Attack on Israelis in Jerusalem

smaneck · Jan 4, 2015

LoAmmi said:
As I said, we need to start taking the situation as it is right now and create peace. Reasonable concessions are required from both sides. The best way to tell is that in a good negotiation neither side will be completely happy. I'd love to see Jerusalem as some kind of neutral city under neither control due to it's cultural and religious significance but I don't think that would happen.

I used to be of that opinion as well, but ever since I found out that the Jews made up the majority of the inhabitants of Jerusalem even under the Ottoman Empire, I've changed my mind about this. The 'right to return' for the Palestinians or at least compensation for property they have lost would be a better solution, IMO.

LoAmmi · Jan 4, 2015

smaneck said:
I used to be of that opinion as well, but ever since I found out that the Jews made up the majority of the inhabitants of Jerusalem even under the Ottoman Empire, I've changed my mind about this. The 'right to return' for the Palestinians or at least compensation for property they have lost would be a better solution, IMO.

Oh, I'm fine with it being in Jewish hands as long as there are laws in place to allow free travel to all religious pilgrims.

I just don't think the Palestinians will be happy with that.

Zeek · Jan 5, 2015

Originally Posted by Zeek.

The very link you sent me concluded it was meaningless as the problem was religious not genetic

.

smaneck said:
Except Palestinian Christians are as adamantly anti-zionist as are Muslims. This is not about religion or genetics it is about a people's right to their home.

Again, that is not the whole picture by any means...there are Moslems that are Zionists, and there are Christian Arabs that are also Zionists...and in many ways the 1.6 million Israeli Arabs are closet Zionists because the would not want to live in any of the surrounding free Islamic States, and have more freedom under Israeli rule.

You also have to realize that there are many nominal Arab Christians who largely align themselves with the Moslem narrative, and are bought up on a diet of hating Israelis.

Recently Father Gabriel Naddaf in Nazareth has got Israel to recognize another group from within the Arab community...namely Arameans. These now gladly separate themselves from being labelled 'Arab Christians' and are true Zionist that love Israel and want to serve in the armed forces. Naturally this has not gone down well with the Arabs; both Christian and Moslem, and they have had many death threats.

Yes, and do you realize the people who now call themselves Palestinians are mostly Arabs pure and simple.

If by that you mean they speak Arabic, of course. But how does that deprive them of their right to their homeland?

No I do not mean because they speak Arabic they are Arabs...I mean they are no different from the Arabs in the surrounding countries because that is where most originated from.

Arabs surged into Palestine during the latter part of the 19th Century and well into the 20th Century

So you have asserted without proving.

Surely you are capable of googling it for yourself and reading some comparative accounts...pros and cons...some things are so basic, I presume people are already aware of them....you will also discover that Jewish immigration was severely restricted while Arab immigration went unchallenged...despite the British Mandate to facilitate a demographic change in favour of the Jews so that they could eventually form a State.

...they did not head for the vast area of Southern Syria, nor the land East of the Jordan...they came to where the Jews returning in what is now Israel, and centered their communities around the Jewish communities because wages were double or more what they could earn where they originally came from.

Except that is not what happened. The Jews who immigrated during the 19th century mostly settled in Jerusalem. That immigration was welcomed by the Ottomans and not a problem for the Palestinians. Problems started mostly in the 20th century precisely because the Jews were then buying up farmland and evicting the tenants. If they had kept the Palestinians on as tenants there would not have been a problem, but the Zionist aim was to form separate Jewish communities and the Palestinians tenants were not wanted. This flew in the face of traditional land tenure wherein it was the tenant, not the landlord who had primary rights to live on the land. It was the landlord's right to collect revenue from it. Read: Gershon Shafirs *Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.*

Well part of what you say I agree with...it is true that at one point Jewish land-owners were encouraged to only hire Jewish labour...mainly because there wasn't enough work for Jewish migrants...it didn't work very well, and caused resentment among the Arabs, and they were far more skilled and capable than the Jewish workers. I am familiar with Gershon Shafir's work, but thanks for suggesting it.

