Hamas blames 'hate culture' for Church attack

[Wordie]

Hamas blames 'hate culture' for Church attack

Hamas' designated Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniyeh says attack at the Church of Annunciation in Nazareth is result of 'a hate culture which Israel is feeding its public against the Palestinians'

Ismail Haniyeh, the designated Palestinian prime minister from the Islamic Hamas group, held Israel responsible for Friday’s attack in the Church of Annunciation in Nazareth, saying the attack is the result "of a hate culture which Israel is feeding its public against the Palestinians, and their Christian and Islamic holy places and believers."

Haim Habibi, a Jew, his Christian wife Violet, and their 20-year-old daughter entered the church disguised as pilgrims on Friday evening and set off firecrackers. They were locked by police in a small room inside the church compound for three hours to protect them from angry pilgrims and protesters.

MK Sana calls for U.N. protection

MK Talab el-Sana called on Israel’s Arabs to appeal to the United Nation for protection. The Arab MK held the Israeli government “responsible for the criminal acts in Nazareth and not securing Muslim and Christian shrines. The government always argues that the assailants are mentally unstable.”

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3223608,00.ht...

[cali]

1. truly amusing

in a deeply sick way.

[Colorado Blue]

2. Oh for pete's sake.

This is so completely ridiculous. This couple - one Christian, one Jew - is mentally ill, have economic problems, and apparently have lost some of their children.

So they act out, which they've done before.

This is now because Israel, the one place in the M.E. where people really do have religious freedom, teaches hatred.

Give me a break.

From Yahoo:

"Police said the man, Haim Eliyahu Habibi, had financial problems, and apparently is not a Jewish extremist. Habibi, his Christian wife, Violet, and their daughter were treated at a hospital before being taken into custody.

Habibi's daughter told investigators her parents intended to create a provocation to draw attention to their economic troubles and protest that two of their children had been taken from them by the Israeli authorities, Yaakov Sigdon, a police commander in northern Israel, told Israel Radio.

Several years ago, the family had sought political asylum in a West Bank town under Palestinian control for similar reasons."

snip

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060304/ap_on_re_mi_ea/isra...

[Wordie]

3. Yeah, I read that story too. Since both sides have been known to

circulate propaganda, I guess we can't really know for sure what happened here, can we?

[Colorado Blue]

4. Yes I think we can be pretty sure what happened here.

I think that the man and his wife have emotional problems.

Propaganda? Around HERE????

[Wordie]

5. LOL CB...

Let me say it again:

BOTH sides disseminate propaganda!

You don't really think that the Israeli side is never guilty of this, do you? Do you always believe without question the information provided by Israeli government/police/press sources???

And as far as the "emotional problems" are concerned, how do we know what that means? Psych labels have been slapped on political dissidents in many other countries, such as the Soviet Union and China. Andrei Sakharov wrote about this years ago in the case of the USSR.

I think we don't have enough info at this time to really understand what's going on.

[Colorado Blue]

11. I find it amazing that you would buy into Hamas' point of

view. I know you aren't very fond of Israel but really. Is Hamas now the equivalent of Israel? Seriously????

Beyond that - try and look at this one simple point: no extremist, religious Jew would be married to a Christian.

If you want to get into the conspiracy theory angle, I could just as easily suggest it was a deliberate attempt to make Israel look bad and stir up the Arabs - which in fact is what has happened.

Now, I'm willing to take the story at face value: a mentally disturbed group of people with financial problems, did something really, really stupid.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

It does appear as though you desperately want to believe this is something political. Do you WANT violence? Do you WANT this to be a trigger for another war?

And, as a "progressive", do you seriously believe Hamas, with its racist, antisemitic, anti-feminist, anti-secular and violent point of view, to be more trustworthy than the Israelis even though you really detest Israel?

[Wordie]

18. Who said it was a religious Jew who did this?

...and you are confusing the mere posting of an article with buying into the whole of Hamas' POV.

And your comments that I "detest" Israel are, imho, an example of just what I was talking about earlier. Evidence of a filter which says that any criticism of Israel, however valid, is about "hating" Israel. That's just not true.

[Colorado Blue]

24. Really? One doesn't form such an impression, on the basis

of reading only one post on only one topic.

But taken in aggregate, post after post after post, one begins to get the idea.

And what about Hamas is so attractive? This I'd like to know.

[cali]

6. You evidently don't realize

that you're giving the appearance of longing for this to have been the action of some ultra right wing religious nationalist. Pretty unseemly. At this time, the facts indicate that this was not a political act, yet you're practically insisting that we can't believe what's been printed, and you post an article that borders on absurd. Not like you're prone to buy into any propaganda, right?

[Wordie]

7. What I posted was a story from the other POV.

And since there are plenty of documented instances of Israeli authorities not acknowledging, or misrepresenting the facts of a variety of those sorts of incidents that don't make them look good, I guess I'll have to say it again: we don't know what happened.

And I think the appearance that you're seeing is something that exists as a result of the filter that is applied by some to any article about Israel that shows it in a less-than-perfect light. The filter appears frequently to bend the "truth" into something that I just don't recognize.

Because I posted this article from a different POV than yours doesn't necessarily mean I believe everything that it says, either. As I've said several times already, I think that BOTH sides disseminate propaganda. Yet you insist that the side of the story that you want to believe has the only possible "facts" of the matter, and that anything else can only be absurd.

Who is more likely to be disseminating and/or believing in propaganda? The person who says, "I don't think we can know what happened," or the person who jumps in and insists that we can only see it one way?

[cali]

8. You don't know what my POV re I/P is.

You might be surprised. I rarely hew to any party line about any subject. I certainly believe the Israelis use propaganda. Most societies do. Israel does many, many things I think are wrong. the truth, as you have indicated by using quotation marks, is both subjective and malleable. Although we don't know what happened, there are some facts that can lead the reasonable person to the tentative conclusion that this was not an attack motivated by religious nationalism.

Again, you don't know my POV, or what filter I view things through. I haven't insisted that there's a side of the story I want to believe. If it turns out that this was an attack motivated by hate of Palestinians, and the authorities covered up, than that's just a fact. It's certainly happened before, it'll almost certainly happen again. I have few illusions about this situation. What I found absurd was that you posted a piece that is more propaganda than point of view, though admittedly that can be a fine line.

Twisting the words of the person you're arguing against, is poor form. I've been careful to to use qualifying phrases such as "at this time", indicating that I'm not eagerly jumping to a conclusion that fits in with any preconceived contruct.

I've read your posts here for a while. I have the impression that your POV is so strong and so slanted that you're unable to be in the least bit impartial, despite your mouthing words like "Both sides do it". I find that essentially dishonest. Sorry, but that's my impression.

[pelsar]

9. trying to find the "evil israeli"....

not this time....just a pathetic couple with major pschological and finacial and social problems.....sad when some go looking to find the "deeper political reason that faults israel....when none exists.

though it does tend to expose those with open minds and those others.....

[cali]

10. It's very interesting.

It happens all the time on DU. I don't mean regarding Israel, necessarily, just the tendency to fall into black and white thinking while flinging that accusation back at others.

Oddly enough, I haven't any hardened opinions about how the I/P situation should play out. I just don't know enough. I tend to want the Israelis to withdraw to 1967 borders, and to see Jerusalem as a city shared by both nations. Seems pretty impractical, I know. I don't believe the right to return makes sense. I wish the Israelis would consider negotiating with Hamas. Hamas should recognize Israel. I probably sound naive.

I have read on the subject- from both sides of the fence, but I still consider myself a neophyte.

[Colorado Blue]

13. I noticed your sig line - my favorite poet!

The Second Coming -- W. B. Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

[Wordie]

14. I'm curious, CB. Do you agree with cali's proposed solution to the I/P

conflict?

