| Hamas demolishing homes of pre-1948 Arabs Posted: 08 Jul 2012 04:24 PM PDT Really! The Gaza government on Sunday began the demolition of several homes in Gaza City, saying they are built on government land.
Abu Al-Abed Abu Omra, whose house is threatened with demolition, told Ma'an that police officers arrived late Saturday night and told residents to evacuate their homes in order to facilitate the demolition.
He said that there are more than 120 families living in the 15-dunams area under threat, near Gaza's Al-Azhar University, and they have been there since 1948. Yes, Arabs who have lived in the same homes for at least 64 years are being threatened with expulsion and their homes destroyed. These aren't "refugees" - these are "pre-1948" Palestinians whose homes are being demolished by Hamas. This is too rich. Will they now be considered "refugees"? Will UNRWA provide aid for them? Will the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions weigh in on this horror, calling it " racist"? Are they being demolished by Caterpillar bulldozers? If a neo-Rachel Corrie would stand in front of a bulldozer, would it stop? Where is the ISM, anyway? Is anyone protesting outside Hamas offices abroad? What about the internationals in Gaza now with the latest Miles of Smiles trip? Does this mean that Hamas recognizes Ottoman and British land laws as far as private ownership goes? So much irony in such a small news story... (h/t Arnold) 
|
| Fourth Geneva Conventions, Article 49 - the Travaux Préparatoires Posted: 08 Jul 2012 02:45 PM PDT There has been much discussion about the intent of the sixth paragraph of the Fourth Geneva Conventions which many claim proves that Israel has violated by allowing citizens to move, voluntarily, to occupied territory. The entire text of Article 49 states: Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. The only way to determine whether the last paragraph is referring to forced transfers or to voluntary transfers as well is to read the entire discussion about the article that occurred while the Conventions were being drafted - the Travaux Préparatoires. These aren't easy to find, but here it every reference to the discussions about the article I could gather. The draft of the Conventions, written at Stockholm, is a little different, and it was called Article 45 in the draft. While the final paragraph remains identical, the discussions around the entire article must be read. The Stockholm draft of Article 45 stated: ARTICLE 45. -Deportations or transfers against their will of protected persons out of occupied territory are prohibited, whether such deportations or transfers are individual or collective, and regardless of their motive.
The occupying Power shall not undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area, unless the security of the population or imperative military consi- derations demand. Such evacuations may not involve displacements outside the bounds of the occupied territory, except in cases of physical necessity.
The occupying Power shall not carry out such transfers and evacuations unless it has ensured proper accommodation to receive the protected persons. Such removals shall be effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, healthfulness, security and nutrition. Members of the same family shall not be separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any proposed transfers and evacuations. It may supervise the preparations and the conditions in which such operations are carried out.
The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civil population into the territory it occupies. Here are the Travaux Préparatoires. I think they make clear that the entire Article is concerned with forced transfer of populations against their wills, and the last paragraph is no exception, even though there was remarkably little discussion specifically about that last paragraph. From the 16th meeting: The CHAIRMAN said that four amendments had been submitted to Article 45, viz. by Canada, Greece, Finland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (see Annex No. 270).
The Canadian Delegation had withdrawn its amendment.
The Greek amendment was to delete the words "against their will" in the first paragraph.
The Finnish amendment only concerned a drafting point, which the Finnish Delegation felt needed no explanation.
Mr. MOROSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that the purpose of the Soviet amendment was merely to define certain points in the Stockholm text, with which his Delegation fully agreed. The insertion of the words "by force" would ensure a formal prohibition of the deplorable practices carried out by certain European countries, where men had been loaded into trucks like cattle, and sent to distant countries to do forced labour.
The Soviet Delegation further proposed deletion of the words "against their will", because in occupied territory no one had the right to express an opinion. There was a risk of abuses arising out of the words "against their will".
