Cold Peace - Going it alone - 22 March 09 - Part 1

[Smoozable]

peace is against the holly expansion of Israel ... kill the Zionists with peace ... peace is their weakness .yet the Arabs so stupid they don't realize it ... god bless you Sadat

[claremaugeri]

very informative clip .. thanks keep it up

[sterlingmenthol77]

no fuck sadat the nigger

[RedSeaBoi]

fuck arabs

[doglin82]

well guess what? COLD PEACE is still better than war!

[superdavid002]

I mention Begin and Sadat in The History Song.

[vadimzdonutube]

is that arafat at 7:13 in the audience, bottom right on the screen?

[RainCastle88]

stupid sadat,hate him,why didn't he joined movies in egypt he would hav b worst actor in floped movie industry in egypt

[marica0marius]

Sadat returned Sinai.

Sadat Camp David agreement is bringing Egypt 2 Billion dollars a year.

Sadat peace allowed Egypt's army to be rebuilt on modern standard.

[WhoaJ30]

lets not forget that Israel was far away from Cairo at the start of the Yom Kippur War, and at the end, they were less than 60 miles. Israel won militarily, tho in the end, both won diplomatically. Israel got peace from Egypt, Egypt got their Sinai back

[SexciiAsad]

Saddat was a fucking asshole

fucking sold out son of a bitch

fuck those zionist pigs!!!!!

[jessym290]

YOU ARE the fucking asshole, Sadat got sinai back and spared the lives of hundreds of egyptian and israeli soldiers. these people wanna live in peace LEAVE THEM ALONE

[SexciiAsad]

sadat was a dumb bitch, who only cared aout himself and not his people , by the way you dont sound like you know much..FUCK SADDat....ya manyouk ka7ba...this fucker did nothing for the palestinian cause enshallah he burns in hell

[kems1977]

i think u r an abnormal person to say bad words about Sadat,Sadat is the 4th pyramid of Egypt and  if u dont like Egypt,its your opinion,so go eat your shit,u want us to raise our two finger like arabs for victory or what? this is the price that a good man can pay coz idiots like u are fooling around

[marica0marius]

Why should we (Egyptians) care about Palestinians. FUCK PALESTINIANS. FUCK PALESTINIANS. FUCK PALESTINIANS. FUCK PALESTINIANS. FUCK PALESTINIANS. FUCK PALESTINIANS. FUCK PALESTINIANS. FUCK PALESTINIANS. FUCK PALESTINIANS. FUCK PALESTINIANS. FUCK PALESTINIANS. FUCK PALESTINIANS.

[khitb]

u know wut dont argue on the internet go ask a real Egyptian or tell one of ur Arab friends who will tell you the truth in ur face to ask...

[ABHA2008]

Sadat was a traitor!!

[helaker]

Poor video as usual from Al-Jazeera. They seem to have an anti-Egyptian campaign going on. They failed to mention Operation Nickelgrass, the largest military airlift since World War II in which the United States basically preserved Israel's existence by any means necessary. They also made the claim that the Israeli' army was "80 kilometers from Cairo," which in fact has never been credibly substantiated. You wouldn't know that Egypt preserved most of its gains in the war from this video.

[madrid23]

yep, but u still have to give to them for making such a documentary. I love watching this channel just for that. They really go after the root of the conflict and highlight its history quite well. Hard to see that in most American television. This was an historical event, and me as a student and lover of history am really glad that Al-Jazeera takes its efforts to illustrate such events.

[helaker]

I agree with you, I just think they left out too many vital details that would push their point home even further. They instead occupied that time with a couple of unsubstantiated inaccuracies. Nevertheless... the point is the peace has been a cold one, and perhaps, dare I say, has yielded more harm than good.

[matlm]

Egypt was being armed heavily by the Soviet Union, so it only made sense for Israel to seek desperate assistance from the United States.

The war ended with Israel controlling more territory at the end than at the beginning. It was a decisive Israeli victory.

[helaker]

That's not true at all. Egypt never lost control of the East bank of the canal. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the war knows this. If it was anything other than an Egyptian victory, Golda Meir and all of Israel's senior defense officials wouldn't have been driven from office.

[helaker]

Plus they would have accepted Sadat's peace overtures before the war.

