|
|
COMMENTS:
Perhaps it is for some folks. Case in point: Fox News (always unfair unbalanced) always gets some "guest" to carry their racist water. They will bring a guest on to "add perspective," and the person will say all the things that Fox management wants to say without risking liability or accusation as a racists.
Back to your question: Many Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism -- and one would have to admit that these folks are not racists.
Non-Jews who oppose Zionism are, IMO, racists -- although, I hasten to add -- opposing Zionism and being a Non-Jew does not, ipso facto, make one a racists. But it helps.
Zionism is a factional ideology part of a larger religious belief, not a race. So your argument doesn't make sense.
It's akin to saying, that since Joe Bloggs opposes Calvinist christians, that he must be racist against Caucasians.
European Commission definition:
The European Commission on Racism and Intolerance formally defined some of the ways in which anti-Zionism may cross the line into anti-Semitism. "Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
- denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor
- applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel (like the image shown) to characterize Israel or Israelis; and
- holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel."
Anti-Zionism is one thing that the leftists and extreme right-wing agree on. Pat Buchanan, Cynthia McKinney, Lew Rockwell, Lyndon Larouche, the newsrag that published the editorial cartoon (The Independent (UK)), at least half of the "liberal" blogs, and visit your average college campus, etc. Or you can just read this site.
Of course, Israel has to do everything 100% perfect with zero civilian casualties even though its enemies hide weapons and terrorists in mosques, homes, civilian areas. And even though Israel lives under constant threat of suicide attacks (or wars - all of which its neighbors started). Of course Israel is oppressing everyone even the palestinian leaders grow rich instead of helping the people. Like Yasser Arafat who... well had a lot of money (lets just say somewhere in the vicinity of a billion). I looked it up on Forbes and indymedia - no fan of Israel (to put it mildly).
Jews have always lived in Israel. They were in the majority in Jerusalem since records were kept. Jews have prayed for almost 2000 years to return to Israel. The land itself is an integral part of the Jewish faith (for most Jews). Just read the Bible to understand.
Actually griffon, it is only a small number of orthodox Jews oppose Israel, mostly sects like Neturei Karta.
Uhm
"Unrelated, claiming it's racism is only a trick serving the national agenda of a state - Israel"
No, it isn't. Read the statement by the European Commission on Racism and Intolerance
Lovelynice it is not my argument I was asking a question.
It's amazing how some people don't understand that you can pose a question without taking a position.
Some accusations are similiar, the accused population is similiar, but the political identity of the accusers is changed - from mostly right wingers to left wingers. Anti Zionism certainly provides comfortable cover for antisemites after WWII and the creation of Israel.
I think there are strong links...
by Yosi on Wed Jul 26, 06 3:04am
[+]
FiddleFaddleOnLSD -
"denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor"
I disagree with that definition provided.
Firstly, I know some Jews that do not agree that the creation of Israel was a good thing. Secondly, it is not only the existence of Israel, but the nature of its existence, and the indeed prejudiced, and to my personal standards is unacceptable nature of it. Thirdly, connecting all 'Jewish' self-determination as something to be attributed to only Israel is superficial. And I do not recognise Jews as being a nation. Nor do I recognise Christians or whatever other religion as being a nation. That is not because I don't like the religions in question, but merely because of rationalism.
Many Jews themselves are anti-Zionist- so it is not a wide all-encompassing anti-semetic movement at all.
Israel became a settler society. Settler societies are mostly founded on one group of people leaving one place, then settling in another place, pushing out and discluding those who were living there, and then setting up completely new institutions. Settler societies were regrettable throughout history, but we accept their existence today, as to blame the descendents of the settlers doesn't seem right. But what is worse is that the Israel settler state was set up in the modern era, in which was supposedly no longer to be acceptable.
In any case, while I regret the creation of the state of Israel, I would oppose its destruction, as the people living there now were born and grew up there. But at the same time I would like to see Israel reform itself to a more open-minded definition of itself.
Soon it will be considered a "hate crime" to question the motives behind anything Israel does.
So keep on blasting away at those Lebanese women and children and planting land mines on the beaches in Gaza.
The U.S. will turn a blind eye as usual.
Today, any criticism of Israel, or Jews, in the West, is automatically categorized as anti-Semitism.
