START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Mar 15, 2010

Waht right does Obama have to dictate Israeli internal policies or building plans. Has he dictated to Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, France, or any other country in the world? Who voted him Israel's leader? The Audacity of Obama's dictatorship over Israeli democratic proccess must be questioned. He and his admin have perposefully created an atmosphere of rage to force Israel into further concessions to apease palestinians. This is done totally against the will of the Israeli public. He encouraged the palastinians to demand a freeze which had never been asked of any other government. Why? To undermine the Israeli government, and to create strife in Israel. But to what gain? Obama is making clear his possision and it is not as the Freind of Israel. No Freind perposfully undermins the democratic proccess of another democratic country and demands to be it's Dictator. It was not without reason the Saudi's named him Pharaoh and Gadafi called him a "Brother".

Barack Hussein Obama vs Israel

http://sultanknish. blogspot. com/2010/ 03/barack- hussein-obama- vs-israel. html

The manifold organs of the ObamaMedia are abuzz with outrage over what they are calling Israel's "insult" to the United States. But what was the nature of this awful and outrageous insult? Did Israeli officials pull off V.P. Biden's rug to show off his bald head underneath. Did they ask him why the suit of his pants is so shiny. Did they make him sit at the kiddie table?

More to the point did Israeli TV air calls for a Jihad against America, as Palestinian Arab TV did? Did Israel name a square after the murderer of an American photographer, as the Palestinian Authority did? Did an Israeli Anchorman do a skit in blackface during Obama's visit, as a Turkish anchorman did during Obama's visit to Turkey? Are Israeli religious institutions issuing Fatwahs against America, as Al Azhar University, which Obama visited and spoke at, has done? Are Israeli leaders funding terrorism against America, as the Saudi King, before whom Obama bowed, does?

No, none of those incidents were described as insults. Nothing that Muslim countries did to mock, humiliate and murder Americans were even noticed at all. None of them produced furious condemnations from the White House or two hours of Hillary Clinton screeching on the phone at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So what did Israel do that was so awful, so horrible and terrible? It built houses. Yes, civilian houses. Not army bases or nuclear missiles or walls. Houses.

Israel approved a construction project to build housing for its own people, in its own capitol city, Jerusalem. Some of the housing will be built in the Shimon HaTzadik neighborhood, situated around the grave of Shimon the Righteous, a Jewish religious figure famed for rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. A neighborhood where Jews have lived for over a century. As well as Ramat Shlomo, a thriving neighborhood with thousands of Jewish families living in it.

The Obama Administration' s objections to Jews living in Jerusalem are purely racial and religious. If Israel were approving a construction project to build housing for Arab Muslim citizens of Israel, Biden, Hillary and their media troupe wouldn't be screeching about it to the high heavens. It is only because Jews are to live there, that they have a problem with it. Their objections therefore are purely based on race and religion-- and completely racist.

But this is hardly the first time that Muslims and their Western appeasers have tried to drive the Jews out of Jerusalem, or the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood in particular.

In 1876 the land was purchased by the Jewish community in order to build homes for poor Jews. In 1936, after the death of Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (one of the inspirations for Hamas) and the Mufti of Jerusalem (who would go on to collaborate on the Holocaust with Adolf Hitler), Arab rioters drove the Jews out of the neighborhood with cries of Ibtach Al Yahood (kill the Jews). Over 500 Jews were murdered during this time. Many more fled their homes ahead of the enraged Islamic mobs.

The following was a sample of some of the Arab Muslim brutality toward the Jews at the time.

Alex Morrison, a British truck driver sympathetic to the Arab cause wrote, "They left behind them one of the worst sights I ever saw in my life... The naked bodies of the women exposed the evidence that the knives had been used in the most ghastly fashion." The bodies of children, apparently set alight with gasoline in a nursery, were still smoldering."