I think some of the methodology incorporated by the burgeoning Zionist Movement was at times unsympathetic to local tradition and did discriminate against Arabs as to some extent they established an Elitist colonial class...but I also think this was eventually realized and reworked...Shafir makes the point that Arabs continued to find work and better wages in various Jewish communities, simply because they had the necessary skills.

The idea that the Palestinians are a recognizable ethnic group

Once again, it makes no difference whether they are a 'recognizable ethnic group.' They are a people who lived in a land that was taken from them.

Of course it does if they are trying to make outlandish claims that are not based in historical fact....like the fanciful idea the Palestinians originated from the Canaanites....something that is bandied about simply to try and give them a historical claim to the land.

I think one also has to remember that at one point what is now Jordan was also ear-marked as part of the Jewish State, but is Arab and comprises mainly of Arabs who would call themselves Palestinians....so to a very real extent Jordan could be called the home of the Palestinians, and trying to take Judea and Samaria into the bargain is not going to work, despite Oslo and despite political intervention by the US and Europe with their limp 'Peace Plans'.

Zeek · Jan 5, 2015

I have to just say. JERUSALEM IS THE ETERNAL CAPITAL OF ISRAEL.

smaneck · Jan 5, 2015

Zeek said:
Again, that is not the whole picture by any means...there are Moslems that are Zionists, and there are Christian Arabs that are also Zionists...and in many ways the 1.6 million Israeli Arabs are closet Zionists because the would not want to live in any of the surrounding free Islamic States, and have more freedom under Israeli rule.

That was true of the Druze community until the Second Intifada, but increasingly they have been alienated by Israeli policies as well.

You also have to realize that there are many nominal Arab Christians who largely align themselves with the Moslem narrative, and are bought up on a diet of hating Israelis.

I'm talking about the Bishops and Patriarchs! I have a friend who was meeting with a number of bishops in Jerusalem during the first Gulf War. When Saddam began lobbing scud missiles into Israel, they all toasted to his health!

No I do not mean because they speak Arabic they are Arabs...I mean they are no different from the Arabs in the surrounding countries because that is where most originated from.

Not what the DNA evidence indicates. They are more closely related to the Jews than they are to the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula. Now they probably are related to the Syrians more closely but Syrians are mostly Arameans, as you put it, as far as their DNA is concerned.

Surely you are capable of googling it for yourself and reading some comparative accounts...pros and cons.

Apparently you don't realize you are talking to someone with a PhD in the field. I don't need to google to get my information. And whether there was some Arab immigration or not, the vast majority of Palestinians had always lived there.

Well part of what you say I agree with...it is true that at one point Jewish land-owners were encouraged to only hire Jewish labour...mainly because there wasn't enough work for Jewish migrants...it didn't work very well, and caused resentment among the Arabs, and they were far more skilled and capable than the Jewish workers. I am familiar with Gershon Shafir's work, but thanks for suggesting it.

I think some of the methodology incorporated by the burgeoning Zionist Movement was at times unsympathetic to local tradition and did discriminate against Arabs as to some extent they established an Elitist colonial class...but I also think this was eventually realized and reworked...Shafir makes the point that Arabs continued to find work and better wages in various Jewish communities, simply because they had the necessary skills.

Now at least we are talking sense.

Of course it does if they are trying to make outlandish claims that are not based in historical fact....like the fanciful idea the Palestinians originated from the Canaanites....something that is bandied about simply to try and give them a historical claim to the land.

I suspect they are more closely related to the Samaritans. If you are looking for your Ten Lost Tribes, you may not have to look too far.

I think one also has to remember that at one point what is now Jordan was also ear-marked as part of the Jewish State

I don't know by who supposedly earmarked it part of the Jewish State, but Jordan has always been part of Palestine.

but is Arab and comprises mainly of Arabs who would call themselves Palestinians....so to a very real extent Jordan could be called the home of the Palestinians, and trying to take Judea and Samaria into the bargain is not going to work, despite Oslo and despite political intervention by the US and Europe with their limp 'Peace Plans'.