[Colorado Blue]

21. No.

I think that ideally, Jerusalem should be a shared capitol, IF the security concerns can be ironed out, and if an atmosphere of true tolerance prevails, and IF Jewish, Christian and Muslim people will be accepted AS EQUALS within a Palestinian (or other) Arab state. It not, Jerusalem should remain the undivided capitol of Israel.

I think it would be awesome, though, and a great testament to 3 great religions, if it could be shared. It would make a real statement about the overcoming of intolerance and war. But the obstacles, as it stands right now, are very great. We should be patient on this issue.

As for the "Green Line" - the 1967 lines were never a border and they aren't defensible. Also, this would leave many thousands of Israelis stranded beyond the lines and her holiest sites, inaccessible. There is no way I would want to see, especially after Gaza, the spectacle of 250,000 people or more, dragged out of their homes. And I don't think they'd be safe in an Arab state at this point in time.

It would be different if there were mutual acceptance. It's obvious that there is not. But it certainly is something we can hope for in the future. With Hamas in charge, I'm concerned this won't be for quite awhile. And there's plenty of anger and distrust on the Israeli side as well.

Also, there are many valuable radar and electronic arrays, and communications gear also, necessary for defense, that lie beyond the Green Line.

Kissinger has an idea, though, to trade certain areas that are primarily Arab and contiguous to the West Bank, for the settlement blocs around Jerusalem. That's a thought, if people would agree.

In any case, it's important to recognize a simple fact: the entire state of Israel is 1/4 the size of Greater Los Angeles. The amount of land appropriated by the settlements and the fence is TINY, in real terms. There has to be some rational compromise here.

Insistence on the Green Line and the ROR are impractical and unjust, given the realities of the situation in 2006. And there has to be some rational awareness of the simple fact, that even if there was no malice and no misunderstanding at all, trying to crowd an additional 5 million people into this one small space wouldn't work - period.

In any case, borders should be negotiated in an atmosphere of calm and MUTUAL RECOGNITION. In the current situation, such an eventuality can't occur. First, the government of the P.A., now controlled by Hamas, must admit that Israel exists and withdraw their threats to destroy her.

As I've told you before, the just compensation and resettlement of the 4.5 million people living in camps must be handled on a regional basis. Compensation and recognition for the losses of the 900,000 Mizrachi and Sephardic Jews, must be arranged also.

Cooperation, tolerance, mutual respect and recognition are the keys to the problems here - not violence and a refusal to accept another state's existence, or "solutions" which only create new victims.

We can't go backwards. We can't go back to 1920 and undo the pogrom, or the violence at Hebron, or the riots of the '30's, or WWII, or the problems created by Britain and France, the war of 1948, the Cold War, the Soviets or America, and we can't raise the dead.

Therefore we must go forwards. There is plenty of space, plenty of resources, endless opportunities for the people of the Middle East. But we need to start thinking creatively and there needs to be some flexibility. The combination of Arab resources and Israeli technology could create a peaceful and prosperous superpower, if people would only wake up and see the possibilities.

At some point, people will figure this out. I hope it is before another catastrophic war breaks out.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. self-delete

just reread Kissinger's bit properly...

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Right of return...

Are you talking about the physical right of return? If so, why doesn't it make sense? The thing is I think it makes sense, but that it's impractical, in that it would destroy the two-state solution that many Palestinians want, and that the homes and the Palestine the refugees dream of just doesn't exist anymore. But I believe strongly that refugees should be able to return to their homes if that's what they want, and in this case I know Israel's refusal from the start to allow them to return has over the decades that have passed has made it impossible for them to return, so that's why I think a physical right of return is impractical, rather than not making sense....

Violet...

[Wordie]

12. I think that...

a person who immediately posts, as you did in reply #1,

truly amusing...in a deeply sick way.

...with no qualifications and absolutely no acknowledgement whatsoever that there might be some truth to the report in the OP, can reasonably expect to have someone question their own POV. You made no statement about how it was either "amusing" or "sick," either "at this time," or at all. I've hardly twisted your words...

