Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Telling it as it is

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
ProgressiveMuslim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 08:34 PM
Original message
Telling it as it is

Unless the Palestinians can speak effectively with one voice, the world won't listen, though Palestine is the core problem, writes Mustafa Barghouti*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As many speculate about Obama's future policies in the Middle East, the general Arab reaction is wait-and-see. The new president will likely face a barrage of problems, the economy and Iraq for starters, enough to keep him busy for a whole term. But there is no indication that the "change" Obama likes so much to talk about applies to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The appointments he made so far are not that encouraging either.

The Israelis, and Tzipi Livni has said as much, want the Americans to stay out of it. They want to keep the Palestinians divided, hold out the carrot of possible negotiations, while expanding settlements and changing the status quo all the time. The Palestinians, meanwhile, seem hapless. Pursuing negotiations that have no chance of success, the Palestinians are holding on to Annapolis like a drowning man clutches at a straw. What are they doing about the Israeli settlements that grew exponentially during the Annapolis talks? Nothing. What are they doing about the Israeli roadblocks that increased from 521 to 630 during the same period? Nothing. What are they doing about the system of apartheid that subsequent Israeli governments appear to reinforce? Nothing.

In Washington, meanwhile, there are three views concerning the Middle East. The first is that Israel should have a free hand and the US should stay out. At most, the US should be sending emissaries of the evasive type, people who can keep the ball rolling, discuss minor stuff, while time is being wasted. In short, there are people who divert our attention while Israel builds more settlements, changes the demographics of Jerusalem, and generally creates new facts on the ground. Those who advocate such a view want to keep the Palestinians divided while encouraging the Palestinian Authority to act as a watchdog for Israel.

The second view is that the US should forget about Palestine and focus instead on things such as the economy, or on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. After all, the Palestinian issue is a low-yield one, as previous US presidents discovered to their chagrin, and the new president has enough on his plate. Both this view and the one mentioned above give Israel a free hand. And both have the support of pro-Israeli groups, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

The third view follows more or less in the footsteps of the Baker-Hamilton report, advising the administration to pull out of Iraq and end a disgraceful war. Supporters of this view include people such as Lee Hamilton and former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft. US president Jimmy Carter, who wrote a book assailing Israel's system of apartheid, is also an advocate of this view. All of the above officials back the Arab initiative and urge its implementation as a formula leading to a comprehensive solution to the Middle East conflict.

Supporters of the latter view dare to say something that Israel doesn't want to hear. They say that every single problem in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan included, can be traced back to the Palestinian problem. And they want to draw the line, therefore, between American interests on the one hand and Israeli policies on the other. They also believe that Israel has crossed the line when it created an apartheid system in Palestine. Most of them believe that Obama is the last president in a position to endorse a two-state solution. Otherwise, the only solution will be a bi-national state, which many argue is not in Israel's best interests.


lots more...
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/925/op23.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is better than usual
"EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM in the Middle East" can be traced to the Palestinian problem?"

That's a good one!

So the different factions in Iraq have been suicide bombing each other for five years because of Israel or the Palestinians?

So the different Palestinian factions have no unity because of uh..."the Palestinian problem"?

So all the Arab on Arab violence, all the Muslim on Muslim violence, can be traced to the "Palestinian problem"?

Good job!

This is even more amusing than the usual dreck!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
2. Mmmhhhmmmm
Edited on Thu Dec-18-08 09:11 AM by LeftishBrit
A few good points there, but the writer REALLY loses me when he says:

'Supporters of the latter view dare to say something that Israel doesn't want to hear. They say that every single problem in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan included, can be traced back to the Palestinian problem.'


How are the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the Palestinian problem? That's ridiculous. Firstly, most of the direct conflicts are (a) between native people and American, British and other allied invaders; (b) between different religious sects within Islam. Disastrous Western interventions exacerbated existing problems to boiling point. American and Britain invaded Iraq because of its oil and because the Bushes had a personal feud with Saddam; and Reagan et al built up the forerunners of the Taliban because they were enemies of the Soviet Union. None of this is related to Palestinians in any way.