The whole thing is the home of the Palestinians but if you want to argue that Jews are somehow entitled to this land because of the Bible, then give them the part the Bible assigned to the tribe of Judea, namely the Gaza Strip. I'm sure the Palestinians will be happy to accept the trade. ;-}

Supreme · Jan 5, 2015

This is a horrible act of terrorism. Jerusalem is generally a safe city, despite all the ethnic and religious tension, and at least the police got a handle of the situation, but not fast enough to prevent one death and fourteen casualties.

smaneck · Jan 5, 2015

Supreme said:
This is a horrible act of terrorism. Jerusalem is generally a safe city, despite all the ethnic and religious tension

I don't know about that. I've been to Israel three times and the last two I was not able to go into the Old City because of the unrest. Haifa, on the other hand, is much more peaceful.

Zeek · Jan 7, 2015

Originally Posted by Zeek

Again, that is not the whole picture by any means...there are Moslems that are Zionists, and there are Christian Arabs that are also Zionists...and in many ways the 1.6 million Israeli Arabs are closet Zionists because the would not want to live in any of the surrounding free Islamic States, and have more freedom under Israeli rule.

smaneck said:
That was true of the Druze community until the Second Intifada, but increasingly they have been alienated by Israeli policies as well.

I'd be interested in seeing what form this 'alienation' supposedly takes...I'm not saying it doesn't, because some Israeli policies could do with a bit of fine tuning...but I am unaware of any fomenting disquiet.

You also have to realize that there are many nominal Arab Christians who largely align themselves with the Moslem narrative, and are bought up on a diet of hating Israelis.

I'm talking about the Bishops and Patriarchs! I have a friend who was meeting with a number of bishops in Jerusalem during the first Gulf War. When Saddam began lobbing scud missiles into Israel, they all toasted to his health!

Some of the Bishops and Patriarchs are outright anti-Semites, so I am not at all surprised. (If they had the same attitude against Moslems in an Arab country they would be slung out on their ear....sometimes Israel is too tolerant IMO.

No I do not mean because they speak Arabic they are Arabs...I mean they are no different from the Arabs in the surrounding countries because that is where most originated from.

Not what the DNA evidence indicates. They are more closely related to the Jews than they are to the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula. Now they probably are related to the Syrians more closely but Syrians are mostly Arameans, as you put it, as far as their DNA is concerned.

Well then you have a wee bit of a problem regarding that because the rather sparse and erratic population records do retain enough information to clearly show that the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs came from around Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other areas. Arabs are tribal, and retain customs, traditions names and dialect Dr Mordechai Kedar lectures extensively on this and is one of the foremost authorities on Arab culture...and I can tell you that he certainly doesn't subscribe to the conclusions you come up with regarding DNA tests.

Surely you are capable of googling it for yourself and reading some comparative accounts...pros and cons.

Apparently you don't realize you are talking to someone with a PhD in the field. I don't need to google to get my information. And whether there was some Arab immigration or not, the vast majority of Palestinians had always lived there.

For someone with a PhD in this field, you seem remarkably out of touch with historical reality...There were loads of Arabs that settled in Palestine at the end of the Ottoman Empire and throughout the British Mandate, adding to others that had settled in small unstable groups over several hundred years.

Now at least we are talking sense.

I think one also has to remember that at one point what is now Jordan was also ear-marked as part of the Jewish State

I don't know by who supposedly earmarked it part of the Jewish State, but Jordan has always been part of Palestine.

Going back to history....Jordan was created out of approx 76% of land that was promised to be part of the forthcoming Jewish Homeland...so the Jewish people were left with the rest...and legally it is their land including all of Judea and Samaria. However the duplicitous British now wanted to be ever so fair and give them about 54% of what was left and the Arabs 46%...which meant the Jews got around 17% of what was originally promised to them...they reluctantly accepted...the Arabs didn't, and well you know the rest.

The whole thing is the home of the Palestinians but if you want to argue that Jews are somehow entitled to this land because of the Bible, then give them the part the Bible assigned to the tribe of Judea, namely the Gaza Strip. I'm sure the Palestinians will be happy to accept the trade. ;-}

I haven't argued from a biblical perspective, but an historical one.

I'll just finish by a pertinent quote about the myth of indigenous Palestinians.

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".

- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -

smaneck · Jan 7, 2015

Zeek said:
I'd be interested in seeing what form this 'alienation' supposedly takes...I'm not saying it doesn't, because some Israeli policies could do with a bit of fine tuning...but I am unaware of any fomenting disquiet.

Then you haven't paid enough attention to events associated with the Second Intifada. What distinguished it from the First Intifada was the widespread participation on the part of Israeli Arabs.

Some of the Bishops and Patriarchs are outright anti-Semites, so I am not at all surprised.

Has to be antisemitism, huh? Can't possibly be concern for the Palestinian community they serve?

Hate to break it to you. Arabs are Semites.

Well then you have a wee bit of a problem regarding that because the rather sparse and erratic population records do retain enough information to clearly show that the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs came from around Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other areas. Arabs are tribal, and retain customs, traditions names and dialect

Then you need to explain why Palestinians speak the Levant dialect rather than that of Egypt or Arabia. As for names and tribal affiliations, you do realize that when the first wave of conversions occurred in the Levant, the converts (muwali) had to be accepted into an Arab tribe?

Dr Mordechai Kedar lectures extensively on this and is one of the foremost authorities on Arab culture...

Dr Mordechai Kedar of Bar Ilan University who is associated with anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller? Who recommends raping the wives and daughters of terrorists?

That would be like my calling on a Holocaust Denier as an expert on Zionism.

and I can tell you that he certainly doesn't subscribe to the conclusions you come up with regarding DNA tests.

I would hate to think we would agree on much of anything.

For someone with a PhD in this field, you seem remarkably out of touch with historical reality...There were loads of Arabs that settled in Palestine at the end of the Ottoman Empire and throughout the British Mandate, adding to others that had settled in small unstable groups over several hundred years.

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote which is regardless of whether there were Arab migrations in the late 19th and 20th century, the majority of Palestinians are the ones who always lived there.

Going back to history....Jordan was created out of approx 76% of land that was promised to be part of the forthcoming Jewish Homeland

You mean by the British who were promising the same chunk of land that wasn't theirs to the French and the Arabs at the same time? Jordan was a wasteland as I'm sure you are aware.

...so the Jewish people were left with the rest...and legally it is their land including all of Judea and Samaria.

Excuse me, but how does a promise made by one country to the land of another country constitute a legal title? Especially when it was clearly just a ploy to get support during WWI?

However the duplicitous British now wanted to be ever so fair and give them about 54% of what was left and the Arabs 46%...which meant the Jews got around 17% of what was originally promised to them...they reluctantly accepted...the Arabs didn't, and well you know the rest.

I agree the British were duplicitous of the British to offer the same chunk of land to three different parties. However, my recollection is that the partition of Palestine was mandated by the United Nations, not the British.
I haven't argued from a biblical perspective, but an historical one.

I'll just finish by a pertinent quote about the myth of indigenous Palestinians.

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".

- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -

I'm afraid that doesn't prove your point. Note your Palestinian Commander is not making common cause with Arabs in general. He specifies Jordan, Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. All four of these countries share the culture of the Levant, all are largely descendants of the Aramaic peoples who originally lived in this area which is sometimes referred to as Greater Syria. It is a little like Californians making common cause with Oregon and Washington. It doesn't mean that anyone has the right to take California away from them just because Californians don't have a sufficiently separate ethnic identity or because California was never really a nation-state to begin with.

