ZioNation - Progressive Zionism and Israel Web Log

ZioNation home Archives Site map Policy Definitions FAQ timeline history documents Links Photos Contact

Articles and Reference

History of Zionism and Israel
Zionism
Middle East Encyclopedia
History of Anti-Semitism
History of Anti-Zionism
Encylopedic Dictionary of Zionism and Israel
Zionism and its Impact
Zionism - Issues & answers
Maps of Israel
Six Day War
War of Independence
Bible
Bible  Quotes
1948 Israel War of Independence Timeline Christian Zionism
Christian Zionism History
Gaza & the Qassam Victims of Sderot
Zionist Quotes
Learn Hebrew
Jew
Anti-Semitism
Pogrom
Israel
Zionists
Israel Boycott?
Boycott Israel?
Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
Jew Hate
International Zionism
Commentary in Russian
Middle East
The Grand Mufti Hajj Amin Al Husseini
Albert Einstein
Palestine: Ethnic Cleansing
History Arab-Israeli Conflict
Boycott Israel?
Amnesty International Report on Gaza War


FREE EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION
Subscribe to
ZNN
email newsletter for this site and others

Powered by groups.yahoo.com

Daniel Pipes has rightly pointed it out: Op Eds Now More Central in War than Bullets. This is especially true of the battle for Israeli legitimacy. There are many battles, but the long term issue that is central to the war, is the existence of Israel, and that issue will be decided not on the battlefield, but in Western public opinion. If the United States and EU withdraw their support for Israel's existence and support a Palestinian state in its place, it is unlikely that Israel could survive for very long. Few people in the West have broad basic knowledge that can allow them to make an informed decision about the Middle East. 25% of Americans never heard of Hamas. Large numbers of people in USA and Europe think Israel is the size of France. Their opinions are formed from superficial and slanted coverage given in Op-Eds and television news features.



For the Middle East as for no other area, there is a huge collection of analyses and "histories" that have not been written as attempts to ascertain facts, but rather as attempts to convince people of a point of view. Histories are frequently written to prove a thesis. Accounts of the Middle East are frequently written to prove a specific political thesis, rather than an academic point of historiography or geopolitical analysis. They are written by anti-Zionists, with the aim of proving that Israel is the villain. That is what is available on the Web, in books and television documentaries.

When there is a crisis in the Middle East, there is suddenly a great demand for such materials, and people are exposed to deliberately slanted versions of history and events. They frequently do not know how to separate fact from opinion. Very often, Op-Eds invent facts like the Jenin "massacre." Journalistic policy unfortunately allows misrepresentation of facts in opinion pieces, as part of "freedom of expression." Unwary readers, who have no background for judging the facts, are convinced after reading one or two articles by their favorite commentator and a book like "Iron Wall," that they are now experts on the Middle East.

A case in point is the recent Chris McGreal series in the Guardian which claimed to provide an open minded analysis of whether or not Israel is an apartheid state. In actuality, McGreal made fast and loose with the facts. The report was billed not only as objective "news" but as the work of an expert. Guardian hype-writers gushed:

After four years reporting from Jerusalem and more than a decade from Johannesburg before that, the Guardian's award-winning Middle East correspondent Chris McGreal is exceptionally well placed to assess this explosive comparison. Here we publish the first part of his two-day special report

McGreal's technique ranged from bending the truth a bit to total confabulation. For example, readers were given the impression that it is an established fact that there was a firm open alliance between Israel and apartheid South Africa, and that Arabs cannot buy land in Israel, neither of which is true.

However, when Alex Safian of CAMERA complained to the Press Complaints Commission, the complaint was not upheld. The verdict stated:

The Commission first observed that the article had been presented as the view of the journalist and the sources he quoted. He had made clear that his claims would be contentious, and indicated that the majority of Israelis would not accept the comparison between Israel and apartheid South Africa. Readers would, in the Commission’s view, be aware that this represented a particular – and polemical – approach to an extremely complicated subject, and that other versions of a historical account of the position in Israel would undoubtedly exist. It was clear from the manner in which the articles were presented that they represented the writer’s personal thesis, based on his own experiences.



How would readers be aware that that Chris McGreal's particular and polemical approach is due to his racist ideology? It is unlikely however, that despite the clear evidence that the Guardian presented McGreal as an unbiased expert, any journalistic board would rule otherwise, because anything is allowed in op-eds.

