
today than it was in 1967. (This and the next 2 points are based on 1993
data from the Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem.)

2. Excluding the Old City (where little building takes place), the average
size of Jewish homes in Jerusalem is 67.2 square meters, while the average
size of Arab homes is 75.1 square meters.

3. While the Arab population of Jerusalem has increased greatly, crowding
has actually decreased. Since 1967 the number of rooms-per-person in Arab
households has increased by 11%.

4. Much of the new Arab building in Jerusalem has taken place in the
neighborhoods of Ras al-Amud and Arab a-Suwachra in the south-east, and in
Shuafat and Beit Hanina in the north. Arab villages within the city, such
as Isawiya, A-Tur, Sur Bacher and Beit Safafa, have also grown significantly.

5. Meron Benvenisti, the former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem, now much quoted
by Israel's critics, in the past criticized propagandists who distorted
Arab and Jewish population growth in Jerusalem:

	These complaints were taken up and accepted in wide circles
	all over the world. However, demographic data did not justify 
	such complaints. The massive Israeli efforts only ensured that 
	the growth of the Jewish population of the city did not lag 
	behind that of the Arab community. As in many other areas, the 
	complaints rested not so much on real facts as on the declarations 
	of politicians. The efforts made for the rapid construction and 
	development of the city brought about a relatively swift growth 
	of the Jewish population, but they also brought about a relatively
	faster growth of the Arab community. Like Siamese twins, the two 
	communities nourished each other and were obliged to advance at 
	the same pace. The true beneficiary of the efforts directed towards 
	development was not the Jewish community, nor the Arab one, it was 
	the city as a whole.
	(Jerusalem, The Torn City, 1976)

Since Benvenisti wrote these words in 1976, Jewish building in Jerusalem
has continued to lag behind the Arab efforts, as noted above.


Prepared by:

Alexander Safian, Ph.D.
Associate Director
CAMERA

######

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
PO Box 428
Boston, MA 02258

Tel 617-789-3672
Fax 617-787-7853
camera@world.std.com
<http://world.std.com/~camera>

Re: .11
>The Arab countries had no right to reject the partition of Palestine in 1947,
>and Israel has no right to reject it now.
Re: .15
>It wasn't the responsibility of the Arab nations to create a Palestinian
>state; it was the Palestinians' responsibility.

The Palestinian Arabs themselves rejected the partition plan!  In fact,
the Palestinans were not ready to accept any terms of partition until
just a few years ago with the onset of the Oslow accords.

The notion of a "Palestinian nation" hardly existed in 1947. (The term
"Palestinians" usually referred to the Jews.) Most Palestinian Arabs
considered themselves as part of the greater Arab nation. Some considered
Palestine to be "Southern Syria", others were happy to integrate into the
Hashemite kingdom. With very few exceptions, all of them were united in
their objection to a Jewish state of any shape, form or size in the
Middle East.  


>Why do you think King Hussein's father was murdered?  You are aware that
>this was done by Palestinian terrorists protesting Jordan's invasion of
>the West Bank and their prevention of the creation of a Palestinian state,
>are you not?

King Abdullah was assassinated for the "crime" of negotiating secretly
with the Israelis not for the invasion of "Palestine" which was supported
by most Palestinian Arabs. In any case, is one political assassination
all the Palestinians have to show for their efforts in establishing their
own state prior to 1967?

FYI, the "Palestine Liberation Organization" (PLO) and its military arm
(PLA) were organized in 1964. The aim of the group was the "final
liquidation of Israel". At that time, the "West Bank" was part of Jordan
and Gaza was occupied by Egypt, but still their aim was to liquidate
Israel! They never even attempted to create an infrastructure for
self-rule while they were under Egyptian/Jordanian jurisdiction. [As for
the UN, UN funds were directed to the PLA recruits in the form of UNRWA
rations despite repeated US protests.]

True, in 1966, the Palestinian terror groups turned against Jordan but
that was because Jordan refused to allow them to conduct fedayeen raids
into Israel from her territory.  They then joined Syria in a terror
campaign to "liberate Jordan". The PLO charter however calls for the
destruction of Israel - not Jordan.

Today, Palestinian Arabs make up the majority of the Jordanian
population. So why don't they begin realizing their political ambitions
there?

