Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

As one Israeli writer put it, "After 1967, Israel sold its soul." Note that the challenge here isn't to correct an historical inaccuracy. The challenge is advanced with the aim to put a barrier between Israeli children and the historical truth.

Quote:

Textbooks In Israel to Designate West Bank
Cabinet Minister's Move Draws Anger

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; Page A15

JERUSALEM, Dec. 5 -- Maps in future Israeli public school textbooks will show the boundary that existed between Israel and the West Bank before the 1967 Middle East war, Israel's education minister announced Tuesday. The move drew sharp protest from lawmakers, settler groups and religious leaders who claim the West Bank as part of the Jewish state.

The minister, Yuli Tamir, is a member of the Labor Party and a founder of the advocacy group Peace Now, which opposes Jewish settlement in the occupied territories. Palestinians envision a future state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, all of which Israel occupied in 1967.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has stated that Israel should evacuate parts of the West Bank so as to define its borders around land with a solid Jewish majority. He has said that several large Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank would be included as part of Israel in any final peace deal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501266.html

0 Replies

stevewonder wrote:

Quote:

Alan Dershowitz, the high-profile Harvard law school professor and staunch defender of Israel, is troubled "that this decent man has written such an indecent book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".

Absolutely predictable Dershowitz. No criticism of Israeli policy is morally or historically valid regardless of where it might originate, including from jews in Israel or abroad. Dershowitz "sees" more anti-semitism among even those "self-hating jews" than most of the rest of us see in the broad totality of the western culture.

This has been a sustained and pervasive marketing/propaganda project - define any and all criticism of Israeli policy as anti-semitic. Dershowitz is just one of the more visible folks in the modern iteration of the project.

There will be one exception for Dershowitz... it will be ok to criticize Israeli policies where they are insufficiently chauvinist and militarist.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

stevewonder wrote:
Quote:
Alan Dershowitz, the high-profile Harvard law school professor and staunch defender of Israel, is troubled "that this decent man has written such an indecent book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".

Absolutely predictable Dershowitz. No criticism of Israeli policy is morally or historically valid regardless of where it might originate, including from jews in Israel or abroad. Dershowitz "sees" more anti-semitism among even those "self-hating jews" than most of the rest of us see in the broad totality of the western culture.

This has been a sustained and pervasive marketing/propaganda project - define any and all criticism of Israeli policy as anti-semitic. Dershowitz is just one of the more visible folks in the modern iteration of the project.

There will be one exception for Dershowitz... it will be ok to criticize Israeli policies where they are insufficiently chauvinist and militarist.

Blatham, Dershowitz is in the extreme minority. Nothing is quite so ridiculously unrealistic as Carter lamenting the "pro-Israeli press and media" in the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth about how the press and media. The mainstream media have not even bothered to even disguise their criticisms of Israel. Carter has this completely backwards.

I have to wonder if someone is so backwards on that one point what the rest of his points must be.

By the way, this goes way off of topic, but does Vancouver still sell the "Export A" brand of cigarettes?

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Monte Cargo wrote:
Mossadeq was extremely well educated, had good negotiating skills, was contagiously charasmatic, and was ruthless and murderous, every prerequisite for a good middle eastern leader. He recognized and expanded upon the government's displeasure at seeing the British Crown making more off the oil reserves than Iran was making in royalties. The Majlis in Iran was happy to attain a 50-50 split with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company but Mossadeq wanted more. When the prime minister objected to nationalizing the oil industry, he was promptly assassinated. Mossadeq soon became prime minister after public demonstrations and he insisted on chairing the war department. After Mossadeq replaced all the top army officers with his own people, the displaced were helpful to the British in engineering the coup d'etat that deposed Mossadeq and installed the Shah.

As WWII was ending, Mossadeq was elected to the Majlis and he led the opposition to give the USSR any concessions on oil exploration and development.

I have not seen any content that directly supports the notion that U.S. fear of communism was the basis for engineering the coup d'etat, but instead, reclamation of England's ability to explore and develop their oil. Mossadeq had already demonstrated his opposition to any entry of Soviet interests.

The thrust towards the nationalization of Iran's oil industry was popularly driven, and based on the reactionary dissent that was fomented by Britain's imperialism and the unfair position that the Anglo-Persian Oil Company--which in 1936 would become the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company after the country changed its name from Persia to Iran--held in regard to the country's oil industry. One grievance of note was the APOC's outright refusal to submit to an audit of the royalties yielded to the country. After the pro-west PM Ali Razmara refused to nationalize the country's oil industry against overwhelming popular demand he was assassinated by the militant fundamentalist organization Fadayan-e Islam, and his backer, the Shah, was forced to leave the country. The Majlis selected Mossadegh as the new prime minister, and shortly thereafter he ratified the Oil Nationalization Act in the spring of 1951, seizing the AIOC's assets in Iran.

The AIOC took their grievances against Iran to the International Court of Justice, but lost their case.

Britain had solicited the assistance of the Truman administration in their plan to topple the Iranian government, but Truman flatly refused. Communist paranoia had been escalating in the US, and the Eisenhower administration committed to the plot on anti-communist grounds: fear of the socialist /communist implications of Iran's Oil Nationalization Act, Iran's common border with the USSR, and the strengthening of Iran's communist party after the assassination of Razmara, and the splintering of the party coalition that brought Mossadegh to power.

In his attempt to convince the Shah to participate in the coup, Kermit Roosevelt, the director of the operation, told him, that "failure to act could lead only to a Communist Iran or to a second Korea."

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

Iran was of great interest to England, partly as part of the overall objective to safeguard the Suez canal (the trade route to India), and partly for the oil.

The industrialized nations of the Ottoman Empire had been pulling the strings in the mideast since the beginning of the 20th century. The Brits were responsible for installing the first Shah, deposing him because he was a Nazi sympathizer, (when England replaced him with his 22 year old). The Brits were pulling 88% of all of the oil profits until the industry was nationalized under Mossadegh at which time the Brits only received 25% of the profits.

Truman, besides Eisenhower, was staunchly anti-communist and refused to help the British because Truman believed that the spawned increase of middle class from the oil nationalization revenues would protect Iran from communism. "Source.

England has long been interested in Iran. The British did a lot of string pulling in Iran, even initiated a treaty with Russia in 1909 to divide Iran into three sections, an English section, a Russian section and a neutral section, and did this without the Iranian government's knowledge.

The Tudeh party did support Mossadegh's social policies but Mossadegh was not a communist. In fact, Mossadegh negotiated an oil deal with the Italians that specifically forbade dealing any bubbling crude to the Eastern bloc, but allowed oil sales to England. The cold war connection to the Tudeh party was merely a red herring for Britain's desire for the good old times of 88% profits.

0 Replies

Zippo wrote:

C-SPAN caller bashes former President Carter as 'racist, bigot, anti-Semite'

When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When both the facts and the law are against you, call the other person names!

Perhaps a more appropriate post would have been: "When you are ranked as one of the worst ever presidents of the United States, and you made a monkey of the Nobel Laureate Committee when N. Korea tested their first nuke, the answer is to do a book tour!"

I listened to the call. It gets more sinister with Carter than this caller even mentioned. The man that won the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating our providing Kim Jung-Il with nuclear munitions and billions of U.S. aid has released a book about Peace in the Middle East. In actuality, Carter, in concert with the trilateral commission was a war broker in the ME.

In 1978, Carter, acted under George Ball's recommendations that Washington drop support for the Shah and support the Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier. Source

Quote:

Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.

Way to go, Carter! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

As one Israeli writer put it, "After 1967, Israel sold its soul." Note that the challenge here isn't to correct an historical inaccuracy. The challenge is advanced with the aim to put a barrier between Israeli children and the historical truth.

Quote:
Textbooks In Israel to Designate West Bank
Cabinet Minister's Move Draws Anger

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; Page A15

JERUSALEM, Dec. 5 -- Maps in future Israeli public school textbooks will show the boundary that existed between Israel and the West Bank before the 1967 Middle East war, Israel's education minister announced Tuesday. The move drew sharp protest from lawmakers, settler groups and religious leaders who claim the West Bank as part of the Jewish state.

The minister, Yuli Tamir, is a member of the Labor Party and a founder of the advocacy group Peace Now, which opposes Jewish settlement in the occupied territories. Palestinians envision a future state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, all of which Israel occupied in 1967.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has stated that Israel should evacuate parts of the West Bank so as to define its borders around land with a solid Jewish majority. He has said that several large Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank would be included as part of Israel in any final peace deal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501266.html

Denying Israel's Right to Exist and Anticipating Its Destruction
Written and Compiled by Itamar Marcus

Quote:

Palestinian Media Watch research has long demonstrated a clear and unified world-view within the Palestinian leadership, in its speeches to the nation, in educational programs, and through school textbooks published by the Palestinian Authority.

Israel is consistently defined as a colony that stole the land of Palestine, having no right to exist. Therefore, within the framework of justice, there is no room for Israel's permanent existence.

