It's Almost Supernatural

The Pony or the Manure?

As already mentioned Dennis Ross was in South Africa last week. He spoke on Wednesday night at a fantastic Gala Dinner which I was lucky enough to attend. Tickets were expensive but all proceeds went to victims of terror in Israel. Here is my summary of what Dennis Ross had to say:

Ross spoke about the prospects for hope in Israel. He used a metaphor of a father with two sons, one optimistic and one pessimistic to describe the different realities that one can see when analysing the Israel/Palestinian conflict. The father decides to give each son a gift tempered to the way they see the world. The father buys each son a barn. Inside the pessimistic son’s barn the father places a pony. The pessimist opens the barn door, sees the pony, and agonises at all the manure he will eventually have to clean up. Inside the optimist’s barn the father places heaps of manure. The optimist sees the manure, his eyes sparkle and he thinks to himself “Manure! Great, there must be a pony somewhere!”

When looking at the Middle East you can either see the pony or you can see the manure. I myself am not certain what I see, but I lean towards the pessimistic outlook. Ross however, sees a pony. He relates the three factors that create an enormouse opportunity for peace.

Three Reasons for Hope

1. No Arafat
Without doubt the greatest and most enabling change has been the death of the inveterate obstacle to peace, Yasser Arafat. Ross knew Arafat well. He knew how Arafat operated and he knew the impediments to peace that Arafat constantly engineered. Ross said that his most painful lesson throughout Oslo was the realisation that no change was possible whilst Arafat was alive. Ross said that this analysis is not an argument; it’s an observation.

Whilst travelling through Gaza during the mourning period for Arafat Ross saw pictures of Sheikh Yassin and of Mahmoud Abbas, but none of Arafat. Let me repeat that. During the period of mourning for Yasser Arafat there were virtually no posters of Arafat in Gaza – his own people didn’t mourn him. Near the end of the mourning period at Arafat’s Muqata compound in the West Bank where Arafat was buried Ross saw no people at the grave. There were no physical signs of people mourning Arafat’s death. Ross reiterated that this is an observation and not an argument by turning to some statistical polls. Before Arafat’s demise the percentage of Palestinians optimistic about their future sat at 35%. Within weeks after his death the figure shot up to 60%.

What does it say about a leader when his death makes his people more hopeful? Arafat gave the Palestinians a past but he could not give them a future.

2. Abu Mazen.
Ross said the second sign of hope is the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas. Ross said that Abbas has consistently been in favour of a secular Palestinian government and is the only real leader to have spoken out against violence in Arabic – not just English. In contrast to Arafat, Abbas has never created pockets of power for himself.

For me the jury is out on Abbas. Abbas has at times shown signs of cooperation with Israel, but he has also frequently failed to act on intelligence provided by Israeli security forces.

3. Ariel Sharon
The third hopeful factor is the decision taken by Israeli PM Ariel Sharon to disengage from Gaza and northern Samaria. Ariel Sharon’s courageous disengagement plan has created a window of opportunity that will allow both sides to get back to the core of peacemaking - freedom for security. Sharon is giving the Palestinians an historic opportunity – a chance for them to start building instead of destroying. A chance to demonstrate that they are making an honest attempt at establishing a good model of governance in Gaza which will lead people to believe that it can work in the West Bank.

Three Measures of Success

Despite the signs of hope Ross reminded all that psychologically the two sides are still yards apart. Sharon needs to contend with the opposition in his party, the settlers, and with threats to his life. At this sensitive stage it will be difficult for Sharon to concentrate on the needs of Abu Mazen.

The same is true for Abu Mazen. He has major problems inherited from the inept, factionalist, and corrupt system designed by Arafat. Arafat designed this system so that only Arafat could lead it.

So both sides at the moment can only realistically concentrate on their own needs. A timeout will therefore be needed after disengagement where a third party (the US) can begin to build bridges between the two sides.

So what are the signs to watch out for that will signal the arrival of the pony on the horizon? Ross posed three questions, the answers to which will indicate whether things are on track.

1. What does it take for Abu Mazen to succeed?
Ross says that Abu Mazen needs to display a readiness to make decisions. He needs the will to take on, change, and cooperate with Hamas on his terms. He also needs to overcome the various differences that exist within the many factions of Fatah.

Abu Mazen must demonstrate that non violence works. To get people hopeful he needs to create jobs. The more he builds a model of governance that works the harder it will be for people to oppose him.