I had said:

  Terror can be carried out just as effectively, if not as dramatically,
  with bulldozers as well as with bombs.

Itzhak Kremer replied:

>Any attempt to compare cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians with the
>building of homes, legal or otherwise, is repugnant. I'm not surprised
>when Palestinian terror groups resort to these depraved analogies but I
>do not expect such a perverted sense of morality from a believing
>Christian.  I suggest you retract your statement.

I actually do not think it is a perverted sense of morality.  The bulldozing
of Palestinian land (and East Jerusalem _is_ Palestinian land) is an act of
terror, of stealing, of covetousness, and of hatred, and these all lead to
murder.

Only when Israel returns to the call of G-d to love their fellow as their
selves and to respect the alien who lives among them will there be an end
to the violence.  You, as the currently stronger nation, must be an example
to the Palestinians.

/john

>I actually do not think it is a perverted sense of morality.  

I know... that's what's so sad.

>The bulldozing
>of Palestinian land (and East Jerusalem _is_ Palestinian land) is an act of
>terror, of stealing, of covetousness, and of hatred, and these all lead to
>murder.

On the one hand, you claim that the allmighty UN has designated Jerusalem
as an international city but when Israel builds there it becomes
"Palestinian land". 

>Only when Israel returns to the call of G-d to love their fellow as their
>selves and to respect the alien who lives among them will there be an end
>to the violence.  

Coming from someone who sees an analogy between the bombing of innocent
civilians and the building of homes on desolate land, this sermon on
brotherly love is nothing but ludicrous.

>You, as the currently stronger nation, must be an example
>to the Palestinians.

Precisely because we are CURRENTLY stronger, now is our opportunity to
guarantee that we remain so. It's hard to build homes under the sea.

Today, meeting in Emergency Session, the United Nations General Assembly
has again passed a resolution calling on Israel to stop its illegal
construction activities in occupied East Jerusalem and in other occupied
territories.

Passing 134 to 3 with 11 abstentions, the resolution demands "immediate and
full cessation of the construction ... and of all other Israeli settlement
activities."

Voting against were Israel, the United States, and Micronesia.

All of the EU countries voted in favor of the resolution except for
Germany, which abstained.

WHEN WILL ISRAEL CEASE ITS ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES?

/john

Dear John,

   This must be one of you most favorite topics. Perhaps you might
try explaining why your own country voted against the resolution.

			Dave

The explanation given by our government is

	the construction is illegal and must stop

but

	UN resolutions are not helpful; Israel and Palestine must
	work this out in bilateral talks.

This is known as diplomatic doublespeak.

/john

    John, 
             
    Ithak Kremer explained the issue including its legal aspect in the 
    replies .16+.
    His last reply was posted on the 31st of March and since then you 
    are quiet on the subject. You did not answer and you did not even 
    apologized. 
    Now suddenly because the UN and its automatic majority has again 
    voted an anti-israeli resolution, you come back!? 
    
    What has changed in your opinion on the legal aspects ? Are you
    more convinced by Ithak's replies which citates the sources or by an 
    automatic UN resolution ? 
             
    What if tomorrow the UN votes that the earth is flat ? Would you 
    post it here ? I guess no as it doesn't criticize Israel. 
             
    \\ 
    
    

re .-1

I will reply to exactly two points:

>7. In Article XXXI (7) of the Interim Agreement, Israel and the PLO agreed
>that "Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the
>status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the
>permanent status negotiations." Since, as noted above, Jerusalem is not
>included in the agreement as part of those arrangements which apply to the
>West Bank and Gaza Strip, and since there is no change in the status of
>Jerusalem, this article is not relevant in this context.

The problem here is that the rest of the world considers East Jerusalem
to be part of the West Bank.  No nation other than Israel has recognized
the annexation of this portion of the West Bank.  East Jerusalem remains,
in international law, occupied territory.  The State of Israel has no
right at all to change its status by annexation or by infusing the area
with its own population.

>10. The position of the Israeli government, since 1967, has been that
>international law does not forbid the building of settlements on occupied
>territory, and that the standard rules of international law, including the
>Hague Rules of 1907, permit the administering authority to utilize public
>land and to enjoy the "usufruct" as long as it occupies the territory.
>Israel therefore rejects any claim or decision as to the illegality of its
>settlements policy.

