Ghadri Denies Abramoff Connection
This was just released by Farid Ghadry's RPS
Statement by the Reform Party of Syria
-- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE --
Washington DC, January 13, 2006/RPS Press Release/ -- Quotes in some anti-democracy Syrian press and American pro-Ba'athist blogs have surfaced that the Reform Party of Syria rents space at the offices of Middle Gate Ventures associated with Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist accused of fraud and illegal contributions to the US Congress.
RPS denies any involvement with Jack Abramoff or the fact that we have a presence in his office. RPS heard of Abramoff the same time that everyone did and from the mainstream media.
Our offices are located at the Mills Building on 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue and we rent them from a company called OfficEscape (www.officescape.com), which runs shared offices around the country.
The spreading of these lies, once more, shows that those who do not want to see democracy in Syria flourish will go to any length to stretch the truth even to the extent of inventing stories for their own purposes. When they cannot find anything wrong with their enemies, they will invent that wrong.
RPS retains full rights to pursue legally anyone who has published these lies, including those who are leaving Syria and returning to the United States as well as the University that is sponsoring them and for which they are still associated with.
Copyrights © 2003-2006 - Reform Party of Syria (RPS) except where otherwise noted - all rights reserved.
posted by Joshua Landis @ 1/13/2006 02:24:00 PM
40 comments
links to this post
40 Comments:
"Quotes in some anti-democracy Syrian press and American pro-Ba'athist blogs "
LOL !
This mean nothing. He is a loser like Assad. We don't need losers to lead please
ghadry
"RPS retains full rights to pursue legally anyone who has published these lies, including those who are leaving Syria and returning to the United States as well as the University that is sponsoring them and for which they are still associated with. "
So, he is going to sue Josh ?
A chance to make a million dollars to bring "democracy" to Syria?
He will have to sue quite a few people. Ghadry looks nicer and nicer.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
1- Mr. Landis you have just given Mr. Ghadry some free publicity and blog traffic that he has never ever witnessed. His Blog had four visitors since its inception, that is including Mr.Farid and his two cousins.
2- This lousy press release with its mediocre narration shows how incohesive and unproffessional this whole organization (or Farid, his imaginary friends and their coffee maker) is.
3- We want an end to this regime in Syria, but I'd rather have Qusai Saddam Hussein as president than some poser who uses 5 kilos of gel before even going to 7-11. If Elvis was alive, he'd be askin' for some advice.
4- I am the greatest thing that ever happened in the world. I am proud of my parents, they did it at the right place at the right time.
5-Visit my blog and compliment me on how smart, well- spoken and articulate I am.
6- Jesus was not black
7-RPS, please go Monster.com, it has a job for everyone!
Thank you.
O.D.M
LOL..
I like it.. very funny.
Thanks
"RPS retains full rights to pursue legally anyone who has published these lies, including those who are leaving Syria and returning to the United States as well as the University that is sponsoring them and for which they are still associated with. "
LOL I miss that part. I am not a supporter of Ghadry, even though I don't dislike him either. As I said, his fight is just. But this statement looks like a joke.
LOL, ODM has a point, lets just forget this monkey and move on.
1700 Pennsylavania Ave!!! Now I see Ghadry and SRP problem. He is a block away from the world famous Barn and Blaily Circus Retards house, too much laugh and high wire circus acts and nothing serious or real ever performed.
Alawites, you meant to say RPS I hope not SRP or officially SPRS or SSPRS right!!!!
Because we are located in Vegas baby Vegas, and there aint any dumb and wakie people in Vegas, justr beautiful smart men and show girl that the lacky in Washington sellive over.
Yeah that’s what I call the Neocon “New Democratic Arabstan” paradigm:
Here, Syrian masses will have to choose between a US-based “modernist Muslim” whose links with the Mossad won’t hamper his willingness to work with “progressive” Islamic fundamentalists (Ghadry) and a redeemed “secularist” Baathist thug living in Western Europe (Khaddâm)…
There’s a stooge in store for every taste: it’s kind of Ahmad Chalabi vs. Iyad Allawi déjà vu all over again!
Frankly, these Pharisaic plotters could try to come up with more imaginative stuff.
Cordially,
Dr Victor de la Vega
Thomas More Center for Middle-East Studies
http://www.mideastmemo.blogspot.com/
Don't worry Josh, I'll represent you for free.
At least we know now that Ghadry's good for something, albeit unknowingly - comic relief.
You can't hide from the Internet, even if you might be telling the truth.
I snooped around and found out that the office that Ghadry occupies is the equivalent of U-Haul for Capitol Hill political hacks (like our friend Ghadry). Ghadry says the building is owned by OfficeScape (http://www.officescape.com) but I also found another company renting space at the exact same address.
The address itself is dubbed The Mills Building, a multi-story complex a couple blocks from the Nexus of Evil...er, I mean the White House:
The Mills Building
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
Preferred Office Club (http://www.houroffice.com/mills.asp) also rents space in Suite 400. Apparently then, "Suite 400" is actually a complex of small offices for creepy little organizations like the Reform Party of Syria, and apparently for creepy Washington power players like Jack Abramoff's Middle Gate Ventures.
Other organizations that list their address as the above include Global Energy Alliance Corporation (http://www.geacorporation.com/), Embassy of the Republic of Palau (http://www.palauembassy.com/) and an organization that I can't even pronounce, but it's called Uyghur American Association (http://uyghuramerican.org/).
Middle Gate Ventures no longer has a website (a quick jaunt to http://www.middlegateventures.com results in a dead end) but a whois on the domain shows it's still registered (until 2009):
# whois middlegateventures.com
Organization:
Middlegate Ventures
Jason Hickox
1700 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20006
US
Phone: 202-349-1453
Email: jasonhickox@earthlink.net
Registrar Name....: Register.com
Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com
Domain Name: MIDDLEGATEVENTURES.COM
Created on..............: Fri, Apr 02, 2004
Expires on..............: Thu, Apr 02, 2009
Record last updated on..: Tue, Apr 06, 2004
Administrative Contact:
Middlegate Ventures
Jason Hickox
1700 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20006
US
Phone: 202-349-1453
Email: jasonhickox@earthlink.net
Note the address. Most likely it is also at Suite 400, but that can't be confirmed readily (at least I couldn't, maybe someone else can).
At any rate, even though Ghadry is an obvious shill for shadowy Zionist entities, it's inconclusive as to whether he actually "shared" an office with Middle Gate Ventures. Unless the reporter who wrote the original story (http://www.counterpunch.org/schuh11182005.html) confirms this, I guess we'll just have to give poor little Ghadry the benefit of the doubt.
This doesn't, of course, eliminate the fact that Ghadry is a unsophisticated political troll who is aligned with the worst Zionist organizations around the globe, including AIPAC. So no matter where he keeps his office, he's still a little bitch.
Liamsi Malles: Why do you apparently equate the word "Zionist" with such negative connotations?
Is that supposed to be a serious question, NC?
How about I answer you with this:
Why are so many conservatives currently in office in the US aligned with Israel's Likud party? Is it really because they consider Israel an ally and friend? Or is it because AIPAC gave them lots of money?
To be fair, it's not just the conservatives. It's those dirty liberals as well. AIPAC sure does have a lot of money.
Anyway, neoconservatives are of course aligned with Israel's Likud party because a lot of them actually ARE members of the Likud party. They're also card-carrying Zionists. And some of them aren't even Jewish. Wacky.
I did mean that as a serious question, and I notice that you did not answer it.
I'll tell you why Zionist should be equated with such negative connotations. The meak justifications Zionists make for occupying Palestine as a realization of their legitimate right to having a homeland wherever they choose, is abrogated by the fact that they deny this same right to their fellow human beings, who happen to be Palestinian.
Be as religious or secular as you like, double-standards of this magnitude cannot but elicit "negative connotations".
So, if Israel withdrew to pre-1967 borders, would the Z-word no longer elicit negative connotations?
Zionists don't believe in the pre-1967 borders, so no, it would still be a dirty word.
However, pre-1967 borders are the compromise the Palesinians, and all the Arab nations, have been willing to accept, so it will have to do.
Personally, I prefer the pre-1948 borders.
I thought so.
Lovely.
You seem to be looking for friends NC. Advice - don't look among those you oppress.
And you seem to be looking for enemies, my friend.
When Zionists believe in the 1967 borders, I'll believe in the 1967 borders.
See how that works, dear?
I think the Zionists already did that, back in '48.
Jeez, NC, you sure are a serious little mouse. We're not deciding World Policy here. That's reserved for Zionists and Texans, not petty little blog ranters like us. Why don't you chill out?
As for your dumb question, you obviously know the answer already, as your super-conservative powers of deduction have enabled you to see into the future and observe what might have been my reply to your serious question.
But I'll humor you. Bear with me.
"Israel" never had a right to exist on land that was historically inhabited by Jews, Christians, and a smattering of Muslims--all Arabs by the way. It was only when the Colonial Powers decided that a great big expanse of land like Arabia needed borders that the problems began, and in particular when Truman decided to support the creation of the state of Israel on that expanse of land "without a people".
The entire concept of Zionism is based on racial and religious purity and a kind of arrogance that is so obnoxious it makes you want to slap a bitch. It also, by nature, embraces subjugation and dispossession. The Holocaust was simply an unfortunate event for Zionism to capitalize on. Jews deserved to live in whatever locality in which they happened to be born and made livelihoods. Zionism took cynical advantage of that black mark on history to create another blight on the story of mankind, inflicting on an innocent population (the Palestinians) the same shit hand they'd just been dealt.
One displaced people has no right to displace another people, but this is what Zionism advocated (even if the Holocaust had not happened). And so therefore, yes, I apply negative connotations to the entire concept of Zionism, which ultimately is an insipid plot to have dominion over the entire Middle East, in some ultra-militant Nazi-esque fashion. Yes, you heard me: NAZI-ESQUE. Because in fact, the aims of Zionism are not much different than those of the Third Reich, congruent with Hitler's expasionist desires.
So there's your answer. Mazeltov.
Something I said seems to have upset you.
You "think" they already did back in '48? hmmmm... well, can't change what you "think", sweety.
Why doesn't NC explain how it is that Zionism is so great and fantastic that it should stand above criticism?
Let's see, why is Zionism negative? Hmmm? Zionism is negative because it has perpetrated an evil against a powerless group of people. Zionism is negative because it is a racist, nationalist ideology. Zionism is negative because it has denied the Palestinians their land, their freedom, their natural resources, their identities and their dignity. Zionism is negative, because the people espousing it use racism and violence to perpetrate their xenonphobic nationalism based upon one race of people at the exclusion of others, in particular, the people who inhabited Palestine. Zionism is negative, because it supported the emigration of Jews during Britain's occupation of Palestine, which was illegal. Zionism is negative, because Zionists like Golda Meir denied that there were even Palestinians living there when the Zionists arrived. Zionism is negative, because those espousing it descend to petty name calling like "anit-semite" when they are criticized, rather than admit the brutality of Zionism. Zionism is negative, because Zionists have aligned themselves with the neo-cons and the American-Lebanese in order to weaken Syria, regardless of the consequences, because they think it is a good idea, regardless of the fact that they have no idea what the outcome will be. Zionism is negative because Jews today take pride in wielding power, it helps make up for their petite schmucks. Zionism is negative because it looks, walks and quacks like Nazism. Zionism is negative because it picked a fight several decades ago that we are still fighting. Zionism IS negative. In the dictionary, next to the definition of "negative" is a picture of a Zionist. Maybe it's your picture?
Well reasoned, Karakuz. Let me see if I have this right:
Zionism is evil because Jews have small penises? Therefore, Jews are Nazis.
Now it all makes sense! Thanks for the enlightenment, friend.
Actually, NC, it was well stated. You're just too blinded by whatever ideology drives your particular brand of arrogance to realize this.
Why don't you just creep back to your own little blog and quit inflaming over here.
NC I think you missed Karakuz's point.
Instead of focusing of one tidbit of what karukuz said, why don't you address the bulk of his argument? (which is what I think your joke of a comment above meant to evade--but only made you look pretty silly)
It seems that several posters here assume I am Jewish, and would prefer this place to be Judenrein. I wonder where they would prefer that Jews should be?
There you go again evading the question. Quite a talent you have there. Misdirection--really nice.
See I don't care what religion you are--but I am interested in hearing why you think Zionism is so great.
In the United States, Monday will be a holiday -- Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. As I sign off now, I reprint an essay by Dr. King's close ally, Congressman John Lewis:
Monday, January 21, 2002
San Francisco Chronicle
“I have a dream” for peace in the Middle East
King's Special Bond with Israel
by John Lewis
THE REV. MARTIN Luther King Jr. understood the meaning of discrimination and oppression. He sought ways to achieve liberation and peace, and he thus understood that a special relationship exists between African Americans and American Jews.
This message was true in his time and is true today.
He knew that both peoples were uprooted involuntarily from their homelands. He knew that both peoples were shaped by the tragic experience of slavery. He knew that both peoples were forced to live in ghettoes, victims of segregation.He knew that both peoples were subject to laws passed with the particular intent of oppressing them simply because they were Jewish or black. He knew that both peoples have been subjected to oppression and genocide on a level unprecedented in history.
King understood how important it is not to stand by in the face of injustice. He understood the cry, “Let my people go.”
Long before the plight of the Jews in the Soviet Union was on the front pages, he raised his voice. “I cannot stand idly by, even though I happen to live in the United States and even though I happen to be an American Negro and not be concerned about what happens to the Jews in Soviet Russia. For what happens to them happens to me and you, and we must be concerned.”
During his lifetime King witnessed the birth of Israel and the continuing struggle to build a nation. He consistently reiterated his stand on the Israel — Arab conflict, stating “Israel's right to exist as a state in security is uncontestable.” It was no accident that King emphasized “security” in his statements on the Middle East,
On March 25, 1968, less than two weeks before his tragic death, he spoke out with clarity and directness stating, “peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.”
During the recent U.N. Conference on Racism held in Durban, South Africa, we were all shocked by the attacks on Jews, Israel and Zionism. The United States of America stood up against these vicious attacks.
Once again, the words of King ran through my memory, “I solemnly pledge to do my utmost to uphold the fair name of the Jews — because bigotry in any form is an affront to us all.”
During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death, a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”
King taught us many lessons. As turbulence continues to grip the Middle East, his words should continue to serve as our guide. I am convinced that were he alive today he would speak clearly calling for an end to the violence between Israelis and Arabs.
He would call upon his fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner, Yasser Arafat, to fulfill the dream of peace and do all that is within his power to stop the violence.
He would urge continuing negotiations to reduce tensions and bring about the first steps toward genuine peace.
King had a dream of an “oasis of brotherhood and democracy” in the Middle East.
As we celebrate his life and legacy, let us work for the day when Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Muslims, will be able to sit in peace “under his vine and fig tree and none shall make him afraid.”
neuroconservative somehow some way you still end up evading the question. I think that speaks volumes about the true merits of Zionism (none) that you have to resort to using the good Dr. King as your sole reference.
When I read the above article, the first thing that came to mind is while Dr. King is a great great man and authoritative figure in non-violent preaching, that does not mean he is an expert on the Israeli conflict.
So a quick google shows that the stunt you tried to pull above is formally known in logic as Argumentum Ad Verecundiam. Here is a good article shooting down your petty attempt to defend Zionism.
Some exerpts:
For the sake of clarity, there are three degradations of this maxim enumerated in this essay. First, it is especially fallacious as proof when the quoted authority demonstrates no special knowledge on the subject. Second, when the authority who is not an expert on the given subject is also quoted out of context, the argument is even weaker. Third, the lowest violation of this formal logic principle is when an advocate uses a false rendition, or a fabricated quote, by the same authority who can claim no expertise.
This is the best framework for understanding how various exponents of Israel have used Martin Luther King Jr. to promote their cause....
Dr. King's supposed statements on Zionism came before the more than three decades of crippling Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the 1987 intifada that grabbed the world's attention. The Palestinian narrative was sparsely conveyed in the United States up to that point. There were few Arabs or Palestinians in the U.S. and fewer Arab academics, policymakers, and activists working with Dr. King. Wise also suggests that application of Dr. King's principles logically give way to more sympathy to the Palestinian side given the systematic inequality it faces....
Back to the main point: if the forged quotes reflecting Dr. King's views on Israel were accurate, citing him would still be classic Argumentum Ad Verecundiam. Where is the proof that Dr. King studied the region or its modern history? The dearth of then-publicized comments and writings on the region by Dr. King shows that it was probably not a subject he was well-versed on, nor did it appear to be a priority of his throughout his career....
The main reason why critique of Zionism persists is that whether Israeli officials like it or not, history as it is written and the actual land are still disputed by the millions of Palestinians who are refugees as a result of Israel's birth, the 3.5 million Palestinians living under Israel's direct military rule, and the Palestinians who compose 20% of Israel's citizens in second class status. If Israel was founded and developed on uncontested terrain then arguments against its existence would more likely be out of hatred against the Jewish people. For supporters of Israel to wipe away all critics of the methods and outcomes of Israel's foundation with the "anti-Semitic" label denies completely the legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative--the experiences and perspectives that never show up in Dr. King's imagined "oasis." "
Nice try though--But I have seen too many Israel supporters in my time try to do exactly the same thing. Its always misdirection or focusing on an "i" that is not dotted rather than the complete sentence. The sentence is "Zionism equates to racism." and I don't care if I didn't dot the "i" in Zionism.
Oh, and Zionism is negative because the Zionists think that they were the only persecuted people who ever lived on this planet and whatever discrimination they received at the hands of Europeans justifies whatever atrocities they perpetuate in the Middle East.
Zionism is negative because Zionists continue to perpetuate bad literature, like the article by John Lewis.
Amin Maalouf said it best -- until Israelis start associating themselves with the Third World, with those who are on the other side of history, where they appropriately belong, they will never feel at home in the Middle East.
NC- actually, I always assumed you were a non-Jewish, right-wing American. If only you understood how well your comments fit that mold - an almost forgivably-ignorant almagam of "facts" culled from mass media. Author Noam Chomsky (a Jew, by the way) would be a good reference for you to start educating yourself vis-a-vis this issue.
I'm interested to hear what you think MLK would say today about Israel's apartheid solutions (Sharon's wall, the West Bank divided into bantustans, different laws of land ownership and marriage for non-Jewish Israeli citizens) to the demographic threat the Palestinians represent? Do you think he would he still consider it a paragon of democracy?
As much as you wish it to be, NC, anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism. Argue facts, not opinions, dear, and maybe we can get somewhere.
And regarding the MLK quote, here's another reference for you:
"Fraud Fit For A King: Israel, Zionism, And The Misuse Of Mlk": [URL]
Also see Norman G. Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.
Checkout:
51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis by Lenni Brenner
A review:
History can be deceptive. It's fair to say that some of the sensational never-published-before documents, in this book, will shock those who have accepted Zionism and its supposed history, at face value, as a political movement that was the hope of the Jews. Lenni Brenner, the intrepid author of "Zionism in the Age of Dictators," reveals disturbing new evidence in his latest effort, that suggest just the opposite. In fact, he makes a compelling case that the Zionist record was "dishonorable." You can consider this excellent tome as a worthy sequel to his first expose' on the myopic Zionist zealots of that bygone era.
For openers, Brenner showed how the Zionists had a long history of shameless cooperation with the Nazis, especially after the dictator Adolph Hitler had came to power in 1933. The Zionists were also in bed, to some extent, with the other members of what later became known as WWII's "Axis of Evil," that included Benito Mussolini's Italy, and Tojo Hideki's Japan. For example, in March 29,1936, Zionists praised Il Duce, and his regime, at the opening of a maritime school, funded by the Fascist government, at Civitavecchia. This is where a Zionist youth group, the "Betar," trained its sailors for the future Revisionist state. The speakers ignored the fact that on Oct. 3, 1935, Italian troops had invaded Abyssinia.