Abu MAzen needs to show the world that that he can provide the rule of law in the Palestinian territories. There must be one government, one authority, and one law.

Abu Mazen also needs financial aid. He needs the aid promised by the West, but more importantly he needs aid from his Arab brothers. The miniscule aid from the Arab world has been a disaster for the Palestinians. In 2002 Saudi Arabia promised the Palestinians $100 million per annum. Today their oil income has more than doubled from their income levels in 2002 when this promise was made but alarmingly they have not increased their paltry levels of aid. The world needs to be aware of the small amount of aid donated by the Arab world. It is the Arab world that leads the anti-Israel diatribe, it is the Arab world that postures for UN resolutions condemning Israel, yet they are marked only by their absence when it comes to giving the Palestinians aid.

In sum, we need to ask “Is Abu Mazen doing what he needs to do and is the outside world doing what they need to do?”

2. Does disengagement work?
The principle of disengagement must be freedom for Palestinians and security for Israel. Before Sharon’s plan to disengage the Palestinians believed that the Israelis would never give up control and the Israelis believed that the Palestinians would never give up violence.

Sharon has made a decision and he will stand by it, a decisions that will allow both sides to view each other in a new light. The Palestinians will see that the Israelis are willing to give up control. After disengagement will the Israelis see that the Palestinians are willing to renounce violence? Probably not. It will be difficult to decide whether the Palestinians are willing to do this. Their promises have historically carried much less weight than Israeli promises. With Sharon it is exceedingly difficult to obtain any commitments because he always sticks to his commitments. Arafat however, always made commitments, but never implemented them.

The disengagement process is not about peacemaking. The designers of the plan are not foolish enough to believe that it will bring peace. Its intention rather, is to end the war. Only then can we rush to peace. The top three values behind the Disengagement rationale for Israel are security, Jewish majority, and democracy.

Ross is optimistic that disengagement will take place but he is not optimistic that it will go well.

3. Are bridges being built after disengagement?
After the disengagement Sharon will call for a timeout. He will say that Israel has just undergone a traumatic process…and he will be correct. It will be almost intolerantly painful for Israel to see pictures of people being forcibly evicted from their homes and the Israelis will need to take a step back and absorb what happened.

Abu Mazen on the other hand will start pushing the Israelis in an attempt to show that it was “Gaza first” and not “Gaza last” and Europe will support him.

This means that the Americans will need to allow the Israelis a pause, yet at the same time they will need to build bridges for future peaceful negotiations. Ross says that we already have a bridge to a framework for a peaceful solution – the roadmap.

The problem with the roadmap is that there is not one obligation that is understood by the Israelis and Palestinians in the same way. Ross does, however believe that it is the much needed bridge because both sides accept it as a framework for a political solution.

Ross believes that after the disengagement the Bush administration should promise to sit down and get an agreement of each side’s obligations in terms of the roadmap.

Finally, Ross ended with the most fundamental lesson he has learned from his time as a negotiator in the Middle East – “Nothing implements itself, it always takes effort”. Peace will not be achieved by agreements made; peace will only be achieved when agreements are implemented.

So to sum up, Ross sees glimmers for hope in the death of Arafat, the leadership of Abu Mazen, and the resolve of Ariel Sharon.

How do we know if things are on track? By asking, “what will it take for Abu Mazen to succeed”, “has Disengagement worked”, and “are bridges for peace being build?”

Scapegoating

Last week I had an opinion piece published in the Citizen newspaper. It was published in response to an antagonistic Media Review Network article that the Citizen published the previous week. It just goes to show that anyone can get opinion pieces published. You just have to voice your complaints when you see a cause for concern, write a response, and convince the newspaper to print it.

The article I responded to absolved Islam from any terror inciting problems and laid the usual blame at the feet of the West. It contained this gem...

The horrors of Bosnia and Kosovo were committed by a democratically elected Serbian government. The largest democracy India has 750000 troops occupying butchering and raping Kashmir And Israel falsely touted as a democracy invades, occupies, violates, maims, destroys and brutalises the land, homes and lives of the Palestinians with impunity. These are not the values that any Muslim aspires to. The most important political value for the West is freedom.