The position of the Israeli Government is in direct opposition to the clear
words of international law.

Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949
states: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own
         civilian population into the territory it occupies."

If those settlements were being built for the people who already lived in the
area prior to 1967, then the settlements would be legal.  But they are not.
They are being built for the purpose of transferring parts of Israel's
civilian population into occupied territory.

By doing so, Israel makes itself an outlaw state.

/john

    >>Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949
    >>states: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its
    >>own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
    >>
    >>If those settlements were being built for the people who already lived
    >>in the area prior to 1967, then the settlements would be legal.  But they are
    >>not.
    
    They are not ?
    
    Things are not black and white.
    
    Have you heard about Kibbutz Roch Tsurim ? The Kibbutz was initially
    located in the Gush Etsion. During the 1948-49 war, the Jordans dismanteled
    the kibbutz and its population was taken as prisonniers in Jordany.
    They were eventually liberated and created Kibbutz En-Tsurim, close to
    Ashkelon.
    Later on, (in the 70s ? I cannot remember exactly) their children
    re-created the original Rosh-Tsurim on its original place.
    
    Roch Tsurim is just an example. And you said it, Rosh Tsourim is legal.
    
    
    

Re: .27

>The problem here is that the rest of the world considers East Jerusalem
>to be part of the West Bank.

I don't know what the world thinks but I do know that the Israel-PLO
interim agreement, signed by the PLO and sanctioned by the US and the
World community, clearly distinguishes between Jerusalem and the
territories of the "West Bank".  The building in Har-Homa does not
violate this agreement.

>No nation other than Israel has recognized
>the annexation of this portion of the West Bank.  East Jerusalem remains,
>in international law, occupied territory.  

There is no entity called "East Jerusalem", Jerusalem is a united city
and will remain so. All of Jerusalem has the same political status. If
Jerusalem is occupied, who exactly did we occupy it from?

>The position of the Israeli Government is in direct opposition to the clear
>words of international law.
>
>Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949
>states: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own
>         civilian population into the territory it occupies."

This clause appears in a document entitled  "Convention (IV) Relative to
the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War".  Article 49 is
referring to forced deportations, transfers and evacuations of civilian
populations. It comes to prevent situations of forced transfers as those
done by the Nazis when they moved civilians from one country to
concentration camps in other countries. Applying this clause to the case
of Jerusalem is absurd.

Now let's check just how "clear" the words of the international law
really are. Let's try to determine if the Geneva convention applies to
the Palestinians.

     Article 2 says:
     "In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in
     peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of
     declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between
     two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of
     war is not recognized by one of them." ...

Israel captured the "West Bank" and Jerusalem from Jordan. The
Palestinians claim that Jordan herself "occupied" the territory, so that
makes Jerusalem occupied-occupied territory! To further complicate
issues, Jordan has officially disassociated herself from the "West Bank".
Since there is no occupied State, there is no occupied territory.

     Article 4: "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a
     given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case
     of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict
     or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."
   
Sounds like the Palestinians fit the bill? Right? ... 
Wrong!  The next paragraph reads:

     "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not
     protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in
     the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a
     co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons
     while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic
     representation in the State in whose hands they are."
   
The Palestinians are not nationals of a state bound by the Convention
unless you claim that they are Jordanian nationals. But since Jordan has
"normal diplomatic representation" in Israel, the Palestinians can't be
regarded as "protected persons" on that count either. 

I could go on and on, but I think I made my point.

Itzhak

>There is no entity called "East Jerusalem" ... All of Jerusalem has the same
>political status.

That opinion is not shared by the governments of any other nation.  Why
do you think, for example, that the United States maintains two separate
consulates in Jerusalem, one in Israel, and one in East Jerusalem -- the
latter _not_accredited_ by Israel.

>[The portion of the Geneva convention I posted] comes to prevent situations
>of forced transfers as those done by the Nazis when they moved civilians
>from one country to concentration camps in other countries.
>Applying this clause to the case of Jerusalem is absurd.

That is only part of it.  It _clearly_ applies to the case where a nation
moves its own civilian population into an occupied territory in order to
make returning it to its rightful owners more difficult.