The Arab Muslim atrocities were successful not at intimidating the Jews, who slowly began to return, but at intimidating the British who enacted the White Paper, and closed the doors to Jewish immigration resulting in countless numbers of Jews dead during the Holocaust. A Holocaust which involved the participation of the same Mufti of Jerusalem who organized the riots. Which in turn had been partially funded by Nazi Germany.

In 1947 the Arab Muslim forces again came for the Jews. The Jewish residents of the Shimon HaTzadik neighborhood, accompanied by militia, fought them back with the few weapons they had. And then came the British colonial authorities and disarmed the Jews. And when the Arab forces came again, they had no weapons to fight with. And they fled.

The fall of the area cut off Hadassah Hospital from the rest of Jerusalem. A convoy of 79 doctors, nurses and patients to the hospital were massacred by Arab forces. They included a world renowned ophthalmologist, Chaim Yassky and his wife Fanny. Esther Fassman, the American director of social services at the hospital's Cancer Institute, carrying candy and magazines for her patients. And a man who had been riding along to reach his wife who had just given a birth. He never reached her.

The Jordanian Legion seized all of East Jerusalem, and drove out the remaining Jews living there. Synagogues were destroyed, others were turned into latrines. The tombstones from Jewish cemeteries were used as paving stones for the Arab Muslim occupation forces. The Shimon HaTzadik neighborhood though held the tragic distinction of being the first part of Jerusalem to have its Jewish population driven out.

The houses that the Jews had been driven out of were occupied by Arab Settlers in an East Jerusalem rendered empty of Jews. The great dream of the Mufti of Jerusalem, and every Islamic cleric and terrorist, who had urged the murder of Jews in order to build a pure Islamic Arab Palestine was fulfilled. The Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood was seemingly no more. Only the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood remained. Half of the historic Jewish capital was Judenrein.

In 1967, Jerusalem was liberated and reunited once again. But the victorious Jewish army did not drive out the Arab squatters. Instead in 1972 it restored the land in the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood to the communal organizations which had owned it allowed them to remain on the condition that they paid rent. Those who refused, were evicted. Slowly Jews began to return to their old neighborhood again. A school opened and a normal semblance of life with it. However the US State Department and European government have continued fighting the Jewish presence in Jerusalem, demanding that it be restored to its former Judenrein status.

Over and over again, the diplomats have taken the side of the Arab squatters who stole the homes of the Jewish families living there, until Arab mobs and armies drove them out. Even when Jewish residents bought the land from those squatters, insuring the absolute legality of their ownership from any and every angle, their rights to live there have been denied. And those demanding an Apartheid Jerusalem, reserved for Arabs alone, have continued spewing lies and distorting the truth by claiming that Jews never lived in the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood. That the only reason Jews live there now is out of spite (this in a city where spiraling real estate prices and crowded conditions have made apartments incredibly difficult to find.) And finally that the only reason that a housing project that has been in the works for over a decade was approved-- was in order to insult Joseph Robinette Biden... and through him America.

And then there was the Ramat Shlomo construction project. Supposedly the straw that broke the "camel's" back. Ramat Shlomo is and has been a Jewish neighborhood for some time now. There are thousands of families living in it. The 1600 additional units are not being built on inhabited land. Nor was the land ever supposed to be turned over to the Palestinian Authority in any conceivable settlement. In fact during the previous round of negotiations, even the PA had conceded Ramat Shlomo.

Let me be very clear then. The building of houses for Jewish families in a neighborhood where Jews have lived for 134 years is not an insult. A housing project that has been in the works for over a decade was not a secret conspiracy to humiliate the idiot Vice President on his visit there. It is of course an insult, but not to America. Only to Islam.

American diplomats have not usually described Israeli policies they dislike as an "insult"-- that is a term much more commonly used by Muslims, who are obsessed with perceived slights to their honor. Complaints over an "insult" is a common feature of Honor-Shame societies. America is not an honor-shame society. However the White House is currently occupied by a man bred in an honor-shame society. It is Obama that feels "insulted" by Israel, both out of the sensitivity of his Muslim heritage and his own egotism, which regularly motivates him to humiliate Republicans, while triumphantly celebrating his own greatness.

It is natural enough for Barack Hussein Obama to rely on such cheap honor-shame gambits. They are what he grew up with. And it is natural enough for him to keenly feel the loss of face of Muslims. After all his father's family was Muslim. And Muslims are keenly "insulted" when they conquer territory and then cannot hold it. Whether that territory is in Jerusalem, Israel or Spain or India. They cannot stand to suffer the loss of face. And neither can Obama.

Had there been a Jewish or part-Jewish President in the White House, the media would be raising the question of whether he is showing favoritism toward Israel. A question that has been repeatedly raised regarding Joseph Lieberman. A question that was raised regarding Goldwater, who was a practicing Christian. But the media refuses to allow the question to be raised of whether Obama is favoring Muslims because of his own Muslim background and family ties. Instead the media brands any such questions as racist, and instead spearheads the administration' s campaign against Israel.

So directed out of the White House, a media firestorm howls enraged at Israel for presuming to allow Jews to live in a neighborhood where they had lived for a 134 years. The outrage. The offense. Heads must roll for this. Panicked, Netanyahu has already rushed to appease Der Fuhrer, suspending all home development anywhere in Jerusalem. Netanyahu has already apologized for building homes for his own citizens in his own country, but that of course is not enough. It's never enough.

David Axelrod huffed, "This was an affront, it was an insult." Hillary Clinton, Suha Arafat's former kissyface partner, called Netanyahu to berate him. And then did it again in the round of interviews, proclaiming, "It was insulting. And-- it was insulting not just to the vice president, who-- certainly didn't deserve that-- But it was an insult to the United States." Biden added his own voice. So did a bevy of underlines. Israel's ambassador was summoned to be yelled at by the Deputy Secretary of State.

In his visit Biden had repeatedly insulted his Israeli hosts. First he brought along Chris Matthews who accused Israelis of disliking Obama because they're racists. He arrived an hour and a half late to a ceremonial dinner. In other words he acted like every bit of the predictable buffoon that he is. Which is also not surprising given his history of hostility to Israel going back decades.

But none of that really matters. The bottom line is that the Obama Administration has been wanting to pick a fight with Israel for some time now... while pretending to be the victims. Much like the way Germany faked a Polish attack as a pretext for invading Poland, Barack Hussein Obama needed a pretext for waging his own political Jihad against Israel. All the while whining about how badly the Israelis have insulted him.

If it hadn't been Shimon HaTzaddik or Ramat Shlomo, some other pretext would have been found. Sooner or later, some visiting dignitary would have been offended by Israelis going on with their lives. Resulting in just this kind of cynical tantrum designed to win over Muslims and further degrade Israel's abilities to defend itself. The entire incident staged in keeping with the Honor-Shame background of the man in the White House.

Meanwhile in Jerusalem, Jews were celebrating the rebuilding of the Hurva Synagogue. Built in the 1700's, the synagogue had been demolished twice by Arab Muslims. The second time in 1948 by the Jordanian Legion, in order to insure that Jews would never return to East Jerusalem. They were wrong then, as Obama is wrong now. The plans of Muslims to banish Jews from their historic capitol are both immoral and racist.

Meanwhile the PA's Jerusalem minister, Khatem Abd el-Kader, condemned the renovation of the Hurva Synagogue, warning Israel that it was "playing with fire" and urged Muslim Arabs to "protect" the Al Aqsa Mosque. Naturally of course the riots are of course already on the way. An echo of the riots that drove Jews out of Jerusalem in the 1930's. Then the rioters had shouted, "Itbach-al Yahud" and "Addowlah ma'anah". Kill the Jews, and The Government is With Us. Except the government they mean now is not the British colonial authorities, but the administration of Barack Hussein Obama.