Socrates you make a sound argument.So do you think Israel should become a binational state where both Israelis and Palestinians have citizenship?
What a brilliant idea thatwould be, with equal rights and equal opportunity and no more bulldozing of palestinian homes,and kidnapping their kids in the middle of the night, or killing them on the slightest excuse and saying "So what, they're arabs!"
MrFiddle, the European Commision is not a dictionary, nor have they ever been a publisher of respectable dictionaries.
I agree with Socrates, this " "denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor" is a ridiculous definition and should not be taken seriously
Israel currently is one of the most racist states on the planet, with apartheid style laws which would put the old white-ruled South Africa to shame.
" Firstly, I know some Jews that do not agree that the creation of Israel was a good thing. "
And where is the relevance? BTW, so many Jews who from numerous reasons didn't join the Zionists in Israel, during the 1930's when large immigration waves were still possible, found their death in the 1940's on their supposed homelands - Poland, Germany, Russia etc.
" Secondly, it is not only the existence of Israel, but the nature of its existence, and the indeed prejudiced, and to my personal standards is unacceptable nature of it. "
You're more than welcome to ask specific questions regarding the nature of Israel, but I think you already recieved answers about them...
" Thirdly, connecting all 'Jewish' self-determination as something to be attributed to only Israel is superficial. "
I don't think that Zionism, which is one of the most significant example of the national awakeness of the 19th and 20th century, which didn't only awakened opressed nation, but also gathered them to their actual homeland, after 2000 years in which the nation was dispersed around the world. Suppose the British offer to create Jewish homeland in Uganda (1904) did go through - then I agree it's superficial, but what's more natural than to revive the nation on its ancient and only homeland?
" And I do not recognise Jews as being a nation. "
Self determination means that the people of a certain nation define themselves as so, not that foreigners do...
" Israel became a settler society. Settler societies are mostly founded on one group of people leaving one place, then settling in another place, pushing out and discluding those who were living there, and then setting up completely new institutions. Settler societies were regrettable throughout history, but we accept their existence today, as to blame the descendents of the settlers doesn't seem right. But what is worse is that the Israel settler state was set up in the modern era, in which was supposedly no longer to be acceptable. "
The early Zionist dream called for the inclusion of the Arabs living in Israel's territory as full rights civilian in Israel, but following the terror waves of the 1920's and 1930's, We got the hint, and agreed to 2 state solution, only to find out that the Arabs won't go for that either. Well, they lost resulting in their own failure to form a state.
by Yosi on Wed Jul 26, 06 11:19am
[+]
" Israel currently is one of the most racist states on the planet, with apartheid style laws which would put the old white-ruled South Africa to shame. "
Israel has no law discriminating citizens based on whether their Jews or not. The Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza aren't citizens, and are dealt with according to international law for occupied territories, either when they were under Israeli military government, or under the PA autonomy.
by Yosi on Wed Jul 26, 06 11:24am
[+]
occupied citizens. Since when did it become ok to occupt people Yosi? How can the Israeli govt look back on the history of the jewish people and not be ashamed of its actions.
Occupied territories. Like the US in Iraq untill the transfer of authorities to the newly formed Iraqi government - during the peroid of the 2 years of occupation - Were Iraqi civilians considered American civilians? Could they vote, or enter the US?
Suppose the answer is no, does it make the US an apartheid state?
by Yosi on Wed Jul 26, 06 1:06pm
[+]
Calling someone anti Semitic is just a way of discrediting anyone who opposes the barbaric acts Israel is committing. It is also a way of making people in the media afraid of criticizing Israel.
If I’m anti Semitic for thinking its savage to murder innocent women and children or murder UN officials or people working for the red cross then I guess I’m anti Semitic.
Oh and arab’s are the same so called "race" as Hebrews. So if its anti Semitic to be against innocent children being murdered wouldn’t it be anti Semitic to support a state that murders Arab women and children or bombs car’s filled with families who are just trying to escape the terror?
Oh well that’s my rambling for the day, ignore me if you will but people who play the anti Semitic card in the case of Zionism are just trying to suppress free speech.