As regards Barghouti's recommendations:

'- Regain Palestinian national unity, end internal divisions, and build a unified national command that can speak to the US administration and the world with one voice. The Palestinians should stop listening to those who want to break them apart.'

I would recommend this, yes.

-' Rally support to the Arab initiative as a sole alternative to piecemeal and interim solutions. We mustn't fall for the insidious attempts by Shimon Perez to interpret the Arab initiative in a selective manner. What Israel wants is to extract full normalisation with the Arabs while continuing to occupy their lands.'

And many Arabs want an end to the occupation while continuing not to recognize Israel. It goes both ways! Peres is no more 'selective' than Abbas, and both are a good deal less so than the Hamas leaders. I think many Israelis, Palestinians and people in the Arab states are realizing increasingly that NEITHER side is going to get EVERYTHING they want, and that they will have to make hard compromises. This needs to be encouraged, indeed pushed, by America and the international community.

-' Call for an international conference based on UN resolutions to implement the Arab initiative in full. The aim here is to end the occupation of all occupied territories, especially Jerusalem. A comprehensive international mechanism to establish peace needs to be created. And the US should not be allowed to monopolise the mediation, not while it continues to be totally biased to Israel. Arabs and Palestinians may cooperate with other powers that are rising on the international scene.'

If the US is biased toward Israel, mostly for its own strategic reasons, the UN leadership is mostly biased *against* Israel (I won't even say 'toward the Palestinians', as I think it is more a bias toward more powerful Arab states). If the Arab states really are serious about peace - then this idea may work. Otherwise, it will just fuel the problem

- 'Launch a comprehensive media campaign to denounce the apartheid system created by Israel and end Israel's hold on world opinion.'

Since when has Israel had a 'hold on world opinion'?

I don't have the emotional reaction to the word 'apartheid' that many people do, and, until I realized the effect that it has on discussions, I frequently used it in a very broad sense to refer to all destructive forms of segregation. In that sense, I think that Israel's policies in the OTs could be considered as a form of apartheid - but so could the policies of most Arab states toward Jews, Palestinians, and many other groups. If one is going to 'denounce apartheid' and use the term broadly, then one needs to apply it everywhere. Exceptionalism is wrong in itself; leads to wars and hate-crimes; and usually backfires in terms of wider world opinion ("oh there is the Arab media attacking Israel again; so what else is new?")


'We need to uphold the values of change, freedom, equality Obama has been talking for so long about.'

Well, I agree on that.

'Palestine is the world's biggest victim of apartheid.'

More exceptionalist exaggeration, that will backfire. The WORLD'S BIGGEST VICTIM of apartheid? Trying to increase world opposition to the occupation is one thing. But portraying the Palestinian situation - indeed a bad one - as somehow worse than anyone else's in the world will just be viewed as a total exaggeration by those who don't already hold the view. Especially those who have witnessed the apartheid between groups in so many other countries of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. The exceptionalist exaggeration will certainly backfire
Use of words like "genocide", "Apartheid" "Biggest victim" etc., are simply untrue in this situation.

There are places in the world where genocide is occurring. Israel is not one of them.

The message of the article is lost in hyperbole.

All of the problems in the world cannot be traced back to Jews, Israel, AIPAC, Israel/Palestinian conflict.

That is the Arab world's method of deflecting from their own very tangible problems.

According to them, none of their misery is ever THEIR fault.

It is always the fault of <insert one> Israel, Jews, America, AIPAC, Jews controlling the money, the media, American foreign policy, you name it,'

These exaggerations and untruths have failed for decades.

They won't work at tugging at people's heartstrings now, and Obama has already pledged his support for Israel.

Obama cannot heal the rift between Hamas and Fatah, and he cannot force an I/P agreement, unless the Palestinian side is willing to accept Israel as a neighbor.

Period.

