 |
MideastWeb Middle East Web Log |
| log | archives | middle east | maps | history | documents | countries | books | encyclopedia | culture | dialogue | links | timeline | donations |
|
Search: |
|
Why Israelis and Americans are angry09/06/2009 Almost everyone says that Israelis are angry with the United States and President Obama, and Americans are angry at Israel. If "everyone says it," it must be true. Israelis are also angry at American Jews, supposedly, and American Jews are angry at Israel. It's supposedly all about the US demand for a freeze on building in West bank settlements, an issue that revealed a gap of understanding and trust between the Israeli government and the American administration, and between Israelis and (some) American Jews. The poll data on Israel seem to be unambiguous. According to one survey, only 12% of Jewish Israelis believe President Obama's policies favor Israel. According to another survey, only 4% of Jewish Israelis believe President Obama's policies favor Israel. At least one person expressed the bizarre opinion that this is due to Israeli racism. Since 31% of Jewish Israelis believed Obama is pro-Israel last May, and larger percentages approved of his election, this is unlikely, unless most Israelis had not noticed Obama's skin pigmentation at the time. US opinion is not as unequivocal. The National Jewish Democratic Committee and the J Street lobby group insist that they represent a majority of Jews who back President Obama. Polls tell a different story. One poll taken in August found that while 92% of American Jewish Democrats support President Obama's policies in general, 52% of them do not agree that Arabs will leave in peace with Israel if the Palestinians are given a state, and the same percentage support continued building in the settlements to allow for natural growth. A recent poll of all American voters found that 53% oppose and 43% support the Palestinian position that negotiations should not be resumed until there is a total settlement freeze. The same poll also found that 72% of American voters agreed that Israel should be allowed to "accommodate natural growth" in the settlements, and that there has been a significant increase in support for Israel. Thomas Friedman offered some "marriage counseling" on this issue last month. Friedman is certainly right that Israelis who characterized Jewish officials in the American administration as "self-hating" because they favored Obama's policies were out of line. There is no reason to expect that American officials of any religious or ethnic origin will do anything other than fulfill the duties of their office to the best of their abilities and be loyal to their boss and the American government. On the other hand, this should also have been remembered by those who early insisted that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was a neo-con Likud Zionist and an agent for Israel. But Friedman's "counseling" probably didn't get a very favorable reception in Israel, since it was along the lines of, "We are right and you are wrong and that's the end of it." Freedman wrote, "Bottom line: Israelis need to understand this is not the Bush administration anymore..." It seems Israeli Jews do understand that. However, that doesn't mean they have to like it. Friedman, who was personally involved in the Saudi peace initiative, may not be entirely objective. Without deciding who is right and who is wrong, I would like to try to explain the positions of each side, each of which seem to be ignoring salient facts in favor of others. A substantial percentage of Israeli Jews believe that Obama is neutral between Israelis and Palestinians, which is not such a terrible "accusation" after all. There are certainly aspects of American policy that cannot be said to favor Israel, and it is the right of Israeli Jews to evaluate American policy as they see fit, without being accused of racism. That said, Israelis seem to have a blind spot about the settlements, and the damage they are doing to Israel's international standing. That is even more true in Europe than in the United States. There is no doubt that the vast majority of world opinion insists that Israel must eventually dismantle the settlements and that the refusal of Israel to consider a real settlement freeze has caused anger throughout the world and isolated Israel. Even relatively hawkish Israelis realize that the dream of Greater Israel is doomed and that it will be necessary to withdraw from most, if not all of the West Bank and dismantle the settlements that are being built there. On the other hand, the Obama administration emphasis on the settlement freeze over and above all other issues has contributed to Israeli isolation. This is a major point that has fueled the anger of Israelis. From the official point of view of the American administration and liberal American Jewish groups like J-Street, the case is cut and dried. The Israelis stop building settlements, a peace treaty is concluded, Israel gives up some land, all the Arab states make peace with israel, and everyone lives happily ever after. The Palestinians undertook to curb incitement and to end armed terrorist bands and they have done so. Now it is Israel's turn to comply with the first phase of the roadmap by freezing settlement construction and removing illegal outposts. From the Israeli Jewish point view, that vision is mistaken. While Hamas is in power in Gaza, there can be no peace treaty. Neither the Obama administration nor the government of Mahmoud Abbas offers a practical way to eliminate Hamas, and there seems to be no chance of forming a united government in which Hamas agrees to reasonable peace terms. If there should be such a united government, it is more than likely that Hamas would take it over, and the Gaza situation would spread to the West Bank. Worse, there doesn't seem to be much hope for reasonable peace terms from the "moderate" government of Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas has insisted over and over on "Right of Return" for Palestinian refugees, and Israeli evacuation of all of "Arab" East Jerusalem, including the Jewish quarter of the Old City, the wailing wall and the Hebrew University campus on Mt. Scopus. Abbas and Arab countries have also explicitly refused to recognize Israel as the national home of the Jewish people, because that would void the possibility that descendants of Palestinian refugees could enter the country and form a majority, ending Jewish self-determination. His positions are backed by the Arab states and were reaffirmed in the recent Fatah foreign policy platform. Taysir Tamimi, the Palestinian Authority appointed Chief Justice of Jerusalem, insists that there is no evidence that Jews ever lived in Jerusalem or that there ever was a temple. To most Jewish Israelis, the wonderful "peace deal" proposition looks like "If you give up your capital city and your right to self determination, we will make 'peace' with you." Giving up national self-determination and your capital city are terms appropriate for unconditional surrender, not peace. As for Palestinian compliance with Phase 1 of the Road map, the rockets and mortars launched regularly from Gaza are proof for Israelis that the Palestinians have not disarmed terrorist groups. Statements like that of Sheikh Tamimi, as well as Palestinian Authority sponsored programs that teach Palestinian children that Haifa is the largest port in Palestine, make it clear that the Palestinian Authority has not ended incitement. From the Israeli point of view, with no peace in sight, what is the point of a settlement freeze? The settlement freeze would not be a temporary one until peace is rapidly concluded. It would be a semi-permanent blight on all Jewish communities, including those that by "consensus" will remain Israeli territory, such as Gush Etzion. as negotiations dragged out indefinitely. In Israeli eyes, the inability of the Obama administration to obtain any concessions from the Palestinians or the Arabs regarding right of return, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, an end to incitement or the Jerusalem issue, as well as the American unwillingness to apply the same sort of heavy handed public pressure on the Palestinians that they applied to Israel, constituted a one-sided and unfair policy that isolated Israel in order to obtain a pointless result. Moreover, the American government was apparently violating a verbal understanding reached previously with the Bush administration, concerning natural growth in settlements. What hides behind the term "settlements?" For the Americans, "settlements" do not include only the communities in the West Bank that house about 250,000 people, They also include all of the Jewish neighborhoods east of the 1949 armistice border ("green line") in East Jerusalem. Americans and Palestinians insisted that all building must end there as well. Jerusalem had a special status, as it was to have been internationalized according to UN resolutions. The internationalization, which was to have included a wide area encompassing Bethlehem, was never implemented. Instead, the Jordanians annexed Jerusalem without international recognition in 1949 and the Israelis did the same following the Six Day War. There is a consensus of Jewish Israelis that at least a part of East Jerusalem must remain under Israeli sovereignty. Israeli Jews were forced by the Americans to choose between a settlement freeze and Jewish rights in Jerusalem. Of course, they chose the latter. A large percentage of Israelis understand that the settlements are doomed. Israeli anger is not mostly about settlements themselves. The American government could have accomplished a lot more without evoking Israeli anger if they had handled the issue less clumsily. Perhaps the demonstration of a "tough line" against Israel is America's way of winning back Arab and Palestinian support and trust. However, the Israeli right has managed to capitalize on the anger of the Israeli public. Playing on the various issues for all they are worth and then some, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu seems to have obtained American agreement to a compromise settlement freeze that excludes Jerusalem. However, even before this agreement was in place, the Israeli government violated it by announcing approval of 500 housing units in addition to the 2,500 being built, evoking a pointed public scolding from the Americans. Evidently, Netanyahu felt he needed the "in your face" announcement to get support for the freeze from his right wing coalition. He is counting on continued Israeli anger to support the government against the Americans. Unfortunately, he may be right. When people are angry, they don't always think rationally, and they may do destructive things. Israelis should not forget that the United States still holds all the aces.
Ami Isseroff
Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000775.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission. |
|
If you like this post - click to Reddit! 
add to del.icio.us
Add to digg - digg it
|
Replies: 12 comments Another rambling analysis from Ami. The problem is that it is a left wing analysis. Analyses from right of left are always lopsided. Issues need to be analyse in terms of right and wrong. Settlements must be maintained where they aid security or where there are traditional Jewish ties, like in Hebron and Gush Etzion. Other settlements can be incorprated into a future Palestine; if Arabs can live in Israel, Jews can live in a Palestine. If the Arabs want Jewish settlement to stop, they can surrender and form a state. They cannot demand that the Jews who beat them repeatedly surrender to them. And the USA does not hold all the aces. Keeping Iran's quest for atom bombs in mind, no nuclear nation is anyone's vassal. Posted by Paul Winter @ 09/07/2009 02:23 PM CST Why is it that when 100 Jewish families live somewhere - anywhere - it is called a "settlement" but when 100 Arab families live somewhere it is just called a "village"? Jewish villages are as legitimate as Arab villages. Remember that many of the "settlements" are built on the sites of old Jewish towns and villages that were ethnically cleansed by marauding Arabs, mostly in the 20th Century, not so long ago. If the peaceniks think that dismantling Jewish villages and creating another Judenrein Arab state makes the world a better place, will they say the same about dismantling Arab villages in Israel, as well? Is Obama trying to advance "peace" or has he adopted an Islamic worldview that will lead to anything but peace? Posted by Jake in Jerusalem @ 09/07/2009 02:49 PM CST
A few comments: The point of it? Well... how about honoring previous commitments? Or perhaps international law? Or keeping one's word? "The settlement freeze would not be a temporary one until peace is rapidly concluded. It would be a semi-permanent blight on all Jewish communities, including those that by "consensus" will remain Israeli territory, such as Gush Etzion. as negotiations dragged out indefinitely." I like your term "semi-permanent blight". Try to imagine what kind of blight a 40 year-long military occupation would impose on Israel and the settlers. That is the situation Palestinians have endured. It is a remarkable inequality that you are apparently blind to. My opinion is the surest way to drag out negotiations indefinitely is for one side to be relatively comfortable (even desirous of) the status quo. For a final peace agreement to be realized, the stipulations of the Road Map (combined with the status quo) must be sufficiently painful to compel both sides to make real concessions. Israel is not under the same pressure because it has been allowed to continue settlement activity unabated. There must be PAINFUL consequences for this, otherwise Israel will never make a serious peace offer.
As to replies: Right and wrong cannot be determined relative to which side of the conflict one happens to be on. Both sides want land rights and security. The question is whether maintaining illegal settlements guarantees Israel's security better than having normalized relations with all Arab states that signed the Saudi Peace Proposal. I would suggest Israel is trapped in a cage made primarily of it's own greed. If I may use a metaphor without offending... it is much like a monkey trap. The monkey sees a bananna inside a cage with bars sufficiently narrow so that it's fist cannot pass through. It reaches inside to grasp the bananna, but it cannot remove it's fist with the bananna in it. Because it is unable (or unwilling) to release the bananna, the monkey traps itself. Such is the case with the illegal settlements Israel has created inside the occupied West Bank.
(Quote) This is why there is a law against what Israel is doing with settlements. Otherwise more powerful nations could do the same to their less powerful neighbors. Hitler did it to Poland and France. Clearly might does not make right. In addition, while it is politically expedient for Israel to blame Palestinians, one cannot ligitimately blame Palestinians alone for the wars of 1949 and 1967. Palestinians could not control the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, et all, which Israel was at war with. Therefore they cannot be held responsible.
(Quote) While it is true that "no nuclear nation is anyone's vassal" it is also true that nuclear capacity does not give one the right to do as they please. Nukes are a rather poor tactical choice when one's enemy is at arm's length. Finally, consider the fact that nuclear capacity could not prevent Russia from losing their war in Afghanistan. It will not help America win the current war in Afghanistan either. Looking further back, Nukes could not prevent America from losing the conflict in Vietnam. I have a crazy liberal dream about peace in the Mideast. It seems much more preferable to the current reality that exists. Here is a general description of my dream in 12 steps. (1) Hamas and FATAH reconcile and form a unitary government. This interim government honors all previous PA agreements and thus implicitly recognizes Israel. Israel accepts the interim PA government as a ligitimate negotiating partner in the peace process. (2) Secret diplomatic meetings between Israel and the PA produce an agreement that: (A) Determines all West Bank land areas beyond the Green Line shall become part of a provisional Palestinian state. (B) Defines land areas that Israel will subsequently purchase from the provisional state, any lands to be traded, and the purchase price to be paid. Those areas to be aquired by Israel will eventually be annexed. In East Jerusalem, special consideration is directed to appropriate allotment of lands that have religious significance for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. These determinations for East Jerusalem would be similar to the Clinton Bridging proposals. Special attention is also directed to making the border as straight and short as possible. In other words, in areas outside East Jerusalem, the border path shall not zig-zag back and forth nor cut deeply into the West Bank to benifit Israeli interests. (C) The process defines the shape and character of a future Palestinian state. In addition it resolves outstanding issues like refugees and the right of return in a matter satisfactory to both the UN, the PA, and Israel. (D) Produces an agreement to share and manage West Bank water resources by binding arbitration mediated and monitored by the UN. These agreements are guaranteed by diplomatic letters. (3) Concurrent secret meetings between Israel and Syria produce an agreement that (A) Defines land areas Israel will purchase from Syria (potentially part of the Golan Heights), any lands to be traded, and the purchase price to be paid. All other occupied territory would be returned. (B) Produces an agreement to share and manage Golan water resources by binding arbitration mediated and monitored by the UN. These agreements are guaranteed by diplomatic letters. (4) Concurrent secret meetings between Israel and Lebanon produce an agreement that (A) Defines land areas that Israel will purchase from Lebanon, any lands to be traded, and the purchase price to be paid. All other occupied territory would be returned. (B) Produces an agreement to share and manage border-region water resources by binding arbitration mediated and monitored by the UN. These agreements are guaranteed by diplomatic letters.
(5) Israel withdraws to the Green Line. This sequence of events takes advantage of the determination that settlements are illegal under international law (thus the Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line). By withdrawing, Israel also meets a central demand of the Saudi Peace Proposal. In addition, withdrawal eliminates any legal basis for arguing that Israeli settlements pre-judged or influenced the outcome of future negotiations. Yet the process still provides Israel an opportunity and a legal method to purchase and annex some of the land it wishes to retain (lands determined and agreed during secret diplomatic negotiations made in advance). At every incremental step, it attempts to offer motivational rewards and concessions to each side. It allows each side to claim many of their demands were met. This provides necessary political cover to politicians involved. The one thing that remains is to develop a symbiotic trade relationship between Israel and it's neighbor states. The objective is for each to be economically dependent on all others in the region. Such dependence reduces the potential for future agression. Cheers. Posted by Kiev500 @ 09/08/2009 07:57 AM CST Kiev500: In part I echo your comments but I beluieve there is a glaring ommission. Zionism and the state of Israel have been a wonderful focus for the Arab states away from the internal issues that face them. hatred of Jews has been a fantastic diversion. If peace breaks out and the Israelis pull back to the Green Line, and there is a Palestinian state; just who or what will these communities hate instead? As much I would like there to be be peace, I frankly do not believe there is any will for it. They will either declare that the waragainst Israel continues or they will tear themselves apart in revolution. In the end I believe that the Middle East will only put aside war and find war distateful when it passes through the same experiences first hand as Europe did in WW1 & WW2. When the scourge of war touches every home and person and millions are consigned to dust shall the survivors no longer believe in war. Until that time they will dress their sons up as warriors and tell them stories of glorious heroism. Posted by Rod Davies @ 09/14/2009 10:26 PM CST
Rod Davies: To clarify: My suggested sequence of events would have Israel initially withdraw to the Green Line, although I believe it would subsequently be able to legally purchase and annex some of the land it wishes to keep by implementing a "secret" diplomatic agreement reached in advance. Withdrawal gives the Arab States something to support, which makes the purchase by Israel of parts of that land from the provisional Palestinian state more palatable. My biggest concerns are that (1) significant religious sites inside East Jerusalem remain under appropriate jurisdiction and (2) the final border in all other areas outside East Jerusalem should be as short and straight as possible.
(Quote) Surely you don't suggest that saving Arab states from supposed self destruction should be a ligitimate excuse for Israel maintaining its occupation of the West Bank and supporting the settlements? I think the issue should be considered as follows: If a person has only one thing in his hand, he focuses on it intently. For Palestinians, this one issue would be the occupation of the West Bank by Zionist forces. But give that individual something desirable to hold in his second hand, and he may switch his attention to it, forgetting the thing in his first hand. Therefore, if Palestinians had a state to be proud of, they could focus on making it a paradise for their children. Further, if Palestinians had a state they were proud of, the entire basis for promoting the conflict would be undermined in other Arab states.
(Quote) Israel does this as well. In fact, I think every Israeli citizen except a small number of the ultra-orthodox is compelled to military training and service.
(Quote) There is some truth to this statement. I would suggest it is actually a hatred of Zionism, which most Arabs believe (rightly or wrongly) lies at the root of the current conflict. However, it is equally true that securing "The Promised Land" for the Jewish People has been for Israelis a fantastic diversion away from the internal issues that face them. For instance, it precludes any efforts to honor previous agreements (Road Map), pursue normalized relations with neighbor states, or improve relations with the UN. Why are these things internal? -Because Israel has to decide to do them. Resolution of these important issues has to be dealt with internally.
(Quote) Remember, it takes two or more opponents to create a war. Arab states may form one opponent, but Israel has to be the other. Israel once had a Prime Minister who said in reference to the choice between war and peace "enough of blood and tears". This great leader was assassinated by an Israeli zionist. His assassin is honored by many ultra-nationalist and fanatical religious groups in Israel. These groups continue to advance their agenda for maintaining permanent occupation of the West Bank. This effectively advances a permanent state of war. I would suggest both sides have a long way to go in setting a national agenda for promoting long-term peace. Clearly support for war exists on both sides. However... in Israel, if the issue of war to protect and maintain the settlements were put to national referendum, it would have been resolved years ago. For that matter, if the office of the President of Israel were endowed with real power instead of just ceremonial status, the issue would be resolved as well. That is the problem with the Knesset. It allows small fringe groups to wield far more political power in parliment than their numbers warrant. Cheers. Posted by Kiev500 @ 09/15/2009 07:27 AM CST
Quote Until that time they will dress their sons up as warriors and tell them stories of glorious heroism." i'm certain both world wars reached the near east. i think my pop fought in el alamein. famous battle that. was not the suez canal a key position in the great war? anyway, i guess you do have a good point, because the near east was a paradise before then. seriously, why bother? i found myself compelled by many of these arguements, intelligently directed, and well within the bounds of civility. which as you may read on other sites/forums, is not easy to attain. i was severly jerked out of my moment of appreciation by the above comments. i find them very disturbing indeed. Posted by Joshua @ 09/21/2009 09:06 PM CST For someone like me, watching from the sidelines, it seems impossible that there ever will be a peace accord between Israel and Palestine. The level of distrust on both sides overshadows any genuine desire for peace. Endless exchange of pain-for-pain by both sides, to test each other pain bearing capacity, is not a step towards solution. People compromise when there is something to loose, fight when there is everything to loose, but they fight non-stop when they have NOTHING to loose. This is specially true with generations of Palestinians spending lifetime in refugee camps, disheartened by a non existent future. Israel is probably still haunted by the specter of Arab world uniting to push them into the Red Sea. We need to ask ourselves, how real, in the current context,both the apprehensions are! Fighting stop usually when an end goal is reached. In this case conflict has not found one and diplomacy will hardly be very effective in clearing a path to one. This state of conflict will probably cease, only when both sides loose the will, or the moral strength, or energy to fight. It is the people who bear the brunt ultimately, not politicians or interest groups. Blaming a third party (read Obama) for biases (for or against any side) is a ludicrous attempt in shifting responsibility. Posted by shivraj @ 09/22/2009 11:52 AM CST Palistinians that still live in the Refugee camps I believe are not intitled to the "Natural Growth" that the Israelis think is their inherent right to build on Palestinian land. How about letting the Natural Growth of the Palestinians in the Refugee camps build on Israeli land. (You know, "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." Or even the "Golden Rule", those are both in the Old Testament.) Netanyahu and the Right want there cake and eat it too. I agree with the above poster, Obama is not the problem. Also I think the U.S. and Europe should put more pressure on Netanyahu and his Govt. I believe he likes the Status Quo. Keep the Palestinians divided and economicaly depressed. As long as the refugee camps are maintained the Palestinians will never lose there moral strength or energy to fight and Hamas will continue to win converts. Personally I find the Refugee Camps unbelievable. Unbelievable in the fact that they have been around since 1948. I know most Americans don't know this fact or the reasons why they exist. I like Mideast Web and I think it usually gives the impression that it is offering both sides of the argument, in a construtive manner. But I think that these banner advertisements that are on every page of Mideast Web are truly propaganda and should not have a place here. The Gaza, Hamas Conflict Facts. Click Here. One sided to say the least. Everyone that already visits this site, know Hams is no saint. Posted by Malron @ 09/22/2009 11:48 PM CST If the true Israel ever come together as one this Israel you speak of and this America will no longer be. To all who read this do you know who the true Israel is or do you believe it is those who call themselves Jews but are not? True Israel has spoken YHVH Posted by YHVH @ 11/05/2009 03:54 PM CST As an american i apologize for Obama's stupid suggestions regarding Israel.As a human being, and recognizing the love God has for His people, i suggest arabs keep a distance from the Chosen People. Posted by connie @ 12/01/2009 05:34 AM CST I love all people, as God wants us to do. Israel is just wrong. Anger is wrong. Why be angry unless you want to stay hard hearted. The land they occupy was not theirs to begin with. All land belongs to God. They need to stop claiming what is not theirs, but a place that God wanted them to enjoy- only. God allowed Israel to live in the land of milk and honey not take over it and push others out of it. Peaceful cohabitation is the key. Israel needs take the first steps to peace as God intended them to do. They need to be the light that shines above all others to set an example of meekness and love and submission to God because they know they He will protect them no matter who rules the government. What I see now are children holding on desperately to an illusion of ownership and selfishness. Not the leaders mentioned in the Torah, I see a hateful people not the light of the world. Jerusalem is not Israeli but all nations and people. This is another example of the unfaithful people who saw signs and wonders of God once they left Egypt, but lost faith quickly. Where is your faith Israel? Do not push people away from their home, you did not like it. You are only doing what other misguided unbelievers have done for years. Share and live in unity with all peoples. This is how it should be. Posted by Cassie @ 12/20/2009 10:45 AM CST I believe the 12 tribes of Israel land should remain as it was placed within the tribes given to them. As in Moses day when the borders were drawn out by the Almighty they must remain as so. Not taken from and not added to. We are mere man all of us. We cannot chose these borders as God has already chosen them. Less we send the Alimghty yet another message that we are not adhereing to His rule. As for the Land that was given out from border to border other then the 12 tribes of Israel they must to remain the same unless otherwise spoken differently by the only one that has the right to do so and that is NOT man! No matter how great the International Community thinks they are nothing is greater then the Almighty that has chosen these lands and divided them up as such. NOT to be taken from or to be ADDED to. Israel/Palestines know these borders and should adhere to the words of GOD alone. Not to International Countries that have no right in stating where those borders ought to be. Those borders can be found in the Bible and should be left as is. Posted by Jaylein @ 01/04/2010 02:40 AM CST Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned.
|
[Previous entry: "The vicissitudes of the Israeli-Palestinian-American Peace Process"] Main Index [Next entry: "The summit of the absurd: Middle East process without peace"]
ALL PREVIOUS MidEastWeb Middle East LOG ENTRIES
Thank you for visiting MidEastWeb - Middle East.
If you like what you see here, tell others about the MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log - www.mideastweb.org/log/.
Copyright
Editors' contributions are copyright by the authors and MidEastWeb for Coexistence RA.
Please link to main article pages and tell your friends about MidEastWeb. Do not copy MidEastWeb materials to your Web Site. That is a violation of our copyright. Click for copyright policy.
MidEastWeb and the editors are not responsible for content of visitors' comments.
Please report any comments that are offensive or racist.
Editors can log in by clicking here
|
|
RSS feed
Add to Amphetadesk