Yes, yes MRN, we've heard it all before. Here was my response which was printed last week:

The aftermath of every terror attack is becoming increasingly predictable. After worldwide condemnations of the brutal violence , an assortment of Muslim spokespersons are given alternate platforms which they use to deplore the attacks, assuring us that Islam is merely an innocent bystander in today's terrorism. These condemnations almost always end with the same "but" where , blame is placed on the "Anglo American led invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and its unflinching support of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine." Finally, democracy is described as a failed social order which inevitably leads to a system where elected tyrants look to control and humiliate nations weaker than theirs.

That so many people who should know better so willingly accept this view stems in the main from an ignorance so profound that it seems deliberate.

We should hardly need reminding that the hideous events of 9/11 preceded the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The attacks were perpetrated not by Palestinians but by global Jihadists who view every conflict as part of the Western encroachment on the Muslim ummah (worldwide community of believers). Australian PM John Howard, facing staunch criticism for his resolute support of Blair and Bush following the London attacks, reminded us that the indiscriminate murder of 88 Australians in Bali occurred before the operation in Iraq. Were the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan the reasons for the 1986 and 1995 bombings in Paris? The objective facts show that nations from all five continents have been the target of terror attacks long before Iraq and Afghanistan. Nations like Egypt and Turkey have suffered multiple attacks despite playing no substantive role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Israel has become the "whipping boy" blamed for the most vicious and indiscriminate of attacks. The 'illegal occupation", we are supposed to believe, is the dominant injustice that forces impoverished, desperate, and frustrated people around the world to massacre and maim innocent civilians. The only problem is that the hatred and ire for Israel existed before Israel was forced, in a defensive war, to occupy the West Bank and the Gaza strip. The lack of acceptance of Israel in the Middle East is reflected by the wars of 1947, 1956, and 1967 . These events preceded occupation.

The fears of having democracy imposed upon the people in the Arab world are particularly interesting and usually expressed by outside supporters of radical regimes. A recent poll conducted by Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre contradicted these superficial analyses. The poll found that 75% of Palestinians want to take part in a democratic process to elect members to the Palestinian Legislative Council. Furthermore, regarding the next elections, Palestinians considered awareness of democracy to be either very important or important by a majority of 89%. Eight million Iraqis went to the polls, in spite of the terrible odds against them, in order to express their affirmation of democracy.

It is clear that religion has more to do with today's terror wave than the three model answers , (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine) so glibly provided. (Were this the case, then why have the impoverished, frustrated and desperate Zimbabweans not turned to terror in the face of Mugabe's brutality?) Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq have frequently referred to a particular passage from the Koran before beheading their victims: "Whoever kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind."

The targeting of civilians in Iraq, Israel, London, New York, Turkey, Egypt, Bali, or any other place is absolutely unjustified and we should have the courage to stand up and say exactly that. The root cause of the terrorist wave had nothing to do with Iraq, Afghanistan or Israel; it emanated instead from the same policy that enriched the hatred , and from fatwas directed at Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen - the radicalisation of young, mostly Westernised Muslims through a distorted perversion of Islam, a revision of historical political events, glorification of previous suicide bombers, and a dehumanising of the civilian victims of these criminal acts.

A manual distributed to apprentice Jihadists in Al Qaeda training camps states the rationale for their Jihad:

The principal mission of our military organisation is to overthrow the Godless regimes and replace them all with an Islamic regime.

The destruction of Western civilisation sits at the core of the Jihadist agenda. This makes a mockery of the well-intentioned attempts to ascribe rational economic and political causes to the reasons behind terrorism. Western civilisation is blamed not for what it does, but for what it is. The idea of finding a "political solution" to the problem of Islamic terrorism is based on the false assumption that the Jihadists want to live alongside secular westernised society in an environment of tolerance and compromise. The time has come to stop the transparent charade.

Dennis Ross in South Africa

Former US envoy to the Middle East and lead negotiator between the Arabs and Israelis under the first Bush and the Clinton administrations, Dennis Ross, will be in South Africa this week and I will do my best to cover his visit. He will be speaking at a gala dinner on Wednesday (which president Mbeki may attend) and I will be fortunate enough to be there.

In the meantime, here is Dennis Ross on the Gaza withdrawal: The US role in ensuring success on the ground.

Dennis Ross is the author of perhaps the most insightful book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: The Missing Peace.

Here are some entries which have featured Dennis Ross at It's Almost Supernatural.