[matlm]

Sadat's "peace overtures" demanded that Israel more or less withdraw to pre-1967 borders. Israel refused, but all along had offered Sadat peace in exchange for the Sinai. Saddat refused and went to war. When the war ended, Saddat didn't offer Israel anything other than what Israel had been offering since the end of the Yom Kippur War.

[matlm]

Golda Meir was booted from office for her failure to successfully and sufficiently anticipate the surprise attack. Israel's eventual victory does not erase this initial failure, for which she was held accountable.

[matlm]

What are you talking about? On August 29 1967, before Golda Meir was even Prime Minister, the Arab League (including Egypt) issues the Khartoum Declaration: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

Israel, nonetheless, asked for negotiations through Swedish diplomat Gunnar Jarring (search "Jarring Mission"). Egypt refused to negotiate until Israel withdrew from acquired territories.

[helaker]

This is totally irrelevant. I am speaking about Sadat's Egypt (i.e. post-1970). His vision and policies contrasted sharply with the policies that preceded Nasser's death. Sadat wanted to talk to Israel directly, not beat around the bush through third parties. Israel refused to speak to Egypt, even with a mediating U.S.

[helaker]

I'm sure the surprise element factored in, but the failure to anticipate the attack was the responsibility of Israeli intelligence, not the Prime Minister and certainly not military brass. The wholesale ouster was the result of a military failure, high causalities, the loss of land, and the need for the largest military airlift since World War II in order to curtail Egyptian advances. Not to mention dragging the U.S. into a DEFCON III nuclear alert.

[matlm]

Type in "Yom Kippur War" on google image search. The right-most image in the first row will show you a map of territory control at the end of the war. Israel compensated for its loss of territory on the East Bank by gaining territory on the African continent and in Syria.

[helaker]

I am speaking only of the Egyptian front. The maps confirm Egypt's seizure of the East bank, which was my claim. That hardly equates to a "decisive Israeli victory," let alone a victory. To the south, yes - Israel encroached upon Egypt's side of the canal.

[matlm]

If Egypt's goal was the recapture the Sinai, then it was a resounding failure and decisive Israeli victory.

If Egypt's goal was to force Israel to negotiate in its terms, then it failed as well. Prior to the war, Sadat demanded that negotiations be preconditioned upon Israeli withdrawal. Israel wanted negotiations without the precondition of withdrawal. When negotiations were conducted, they were conducted on Israel's terms and not Egypt's, thus another decisive victory for Israel.

[helaker]

Simply untrue. Sadat's goal, as is widely known, was to capture control of the canal and use it as a bargaining chip. If he wanted to gain the whole of Sinai he wouldn't have gone against the advice of his generals when he suddenly ordered his forces to halt their advance. The whole world knew it was only a matter of time before the U.S. offered its unlimited military aid. Thus protecting gains became the priority. The war was a military and political success for Egypt. In hindsight however...

[helaker]

the peace treaty only benefited Israel, as illustrated by the various celebrations there.

[matlm]

If Sadat wanted to use "control of the canal" as a bargaining chip, then he failed. The bargaining was done on Israel's previously stated conditions: direct negotiations without a precondition of Israel adhering to the Arab interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 242.

In terms of military success, nobody will deny the initial Egyptian advantage, but the tide changed at the end of the war when Israel's advance on Cairo forced the USSR to threaten nuclear war.

[matlm]

In terms of a military victory, Israel trapped the entire Egyptian third army and was forced by the United States to not destroy them. Israel was also on its way to Cairo, and the threat was severe enough that the Soviet Union had to threaten nuclear war.

In terms of a political victory, Egypt negotiated with Israel on its terms, got kicked out of the organization it founded, and a majority of the Arab league suspended relations with Egypt.

[helaker]

The entrapment of the Egyptian third army was only part of the war. And this is more an American victory than an Israeli one considering the juncture at which it occurred. Nevertheless, as I originally stated, the East bank of the canal was captured and kept by the Egyptians. As for the Arab league, is it Egypt who needed them or they who needed Egypt? The fact that they were reinstated shortly thereafter should be your answer.

[helaker]

Considering the Israelis refused to even talk to Sadat prior to the war, but then wanted to not only talk but acquire peace after it makes the victor obvious.

And in fact it was Israel who felt threatened enough to play the nuclear card. In fact, they mobilized 13, 20-kiloton nuclear bombs to drop on Cairo in case its military failure turned into an all-out catastrophe.

