On the violent rampages of Israeli occupation settlers in Hebron. Notice that the New York Times put on its front page a picture which is intended to show the Hebron attackers as victims. And notice that they chose a woman and child to depict in order to evoke sympathy. This is standard for the New York Times. And under the above picture the New York Times put this caption: "Jewish settlers rampaged Thursday on the roofs of Palestinian homes in Hebron, responding in fury to the forced eviction of settlers from a disputed building." Zionist violence is always "in response"--i.e., it never begins on its own and it always is in "retaliation," no matter how savage and how cruel and how massive. From setting Palestinian houses on fire to the attempt to destroy Lebanon in successive invasions and wars. Always, in response. And then look at this language: "Young settlers then rampaged through Palestinian fields and neighborhoods, setting olive trees on fire and trashing houses." The New York Times can't help itself: it almost said: Young and handsome settlers, the pioneers of Zionism, then rampaged....etc. The rampage is is a footnote to the New York Times story. If this was in reverse: if Arab residents in Morocco or Yemen were rampaging through Jewish neighborhoods would you doubt that US Congress would hold special hearings and meetings, and the UN Security Council would hold a special session? I have no doubt. No doubt whatever.