It would also be advisable to lay down in the second paragraph that an evacuated population should be transferred back as soon as hostilities ceased in a given area. The Soviet Delegation's view was that it should not be possible to transfer civilians except within occupied territory. It would therefore be desirable to strengthen the prohibition in the first paragraph by adding the words "into the territory of the occupying Power or the territory of any other country" after the words "out of occupied territory".
His Delegation wished mass evacuations to be prevented in future. For those reasons it would perhaps be preferable to say "forcible removals" rather than "deportations by force" as first proposed by the Soviet Delegation.
Mr. SLAMET (Netherlands) agreed with the principles underlying Article 45. In Indonesia, during the last war, numbers of women and children had been transferred to unhealthy climates and forced to build roads, and had died as a result. He would like to see it made clear in the first paragraph that the territory referred to was the national territory inhabited by the protected persons.
Moreover, the third paragraph should also lay down that such persons might provide themselves with money for their journey, and carry with them their luggage and personal effects; the occupying Power would have to provide the necessary means of transport for the transfer or evacuation of such persons and their property.
Mr. MARESCA (Italy) said that in the last war the flower of Italian youth had been sent to Germany in cattle trucks. Such forced transfers must at all events be prohibited in the future. The term "deportation" in the last paragraph of the Article had better not be used, as "deportation" was something quite different.
Mr. CLATTENBURG (United States of America) had read the Soviet amendment with interest. He felt, however, that the words "except in cases of physical necessity" which that amendment wished to delete might be of value in the interest of protected persons. He quoted the case of part of the population of the little island of Wake who had been transferred to Japan. In spite of the bad treatment inflicted, nearly all had survived, whereas the inhabitants left on the island had died as a result either of the fighting or of the brutality of the Japanese field forces.
The CHAIRMAN, before declaring the discussion on Article 45 closed, noted that the Committee was unanimous in condemnation of the abominable practice of deportation. The sole purpose of every speaker had been to strengthen the interdictory provisions of the Article. He suggested that deportations should, in the same way as the taking of hostages, be solemnly prohibited in the Preamble.
He added that only three amendments had been submitted to Articles 46 to 55, two by the Canadian Delegation on Articles 47 and 54, and one by the Finnish Delegation on Article 49. The Canadian and Finnish Delegations had· no comments to offer on their amendments, which only concerned drafting points. From the 40th meeting: Colonel Du PASQUIER (Switzerland), Rapporteur, said that the text proposed by the Drafting Committee (see Annex No. 271) set forth a principle on which all the members of that Committee had had no difficulty in agreeing, namely, the need to prohibit, once and for all, the abominable transfers of population which had taken place during the last war. The procedure for giving effect to that prohibition had, however, been difficult to determine.
In the first paragraph, as the result of a proposal by the Soviet Delegation (see Summary Record at the Sixteenth Meeting), the words "against their will", which occurred in the Stockholm text, had been omitted. The Drafting Committee had considered that they were valueless in view of the pressure which could be brought to bear on internees. The words "to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not", took account of a Soviet amendment (see Summary Record ot the Sixteenth Meeting), and of a Netherlands amendment. The reservation contained in the second paragraph ("Nevertheless...") took account of a suggestion made by the Delegate of Finland (see Summary Record of the Sixteenth Meeting).
A United Kingdom amendment to the third paragraph, which involved the insertion of the words "to the greatest practicable extent" after the word "ensure", had been rejected by 3 votes to 3. The fourth paragraph took into account the impossibility of the Protecting Power being informed in advance of any transfers and' evacuations (in the light of the necessity for secrecy in regard to military operations). The new fifth paragraph included part of the subject matter dealt with in Article 24 of the Stockholm text (see Summary Record at the Twenty-Ninth Meeting).
The sixth paragraph was identical with the fifth paragraph of the Stockholm text.