[matlm]

Israel didn't refuse to talk to Sadat. How many times do I have to repeat this? Israel wanted direct negotiations without preconditions and expressed interests through Swedish diplomat Gunar Jarring.

The War led to Egypt changing its position on negotiations, not Israel.

[helaker]

And what you're saying is not true, how many times do I have to repeat that? It only takes simple research to see how different the respective positions were before and after the war. What point would Egypt have had to capturing the canal and stopping if all it wanted was peace in exchange for Sinai with a willing Israel? Israel was only willing after the war.

[matlm]

You're more than welcome to provide evidence that Egypt offered Israel direct negotiations without preconditions.

As for my evidence, this is directly from the State Department of the United States:

" The Jarring mission stumbled immediately over varying interpretations of Resolution 242. The Arab governments viewed the resolution as self-implementing, and called upon Israel to withdraw from all conquered Arab territory as a preliminary to a general understanding to establish peace. "

[helaker]

This says withdrawal from occupied territory is a precondition for peace, not negotiations.

[matlm]

What it means is that the Arabs wanted Israel to withdraw from territory gained in 1967 before any subsequent steps towards peace (negotiations included) were taken. The following sentence states:

" The Arabs were not, however, prepared for direct negotiations with Israel."

Granted this is all prior to the arrival of Saddat, but I would be more than happy to read your evidence that Saddat dropped the previously affirmed Arab preconditions.

[helaker]

Common knowledge. As Norman Finkelstein writes in Page 151 of "Image and the Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict," Israel refused to budge from the conquered territories in exchange for peace. With all diplomatic options exhausted, Egypt went to war, displaying impressive - and unexpected - military prowess. Israel accordingly agreed after the war to the same diplomatic settlement Sadat had offered it before the war. In a word, it was Israel, not Egypt, that bowed to the language of force.

[matlm]

If it's common knowledge, then why are you citing Norman Finkelstein? A fringe academic who was found unworthy of tenure at DePaul university. If you wish to cite Finkelstein, I am sure I could very easily find a passage of Alan Dershowitz saying the opposite. Unlike Finkelstein, however, Dershowitz wasn't found unworthy of tenure.

At any rate, my suggestion is that we leave both Dershowitz and Finkelstein out of it, both partisans, and instead appeal to neutral observers.

[helaker]

Finkelstein has a Ph.D from Princeton. Just because some extreme right-wing elements like Alan Dershowitz do not like him doesn't mean he isn't credible. On September 5, 2007 DePaul University actually called Finkelstein "a prolific scholar and outstanding teacher."

Anyway, here's another source, the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. I'll post what their article on the war says now as I'm running out of room.

[matlm]

I'm not denying that Finkelstein has an impressive background. What I am bringing up is that if you want to use sources of the Finkelstein kind (partisan), then why shouldn't I use another partisan (Dershowitz) as a source? In that case, it would come down to credibility war, and without appealing to either a mistake or conspiracy on the part of the academic community, Dershowitz would be more credible.

[helaker]

"On February 4, 1971, Sadat announced a new peace initiative that contained a significant concession: he was willing to accept an interim agreement with Israel in return for a partial Israeli withdrawal from Sinai. A timetable would then be set for Israel's withdrawal from the rest of the occupied territories in accordance with UN Resolution 242. [Continued...]

[helaker]

"Egypt would reopen the canal, restore diplomatic relations with the United States, which had been broken after the June 1967 War, and sign a peace agreement with Israel through Jarring. Sadat's initiative fell on deaf ears in Tel Aviv and in Washington..." - Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress article titled "October 1973 War."

[helaker]

So if an established American scholar of Jewish origin and the Library of Congress are attack-worthy, incredible sources, perhaps I should be citing Egyptian sources instead.

[matlm]

Your source says what I have been saying all along about what Sadat's deal entailed:

"A timetable would...be set for Israel's withdrawal from the rest of the occupied territories in accordance with UN Resolution 242."

The dealer breaker was 242, and Israel would have negotiated without similar preconditions as it did during Camp David.

Sadat only got what Israel was already offering him.

[helaker]

The source says there would be a peace treaty with Israel and diplomatic relations restored with the U.S. The plan was cut and dry as stated, but "fell on deaf ears in Tel Aviv and in Washington." Yet after the war, the same concessions that had once fallen on def ears were suddenly being heard.

[matlm]

The "cut and dry" plan demanded:

"A timetable would then be set for Israel's withdrawal from the rest of the occupied territories in accordance with UN Resolution 242."

Israel was not receptive to implementing an Arab interpretation of 242 before the Yom Kippur War, and Israel is not receptive to implementing the Arab interpretation to this day.

As I have stated numerous times, the deal breaker was Egypt's insistence on implementing 242.

[matlm]

google search "Jarring Mission." The 7th item down will be an official report from the Secretariat of the United Nations on the Jarring Mission. It is dated November 30, 1971. It is title "REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL ON THE ACTIVITIES

OF HIS SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE MIDDLE EAST"

Annex I discusses the proposal mentioned by Finkelstein on page 157 of his book (bottom two paragraphs).

Annex II gives Egypt's response. I will copy and paste relevant text (cont)..

[matlm]

Relevant text from Egypt's response:

"The United Arab Republic consider that the just and lasting peace cannot be realized without the full and scrupulous implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and the withdrawal of the Israel armed forces from all the territories occupied since 5 June 1961." (cont..)

[matlm]

The aforementioned can be read as referring to a peace above and beyond Jarring's proposal. Nonetheless, Egypt explicitly states Israel must:

"1. Withdrawal of its armed forces from...the Gaza Strip."

This didn't happen through the Camp David Accords.

"

2. Achieve...a just settlement for the refugee problem in accordance with United Nations resolutions."

This also didn't happen.

[matlm]

According to Peace Process by UVA's William B. Quandt on page 89 (use google books):

Israel refused to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders with the United Arab Republic (which was the federation of Egypt and Syria). Israel did, however, offer to negotiate without preconditions. Egypt rejected Israel's offer.

Following the war, however, Sadat did exactly what Israel suggested: negotiate without preconditions. He went directly to Jerusalem.

[matlm]

Google search: "Jarring Mission." It will be the 6th link down.

[helaker]

Since when is a UN Resolution a pre-condition!? The fact that Israel wanted to follow its own law instead of international law means Israel was the one seeking pre-conditions. What happened after the war? Negotiations were made knowing that there would be a timetable for withdrawal in exchange for peace, just as 242 states. And that's exactly what happened.

[matlm]

Seeking a precondition for negotiations simply means requiring that the other party take a course of action as a necessary condition for negotiations. A UN Resolution and especially the Arab interpretation of it can and did serve as a precondition. It was Egypt who asked of Israel to take a prerequisite course of action and Israel who refused.

Prior to the Yom Kippur war, Egypt wanted a time table for withdraw of ALL acquired territory, not just the Sinai. This did not happen at Camp David.

[helaker]

There was no precondition of actual withdrawal. Obviously there was an understanding that there would be an eventual withdrawal to the pre-67 borders. Why else would there be negotiations? If Israel officially says there will be no withdrawal to pre-67 borders, what reason would Egypt have to negotiate? Israel officially stated it would not do that, thus rendering any negotiations completely pointless.

[Cont'd...]

[helaker]

Before the war, Israel officially stated in the Jarring initiative that it would not withdraw to the pre-67 borders.

From the official Israeli Jarring response on the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website: "Israel will not withdraw to the pre-June 5, 1967 lines."

But after the war, it did.

[matlm]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean when you say Israel has withdrawn to the pre-67 borders.

You and I both know that Israel still retains the Golan Heights, which was part of the United Arab Republic, East Jerusalem, and a substantial portion of the West Bank. Israel also retained control of the Gaza until recently.

Obviously, direct negotiations without preconditions were not "pointless" in the events leading up to Camp David.

[helaker]

I meant pre-67 borders as it pertains to Egypt, not Syria and Palestine. i.e. the Sinai Peninsula and Suez Canal.

[matlm]

Israel asked for direct negotiations before the war and Egypt refused. It took Egypt's defeat in 1973 to force Sadat to finally accept unconditioned direct negotiations.

[helaker]

This is not true, as cited in past comments. Simply saying you want negotiations while simultaneously saying you will not compromise is not really asking for any negotiations or peace.

After the Israelis were defeated in 1973 and a ceasefire reached, Israel ended up doing what it said it wouldn't; return the rest of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt.

It seems we may need our own mini Camp David accord.