The rest of your interpretation of international law is just as incorrect.
Since the UN has determined that the Geneva Convention applies in this case,
that is sufficient.

You live in an outlaw country.  Fortunately, in a recent poll, a majority
of the citizens of your country have had enough of this outlaw status, and
have stated their desire to see a peaceful end to the problems there,
including the establishment of a Palestinian state.

/john

>>There is no entity called "East Jerusalem" ... All of Jerusalem has the same
>>political status.
>
>That opinion is not shared by the governments of any other nation.  Why
>do you think, for example, that the United States maintains two separate
>consulates in Jerusalem, one in Israel, and one in East Jerusalem -- the
>latter _not_accredited_ by Israel.

The US does not officially recognize any part of Jerusalem as Israel's
capital. It maintains a consulate in Jerusalem which serves ALL of
Jerusalem. Official documents from the consulate specify Jerusalem as
it's location, not "East Jerusalem". As I said, Jerusalem is one city
with one legal status.

>That is only part of it.  It _clearly_ applies to the case where a nation
>moves its own civilian population into an occupied territory in order to
>make returning it to its rightful owners more difficult.

Read within it's context, it does not CLEARLY imply any such thing. But
even if it did, it doesn't apply to the case of Jerusalem because
Jerusalem's rightful owners ARE THE JEWS!

>The rest of your interpretation of international law is just as incorrect.
>Since the UN has determined that the Geneva Convention applies in this case,
>that is sufficient.

Perhaps for you, anything determined by the UN is unquestionably moral
and just. I, for one, cannot share such an opinion - I believe in only
one Supreme Being and it is certainly not the UN.

>You live in an outlaw country.  

Stick and stones will break my bones...

The foremost outlaw in the Middle East if Arafat and his gang of
arch-criminals.

>Fortunately, in a recent poll, a majority
>of the citizens of your country have had enough of this outlaw status, and
>have stated their desire to see a peaceful end to the problems there,
>including the establishment of a Palestinian state.

More demagoguery. We are discussing Jerusalem - not a Palestinian state.
Only a tiny percentage of Israelis favor any concessions on Jerusalem.

The most accurate Israeli poll conducted within the past year in Israel
(aka "national elections") indicates that over 56% of the Jewish
population were not happy with the concessions made by Rabin and Peres
and even they (Rabin,Peres) never dreamt of going back to the 1947
partition plan which you advocate.

I had written:

  That opinion is not shared by the governments of any other nation.  Why
  do you think, for example, that the United States maintains two separate
  consulates in Jerusalem, one in Israel, and one in East Jerusalem -- the
  latter _not_accredited_ by Israel.

  [As it turns out, neither of the offices are accredited to Israel.]

And you replied:

>The US does not officially recognize any part of Jerusalem as Israel's
>capital. It maintains a consulate in Jerusalem which serves ALL of
>Jerusalem. Official documents from the consulate specify Jerusalem as
>it's location, not "East Jerusalem". As I said, Jerusalem is one city
>with one legal status.

But you missed the basic point:  Normally a consulate is subordinate to
the U.S. Embassy in the country in question.  Frequently, in addition
to the embassy in the capital of a country, there are consulates located
in major cities around the country.  Each of these has diplomats who
are accredited to the country in question, and subordinate to the
ambassador.

However, as to the situation in Jerusalem, the State Department's "Key
Officers list" indicates "The Consulate General in Jerusalem is an independent
US Mission, established in 1928, whose members are not accredited to a foreign
government."

There are two sites under the control of the Consulate General, one on Agron
Road (in the West) and one on Nablus Road (just north of the Damascus gate).
The State Department lists them as "via Israel" because the United States does
not consider the consulate to be located in Israel.

>Jerusalem's rightful owners ARE THE JEWS!

Not under international law.

>the 1947 partition plan which you advocate.

I don't advocate a return to that plan with respect to the borders of
the Palestinian state.  I advocate implementation of the basic concepts
of that plan, including the internationalization of a significant portion
of Jerusalem at the key religious sites.  And I advocate giving up territory
that has been historically Palestinian on the east side of Jerusalem.  A
major component of that plan that is critical is the economic union and
free travel between the two states and the internationalized area.

/john

> But you missed the basic point:  ...