That article is mostly wasted bandwidth, as a result of hyperbole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tony J Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. The west won't allow one Palestinian voice
Some have forgotten that Hamas is the creation of Israel and the reactionary Arab regimes of Eygpt and Jordan. Hamas was created to offset and lessen PLO influence, especially after the first Intifada where Palestinians where on the brink of liberating Gaza. But Hamas came in to deviate the picture and Arafat got busy with the Oslo Agreement and the poor Palestinians got lost between two organizations that killed their spirits and killed the accomplishment of the first Intifada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Welcome to DU Tony.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tony J Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Thanks
Thanks, Scurrilous
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Please learn history
Israel didn't create Hamas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tony J Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Israel Promoted Hamas
Dec. 20,2001 U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer made the connection between the growth of the Islamic fundamentalist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and Israel's promotion of the Islamic movement as a counter to the Palestinian nationalist movement. Google it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. That is not what you said, now is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tony J Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Does it Matter?
Okay, maybe I used the wrong term. But, Israel promoted Hamas and Jihad by providing them with cash and weapons. Or turned the other way for any Jordanian or Egyptian assistance to Hamas and Jihad. I remember arguing with Jihad supporters in the early 80s where they used to argue against any military actions against the occupation and defend the occupation by stating that the land was given to the people who deserve it the most.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Yes, it does matter.
I have no idea what your last sentence has to do with the price of tea in China.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. huh?....
Palestinians where on the brink of liberating Gaza

ouch!...forgot my tin foil hat.... intifada I was the reason for oslo......it brough in partial self rule by the Arafat, but to claim Gaza was on the brink of being liberated?....another new angle appears....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tony J Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. True statement
Israel was thinking of one-sided withdrawal and evacuation of Gaza since mid 80s. During the first Intiada, PLO factions were in control of most of Gaza during the night, this is according to some Israeli officers who were in Gaza then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. tin hat time....
Edited on Thu Dec-18-08 11:45 PM by pelsar
the PLO was definitely NOT in control of gaza in the 80's...it was fully controlled by the IDF with IDF chasing kids around the streets who were throwing stones and the occasionaly fire lit tire...

In fact the PLO was trying very hard to control the intifada I, which they couldnt since it was from the grass roots...only when oslo started did the intifada I die out and arafat took control......

this according to many IDF soldiers who spent many months in gazas streets, back alleys, etc.....
___

where do you get your information from?....and above you wrote that israel provided weapons and cash to hamas and jihad?...shheeesh...i doubt you have any kind of reasonable source for that.......


____

israels been "thinking about withdrawl sine 67...intifada i produced nothing close to actual withdrawl from gaza.....and not on the "brink"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tony J Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Gush Shalom
March 4, 2008
Good Morning, Hamas
by Uri Avnery
We Israelis live in a world of ghosts and monsters. We do not conduct a war against living persons and real organizations, but against devils and demons which are out to destroy us. It is a war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, between absolute good and absolute evil. That's how it looks to us, and that's how it looks to the other side, too.

Let's try to bring this war down from virtual spheres to the solid ground of reality. There can be no reasonable policy, nor even rational discussion, if we do not escape from the realm of horrors and nightmares.

After the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, Gush Shalom said that we must speak with them. Here are some of the questions that were showered on me from all sides:

Do you like Hamas?

Not at all. I have very strong secular convictions. I oppose any ideology that mixes politics with religion – whether Jewish, Muslim, or Christian, in Israel, the Arab world, or America.

That does not prevent me from speaking with Hamas people, as I have spoken with other people with whom I don't agree. It has not prevented me from being a guest at their homes, to exchange views with them and to try to understand them. Some of them I liked, some I did not.

It is said that Hamas was created by Israel. Is that true?

Israel did not "create" Hamas, but it certainly helped it along in its initial stages.

During the first 20 years of the occupation, the Israeli leadership saw the PLO as its chief enemy. That's why it favored Palestinian organizations that, it was thought, could undermine the PLO. One example of this was Ariel Sharon's ludicrous attempt to set up Arab "village leagues" that would act as agents of the occupation.

The Israeli intelligence community, which in the last 60 years has failed almost every time in forecasting events in the Arab world, also failed this time. They believed that the emergence of an Islamic organization would weaken the secular PLO. While the military administration of the occupied territories was throwing into prison any Palestinian who engaged in political activity – even for peace – it did not touch the religious activists. The mosque was the only place where Palestinians could get together and plan political action.

This policy was, of course, based on a complete misunderstanding of Islam and Palestinian reality.