The commission also stated:

While the Commission acknowledged that the complainant was able to question the merits of such claims, it felt that the newspaper was entitled to publish them, provided that their provenance was made clear in the article. It considered that readers would not have been misled as to the basis for the article’s justification of its arguments, and would recognise that other evidence might exist – in such a complex political area – to oppose it.:

This illustrates a second point. Even in news reports, it is possible to write just about anything, as long as it is "attributed" to someone: "According to Smith, a well regarded expert...," "A local resident said that Israeli soldiers had beaten Palestinians on many occasions." Indeed, the commission found that it was perfectly OK to establish that no Arabs live in the Jewish quarter of the old city of Jerusalem just by citing a local resident who said that Muslims were not allowed to live there. In fact, over 20% of the population of the Jewish quarter is Muslim. However, facts don't matter to the Press Complaints Commission or the Guardian.

A serious attempt to change Israel's image in the media has to address this problem. It has to make sure people are armed with the facts. It has to teach people how to read op-eds and slanted histories and how to analyze the theses they present and evaluate them. It has to reach media people and ensure that they are informed and not biased as well. It can't be done by a slick PR campaign, and it will take many years. Convinced that "public opinion doesn't matter," Israel has wasted several complacent decades while the other side has been busily at work.

Source materials are below at
(http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000276.html)

Ami Isseroff




Press Complaints Commission adjudication.


Denis


COMPLAINANT NAME:
Adjudication - Mr Alex Safian v The Guardian

CLAUSES NOTED: 1

PUBLICATION: The Guardian

COMPLAINT:

Mr Alex Safian of CAMERA complained to the Press Complaints Commission that two articles headlined “Worlds apart” and “Brothers in arms – Israel’s secret pact with Pretoria” published in The Guardian on 6 February and 7 February were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy).


The complaint was not upheld.


The articles compared Israel and apartheid South Africa, contending that there were many similarities between policies in the two countries. It also argued that there was an alliance between the countries which led to Israel providing South Africa with the technology that that was central to its development of nuclear bombs.


The complainant said that the vast majority of the arguments used in the articles to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa were based on materially false accusations. The journalist had falsely attributed to Israeli leaders such as Ariel Sharon and Uzi Landau extreme anti-Arab positions. There was an inherent deception in the journalist’s choices of interviewees, which constituted a wide range of Israel’s critics. The journalist had repeatedly attacked Israel and its Jewish citizens as racist practitioners of Apartheid.

In addition, the complainant argued that there were a number of points of material inaccuracy in the articles, of which the following appeared to the Commission to be the most significant in terms of the Code.


First, he objected to the contention that Israeli governments reserved 93% of the land for Jews through state ownership, the Jewish National Fund and the Israeli Lands Authority. While this claim was common and appeared on thousands of websites and in many books, it was false. The Israel Land Administration administered the 79.5% of land owned by the government and the 14% owned by the JNF, totalling 93.5% of all land. State-owned land was equally available to all citizens of Israel, Jews and non-Jews.


Second, the articles falsely claimed that Israeli law barred Muslims and Christians from living in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City. In fact, the complainant said, non-Jews lived in the Jewish Quarter in substantial numbers while relatively few Jews lived in the Muslim Quarter. According to the most recent figures, at least 480 Muslims – or 22.5% of the population – lived in the Jewish Quarter; Jews made up only 1.68% of the Muslim Quarter’s population. The expert, who had been quoted on this point in the articles, was not reliable.

Third, it was also incorrect that the Jerusalem’s Arab residents were denied permission to build new homes or expand existing ones. Arabs in Jerusalem received building permits at the same rate as Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and paid an identical fee for water and sewage hook-ups. There were a number of reasons why Arabs chose to build illegally rather than applying for permits, including that to apply recognised Israeli control over the city, and that applying for permits cost a few thousand dollars.

Fourth, the claim that Israel prevented Israeli Arabs from forming their own political parties until the 1980s was inaccurate. Arabs had never been prevented from forming their own parties. In the 1977 elections, the Arab-dominated Democratic Front for Peace and Equality won five Knesset seats; a number of smaller Arab parties ran unsuccessfully including the Arab Reform Movement and Coexistence with Justice. The Democratic Front for Peace and Equality had been backed by the PLO. While there were affiliated parties, Arab Reform Movement and Coexistence with Justice were genuinely independent Arab parties.