Visibility: Everyone
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted: Mar 15, 2010 12:07pm
Mar 13, 2010

Palestinian Prime Minister to Israeli Audience: You Make Concessions, We Don't

Barry Rubin
Gloria-Center.org – 2010-02-04

Imagine this. You're prime minister of a regime that isn't yet a state. You are praised in the Western media as a great moderate man of peace. You represent a people who the U.S. president says is in an intolerable situation. You supposedly want a country of your own. Indeed you've announced you will get a state in two years, something conceivable only if your negotiating partner agrees. You're dependent on contributions from Western democratic countries that want you to make a deal. Your rivals have seized almost half the land you want to rule and work tirelessly to overthrow your regime and very possibly to kill you personally.

But here comes a big opportunity.

You are invited by your negotiating partner to its most important meeting of the year. All the other side's top leaders and opinionmakers are listening to you.

And that country's second most powerful leader has just made a very conciliatory speech praising you personally, urging peace, offering concessions, and telling his own people they must be ready to give you a lot.

What do you do?

Make a warm conciliatory, confidence-building speech, showing by substantial offers that you, too, are willing to compromise; stretching out your hand in order to build friendship and ensure you get a country?

Hey, we're talking about the Palestinians here! And as I say over and over again: anyone who thinks the Palestinian Authority (PA) is going to make peace hasn't been paying attention to what they say and do.

So here is what PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told the audience at the Herzliya Conference, held at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), following Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's conciliatory speech:

–Israel must immediately start pulling out of the rest of the West Bank, without getting anything in return.

–It must immediately stop all construction on settlements, including apartments now being completed.

–Israel's army should never enter PA-ruled areas. Even if the PA refuses to arrest those who have murdered Israelis or won't stop planned attacks, Israel's army must do nothing, despite the 1993 agreement between the two sides permitting this. Fayyad said this isn't necessary because the PA is taking care of these matters. But this makes no sense: when Israel sees that to be true it never orders incursions in the first place.

–Israel should end its blockade of the Gaza Strip, even though the Hamas movement ruling there refuses to make a deal with the PA, openly announces its goal of destroying Israel, and smuggles in as many weapons as possible. Moreover, as soon as it feels secure again, Hamas will launch new attacks on Israel. Fayyad claimed, however, that if Israel did so, the PA could then build government institutions in the Gaza Strip, though it has no control whatsoever there.

–He openly stated that his goal was to mobilize international support and create such a strong state apparatus that the world would pressure Israel to end any presence in the West Bank or east Jerusalem, apparently without the Palestinian side giving anything.

–While Barak said that the “roughness” of the region made it harder to give the Palestinians everything they wanted (for example, the PA could be overthrown by Hamas; subverted by Iran and Syria; unwilling or unable to stop cross-border attacks), Fayyad responded that once Israel left all of the West Bank the region would become more stable and peaceful. That's a rather questionable assertion.

It is true that he ended by saying:

“The Israeli people have a long history, they have pain, they have ambition, and like you, we Palestinians have our own history. Right now we are going through lots of pain and suffering. And we have one key aspiration, and that is once again to be able to live alongside you in peace, harmony and security.”

Yet he addressed none of the points in Israel's own peace plan: an official end to the conflict if there is an agreement; resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Palestine; an end to incitement (which would be easy to do) to kill Israelis; limits on the militarization of a Palestinian state; or recognition of Israel as a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian Arab Muslim state (the PA constitution says that Islam is the country's official religion).

This was not an extremist speech or one seeking conflict. Fayyad is probably the most moderate guy in the PA leadership. He was doing about the best he could. But that's the point. He has no base of support, isn't a member of Fatah, and doesn't really represent Palestinian thinking. He is in office for one reason only: the Western donors demand it. Fayyad, and arguably the PA leadership as a whole, don't want a new war with Israel. But Fatah will sponsor one if it thinks such a step is advantageous or needed to out-militant Hamas.

Equally, Fayyad couldn't go any further than he did because he knows that his Fatah bosses, Palestinian constituents, and Hamas enemies would throw him out if he offered the slightest concession to Israel and demanded any less than everything they want.

We will see how much progress Fayyad makes over the next two years in building strong and stable institutions. Yet it should be understood that what he is doing is not a way to convince Israel that both sides can reach a compromise peace but to persuade the world to force Israel to make compromises without the PA having to do so.

The irony is that it doesn't matter what Barak says, except to show the world that Israel wants real peace and to encourage Israeli voters to back Labor as a party that balances a strong desire for peace with a smart sense of security for the country.

Barak warned the right-wing in Israel that it would be a mistake to oppose a genuine two-state solution, an outcome that Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu-like Barak–has accepted. But the defense minister also urged the left-wing not to be naïve.

Here's a fascinating example of how the world generally interprets the situation. Read this paragraph from the Washington Post coverage carefully:

“But there was a common thread, too, with each acknowledging an international consensus on the idea of two nations. Barak said that Israel risks becoming 'an apartheid state par excellence' if it does not negotiate the terms of Palestinian statehood soon, and Fayyad said the work being done in the West Bank on governance needs to be matched by political progress.”

The two statements are supposed to be parallel. Barak says: Israel must get rid of the West Bank for its own good. Fayyad says: progress must be made in negotiations, in the context of a speech in which he asked for a long list of Israeli concessions and offered nothing in exchange. These statemens are not parallel. A parallel statement would be if Fayyad had said something like:

The Palestinians risk becoming permanently mired in violence and backwardness unless they negotiate terms for Israel feeling secure in giving up the territory.

Since 1993 not a single Palestinian leader has ever made a speech to his own people like Barak's, never said that they should have to give up something to get a state, never urged the media and public debate to become more moderate.

Four days before Fayyad's speech, here is the Friday prayer sermon given in Nablus by the imam appointed there by Fayyad and broadcast on the television Fayyad controls:

“The Jews are the enemies of Allah and [Muhammad], the enemies of humanity in general, and of the Palestinians in particular…. Jews will always be Jews. Even if donkeys cease to bray, dogs cease to bark, wolves cease to howl, and snakes cease to bite, the Jews will not cease to be hostile to the Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad said: 'Whenever two Jews find themselves alone with a Muslim, they think of killing him.' Oh Muslims, this land, these holy places, and these mosques will only be liberated when we return to the Book of Allah, and when all Muslims are prepared to become mujahideen for the sake of Allah, in support of Palestine, its people, its land, and its holy places.”

How can this be reconciled with Fayyad's claim that the sole aspiration is “to live alongside you in peace, harmony and security”?

Note that this is a Palestinian Authority, not a Hamas, cleric speaking. Note, too, that while Fayyad's speech is covered around the world, sermons like these are never quoted in the Western media. This is not to say that the sermon is real and Fayyad's views are fake, it is to say that the sermon is meant to shape Palestinian politics and public opinion and what Fayyad says is meant to shape Israeli and Western politics and public opinion. Fayyad, a figurehead, is not going to make anything change and he isn't even going to try. Nor does Fayyad have any control over the ruling party, Fatah, whose leadership is still hardline on goals and negotiations, though not on more immediate issues.

The Israeli audience applauded Fayyad because it does want peace and prefers him to all the worse alternatives, especially Hamas but also those in Fatah. Yet few have any illusions that peace is at hand or that Fayyad is going to deliver it.

* Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis (Palgrave Macmillan), Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle East (Routledge), The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) (Viking-Penguin), the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan), A Chronological History of Terrorism (Sharpe), and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).

Mar 12, 2010

Inter-Arab Violence!

(Reassessment of Middle East Policy)

 Straight from the Jerusalem Cloakroom #233

Feb. 5, 2010

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

"Second Thought," Jerusalem

1.  An assessment of the politically- correct Western policy-making, media commentaries and conventional wisdom raises the following questions:

*Is the Palestinian issue the crux of Middle East turbulence?

*Is the Arab-Israeli conflict the core cause of anti-Western Islamic terrorism?*

*Are Arab leaders preoccupied with the Palestinian issue and with the Arab-Israeli conflict?

*Is the Arab-Israeli conflict "The Middle East Conflict"?

*How valid is the contention that, in the Middle East, on words one does not pay custom, hence the awesome gap between rhetoric and reality?!

2.  An analysis of Middle East politics during the last 1,400 years documents the following:

Since the 7th century, inter-Arab and inter-Muslim conflicts in the Muslim Middle East - between North Africa and the Persian Gulf - have been the role model of state-sponsored terrorism, hate-education, inherent domestic and regional violence, endemic unpredictability, instability, volatility, fragmentation, religious and political intolerance, suppression of human rights, nepotism and treachery.

3.  Aijaz Zaka Syed, the opinion editor of Dubai's "Khaleej Times," asserts (Al Aharam weekly, Jan. 20, 2010) that "more Muslims than non-Muslims have been killed in macabre attacks carried out in the name of Islam." Nearly 50 people were killed and 500 injured during the December 29, 2009 terrorist attack on a Karachi religious procession. But more than the loss of lives - "that has long become a daily mayhem" - it is the devastation wreaked on the country's biggest city that will haunt Pakistan for a long time to come. "Thousands of businesses, shops and commercial establishments were destroyed in no time, incurring losses worth billions of dollars, [in addition to] the attack on the heavily attended volleyball match in the troubled Northwest Pakistan, which killed 75 villagers and left scores maimed…"

"None of those watching the match, or attending the Karachi procession had anything to do with the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq.  They had no sympathy or affiliation whatsoever with the US and the West.  Then why have they been targeted?

"How does it help the cause of these so-called defenders of Islam, when they target innocent Muslims and non Muslims?  This death cult is the ultimate injustice…

4.  Jordanian economist, Yusuf Mansur writes ("Creative Jordan" website, July 25, 2009) that "Arabs are ruled by a cartel of authoritarian regimes, practiced in the arts of oppression.  Arab unity is as elusive as ever. Inter-Arab divisions are bitter…Hardly any of the 21 Arab states can plausibly claim to be a genuine democracy. Therefore, Arab regimes rely on repression in order to stay in power

"The political instability of the Arab world is in turn connected to another problem: the missing glue of nationhood…Egyptian diplomat, Tahsin Bashir, called the new Arab states of Middle East 'Tribes with Flags.'  In countries as different as Lebanon and Iraq, ethnic, confessional or sectarian differences have thwarted programs of nation-building. That is why Iraq fell apart into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish fragments after the removal of Saddam despite decades of patriotic indoctrination.  Syria could follow suit if the minority Alawi sect of the ruling Assad family were somehow to lose control of this largely Sunni country. Sudan has seen not one, but two, civil wars between its Arab-dominated centre and the non-Arab minorities in its south and west…

"Up to a million citizens of the Arab world may have perished violently since 1990… The disturbing point for the future is that none of the underlying causes of conflict enumerated above has disappeared.  On the contrary, each appears to be taking on the characteristics of a chronic condition…Political and social discontent is in danger of tipping into violence – even into revolution."

5.  The aforementioned facts, along with current Middle East events, produce the following observations:

*The Arab/Muslim Middle East is the abode of anti-Western values, irrespective of the Arab-Israeli conflict, independent of the Palestinian issue and regardless of Israel's policies and existence.

*Western values such as freedom of expression, religion, press, market and the Internet constitute a lethal threat to Arab/Muslim regimes.

*The Arab/Muslim Middle East constitutes a potent threat to vital Western interests.

