Trending Topics:

US opposes ‘world heritage status’ for Jesus’s birthplace. Guess why

US Politics
on 62 Comments
399px Church of the Nativity Bethlehem Palestine
 Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem, Palestine  Photo:Lewis Larsson

A huge story. UNESCO has granted world heritage status to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. So Palestine continues to push for recognition in international bodies. Al Akhbar:

The UN cultural body UNESCO ignored Israeli objections on Friday to grant world heritage status to the birthplace of Jesus Christ in the Palestinian city of Bethlehem.

UNESCO’s 13-6 secret vote to add the Church of the Nativity and its pilgrimage route to the prestigious list was received with a round of rousing applause and a celebratory fist pump by the beaming head of the Palestinian delegation.

AP:

The Palestinians had pressed to have the church and pilgrimage route inscribed as an emergency candidate at the meeting of the World Heritage 21-nation committee in St. Petersburg, Russia….

The United States and Israel opposed.

Take a letter. “Dear Christian Zionists…”

Updated. From the Associated Press:

The US ambassador to UNESCO, David Killion, said the United States is “profoundly disappointed” by the World Heritage committee’s decision to place the Church of Nativity on the World Heritage list. “This body should not be politicized,” he said.

 ”The site clearly has tremendous religious and historical significance,” Killion’s statement said. “However, the emergency procedure used in this instance is reserved only for extreme cases.”

(Thanks to Annie Robbins)

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

62 Responses

  1. annie
    annie
    June 29, 2012, 9:53 am

    this just happened. an hr ago or something. i’m so excited!

    Bethlehem is Palestine’s first World Heritage site. YEAH!!!

    • ahadhaadam
      ahadhaadam
      June 29, 2012, 10:24 am

      what’s there to be excited about? what exactly does this achieve? Bantustans with semi-official status? The only good thing the PA can do is dissolve itself and stop cooperating with the facade of semi-independent bantustans.

      • annie
        annie
        June 29, 2012, 11:32 am

        i guess i am excited because world heritage sites get protected and i have visited some and they are restored beautifully. the church of the nativity deserves the status it has received. it’s an exalted place and should be received as such on the world stage. it’s important to the world. others (detractors) have painted this as primarily political but i do not see it as such although i don’t deny the political implications. but have you ever visited one of unescos world heritage sites? i was in islamic cairo (now called historic cairo), spectacular. bethlehem deserves this kind of care. it’s huge.

      • ahadhaadam
        ahadhaadam
        June 29, 2012, 11:47 am

        The reason this got headlines is not because the Church of the Nativity was declared a world heritage site (duh!) but because it’s officially in the “state” called Palestine, which not only doesn’t help the Palestinian cause but helps maintain the false facade of Palestinian sovereignty. As far as Israel is concerned, despite showing signs of discontent, it couldn’t care less. On the contrary: let them celebrate their paper “state” – that will take some pressure off us.

      • Djinn
        Djinn
        June 30, 2012, 8:14 pm

        i guess i am excited because world heritage sites get protected and i have visited some and they are restored beautifully

        Tell that to the Bamiyan Buddhas

      • Eva Smagacz
        Eva Smagacz
        July 4, 2012, 4:41 am

        It created a world-wide outrage. Imagine if 14th century Mamilla cemetery in Jerusalem was similarly protected!

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 29, 2012, 2:46 pm

        Bantustans with semi-official status?

        It’s actually an official state member of UNESCO which is under foreign military occupation. The existence of the PA has nothing to do with it. 92 other countries had formally recognized the 1988 unilateral declaration of the State of Palestine before the PA ever came into existence. They were listed as co-sponsors of Palestine’s 1989 application for membership in UNESCO. See Annex II of UNESCO exhibit 131 EX/43 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000827/082711eo.pdf

        FYI, The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 says “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.”

  2. bintbiba
    bintbiba
    June 29, 2012, 10:20 am

    Yes annie!! wonderful news.

    OT : I have been Googling your Artwork. Amazing. It is BEAUTIFUL!! So refined , elegant . Just like the lovely soul I read every day on MW.

    • MRW
      MRW
      June 29, 2012, 12:11 pm

      I imagine Annie’s computer keys as permanently clay-color.