Mr. PASHKOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) wished the Article to prohibit not only forced transfers but also the transfer of workers in the service of belligerents. It would be sufficient for that purpose to add the words "any other transfer" in the first paragraph after the words "as well as". The Soviet Delegation was prepared provisionally to accept the words "les transferts forces, en masse ou individuels" (individual or mass forced transfers) in the French text, in place of the phrase "rapts ou transferts" which they had proposed; but in the English text they wished the words "forcible removals" to be included in the wording adopted. Again, they maintained their proposal to omit the words "except in cases of physical necessity" from the second paragraph. Finally, his Delegation objected to the provision, in the fifth paragraph, under which protected persons could be detained in dangerous areas. He proposed a return to the wording used in Article 24 of the Stockholm text.
Mr. CLATTENBURG (United States of America) believed that the addition (suggested by the Soviet Delegation) of the words "any other transfer" would have hampered the evacuation of the religious and political minorities which the Allies, on entering Germany; had discovered in labour and concentration camps. As regards the proposed suppression of the words "except in cases of physical necessity", there were cases where, owing to the limited size of the territory, it was physically impossible to evacuate the population otherwise than to places outside the occupied territory. That was the case, for example, in the islands of Wake and Guam, where the whole of the territory could be considered as dangerous.
Mr. BAGGE (Denmark) said that the fifth paragraph had arisen out of a proposal by the Danish Delegation which wished to avoid a repetition of the disastrous consequences of the mass flight of civilians on roads exposed to bombardment. He hoped that the Committee would adopt the Article as it stood.
Mr. DAY (United Kingdom) proposed an alternative wording for the third paragraph. The proposed wording which had been agreed to by a minority of the Drafting Committee (Canada, United States of America, United Kingdom), read as follows:
"The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest possible extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, security and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated."
The above wording provided, everything considered, a better safeguard for the population of towns menaced with destruction. If accommodation had to be provided in advance for the population of such towns, it was almost certain that the evacuation would never take place.
Mr. MOROSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) felt that the amendment proposed by his Delegation had not been fully understood by the Delegate of the United States of America. If it was desired to avoid mass transfers of the population, such as had taken place during the last war, the Soviet amendment should be supported.
Mr. WERSHOF (Canada), like the Delegate of the United States of America, opposed the Soviet amendment for the insertion of the words "any other transfer" in the first paragraph. Such an addition might interfere with the liberation of workers or deportees.
The CHAIRMAN declared the discussion closed and put the amendments to Article 45 to the vote.
The Soviet amendment for the insertion of the words "any other transfer" after the words "as well as" in the first paragraph, was rejected by 22 votes to 7.
The Soviet amendment proposing the omission of the words "except in cases of physical necessity" in the second paragraph, ,vas rejected by 16 votes to 9.
The wording proposed for the third' paragraph by the minority of the Drafting Committee (Canada, United States of America, United Kingdom), was rejected by 14 votes to 13.
The Soviet amendment proposing that the fifth paragraph should be replaced by the Stockholm text of Article 24, was rejected by IS votes to 1O. The subsidiary amendment submitted by the Soviet Union Delegation, proposing the omission of the words "unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand" at the end of the fifth paragraph, was rejected by 17 votes to 9.
The whole of Article 45, as proposed by the Drafting Committee, was adopted. From the final report summarizing the proceedings: Article 45
Although there was general unanimity in condemning such deportations as took place during the recent war, the phrase at the beginning of Article 45 caused some trouble in view of the difficulty in reconciling exactly the ideas expressed with the various terms in French, English and Russian. In the end the Committee have decided on a wording which prohibits individual or mass forcible removals as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to any other country, but which permits voluntary transfers. [I know this is not the same paragraph, but still...]
The second paragraph deals with the problem of evacuations made necessary in the interest of the security of the civilian population, or for imperative military considerations. In principle, these evacuations take place only within an occupied territory which distinguishes them from the transfers envisaged in the first paragraph. Never~ theless, when it is physically impossible to retain evacuees in such territory, for example, if the latter is an island of limited size, they may be evacuated to another territory. This special case constitutes an exception to the first paragraph. A new provision has been added to the effect that persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. ..
The third paragraph is unchanged from the Stockholm text, although considerable doubt has been expressed as to whether the wording employed is in the best interest of the protected persons concerned.