The Arabic Palestinian lexicon contains many expressions to describe the negotiations with Israel in this context: The permanent agreement is a stage; The Oslo accords are to gain a foothold; All the agreements are temporary.

In this context the Oslo process is part of the process of liberating Palestine. The recurrent justification given for the need for a temporary agreement with Israel is because of the current balance of power.

From the positions expressed within the Palestinian Authority it is evident that Israeli Arab MK Dahamshe's position, stated on PA TV, that the "permanent" status agreement with Israel is to be viewed as hudna, a temporary tactical truce, is the rule and not the exception.

0 Replies

On the subject of information control and "public relations" of the pro-Israel policy sort... (a la the Gingrich quote in my signature line)...

Conrad Black gained control of the majority of Canada's newspapers (of four dailies available in Vancouver, he owned three) along with The Telegraph in England and The Jerusalem Post in Israel. As we witnessed in Canada, a Black takeover meant a shift in the paper's editorial position over to the right. And that was true in one matter most acutely...the Israel/Palestine conflict. I don't think I read even a single piece of commentary or reportage in a Black paper which held the slightest sympathy for the Palestinians in occupation or which criticized Israel government policy re that occupation. The paragraph below, from a review of a book on Black, notes a case of such information control. Another relevant tidbit of information...Hollinger was the board set up by Black and his partner (Radler, now in jail) and on that board along with Kissinger was Richard Perle.

Quote:

I never met this newspaper's previous proprietor, although I worked as his literary editor on the Daily and Sunday Telegraphs. He once tried to stop me employing a reviewer who had criticised the foreign policy of Henry Kissinger (then a Hollinger director). Grateful to have a chairman who read these pages, I invited Black to review books in areas where he clearly had an interest (The Oxford Book of Canadian Military Anecdotes). Connoisseurs of his prose have likened it to a medieval siege engine and the act of reading it to "wading through wet cement" (Max Hastings), but he had an intelligence and a style, and it got him off my back.

Telegraph

0 Replies

Quote:

Blatham, Dershowitz is in the extreme minority.

What is the category you suggest he is a minority in? What is the majority view?

Quote:

Nothing is quite so ridiculously unrealistic as Carter lamenting the "pro-Israeli press and media" in the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth about how the press and media. The mainstream media have not even bothered to even disguise their criticisms of Israel. Carter has this completely backwards.

This is an assertion for which you present no evidence. Further, it seems pretty clear to me (from what you've written here on a2k) that your familiarity with mainstream media coverage of the Israel/Palestine issue over the last several decades is minimal and apparently gained third hand from the information sources to which you do attend, and we know generally what they are (evident from identifying cliches, assumptions and factual errors that arise in your posts). It is not Carter who has this backwards, it is you.

Quote:

I have to wonder if someone is so backwards on that one point what the rest of his points must be.

And if your assumption is false, then the knowledge/credibility problem becomes your own. I have to hand high quality research and writing which shows your assumption to be false. It takes careful reading and would reward you in relation to the care you would take if you bother to engage it.

Quote:

By the way, this goes way off of topic, but does Vancouver still sell the "Export A" brand of cigarettes?

I've been living in New York for a couple of years now, but Export A will certainly still be available in Canada, being one of the long time high sellers. My brand for twenty years, in fact.

0 Replies

monte cargo wrote:

Quote:

The Islamic philosophy, in contrast to concerns about Israel's possible overambitious land grabbing dreams, doesn't think Israel should even exist:

The portion of your sentence in red is false. Do you understand how or why it is false?

Quote:

Denying Israel's Right to Exist and Anticipating Its Destruction
Written and Compiled by Itamar Marcus

Now, however did it happen that you found yourself steered to this material? Itmar Marcus has at least one more site as well...Center For Monitoring the Impact of Peace. Please pay attention to who this fellow is and what he is up to. Please cast your mind back to the single instance of an Israeli Prime Minister being assassinated, who did that, and why the assassin acted.

Quote:

sourcewatch

0 Replies

Quote:

Carter Book on Israel 'Apartheid' Sparks Bitter Debate
Scholar Resigns From Ga. Center

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120602171.html

The confluence of events seems certain to push this debate into a much more open and, obviously, heated position in the US.

Pretty clearly, the changing situation in Iraq has been the key influence. Much of what Carter argues has been argued and debated elsewhere, but in media which few people attend to, particularly American consumers of news.

Near the onset of the war, when folks were trying to figure out what forces were influencing the Bush administration to initiate their policy, the Israeli element was referred to only rarely and when it was, commonly as "the elephant in the room". It was at this time that a more general awareness of "neoconservatism" began to arise in the media including how deeply imbedded in the administration this ideological camp had become. Ties to Israel (Likkud, more accurately) began to become more evident and more debated. At the same time, a counter PR effort was evident with folks like Richard Perle suggesting that the more open debate on these matters actually was an instance of anti-semitism.

As the war turned slowly into the mess it became, the ideologies and personalities central to the war's propagation commensurately began to lose credibility and their previous relative insulation from investigation. Now, it is widely conceded that the PNAC crowd had it wrong - seriously and dangerously wrong. Wolfowitz was sent into invisibility. Feith disappeared. Libby got indicted. Piece by piece, the solid core of the neoconservative camp in the administration began to be whittled away as the bad news continued to pour in from Iraq.

And coincident with all of that, it became evident to more and more people that the Israel lobby had gained a level of influence in the administration (and in the media and society more broadly) which might well not prove to be in the interests of America. Walt and Meirsheim, for example, wouldn't have written their seminal piece if it hadn't been for the debacle in Iraq and the necessary reflections on how it had come about. Likewise the essays and commentaries by Fallows and Massing and Lieven and others.

And now we have a book by an ex president and, far more significantly, the Iraq Study Group's findings. Some of those findings and recommendations stand in direct and serious conflict with the desires of the radical folks in Israel and those here who support that radical group (most easily identified as the political and theological radicals related to pro-settlement ideas and with militant anti-arabism).

It is going to get more sparky as this moves into the open. And that's a good thing, as Carter believes.

0 Replies

Does this sound like aparthied ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JERUSALEM -- Despite decades of upheavals, residents of the Arab village of Ghajar on Israel's northern border have never had to flee. Instead, the village itself became a refugee, finding itself successively in three different countries.
This week, residents learned that a fourth change of address was in store -- under the United Nations.
Originally part of Lebanon, Ghajar was quietly transferred by Beirut to Syrian sovereignty, apparently in the early 1960s and for reasons that are not clear.
In the 1967 Six Day War, Israel captured the nearby Golan Heights from Syria, but it did not move on Ghajar, which it assumed was part of Lebanon.
The villagers, realizing that they were in no man's land, cut off from Syria and no longer part of Lebanon, called on Israel to take responsibility and provide it with basic services. Israel agreed.
When Prime Minister Menahem Begin's government in 1981 annexed the lands captured from Syria, the villagers became Israeli citizens, entitled to national insurance and other benefits. However, when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 after an 18-year occupation, an anomaly became apparent in Ghajar.
The village had grown considerably since 1967, and U.N. officials mapping the international border determined that the northern two-thirds of the village was inside Lebanese territory.
The southern part remained in the formerly Syrian territory annexed by Israel.
Israeli troops confined themselves to the southern part of the village, although Israel continued to provide services to the northern half and permitted any villager, including "northerners," to enter Israel to work.
The village quickly became a flash point as Hezbollah took advantage of the amorphous situation in Ghajar to stage attacks.
In a raid last year, Hezbollah forces came through the undefended northern part of Ghajar and rushed an Israeli guard post in the southern part.

0 Replies

"The southern part remained in the formerly Syrian territory annexed by Israel."

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

"The southern part remained in the formerly Syrian territory annexed by Israel."

You do know what aparthied means do you not. Again does that sound like aparthied? Try to control your Anti-Israeli bias when reading the article and answering the question.

0 Replies

Thank You, Jimmy Carter

Rabbi Michael Lerner
December 06, 2006

"Jimmy Carter was the best friend the Jews ever had as president of the United States. He is the only president to have actually delivered for the Jewish people an agreement (the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt) that has stood the test of time."

0 Replies

Zippo wrote:

Thank You, Jimmy Carter

Rabbi Michael Lerner
December 06, 2006

"Jimmy Carter was the best friend the Jews ever had as president of the United States. He is the only president to have actually delivered for the Jewish people an agreement (the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt) that has stood the test of time."

That is his opinion. Hell there are Americans that still extol the virtues of George Bush. Imagine and justify that if you can.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Does this sound like aparthied ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JERUSALEM -- Despite decades of upheavals, residents of the Arab village of Ghajar on Israel's northern border have never had to flee. Instead, the village itself became a refugee, finding itself successively in three different countries.
This week, residents learned that a fourth change of address was in store -- under the United Nations.
Originally part of Lebanon, Ghajar was quietly transferred by Beirut to Syrian sovereignty, apparently in the early 1960s and for reasons that are not clear.
In the 1967 Six Day War, Israel captured the nearby Golan Heights from Syria, but it did not move on Ghajar, which it assumed was part of Lebanon.
The villagers, realizing that they were in no man's land, cut off from Syria and no longer part of Lebanon, called on Israel to take responsibility and provide it with basic services. Israel agreed.
When Prime Minister Menahem Begin's government in 1981 annexed the lands captured from Syria, the villagers became Israeli citizens, entitled to national insurance and other benefits. However, when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 after an 18-year occupation, an anomaly became apparent in Ghajar.
The village had grown considerably since 1967, and U.N. officials mapping the international border determined that the northern two-thirds of the village was inside Lebanese territory.
The southern part remained in the formerly Syrian territory annexed by Israel.
Israeli troops confined themselves to the southern part of the village, although Israel continued to provide services to the northern half and permitted any villager, including "northerners," to enter Israel to work.
The village quickly became a flash point as Hezbollah took advantage of the amorphous situation in Ghajar to stage attacks.
In a raid last year, Hezbollah forces came through the undefended northern part of Ghajar and rushed an Israeli guard post in the southern part.

No, that particular case does not. But we have no reason to then go on to say that it is representative.

ps...au, could you provide links when you paste, please.

0 Replies

blatham
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20061207-120218-6851r.htm

0 Replies

I saw Carter on meet the press sunday. He said he was talking about palestinians in the occupied territories.Stating that those who were Israeli citizens have all the rights offorded to any other Israeli citizen.

0 Replies

au, sure I know what apartheid is. Palestine is an occupied territory. Palestinians are hemmed in with the Apartheid wall shuutting them off of portions of their own land. Fresh, clean water is shut off also with the Jordon River being diverted for mostly Israeli use and the last remaining clean water wells being on the "Israeli" side of the wall. In Gaza Palestinians are slaughtered daily. Many times people receive a call warning them to immediately evacuate their homes because they are about to be destroyed. Often the bombing begins before they even get out. Woman, children, older men, it dont matter who. The West Bank is occupied and divided into checkpoints Palestinians must pass through to get to their own territory often having to travel 50 miles to get to a point 5 miles away. Your indifference to the plight of the Palestinians only works to aid continued Israeli atrocities. It's hardly a stretch to call Israreli treatment of Palestinians akin to Apartheid. It was Henry Kissinger who once advised Israel to handle Palestinians "a la South Africa". This link shows a long history of Israeli apartheid. "Israelis adopt what South Africa dropped by John Dugard, South African law professor" http://indaily.net/?p=2763

0 Replies

Carter has told the truth about apartheid in the occupied portions of Palestine. He's taking a bunch of heat for that truth telling. He shortchanges Israeli/Arabs though. They are far from being treated as equal citizens. "Examples of Discrimination" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Examples_of_Discrimination The 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices [40] notes that:

"According to a 2003 Haifa University study, a tendency existed to impose heavier prison terms to Arab citizens than to Jewish citizens. Human rights advocates claimed that Arab citizens were more likely to be convicted of murder and to have been denied bail."
"The Orr Commission of Inquiry's report ... stated that the 'Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory,' that the Government 'did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner.' As a result, 'serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'"
"According to a report by Mossawa, racist violence against Arab citizens has increased, and the Government has not done enough to prevent this problem. The annual report cited 17 acts of violence by Jewish citizens against Arab citizens. ... A Haifa University poll released in June revealed that over 63 percent of Jews believed that the Government should encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate."
"Approximately 93 percent of land in the country was public domain, including that owned by the state and some 12.5 percent owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF). All public land by law may only be leased, not sold. The JNF's statutes prohibit the sale or lease of land to non-Jews. In October, civil rights groups petitioned the High Court of Justice claiming that a bid announcement by the Israel Land Administration (ILA) involving JNF land was discriminatory in that it banned Arabs from bidding."
"Israeli-Arab advocacy organizations have challenged the Government's policy of demolishing illegal buildings in the Arab sector, and claimed that the Government was more restrictive in issuing building permits in Arab communities than in Jewish communities, thereby not accommodating natural growth. In February, security forces demolished several homes allegedly built without authorization in the Arab village of Beineh."
"In June, the Supreme Court ruled that omitting Arab towns from specific government social and economic plans is discriminatory. This judgment builds on previous assessments of disadvantages suffered by Arab Israelis."
"Israeli-Arab organizations have challenged as discriminatory the 1996 "Master Plan for the Northern Areas of Israel," which listed as priority goals increasing the Galilee's Jewish population and blocking the territorial contiguity of Arab towns."

0 Replies

Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know