Finally, the journalist’s contention that Israel provided expertise and technology central to South Africa’s development of its nuclear bombs – and its arms industry more generally – had been based on a few vague remarks of Alon Liel. Although there had been speculation over Israeli-South African collusion on developing a nuclear weapon, the evidence argued against significant cooperation. The Africa Confidential article referred to by the newspaper did not support its charges.

The newspaper said that the journalist had spent a number of years living in Israel and South Africa, and that he had drawn on his own experiences, observations and research, and had included a wide range of interviewees chosen for their specialist knowledge of the various issues. CAMERA was a pro-Israel pressure group that sought to influence press coverage of Israel, and contended that there was no systematic discrimination in Israel. The complainant was seeking to impose a political viewpoint. Many of his points were matters of interpretation, and some related to claims made by those interviewed and not by the journalist. The subject matter was largely historic, disputed and contentious, but the journalist’s work was based on sound and accurate journalism.


The newspaper stood by the claim that 93% of the land in Israel was reserved for Jews. Around 70% of Israelis lived on JNF-owned land as it covered some of the most fertile and urbanised areas; much of the rest of the land was desert or water. JNF land could only be sold or leased to Jews and Jewish leaseholders were prevented from subletting to non-Jews. When human rights groups challenged this situation in 2005, the JNF threatened to cut all legal ties with the state to prevent anyone but Jews building on its land. The state-owned land administered by the ILA was less valuable, but almost none of it was leased to Arabs for farming. In any case, almost half of the ILA’s board of directors was appointed by the JNF, whose policies set the policies for the use of the rest of state land. Israeli governments and the ILA applied the JNF’s principles to state-owned land; it was wrong to contend that the state-owned land was equally available to Jews and Arab citizens.


On the point of non-Jews living in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, the newspaper said that the claim came from a local lawyer, who was directly quoted. The government figures cited by the complainant hinged on definitions of what constituted the Jewish and Muslim Quarters: the Israeli government had one and Muslim authorities another. There was evidence to suggest that there were more Jews living in the non-Jewish quarters of the old city than non-Jews living in the Jewish Quarter.

The complainant had ignored the statistics quoted in the article that 1,695 building permits had been awarded in Jerusalem, with only 116 falling within the Arab parts of East Jerusalem. In 2005, 212,789 sq metres were built with permits in Jerusalem; 7 % was in Arab neighbourhoods. Although all building permit applications by Arab residents in East Jerusalem were approved, the city authority operated a system where Arab residents needed clearance to apply for building permits; they could be rejected on several grounds. The city did not keep statistics on how many Arabs were told they could not apply, but in 2001 the authorities said that 1,367 homes were built illegally in Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem, which gave some indication as to how many people wanted to build homes.

Arab Israelis were subject to military rule from 1949 to 1966 and came under restrictions on their freedom of speech and right to organise politically; this included an effective ban on political parties. The practical effect was to direct Arab political activity towards parties led by Jewish Israelis. The Democratic Front for Peace and Equality was not an Arab party as such; it was a communist party led by a Jew with no Arab nationalist element. Other ostensibly Arab parties were affiliated to the main Israeli parties. It was not until the 1980s that truly independent Arab parties emerged. The Israeli Supreme Court upheld the right of the government to ban Arab parties that proposed that Israel should not be defined as a Jewish state. There were still attempts to restrict Arab political activity. Moreover, the article had not indicated that there was a law that restricted the formation of Arab parties.

Information about Israel’s nuclear cooperation first emerged in the 1980s and was expanded on at the end of apartheid. Publications documented details of a secret trial in the mid-1980s at which it emerged that South Africa sold yellowcake to Israel and Israel supplied enough tritium to South Africa to manufacture 12 atomic bombs. The newspaper cited several other sources in support of the claim that Israel assisted South Africa in developing nuclear weapons and its arms industry.

The complainant in reply argued that many of the sources cited by the newspaper had contradicted its contentions. It was established, he said, that Israeli Arabs were able to lease land from the ILA, and have access to JNF land. He challenged the newspaper’s claim that the boundaries of the Jewish and Muslim Quarters of Jerusalem were in dispute.



DECISION:
Not Upheld

ADJUDICATION:

The Commission first observed that the article had been presented as the view of the journalist and the sources he quoted. He had made clear that his claims would be contentious, and indicated that the majority of Israelis would not accept the comparison between Israel and apartheid South Africa. Readers would, in the Commission’s view, be aware that this represented a particular – and polemical – approach to an extremely complicated subject, and that other versions of a historical account of the position in Israel would undoubtedly exist. It was clear from the manner in which the articles were presented that they represented the writer’s personal thesis, based on his own experiences.

Others would disagree with him – and it was apparent to the Commission that much of this complaint was founded on the complainant’s fundamental disagreement with the hypothesis at the centre of the articles. However, inherent in freedom of expression is the right for newspapers to publish challenging and partisan material, which inevitably includes political judgements with which many will disagree. The newspaper was entitled – in the Commission’s view – to select material, in the form of quotations (which had not been disputed by the people quoted) or statistics, that supported the clearly-stated premise of the article. It was not obliged to attempt to balance every statement with reference to a counter-argument or counter-interpretation that existed elsewhere and opposed the position espoused in the article. The role of the Commission was to determine whether the article was misleading in its presentation of that position, and whether any significant inaccuracies could be established, in breach of Clause 1 of the Code.

However, it was certainly not in the Commission’s power to come to a decision as to what constituted historically-accepted fact. The particular points of alleged inaccuracy specified within the complaint were all widely disputed in different accounts. For example, regarding the newspaper’s contention that 93% of land in Israel was reserved for Jews, there was the following conflict: the complainant had indicated that the land, which was administered by the ILA, was equally available to all citizens; the newspaper did not accept this, contending that the ILA applied the JNF’s principles to state-owned land, which was – in any case – less valuable than that owned by the JNF. This was obviously a point of considerable historical dispute – indeed the claim had been widely disseminated elsewhere – which it was not the Commission’s job to reconcile.

The same difficulty existed in regard to the claim that Arab Israelis had been prevented from forming their own political parties, which was based on the newspaper’s view that truly independent Arab parties did not emerge until the 1980s. There was clearly disagreement as to what constituted a truly independent Arab party, and at what stage they therefore came into existence. It was not within the power of the Commission to make a decision on this point. The article did not claim that there was a law that suppressed Arab Israeli political activity, but rather that forces existed to prevent the formation of specific Arab parties. It was not for the Commission to prove this either way; it stood as the journalist’s own contention, which the newspaper was entitled to publish.


The other claims of inaccuracy all rested on a basic conflict between the accounts on which the newspaper was choosing to rely and those put forward by the complainant. The claim that non-Jews were restricted from living in the Jewish Quarter was based on the comments of a named source, and did not include the suggestion that non-Jews did not live at all in the Jewish Quarter. The claim that Arabs were denied permission to build new homes was based on the statistic that twelve times as many new homes were legally built in Jewish areas as in Arab ones; this denial of permission included the fact that Arabs were discouraged from applying for permits in the first place. Finally, the article had quoted several named sources in support of its contention that Israel provided expertise and technology central to South Africa’s development of its nuclear bombs, something which had been widely reported.

While the Commission acknowledged that the complainant was able to question the merits of such claims, it felt that the newspaper was entitled to publish them, provided that their provenance was made clear in the article. It considered that readers would not have been misled as to the basis for the article’s justification of its arguments, and would recognise that other evidence might exist – in such a complex political area – to oppose it.

It did not consider that any breach of Clause 1 had been established and the complaint was, therefore, not upheld



From www.danielpipes.org
Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/4059

Op Eds Now More Central in War than Bullets
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
October 17, 2006

[NY Sun title: The West Must Learn The Public Relations of War]

Soldiers, sailors, and airmen once determined the outcome of warfare, but no longer. Today, television producers, columnists, preachers, and politicians have the pivotal role in deciding how well the West fights. This shift has deep implications.

In a conventional conflict like World War II, fighting had two premises so basic, they went nearly unnoticed.

The first: Conventional armed forces engage in an all-out fight for victory. The opposing sides deploy serried ranks of soldiers, lines of tanks, fleets of ships, and squadrons of aircraft. Millions of youth go to war as civilians endure privations. Strategy and intelligence matter, but the size of one's population, economy, and arsenal count even more. An observer can assess the progress of war by keeping tabs of such objective factors as steel output, oil stocks, ship construction, and control of land.

Second assumption: Each side's population loyally backs its national leadership. To be sure, traitors and dissidents need to be rooted out, but a wide consensus backs the rulers. This was especially noteworthy in the Soviet Union, where even Stalin's demented mass-murdering did not stop the population from giving its all for "Mother Russia."

Both aspects of this paradigm are now defunct in the West.

First, battling all-out for victory against conventional enemy forces has nearly disappeared, replaced by the more indirect challenge of guerrilla operations, insurgencies, intifadas, and terrorism. This new pattern applied to the French in Algeria, Americans in Vietnam, and Soviets in Afghanistan. It currently holds for Israelis versus Palestinians, coalition forces in Iraq, and in the war on terror.

This change means that what the U.S. military calls "bean counting" – counting soldiers and weapons – is now nearly immaterial, as are diagnoses of the economy or control of territory. Lopsided wars resemble police operations more than combat in earlier eras. As in crime-fighting, the side enjoying a vast superiority in power operates under a dense array of constraints, while the weaker party freely breaks any law and taboo in its ruthless pursuit of power.

Second, the solidarity and consensus of old have unraveled. This process has been underway for just over a century now (starting with the British side of the Boer War in 1899-1902). As I wrote in 2005: "The notion of loyalty has fundamentally changed. Traditionally, a person was assumed faithful to his natal community. A Spaniard or Swede was loyal to his monarch, a Frenchman to his republic, an American to his constitution. That assumption is now obsolete, replaced by a loyalty to one's political community – socialism, liberalism, conservatism, or Islamism, to name some options. Geographical and social ties matter much less than of old."

With loyalties now in play, wars are decided more on the Op Ed pages and less on the battlefield. Good arguments, eloquent rhetoric, subtle spin-doctoring, and strong poll numbers count more than taking a hill or crossing a river. Solidarity, morale, loyalty, and understanding are the new steel, rubber, oil, and ammunition. Opinion leaders are the new flag and general officers. Therefore, as I wrote in August, Western governments "need to see public relations as part of their strategy."

Even in a case like the Iranian regime's acquisition of atomic weaponry, Western public opinion is the key, not its arsenal. If united, Europeans and Americans will likely dissuade Iranians from going ahead with nuclear weapons. If disunited, Iranians will be emboldened to plunge ahead.

What Carl von Clausewitz called war's "center of gravity" has shifted from force of arms to the hearts and minds of citizens. Do Iranians accept the consequences of nuclear weapons? Do Iraqis welcome coalition troops as liberators? Do Palestinians willingly sacrifice their lives in suicide bombings? Do Europeans and Canadians want a credible military force? Do Americans see Islamism presenting a lethal danger?

Non-Western strategists recognize the primacy of politics and focus on it. A string of triumphs – Algeria in 1962, Vietnam in 1975, and Afghanistan in 1989 – all relied on eroding political will. Al-Qaeda's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, codified this idea in a letter in July 2005, observing that more than half of the Islamists' battle "is taking place in the battlefield of the media."

The West is fortunate to predominate in the military and economic arenas, but these no longer suffice. Along with its enemies, it needs to give due attention to the public relations of war.


Original content is Copyright by the author 2006. Posted at ZioNation-Zionism and Israel Web Log, http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000276.html where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Disributed by ZNN list. Subscribe by sending a message to ZNN-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by e-mail with this notice, cite this article and link to it. Other uses by permission only.

Click to Reddit! Facebook Share

add to del.icio.us

Add to digg - digg it

Replies: 2 Comments

alliance?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goodman3nov03,0,133806.story?coll=la-home-commentary

Botha wasted no time in orienting himself to me. "All right, Mr. Goodman, let me get straight with you. You're of Jewish descent, aren't you?" he said, not so much asking as telling me. Ethnicity mattered, now as always. "I am an admirer of great men in Israel," he declared. He recalled how he first helped Israeli leaders by sending them a "small boatload of 1,000-pound bombs."

Botha wasted no time in orienting himself to me. "All right, Mr. Goodman, let me get straight with you. You're of Jewish descent, aren't you?" he said, not so much asking as telling me. Ethnicity mattered, now as always. "I am an admirer of great men in Israel," he declared. He recalled how he first helped Israeli leaders by sending them a "small boatload of 1,000-pound bombs."

We strolled around his library, and he pulled out books and gifts from the few world leaders who would meet him during his embattled rule. There was a gift from the president of Taiwan, one from the king of Morocco, several items from Israeli leaders and a bevy of souvenirs from the black puppet leaders whom he propped up in South Africa's former homelands. The mementos reinforced what a pariah apartheid South Africa was.

claire, Saturday, November 4th


sounds like there was an alliance to me:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378307806&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
"How could you do this to us, after so many years of friendship and alliance?" Botha railed.

Botha, who died Tuesday night aged 90, was a staunch friend of Israel and the architect of the Pretoria-Jerusalem alliance during the dark years of apartheid. He felt so personally hurt by the Israeli sanctions that he wrote directly to the prime minister.

claire, Thursday, November 2nd


Constructive comments, including corrections, are welcome. Do not use this space for spam, publishing articles, self promotion, racism, anti-Zionist propaganda or character defamation. Inappropriate comments will be deleted. See our Comment policy for details. By posting here, you agree to the Comment policy.

Home
Archives

Please take our reader survey!

Links
Our Sites

Zionism
Zionism News Net
Zionism-Israel Pages
Brave Zionism
Israël-Palestina.Info (Dutch & English)
Our Blogs
Israel News
IMO Blog - Israël & Midden-Oosten (NL)
Israel Like this, as if
Zionism News Net
Israel & Palestijnen Nieuws Blog
Israël in de Media


Blog Roll:
Adam Holland
Blue Truth
CIF Watch
Contentious Centrist
Dutchblog Israel (NL/EN)
Harry's Place
Ignoble Experiment
Irene Lancaster's Diary
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Israpundit
Jeff Weintraub Commentaries and controversies
Jewish Issues Watchdog Meretz USA Weblog
Meryl Yourish
Middle East Analysis
MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log
Modernity Blog
normblog
Pro Israel Bay Bloggers
Point of no return
Simply Jews
Solomonia
Something Something
Tempting Topical Topics
The Augean Stables
Unplugged Mike
Oy Bay! San Francisco Bay Area Jews
Vital Perspective
Israel Mon Amour
Liberty & Justice
On the Contrary
Magdeburger Chossid
Tulip - Israeli-Palestinian Trade Union Assoc.
Southern Wolf
Sharona's Week
Sanda & Israel
Fresno Zionism
Anti-Racist Blog
UN-Biased
ZOTW's Zionism and Israel News
Zionism On The Web News
ZOTW's Blogs
Christian Attitudes
Dr Ginosar Recalls
Questions: Zionism anti-Zionism Israel & Palestine
Liberal for Israel

A Jew with a view
BlueTruth
Realistic Dove
Christians Standing With Israel - Blog
Liberticracia
SEO for Everyone
Vision to Reality: The Reut Blog
Calev's Blog
Candidly speaking from Jerusalem
Dvar Dea
Ray Cook
Shimshon 9

Mark Halawa


This link space is 4 your blog - contact us!

Other Web sites and pages:

PeaceWatch Middle East Commentary Christians Standing With Israel
Zionism On the Web
Guide to Middle East, Zionism
Z-Word
Z-Word blog
Labor Zionism
Le Grand Mufti Husseini
The Grand Mufti Hajj Amin El Husseini
ZNN - Zionism News Network Middle East
Euston Manifesto
Jewish Blogging
Peace With Realism
Israel Facts (NL)
Space Shuttle Blog
SEO
Mysterology
Love Poems
At Zionism On the Web
Articles on Zionism
Anti-Zionism Information Center
Academic boycott of Israel Resource Center
The anti-Israel Hackers
Antisemitism Information Center
Zionism Israel and Apartheid
Middle East, Peace and War
The Palestine state
ZOTW Expert Search
ZOTW Forum



Judaica

Judaica: Jewish Gifts:
Shofar
Mezuzah



RSS V 1.0


RSS V 2.0


Help us improve - Please click here to take our reader survey

All entries copyright by the authors and or Zionism-Israel Information Center. Please forward materials by e-mail with URLS. Other uses by permission only.

security