The fourth paragraph has been altered because discussion showed that for reasons of military security it was impossible to inform the Protecting Power in advance of proposed transfers and evacuations; the Committee, therefore, confined itself to imposing on the Occupying Power the obligation to lodge the necessary information as soon as the transfer or evacuation had taken place.
The fifth paragraph derives from Article 24: the latter provided that no protected person could be sent to, or retained in areas which are particularly exposed. Discussion showed that the problem was more complex than it seemed at first sight; in fact, it could happen-and it frequently did happen during the war-that the population of a district, believing their homes threatened, might leave them so as to escape the danger. Such persons, however, are often more exposed to danger on the roads or in the battle zone than if they stay at home. It is also necessary to take into account, in addition to the principle of freedom of movement, the restrictions demanded by the security of the population or imperative military considerations such as the need to keep the roads open. A qualification to this effect has been included in the paragraph.
Finally, the sixth paragraph consists of the fifth paragraph of the Stockholm text. All of the discussions of that article assumed that the entire article dealt only with forced population transfer. The final paragraph would be very out of place if it alone included voluntary transfer on the part of a population, after five paragraphs that are clearly about forced transfers, deportations and evacuations all actively done by the occupying power. 
|
| Bir Zeit U essentially punishes professor for "insulting Islam" Posted: 08 Jul 2012 12:45 PM PDT From Inside Higher Education: Birzeit University occupies an important place in Palestinian history. The oldest Palestinian university, it grew out of an elementary school for girls created in 1924, when schooling was rare for Palestinian children. It became a college in 1942 and a university in 1975. Birzeit has been the site of numerous protests and clashes with Israeli authorities, who shut down the university frequently and for lengthy periods in the 1980s. "The university is guided by the principle of academic freedom and upholds independence of thought, freedom of discussion, and unimpeded circulation of ideas. Ironically, these principles made the Birzeit University community a target of harassment under the Israeli military occupation," says a history of Birzeit on its website.
Now the university is facing questions about whether it has abandoned those principles in failing to defend a professor who is a target not of Israelis, but of the university's Islamist students.
Musa Budeiri might seem an unlikely target. He has taught at Birzeit for 19 years, published extensively on Palestinian nationalism, and devoted his career to the university through periods when it was very difficult to work there. But he got into trouble with campus Islamists because of a habit he shares with academics in many countries: He posts political cartoons on his office door.
In an e-mail interview, Budeiri said that "since the outbreak of the Arab revolutions I have been in the habit of picking out cartoons from newspapers or the Internet illustrating and commenting on what is happening, and sticking them on my office door." Budeiri has taught cultural studies at the university, so he said he wants students thinking about a range of ideas that are in play online and in print. "I thought this would help provoke and stimulate discussion among students," he said.
He said that the controversy started at the end of the academic year, when he had five cartoons on his door, some of which offended Islamist students.
"The cartoons in question are a couple of pages from Superman comics," he explained. "A blogger from the Emirates had taken a few pages from the comics, added a beard to Superman and declared him Islamic Superman, and posted on the Internet. He also erased the English blurb and inserted words of his own in Arabic. In the first, Superman is lying in bed with a woman and she asks him if he is going to marry her, he responds by saying that on the planet Krypton, they are 'not allowed to take a fifth wife.'
"The second is a scene with Superman and Batman. Superman is reading a fatwa condemning Batman to death for being dressed in women's garb, which according to Superman is not allowed in Islam according to the ruling of some ancient authority; Batman is protesting that he is a Shiite and that the ruling only applies to Sunnis.
...The turmoil started when a group of students distributed a leaflet on campus saying that the cartoons were "an insult to Islam," and that he should be punished and should apologize for posting them, Budeiri said. A Facebook page denouncing him (which was recently removed from Facebook) followed, as did protests. According to Budeiri, the university then removed the cartoons from his door, and sent three vice presidents to ask him to issue an apology. He agreed to issue an explanation, but not to apologize.
At that point, the university issued a statement that said Budeiri did not intend to offend Muslims. While the university criticized attacks on anyone for expressing their views, Budeiri said that no action was taken against the students who threatened him. Student protesters also reported having been told that Budeiri would not be returning to the university, he said, and so considered that a victory. He said that various university officials have continued to ask him to apologize and/or take a leave and go abroad for a semester.
While Budeiri said that the university never informed him that he wouldn't be teaching again, he said that even though he has asked for a contract for the next academic year, he has had "no response." The academic year at Birzeit starts next month. There's lots more, but the upshot is that the university is trampling over the professor's rights while coddling Islamists who are threatening him. By the way, the article misunderstands Bir Zeit's history. Even though it links to the history page of the university, it did not become a "college" in 1942, as IHE says, but it became a high school which were often called colleges then. It only became a four year college in 1975 - under Israeli rule. There were, in fact, no universities in the West Bank under Jordanian rule. (h/t D) 
|
| Sunday Links Posted: 08 Jul 2012 10:45 AM PDT From Ian:
UNWatch: Iran elected to top post at UN Arms Trade Treaty conference "Right after a UN Security Council report found Iran guilty of illegally transferring guns and bombs to Syria, which is now murdering thousands of its own people, it defies logic, morality and common sense for the UN to now elect this same regime to a global post in the regulation of arms transfers," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a non-governmental monitoring group based in Geneva. EU security organization rejects PA membership Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe denies request for observers status, J'lem praises rejection. "Twenty-eight countries voted against the Palestinian request and 21 voted in favor of accepting the application, according to the report." Gaza Mythbusting: It's Easier Than You Think "Several days ago I stumbled upon an Arab website advertising fashionable recreational tours to the Gaza Strip. Yeah, I am not on any medication and I am talking about the very same Gaza which is referred to by the Palestinians as "the greatest concentration camp on the face of the Earth" (с). "The Ghetto of Palestinian suffering" (c) and "The Auschwitz of our Times" (c)." AJ Correspondent caught in gunfire in Libya Al Jazeera correspondent Hoda Abdel Hamid was caught in gunfire outside a polling station in Benghazi while part way through a live cross with SBS on Saturday. Honest Reporting Sunday Times Republishes Doctored Iranian Fauxtograph
CIFWatch: The Guardian's Giles Fraser, and the Palestinian 'weapon of the womb' Jordanian MP who brandished a gun on live TV may face attempted murder charge A triple threat: NYC: Ex-Muslim to be ordained as rabbi Dario Hunter, born to Iranian Muslim father and African-American mother to graduate online rabbinical program in the summer "According to various reports in the NYC media, Hunter, an openly gay man raised by an Iranian Muslim father and an African-American mother, will graduate alongside classmates who include a Catholic-born Brazilian and a British songwriter." 
|
| Fayyad again begs Arabs to pay their pledges to the PA Posted: 08 Jul 2012 08:45 AM PDT From AP: Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is urging Arab countries to keep their promises and send tens of millions of dollars to his cash-strapped government.
The West Bank-based Palestinian Authority has always relied on foreign aid but is now embroiled in its worst cash crisis in years, unable to pay tens of thousands of government employees.
Fayyad needs $1 billion to close the 2012 spending gap, but previous heavy borrowing means he can no longer turn to banks. Unlike Arab states, Western donors have mostly made good on pledges.
Fayyad on Sunday called on ''donors, particularly the Arab brothers,'' to send the promised money.
