Home | Community | Message Board


Zamnesia.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,328
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
The subtle media mind control using words - Israeli soldiers: Arrested, Detained Or Kidnapped?
    #5905104 - 07/27/06 01:52 PM (13 years, 11 months ago)

This is an interesting article i just found. It refers to the lexicon discrepancies among similar events, but with opposite sides. Why is the media having two measures for the same weight ? Let's see :

Kidnapped by Israel: The British Media and the Invasion of Gaza

By Jonathan Cook
30 June 2006

Few readers of a British newspaper would have noticed the story. In the Observer of 25 June, it merited a mere paragraph hidden in the "World in brief" section, revealing that the previous day a team of Israeli commandos had entered the Gaza Strip to "detain" two Palestinians Israel claims are members of Hamas.

The significance of the mission was alluded to in a final phrase describing
this as "the first arrest raid in the territory since Israel pulled out of
the area a year ago". More precisely, it was the first time the Israeli
army had re-entered the Gaza Strip, directly violating Palestinian control of
the territory, since it supposedly left in August last year.

As the Observer landed on doorsteps around the UK, however, another daring mission was being launched in Gaza that would attract far more attention from the British media - and prompt far more concern.

Shortly before dawn, armed Palestinians slipped past Israeli military
defenses to launch an attack on an army post close by Gaza called Kerem
Shalom. They sneaked through a half-mile underground tunnel dug under an Israeli-built electronic fence that surrounds the Strip and threw grenades
at a tank, killing two soldiers inside. Seizing another, wounded soldier
the gunmen then disappeared back into Gaza.

Whereas the Israeli "arrest raid" had passed with barely a murmur, the
Palestinian attack a day later received very different coverage. The BBC's
correspondent in Gaza, Alan Johnstone, started the ball rolling later the
same day in broadcasts in which he referred to the Palestinian attack as "a
major escalation in cross-border tensions". (BBC World news, 10am GMT, 25 June 2006)

Johnstone did not explain why the Palestinian attack on an Israeli army
post was an escalation, while the Israeli raid into Gaza the previous day was not. Both were similar actions: violations of a neighbour's territory.

The Palestinians could justify attacking the military post because the
Israeli army has been using it and other fortified positions to fire
hundreds of shells into Gaza that have contributed to some 30 civilian
deaths over the preceding weeks. Israel could justify launching its mission
into Gaza because it blames the two men it seized for being behind some of
the hundreds of home-made Qassam rockets that have been fired out of Gaza, mostly ineffectually, but occasionally harming Israeli civilians in the
border town of Sderot.

So why was the Palestinian attack, and not the earlier Israeli raid, an
escalation? The clue came in the same report from Johnstone, in which he
warned that Israel would feel compelled to launch "retaliations" for the
attack, implying that a re-invasion of the Gaza Strip was all but
inevitable.

So, in fact, the "escalation" and "retaliation" were one and the same
thing. Although Johnstone kept repeating that the Palestinian attack had created an escalation, what he actually meant was that Israel was choosing to escalate its response. Both sides could continue their rocket fire, but only Israel was in a position to reinvade with tanks and ground forces.

There was another intriguing aspect to Johnstone's framework for
interpreting these fast-moving events, one that would be adopted by all the
British media. He noted that the coming Israeli "retaliation" -- the
reinvasion -- had a specific cause: the escalation prompted by the brief
Palestinian attack that left two Israeli soldiers dead and a third
captured.

But what about the Palestinian attack: did it not have a cause too?
According to the British media, apparently not. Apart from making vague
references to the Israeli artillery bombardment of the Gaza Strip over the
previous weeks, Johnstone and other reporters offered no context for the
Palestinian attack. It had no obvious cause or explanation. It appeared to
come out of nowhere, born presumably only of Palestinian malice.