*Anti-Western terrorism is a natural derivative of inter-Arab/Muslim terrorism and values. Why would terrorism against the infidel be less savage than terrorism against fellow-Muslims? !

*A strong Jewish State enhances deterrence in face of inherent Middle East violence, extending the strategic hand of the West, bolstering relatively-moderate regimes and restraining rogue regimes.

*Agreements concluded in the Arab/Muslim Middle East cannot be more credible and durable than the policies of Arab/Muslim regimes. Why would Arab/Muslim regimes comply with agreements signed with the infidel, while they do not comply with most agreements signed with fellow-Muslims? !

*The inherent instability, and the violent unpredictability, of Arab/Muslim Middle East regimes and policies feed the fragility of Middle East agreements. 

*Is it reasonable to assume that Arabs would accord the Jewish State a durable-peace, which they have not been able to accord one another?! 

*The proposed Palestinian state – against the backdrop of the 50 year track record of Fatah, PLO and Hamas – would merge naturally into the violent nature of the Middle East. A Palestinian state would constitute fuel – and not water – to Middle East turbulence.

*Inter-Arab/Muslim reality – of no comprehensive inter-Arab peace since the 7th century - dictates steep security requirements for the Jewish State.

*Inter-Arab/ Muslim reality dictates a thorough reassessment of Western policy toward the Middle East in general and the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue in particular.

Visibility: Everyone
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted: Mar 12, 2010 5:33am

 

 
 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

Author

Eli T.
, 5, 4 children
Israel, Non Us, Israel
Shares by Type:
All (23) | Blog (22) | Message (1)

Showing shares tagged with: media [show all]
SHARES FROM ELI'S NETWORK
Mar
31
(1 comments  |  discussions )
ZEN was suspended by Eric with no warning. We don't know any reasons nor how long it will last.... I asked about it on the forum but my post was immediately deleted. 2 threads and petitions about Zen also. And 2 her help-groups. :-( Untill today no...
Nov
17
(2 comments  |  discussions )
The HORD has begun its own orphanage Primary School in March 2010 in the rural Bussiwa village in kamuli district.  People live in small grass hatched houses, often large families in one room.  The people who live in these rural villages ar...
Oct
17
(0 comments  |  discussions )
HELP orphans in Uganda !!! WHAT DO THESE KIDS EXPECT FROM THE WORLD ??!!! What can a helpless child under the age of 12 expect from his lonesome world, other than food, proper sleep, non-ragged cloths and quest for knowledge?... Also when the nigh...
Oct
12
(1 comments  |  discussions )
Care2 ACTION: Free the Greenpeace Activists Environment  (tags: greenpeace, arctic, activists ) Apolonia - 12 hours ago - thepetitionsite.com We need to let the Russian Government know that illegally boarding and seizing a ship w...
May
28
by Ge M.
(6 comments  |  discussions )
Recently a petition to request the deportation of extremists from the UK was put on to the petition site. Immediately, Kit objected to this and demanded its removal.Why was this petition removed? Was it racist? Had it called for the deportation of all...
Apr
8
(2 comments  |  discussions )
Please sign this petition to commemorate cptn Vitold Pilecki in USHM: http://www.care2.com/news /member/823857428/3559979
Apr
4
(0 comments  |  discussions )
https://www.facebook.com/ groups/petitionsforanimal rights/?fref=ts 
Apr
2
(0 comments  |  discussions )
HiI would like to share a video I made about a very cute sunbird family, was nesting on our balconyEnjoyhttps://www.y outube.com/watch?v=IFA33e X7QKs 
Nov
19
by Cam V.
(2 comments  |  discussions )
When Americans come knocking … Since the shootings took place in Tucson, I have heard the left ranting and raving against Governor Sarah Palin, talk radio and other conservative pundits in America. Liberals have been like bulldogs fighting ...
Nov
12
(1 comments  |  0 discussions )
tHEE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN i HAVE EVER MET i LOVE YOU eLISABETTA