Dennis Ross on Arafat and Camp David
When Arafat Burned Mubarak
The Rejected maps (Camp David and Clinton Ideas)

Palestinian Attack Kills 13 Year Old Palestinian

Palestinian terrorists attempting to indiscriminately massacre Jews in Gaza (even though the Jews are pulling out) have inadvertently killed a 13 year old Palestinian boy: Palestinian rocket lands in refugee camp, one dead.

GAZA (Reuters) - A Palestinian rocket aimed at a Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip fell short on Thursday, killing a Palestinian boy when it hit his home at the edge of a crowded refugee camp, an Interior Ministry spokesman said. Medics said a 13-year-old boy was killed and his 7-year-old brother critically wounded by the rocket fire in the Khan Younis refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, where Israel plans to evacuate all of its settlements starting in mid-August.

Conspiracy Minded Mental Illnesses Take 2

Just as I thought the Mail & Guardian couldn't get any lower, they prove me wrong again.

Last week's edition gave Ian Fraser a platform to further develop his hatred fuelled conspiracy theories about the terror in London. Just after the London bombings Fraser spelled out the ever predictable theory on his blog that only the Mossad or the CIA could have been behind the barbaric attacks in London. (His entry was titled "CIA Mossad Front Group Attacks London", which he links to in his latest M&G column.)

I though the M&G would have been embarressed by Fraser's fevered imagination, but alas, they have allowed Fraser to use a Mail & Guardian column to further spew his unorganised collection of hallucinogenic ramblings: London Calling.

You need to be a subscriber to read the column, but at you can read the text and see how far the rabbit's hole goes - it's available in the comments section of this post at the ever brilliant Commentary.co.za.

The M&G are supposedly the vanguard of liberal reporting in South Africa. With that label comes much responsibility. Running with creepy, illogical conspiracy minded columns expunges credibility from the newspaper - i.e. they are letting the liberals down. Man, we talking about a columnist who uses words like 'sheeple'! It's outrageous that a reputable media outlet can openly endorse Fraser's nutty world.

It's difficult to provide a summary of the rationale for Fraser's argument; it's a disconnected collection of vague and irrelevant sources. The argument basically reads...it was the Mossad...and the CIA...and Blair. And who benefits from the bombs? Not Al-Qaida...no, it's those horrible ghastly people in Britain, USA, and Israel who seek increased powers and control over...everyone.

I leave you with one quote that perfectly illustrates Fraser's thesis:

I must say that I'm generally very wary of this next website. However... (blah blah blah - Ed)

Forget Fraser's Razor, the M&G need a big fat Erasor.

Same Story, Different Tales

Reuters state a fact and then reveal their source...the ever reliable witnesses:

NABLUS, West Bank, July 20 (Reuters) - Jewish settlers stabbed a Palestinian boy to death in the Israeli-occupied West Bank on Wednesday, witnesses said. They said the 12-year-old was ambushed by several settlers near his home at Qaryot village outside the Palestinian-ruled city of Nablus. He was stabbed 11 times, medics said.

Ha'aretz say that Palestinian figures say that the boy was likely murdered in a West Bank clan rivalry feud.

The circumstances of the killing were not immediately clear and Palestinians initially claimed the boy was stabbed during a violent clash with settlers. The boy's father blamed settlers but said he was unable to identify them for certain. Later, however, senior Palestinian figures told Israel Defense Forces figures the boy was likely murdered within the context of a clan feud.

Israeli officers will be investigating.

JMCC Poll on Palestinian Attitudes

I don’t think you can read too much into the latest Jerusalem Media & Communication Center Poll on “Palestinian attitudes towards the political process” but it does make for some interesting reading.

The poll reveals the sometimes large gaps between how ordinary Palestinians feel versus how western media commentators think they feel. The poll suggests that there is a sizeable (though not a majority) portion of Palestinian society that just want a “normal” life and would presumably be very willing to give up on some of the Palestinian demands. Palestinians are believers in the benefits of democratic processes but still place importance on fundamentalist issues. This makes them extraordinarily difficult to read and understand.

Some significant findings:

Fundamentalism - There is an increase in the ratio of Palestinians who consider the religious factor as an important factor when voting. Also, if the election programs are based on a choice between fundamentalist trends versus secular trends, the largest ratio of Palestinians (48.6%) said it will choose the fundamentalist trends.

Democratic desire - A large majority of Palestinians (75.1%) want to participate in the next PLC elections.

Trust – There is an increase is the ratio of Palestinians who don’t trust any Palestinian faction. Mahmoud Abbas however, got the highest ratio of trust.