Maybe I really did miss something, John, because it sounds like you are
actually agreeing with me!

I wrote:
>The US does not officially recognize any part of Jerusalem as Israel's
>capital. It maintains a consulate in Jerusalem which serves ALL of
>Jerusalem. Official documents from the consulate specify Jerusalem as
>it's location, not "East Jerusalem". As I said, Jerusalem is one city
>with one legal status.

You agree that the US does not officially recognize any part of Jerusalem
as Israel's capital.   ["neither of the offices are accredited to Israel",
"the United States does not consider the consulate to be located in
Israel"]

Also, you agree that the Consulate General in Jerusalem has two sites -
not two separate consulates   ["There are two sites under the control of
the Consulate General..."]. 

You furthermore agree that the Consulate officially designates it's
location as "Jerusalem" - not "East Jerusalem".   ["The Consulate General
in Jerusalem is an independent US Mission...].

The fact is that there is one Consulate General of Jerusalem which
divides it's services between two offices.  The office on Nablus Rd., for
example, provides passport and visa services for all of Jerusalem, the
one on Agron does not.

Once again I repeat, Jerusalem is one city with one legal status. That
was and is the basic point.

And my basic point is that every country other than Israel considers the
territory upon which the Har Homa settlement is being constructed to be
outside Israel.

/john

>And my basic point is that every country other than Israel considers the
>territory upon which the Har Homa settlement is being constructed to be
>outside Israel.

What country is it in then?

That has to be determined by a comprehensive peace agreement.

/john

>That has to be determined by a comprehensive peace agreement.

Until then, I suppose, no one builds in Jerusalem ?

No.  Until then, build housing that doesn't cause international incidents.

/john

    John, what cross-section of land did G-d give Israel?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Mike, all of the people there qualify as "Israel" in a religious sense.

The Christian Palestinians are the descendants of Matthew, Mark, Luke,
Peter, John, Mary Magdalene, and the thousands of other Jews who decided
to accept Christianity.  They did not lose their right to the land by
choosing to follow Jesus (although those who did not choose Jesus might
disagree).

The Moslem Palestinians have also intermarried with enough of the
Christians to be indistinguishable.  Did they lose their right to the
land by rejecting Jesus and choosing to worship G-d (the _same_ G-d of
Israel) in the manner prescribed by Mohammed?  Not any more so than any
number of secular and atheist Jews who have completely rejected their G-d
and who form a significant portion of the population of the nation-state
of Israel.

Both of the Palestinian religious groups recognize, as you do, a certain
person to be greater than all the prophets who went before him.  And this
particular person made it _very_clear_ that political power was not the way
to peace, not the way to God.

"Israel" could have all of the land, shared peacefully among all the
people there, if _everyone_ there would stop trying to create a political
power base which denies fundamental rights to other parties.  A just
political partition of the land would encompass two states both of which
guarantee fundamental rights for anyone, Christian/Jew/Moslem, who chooses
to live anywhere in the region.

/john

    |Mike, all of the people there qualify as "Israel" in a religious sense.
    
    this isn't what I asked.  The land was promised to and delivered to the
    Hebrews in the Torah and the book of Joshua.  
    
    If things are as you say they are, I still don't see a very good
    witness/testimony on behalf of the Palestinians.

>I still don't see a very good witness/testimony on behalf of the Palestinians.

I don't see a very good witness/testimony on behalf of _anyone_ there.

/john

    That's exactly the point, but when you aren't the title deed holder of
    the land, you need to show some respect and civility to the landlord. 
    If they are trying to win respect and concessions from Israel, they are
    a classic case of how *NOT* to do it.  They just aren't very good
    neighbors.

>when you aren't the title deed holder of the land ...

But there you are assuming facts not in evidence.

I see no evidence that these immigrants from Europe, people who have
intermarried for years with Germanic and Slavic peoples and now want to return
to the land promised to the descendants of Israel have any stronger title to
the land than the people already there, people who are direct descendents of
Israel (the Christian Palestinians are descended from Hebrew people who
accepted Jesus) and who also have intermarried with all the various nations
in the area.

Mike, if you are going to try to make a Biblical argument that some descendants
of Israel and followers of G-d have title deeds to the land but that others
don't -- and especially that the Palestinian Christians descended from the
thousands of Hebrews who became Christians in biblical times no longer have
title to the land -- then I think you're on very shaky ground.