Hamas was officially founded immediately after the outbreak of the first Intifada at the end of 1987. The Israeli Security Service (known as Shabak or Shin Bet) handled it with kid gloves. Only a year later did it arrest the founder, Sheik Ahmad Yassin.

It is ironic that the Israeli leadership is now supporting the PLO in the hope of undermining Hamas. There is no better evidence for the stupidity of our "experts" as far as Arab matters are concerned, stemming from both arrogance and contempt. Hamas is far more dangerous to Israel than the PLO ever was.

Did the Hamas election victory show that Islam was on the rise among the Palestinian people?

Not necessarily. The Palestinian people did not become more religious overnight.

True, there is a slow process of Islamization throughout the region, from Turkey to Yemen and from Morocco to Iraq. It is the reaction of the young Arab generation to the failure of secular nationalism to solve their national and social problems. But this did not cause the earthquake in Palestinian society.

Then why did Hamas win?

There were several reasons. The main one was the growing conviction of the Palestinians that they would never get anything from the Israelis by nonviolent means. After the murder of Yasser Arafat, many Palestinians believed that if they elected Mahmoud Abbas as the new president, he would get from Israel and the U.S. the things they would not give Arafat. They found out that the opposite was happening: No real negotiations, while the settlements were getting larger every day.

They told themselves: if peaceful means don't work, there is no alternative to violent means. And if there be war, there are no braver warriors than Hamas.

Also: the corruption in the higher Fatah echelons had reached such dimensions, that the majority of Palestinians were disgusted. As long as Arafat was alive, the corruption was somehow tolerated, because everybody knew that Arafat himself was honest, and his towering importance for the national struggle overrode the shortcomings of his administration. After Arafat, tolerating the corruption became impossible. Hamas, on the other hand, was considered clean and its leaders incorrupt. The social and educational Hamas institutions, mainly financed by Saudi Arabia, were widely respected.

The splits within Fatah also helped the Hamas candidates.

Hamas, of course, had not taken part in previous elections, but it was generally assumed – even by Hamas people themselves – that they represented only about 15-25 percent of the electorate.

Can one reasonably expect the Palestinians to overthrow Hamas themselves?

As long as the occupation goes on, there is no chance of that. An Israeli general said this week that if the Israeli army stopped operating in the West Bank, Hamas would replace Abbas there too.

The administration of Mahmoud Abbas stands on feet of clay – American and Israeli feet. If the Palestinians finally lose what confidence they still have in Abbas, his power would crumble.

But how can one reach a settlement with an organization that declares that it will never recognize Israel and whose charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state?

All this matter of "recognition" is nonsense, a pretext for avoiding a dialogue. We do not need "recognition" from anybody. When the United States started a dialogue with Vietnam, it did not demand to be recognized as an Anglo-Saxon, Christian, and capitalist state.

If A signs an agreement with B, it means that A recognizes B. All the rest is hogwash.

And in the same matter: The fuss over the Hamas charter is reminiscent of the ruckus about the PLO charter, in its time. That was a quite unimportant document, which was used by our representatives for years as an excuse to refuse to talk with the PLO. Heaven and earth were moved to compel the PLO to annul it. Who remembers that today? The acts of today and tomorrow are important, the papers of yesterday are not.

What should we speak with Hamas about?

First of all, about a cease-fire. When a wound is bleeding, the blood loss must be stemmed before the wound itself can be treated.

Hamas has many times proposed a cease-fire, tahidiyeh ("quiet") in Arabic. This would mean a stop to all hostilities: Qassams and Grad rockets and mortar shells from Hamas and the other organizations;"targeted liquidations," military incursions, and starvation from Israel.

The negotiations should be conducted by the Egyptians, particularly since they would have to open the border between the Gaza Strip and Sinai. Gaza must get back its freedom of communication with the world by land, sea, and air.

If Hamas demands the extension of the cease-fire to the West Bank, too, this should also be discussed. That would necessitate a Hamas-Fatah-Israel trialogue.

Won't Hamas exploit the cease-fire to arm itself?

Certainly. And so will Israel. Perhaps we shall succeed, at long last, in finding a defense against short-range rockets.

If the cease-fire holds, what will be the next step?