Just for the record I do not hate jews. Just the assholes murdering innocent women and children and the idiots who support them.
by seon on Wed Jul 26, 06 5:47pm
[+]
{Israel has no law discriminating citizens based on whether their Jews or not. The Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza aren't citizens,
by Yosi on Jul 26, 2006 11:24am}
1) Israel has many laws discrimimating against Arabs,so you're lying.
2) The excuse about non-citizenship falls flat because Israel will not allow the Palestinians to become citizens with equal rights under the law.
'Occupied territories. Like the US in Iraq untill the transfer of authorities to the newly formed Iraqi government - during the peroid of the 2 years of occupation - Were Iraqi civilians considered American civilians? Could they vote, or enter the US?
Suppose the answer is no, does it make the US an apartheid state?'
The us hasn't planted hostile american settlers in Iraq.
" 1) Israel has many laws discrimimating against Arabs,so you're lying. "
Name one.
" 2) The excuse about non-citizenship falls flat because Israel will not allow the Palestinians to become citizens with equal rights under the law. "
Israel has tried to annex the West Bank and Gaza strip over the years, thus giving the Palestinians living there citizenship, but there was massive opposition to this, not only in the Arab world, but also in the international community. Thus a 2 state solution became Israel's position regarding the future status of the Arabs living in the WB and Gaza. But of course, independent Palestine will have to acknowledge and live in peace with israel, something that isn't clearly possible considering the past few years.
by Yosi on Thu Jul 27, 06 11:26pm
[+]
" The us hasn't planted hostile american settlers in Iraq. "
OK, though I'm sure it's possible to interpert the contructors, buisnessmen etc. as early settlement... But it's funny that you prove Israel's apartheid policies by implying that Israelis aren't allowed to live in certain territories.
by Yosi on Thu Jul 27, 06 11:30pm
[+]
Yosi-
"" Firstly, I know some Jews that do not agree that the creation of Israel was a good thing. "
And where is the relevance? BTW, so many Jews who from numerous reasons didn't join the Zionists in Israel, during the 1930's when large immigration waves were still possible, found their death in the 1940's on their supposed homelands - Poland, Germany, Russia etc."
- Where is the relevance? The relevance is linked to the ballot question. My assertion here is that since many Jews themselves are critical of Zionism, it is difficult to see how one can insist that anti-zionism and and semitism are supposedly one and the same.
"You're more than welcome to ask specific questions regarding the nature of Israel, but I think you already recieved answers about them..."
- It should not be considered as the nation of Jews, but rather should have an even more open-minded self-identity of the state.
"I don't think that Zionism, which is one of the most significant example of the national awakeness of the 19th and 20th century, which didn't only awakened opressed nation, but also gathered them to their actual homeland, after 2000 years in which the nation was dispersed around the world. Suppose the British offer to create Jewish homeland in Uganda (1904) did go through - then I agree it's superficial, but what's more natural than to revive the nation on its ancient and only homeland?"
- The return to Israel was fine. But there is indeed a difference between 'immigration' and 'settlement'. The modern state of Israel was founded on the latter.
"Self determination means that the people of a certain nation define themselves as so, not that foreigners do..."
- Indeed. I believe self-identification is the key on such an issue. For example, whether I like it or not, there is an increasingly self-conscious Islamic 'civiilsational' identity emerging. Religion is an importnat aspect of identity politics, such as it is for self-identification for many Jews. However, I do not give my approval or encouragement of such a nation.
"The early Zionist dream called for the inclusion of the Arabs living in Israel's territory as full rights civilian in Israel, but following the terror waves of the 1920's and 1930's, We got the hint, and agreed to 2 state solution, only to find out that the Arabs won't go for that either. Well, they lost resulting in their own failure to form a state."
- So the Arabs were apprehensive about the idea of having their land as the solution to German sins? And they were apprehensive about having to set up a state that would be run by a large degree by foreigners coming in? And of a sudden switch to some kind of bilingualism to appease immigrants? That apprehension should have been predictable. And there was some Jewish violence against Arabs during that time too. Then, next was the rejection of the two state solution by the Arabs, as it implied half of it would be made into a settler-based state. Apprehension over that should have also have been predictable.
"But of course, independent Palestine will have to acknowledge and live in peace with israel, something that isn't clearly possible considering the past few years."