Zeek · Jan 8, 2015

Originally Posted by Zeek
I'd be interested in seeing what form this 'alienation' supposedly takes...I'm not saying it doesn't, because some Israeli policies could do with a bit of fine tuning...but I am unaware of any fomenting disquiet.

smaneck said:
Then you haven't paid enough attention to events associated with the Second Intifada. What distinguished it from the First Intifada was the widespread participation on the part of Israeli Arabs.

You are ducking the question. You claim the Druze are being alienated by Israeli policies...I am unaware of this, please educate me.

I have a friend who was meeting with a number of bishops in Jerusalem during the first Gulf War. When Saddam began lobbing scud missiles into Israel, they all toasted to his health!

Click to expand...

Some of the Bishops and Patriarchs are outright anti-Semites, so I am not at all surprised.

Has to be antisemitism, huh? Can't possibly be concern for the Palestinian community they serve?

O sure they will pontificate about concern for the Arabs, but they will often express themselves from a clearly anti-Semitic perspective....and listen to what you are saying, these 'leaders' praised the efforts of a 'genocidal maniac'...that speaks volumes of itself.

Hate to break it to you. Arabs are Semites.

That old chestnut...anti-Semitism is specifically directed towards Jews, irrespective of genetic connections...nice try.

Well then you have a wee bit of a problem regarding that because the rather sparse and erratic population records do retain enough information to clearly show that the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs came from around Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other areas. Arabs are tribal, and retain customs, traditions names and dialect

Then you need to explain why Palestinians speak the Levant dialect rather than that of Egypt or Arabia. As for names and tribal affiliations, you do realize that when the first wave of conversions occurred in the Levant, the converts (muwali) had to be accepted into an Arab tribe?

Again you are papering over the cracks...the fact is the present Arab population of Judea and Samaria were predominantly immigrants to Palestine from the surrounding Arab speaking regions...to deny this is an impossibility unless blinded by some sort of ideology.

Dr Mordechai Kedar lectures extensively on this and is one of the foremost authorities on Arab culture...

Dr Mordechai Kedar of Bar Ilan University who is associated with anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller? Who recommends raping the wives and daughters of terrorists?

That would be like my calling on a Holocaust Denier as an expert on Zionism.

You twist his words...he was explaining the Arab mentality and what it takes to actually make them think twice before committing acts of terrorism..he was not recommending raping their wives and daughters as you libel him.

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote which is regardless of whether there were Arab migrations in the late 19th and 20th century, the majority of Palestinians are the ones who always lived there.

Then for some reason you are in denial or have swallowed a huge volume of revisionist history or are nurturing some closet ideology.

Excuse me, but how does a promise made by one country to the land of another country constitute a legal title? Especially when it was clearly just a ploy to get support during WWI?

I agree the British were duplicitous of the British to offer the same chunk of land to three different parties. However, my recollection is that the partition of Palestine was mandated by the United Nations, not the British.
I haven't argued from a biblical perspective, but an historical one.

You seem to skip historical facts in a remarkably consistent manner.

From the San Remo Agreement came the Mandate of Palestine in 1922 that was signed by 51 member countries of the League of Nations, giving the Jewish people the right to settle anywhere in all of the land of Palestine from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean...the British were mandated to uphold this binding document, and both the UK and the member States were legally bound to facilitate Jewish immigration and the eventual emergence of a Jewish State.

What the United Nations did through the General Assembly in 1948 does not in anyway annul the League of Nations decision...in fact under International Law it cannot rescind or change it.

I'll just finish by a pertinent quote about the myth of indigenous Palestinians.

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".

- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -

I'm afraid that doesn't prove your point. Note your Palestinian Commander is not making common cause with Arabs in general. He specifies Jordan, Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. All four of these countries share the culture of the Levant, all are largely descendants of the Aramaic peoples who originally lived in this area which is sometimes referred to as Greater Syria. It is a little like Californians making common cause with Oregon and Washington. It doesn't mean that anyone has the right to take California away from them just because Californians don't have a sufficiently separate ethnic identity or because California was never really a nation-state to begin with.

Your selective reading skills seem to have glossed over the point that the whole idea of a Palestinian identity was a political ploy.
He went on to say....