On another front, the "Third Congress of the Jewish Community of the Far East," was held in Jan., 1940, in Harbin, Manchuria, then reeling under a brutal military occupation by the Japanese imperial forces. At that time, too, Tokyo was already aligned with Hitler and Italy's Mussolini, in the notorious Anti-Comintern Pact. Also, keep in mind, that the Japanese's murderous "Rape of Nanking," had occurred in Dec., 1937, and the "Crystal Night" incident on Nov. 9, 1938. Nevertheless, the Zionist confab went out of its way to legitimize the Japanese occupation by certifying it as a guarantor of the "equality of all citizens," in that beleaguered land.
The Zionist also had a trade plan with the Berlin government by which German Jews could redeem their property in Nazi goods exported to then British-occupied Palestine. And to top it all off, the infamous SS-Hptscharf. Adolf Eichmann, had visited Palestine, in October, 1937, as the guest of the Zionists. He also met, in Egypt, with Feivel Polkes, a Zionist operative, whom Eichmann described as a "leading Haganah functionary." The chain-smoking Polkes was also on the Nazis' payroll "as an informer."
Brenner isn't the first writer to address the mostly taboo subject of how the Zionist leadership cooperated with the Nazis. Rolf Hilberg's seminal "The Destruction of European Jews"; Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem"; Ben Hecht's "Perfidy"; Edwin Black's "The Transfer Agreement"; Francis R. Nicosia's "The Third Reich and the Palestine Question"; Rudolf Vrba and Alan Bestic's "I Cannot Forgive"; and Rafael Medoff's "The Deadening Silence: American Jews and the Holocaust," also dared, with varying public success.
After the Holocaust began in 1942, Eichmann dealt regularly with Dr. Rudolf Kastner, a Hungarian Jew, whom he considered a "fanatical Zionist." Kastner was later assassinated in Israel as a Nazi collaborator. At issue then, however, was the bargaining over the eventual fate of Hungary's Jews, who were slated for liquidation in the Nazi-run death camps. Eichmann said this about Kastner, the Zionist representative, "I believe that [he] would have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal. He was not interested in old Jews or those who had become assimilated into Hungarian society. `You can have the others,' he would say, `but let me have this group here.' And because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the deportation camps peaceful. I would let his groups escape."
Readers, too, will be surprised to learn, that after the Nuremberg Anti-Jewish Race Laws were enacted in Sept., 1935, that there were only two flags that were permitted to be displayed in all of Nazi Germany. One was Hitler's favorite, the Swastika. The other was the blue and white banner of Zionism. The Zionists were also allowed to publish their own newspaper. The reasons for this Reich-sponsored favoritism was, according to the author: The Zionists and the Nazis had a common interest, making German Jews emigrate to Palestine.
As early as June 21, 1933, the German Zionist Federation was sending a secret memorandum to the Nazis, which said, in part:
"It is our opinion that an answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state [German Reich] can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims as a social, cultural and moral renewal of Jewry- -indeed, that such a national renewal must first create the decisive social and spiritual premises for all solutions..."
Incredibly, Avraham Stern, the leader of the notorious "Stern Gang," late in 1940, made a written proposal to Hitler, by which the Jewish militias in Palestine, would fight on "Germany's side," in the war against England, in exchange for the Nazis help in resolving the "Jewish Question" in Europe, and their assistance in creating an "historic Jewish state." By this date, German troops had already marched into Prague, invaded Poland, and had built the first concentration camp at Auschwitz. The deranged Stern had further bragged about how the Zionist organizations were "closely related to the totalitarian movements of Europe in [their] ideology and structure." Stern's obscene proposal was found in the German embassy, in Turkey, after WWII.
Finally, I think Brenner was right, when he wrote, "This book presents 51 historic documents to indict Zionism for repeated attempts to collaborate with Adolf Hitler. The evidence, not I, will convince you of the truth of this issue...Exposing the Zionist role in the Nazis era is part of the scrutiny of the past, required of historians."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home