Or as a Guardian editorial phrased it: "Confusion surrounds the precise
motives of the gunmen from the Islamist group Hamas and two other armed organisations who captured the Israeli corporal and killed two other
soldiers on Sunday. But it was clearly intended to provoke a reaction, as
is the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel." ('Storm over Gaza,' 29 June
2006)

It was not as though Johnstone or the Guardian had far to look for reasons
for the Palestinian attack, explanations that might frame it as a
retaliation no different from the Israeli one. In addition to the shelling
that has caused some 30 civilian deaths and inflicted yet more trauma on a
generation of Palestinian children, Israel has been blockading Gaza's
borders to prevent food and medicines from reaching the population and it
has successfully pressured international donors to cut off desperately
needed funds to the Palestinian government. Then, of course, there was also the matter of the Israeli army's violation of Palestinian-controlled
territory in Gaza the day before.

None of this context surfaced to help audiences distinguish cause and
effect, and assess for themselves who was doing the escalating and who the retaliating.

That may have been because all of these explanations make sense only in the context of Israel's continuing occupation of Gaza. But that context
conflicts with a guiding assumption in the British media: that the
occupation finished with Israel's disengagement from Gaza in August last
year. With the occupation over, all grounds for Palestinian "retaliation"
become redundant.

The Guardian's diplomatic editor, Ewen MacAskill certainly took the view
that Israel should be able to expect quiet after its disengagement. "Having
pulled out of Gaza last year, the Israelis would have been justified in
thinking they might enjoy a bit of peace on their southern border." ('An
understandable over-reaction,' Comment is Free, 28 June 2006)

Never mind that Gaza's borders, airspace, electromagnetic frequencies,
electricity and water are all under continuing Israeli control, or that the
Palestinians are not allowed an army, or that Israel is still preventing
Gazans from having any contact with Palestinians in the West Bank and East
Jerusalem. Meetings of the Palestinian parliament have to be conducted over video links because Israel will not allow MPs in Gaza to travel to Ramallah in the West Bank.

These factors might have helped to explain continuing Palestinian anger,
but in British coverage of the conflict they appear to be unmentionables.

Arrested, Detained Or Kidnapped?

There was another notable asymmetry in the media's use of language and
their treatment of the weekend of raids by the Palestinians and the Israelis. In the Observer, we learnt that Israel had "detained" the two Palestinians in
an "arrest raid". These were presented as the legitimate actions of a state
that is enforcing the law within the sphere of its sovereignty (notably, in
stark contrast to the other media assumption that the occupation of Gaza is
over).

So how did the media describe the Palestinians' seizure of the Israeli
soldier the next day? According to Donald MacIntyre of the Independent,
Corporal Gilad Shalit was "kidnapped" ('Israel set for military raid over
kidnapped soldier, Independent,' 27 June 2006). His colleague Eric Silver
considered the soldier "abducted" ('Israel hunts for abducted soldier after
dawn raid by militants,' 26 June 2006). Conal Urquhart of the Guardian,
referred to him as a "hostage" ('Palestinians hunt for Israeli hostage,'
Guardian, 26 June 2006). And BBC online believed him "abducted" and
"kidnapped" ('Israel warns of "extreme action",' 28 June 2006)

It was a revealing choice of terminology. Soldiers who are seized by an
enemy are usually considered to have been captured; along with being
killed, it's an occupational hazard for a soldier. But Britain's liberal media
preferred to use words that misleadingly suggested Cpl Shalit was a victim,
an innocent whose status as a soldier was not relevant to his fate. The
Palestinians, as kidnappers and hostage-takers, were clearly not behaving
in a legitimate manner.

That this was a deviation from normal usage, at least when applied to
Palestinians, is suggested by the following report from the BBC in 2003,
when Israel seized Hamas political leader Sheikh Mohammed Taha: "Israeli
troops have captured a founder member of the Islamic militant group Hamas during an incursion into the Gaza Strip." This brief "incursion" included the deaths of eight Palestinians, including a pregnant woman and a child, according to the same report. ('Israel captures Hamas founder,' BBC online, 3 March 2003).

But one does not need to look back three years to spot the double standard
being applied by the British media. On the Thursday following Sunday's
Palestinian attack on Kerem Shalom, the Israeli army invaded Gaza and the
West Bank to grab dozens of Palestinian leaders, including cabinet ministers. Were they being kidnapped or taken hostage by the Israeli army?

This is what a breaking news report from the Guardian had to say: "Israeli
troops today arrested dozens of Hamas ministers and MPs as they stepped up attempts to free a soldier kidnapped by militants in Gaza at the weekend.
The Israeli army said 64 Hamas officials, including seven ministers and 20
other MPs, had been detained in a series of early morning arrests." (David
Fickling and agencies, 'Israel detains Hamas ministers,' 29 June 2006).

BBC World took the same view. In its late morning report, Lyse Doucet told
viewers that in response to the attack in which an Israeli soldier had been
"kidnapped", the Israeli army "have been detaining Palestinian cabinet
ministers". In the same broadcast, another reporter, Wyre Davies, referred
to "Thirty Hamas politicians, including eight ministers, detained in the West Bank", calling this an attempt by Israel at "keeping up the pressure". (BBC World news, 10am GMT, 29 June 2006)

"Arrested" and "detained"? What exactly was the crime committed by these
Palestinian politicians from the West Bank? Were they somehow accomplices to Cpl Shalit's "kidnap" by Palestinian militants in the separate territory of Gaza? And if so, was Israel intending to prove it in a court of law? In any case, what was the jurisdiction of the Israeli army in "arresting"
Palestinians in Palestinian-controlled territory?

None of those questions needed addressing because in truth none of the
media had any doubts about the answer. It was clear to all the reporters that the purpose of seizing the Palestinian politicians was to hold them as
bargaining chips for the return for Cpl Shalit.

In the Guardian, Conal Urquhart wrote: "Israeli forces today arrested more
than 60 Hamas politicians in the West Bank and bombed targets in the Gaza
Strip. The moves were designed to increase pressure on Palestinian militants to release an Israeli soldier held captive since Sunday." ('Israel rounds up Hamas politicians,' 3.45pm update, 29 June 2006)

The BBC's Lyse Doucet in Jerusalem referred to the "arrests" as "keeping up
the pressure on the Palestinians on all fronts", and Middle East editor
Jeremy Bowen argued that the detention of the Hamas MPs and ministers
"sends out a very strong message about who's boss around here. The message is: If Israel wants you, it can get you." (BBC World News, 6pm GMT, 29 June 2006)

Siding With The Strong

So why have the British media adopted such differing terminology for the
two sides, language in which the Palestinians are consistently portrayed as
criminals while the Israelis are seen as law-enforcers?

Interestingly, the language used by the British media mirrors that used by
the Israeli media. The words "retaliation", "escalation", "pressure",
"kidnap" and "hostage" are all drawn from the lexicon of the Israeli press
when talking about the Palestinians. The only Israeli term avoided in
British coverage is the label "terrorists" for the Palestinian militants
who attacked the army post near Gaza on 25 June.

In other words, the British media have adopted the same terminology as
Israeli media organisations, even though the latter proudly declare their
role as cheerleading for their army against the Palestinian enemy.

The replication by British reporters of Israeli language in covering the
conflict is mostly unconscious. It happens because of several factors in
the way foreign correspondents operate in conflict zones, factors that almost always favour the stronger side over the weaker, independently of (and often in opposition to) other important contexts, such as international law and common sense.

The causes of this bias can be divided into four pressures on foreign
correspondents: identification with, and assimilation into, the stronger
side's culture; over-reliance on the stronger side's sources of
information; peer pressure and competition; and, most importantly, the pressure to satisfy the expectations of editors back home in the media organisation.

The first pressure derives from the fact that British correspondents, as
well as the news agencies they frequently rely on, are almost exclusively
based in Israeli locations, such as West Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, where they
share the daily rituals of the host population. Correspondents have Israeli
neighbours, not Palestinian ones; they drink and eat in Israeli, not
Palestinian, bars and restaurants; they watch Israeli, not Palestinian, TV;
and they fear Palestinian suicide attacks, not Israeli army "incursions".

Another aspect of this assimilation - this one unmentionable in newsrooms -
is the long-standing tendency, though admittedly one now finally waning, by
British media organisations to prefer Jewish reporters for the "Jerusalem
beat". The media justify this to themselves on several grounds: often a
senior Jewish reporter on the staff wants to be based in Jerusalem, in some
cases as a prelude to receiving Israeli citizenship; he or she may already
speak some Hebrew; and, as a Jew living in a self-declared Jewish state, he
or she is likely to find it easier to gain access to officials.

The obvious danger that Jewish reporters who already feel an affinity with
Israel before their posting may quickly start to identify with Israel and
its goals is not considered an acceptable line of inquiry. Anyone raising
it is certain to be dismissed as an anti-Semite.

The second pressure involves the wide range of sources of information
foreign correspondents come to rely on in their daily reporting, from the
Israeli media to the Israeli army and government press offices. Most of the
big Israeli newspapers now have daily editions in English that arrive at
reporters' doors before breakfast and update all day on the internet. The
Palestinians do not have the resources to produce competing information.
Israeli officials, again unlike their Palestinian counterparts, are usually
fluent in English and ready with a statement on any subject.

This asymmetry between Israeli and Palestinian sources of information is
compounded by the fact that foreign correspondents usually consider Israeli
spokespeople to be more "useful". It is, after all, Israeli decision-makers
who are shaping and determining the course of events. The army's
spokesperson can speak with authority about the timing of the next Gaza
invasion, and the government press office knows by heart the themes of the
prime minister's latest unilateral plans.

Palestinian spokespeople, by contrast, are far less effective: they usually
know nothing more about Israeli decisions than what they have read in the
Israeli papers; they are rarely at the scene of Israeli military
"retaliations", and are often unreliable in the ensuing confusion; and
internal political disputes, and a lack of clear hierarchies, often leave
spokespeople unsure of what the official Palestinian line is.

Given these differences, the Israeli "version" is usually the first one to
hit the headlines, both in the Israeli media and on the international TV
channels. Which brings us to the third pressure.

News is not an independent category of information journalists search for;
it is the information that journalists collectively decide is worth seeking
out. So correspondents look to each other to determine what is the "big
story". This is why reporters tend to hunt in packs.

The problem for British journalists is that they are playing second fiddle
to the largest contingent of English-language correspondents: those from
America. What makes the headlines in the US papers is the main story, and
as a result British journalists tend to follow the same leads, trying to beat
the American majors to the best lines of inquiry.

The effect is not hard to predict: British coverage largely mirrors
American coverage. And given the close identification of US politicians, business and media with Israel, American coverage is skewed very keenly towards a pro-Israel agenda. That has direct repercussions for British reporting. (It does, however, allow for occasional innovation in the British media too: for example, whereas American reporters were concerned to promote the largely discredited account by the Israeli army of how seven members of a Palestinian family were killed during artillery bombardment of a beach in Gaza on 9 June, their British colleagues had a freer hand to investigate the same events.)

Closely related to this sympathy of coverage between the British and
American media is the fourth pressure. No reporter who cares about his or
her career is entirely immune from the cumulative pressure of expectations
from the news desk in London. The editors back home read the American
dailies closely; they imbibe as authoritative the views of the major
American columnists, like Thomas Friedman, who promote Israel's and
Washington's agenda while sitting thousands of miles away from the events
they analyse; and they watch the wire services, which are equally slanted
towards the American and Israeli interpretation of events.