Arab donors have linked aid to ending the political rift that created rival governments in the West Bank and Gaza. Attempts to end the rift have failed. There is a simple way for the PA to save tens of millions of dollars, but it would involve having the PA stop supporting terror groups and terrorists, both directly and indirectly. They have to stop paying terrorists in Israeli prisons, families of "martyrs," and, most of all, the 60% of its budget that goes to Gaza where Hamas can thrive on PA cash without any PA responsibility. And no Western donor has the guts to tell them to do that. Long term, the PA - with its well-educated population - should have been pushing a program where Palestinian Arabs could be used for remote outsourcing work in the vast Arab world. Computer programming, tech support, call centers, legal services, translation services, research, consulting, film-making - the list of such jobs is endless and the PA has had nearly two decades to build such an infrastructure to reduce reliance on foreign aid. But it never bothered, instead basking in bizarre World Bank reports praising the PA for doing so much and blaming Israel for everything wrong. (h/t CHA) 
|
| Malaysia's "Obedient Wives Holy Islamic Sex Booklet" Posted: 08 Jul 2012 07:15 AM PDT From Bikya Masr: Despite having the last sex guide banned by the Malaysia government, the "Obedient Wives Club" has launched a new guide detailing how to "please your husband."
Titled "The Holy Spirit and Holy Islamic Sex Booklet" the aim for the OWC is promote wives' indulging in better sex in order to keep their husbands from "straying" in their marriage.
The previous booklet launched by the women's group, "Holy Islamic Sex" was banned by the government.
The Obedient Wives Club advocate subservience to their husbands and have published a book calling for women to have sex with their husbands whenever they demand.
The previos book, was in Malay, but not available at local stores in the country due to the ban.
Many say it is read by hundreds of members of the club, a small Malaysian sect that also practices and advocates polygamy.
"I am very disturbed by this kind of book, but I don't think the government should be banning it because that only makes it more popular," said Tina Rinbala, a Kuala Lumpur-based researcher of women's issues. She told Bikyamasr.com that the publication is "horrific and tells women they are lesser beings, which we should fight through education, not banning."
Although the first volume contained no explicit images, it did have descriptions of the 56-year-old author's opinions and experiences of marriage.
It tells readers how couples should approach sex, claiming that women in marriages only "satisfy" their husbands' needs 10 percent of the time. 
|
| Fatah/Hamas "unity" news Posted: 08 Jul 2012 05:20 AM PDT Ever since Hamas shut down the voter registration office in Gaza, they have waged a campaign of arresting Fatah members there. Hamas listed a series of conditions before re-opening the office, including appointing its own members to the commission, having Fatah release Hamas prisoners in the West Bank, and some demands on West Bank voter registration. The fake "unity" keeps rolling along.... 
|
| Today's PressTV anti-semitism Posted: 08 Jul 2012 01:44 AM PDT Iranian state media loves to push anti-semitic memes, but it almost always hides them behind interviews with Western crackpot "experts" to shield the Iranian government from charges of explicit anti-semitism. Today's example: Kevin Barret, an American author and expert in Islamic studies, said Washington and its allies have already succumbed to the agendas set forth by extremist Likud Zionism which seeks to destabilize the entire Middle East.
"I think the Likudniks want to plunge the Middle East into a big war, which would allow them to finish the ethnic cleansing in Palestine and to escape prosecution for 9/11 and the wars it triggered," Barrett said. Likudniks are members of the Israeli Likud party led by its extremist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Barret believes that Israeli Likud party does not serve Israeli interests but supports the cause of international Zionism worldwide, instead.
According to the American expert, Tel Aviv is behind the current unrest in Syria and want the United States and allies get involved in domestic affairs of other independent countries surrounding Israel.
"I think master and slave is more the relationship (between Tel Aviv and Washington) these days." The leading author said. Barrett's Wikipedia page is entertaining, to say the least, with Trutherism, other bizarre conspiracy theories and a restraining order by his wife. His Truther book on 9/11 includes fantasies about him being "martyred" for telling the "truth" (p. 24.) Always on the lookout for new synonyms for "Jews," I liked the line about how Likud is promoting the cause of "international Zionism" rather than Israeli interests. The only way to parse that sentence is to conclude that "international Zionism" is akin to what Henry Ford called "the International Jew." I also love how every Muslim and anti-semite is totally convinced that Israel is backing whichever side they are against in Syria. There is no shortage of anti-semitic crackpots in the US, and PressTV seems to find them all. 
|
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה