If you want a clear headed description of what it's like to live under occupation, read this book. Then you will be able decide whether it's "propaganda", or some of these phony "reviews" are. Nowhere in this book, or in any other venue, does Rev Raheb defend violence by anyone.
In order to enforce its occupation, Israel must use force - violence. This book is a rendering of what that violence is like to experience on the receiving end. If you're interested in understanding that better, read this book. You won't be disappointed. You'll be enlightened.
This is an unfortunate story, but one laced with propoganda, not exactly befitting a book that claims to be a message of hope from a Christian Palestinian. Would Jesus have supported Terror and Suicide bombings. Perhaps we recall his saying "I come not to bring peace but the sword" however the rest of the gospels seem to point to a different message.
Palestinain terrorists took over the Church of the nativity. These were not human rights vitims, but rather those who had committed human rights violations by taking part in the murder of civilians in Israel.
However this book feels sorry for the terrorist. THere is no compassion here for the 1200 Israelis murdered during 2000-2004. There is however much propoganda pretending that the big bully Israel shouldnt have invaded the 'little town' of Bethlehem.
Bethlehem is not the center of peace that Raheb weaves. Bethlehem in 2000 was 75% Muslim, a center of Hamas activity and a ceneter of militancy. In Biet Jala, a Christian village, Terrorists took over the houses and sniped at Jewish civilians. Christian Palestinians took part in these activities in the name of fighting the occupation, showing that, like their muslim colleagues, they also were not readin scripture.
The 'little town' of Bethlehem was a festering nest of terror. The ISraeli army used its standard heavy handed tactics which always look bad on film and in the media to defeat the terror to the point of sourounding the church of the nativity. Raheb doesnt find fault with the murderers who the church gave sanctuary too, or the fact that the terrorists brought in guns and bombs into the church, desecrating it and leaving it reaking of urine and feces. Nope. Apparently it was worse for Israel to souround the church then for terrorists to take it over.
Makes plenty of sense. Luckily 99% of Christian Arabs dont agree with this line of hated reasoning and many people were apalled by the sacking and desecration of one of Christianities most holy sites by terrorists.
Seth J. Frantzman