Intifada – There is a notable rise in the ratio of Palestinians who oppose the continuation of the Aqsa Intifada (44.1% compared to 27% in June 2004) – BUT – the majority of Palestinians still support it (53.3%). Those Palestinians that oppose the intifada view it as harmful to Palestinian national interests.

Terror – Palestinians are divided almost equally on the issue of suicide bombing against Israeli civilians. In June 2004 (31.5%) opposed suicide bombings compared to the current figure of (48%).

State of Calm - A significant majority of Palestinians (65.2%) believe that the Palestinian national interests require maintaining the state of calm (ceasefire) between Palestinians and Israelis until the end of 2005, but there is also a majority of Palestinians (54.6%) who oppose using force by the security forces against those who violate the calm understandings.

Disengagement - A majority of Palestinians (52.8%) see in Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza Strip a step that can contribute to peace while (33.4%) say such a step harms a just peace between both sides.

Education - 92.6% of Palestinians view educational qualification as very important or important when they choose their next representative on the PLC.

Corruption – A finding connected to the death of Arafat, the ratio of Palestinians who believe there is corruption in the PA went down to 61.9% from 90.3% in June 2004.

Download the PDF document for the rest, which includes an explanation of the research methodology.

Now it's time for the PA to take the necessary steps that the majority of Israelis can view as a positive step for peace.

Understanding Disengagement

Only a short while ago, all pro-Israel (at least those centre to right of centre) bloggers were in almost complete agreement with one another. Today, two distinct groups have emerged - those that accept Prime Minister Sharon's disengagement plan, and those that don't accept it. Good arguments have been made by both sides and the debate has generally been rational and reasonable. It's worth noting that the very existence of this newfound disagreement between the pro-Israel blogs is evidence that Israel is making painful, difficult and potentially compromising (in terms of their security) decisions in order to move towards a possible end of conflict. When everyone agrees, nothing is happening. Disagreement is a sign that things are moving ahead (or behind as others may argue)  - all the while nothing seems to change in the Palestinian camp. It's a pity that Israel isn't receiving the credit due for even considering these moves.

Arguments for and against the disengagement are often provided, but here is a quick look at what the disengagement plan actually is - as described by the Israeli government.

1. General

Israel has concluded that there is currently no reliable Palestinian partner with which it can make progress in a bilateral peace process. Accordingly, it has developed a plan of unilateral disengagement, based on the following considerations:

i. The stalemate dictated by the current situation is harmful. In order to break out of this stalemate, Israel is required to initiate moves not dependent on Palestinian cooperation.

ii. The assumption is that, in any future permanent status arrangement, there will be no Israeli towns and villages in the Gaza Strip. On the other hand, it is clear that in the West Bank, there are areas which will be part of the State of Israel, including cities, towns and villages, security areas and installations, and other places of special interest to Israel.

iii. The relocation from the Gaza Strip and from Northern Samaria (as delineated on Map) will reduce friction with the Palestinian population, and carries with it the potential for improvement in the Palestinian economy and living conditions.

iv. The hope is that the Palestinians will take advantage of the opportunity created by the disengagement to break out of the cycle of violence and reengage in a process of dialogue.

v. The process of disengagement will serve to dispel claims regarding Israel's responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

When there is evidence from the Palestinian side of its willingness, capability and implementation in practice of the fight against terrorism and the institution of reform as required by the Road Map, it will be possible to return to the track of negotiation and dialogue.

2. Main elements

Gaza Strip

Israel will evacuate the Gaza Strip, including all existing Israeli towns and villages, and will redeploy outside the Strip. This will not include military deployment in the area of the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt ("the Philadelphi Route"). Upon completion of this process, there will no longer be any permanent presence of Israeli security forces or civilians in the evacuated areas of Gaza Strip territory. Thus there will be no basis for claiming that the Gaza Strip is occupied territory.

West Bank

1. Israel will evacuate an area in the Northern Samaria Area including 4 villages and all military installations, and will redeploy outside the vacated area.

2. On completion of this process, there will no longer be any permanent presence of Israeli security forces or civilians in the Northern Samaria Area.

3. The move will enable territorial contiguity for Palestinians in the Northern Samaria Area.

4. Israel will improve the transportation infrastructure in the West Bank in order to facilitate the contiguity of Palestinian transportation.