The reporter who rings the news desk each day to offer the best "pitch"
quickly learns which angles and subjects "fly" and which don't. "Professional" journalists of the type that get high-profile jobs, like
Jerusalem correspondent, have learnt long ago the predilections of the desk
editors. If our correspondent really believes in a story, he or she will
fight the desk vigorously to have it included. But there are only so many
battles correspondents who value their jobs are prepared to engage in.

Collective Punishment

Within this model for understanding the work of British correspondents, we
can explain the confused sense of events that informs the recent reporting
of the Independent's Donald MacIntyre.

He points out an obvious fact that seems to have eluded many of his
colleagues: Israel's reinvasion of Gaza, its bombing of the only
electricity station, and disruption to the water supply, its bombing of the main bridges linking north and south Gaza, and its terrifying sonic bombs over Gaza City are all forms of collective punishment of the civilian Palestinian population that are illegal under international law.

Derar Abu Sisi, who runs the power station in Gaza, tells MacIntyre it will
take a "minimum of three to six months" to restore electricity supplies.
('Israeli missiles pound Gaza into a new Dark Age in "collective punishment", 29 June 2006). The same piece includes a warning that the
petrol needed to run generators will soon run out, shutting off the power
to hospitals and other vital services.

This is more than the Guardian's coverage managed on the same day. Conal Urquhart writes simply: "Israel reoccupied areas of southern Gaza yesterday and bombed bridges and an electricity plant to force Palestinian militants to free the abducted soldier." Blithely, Urquhart continues: "In Gaza there was an uneasy calm as Israeli aircraft and forces operated without harming anyone. Missiles were fired at buildings, roads and open fields, but ground forces made no attempt to enter built-up areas." ('Israel rounds up Hamas politicians,' 11.45am, 29 June 2006)

In MacIntyre's article, despite his acknowledgment of Israel's "collective
punishment" of Gaza (note even this statement of the obvious needs
quotation marks in the Independent's piece to remove any suggestion that it can be attributed directly to the paper), he also refers to a Hamas call for a prisoner swap to end the stand-off as an "escalation" of the "crisis", and
he describes the seizure of a Hamas politician by Israel as an "arrest" and
a "retaliation".

In a similarly indulgent tone, the Guardian's Ewen MacAskill calls Israel's
re-invasion of Gaza "an understandable over-reaction": "Israel has good
cause for taking tough action against the Palestinians in Gaza" -
presumably because of their "escalation" by firing Qassam rockets. MacAskill does, however, pause to criticise the invasion, pointing out that "Israel has to allow the Palestinians a degree of sovereignty." ('An understandable over-reaction,' Comment is Free, www.guardian.co.uk, 28 June 2006)

Not full sovereignty, note, just a degree of it. In MacAskill's view,
invasions are out, but by implication "targeted assassinations", air
strikes and artillery fire, all of which have claimed dozens of Palestinian
civilian lives over the past weeks, are allowed as they only partially violate
Palestinian sovereignty.

But MacAskill finds a small sliver of hope for the future from what has
come to be known as the "Prisoners' Document", an agreement between the various Palestinian factions that implicitly limits Palestinian territorial
ambitions to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. "The ambiguous
document agreed between Hamas and Fatah yesterday does not recognize Israel's right to exist but it is a step in the right direction," writes MacAskill. (ibid)

A step in which direction? Answer: Israel's direction. Israel has been
demanding three concessions from the Palestinians before it says it will
negotiate with them: a recognition of Israel's right to exist; a renunciation of violence; and a decision to abide by previous agreements.

A Guardian editorial shares MacAskill's assessment: "Implicit recognition
[of Israel] coupled with an end to violence [by the Palestinians] would be
a solid basis on which to proceed." ('Storm over Gaza,' 29 June 2006)

If the Palestinians are being faulted for their half-hearted commitment to
these three yardsticks by which progress can be judged, how does Israel's
own commitment compare?

First, whereas the long-dominant Palestinian faction Fatah recognised
Israel nearly 20 years ago, and Hamas appears ready to agree a similar
recognition, Israel has made no comparable concession. It has never recognised the Palestinians right to exist as a people or as a state, from Golda Meir's infamous dictum to Ehud Olmert's plans for stealing yet more Palestinian land in the West Bank to create a series of Palestinian ghettos there.

Second, whereas the Palestinians have a right under international law to
use
violence to liberate themselves from Israel's continuing occupation, the
various factions are now agreeing in the Prisoners' Document to limit that
right to actions within the occupied territories. Israel, meanwhile, is
employing violence on a daily basis against the general population of Gaza,
harming civilians and militants alike, even though under international law
it has a responsibility to look after the occupied population no different
from its duties towards its own citizens.

Third, whereas the Palestinians have been keen since the signing of the
Oslo accords to have their agreements with Israel honoured -- most assume that they are their only hope of winning statehood -- Israel has flagrantly and consistently ignored its commitments. During Oslo it missed all its deadlines for withdrawing from Palestinian territory, and during the Oslo and current Road Map peace negotiations it has continued to build and
extend its illegal settlements on Palestinian land.

In other words, Israel has not recognised the Palestinians, it has refused
to renounce its illegitimate use of violence against the population it occupies, and it has abrogated its recent international agreements.

Doubtless, however, we will have to wait some time for a Guardian editorial
prepared to demand of Israel an "implicit recognition [of the Palestinians]
coupled with an end to violence as a solid basis on which to proceed."

Jonathan Cook is a former journalist with the Observer and Guardian newspapers, now based in Nazareth, Israel. He has also written for the Times, the International Herald Tribune, Le Monde diplomatique, and Aljazeera.net. His book "Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State" was recently published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net

Source: http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=12717

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
Re: The subtle media mind control using words - Israeli soldiers: Arrested, Detained Or Kidnapped? [Re: MAIA]
    #5905247 - 07/27/06 02:54 PM (13 years, 11 months ago)

Great article. Unfortunately it is nothing but Anti-Semitism.  :rolleyes:


--------------------
Capliberty:

"I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol
Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "

:rofl:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibletak
geo's henchman
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/21/00
Posts: 3,763
Loc: nowhereland
Re: The subtle media mind control using words - Israeli soldiers: Arrested, Detained Or Kidnapped? [Re: Hank, FTW]
    #5905909 - 07/27/06 06:15 PM (13 years, 11 months ago)



--------------------
The DJ's took pills to stay awake and play for seven days.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
Re: The subtle media mind control using words - Israeli soldiers: Arrested, Detained Or Kidnapped? [Re: tak]
    #5908471 - 07/28/06 12:00 PM (13 years, 11 months ago)

She has 2 loaves of bread, the other guy has garbage bags full. I don't care about the colour of their skin, he does look like he was looting.

That said, it was a bad storm, and who knows how long they would be on their own, so he is smarter to stock up.

Anyway, is nobody going to read this article?


--------------------
Capliberty:

"I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol
Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "

:rofl:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Israeli soldiers refuse to serve in occupied territories Cornholio 665 1 06/18/03 05:30 AM
by Xlea321
* Israeli soldiers exonerated in death of peace activist
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Zahid 4,925 84 05/02/06 05:34 PM
by zappaisgod
* Techniques in Mind Control........... Bullfrog1 743 6 10/14/02 12:31 PM
by Phluck
* index of the Israeli baby killers victims PGF 1,045 6 03/15/02 08:49 PM
by PGF
* I figured out the Israeli position on Palestine
( 1 2 3 all )
LaCasta 2,490 43 04/03/20 04:33 PM
by Brian Jones
* Israeli Cabinet votes to Expel Arafat in Theory
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
SquattingMarmot 4,772 92 09/17/03 03:07 PM
by shakta
* A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 1,991 24 05/09/04 07:29 PM
by Phred
* Israeli terrorism
( 1 2 all )
Zahid 1,889 20 10/18/02 10:04 PM
by jUxTaPoSe

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,071 topic views. 3 members, 2 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.08 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 16 queries.