/john

    I see nothing Christ-like in the actions of the Palestinians.  If they
    were Christ-like, they would honor the Jewishness of Yeshua and have a
    larger respect for God's chosen people - the Jews.

Well, Mike, I'm not certain that this is the place to discuss what is being
Christ-like, but I would suggest you consider that one must honor the image
of G-d in _all_ people, not just the Jews.

G-d can and has singled the Jews out for a special role in his plan for the
world.  _We_, on the other hand, _cannot_ single out any particular group
of people to either idolize or demonize.

/john

	Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to
	temporarily suspend construction of the Har Homa housing
	project in order to get the peace process back on track.

	However, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek will be asking for
	a real political solution to the Shepherd's Hill issue, not
	just a suspension of the construction.

        Mubarek will also be asking for a temporary suspension of
	construction at other West Bank locations, resumption of
	talks on the next stage of the Israeli troop withdrawal
	from Palestinian territory, and accelerated talks on a
	permanent peace agreement.

MECHRIC (Middle East Christian Committee) Mechric@cmep.com
----------------------------------------------------------
    Middle East Christian alliance to Arafat and the Patriarchs:
    "Jerusalem was invaded by Arab Moslems once. No to a new invasion"

Jerusalem, New York

In a statement issued in Jerusalem and New York, the Middle East
Christian Committee (Mechric) responded to PLO president Yassir Arafat
who called on the Christians to demonstrate in Jerusalem against Israel's
control.

MECHRIC, a coalition of four ethnic organizations representing Copts,
Assyrians, Lebanese Christians, and South Sudanese, criticized the
endorsement of the PLO by Jerusalem Patriarchs. The statement said "The
Arab-Moslems invaded Jerusalem in the seventh century and reduced the
once majority of this region to second class citizens, known as the
dhimmis.  Today, Mr Arafat is attempting to launch a second Arab Islamic
invasion of Jerusalem. We, who represents millions of Middle East
Christians are opposed to this new conquest, and will stand by the only
non-Arab, non-Moslem nation in the Middle East which was able to
challenge the domination of the Arabs. As for the Patriarchs who resides
in the holy city, and are associating themselves with the PLO, we remind
them of the massacres perpetrated by Arafat forces against the Christians
of Lebanon.  And we remind them of the massacres against Christians in
Egypt, Iraq, Sudan, Iran, and elsewhere in the region. We call on them
not to isolate themselves from the majority of Middle East Christians,
and become the extension of Arab-Islamic domination in the region."

The MECHRIC statement said "Israel has no opressive policies vis a vis
the Christians in the region. When Christians were massacred in Sudan and
Lebanon, only Israel came to the rescue." The statement called on the
Christian masses in the Middle East to unite in supporting Jerusalem,
under the sovereignty of our ally, Israel, and open to all religions."

       WHO IS THE OPPRESSOR IN THE MIDDLE EAST? WHO IS KILLING PEACE?

When the Israelis enlarge a tunnel in Jerusalem, Arab regimes protest. When
the Jews excavate their archeological sites, the PLO wage a guerilla war,
the Arab League stage diplomatic campaigns, and world media is outraged. If
Mr Yassir Arafat is angry, the United States hurry to invite Israel's Prime
Minister, and Arab leaders to discuss the matter. Arafat's indignation over
a Jewish archeological tunnel mobilize the Arab regimes, and extract
crocodile tears from Western diplomats. Arab leaders in the Middle East,
and "Arabist" followers in the West are "outraged because Peace is being
killed."! Yes we agree with them, Peace is being killed, but we will tell
them by whom.