5. The process will facilitate Palestinian economic and commercial activity in the West Bank.

The implications of this plan for the Jewish residents of the areas to be evacuated are difficult to bear  - the Israeli Courts ruled that the evacuation does amount to a violation of their human rights but still ruled in favour of the plan submitting that the interests of the State must be put before the interests of individuals.

Israel will continue to build the security fence, in accordance with the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court. The route will take into account humanitarian considerations.

Believer in Peace with Israel

I’ve been reading the book “The Yom Kippur War” by Abraham Rabinovich and came across a passage that I want to share.

The context is one of doomsday for Israel - perhaps the lowest point of their existence. Three days into the war Israel has suffered enormous losses. The might and tactics of the Egyptians and Syrians had proven too powerful for Israel, and on virtually every front the Arabs were pushing the Israelis back. Minister of Defence Moshe Dayan was speaking about the “Third Temple Burning”, indicating his fear that Israel was about to fall.

“Television cameraman Mohammed Gohar was probably the first Egyptian to cross the canal. He had been hastily dispatched from Cairo Tuesday morning to film Israeli POWs in Sinai before they were carried off to prison. Seeing their soliders as humbled prisoners would clearly be a devastating blow to Israeli morale. The twenty-one-year-old cameraman crossed at Kantara and was led to a group of prisoners near the canal. They sat in rows – unshaven, heads bowed, with the vacant look of men who surrendered their fate. Egyptian soldiers were milling about watching the scene. Gohar told his military escort to have the soldiers moved away. Scanning the prisoners he saw that some were wounded. He asked that they be shifted out of camera range. That done, he examined the remaining. There were 16 in all and he made his calculations regarding light and camera angle. Before beginning to shoot, he looked at the prisoners again, this time not with the camera’s eye but his own. It was, he realised, the first time he had ever seen Israelis. He had never seen a photograph or a television image of one. All he knew of them were the grotesque cartoons in Cairo newspapers of Dayan and Golda Meir. He was surprised to see that the soldiers looked perfectly normal – in fact, like himself. They were about his age and many of them – Sephardi Jews – had olive skin like his and the expression they wore was what he expected his would be in their situation. All he had heard about Israelis, all he had learned about them at school, had not prepared him for this. As he studied them he saw some raise their heads and look at him quizzically. They took in his stare, trying to understand what it meant. And they took in the camera he was pointing at them. Having their picture taken – and shown on television – meant that they were likely to survive captivity. He understood what they were thinking and from the eye contact he believed they were beginning to understand something of what he was thinking. Gohar would in time become the official photographer of President Sadat. But from the brief encounter on the bank of the Suez Canal at the high point of Egyptian military achievement, he became a believer in peace with Israel.

6 years later Israel and Egypt would sign an historic peace treaty. Under the accords Israel would agree to withdraw from the Sinai in return for Egypt’s recognition of the state of Israel. Egypt achieved, through negotiation what it failed to achieve with all their military might in the 1973 war. Sadat and Israeli PM Menachem Begin would receive the Nobel Peace prize for their efforts. President Sadat died for his decision to shake hands with Israel, assassinated in 1981 by extremists in the Egyptian army opposed to the treaty.

Amazing Dead Sea Discovery

Archaeologists have long resigned themselves to the belief that the Dead Sea in the West Bank had already yielded all its secrets from the Roman era but last week a sensational new discovery was made. The Weekend Witness reports that fragments of a Biblical manuscript dating back to the last Jewish revolt against the Romans in 135 AD Judea have been uncovered near the Dead Sea.

Only a few centimetres long, the pieces contain extracts in Hebrew from the Biblical Book of Leviticus. Damaged by bat droppings and lying under a film of dirt in a cave near the Ein Gedi oasis, the Bedouin pocketed the manuscripts and began an arduous bidding process with Professor Eshel. `Thanks to this find, we now know a little more about the troubled period that gave rise to the Jewish revolt against the Romans,` Eshel told AFP. The second Jewish revolt against Roman occupation led by Simeon Bar Koshba saw 900 Jewish towns and villages pillaged, 10 000 Romans killed, Jerusalem recaptured and Jews banned from entering its confines. `We know these parchments came from a Torah scroll used by Jews in the spring of 135 during Passover, which they then hid in the caves to save it from the Roman legions,` said Eshel. Historians believe Jews managed to hide 14 Torah scrolls in the caves, but Eshel said the latest manuscripts prove there was a 15th such scroll.

Here's more.