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

In other words they will settle for nothing less than the whole of Israel which will also become Judenfrei....which is what happened when Judea and Samaria were under illegal Jordanian occupation for 19 years.

smaneck · Jan 8, 2015

Zeek said:
You are ducking the question. You claim the Druze are being alienated by Israeli policies...I am unaware of this, please educate me.

Read this: https://www.academia.edu/3265472/Th...State_Policy_and_Palestinian_Arab_Nationalism

Despite Druze cooperation with the Israelis, to the extent of being subject to the draft, some 80% of their land has been expropriated. They never saw the equality they expected.

O sure they will pontificate about concern for the Arabs, but they will often express themselves from a clearly anti-Semitic perspective....and listen to what you are saying, these 'leaders' praised the efforts of a 'genocidal maniac'...that speaks volumes of itself.

We are talking about bishops and patriarchs who are themselves largely Palestinians. What it speaks volumes of is the extent to which this is not at all a "Muslim" affair, that the Christian community in Palestine felt equally wronged.

That old chestnut...anti-Semitism is specifically directed towards Jews, irrespective of genetic connections...nice try.

Actually, no. You might look at how it was used in Iran.

Well then you have a wee bit of a problem regarding that because the rather sparse and erratic population records do retain enough information to clearly show that the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs came from around Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other areas. Arabs are tribal, and retain customs, traditions names and dialect

Sorry, but I doubt very much whether 'sparse and erratic' population records could tell us much of about the 'vast majority' of Palestinians. I do know that the vast majority speak the Levant dialect, not that of Egypt or Arabia. Tribes don't mean much in Palestine except among the Bedouin. I already illustrated why you would not be able to tell much from names.

Again you are papering over the cracks...the fact is the present Arab population of Judea and Samaria were predominantly immigrants to Palestine from the surrounding Arab speaking regions...to deny this is an impossibility unless blinded by some sort of ideology.

Or confirmed by DNA evidence which doesn't lie.

You twist his words...he was explaining the Arab mentality and what it takes to actually make them think twice before committing acts of terrorism.

An excellent example of antisemitism not aimed at Jews. Reminds me of a book entitled *The Arab Mind.* If I had written a book entitled *The Jewish Mind* I would have been kicked out of academia, and rightly so.

From the San Remo Agreement came the Mandate of Palestine in 1922 that was signed by 51 member countries of the League of Nations, giving the Jewish people the right to settle anywhere in all of the land of Palestine from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean...the British were mandated to uphold this binding document, and both the UK and the member States were legally bound to facilitate Jewish immigration and the eventual emergence of a Jewish State.

Excuse me, but it was the San Remo agreement that called for the establishment of Jordan as a separate emirate. Also, while it does call for the establishment of a national homeland for Jews "without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" it says nothing about a Jewish State.

What the United Nations did through the General Assembly in 1948 does not in anyway annul the League of Nations decision...in fact under International Law it cannot rescind or change it.

Explain how it is that a body made up almost entirely of European nations can decide what constitutes International Law for the rest of the world?

Your selective reading skills seem to have glossed over the point that the whole idea of a Palestinian identity was a political ploy.

What you seem to be consisting ignoring is the fact that whether or not the Palestinian people had a separate ethnic identity is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not they had a right to the land where they lived.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

Did you miss where I pointed out earlier that Jordan is part of historic Palestine?

Search

Search

Attack on Israelis in Jerusalem

smaneck

Baha'i

More options

LoAmmi

Dispassionate

More options

Zeek

Follower of Messiah, Israel advocate and Zionist

More options

Zeek

Follower of Messiah, Israel advocate and Zionist

More options

smaneck

Baha'i

More options

Supreme

British

More options

smaneck

Baha'i

More options

Zeek

Follower of Messiah, Israel advocate and Zionist

More options

smaneck

Baha'i

More options

Zeek

Follower of Messiah, Israel advocate and Zionist

More options

smaneck

Baha'i

More options

Similar threads