- Indeed. Hamas is not helping the situation at all. But neither is that wall idea that is really just grabbing more land. Was the wall idea a response to a populist rise of Hamas? Or was the populist rise of Hamas a response to Israel's wall that would be grabbing more land. I would say both. Like placing two mirrors opposite each other- they both equally reflect off each other, and is difficult to differentiate one from the other. It truly is a cycle of fear.
"it's funny that you prove Israel's apartheid policies by implying that Israelis aren't allowed to live in certain territories."
- Once again, there is a difference between 'settlement' and 'immigration'. Israelis moving into the West Bank, are indeed settlers.
Corrupt- "So do you think Israel should become a binational state where both Israelis and Palestinians have citizenship?"
It would be a good idea if the Israelis and Palestinians themselves chose that option themselves. I do not think it would be wise for foreign powers to push such an issue, and to force through such an idea, because external pressure for this would not be the way. The Israelis and Palestinians themselves should be the ones to make such a wise decision, if they ever do. I do not see it happening in the forseeable future, due to ego and fears on both sides. For now, a two-state is what I support. Something that I aknowledge is difficult due to Hamas' refusal to recognise Israel. However, if Palestinians and Israelis were to merge into a single state, hypothetically, I would hope that Israel's more liberal and individualistic values would not be undermined by any Arabian culturally commonly held beliefs that violate individual rights.
" Where is the relevance? The relevance is linked to the ballot question. My assertion here is that since many Jews themselves are critical of Zionism, it is difficult to see how one can insist that anti-zionism and and semitism are supposedly one and the same. "
The anti-Zionist Jews, are usually ultra orthodox one, and oppose Israel because they view its creation as interfering with god's decision to punish the Jews. I don't see that as connected in any way to the anti Zionism you mentioned in the ballot description.
" It should not be considered as the nation of Jews, but rather should have an even more open-minded self-identity of the state. "
France is defined as the nation of the French, and they're much more fanatical in preserving the French identity of their country than Israel - and I think that's acceptable.
" The return to Israel was fine. But there is indeed a difference between 'immigration' and 'settlement'. The modern state of Israel was founded on the latter. "
So do you oppose immigration/settlement of Jews of Israeli territories before or after the creation of Israel?
" So the Arabs were apprehensive about the idea of having their land as the solution to German sins? And they were apprehensive about having to set up a state that would be run by a large degree by foreigners coming in? And of a sudden switch to some kind of bilingualism to appease immigrants? That apprehension should have been predictable. "
First of all, Zionism wasn't born out of the german sins you talk about. In 1897 Hitler was 8 years old. The Arabs in that time, (besides Egypt) lived without significant claim for independenceunder the Ottoman empire (non Arabs) for over 350 years. Even not considering the british early partition of Palestine to Arab Jordan and Jewish Israel, one would think that living in democratic prosperous country will be better for the Arab Palestinians than under the crumbling corrupt rule of the Ottoman empire. Many groups without too strong link to the Arabs, like Bedouins, Druzians, Circassians etc. did welcome Israel and became its citizens.
" Indeed. Hamas is not helping the situation at all. But neither is that wall idea that is really just grabbing more land. Was the wall idea a response to a populist rise of Hamas? Or was the populist rise of Hamas a response to Israel's wall that would be grabbing more land. I would say both. Like placing two mirrors opposite each other- they both equally reflect off each other, and is difficult to differentiate one from the other. It truly is a cycle of fear. "
The wall's aim was not to decrease the link of Arabs to the territories behind, as civilian Arabs, with fields, work, schools etc. on the other side of the wall, are able to cross through its gates.
by Yosi on Fri Jul 28, 06 1:01am
[+]
No, i dont think Israeli's should go to live in the West bank if their intention is to annex that area illegally to the State of Israel. If Israel wants a a two state solution, then great. But if Israel wants a two state solution in which Palestinian land is annexed to Israel, in which Israel controls the borders and airspace of Palestine, in which Israel can control movement within Palestine because Palestine itself is divided into 4 seperate cantons, the borders between which are controlled by Israel, then how can you expect people to accept that?
