File talk:Vandalized grave.jpg

The fact that the graffiti writing are made in Hebrew says nothing. Like many Jews in Israel know Arabic, the same many Arabs from West Bank and Gaza know Hebrew. There were no Israelis in Bethlehem in 2005. Bethlehem, has been under w:Palestinian National Authority since 1995. During Israeli occupation there were around 80% of Christians in Betlachem. Ever since w:Palestinian National Authority took over Christians were living the town and in 2006 they accounted for only 15% of poppulation. Here's what BBC writes about the situation in Betlachem: "Publicly Christians here insist there is no friction with the Muslim majority. Earlier this year though the Islamist Hamas movement came to power.And in private some say they now dress more conservatively. There have also been fights between Christian and Muslim families.The Church of the Nativity is opposite a mosque Father Majdi Syriani says the problem is not local, but global. "The whole world is polarising around western Christianity and Islam," he says. "This is a true threat, not for me but the whole world." "Bethlehem is the focal point. It's not because my Muslim people are threatening me. It's because the whole world is polarising. And it scares me." Bethlehem's Christians are not just scared. They feel weak and squeezed. And many are deciding that the best way to protect themselves is to leave. "Christianity started here and should continue to remain here," says George Ghattas, at the Latin Patriarchate. "You would worry if the origin of that religion is basically monuments and shrines and stones, but you don't have faith believers." BBC is hardly could be called a friend of Israel. According to all of the above it is at least reasonable to assume that the graves were vandalized by local radicals, who wanted it to look like it was done by Israelis. Arab propaganda machine works really good. I could see it at work everywhere including here at Commons. I am sorry that I posted all this information that some might considered as not related to Commons, but I am not sure how else one could prove a point about highly political controversial image.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't subscribe in your conspiracy theories, but fair enough. The image should speak for itself. // Liftarn (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)