And again, you are claiming that you know the "facts" and it just so happens that those are the "facts" as presented by only one side in the dispute. How exactly is it that you have determined that those are really facts and not propaganda?

Do I tend to post far more from the Palestinian POV? Sure, I do. I do so because I believe that the Israeli POV gets more than it's share of publication, both here in I/P and in the larger scheme of things as well.

Perhaps there really is something I'm missing. Could you explain your comments in reply #1? Could you tell me why the OP was either "amusing" or "sick"?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wordie]

32. cali...

You did say this: At this time, the facts indicate that this was not a political act...

So, as far as I can see, that's making the judgement that the Israeli presentation of the "facts" is correct. What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not saying it isn't; I'm merely saying that it's not necessarily a "fact." Can you see why I would question that, no matter what either you or I may think about Hamas? And you continued to insist that the "facts" of the situation were as the Israeli sources presented them. Because the Hamas philosophy is not acceptable, doesn't necessarily mean that in any given situation the information that they provide regarding Israeli actions isn't true. I don't think I was wrong.

And while it may be true that Hamas does not have any groups that have been working toward peace, it's important to remember that doesn't mean that there is no one within the Palestinian community who has been doing so also. Hamas has only just very recently come to power.

I'm glad we agree about the dearth of information on the Palestinian POV in our country. I wouldn't, however, agree that there is any appreciable difference here at DU. Although here in I/P there certainly are plenty of posters presenting the Pal POV, this forum is not widely read, to my knowledge. And posts about the I/P conflict posted in the larger forums get moved here, so I don't really know how much info the average DUer really gets on the I/P conflict.

[Wordie]

15. " ultra right wing religious nationalist"? I don't say that; neither does

the article.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Cali didn't say you did.

Read what s/he actually said again.... "You evidently don't realize that you're giving the appearance of longing for this to have been the action of some ultra right wing religious nationalist."

[Violet_Crumble]

17. They definately strongly implied it...

n/t

[cali]

26. I meant exactly what I wrote

and you're free to interpret it precisely as you wish.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. I read it exactly as you wrote it...

n/t

[Wordie]

23. ...and just exactly what was that supposed to mean, if NOT that somehow

the issue was that either I or the article indicated that a "ultra right wing religious nationalist" was involved??? Why bring it up?

The only other reason I can imagine would be for it to be a diversion from the actual issues presented in the article. If that's the case, I guess I stand corrected then. LOL

[cali]

28. A diversion? Get real.

I've hardly shyed away from respnding directly to every question you've posed, but you do deserve an answer as to why I used the phrase "ultra right wing religious nationalist". It's because all the terrorist acts committed by Israelis, that I'm aware of, seem to have been committed by people fitting that description.

[Wordie]

35. Aahhh, well that may explain things a bit more...

So that's where the confusion came from. That isn't true. Here:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles556.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

And, no doubt there will be a rash of posts arguing or defending these things. All I will say is please do some research of your own, before deciding.

[cali]

37. I know about the bombing of the King David

and there's no doubt in my mind that Ariel Sharon committed war crimes. Opening up refugee camps to Lebonese paramilitary murderers qualifies him as far I'm concerned.

I was thinking of the last 15 years or so, like the guy on the bus, and Goldstein who murdered people while they were praying. (I may have his name wrong, and that may have been over 15 years ago)

[Colorado Blue]

22. Can we hear from the horse's mouth? The culprit speaks:

'I have nothing against Christians or Muslims'


The Tiberias Magistrate's Court issued Saturday evening a 15-day remand extension for the three family members suspected of detonating fireworks in the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth the night before.

One of the suspects, Violet Habibi, collapsed on the way out of the courthouse. An ambulance arrived at the scene to give her medical treatment.

Police rescued the Habibi family members from the church after they detonated fireworks during a prayer service. Ensuing riots lightly injured 13 police officers and 13 civilians. Four cars were set on fire, including two police vehicles.