" No, i dont think Israeli's should go to live in the West bank if their intention is to annex that area illegally to the State of Israel. "
First of all, there is no legal obstacle that prevents Israel from annexing parts of the currently occupied territories, as even the former owners - Jordan and Egypt each announced they have no claim on these territories. Annexing the territories face the obstacles of the international and Arab resistance to that move, and it has been reinforced when Israel shifted its policy to reaching agreement with the other side - in the frame of 2 state solution. (I'm not going to deny, that the current and the former government started to withdrew from that policy by initiating unilaterall moves, to which I object). Furthermore, Israel has already evicted citizens from these territories, and is willingly negotiated possible eviction of other territories too.
"If Israel wants a a two state solution, then great. But if Israel wants a two state solution in which Palestinian land is annexed to Israel"
A certain reality exists on the ground, the lines of the 1949 aren't holy and don't reflect any actual national claims for territories, besides the fact that it was acknowledged by the international community as the border, but nobody will resist changes accepted by both sides. Remember it's just the 1949 armistice lines, not the borders of ancient Palestine or anything like that.
"in which Israel controls the borders and airspace of Palestine, in which Israel can control movement within Palestine because Palestine itself is divided into 4 seperate cantons, the borders between which are controlled by Israel"
I don't think that what you present was the furthest reaching offer Israel has made (Camp David, July 2000), but even if it turns out that this is the final stand of Israel, the Palestinians has 2 choices - to agree or to fight. If they choose to fight, they should be aware to the fact that they might not even get what was offerred to them. Their actions in the past, present and future do have an effect, and they should learn to live with the consequences of their actions. They could get a state, containing virtually every territory within their 1949 side, which though split to three parts, it's also spliting Israel to 3 parts, with probably some agreement regarding the mutual border triangles (actually it's a 4 way, just look at the partition plan proposed map), but their ancestors chose to fight, they chose to fight and reject Israel's proposition from 2000, lets see what their children will choose...
by Yosi on Fri Jul 28, 06 9:41am
[+]
Yosi- "" It should not be considered as the nation of Jews, but rather should have an even more open-minded self-identity of the state. "
France is defined as the nation of the French, and they're much more fanatical in preserving the French identity of their country than Israel - and I think that's acceptable."
- There is a difference there. 'France- the nation of the French' is not equivalent to the idea of 'Israel- nation of the Jews'. A consistent link would be more like 'Israel- land of the Israelis', in which what it the definition of what it means to be 'Israeli' are not theologically based- not only by law, but also by sociological advancement. But this of course brings up the controvsersy of what does it mean to be 'French'? There is a wide part of French society that have relaxed and broadened the definition of what being 'French' means. They do not base it any longer on Catholicism- but rather on looser associations with wider and broader rhetoric of 'culture' and political loyalty to the society. Of course there are opponents, such as Le Pen, who would like to impose the strict unnecessary xenophobia on French society. I disagree with him. Any immigrant that has (the ones that haven't are a different issue) integrated into French society, and are loyal to France are 'French' from my point of view. French Jews are 'French', French gypsies are 'French', the immigrants to France that have immigrated and have integrated are French. To imply that French Jews, for example are supposedly not French and should leave to go to the Jewish nation are wrong. But France to varying degrees has prejudices as well, and that is not acceptable to me either. If the French intensify any such xenophobic rhetoric of what it emans to be French, then they probably deserve the separatist threats from the Basque, Bretons, Corsicans, Alsace-Lorraine separatists, as well as the lash-back from the non-Catholics? But why do many people pick on Israel, when other countries have varying problems with the issue of prejudice as well? Probably because the Israeli issue has sparked more violence.
"The anti-Zionist Jews, are usually ultra orthodox one, and oppose Israel because they view its creation as interfering with god's decision to punish the Jews. I don't see that as connected in any way to the anti Zionism you mentioned in the ballot description."
- I think it is a dangerous generalisation to assume that all Jews look at Israel from a purely theological analysis.
"So do you oppose immigration/settlement of Jews of Israeli territories before or after the creation of Israel?"