Arab regimes in the Middle East and "Arabists" in the West are looking for
an oppressor to be indicted, so the region will find justice, freedom, and
the respect of human rights. Yes, we agree with them, there are oppressors
in the Middle East. Yes, there are criminals against Humanity in that
region. Yes, they should be exposed, indicted, and some among them should
even be brought to the justice of History. We will tell who are these
oppressors. Mr Arafat, you are one of them. You ordered the massacres of
the Christian towns of Damur, Aishiye, Beit Mallat, Tall Abbas, and many
others in Lebanon between 1982 and 1990. You and the PLO are responsible
for a genocide against the Christian people of Lebanon, including moderate
Sunnis, Shiites, and Druses, whom you oppressed, jailed and assassinated.
You are responsible for the killing of a hundred thousand Lebanese
civilians. Your Fatah forces still "settle" lands confiscated from Lebanese
Christians. You killed Peace in Lebanon. And now you are killing Peace in
the Holy land. Where are the eighty thousand Christians of Bethlehem? The
United States government should have asked you to appear at the Hague for
the crimes you perpetrated in Lebanon, rather than parading in a Limousine
inside the beltway.

President Mubarak, you are eager to proclaim your outrage because "one
million Palestinians did not obtain their rights." But what about twelve
million Christian Copts your regime is oppressing on a daily base. You are
concerned about an archeological tunnel in Jerusalem, while Churches are
burning, and hundreds of Copts are assassinated in Manshiet Nasr, Assiut,
Zawiya al-Hamra, and other Christian enclaves inside Egypt. You extend your
support to your "brother Arafat" while your predecessor has imprisoned Pope
Shenouda, and your regime denies the Copts their basic rights. You call for
arming the PLO against the Jews of Israel, and you disarm the Christians of
Egypt, who are attacked by the Jihad forces. There is no Peace is Egypt.

President Assad speaks of "occupation" and "withdrawals," while his 45,000
troops, tanks, and thousands of security apparatus occupies Lebanon and
brutally oppress its civilian population. Hundreds of Lebanese are
arrested, tortured by Syrian security forces. Syria is destroying Lebanon's
economy, dismantling its independence, and obliterating its peace. Not only
has Assad killed Peace in Lebanon, he massacred tens of thousands of his
own people, also killing internal Peace in Syria.

The Saudi monarchy is upset because allegedly the religious rights of Islam
are threatened in Jerusalem. But what about Christianity in Saudi Arabia
and the rest of the Peninsula. Christians cannot build churches in Mecca,
Medina, nor in any other place within the kingdom. Christians are jailed,
Christians cannot pray in public. The House of Saoud is not a house of
peace. It maintains injustice inside Arabia, and funds Jihad worldwide.

Last but not least, we hear the Arab League claiming its rights in
Palestine, and calling on world governments to help secure "Arab" rights.
But why does the Arab League condone the genocide of the Black African
people of South Sudan and the Nuba mountains. Why does the Arab League
endorse the massacre of the Kurds in northern Iraq, and cultural oppression
of the Berbers in Algeria. Why does the Arab league encourage the genocide
of the Assyrians, the Bahais, the Maronites, and many others in the region.
Why doesn't the United States government invite the Arab leaders to meet
with John Garang and Riek Machar of southern Sudan, Michel Aoun and Antoine
Lahad of Lebanon, Jalal Talabani and Mustafa Barazani of Kurdistan, and the
leadership of all endangered minorities in the Middle East. Why do you
invite dictators who oppress nations, and denies Peace to millions, to ride
expensive cars in Washington DC, while the real underdogs of the Middle
East are crushed by their tanks, in their respective homelands. Why should
the American taxpayer pay the bills of the oppressors in the Middle East.
Why is our foreign policy so unjust?

This statement represent the views and aspirations of 3.5 million Americans
from Middle East Christian descent, and of 55 human rights organizations
across the United States South Sudan Movement of America, Dr Dominic
Mohamed (Miami) American Coptic Association, Dr Shawki Karas (New Jersey)
Assyrian American Committee, Pierre Shamoun (Chicago) World Lebanese
Organization, Sharbel Barakat (New York) World Maronite Union, Michel
Raphael (Miami) Iranian Christian International, Abe Ghofari (Colorado)
Pakistani Christian Association of America, Manzur Alam (Connecticut)
Middle East Christian Committee (MECHRIC), Joseph Gergi (New York) The
Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights under Islamization, Reverend
Keith Roderick (Illinois) -representing 55 human rights organizations-
Religious Freedom International, Clark Austin (California) Wake Up
Coalition, Minister Cathy Rose (Florida) Leadership Committee for a Free
Middle East, Dr Manfred Lehman (New York) To contact the Middle east
Christian Committee Email Mechric@cmep.com