[matlm]

Where are you getting the notion that Israel said it wouldn't compromise? It asked for direct negotiations. Israel's terms for solving the conflict was through direct negotiation. Sadat refused. Following the war, it was Sadat who finally accepted Israel's method of resolution and not vice versa.

Additionally, Israel didn't withdraw to the pre-67 borders as a result of Camp David. It kept Gaza.

[helaker]

I'm getting the notion from the official Israeli statement I posted. Explicitly telling Egypt that you will not return to pre-67 lines is as clear a declaration as can be that there will be no compromise. Gaza is irrelevant. Do you think if Israel instead said "we are willing to withdraw from all Egyptian land, but keep Gaza (which is Palestinian, not Egyptian)" instead of saying "we will not withdraw to pre-67 lines," that Sadat would have refused?

[matlm]

A refusal to withdraw to the pre-67 border with Egypt via an indirect peace agreement is most certainly not the same thing as a refusal to compromise through direct negotiations. The clear evidence for this is that Israel also refused to withdraw to the pre-67 borders at Camp David, but this didn't stop it from making compromises that was agreeable to Egypt (returning the whole of the Sinai)...(Cont..)

[matlm]

Gaza is relevant because not only did Egypt ask for Israel to withdraw through Jarring, but it also was part of Egypt's territory in the pre-67 borders.

If you look at both Israel and Egypt's reply to Jarring, only one of their positions changed after the Yom Kippur war and that was the position of Egypt.

You're more than welcome to show me where I am wrong here. What changed in Israel's position as passed along to Jarring? It said it wouldn't return to the pre-67 borders, and it didn't.

[helaker]

Egypt never annexed Gaza, thus it was not part of Egypt. Wasn't Sinai Egyptian prior to 1967? After the war and Camp David Israel withdrew from Sinai, returning to its pre-67 line.

As for Jarring, Israel explicitly said it would not return to pre-67 lines. This is in fact a pre-condition, and one that would render talks pointless if one side was unwilling to concede the main entity desired by the other party.

[matlm]

It isn't relevant how the status of Gaza is defined (either as part of Egypt or under Egyptian occupation). What is relevant is that in the response to Jarring, Egypt asked that Israel leave the Gaza. It is clear that Egypt considered a return to pre-67 borders to include an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza. You can see it in their response for yourself (cont..)

[matlm]

Yes, Israeli explicitly stated that it would not return to the 67 borders in its reply to Jarring. This statement referred to the totality of area captured and should not be read as explicitly referring to the Sinai. (Recall that Egypt discussed all captured territory, not just Sinai).

In other words, the statement didn't necessarily bar the Egyptians from regaining the Sinai through meaningful negotiations and diplomacy as it did at Camp David. (cont...)

[matlm]

Again, I encourage you to look at Israel's reply to Jarring and *name one thing that Egypt got at Camp David that wasn't already on the table through Jarring.*

It's also important to keep in mind that the Jarring Mission did not in and of itself extend to diplomatic relations, which Israel got at Camp David.

So not only did Egypt drop certain demands at Camp David that it felt sufficient for a bare peace agreement, it also went on to offer Israel full diplomatic relations. (cont.)

[matlm]

Finally, there is no reason to believe that Israel would have been any less receptive to a Sadat unequivocally committed to peace and recognition of Israel before the Yom Kippur war than after. Had Sadat done in the early 70s what he did in 77, the matter could have been solved without bloodshed.

[helaker]

Egypt got the Sinai peninsula, which was not offered at Jarring. Also, Egypt went to Camp David without Israeli pre-conditions, unlike at Jarring with Israel saying it would not return to pre-67 borders.

[matlm]

First what your talking about is not a precondition (something that must come before or is necessary to a subsequent result) but a statement of policy. When between Israel's response to Jarring and Sadat's engaging in direct negotiations did Israel renounce its policy of not returning to the pre-67 borders?

There's no denying that Israel returned the Sinai, but there is also no denying that Israel did not say through Jarring that it would not return the Sinai. Sinai wasn't off the table.

[matlm]

With respect to your question: Had Israel offered Sadat the entire Sinai, I don't think he would have accepted it. His maximal demands were made quite clear to Jarring, and he was unwilling to directly negotiate on them. According to Egypt's response to Jarring, the Sinai alone would not have been sufficient.

