HHMI Newsgroup Archives

To:            arutz-7@israelnationalnews.com, arutz-7b@israelnationalnews.com
From:          Arutz-7 Editor <feedback@israelnationalnews.com>
Subject:       Arutz-7 News: Sunday, Oct. 7, 2001
Arutz Sheva News Service
  <http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com>
Sunday, Oct. 7, 2001 / Tishrei 20, 5762
------------------------------------------------
TODAY'S HEADLINES:
   1. ISRAEL REAPS SOME BENEFITS FROM DIPLOMATIC CRISIS
   2. TEL AVIV UNIV SURVEY: 45.7% OPPOSE OSLO ACCORDS; 23.7% IN FAVOR
   SPECIAL INSERT: "CAMERA" REPORT ON ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS IN MEDIA
1. ISRAEL REAPS SOME BENEFITS FROM DIPLOMATIC CRISIS
Not only has the US-Israel crisis ended, but it appears to have produced 
positive results for Israel.
The  U.S. apparently acceded to one of Sharon's main demands yesterday when the 
State Department published its bi-annual list of foreign terrorist 
organizations and included the Israel-based Arab terrorist organizations 
Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of 
Palestine, as well as the Lebanese-based Hizbullah. These were blatantly 
absent from a list of 27 Bin Laden-associated organizations published by 
the White House two weeks ago. U.S. law bans American citizens from joining 
these groups or from transferring funds to them. Furthermore, banks are 
instructed to freeze the terrorist organizations' financial assets in the 
U.S., and persons connected to these groups can be denied admission to the 
United States.
Another achievement, according to senior Jerusalem officials, is that in 
the wake of Sharon's tough talk, the Administration exerted strong pressure 
on Arafat to stop his violence against Israel, threatening to "change its 
policy" towards the Palestinian Authority if the violence does not stop. On 
the other hand, the U.S. will not block Syria's election to the United 
Nations Security Council tomorrow.
Israel had been receiving hints of late that the U.S. was differentiating 
between Arab terrorism against Israel and other terrorism, and that it was 
placing pressure on Israel to react blandly to Arab terrorist attacks so as 
not to thwart efforts to build a broad anti-Bin Laden coalition. For 
instance, on September 27, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told 
reporters, "Essentially, there are, on some planes, two different things. 
One is that there are violent people trying to destroy societies, ours, 
many others in the world. The world recognizes that, and we are going to 
stop those people. On the other hand, there are issues and violence and 
political issues that need to be resolved in the Middle East, Israelis and 
Palestinians."
In addition, the U.S. exerted tremendous pressure for a Peres-Arafat 
meeting - for which Israel was rewarded with repeated murderous violations 
of the ceasefire, as well as a statement by President Bush announcing 
support for a Palestinian Arab state. The heavy and costly Arab violence 
against Israel of the last few days has been viewed as a result of Arafat's 
"misunderstanding" of the true American position - and Sharon's remarks 
were designed to make clear that Israel would not stand for it.
2. TEL AVIV UNIV SURVEY: 45.7% OPPOSE OSLO ACCORDS; 23.7% IN FAVOR
The Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University 
released its September survey of the Israeli public on issues of peace and 
negotiations with the PLO.  When asked their opinion on the agreement that 
was signed in Oslo between Israel and the PLO, the sampling of adult 
Israelis answered as follows:  Heavily in favor 7.1%; Considerably in favor 
16.6%; In the middle 23.5%; Considerably opposed 12.5%; Heavily opposed 
33.2%; Do not know/no opinion 7.1%.
The poll also posed the following question: "There are those in the world 
who differentiate between acts of terror of the type recently carried out 
in the United States and Palestinian terror, despite that in both cases 
innocent civilians were hurt.  The claim is that the Palestinian terror is 
part of a struggle against the occupation and a war of national liberation 
while this is not the case in the kinds of acts of terror carried out in 
the US.  Do you think that there is a moral basis for this differentiation?
82.9% No, since all intentional killing of innocent civilians is terror and
morally unacceptable.
9.7% Yes, because from a moral standpoint there are goals, like national
liberation, that justify even the international hurting of innocent
civilians.
4.6% Other  2.8% Do not know
While 68% considered themselves supportive of the "peace process between 
Israel and the Arabs," over 71% opined that the Oslo accords will not bring 
about peace with the PLO in the coming years.  The final question of the 
survey asked, "How would you term yourself today politically?"
Left 10.8% Moderate left 12.3 (Total 23.1%)
Center 24.4% Moderate right 25.6% Right 26.9% (Total 52.5%)
SPECIAL INSERT: "CAMERA" REPORT ON ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS IN MEDIA
When Terror is not "Terror" in media reports
by Alex Safian Associate Director
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America 
(http://www.camera.org)
Does abhorrence of terrorism depend on the nationality or religion of the 
victim? Are some lives less precious than others, so much so that the word 
terrorism would not apply to the murderous attacks on these victims? To, 
say, Israeli victims?
Repugnant as such distinctions might seem, they are apparently employed by 
some of the nation's leading media outlets, including the New York Times, 
the Boston Globe, and CNN. The Times, for example, on October 3rd covering 
the attack against an Israeli community in Gaza in which two young Israeli 
civilians were murdered by Palestinian invaders, managed to not even once 
refer to the attack or to the attackers using any form of the word 
"terror." This despite the fact that the "gunmen," as the Times repeatedly 
called them, fired AK-47's at every civilian they saw and hurled grenades 
into homes. And Hamas, the group responsible for the bloody attack, was 
delicately referred to as a "militant group," not a band of terrorists.
Not that the words terror or terrorist are banned at the Times -- on the 
contrary. On that very same October 3rd the Times used some form of the 
word "terror" in at least 93 stories (not counting paid obituaries). But in 
each case the reference was to the terrible attacks in the United States on 
September 11th in which thousands of innocent Americans were killed.
Was it the number of dead, rather than their religion or nationality, which 
explains the difference in the Times' usage? It seems not. The paper, for 
example, quite rightly used the word terror in reporting the attack against 
the USS Cole, even though the victims were relatively few in number, and 
neither the ship nor its crew were civilian targets. An editorial on 
October 13, 2000, for example, referred to "an apparent terrorist attack." 
On the same day a Times report informed readers that the Cole was refueling 
in Yemen "despite its history as a haven for terrorist groups," and added 
that "if confirmed as a terrorist attack, it would be the worst against 
American military forces since the bombing of an Air Force barracks in 
Saudi Arabia..." Yet another Times story that day began "Despite the known 
risks of terrorism in Yemen ..." and went on to describe US refueling in 
that country, referring to Yemen as "a haven to international terrorist 
groups."
The next day, October 14th, saw more of the same. A Times story described 
the "worldwide hunt ... to track down the group responsible for what had 
every appearance of a terrorist attack ..." And so it continued for several 
weeks, the Times showing no hesitation to describe as a terror attack the 
bombing of a US warship thousands of miles from home. Yet attacks against 
Israelis -- in their homes and communities -- receive radically different 
treatment, the killers routinely termed "militants" or "activists," and the 
groups that train, equip and send them on their "missions" regularly 
referred to in a similarly antiseptic manner.
The point, of course, is not just that words influence thought, but that 
word choices are revealing of thoughts and biases, and that the nation's 
leading newspaper has decided that the killing of Jewish Israelis by 
Islamic-inspired murderers is somehow different than when very similar 
killers instead target Americans. One can only imagine that to the Times 
Israelis are somehow guilty, either of oppressing Palestinians, or perhaps 
of some more ancient sin, so the killers, therefore, are not to be called 
terrorists.
Of course, the Times is not alone in this regard. The Times-owned Boston 
Globe has followed exactly the same pattern, referring repeatedly to the 
bombing of the Cole, and of course to the recent attacks in America, as 
terrorism perpetrated by terrorists, while resisting such usage when the 
victims are Israelis. The attack on October 3rd, for example, was 
attributed by the Globe to "Palestinian attackers" and "gunmen," who were 
sent by the "military wing of the Islamic militant group Hamas." Certainly 
neither the Globe nor the Times has ever referred to any "military wing" of 
bin Laden's Al Qaeda group.
At CNN the same pattern is evident. Speaking on October 3rd, anchor Bill 
Hemmer explained that with "Israeli tanks rumbling into northern Gaza" the 
cease-fire seems to have "crumbled ... the toll there, eight Palestinians 
and two Israelis dead after the fighting." Of course, the Israelis didn't 
die in any "fighting" -- they were unarmed innocents cruelly executed by 
terrorist invaders. And if the cease-fire was in trouble, it was because of 
unprovoked Palestinian attacks, not Israeli retaliation.
The Mike Hanna report that followed only made matters worse, with the 
attackers described as "Palestinian gunmen" and the 18-year-old murdered 
woman described as an "Israeli soldier" as if she were an armed combatant. 
She was off-duty and strolling down a residential road with her boyfriend, 
who was also murdered.
Nowhere did CNN describe the murders or the murderers using any form of the 
word terror, despite the fact that most CNN reports these days are 
headlined "Target: Terrorism."
Now is the time for these institutions -- and any that follow similarly 
indefensible policies -- to cease discriminating between terror's victims. 
All deserve to be remembered as the innocent quarry of an identical scourge.
Hebrew News Editor:  Ariel Kahane
*******************************************************
To:            arutz-7@israelnationalnews.com, arutz-7b@israelnationalnews.com 
From:          Arutz-7 Editor <feedback@israelnationalnews.com> 
Subject:       Arutz-7 News: Monday, October 8, 2001
Arutz Sheva News Service
  <http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com>
Monday, Oct. 8, 2001 / Tishrei 21, 5762
------------------------------------------------
TODAY'S HEADLINES:
   1. ISRAEL: WE'RE WITH THE U.S. IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM
   2. PALESTINIAN DEMONSTRATIONS FOR BIN LADEN
   3. ARAB KNESSET MEMBERS CRITICIZE U.S. ATTACK
   4. P.A. PAPER: HOW TO ATTACK JEWS
1. ISRAEL: WE'RE WITH THE U.S. IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM
An official statement released by Prime Minister Sharon's office last
night stated the following:
 "...Over the past three days, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
has kept Prime Minister Ariel Sharon apprised as to the timing of the
American offensive, and the appropriate coordination took place. 
President George W. Bush called Prime Minister Sharon this afternoon
to update him on the offensive...  Prime Minister Sharon offered
President Bush, the American People and the forces in the field his
best wishes, and offered any assistance that might be required in
addition to the assistance already given.
 "It is important to remember this evening that the war against
terrorism was, and continues to be, the State of Israel's war.  Israel has
provided, and will continue to provide, assistance to the nations of
the free world in any way they may require in the struggle against
terrorism.  Israel has provided, and will continue to provide,
assistance, but Israel is not participating in the offensive.
"Israel has taken all the necessary steps to maintain the security of
its citizens."
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said today that Israel would keep a "low
profile" during the American offensive in Afghanistan.  Foreign
Minister Peres went a bit further, however.  Speaking with CNN, Peres
said that Israel would even make diplomatic concessions to the
Palestinians in order to ensure the success of the international
struggle against terrorism.  Prime Minister Sharon said this past
Thursday night, "I call on the Western democracies, and primarily the
leader of the free world, the United States: Do not repeat the
dreadful mistake of 1938, when enlightened European democracies
decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for 'a convenient temporary
solution.' Do not try to appease the Arabs at our expense - this is
unacceptable to us. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will
fight terrorism."
2. PALESTINIAN DEMONSTRATIONS FOR BIN LADEN
Hundreds of Palestinian students demonstrated in favor of Bin Laden
and against the American attack on Afghanistan in Gaza today.  The
Palestinian Authority refused to allow photographers to film the
demonstration, and PA police dispersed the demonstrators with tear
gas.  In Ramallah, PA officials prevented a British TV team from
asking Ramallah civilians their opinions on the American attack.  The
PA itself has not yet issued an official declaration on the American
offensive, and PA Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo said that the
senior PA leadership was "studying" the situation.  Privately,
however, many PA seniors had strong words against the Americans
attack, Ynet reported today.
3. ARAB KNESSET MEMBERS CRITICIZE U.S. ATTACK
"The U.S. never proved Bin Laden's connection to the Sept. 11
attacks," says MK Abdel Malek Dahamshe, and his colleague Muhammad
Kenaan agrees:  "I would have expected the Arab nations to more
forcefully condemn the attack...  The U.S. simply decided that it
wants to liquidate Islam and the Moslems."  But first and foremost
among the Arab MKs condemning the American attack was MK Muhammad
Barakeh, who said today that the American attack is "an attempt to
intervene in a foreign regime.  It fans the flames of terrorism, hits
innocent people.  The U.S. wants to stabilize its power and the
distribution of world wealth in an unjust manner."
The United States has closed its embassy in Damascus, Syria, as well
as the school for diplomats' children in the city.  A spokesman said
that the move was taken for fear of a terrorist attack.  A leading
Syrian newspaper published an article blaming Israel for the increase
in world terrorism.
4. P.A. PAPER: HOW TO ATTACK JEWS
The Palestinian Authority's official newspaper, Al Hayat Al Jadida,
published an article two days ago about a Fatah ceremony in Gaza where
participants were given a demonstration of how to ambush and kill
Israeli civilians.  Palestinian Media Watch <<www.pmw.org>>, which
monitors the Palestinian Authority media daily, distributed a copy of
the article.  A photograph accompanying the article shows two Arabs
with weapons standing aside a man lying face down on the ground with
his shirt half-filled with blood, with many other Arabs looking on.
******************************************************************
To:            arutz-7@israelnationalnews.com, arutz-7b@israelnationalnews.com 
From:          Arutz-7 Editor <feedback@israelnationalnews.com> 
Subject:       Arutz-7 News: Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2001
Arutz Sheva News Service
<http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com>
Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2001 / Tishrei 23, 5762
------------------------------------------------
TODAY'S HEADLINES:
   1. P.A. POLICE KILL 6 PRO-BIN LADEN DEMONSTRATORS
   2. U.S. PRESSURES ISRAEL TO LEAVE ABU SNEINEH
   3. ISRAEL RESPONDS TO U.N. VOTE ON SYRIA
   4. GOV'T SAYS NO TO ARAB RIGHT OF RETURN
1. P.A. POLICE KILL 6 PRO-BIN LADEN DEMONSTRATORS
Grassroots Arab support for Bin Laden continues to cause problems for
the Palestinian Authority, and in fact, PA police have reacted so
forcefully that they killed six Palestinians in Gaza over the past two
days - three in clashes on Monday, and three more yesterday.
Thousands of Palestinian students and others have demonstrated against
the American offensive in Afghanistan since Monday, and large posters
of Bin Laden were displayed at the funeral of a Hevron terrorist
today.  The PLO temporarily closed at least two colleges in Gaza in an
attempt to halt the rallies, and, to prevent coverage of the pro-Bin
Laden rallies from reaching the West, has also ordered all foreign
journalists out of Gaza.
PLO officials turned to Israel with a request for riot-control
equipment, but Prime Minister Sharon said that Israel would not supply
any type of weapons to the PA.  The Rabin-Peres governments
transferred thousands of weapons to the PA in the early years of the
Oslo Agreements.
Arutz-7 correspondent Haggai Huberman reports that Israel refuses to
give riot-control equipment to the PA - for fear that the equipment
will later be used against Israel.  "In 1991," Huberman said, "during
the Gulf War, the Supreme Court ruled that Israel must distribute gas
masks not only to Israeli citizens but also to Palestinians.  Then
later, during violent Arab riots against Israel, they wore those very
same masks when our soldiers used tear gas against them [thus enabling
them to continue the attacks].  In addition, Israel has no interest in
making it easier for Arafat to put down the support for Bin Laden,
which would again make him appear to be the good guy in the
international effort against Bin Laden.  Officially, the PA refuses to
take sides regarding the American offensive.  But they keep trying to
separate themselves from Bin Laden, and were not happy with his
statement that he would not sit quietly until every Palestinian child
can live quietly; they try to emphasize at every opportunity that
while Bin Laden is a bona-fide terrorist, their struggle is a
legitimate one."
Israel, for its part, does not distinguish between types of terrorism,
and Prime Minister Sharon has said often that Arafat is Israel's Bin
Laden.
2. U.S. PRESSURES ISRAEL TO LEAVE ABU SNEINEH
The U.S. State Department is pressuring Israel to withdraw from the
Abu Sneineh hills in Hevron, according to spokesman Richard Boucher. 
IDF forces now control this area, from where Arabs rained gunfire upon
the Jewish neighborhoods below for the past few months.  Ten-month-old
Shalhevet Pass was murdered by such terrorist fire four months ago,
and several others were wounded.  No Palestinian bullets have been
shot towards the Jewish homes since the IDF took over the area six
days ago, and at least eight terrorists have been killed during this
period.  Despite this, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell called
both Prime Minister Sharon and Foreign Minister Peres last night and
requested/demanded that Israel leave the area.   This was confirmed by
State Department Richard Boucher today.
Powell also briefed Sharon on the American attack in Afghanistan, and
the two spoke about the ongoing warfare in Israel.  Sharon told Powell
that the Palestinian terrorism has not stopped, and that Israel is
taking all necessary measures to protect its citizens.  Foreign
Minister Peres' office released a statement saying that in the
conversation with Peres, Powell spoke in favor of continued Israeli-PA
negotiations.  Peres told the American official that the PA appears to
be taking steps to stop the violence, but that these are not yet
sufficient.
3. ISRAEL RESPONDS TO U.N. VOTE ON SYRIA
Following two days of official silence, Israel's Foreign Ministry has
finally reacted to the decision by the United Nations to allow Syria
to sit on the Security Council.  A statement released by the Ministry
this afternoon said that the choice is a "total distortion, a badge of
shame for the United Nations and its institutions."  Earlier, unnamed
government sources have severely criticized the move, calling it "pure
cynicism," "an absurdity," and "nonsensical."
An overwhelming majority of 160 out of 178 countries voted in a secret
ballot on Monday to allow Syria to sit on the Council - despite the UN
Charter's stipulation that countries should be included on the council
based on their "contribution to international peace and security." 
Syria is the headquarters and financial backer for several
Palestinian, Lebanese, and other terrorist groups, and has been
designated by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism.  The United
States did not oppose Syria's candidacy.
"It is really a sheer absurdity and nonsense to have Syria as a member
of the Security Council," said Israeli Ambassador to the UN Yehuda
Lancry.
The Security Council is composed of fifteen members, five of whom -
the U.S., the U.K., China, France, and Russia - are permanent and have
veto power.  Syria, Mexico, Guinea, Bulgaria, and Cameroon will begin
their two-year terms on Jan. 1, 2002, joining Colombia, Ireland,
Mauritius, Norway and Singapore, which conclude their two-year terms
on Dec. 31, 2002.
4. GOV'T SAYS NO TO ARAB RIGHT OF RETURN
The security cabinet decided this morning not to allow the return of
Arabs to two northern villages they abandoned over 50 years ago during
the War of Independence.  The ministers decided not to change a
decision made by the Golda Meir government some 30 years ago regarding
the villages Ikrit and Bir'am, explaining that to allow the return at
this point would set a dangerous precedent regarding the Arabs' demand
for the return of millions of refugees to Israel.  The ministers thus
adopted the recommendations of a committee headed by Cabinet Secretary
Gideon Saar that investigated the matter in depth.  The Saar Committee
found that allowing the Arabs to re-settle the areas is liable to harm
Israeli security and would give an official stamp of approval to an
Arab "right of return."
Opposition leader MK Yossi Sarid (Meretz) said he would join those
appealing the decision in the Supreme Court.
The situation of Ikrit and Bir'am is unique in that the residents were
asked in November 1948 to temporarily leave their homes to enable the
establishment of a security zone along the Lebanese border. The Arab
residents contend that they were promised by the government that they
would return - and in fact, the Rabin government decided to allot
12,000 dunams (approx. 3,000 acres) to 600 families of the two
villages, thus overturning a decision by the Golda Meir government -
also of Labor - not to allow the Arabs to return.  Today, the lands to
which the Arabs wish to return are owned and worked by the Jewish
farmers of five northern communities, including Shomera, some 15
kilometers east of Rosh HaNikra on the Mediterranean coast and less
than ten north of Ma'alot.  A representative of Shomera explained to
Arutz-7:
"The residents of Ikrit are not displaced persons. They actively
fought against the Israel Defense Forces, and only when they realized
that they would lose the battle and suffer heavy casualties, did they
surrender unconditionally. I have a copy of the document of surrender
written and signed by the village representatives... We have paid a
heavy price of blood to live here. Children have been killed from
enemy fire. In the [Rabin] government's attempt to correct an
injustice, it is creating a bigger one."
Merom HaGalil Regional Council head Aharon Ma'atuk said that it was
true that the government had made a promise to the Arabs, "but it
seems that we are forgetting one issue, perhaps the most important
matter of all:  We are, little by little, losing our grip on the
Jewish state... [In addition to the national and demographic blow],
allowing these people to return to land currently worked by Jewish
farmers would be very damaging.  The economic situation of our
residents is poor...  The government [planned] to bring here an Arab
population that has already become established in the larger cities,
and bringing them here will create a large gap between the Jewish and
Arab residents..."  He said that the objections in Merom HaGalil
transcend political boundaries, and that both right- and left-wingers
are against allowing Arabs to return to the areas they left over 50
years ago.
**************************************************************
To:            arutz-7@israelnationalnews.com, arutz-7b@israelnationalnews.com 
From:          Arutz-7 Editor <feedback@israelnationalnews.com> 
Subject:       Arutz-7 News: Thursday, Oct. 11, 2001
Arutz Sheva News Service
<http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com>
Thursday, Oct. 11, 2001 / Tishrei 24, 5762
------------------------------------------------
TODAY'S HEADLINES:
1. POWELL TO ISRAEL:  DON'T WORRY, THERE'S NOTHING TO BE AFRAID OF
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told NBC last night that Israelis
need not fear an American attempt to "sell out their security," and
that the U.S. sees Israel as its close friend.  Powell was responding
to a question as to whether the Bush Administration would pressure
Sharon to agree to a Palestinian state and the division of Jerusalem. 
"Israel is the only democracy in the region," Powell said, "and we
will always support its security."  The State Department spokesman
said that Sharon has already agreed to a Palestinian state, but that
there is no plan to present the sides with a Jerusalem-dividing map. 
The Boston Globe reported yesterday that the Bush administration "is
prepared in the next few weeks to publicly increase pressure" on
Sharon to accept "not only a Palestinian state but a viable
Palestinian homeland that includes a 'shared Jerusalem.'"
At the same time, it was reported that four Congressmen congratulated
President Bush less than three weeks ago for his lack of pressure on
Israel.  U.S. Congressmen Jim Saxton, Anthony Weiner, Christopher
Smith, and Robert Andrews wrote to Bush, "We would like to thank you
and members of your administration for continuing your policy on
allowing Israel to establish its own timetable regarding negotiations
with Yassir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.  Unfortunately,"
their letter continued, "past administrations have pressured Israel to
enter negotiations with poor results.  In the waning days of the
Clinton Administration, former Prime Minister Barak made many
far-reaching concessions on a number of controversial issues...
Chairman Arafat rejected these concessions and left the negotiating
table and the result has been an escalation of violence... Recent
events dictate that each country is ultimately responsible for the
safety of its citizens and must act accordingly..."
2. ETTINGER: U.S. DOESN'T NEED PLO STATE
Does the U.S. need another terrorist state in the Mideast?  Yoram
Ettinger, Israel's former liaison to the U.S. Congress, asks this
question in his weekly column today - The Jerusalem Cloakroom,
published by the Ariel Center for Policy Research - and answers with a
resounding No.  "The PLO's track record," writes Ettinger, "suggests
that a PLO state would have bolstered Saddam [ever] since 1990;
aligned itself with Iran; doomed Jordan during the 1970 Syrian
invasion; threatened Kuwait and other Persian Gulf Sheikhdoms; become
the prime training ground for international terrorists; provided
Russia and China with another Mideast platform; been the most corrupt
and oppressive regime in the region; and utilized its initial
territory as a springboard to establish a narco-terrorist state from
Iraq to the Mediterranean."  He also notes the pro-Bin Laden,
pro-Saddam and anti-US rallies in PLO-controlled areas, reflecting the
"eight years of brainwashing by the PLO via schools, mosques and
media."
********************************************************************

Return to Newsgroup Archives Main Page

Return to our Main Webpage


©2011 Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by
Web Design by JB.