Haim Habibi, husband of Violet and father of Odelia, the third suspect, said during the court hearing, "I have nothing against Christians or Muslims," adding that he would like to thank the security forces who protected him from rioters during the incident. "I didn't do anything... I didn't hurt anyone. All I want is my three children that were cruelly taken from me by the state."

snip

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/689982.html

[Wordie]

25. Again...I certainly didn't say that the act was religiously motivated!

So this is an argument presenting proof against nothing, CB.

[Colorado Blue]

31. You implied that is was either religiously or politically motivated.

Or, that Israel was somehow misleading the public with the published description of events.

Which?

This being Israel, the Jewish state, it is assumed you weren't referring to the two Christian women. It can be assumed Hamas wasn't either, and the political hay that's being made off this is absurd.

Did anybody notice also, the violence of the reaction, the fact that people were pinned down, the damage to property and the threats of bodily harm, the actual injuries suffered by the police?

WHO, exactly, is expressing hate?

The fact that Hamas, given its ideology, is accusing Israel of a "culture of hate", is ridiculous and I can't BELIEVE you'd give them any weight.

The fact that, for 2,000 years, Christians have persecuted Jews practically off the goddam map, somehow seems to have slipped beneath the radar, when one Israeli Jew and his (Christian) wife and daughter throw a fire-cracker all of a sudden ISRAEL has a "culture of hate". And you give this philosophy any credence whatsoever?

The frequent conflicts between Arab Christians and Muslims - not mentioned. But recently a mosque was planned, that would have overshadowed this very church - which was built by an Israeli firm.

We publish articles on DU ALL THE TIME about the desecration of Jewish temples, graveyards and assaults on Jewish persons and NOBODY BELIEVES US or wants to discuss them. But - lo and behold - a DU member is willing to listen to Hamas and promote their "point of view".

Humbug.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/689955.html

[Violet_Crumble]

27. I think these ones were just garden variety nutjobs...

...as opposed to the religious nationalistic nutjobs. The bit where he said 'The government always argues that the assailants are mentally unstable.' has got me curious, though, because I've never seen those arguments myself and would be interested to find out if that's true, though of course, reading through this thread, I see that I'll probably open myself up to accusations of loving Hamas for even asking

What strikes me as a bit amusing about the reactions to this is that some folk who are getting angry because they think others have automatically jumped on the 'Palestinian hating, right-wing extremist' bandwagon when it comes to motive are the same folk who automatically jump on the 'terrorist, Israeli hating' bandwagon when an Arab carries out a crime against an Israeli-Jew without waiting even a nano-second to find out if it's a 'domestic'* crime totally unconnected to the occupation...

* Just coz I don't know how better to describe it, 'domestic crime' is crime that happens everywhere and where the motive is totally unrelated to any nationalist aims...

Violet...

[cali]

33. I'm sure you'd agree

that both sides do it. On another thread regarding this incident someone has stated that these perpetrators used bombs. This incident is an example of folks on one side having a hard time accepting that it wasn't a terrorist act. As far as being accused of being a Hamas lover for asking a legitimate question, I would hope that doesn't happen. It would be interesting to find out if Israeli authorities do have a history of claiming that Israelis who attack Palestinians have a psychiatric background.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Yeah, I do agree with you on that...

I think part of what causes that sort of reaction when it comes to things that happen in Israel is that people are so focused on the I/P conflict that they kind of forget that Israel is just like any other place, and crime happens all the time that has nothing to do with the conflict...

Violet...

[Wordie]

36. It's funny...

but even you and I probably agree more than you think, cali.

I didn't post the article to insist that the Hamas POV was necessarily correct. This very well may be just a "domestic" crime. I do think that there is a history of Israel presenting a variety of incidents in ways that aren't accurate, but I'm also well aware that equally true of the other side. Both in some ways may be not entirely unreasonable in this, as it is the violence of both sides that leads to such assumptions on both sides.

[cali]

38. Undoubtedly.

I always assume that we all have more in common than that which separates us- though that which separates us can seem vast indeed.