It was Sadat who became enraged that Israel didn't accept his offer and preempted direct negotiation (and compromise). Not the other way around.

[helaker]

Of course Sadat would have accepted it. Sinai constituted the entirety of Egyptian land occupied by Israel. The proof is that he did accept it at Camp David.

At Jarring, Sadat had nothing to negotiate for after Israel already made the precondition that it would not withdraw to pre-67 lines.

Israe's precondition disappeared at Camp David.

[jankren]

Arabs bring shame to Muslims. What a pussy people. Getting raped by a few Jews again and again and again.

Nevertheless, Sadat is my hero. He could have annihilated Israel if the fucking Syrians werent so fucking stupid. I hate Syria for that reason. If they didnt fuck up there would be no Israel today.

[DemonicGemini]

eat a dogs dick

[jankren]

Tell yo mom that.

[DemonicGemini]

what ever dude peace to you

[DemonicGemini]

whatever dude

[inder19852000]

Arundhati Roy on the Palestinian / Israeli Conflict

WATCH THIS YOUTUBE AND KNOW THE TRUTH!!!!!

CAN THE TRUTH BE ALWAYS HIDDEN?

[vistavision2]

The object of war is peace.

Its a political reality unknown to Jabotinsky zionist likud members whose sole premise is conquest through Crimes Againt Humanity.

Middle East situation has resolution- Predicated:

1 Upon vacating the occupation of UNGA 181 State of Palestine by Israel

2 Founded upon UN Chartered course of UNSC 242 & UNGA 181 which mandates that UN Community of Nations enforce International Law of UN Charter and Laws of Armed Conflict.

3 All roads begin UNSC 242.

[ShaktipatSage]

Some quotes from the Talmud - which is not a Religious book but the Babylonian book of law.

"Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse....."

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.

Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.

Yebamoth 98a. All gentile (non-jewish) children are animals.

[vistavision2]

The Talmud is common name for two "Jewish Books" but in fact are Books subscribed only by Tribe of Israel [amalgamated ten] and NOT Tribe of Judah.

Prophet Ezekiel exposes the secret worship of Baal by Tribe of Israel as the Prophet Jesus also condemns their hypocrisy of murdering the Prophets and thereafter claiming to adhere to Torah.

[ShaktipatSage]

Well.... that may be, I'm certanly not saying that all Jewish people follow the Talmud, I have a few Jewish friends who are good people.. the thing is, the leaders of the state of Israel OBVIOUSLY follow this book for their own self-gain , and it seems that there is a culture in Israel that has spiraled out of control as a result of this book..

[vistavision2]

What I'm saying is that those who reject the precepts of Torah, e.g., Jabontinsky zionists and Tribe of Israel, are NOT Jews.

How can a person who contravenes the precepts of Judaims be a Jew?

DEUT 16:20 predicates Judaism and DEUT 19:14 "boundarymark" is UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries and "ancestors ha set" is UNGA 273 recongition of UN Chartered course

Jerimiah's New Covenant is founded upon Peace with present Israel Crimes Against Humanity in direct conflict with Torah

[ShaktipatSage]

I think that you are right, the ones who reject decency and common Religious principles such as chastity, Love for ones neighbor and ones Self, Understanding of Wisdom, etc. etc. in favor of a disgruntled and nefarious cult of radical jewish supremacy, have turned away from the God that they all are.

The thing is, the latter group would have you believe that the former is not the 'real jews', and that they are. So, what to do?

[vistavision2]

It is NOT Jewish supremecy but a Jabontinsky recycled NAZI titles as zionism.

It is NOT Herzlite, i.e., Torah, Zionism which is the Tongue of Ophel of the faithful worship.

Trive of Judah once killed all Tribe of Israel's false priests and destroyed their false altars at beth-el & beth-dan for thier pretension & abominable conduct.

We, Tribe of Judah, have a limited time to fulfill our mandate predciated by, for, & of GEN 49:7-12 and JER 33:25-26

[xluuuluuux]

Israel was never for peace ,nor will be

the clear evidence is the invasion of Iraq.

Only an ignorant would think that the oil

was the main goal of this invasion.

It was for Israel,their zionist protocoles

mentioned their plans clearly,only a blind

would not see their plans accomplished

one after the other ,and non for peace !!

[yalsawy]

Who is the graet Cameraman?