An armistice, or hudnah in Arabic.

Hamas would have a problem in signing a formal agreement with Israel, because Palestine is a waqf – a religious endowment. (That arose, at the time, for political reasons. When Caliph Omar conquered Palestine, he was afraid that his generals would divide the country among themselves, as they had already done in Syria. So he declared it to be the property of Allah. This resembles the attitude of our own religious people, who maintain that it is a sin to give away any part of the country, because God has expressly promised it to us.)

Hudnah is an alternative to peace. It is a concept deeply embedded in the Islamic tradition. The prophet Muhammad himself agreed to a hudnah with the rulers of Mecca, with whom he was at war after his flight from Mecca to Medina. (By the way, before the hudnah expired, the inhabitants of Mecca adopted Islam and the prophet entered the town peacefully.) Since it has a religious sanction, its violation by Muslim believers is impossible.

A hudnah can last for dozens of years and be extended without limit. A long hudnah is in practice peace, if the relations between the two parties create a reality of peace.

So a formal peace is impossible?

There is a solution for this, too. Hamas has declared in the past that it does not object to Abbas conducting peace negotiations, on condition that the agreement reached is put to a plebiscite. If the Palestinian people confirm it, Hamas declared that it will accept the people's decision.

Why would Hamas accept it?

Like every Palestinian political force, Hamas aspires to power in the Palestinian state that will be set up along the 1967 borders. For that it needs to enjoy the confidence of the majority. There is no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of the Palestinian people want a state of their own and peace. Hamas knows this well. It will do nothing that would push the majority of the people away.

And what is the place of Abbas in all this?

He should be pressured to come to an agreement with Hamas, along the lines of the earlier agreement concluded in Mecca. We believe that Israel has a clear interest in negotiating with a Palestinian government that includes the two big movements, so that the agreement reached would be accepted by almost all sections of the Palestinian people.

Is time working for us?

For many years, Gush Shalom was telling the Israeli public: let's make peace with the secular leadership of Yasser Arafat, because otherwise the national conflict will turn into a religious conflict. Unfortunately, this prophecy, too, has come true.

Those who did not want the PLO, got Hamas. If we don't come to terms with Hamas, we shall be faced with more extreme Islamic organizations, like the Taliban in Afghanistan.
http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=12455
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. you've just show how wrong your own posts are
Edited on Fri Dec-19-08 08:23 AM by pelsar
as per you link: israel did not create hamas as you previously wrote and there is nothing there about israel providing weapons and cash....

the more interesting question is of course is why do write posts that are simply not true?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tony J Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Israel helped the creation of Hamas
Israeli involvement in hamas creation is well-noted by many. Obviously, no matter what I present to you, you are going to discount it. US ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer boldly pioneered in exposing the truth. As well as Anthony Cordesman from csis- who served as national security advisor to McCain, and jaffee center for strategic studies.


"According to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years."

"Funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel, according to U.S. intelligence officials. The PLO was secular and leftist and promoted Palestinian nationalism. Hamas wanted set up a transnational state under the rule of Islam, much like Khomeini's Iran"

"Aid to Hamas may have looked clever, "but it was hardly designed to help smooth the waters," he said. "It gives weight to President George W Bush's remark about there being a crisis in education." Cordesman said that a similar attempt by Egyptian intelligence to fund Egypt's fundamentalists had also come to grief because of over complication.
An Israeli Embassy defense official, asked if Israel had given aid to Hamas replied: "I am not able to answer that question. I was in Lebanon commanding a unit at the time, besides it is not my field of interest." Asked to confirm a report by U.S. officials that Brigadier General Yithaq Segev, the military governor of Gaza, had told U.S. officials that he had helped fund "Islamic movements as a counterweight to the PLO and communists," the Israeli official said he could confirm only that he believed that Segev had served back in 1986. The Israeli Embassy press office referred UPI to its Web site"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. What would your source be for this information?
Edited on Fri Dec-19-08 09:00 AM by oberliner
Earlier in the thread you linked to antiwar.com which is a Paleoconservative/Libertarian site.

This appears to be from InformationClearinghouse.info which features Pat Buchanan on its home page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC