Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: The Persecution of the Palestinians

Universal Peach





Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 08:54 AM
Interesting point of view from Pat Buchanan. Have to agree it does come across as "hypocritical" to encourage democracy, and free elections in the Arab world, and then punished the people for not electing the guys that we wanted. Certainly this is the case when the Palestinians elected members of the Hamas. Of course, I also believe to much of American policy in the Middle East is based on what Israel wants, instead of what's fair for all the people over there. Truth is, it's in America's best interest to be more "even-handed" in the region, even if it sometimes it makes Israel unhappy. People also need to remember that for almost 2000 years the area that is now Israel was known as Palestine. Explains a lot.

June 5, 2006 Issue
Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative

The Persecution of the Palestinians

by Patrick J. Buchanan


“Why do they hate us?” So stunned Americans asked, after 9/11, when we learned that across the Arab world, many were saying, “The Americans had it coming.”

For a textbook example of why we are hated, consider Gaza and the West Bank. There, a brutal Israeli/U.S.-led cutoff in aid has been imposed on the Palestinians for voting the wrong way in a free election.

Immediately after Hamas’s victory, Israel halted the $55 million a month the Palestinian Authority received as its share of tax and customs revenue. Israel demanded Europe and the U.S. also end all aid to the PA until Hamas renounces terror, recognizes Israel, and disarms.

President Bush, though he was conducting a worldwide crusade for democracy and had urged that the Palestinian elections be held and Hamas participate, obediently complied. For months now, U.S. and European aid to the PA, half its budget, has been halted.

The early returns are in. “Surgeons at Gaza’s biggest hospital,” says the Financial Times, “have suspended non-essential surgery for lack of sutures, laboratory kits and anesthetics.” Environmental protection agency workers have no money for petrol to monitor sewage and industrial waste entering the water supply. Some 150,000 civil servants, 60,000 of them armed security personnel, have gone unpaid for months.

Supermarkets have to extend credit to customers who have no money for food. The Washington Post relates an incident that gives a flavor of what is happening.

“In Gaza’s gold market Monday, Nahed al-Zayim stared at the wedding ring her husband, a Palestinian police officer, gave her six years ago. She had placed it on a glass counter offering it for sale, joining several other wives of public employees who had not been paid in two months.

“Her head covered by a black veil, Zayim said she needed the proceeds from her ring to buy diapers and milk supplements for her three children, including Hazem, 4, who tugged at her tunic in the afternoon bustle. ‘This is the last one, we have no more,’ Zayim, 28, said of her ring.”

Woodrow Wilson called sanctions “the silent, deadly remedy.” Its victims are always the sick, the elderly, the women, and the children.

In March, the World Bank predicted the aid cutoff would lead to a 30 percent fall in average personal incomes among the Palestinians. The bank now considers that prediction “too rosy” and expects “the worst year in the West Bank and Gaza’s recent dismal economic history.”

Already, violent clashes have broken out between Hamas and Fatah. There is a danger of collapse of the Palestinian Authority, chaos, and a need for the Israeli army to intervene anew to restore order. Finally, May 9, under European pressure, the U.S. relented and a trickle of aid began to flow.

Query: who, besides al-Qaeda and recruiters of suicide bombers, can conceivably benefit from persecuting the Palestinian people like this? Does President Bush or Condi Rice think the Palestinians will respect an America that did this to their children, after we urged this election, called for Hamas to participate, and preached our devotion to democracy?

“The aid cut-off appears to be increasing anti-U.S. sentiment here,” writes the Post’s Scott Wilson, quoting 33-year-old pharmacist Mustafa Hasoona: “The problem is the West, not us. If they don’t respect democracy, they shouldn’t call for it. We are with this government we elected. I voted for it.”

According to the Financial Times, Hamas is winning converts for refusing to buckle. Said Khalil Abu Leila, a Hamas leader, “They have misunderstood the Arab mentality. As long as the pressure increases on Hamas, the more popular it will become.”

The White House says we don’t negotiate with terrorists. But when we had to, we did. FDR and Truman summited with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam. Nixon met with Mao in Beijing. Kissinger negotiated with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese at Paris. Bush I allied with Assad in the Gulf War. Clinton had Arafat to the White House too many times to count.

Rabin and Peres shared a Nobel Prize with Arafat. Netanyahu gave him Hebron. Barak offered him 95 percent of the West Bank.

Bush’s agents negotiated with the architect of the Lockerbie massacre to persuade Colonel Khaddafi to give up his WMD. In 2004, Bush’s men called it a victory for Bush diplomacy. Khaddafi’s regime had been at the top of the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terror.

The purpose of U.S.-Israeli policy today is to punish the Palestinians for how they voted and to force Hamas to yield or to collapse its government. How does such a policy win hearts and minds for America?

Terrorism has been described as waging war on innocents to break their political leaders. Is that not a fair description of what we are doing to the Palestinians? No wonder they hate us

 
E-Mail User
Replies:

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 503
(503 all sites)
Registered: 4/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 09:42 AM
Good article, it's not our freedom that these people hate, it's the way we interfere and meddle in everyone's business that they hate. We want them to have a democratic society and free elections, but when they don't elect who we want we bully and push and prod and do whatever necessary to try and put the puppets we want into office. Would it not be better to let them elect who they want let them see what boobs they have as leadership and then let them go whatever direction they want government wise??? Well judging by the elected officials in this country probably not, but it sure would be cheaper on our pocketbooks and cost a lot less lives.
 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3142
(3143 all sites)
Registered: 11/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 10:04 AM
quote:
Would it not be better to let them elect who they want let them see what boobs they have as leadership and then let them go whatever direction they want government wise???


In reality, and in direct contrast to what PB writes, that is exactly what happened.

The Palestinians had free elections. Hamas won them fair and square. Nobody, including Israel, disputed that. Nobody called for the results to be quashed. The Palestinians elected exactly who they wanted. And that is a good thing.

But...the inescapable fact is that Hamas refuses to recognize Israel and is dedicated to Israel's destruction. So I doubt anyone can expect Israel to deal with someone who is bent on their destruction. Would yolu give money to a guy who wants to shoot you and your entire family?

Yes, the Palestinians elected Hamas. Now they have to live with the consequences, both good and bad. The USA elected GWB twice. A lot of the world (France for example) does not want to deal with him. Those are the consequences.

Besides, Hamas need only renounce violence and recognize Israel to reinstate their funding. If not, they have to face the consequences of their choice. The Palestinians knew Hamas' philosophy. They knew they were an unpalatable choice to not only Israel, but also to most of the world (the normally sympathetic Europeans have also stopped funding- something Pat does not mention).

And Israel did not demand anything of the sort. There is widespread agreement to freeze funding.




[Edited on 6/7/2006 by KnownRider]

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 10:30 AM
So what you're saying KR is what GWB really meant when he encouraged the Palestinians to have free elections and embrace democracy was to do it with the understanding that whoever was elected would have to meet the criteria that Israel demanded? Doesn't sound much like a "free election" with those types of strings attached. IMHO, it would have been better to give the Palestine government time to establish itself and create a true Palestinian state, and no doubt, in time the government of Palestine (Hamas) would have moderated their views toward Israel. But by letting Israel make her demands right from the beginning without giving Hamas a chance to show that there could be a democratic Palestine then this democratic process is doomed and no doubt will add to the hatred that many Palestinians (and others in the Islamic world) feel towards the United States and Israel. Once again another shining example of the Bush Administration wanting something without thinking of the "what if".

 
E-Mail User

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8042
(8056 all sites)
Registered: 1/20/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 10:39 AM
It's complicated but I agree with Woodrow Wilson, Sanctions only hurt the innocent.

 

____________________
"The two most important things in life are to find God and Love - everything else can wait"-George Harrison
"Whatever happiness is in the world has arisen from a wish for the welfare of others; whatever misery there is has arisen from indulging self"

 
E-Mail User

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3142
(3143 all sites)
Registered: 11/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 10:49 AM
Well they did a pretty good job on South Africa.

In any case, humanitarian aid is exempt from any aid cuts to the Palestinian Authority. Besides, a casual glance at all the waste and theft in the PA is evidence that they sanction themselves.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8042
(8056 all sites)
Registered: 1/20/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 10:53 AM
Why can't we all just get along??

 

____________________
"The two most important things in life are to find God and Love - everything else can wait"-George Harrison
"Whatever happiness is in the world has arisen from a wish for the welfare of others; whatever misery there is has arisen from indulging self"

 
E-Mail User

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 503
(503 all sites)
Registered: 4/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 11:02 AM
So what business does the US have in interfering in an internal problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Let them solve it or duke it out, all our meddling is going to do is continue to fan the flames of hatred towards this country.
 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 11:02 AM
quote:
In any case, humanitarian aid is exempt from any aid cuts to the Palestinian Authority. Besides, a casual glance at all the waste and theft in the PA is evidence that they sanction themselves.




So in reality, this is just a "dog and pony show" that the United States put on to show how "eff'ed up" the Palestinians are, and how much they need Israel. Wonder how well that's playing in that part of the world?

 
E-Mail User

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3142
(3143 all sites)
Registered: 11/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 11:07 AM
quote:
So what you're saying KR is what GWB really meant when he encouraged the Palestinians to have free elections and embrace democracy was to do it with the understanding that whoever was elected would have to meet the criteria that Israel demanded?


No. I am saying EVERYONE must deal with the consequences of their actions, whether on the individual or transnational level.


quote:
Doesn't sound much like a "free election" with those types of strings attached.


There were no strings attached. The Palestinians made their choice. Their choice is in power. Nobody is under any obligation to fund that choice beyond reasonable humanitarian assistance which they are getting (and most likely stealing).


quote:
IMHO, it would have been better to give the Palestine government time to establish itself and create a true Palestinian state, and no doubt, in time the government of Palestine (Hamas) would have moderated their views toward Israel.


Hamas can moderate their views any time they want. The things is, why should they? They are a terrorist group. That’s what they are. They’re just being honest. They have no interest in a two-state solution. They would not be Hamas if they did.


And once again, if someone vows to kill you Fred, would you throw them some cash?


quote:
But by letting Israel make her demands right from the beginning without giving Hamas a chance to show that there could be a democratic Palestine then this democratic process is doomed and no doubt will add to the hatred that many Palestinians (and others in the Islamic world) feel towards the United States and Israel.


Hamas can moderate any time. They can do it in the next 5 minutes or never. Its up to them. Renounce violence, recognize Israel (i.e. recognize REALITY) and negotiations can reconvene. And then we can strong arm the Israelis.

Besides, the Arabs don't care about the Palestinians. They just serve as a good scapegoat to whip their people up into a frenzy and deter attention from their thugocracies.


quote:
Once again another shining example of the Bush Administration wanting something without thinking of the "what if".


I disagree. They received the chance to choose and they did just that. This is a good thing. Part of democracy is accepting reality and understanding that policy is forged from compromise, not some viscous, vulgar, arrogant military thug who screams endless torrents of vile nationalism.

Democracy means that good leadership (FDR) coexists with bad (Marion Barry).

quote:
Why can't we all just get along??


Because MC3, human beings are not rational beings. What makes sense to one, is intolerable to another.



 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3142
(3143 all sites)
Registered: 11/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 11:10 AM
quote:
So what business does the US have in interfering in an internal problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Let them solve it or duke it out, all our meddling is going to do is continue to fan the flames of hatred towards this country.



Its not interfering. Both sides accept the US, the EU, the UN, and Russia ("the Quartet") as mediators.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3142
(3143 all sites)
Registered: 11/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 11:25 AM

The Arab world will also be watching wearily. Hamas now will have to show to the Arab world that an Islamic party that wins a democratic election—everyone’s nightmarish scenario—is not as bad as it seems. For now, the Palestinians have chosen an Islamic option over a secular one. Let them have it. Let them enjoy life under Sharia. It is their choice—that is what self-determination is about—and we must respect it. After all, the spectacle of an Arab government that is defeated in a fair and free election, and that as a consequence resigns (resigns!), has no precedent in the Arab world. This is good news. Let’s have some more and put Hamas to the test of democracy: this experience will tell us if Islamists can embark on a road that leads to the Turkish model or whether Palestine will become a Sunni Iran. If democracy succeeds under Hamas’s leadership, there is a legitimate government in power that enjoys support and popularity in Palestine and might be more honest and more competent than its predecessor—not a difficult task, given the ineptitude of Fatah. Otherwise, we can tell once and for all that co-optation is not the way to moderation, but a recipe is self-defeating appeasement.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmQ0MjkzYWE2MWYwODQ3ZDc3ZmQyYTU0OWYxYj FhNTc=

 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2984
(2990 all sites)
Registered: 7/14/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 12:18 PM
After Pat said" there was not enough Carbon Monoxide in the diesel engines at Treblincka to kill anybody", I realized he's just Ann Coulter with less testerone

 

____________________
Mark Ramsey

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8042
(8056 all sites)
Registered: 1/20/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 12:27 PM
quote:
quote:
So what you're saying KR is what GWB really meant when he encouraged the Palestinians to have free elections and embrace democracy was to do it with the understanding that whoever was elected would have to meet the criteria that Israel demanded?


No. I am saying EVERYONE must deal with the consequences of their actions, whether on the individual or transnational level.


quote:
Doesn't sound much like a "free election" with those types of strings attached.


There were no strings attached. The Palestinians made their choice. Their choice is in power. Nobody is under any obligation to fund that choice beyond reasonable humanitarian assistance which they are getting (and most likely stealing).


quote:
IMHO, it would have been better to give the Palestine government time to establish itself and create a true Palestinian state, and no doubt, in time the government of Palestine (Hamas) would have moderated their views toward Israel.


Hamas can moderate their views any time they want. The things is, why should they? They are a terrorist group. That’s what they are. They’re just being honest. They have no interest in a two-state solution. They would not be Hamas if they did.


And once again, if someone vows to kill you Fred, would you throw them some cash?


quote:
But by letting Israel make her demands right from the beginning without giving Hamas a chance to show that there could be a democratic Palestine then this democratic process is doomed and no doubt will add to the hatred that many Palestinians (and others in the Islamic world) feel towards the United States and Israel.


Hamas can moderate any time. They can do it in the next 5 minutes or never. Its up to them. Renounce violence, recognize Israel (i.e. recognize REALITY) and negotiations can reconvene. And then we can strong arm the Israelis.

Besides, the Arabs don't care about the Palestinians. They just serve as a good scapegoat to whip their people up into a frenzy and deter attention from their thugocracies.


quote:
Once again another shining example of the Bush Administration wanting something without thinking of the "what if".


I disagree. They received the chance to choose and they did just that. This is a good thing. Part of democracy is accepting reality and understanding that policy is forged from compromise, not some viscous, vulgar, arrogant military thug who screams endless torrents of vile nationalism.

Democracy means that good leadership (FDR) coexists with bad (Marion Barry).







I guess then the same reasoning goes for the US as well. We choose to have leaders and run our society the way we choose, and we have to suffer the consequences from those who oppose us. Goes both ways. So all this rhetoric about the terrorists being inherantly evil could be the results of our own policies and actions that involve them, right?

 

____________________
"The two most important things in life are to find God and Love - everything else can wait"-George Harrison
"Whatever happiness is in the world has arisen from a wish for the welfare of others; whatever misery there is has arisen from indulging self"

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19483
(19497 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 12:39 PM
quote:
People also need to remember that for almost 2000 years the area that is now Israel was known as Palestine.


Say what?? Holy smokes, folks, know your damn history. First of all it wasn't named 'Palestine' until 1400 years ago, not 2000, having been derived from the arabic name Filastin after the caliphates took over the region in the 600's. Before that the people of that region spoke mostly aramaic. In fact, 2000 years ago it was a center for Christianity in the Byzantine era. The area known as Palestine was under other folks control, back and forth, for centuries, especially during the Crusades. Around 1500 the Ottoman Turks took over so-called Palestine and controled it and ruled over it for almost 400 years until the Arabs in the area fought with the British AGAINST the Ottomon Turks during World War I. Palestine wasn't on its own at all, and rarely ever was. (Go look up the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement) The British ruled the area until after WWII. After that the Jewish immigrants, who were encouraged at one point by the Arabs after WWI to emmigrate, established themselves and declared an independent state. Another reason that happened was because America and France and the UK refused to let Jews emmigrate as Hitler rose to power. Does that sound like a pro-Jewish bias to you?? The Arabs around them went to war after Israel declared independence. They lost-big time. Not only that, but what was left of the Arab lands in Palestine were taken over by their Arab neighbors. Jordan annexed the West Bank, and Egypt OCCUPIED the Gaza Strip from 1948 to 1967. In 1967 some Arab countries decided to try and attack Israel. They gave up after 6 days and were defeated easily.

Later on Arafat, who was born in Cairo and was an Egyptian basically, tried to take over Jordan. The idea that the Arab nation is a unified entity, or was at anytime, or that Palestine was sitting their as a nation for 2000 years all by itself, is ridiculous.

Hamas, after all, are terrorists who think that blowing up civilians with suicide bombers will get them independence and it won't work. Instead of fighting the Israeli soldiers, they take the cheap route. What have they got for their tactics? A big wall being built around them. And now, look at the battles and killings between Fatah and Hamas happening right now, which points to yet more Arab disunity.

As for Hamas, I think this will clarify the situation. A lot of times when the hardliners get in control you figure out whether any compromise can truly happen or not. Israel goes too far in a lot of ways on a lot of issues, but the Palestinians have to show the world that they are capable of getting their act together. The rest of the Arab world want a successful Palestinian state because they don't want them in their own countries. Egypt doesn't want them nor does Jordan.

Meanwhile, very few, if only one, American president has called for a Palestinian state while in office, and that is George W. Bush.

As for Buchanan's bias against Israel, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what is behind that.

DH

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8042
(8056 all sites)
Registered: 1/20/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 12:46 PM
quote:
As for Hamas, I think this will clarify the situation. A lot of times when the hardliners get in control you figure out whether any compromise can truly happen or not. Israel goes too far in a lot of ways on a lot of issues, but the Palestinians have to show the world that they are capable of getting their act together. The rest of the Arab world want a successful Palestinian state because they don't want them in their own countries


I believe they probably believe that they are getting their act together, accoding to their own agenda and not those who support Isreal. It depends on who's perspective you wish to see the issue from, right? I think I'd probably feel like I had to establish my own country if I were displaced and no one wanted my kind within their borders. I don't see how that can be unreasonable.

 

____________________
"The two most important things in life are to find God and Love - everything else can wait"-George Harrison
"Whatever happiness is in the world has arisen from a wish for the welfare of others; whatever misery there is has arisen from indulging self"

 
E-Mail User

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3142
(3143 all sites)
Registered: 11/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 12:46 PM
quote:
I guess then the same reasoning goes for the US as well. We choose to have leaders and run our society the way we choose, and we have to suffer the consequences from those who oppose us.


That is a nice summation of what I said.

quote:
Goes both ways. So all this rhetoric about the terrorists being inherantly evil could be the results of our own policies and actions that involve them, right?


And now you are not making any sense.

The US did not create Israel or Palestinian terrorism. The UN put forth a partion plan in 1948. It won the vote. The Jews accepted it, the Arabs rejected it and are still fighting (and perpetually losing) it.

I hear they have history classes at the University of Georgia. Perhaps audit a few or at least sit in?

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3142
(3143 all sites)
Registered: 11/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 12:54 PM
quote:
I believe they probably believe that they are getting their act together, accoding to their own agenda and not those who support Isreal.


Is that a joke? There is a low level civil war going on in the Palestinian territories. I do not support Israel, I call it as I see it. And what I see in the Palestinian territories is dysfunctional society that cannot see their way to compromising.

quote:
It depends on who's perspective you wish to see the issue from, right? I think I'd probably feel like I had to establish my own country if I were displaced and no one wanted my kind within their borders. I don't see how that can be unreasonable.


Utter nonsense.

If the Arabs had accepted the 1948 UN Partition, they would have around 90% of the land and Israel would be but two small enclaves centered around Tel Aviv. They chose war and have been losing ever since.

As for having their own country, answer me this (I challenge you):

Egypty had the Gaza Strip and Jordan had the West Bank before 1967. Why did they not create a Palestinian homeland. Why MC3? Why? If that its the entire issue, why did they not solve it then? Why MC3?

And as for your last statement, Arabs are 20% of Israel-proper's population. They vote, sit in a democratically elected parliament, are the regions most prosperous Arabs, and want nothing to do with a future Palestinian state.


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 01:28 PM
Excuse me, my math was a little off, should have been 1400 years.

Anyway, here's a question to ponder. Since people of European (and African and Asian) descent have only been in America for just a little over 500 years (yes, I know I'm excluding the Vikings), I wonder what would happen if for some reason all the Indigenous people of America came to power and pretty much told and made all of us who are not of an Indigenous background to go back to where we from (Europe/Africa/Asia), and those of us who did stay where instantly treated as "second class" citizens, how might we feel? Might we feel somewhat the same as Palestinians do. This is pretty much what happen when the British withdrew the Palestinian Mandate and allow the state of Israel to be created. Remember Israel as a modern nation as only existed for less than 70 years.

Anyway, here's a little historical data on who's been living there throughout history.

quote:
The earliest known mention of the name 'Israel', probably referring to a group of people rather than to a place, is the Egyptian Merneptah Stele dated to about 1211 BCE. [3] For over 3,000 years, Jews have regarded the Land of Israel as their homeland, both as a Holy Land and as a Promised land. The land of Israel holds a special place in Jewish religious obligations, encompassing Judaism's most important sites — including the remains of the First and Second Temples, as well as the rites concerning those temples. [4] Starting around 1200 BCE, a series of Jewish kingdoms and states existed intermittently in the region for more than a millennium.

Under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and (briefly) Sassanian rule, Jewish presence in the province dwindled due to mass expulsions. In particular, the failure of the Bar Kochba Revolt against the Roman Empire resulted in the large-scale expulsion of Jews. It was during this time that the Romans gave the name Syria Palaestina to the geographic area, in an attempt to erase Jewish ties to the land. The Mishnah and Jerusalem Talmud, two of Judaism's most important religious texts, were composed in the region during this period. The Muslims conquered the land from the Byzantine Empire in 638 CE. The area was ruled by various Muslim states (interrupted by the rule of the Crusaders) before becoming part of the Ottoman Empire in 1517


Basically, we gave the Jewish settlers the land that is now Israel because, let's face the real fact here, is because Christianity is derived from Judaism and the Christians believe that Israel is the "promised land" for the Jews. Now what is backing up this "promise"? That both Christians and Jews believe in the same religious writings (the Old Testament). Now imagine if you're a Palestinian (and your belief system is based on the Koran), and you and your family have been living in the area for 1400 years and you think of where you live as your "home land", how would feel if you were "kicked out" of your home, simple because those who moved in, claimed that their religion gave them rights to the land? It's pretty easy to see, that almost all the problems that Israel and the United States and indeed the whole western world has with Islam and Arabic people can be traced back to creation of the state of Israel and how the Palestinian populations was treated during that creation. Expecting believers of Islam (Palestinians) to bow to demands of Christians (the United States) and Jews (Israel) isn't going to happen. IMHO, treating the Palestinians right will go a long way in solving a lot of problems in the Middle East, as it is the root problem.

 
E-Mail User

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3142
(3143 all sites)
Registered: 11/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 01:39 PM
quote:
Might we feel somewhat the same as Palestinians do. This is pretty much what happen when the British withdrew the Palestinian Mandate and allow the state of Israel to be created. Remember Israel as a modern nation as only existed for less than 70 years.


Fred:

While that is a somewhat fair point, that is what the world community, in the form of the United Nations, decided in 1948. What's done is done. How modern Israel came about is now largely irrelevant. They're there. I look at a map, I see them. I land in Tel Aviv, I am there. Its done.

The UN attempted a compromise between the minority (Jews) and the majority (Arabs). The UN could have given the whole pie to the Arabs, but it did not. End of story. There are around two dozen or so other Arab countries in the region. This endless hatred of this one Jewish enclave (their ethnic cousings btw) hit the point of absurdity long ago.

Israel is not going to evacuate the entire population because of what the UN did in 1948. The Palestinians need to accept that.

Israel is roughly the size of Maryland. At its founding it was about the size of a third of Delaware. It would have remained that size if the Arabs had accepted. They'd also have all of Jerusalem.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3142
(3143 all sites)
Registered: 11/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 01:42 PM
quote:
Basically, we gave the Jewish settlers the land that is now Israel because, let's face the real fact here, is because Christianity is derived from Judaism and the Christians believe that Israel is the "promised land" for the Jews.


Untrue.

"We" did not give them anything. We voted yes for the UN Partition plan as did the majority.

And the premise behind creating Israel was to find a place where, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, Jews could be safe. It also solved a huge slice of the refugee problem in post war Europe.

What's done is done.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19483
(19497 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 01:52 PM
quote:
Anyway, here's a question to ponder. Since people of European (and African and Asian) descent have only been in America for just a little over 500 years (yes, I know I'm excluding the Vikings), I wonder what would happen if for some reason all the Indigenous people of America came to power and pretty much told and made all of us who are not of an Indigenous background to go back to where we from (Europe/Africa/Asia), and those of us who did stay where instantly treated as "second class" citizens, how might we feel?


The same as the Crow tribe felt when the Sioux tribe forced them out of the Black Hill of South Dakota.

The battle would ensue and whomever won would rule and write the history. There is few lands on Earth that haven't belonged to another tribe at some point. The Aztecs took over lands and conquered poeple and used them for human sacrifice. The Mayans did the same. The Spanish came and took over later. The Comanche slaughtered many another tribe before the white man showed up. Ireland was not always inhabited by the gailic folks. On and on. Americans were second class citizens to King George. We organized, fought back, and formed our own country.

quote:
asically, we gave the Jewish settlers the land that is now Israel because, let's face the real fact here, is because Christianity is derived from Judaism and the Christians believe that Israel is the "promised land" for the Jews.


Islam is derived from Abraham as well.

quote:
Now what is backing up this "promise"? That both Christians and Jews believe in the same religious writings (the Old Testament).


And Muslims don't? Ishmael will have his followers. Book of Genesis.

quote:
Now imagine if you're a Palestinian (and your belief system is based on the Koran),


Actually, percentage wise, Palestinian Christians were removed from their lands at a higher number. Below;


quote:
The British census of 1922 placed the Christian Palestinian population in Jerusalem at just over 51 percent, the majority being of the well-educated mercantile class. Gradually, Zionist settlement increased the proportion of Jews in Palestine, but the Jewish presence in Jerusalem remained relatively small. However, the hostilities that followed the UN partition vote of 28 November 1947 had a devastating effect on the Palestinian population with between 725-775,000 refugees being expelled from their ancestral lands.

Historian Sami Hadawi estimated that over 50 percent of Jerusalem’s Christians were expelled from their West Jerusalem homes, the largest single numerical decline of Christians in Palestine in history. Hadawi’s study concluded that in Jerusalem a higher proportion of Palestinian Christians became refugees after 1949, a ratio of 37 percent of Christians to 17 percent of the Muslims. The higher ratio of Christians was due in part to the fact that the majority lived in the wealthier western Jerusalem districts seized by Israel during 1948-49. Further, approximately 34 percent of the lands seized by Israel were owned by Palestinian Christian churches, and they were simply taken by force with no compensation given to the previous owners.

Bethlehem University Sociologist Bernard Sabella reports that by 1966 Palestinian Christians had declined to 13 percent of the total Palestinian population in Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, a significant decline from the 18-20 percent that had held until 1947. However, following the 1967 war and continuing until the signing of the Oslo Accords on 13 September 1993, the population decline was more dramatic. Sabella places the ratio of Palestinian Christians to Muslims at 2.1 percent in 1993. This decline was a direct reaction to the severity of the Israeli occupation and the lack of an economic, educational, vocational, and secure life in East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank.

Had the 18 percent of the 1922-47 period remained, the Palestinian Christians would have numbered close to 300,000 by the early 1990s. Inside Israel, the Palestinian Christians grew to approximately 160,000 by 1993, compared to a Muslim population of 650,000. However, by the turn of the century and the second intifada, the emigration patterns continued to the extent that Christians now number only an estimated 1.6 percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip



quote:
Now imagine if you're a Palestinian (and your belief system is based on the Koran), and you and your family have been living in the area for 1400 years and you think of where you live as your "home land", how would feel if you were "kicked out" of your home, simple because those who moved in, claimed that their religion gave them rights to the land?


Alright then, give your land back. I want you to find out which tribe lived on the land that you are living on right now, and then I want you to give your land back to that native American tribe within the year.

DH

 

____________________

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5678
(5711 all sites)
Registered: 6/27/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 01:53 PM
"People also need to remember that for almost 2000 years the area that is now Israel was known as Palestine. Explains a lot."

"EXPLAINS A LOT?"

Sigh, Nothing like historical bull **** to roil the waters.

Thousands of years before the Romans invented "Palastina" the land had been known as "Canaan". The Canaanites had many tiny city-states, each one at times independent and at times a vassal of an Egyptian or Hittite king. The Canaanites never united into a state.

After the Exodus from Egypt probably in the Thirteenth Century BCE but perhaps earlier, the Children of Israel settled in the land of Canaan. There they formed first a tribal confederation, and then the biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and the post-biblical Kingdom of Judea.

The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.

The Philistines reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers-chiefly from the Mediterranean islands - overran the Philistine districts.

From the fifth century BC, following the historian Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean "the Philistine Syria" using the Greek language form of the name. In AD 135, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Emperor Hadrian wanted to blot out the name of the Roman "Provincia Judaea" and so renamed it "Provincia Syria Palaestina", the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. The name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized "Palestine" is derived. In the First Century CE, the Romans crushed the independent kingdom of Judea. After the failed rebellion of Bar Kochba in the Second Century CE, the Roman Emperor Hadrian determined to wipe out the identity of Israel-Judah-Judea. Therefore, he took the name Palastina and imposed it on all the Land of Israel. At the same time, he changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina.

The Romans killed many Jews and sold many more in slavery. Some of those who survived still alive and free left the devastated country, but there was never a complete abandonment of the Land. There was never a time when there were not Jews and Jewish communities, though the size and conditions of those communities fluctuated greatly.

After the Roman conquest of Judea, "Palastina" became a province of the pagan Roman Empire and then of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and very briefly of the Zoroastrian Persian Empire. In 638 CE, an Arab-Muslim Caliph took Palastina away from the Byzantine Empire and made it part of an Arab-Muslim Empire. The Arabs, who had no name of their own for this region, adopted the Greco-Roman name Palastina, though they pronounced it "Falastin".

The first written attestation of the ethnonym "Arab" occurs in an Assyrian inscription of 853 BC, where Shalmaneser III lists a King Gindibu of "matu arbai" (Arab land) as among the people he defeated at the Battle of Karkar. Some of the names given in these texts are Aramaic, while others are the first attestations of Proto-Arabic dialects. The Hebrew Bible likewise refers occasionally to peoples called `Arvi' (or variants thereof), translated as "Arab" or "Arabian". The scope of the Hebrew term at this early stage is unclear, but it seems to have referred to various desert-dwelling Semitic tribes in the Syrian Desert and Arabia. Its earliest attested use referring to the southern "Qahtanite" Arabs is much later.

Proto-Arabic, or Ancient North Arabian, texts give a clearer picture of the Arabs' emergence into history. The earliest such texts are written not in the modern Arabic alphabet, nor in its Nabataean ancestor, but in variants of the Epigraphic South Arabian musnad, beginning in the 8th century BC with the Hasaean inscriptions of eastern Saudi Arabia, and continuing from the 6th century BC on with the Lihyanite texts (in southeastern Saudi Arabia) and the Thamudic texts (found throughout Arabia and the Sinai, and not in reality connected with Thamud). Later come the Safaitic inscriptions (beginning in the 1st century BC) and the many Arabic personal names attested in Nabataean inscriptions (which are, however, written in Aramaic.) From about the 2nd century BC, a few inscriptions from Qaryat al-Faw (near Sulayyil) reveal a dialect which is no longer considered "Proto-Arabic", but Pre-Classical Arabic.
By the fourth century AD, the Arab kingdoms of the Lakhmids in southern Iraq and Ghassanids in southern Syria had emerged just south of the Fertile Crescent and ended up allying respectively with the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires. Thus they were constantly at war with each other on behalf of their imperial patrons. However, their courts were responsible for some notable examples of pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, and for some of the few surviving pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions in the Arabic alphabet. The Lakhmid kingdom was dissolved by the Sassanids in 602, while the Ghassanids would hold out until engulfed by the expansion of Islam.

In the Qur'an, the word "arab" does not appear, only the nisba adjective, "arabiyyun". The Qur'an is referring to itself as arabiyyun "Arabic" and mubinun "clear". The two qualities are connected, for example in ayat 43.2-3, "By the clear Book: We have made it an Arabic recitation in order that you may understand", and the Qur'an came to be regarded as the prime example of the "al-arabiyyatu", the language of the Arabs. The term "arab" is from the same root, referring to a particularly clear and correct mode of speech. The plural noun ?a?r?b refers to the Bedouin tribes of the desert who resisted Muhammad, for example in ayat 9.97, ?a?r?bu ?a?addu kufr?n wanif?q?n "the Bedouin are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy".

Based on this, in early Islamic terminology, "arab" referred to sedentary Arabs, living in cities such as Mecca and Medina, and ?a?r?b referred to the Arab Bedouins, carrying a negative connotation due to the Qur'anic verdict just cited. Following the Islamic conquest of the 8th century, however, the language of the nomadic Arabs came to be regarded as preserving the highest purity by the grammarians following Abi Ishaq, and the term kalam al-?Arab "language of the Arabs" came to denote the uncontaminated language of the Bedouins.

The relation of ?arab and ?a?r?b is complicated further by the notion of "lost Arabs" al-?Arab al-ba'ida mentioned in the Qur'an as punished for their disbelief. All contemporary Arabs were considered as descended from two ancestors, Qahtan and Adnan, of which Qahtan was related to the "lost Arabs", and the Southern Arabs were identified as of his lineage, regarded as the "real Arabs", al-?Arab al-?ariba, while the Northern Arabs, including the tribes of Mecca, were considered the descendants of Adnan, in Islamic tradition traced back to Ismail son of Abraham, said to have been arabized at a later period.
Versteegh (1997) is uncertain whether to ascribe this distinction to the memory of a real difference of origin of the two groups, but it is certain that the difference was strongly felt in early Islamic times, even in Islamic Spain, there was enmity between the Qays of the Northern and the Kalb of the Southern group. The so-called Himyaritic language described by Al-Hamdani (died 946) appears to be a special case of language contact between the two groups, an originally North Arabic dialect spoken in the South, and influenced by Old South Arabic.

During the 8th and 9th centuries, the Arabs (specifically the Umayyads, and later Abbasids) forged an empire whose borders touched southern France in the west, China in the east, Asia Minor in the north, and the Sudan in the south. This was one of the largest land empires in history. Throughout much of this area, the Arabs spread the religion of Islam and the Arabic language (the language of the Qur'an) through conversion and assimilation. Many groups came to be known as "Arabs" not through descent but through this process of Arabization. Thus, over time, the term Arab came to carry a broader meaning than the original ethnic term: cultural Arab vs. ethnic Arab. People in Sudan, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and elsewhere became Arab through Arabization.

The Arab treatment of geographical names after their conquest of the country (635-640 CE) was paradoxical. The Quran mentions the Holy Land divinely assigned to the people of Israel (Sura V:12, 20-21). However, the Arabs later on did not see this land as a separate country. They typically considered the country merely an undifferentiated part of Bilad ash-Sham (usually translated as Syria or Greater Syria). This view lasted until the end of the British mandate period, as we see from Arab writings and political declarations (such as Arab testimony before the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry on Palestine, 1946). Before the Crusades the Arabs did use the name Filastin. However, this name referred only to the southern region of the country, what the Romans had called Palaestina Prima. After the Crusades the name was not used by the Muslim Mamluk rulers. The Crusaders had typically called the country the Holy Land (Terra Sancta), sometimes using the Land of Israel (Terra Israel) or other names.

The term "Palestine" whose official use ceased after Romans, would, however, was revived to designate the area mandated to Great Britain by the League of Nations as a consequence of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, 1918-1921. Mandatory Palestine included the territory both to the east and to the west of the Jordan River, contemporary Jordan (formerly Transjordan) and Israel. The British were charged with "placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home."

After the British had decided to create the emirate of Transjordan, the Arab state in Palestine across the Jordan river, they reneged on the promise to the Jews that was contained in the original mandate where recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.

In September 1922, merely two months after that text was confirmed by the League of Nations, the British used the clause of the mandate that allowed them, "n the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined," to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and made the area to the east of the Jordan (three quarters of mandatory Palestine) off-limits to Jewish immigration. In the years that followed, up to the very establishment of the state of Israel, they also restricted Jewish immigration to western Palestine and made it virtually impossible by World War II.

Like other peoples around the world, most speakers of Arabic did not identify themselves as belonging to a particular national group until quite recently. Modern Arab nationalism is a product of 19th- and 20th-century transformations. Before the rise of nationalism, most Arabic-speakers identified themselves as members of a particular family or tribe; as residents of a village, town, or region; as Muslims, Christians, or Jews; or as subjects of large political entities such as the Ottoman Empire.

Prior to the 20th century, "Arab" designated the Bedouin, tribal-based society of the Arabian desert, which is the birthplace of Arabic. Historians generally agree that the ancient Semitic peoples Assyrians, Aramaeans, Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews) and, later, the Arabs themselves migrated into the area of the Fertile Crescent after successive crises of overpopulation in the Peninsula beginning in the third millennium before the Common Era (BCE) and ending with the Muslim conquests of the 7th century CE. These peoples spoke languages based on similar linguistic structures, and
the modern Semitic languages of Arabic, Hebrew, and Amharic (the language of
Ethiopia) maintain important similarities.

Arab nationalism declares that Arabs are united in a shared history, culture and language. Arab nationalists believe that Arab identity encompasses more than outward physical characteristics, race or religion. A related ideology, Pan-Arabism, calls for all Arab lands to be united as one state. Arab nationalism has often competed for existence with regional and ethnic nationalisms in the Middle East, such as Lebanese and Egyptian.
















Arabs emerged on the world historical stage in the 7th century CE with the Prophet Muhammad and the rise of Islam. Muhammad was born in Makkah (Mecca) in the western part of the Arabian Peninsula, an important entrepot on the trade routes connecting Yemen to the south, the Mediterranean to the north, the Persian Gulf to the east, and Africa through the Red Sea port of Jeddah to the west. In a period of economic, political, and religious ferment, Muhammad delivered a spiritual and social message based on the unity and oneness of God. In 622, Muhammad established the original Muslim community in Medina. The popularity of his message and the weakness of the Byzantine and Sasanian empires to the north led to the success of a series of dramatic conquests. Within 20 years of Muhammad's death in 632, Muslim Arabs ruled a territory extending from Egypt in the west to deep into Iran in the east, including the area described as Palestine. The Muslim world dominated it from the middle 7th century on, but not before, until the beginning of the 20th century.

By the 17th century, the balance of power had gradually shifted in favor of the European powers, a process which was to culminate in the European colonization of most of the Arab world by the beginning of the 20th century. The legacy of European colonialism and imperialism in the Arab world does more to explain contemporary misunderstandings between Arabs and Westerners than any other single fact. Beginning in the late 18th century and continuing through the dissolution of the Ottoman empire during World War II, Britain and France divided up most of the Arab world between themselves.

The single most important development in the Arab world during the 20th century was the emergence of Arab nationalism. As with the development of nationalisms in Europe, the first expressions of Arab nationalism were literary. Among Arabs, the late 19th century is known as the period of the Arab Renaissance, al-nahda, when experiments with modern literary forms, the spread of print journalism, and the first stirrings of secret nationalist organizations developed. Arab nationalism went on to dominate the politics of the region from the First World War to the Arab defeat at the hands of Israel in 1967. The 1967 defeat was, however, a catastrophic defeat for Nasser, Arab nationalism, and secularism. From that point on, particularist nationalisms, such as Egyptian nationalism, Syrian nationalism, or Palestinian nationalism and Islamism have come to the fore. Particularism culminated in the 1991 Gulf War, which was started by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and resulted in dividing the states and peoples of the Arab world.

No Palestinian Arab people existed at the start of 1920, but, by December of that year, it took shape in a form recognizably similar to today's. Until the late nineteenth century, residents living in the region between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean identified themselves primarily in terms of religion: Moslems felt far stronger bonds with remote co-religionists than with nearby Christians and Jews. Living in that area did not imply any sense of common political purpose. Then came the ideology of nationalism from Europe; its ideal of a government that embodies the spirit of its people was alien but appealing to Middle Easterners. How to apply this ideal, though? Who constitutes a nation and where must the boundaries be? These questions stimulated huge debates. Some said the residents of the Levant are a nation; others said Eastern Arabic speakers; or all Arabic speakers; or all Moslems.

But no one suggested "Palestinians," and for good reason. Palestine, then a secular way of saying Eretz Yisra'el or Terra Sancta, embodied a purely Jewish and Christian concept, one utterly foreign to Moslems, even repugnant to them.
This distaste was confirmed in April 1920, when the British occupying force carved out a "Palestine." Moslems reacted very suspiciously, rightly seeing this designation as a victory for Zionism. Less accurately, they worried about it signaling a revival in the Crusader impulse. No prominent Moslem voices endorsed the delineation of Palestine in 1920; all protested it. Instead, Moslems west of the Jordan directed their allegiance to Damascus, where the great-great-uncle of Jordan's King Abdullah II was then ruling; they identified themselves as Southern Syrians.

Interestingly, no one advocated this affiliation more emphatically than a young man named Amin Husseini. In July 1920, however, the French overthrew this Hashemite king, in the process killing the notion of a Southern Syria. Isolated by the events of April and July, the Moslems of Palestine made the best of a bad situation. One prominent Jerusalemite commented, just days following the fall of the Hashemite kingdom: "after the recent events in Damascus, we have to effect a complete change in our plans here. Southern Syria no longer exists. We must defend Palestine." Following this advice, the leadership in December 1920 adopted the goal of establishing an independent Palestinian state. Within a few years, this effort was led by Husseini.



I am not particularly fond of Israel, as their strategic position is worthless, and it costs lots of money from the US, but I also don't buy the bull **** from those who claim that an evenhanded policy will mollify the Arab world. Sure, letting them destroy one country and one race will make them happy and would fit their own description of Evenhandedness.





 

____________________
Mecca Delendum Est

Support International TOURISM. Vsit MATAMOROS, Mexico

Obama thinks the American people are stupid

When leftist radicalism takes over America it.....

How does polygamous marriage threaten gay marriage?

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 01:56 PM
And of the countries voting for the Partition wonder how many were primarily Islamic?

quote:
The 33 countries that voted in favor of the partition, as set by UN resolution 181: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belarus, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukraine, United States, USSR, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The 13 countries that voted against UN Resolution 181: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

The ten countries that abstained: Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.




It looks like no Islamic county voter "for" UN Resolution 181, but it does look like nine primarily Islamic countries voted against UN Resolution 181.

quote:
And the premise behind creating Israel was to find a place where, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, Jews could be safe. It also solved a huge slice of the refugee problem in post war Europe.

What's done is done.



And we're still paying the price for that decision, aren't we.

 
E-Mail User

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3142
(3143 all sites)
Registered: 11/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/7/2006 at 01:56 PM
"Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity [for peace],"

Abba Eban 1973

 
<<  1    2    3  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com