- Settlers and immigrants differ fundamentally. Settlers leave an existing society, usually in a group, in order to create a new community, a city on a hill, in a new and often distant territory. They are imbued with a sense of collective purpose. Implicitly or explicitly they subscribe to a compact or charter that defines the basis of the community they create and their collective relation to their mother country. Immigrants, in contrast, do not create a new society. They move from one society to a different society, usually experience a culture shock, and then integrate into that social system. The immigration of Jews prior to the setting up of the modern state of Israel was indeed immigration, as it did not initially attempt to root out the nation there at the time and replace it entirely with their agenda. Once the issue of the creation of a Jewish state came up, those immigrants became 'settlers', as they set up the completely new laws, social values, etc, excluded and attempted to separate Arabs, etc. The immigrants became settlers as they separated themselves, and set up the state based completely on their agenda and ambitions. The immigrants that went to Isreal after the setting up of its modern nation-state were not 'settlers' but 'immigrants' to the new 'settler society'. A settler is a founder, an immigrant moves and accepts the laws and values (or at least is expected to). Expansionist movements to create new communities in the West Bank and Gaza, would also become settlers , as they are founding something new. Settlers are founders. So by that, I am not implying that Israelis today are 'settlers', it is the founders of the state that were the settlers. The problem with settlement historically, is the way it can and has been done by exlcuding the people and culture of those already living there.
"The Arabs in that time, (besides Egypt) lived without significant claim for independenceunder the Ottoman empire (non Arabs) for over 350 years."
- I disagree. There were Arab moves for independence from the Ottoman empire. Britain and France exploited this in the first world war and enlisted these separatists as allies and promised them Arabian independence from Turkish rule if they sided with them agianst Turkey in the war. They indeed rose up against Turkey... but Britain and France did not keep their promises and then took the Arabs as colonies for themselves.
"The wall's aim was not to decrease the link of Arabs to the territories behind, as civilian Arabs, with fields, work, schools etc. on the other side of the wall, are able to cross through its gates."
- Regardless of what Israel's actual intentions were, the perception from the Arabs was that it was land grabbing, and this perception should have been predictable.
Unlike France, Israel doesn't impose "Jewish culture" including language, values etc., so yes, France doesn't impose Catholisism, and Israel don't impose Judaism on its citizens. As individuals, Israel is a country of any of its citizens, and the definition "country of the Jews" refer only to non citizens rights to become citizen. It's just like during France evacuation of Algeria, the French settlers could freely immigrate back into France, unlike for example, Arabs from Algeria, who couldn't freely immigrate to France.
" I think it is a dangerous generalisation to assume that all Jews look at Israel from a purely theological analysis. "
As groups, the only Jewish groups that can actually be considered Anti-Zionist are ultra orthodox. The ultra left Jews, usually call for the return of the Palestinian refugees and having one country...
Regarding the Jewish settlement, though it did tried to form something new, you need to remember two things: a) the old order in Palestine that they Jews tried to change is the population and land control of foreign powers, the local population was partly feudal, partly pre-industrialized, pre-national society, and in any case, not a master to its own destiny in any way, and b) What the zionists tried to form is a modern democratic "Jewish state" like I described above, that will give all its citizens equal rights as individuals etc. Nobody thought about excluding or seperating Arabs from taht plan. And that seems like the heart of your resistance to the idea of settlement, as you defined it.
" I disagree. There were Arab moves for independence from the Ottoman empire. Britain and France exploited this in the first world war and enlisted these separatists as allies and promised them Arabian independence from Turkish rule if they sided with them agianst Turkey in the war. They indeed rose up against Turkey... but Britain and France did not keep their promises and then took the Arabs as colonies for themselves. "
Then I guess it's the exception that testifies the rule. There was ONE ambitious tribe in the Arabian penninsula, that exploited the situation and joined the Allies in mutiny against the Ottoman rule. The promises were partially kept, when Abdullah, the son of Hussein, recieved eastern Palestine, under the british mandate (his brother couldn't keep Syria under the French mandate). But one ambitious person's dreams aside, the general population wasn't completely swept with Pan-Arab or seperate nationalism untill Nasser in the 1950's, and in Palestine specifically, the 1920's, as a reaction to Zionism.
" Regardless of what Israel's actual intentions were, the perception from the Arabs was that it was land grabbing, and this perception should have been predictable. "
As hundreds of Israelis died in a matter of few months in early 2002, it didn't seemed to concern anybody...
by Yosi on Sat Jul 29, 06 12:45am
[+]
|
|
