What a singularly anti-Semitic, biased article! I only picked it up on an archeological website but was amazed at the persistent bias of the writer. Nothing about the vandalism of the Waqf, who simply excavated parts of the Temple Mount and dumped the contents without archeological oversight.

Surely greater balance than this is required in a newspaper! If this is journalism, then I can see why journalists are so widely regarded with contempt.

John Rutherford

Sydney, Australia

That Silwan had a man like Jawwad Silyam is a powerful example of personal conviction and choice--to not allow a natural anger and outrage make you become aligned with the worst character traits of your opponent. The typical reaction to any such injustice to your community would be to radicalize you--which means insurgency and terroristic excesses. Such a typical reaction would have made this confrontation indistinguishable from the others in the region, and would have played into the hands of the Elad settlers. They'd have had the "wider acceptability" justification for anything they did to impose their will. Whether Jawwad Silyam was acting from an enlightened strategic approach that took this into consideration, or from personal convictions of non-violence, or some combination of both, his considered choices and his leadership have shown the world who the bad guy is in this issue--and it's not Silwan's community. As I see it, the Elad settlers' will would have prevailed if he'd acted in any other way. Even if Silwan is crushed and bulldozed by its ruthless neighbors in the end, it will never lose in the world memory.

The intentional, cavalier destruction of unique history in bulldozed layers of soil is always hard to read about (in Beruit, for instance, some years ago, to expedite development). That certain significant finds--those actually uncovered in digs--that do not fit into an agenda-driven perspective will be suppressed and destroyed is equally hard to think about, but I'm sure it's happening. Archaeology is a chance to find elements of former relationships, which in turn can be interpreted to get at accurate posits (always subject to change with evidence and insights) of what and who came before us. Any cross-cultural/non-political objective approach to that would be (and was) threatening to a Hitler or a Stalin or a universal church with something to lose if accurate perspectives of the past did not fit well with present-day needs. Stakeholders with an agenda other than scientific objectivity--and especially those with an obvious and fanatical agenda--are a lousy choice for entrusting irreplaceable (duh!) archaeological resources.

It's the way of the world, isn't it? That is, it's the way we earthlings--we individuals--collude with one another that does not make it impossible for the world to have such a character.

Okay, that's my archaeology rant. Now, to follow up on that last statement...

The issue of what constitutes an "indigenous" people aside, if that's at all possible in Israel and Palestine, there's the issue of a people's character. What is the character of Elad's settlers? In practice, their actions are an aggressive, unconscionable invasion and occupation of the worst kind. They might even agree. It's just that they have unwavering, guiltless justification for it, I suppose. I'll approach this from a perspective other than that, though, OK? It feels less ruthless...

The article indicates that local Israeli authorities and the security police (and possibly the supreme court? Hard to tell from what's provided in the article) are openly working with the Elad aggressors (God! Did I just use that word?) to impose a fanatical will on a community. That fanatical will doesn't care about anything but its agenda. It dehumanizes. It is one-way focused--no allowance for circumstances that might ironically turn the tables and put Elad's settlers in the role of Silwan's citizens--and which, in fact, has been the case historically.

What of the individuals in Elat--its settlers? Is there no conscience in them for the suffering they directly and indirectly cause in fellow humans' lives from such virulent systematic bullying? Does the world-view and spiritual foundation of the settlers' centric will have no sense of honor and human empathy beyond its own sphere? Or is it "the end justifies the means" and afterwards there will be room for empathy? Is there justification enough for unfeelingly imposing will on others who, God forbid, might be you?

An individual in the world community, when truly doing role-playing, can identify with each side of this tragedy. Intense mutually reinforced justification will make all things right. An individual in the world community can step out again from that temporary role. When that happens, the nature of a person is telling--what lingering character of the roles played finds affinity with the individual who just played the role? And what is unsettling--maybe shocking, even--for the role-player who has just worn the shoes of someone with convictions that are hard to reconcile with his/her own? (And in my world, that's a necessary exercise. Disturbing and insightful. Paraphrasing a fellow poet writing about the difference between understanding an opposing position and taking a stand based on personal scruples, "I understand. Truly. I just don't agree.")

There are historical and literary examples of people hiring mercenaries to do the kinds of unpleasant but "necessary" things the people can't bring themselves to do. Then there are the people who can, and see no wrong in it. They have no need of hired thugs. They are, themselves, mercenary.

Archaeological interpretation of findings and historical records are quite clear that the Near East has been laid waste over and over again, and its succession of "indigenous" peoples have been inhumanely made victims of other (soon-to-become "indigenous") peoples' imposed wills. That region of the world has seen ruthless conquerors. It's now seeing another.

Keith Ward

Harrisburg, PA