      • annie
        annie
        June 29, 2012, 1:55 pm

        ;) mrw, if you only knew..

        sweet of you bintbiba, gracias

  3. CitizenC
    CitizenC
    June 29, 2012, 10:22 am

    Incredibly, it seems that the Haram as Sharif is not a heritage site—the dome of the rock, the al-Aqsa mosque and the compound. Nor is anything else in Jerusalem. Surely the entire old city should be, and the Mt of Olives.

    Here is the world list. Six sites in Israel are listed, incl Masada, which is actually in the WB. The old city of Akko rates—but not Jerusalem. Israel would not want anything that smacks of the 1947 UN corpus separatum plan, international control of the city.

    http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/

    • ahadhaadam
      ahadhaadam
      June 29, 2012, 10:37 am

      Massada is not in the West Bank as far as I know.

      • CitizenC
        CitizenC
        June 29, 2012, 11:13 am

        You are right, it’s south of there, but overlooks the Dead Sea. I should know, I’ve been there. Drove in the dead of night one New Year’s Eve from Jerusalem, walked the path to the top, and greeted the sunrise. There was a crowd, incl a group of American Jewish kids, singing in presumably atrocious Hebrew and giggling.

      • Abuadam
        Abuadam
        June 29, 2012, 11:44 am

        Yes MASADA built by that ARAB (whose ancestors the Edomites, were forcible converted to Judaism by the Hasmoneans), Herod the Great. West Bank or not still today he would have been Palestinian!

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        June 29, 2012, 1:19 pm

        I dunno, Mr. Checkov says it was invented in Russia.

      • Abuadam
        Abuadam
        June 29, 2012, 1:49 pm

        History getting in the way of your illusions Freedieblogs, again!
        Check out Flavius Josephus “Jewish Antiquities”!

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        June 29, 2012, 3:09 pm

        The point was that Herod the Great, scumbag though he was, was a Jew, not an Arab.

        The Palestinians like to pretend that they are the descendants of the natives, which they mostly aren’t. They are mostly descended from Arab invaders who came in after Islam was invented. They also like to try to take credit for stuff done by ancient Jews. Analogous to Checkov from Star Trek who would claim that anything and everything was “inwented in Russia”.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        June 29, 2012, 3:40 pm

        “The Palestinians like to pretend that they are the descendants of the natives, which they mostly aren’t. They are mostly descended from Arab invaders who came in after Islam was invented.”

        Exactly. Just like every modern Jewis descended exclusively from people who converted to Judaism while in their native Khazaria. And that happened at the same time this “invasion” you’re talking about!!!

      • Charon
        Charon
        June 29, 2012, 3:42 pm

        Herod was half Edomite and half Arab

        Palestinians are the indiginous peoples of that particular region. Contrary to popular myth, it was not common for ‘invaders’ as you deceptively refer to them (because you’re using that label to demonize Arabs when in reality the same applies to the Sea Peoples, biblical Hebrews, Romans, etc), to displace entire native populations. Travel was limited in those days and in cases such as Egypt the conquerors were in much smaller numbers compared to the natives they now ruled over. They assimilated and in time you can even say they can even be bred out. Exceptions would be invading hoards looking for a new home land (like the Sea Peoples) because they lost their own or grossly exaggerated myths that are not actual history. Travel was very limited in those days. Palestinians are very much descended from Sea Peoples, Phoenicians, Romans, Hebrews/Jews, Edomites, Arabs, Persians, etc.

        They have more of a right to claim anything done in ancient times than European colonists do. They’ve got the blood of ancient Jews, Romans, and Arabs running through them so they can lay claim to Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolina, Al Quds, etc. Zionist colonists from Europe cannot.

      • ahadhaadam
        ahadhaadam
        June 29, 2012, 4:14 pm

        Fredblogs, you might as well tell us stories from Baron Munchausen and Greek mythology because your Zionist mythology stories have just as much credibility. The Palestinians are not descendents of Arabs from the Arabian peninsula in the same way that Egyptians are not descendents of Arabs from the Arabian peninsula.

        The ancient Egyptians didn’t disappear and were replaced by Arabs and neither were the people of the Holy Land / Judea / Palestine or Lybia or Morocco.

        Please keep Zionist mythology were it belongs – in Zionist schools, not here among grown-ups.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        June 29, 2012, 4:26 pm

        Checkov. Mirror.

        So, disregarding about 3500 years of the “ancillary” history of the land, you settle upon about 300 as The defining claim?

        Not that it matters. Palestinians and Palestine is the accepted, post-WWII, genocide is not acceptable, human rights, self-determination, 21. century view of what is right, not some “we were pissed off and still are, and have the guns to back it up” 3. century tenet and claim to the land.

        The post-WWII acknowledgement of wrong and/or acquiescence is pretty much why modern Israel exists in the first place. To subscribe to and promote similar acquiescence to deny others their rights is the ultimate hypocrisy, yet seems to be the ultimate strategy. Irreconcilable to normal people, pending broad exposure.

        I don’t know who coined the phrase “seeds of its own destruction” but that’s exactly what your view is. It’s well documented here (seafoid).

        Keep talkin’, yes? Up the barbarity. Shorten the time to reach the broad realization.

      • lysias
        lysias
        June 29, 2012, 5:18 pm

        The Palestinians like to pretend that they are the descendants of the natives, which they mostly aren’t. They are mostly descended from Arab invaders who came in after Islam was invented.

        Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

      • Dutch
        Dutch
        June 29, 2012, 5:41 pm

        They should be called Levantines, which I believe is more accurate than Arabs. According to Shlomo Sand the Palestinians show the closest relations to the original inhabitants, so there is little to ‘pretent’, I guess.

      • Abuadam
        Abuadam
        June 29, 2012, 5:42 pm

        Freediebogs, you usually ask for a citation, and when I give it to you before you ask for it you travel at warp speed to deep space 10 or was it 9.

        Like I said check out Flavius Josephus “Jewish Antiquities” or are you disputing the leading ancient Jewish Historian? Are you disputing the well-known fact that the Edomites who were ARABS, were forcible converted to Judaism by the Hasmoneans?

      • kylebisme
        kylebisme
        June 29, 2012, 6:23 pm

        There was no mass migration of Arabs to Palestine, nor anywhere else for that matter. The existing populations simply adopted Arabic and Islam after Muslims ran the Byzantines out.

      • Dexter
        Dexter
        June 29, 2012, 6:53 pm

        “They are mostly descended from Arab invaders who came in after Islam was invented.”

        So that means their ancestors were there since the 7th century. And your European Jewish brethern have been there for about 20-100 years. Hmm, I wonder who has a more legitimate claim?

        Ok, this is the part where you spout your religious fanaticism about 2,000 years ago…

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        June 29, 2012, 7:37 pm

        The point was that Herod the Great, scumbag though he was, was a Jew, not an Arab.

        Fred the point was that many of the ancient sources describe him as an “Edomite”, a slave of the Hasmoneans, and an “uncircumcised Arab”. He is not usually portrayed as an observant Jew. See for example the discussion on that subject by the members of the Sanhedrin just before he allegedly murdered them all in Nodet, Etienne, Jewish features in the “Slavonic” ’War’ of Josephus, Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium, Amsterdam 2000 (2001) 105-131

        The first century Christians were Jews. DNA studies show, without any doubt, that many Palestinians and Jews share a common male ancestor who lived in the early days of the current era. Lots of Zionists try to conceal that fact.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        June 30, 2012, 6:07 am

        >> The point was that Herod the Great, scumbag though he was, was a Jew, not an Arab.

        Actually he wasn’t recognized as a Jew by those he lorded over.

      • YoungMassJew
        YoungMassJew
        July 1, 2012, 2:07 pm

        lol at “a group of American Jewish kids, singing in presumably atrocious Hebrew and giggling.” Yeah they made me get up at 5:00 AM to freeze my a$$ off to climb the stupid “mountain” or whatever you call it on Adelson’s Manifest Destiny tour that I ignorantly went on when I didn’t know the full extent of the Apartheid entity’s crimes against humanity.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 1, 2012, 2:19 pm

        “…many Palestinians and Jews share a common male ancestor who lived in the early days of the current era…”

        I always wonder about these ‘common male ancestors.’ One gets this image of some rural Don Juan, seducing and impregnating all and sundry for miles around.

        I know, I know, but still — that is the first inference that comes to mind. ‘Our founder.’

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 1, 2012, 2:27 pm

        Well, the ‘Arab invader’ line appears to be a canard anyway.

        One can learn a lot by reading texts that are about other things (and so don’t have an axe to grind) and I noted with interest from a history of the Islamic conquests that (I paraphrase), ‘while there is some evidence of Arab population movement into Southern Iraq, there seems to have been little demographic change in Syria [which term included Palestine] in the wake of the conquest.’ There follows a discussion of how a few noble families seem to have originated with immigrants, but otherwise, the population apparently remained what it had always been.

        So — at best — the ‘Arab invaders’ probably brought about as much DNA as the Crusaders did. The Jews of the Bible are still there. They’re called ‘Palestinians.’

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 1, 2012, 2:29 pm

        You poor child. I got off with just reading Exodus.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 1, 2012, 2:51 pm

        “Ok, this is the part where you spout your religious fanaticism about 2,000 years ago…”

        The thing is, it’s all lies. There’s no evidence any group anyone today would recognize as ‘Jews’ ever even held sole possession of what is today Israel. At best, under the Hasmoneans, Jews rose to briefly be the dominant cult in the region. Compared to that, the Mormon claim to Utah is rock solid and hallowed by the ages.

        I suspect that ‘Jews’ never were entirely centered in Palestine. They appear as something we could reasonably call Jewish with the Persian conquest — and at that point, they are some kind of expatriates from Mesopotamia, and they already have a major center there. They set up camp in Jerusalem, and concoct a ‘history’ out of a mish-mash of Mesopotamian and local lore that makes them the true blue number one. Well, that’s okay. Everyone does something similar. However, it’s normally taken with a grain of salt by everyone else.

        Shortly thereafter, Jews are a major component of the population of Alexandria — and then along comes the Roman Empire, and the rest is history…sort of. Still lots of bumph, like the ‘expulsion.’

        Were the Jews ever simultaneously both recognizably Jews and located solely in Palestine? I think not. They may have always been an international, primarily urban cultic group. They grew by conversion, and they have about as much right to Jerusalem and Palestine as I do.

        ‘Israel’ is a complete novelty. Nothing like it existed in the past, and hence nothing in the past can serve to justify it.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 1, 2012, 3:01 pm

        “…The Palestinians like to pretend that they are the descendants of the natives, which they mostly aren’t…”

        Etc. This sort of tripe, irritating as it is, would be harmless nonsense if it wasn’t employed to justify what is a continuing act of oppression and injustice that can never be resolved as long as Israel exists.

        It is odd how lies just don’t work. Israel is a lie, and because of that, it can never exist except through continuing oppression — and no society endures on this basis. Some sort of resolution is always found.

        …and here we go. There are four possible routes to resolution. Assimilation, being assimilated, expulsion of the Zionists, or expulsion of the Palestinians. The first three render ‘Israel’ a failure, and the last is a crime the Zionists will never be able to commit, although they would dearly like to. The whole thing’s an ongoing exercise in futility that generates a great deal of gratuitous expense and misery. It doesn’t even matter whether one likes the idea or not. Looked at abstractly, it’s a thoroughly bad one.

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 2, 2012, 5:53 pm

        Not at all. What justifies the continuing oppression of the Palestinians is that they continue to be dangerous. They try to justify their claims to Israel by falsely claiming to have been there longer than they have, but even if their claims were true, which they aren’t, they would still be dangerous.

        Also you forgot the 5th means of resolution: acceptance. The Palestinians and the other Arabs could accept that there is going to be one Jewish State in the Middle East, and get over it.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 2, 2012, 11:35 pm

        They try to justify their claims to Israel by falsely claiming to have been there longer than they have, but even if their claims were true, which they aren’t, they would still be dangerous.

        That’s not even good sophistry. BTW, the casualty statistics bear out the fact that it has always been the Zionist nut cases, who have been the most dangerous party in the region.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 3, 2012, 9:40 am

        “What justifies the continuing oppression of the Palestinians is that they continue to be dangerous.”

        Wow, Fredo, it’s rare to see such bigotry on naked display, justifying oppression against an entire class of people based on the acts of a few.

        “Also you forgot the 5th means of resolution: acceptance. The Palestinians and the other Arabs could accept that there is going to be one Jewish State in the Middle East, and get over it.”

        Yeah, because the Arab could propose something… call it “the Arab Peace Plan” … which would include within it, in exchange for a fair resolution to the Palestinian issue, the very acceptance of israel you talk about. Why, if the Arabs did that, the israels would jump on it. There is NO WAY they would do something like ignore it for a decade…

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 3, 2012, 4:44 pm

        I said “acceptance” not “demand that Israel become yet another Arab country”. Which is the Arab “peace” plan’s little Trojan Horse. The Arab “peace” plan includes the right of return, so it is a rejection of the idea of a Jewish State, not an acceptance of it. It exists to fool naive Westerners, not as a legitimate attempt at peace.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 3, 2012, 5:44 pm

        “The Arab “peace” plan includes the right of return, so it is a rejection of the idea of a Jewish State, not an acceptance of it. ”

        Nope. You got it wrong, Fredo. The Arab Peace Plan contains a provision regarding right of return in which it says that the parties will agree to resolve that issue by the agreement between them. That means that they recognize that you people are such vile racists that you’ll never agree to permit the Palestinian refugees return to their homes and their land, so they agree that you will be able to keep your racist state on that stolen land, but will have to compensate all of those you’ve harmed.

        So, no, it is exactly what you people have always claimed that you want — peace and acceptance. But you will have to be satisfied with only 78% of someone else’s land, and you will have to stop the oppression of the Palestinians. But I guess you’d rather crush the heads of Palestinian babies under your jackboots than have peace. Such is the zionist.

      • eljay
        eljay
        July 3, 2012, 7:18 pm

        >> The Palestinians and the other Arabs could accept that there is going to be one Jewish State in the Middle East, and get over it.

        Israel is an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state, born of terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and maintained and expanded by means of a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder. No-one should have to accept that.

        If Israel were to “get over” its obsession with being a supremacist state and to become instead a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all its citizens, equally, IMO that would be something that “Palestinians and the other Arabs” could – and should – accept.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        July 3, 2012, 8:20 pm

        Why should any right of a people be given up?

        Now they may choose not to exercise such rights, but there is no justification to demand that any people give up their rights.

        Would you ever?

        Why don’t Israelis just accept that Palestinians have the same rights as all in the world community and — as you say — just “get over it.”

        As an aside: Fred, where did you or do you go to school? What books do you read or have you read that gives you all those ideas you spout here?

        I am not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but just trying to understand how it is you can write some of the stuff you do. Trying to understand where you get all this comes from.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        July 3, 2012, 8:56 pm

        The Arab “peace” plan includes the right of return, so it is a rejection of the idea of a Jewish State, not an acceptance of it.

        Stop lying Fred. The peace plan calls for a just settlement of the refugee situation. It does not demand right of return.

      • Roya
        Roya
        July 3, 2012, 11:07 pm

        @Fredblogs: Yes, it’s absolutely cruel and unreasonable of them to ask that dispossessed people return to the homes they were forcibly expelled from not 2,000 years ago, but a few decades ago. How very rude of them to try to “fool naive Westerners” into accepting such an idea. Who do they think they are?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        July 4, 2012, 12:38 am

        “The Palestinians and the other Arabs could accept that there is going to be one Jewish State in the Middle East”

        Why should any decent person accept that? A Jewish State is a nasty idea even if you put it in an out of the way place like Birobidzhan.

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 5, 2012, 12:52 pm

        @Woodrow
        I got it exactly right. They know that the Palestinians will never agree to anything less than full ROR for all however many millions of them there are worldwide. Therefore, their “agree to resolve” is just another way of saying “full ROR”, which is just another way of saying “Arabs get Israel”. It wouldn’t be much of a Trojan Horse if they came right out and said it.

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 5, 2012, 12:59 pm

        @Ellen
        In exchange for being able to get on with their lives in a country of their own, they give up a “right” that they will never be able to exercise anyway. Saying they want to keep their “right” to return is like the man in Monty Python’s the Life of Brian who wanted the right to have babies (i.e., the right to get pregnant). Regardless of demands, it just isn’t going to happen.

        As for why Israel doesn’t give in. It would be the end of Israel (they know the Palestinians would take over and expel the Jews).

        As for where I went to school. In America. As for the books, it’s more from paying attention to the news than specific books, though the books I’ve read on the subject don’t disagree with my observations from reading the news.

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 5, 2012, 1:00 pm

        Is a Muslim state a nasty idea too RoHa?

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 5, 2012, 1:01 pm

        @Roya
        They are trying to fool naive Westerners into thinking they made a legitimate peace offer, which they haven’t done.

      • eljay
        eljay
        July 5, 2012, 2:22 pm

        >> Is a Muslim state a nasty idea too RoHa?

        I can’t speak for RoHa, although I’m pretty sure I know what he’ll say, but IMO a Muslim state is as nasty an idea as a Jewish state. Neither is a secular, egalitarian and democratic state of and for all its citizens, equally.

      • Roya
        Roya
        July 5, 2012, 7:06 pm

        @Fredblogs: You know as well as I do it was a legitimate peace offer, and that they’ve offered it multiple times but each time Israel has bluntly rejected it. And the proposal was extremely lenient and IMHO quite stupid on the League’s part–it doesn’t even call for a contiguous Palestinian state. Stop with the non-truths.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 6, 2012, 6:57 am

        Fredo,

        You demonstrate once again your inability to think beyond your bigotry and paranoia. (Or maybe you’re simply an idiot.) The Arab Peace Plan requires that the parties agree to a resolution on the Palestinians’ Right of Return which the enemy has stripped from them. Which means that if the Palestinians insist on full Right of Return — while this is, indeed, morally and legally correct — no one expects the vile racist Jews who are controlling the zionist entity to agree to it, so there will be no deal. Thus, the only way your bigoted view — the “Arabs get israel” — would come about if the Jews agreed to that.

        Everyone understands that if there is going to be a deal, that the israelis will pay compensation (well, they’ll get someone else to pay) and permit, at most, a token return, which will nevertheless symbolize all the people whose human rights they’ve violated so heinously over the decades.

        The israels go back to the green line and within that section of liberated Palestine is where the Palestinians will make their state.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 6, 2012, 6:59 am

        “@Fredblogs: You know as well as I do it was a legitimate peace offer,”

        Of course he does. But Fredo will defend israel, no matter what. So no lie, no slander, no libel is too much. Fredo will happily do it all to defend the Jews oppressing the Palestinians.

  4. Blake
    Blake
    June 29, 2012, 10:38 am

    I am happy to hear this as it was on Yahoo News front page a few days ago and out came the usual racist paid up agent trolls with their horrible agenda of trying to demean Palestine and Muslims in the comments section. A victory against the hasbarats!

    • Blake
      Blake
      June 29, 2012, 11:08 am

      Apologies, in hindsight I see I should have been more clearer in my previous comment in that the run up to the vote at UNESCO was front page news at Yahoo and that brought out all the zionist trolls. The outcome has not made front page news there (yet) and am not holding out any hope it will either.

    • Charon
      Charon
      June 29, 2012, 3:31 pm

      The hasbara gang appears to have consolidated their ‘forces’ to the likes of yahoo, facebook, msn, cnn, etc. lately. They haven’t abandoned their activity commenting in blogs, I’m seeing a lot less of them in the past few months. Maybe it’s just me.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        July 3, 2012, 8:23 pm

        It could be because the more they write, the more ignorant and hysteric, shrill and hateful they sound. This is all beginning to work against the David Project. Some have figured that out.

  5. Pamela Olson
    Pamela Olson
    June 29, 2012, 10:47 am

    Too bad Battir can’t be protected, too. I visited that village in 2004 and again in 2007. So beautiful. The NYT picture doesn’t do it justice:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/world/middleeast/palestinian-village-tries-to-protect-landmark.html

  6. Hostage
    Hostage
    June 29, 2012, 3:28 pm

    “This body should not be politicized,” he said.

    Nothing could be more clichéd, except of course Abe Foxmann labeling things antisemetic whenever the Zionist agenda experiences a setback. Intergovernmental organizations like UNESCO are, by definition, political bodies.

  7. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    June 29, 2012, 3:44 pm

    I understand that the procedure whereby this church has been listed is a kind of emergency procedure and implies both that the edifice is in some kind of danger from Israeli behaviour and neglect and also that the current authorities in charge, Catholic and Orthodox, are to some extent inadequate. So the ecclesiastics aren’t raising any loud cheers. The counter-propaganda will be that this is all typically exaggerated – there’s no question of letting the poor old house fall down.

  8. dbroncos
    dbroncos
    June 29, 2012, 9:38 pm

    Making the Church of the Nativity a World Heritage Site is bad news for Israel. ‘World Heritage’ for the Bethlehem church means that if Israel doesn’t allow the church leaders to do their work unimpeded, Israel will be in the awkward position of explaining to the World Heritage agency, not to mention world wide Christendom, why the birthplace of Jesus, is subject to the fascist policies of the Jewish State. Israel firsters don’t want to go anywhere near this problem. They want Westerners to think of Palestinians as islamofascists, not as Christians. World Heritage status will magnify the profile of Palestinian Christians including their plight living under Israel’s exclusively Jewish regime. Bad news for Israel.

  9. Sumud
    Sumud
    June 29, 2012, 11:21 pm

    Trying to work out which takes the cake: George Bush bombing the crap out of the Garden of Eden (Iraq), or this.

Leave a Reply