Support Our Sponsors

RSS Feed Now Available!
WAWA Daily Blog
Our Mission
WAWA/WeAreWideAwake is my Public Service to America as a muckracker who has journeyed seven times to Israel Palestine since June 2005. WAWA is dedicated to confronting media and governments that shield the whole truth.

We who Are Wide Awake are compelled by the "fierce urgency of Now" [Rev MLK, Jr.] to raise awareness and promote the human dialogue about many of the crucial issues of our day: the state of our Union and in protection of democracy, what life is like under military occupation in Palestine, the Christian EXODUS from the Holy Land, and spirituality-from a Theologically Liberated Christian Anarchist POV.

Contact Eileen Fleming:

Click here to contact
Eileen Fleming:

Eileen Fleming on YouTube

CUFI Conference

John Hagee Zionists
John Hagee CUFI
conference in Miami
Photo courtesy of a.e.

The Walls of Berlin and Bil'in
Abir Aramin Dead at 10
WAWA Photo Gallery
Eileen Fleming - We Are Wide Awake
Click here to view the
WAWA photo gallery

Photos of Israel Palestine
courtesy of Meir Vanunu,
Copyright 2007-08.

Photos of the Siege
courtesy of Guss,
Copyright 2008.


Garth Hewitt - From The Brokern Heart Of Gaza
Garth Hewitt:
From the Broken Heart
Of Gaza

FACTS ABOUT THE WALL from friends in Bethlehem

Read the truth about the Wall and what is happening today in the Holy City of Bethlehem.


Eileen Fleming's Biography

"We're on a mission from God."
The Blues Brothers

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave...a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils."
George Washington's Farewell Address - 1796

"My aim is to agitate & disturb people. I'm not selling bread, I'm selling yeast."

"Imagine All the People Sharing All the World."
John Lennon

"If enough Christians followed the gospel, they could bring any state to its knees." 
Father Philip Francis Berrigan 

"You can stand me up at the gates of hell, but I won't back down."
Tom Petty

"If I can't dance, it's not my revolution."
Emma Goldman

"We have yet to begin to IMAGINE the power and potential of the Internet."
Charlie Rose, 2005

Only in Solidarity do "We have it in our power to begin the world again"
Tom Paine

"Never doubt that a few, thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." 
Margaret Mead

"You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free."
John 8:32


Photo of George shown here
and in web site banner
courtesy of Debbie Hill, 2000.

Click Here
Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that, among these, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; and, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. -July 4, 1776. The Declaration of Independence


Home arrow Blog arrow November 2010 arrow November 23, 2010: Israel NOW and back to 9/11, police states and US

November 23, 2010: Israel NOW and back to 9/11, police states and US
November 23, 2010: Israel NOW and back to 9/11, Bush and US

 RELATED: THAT DAY and This 9/11

THAT DAY, This 9/11 and Bob Dylan 

Email from Reverend Stephen Sizer:


In another slap in the face to the US Administration, by a 65-33 majority, the Israeli Knesset passed the National Referendum Law during a late-night session Monday, approving legislation that will fundamentally alter Israeli negotiators’ ability to offer concrete peace deals involving the return of the Golan Heights to Syria or East Jerusalem and the West Bank to the Palestinians under UN Resolution 242.

The law, which was approved by a vote of 65-33, will require either a Knesset super-majority or a national referendum in order to hand over any annexed territories as part of a future peace deal.

See the Jerusalem Post 

and Israel making a mockery of International law

See also I know a dead parrot when I see one

As I suggested in October,  we are being sold a dead parrot in the Middle East too, except this one is a complete farce. The two state solution is dead, as dead as a parrot. The US administration knows it. The Palestinian Authority knows it and the Israeli government knows it.

The difference is, Richard Falk, the UN human rights rapporteur, has the guts to say what everyone else knows. The parrot is dead and we want our money back.

Barbara Plett reports for the BBC today, Israeli presence on Palestinian land 'irreversible' which is another way of saying the parrot is dead.

Richard Falk said the peace process aimed at creating an independent, sovereign Palestinian state therefore appeared to be based on an illusion. He said the UN, the US and Israel had failed to uphold Palestinians' rights... In a report for the UN General Assembly, Mr Falk said Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem had become so extensive it amounted to de-facto annexation of Palestinian land... He urged the UN to support civil society initiatives, such as campaigns to sanction or boycott Israel for alleged violations of international law. 

So lets have the funeral service and get it over with. Forget the two state solution. It's dead in the water. The two state solution is dead. Long live the one state then.

If Israel won't give up the settlements then it must give up pretending the Palestinians don't exist, become a proper grown-up democracy, end the Occupation, remove the Separation Wall and the checkpoints, annexe the West Bank, compensate for homes demolished or land confiscated and give the Palestinians full Israeli citizenship entitled to the same civil and political rights as Israeli Jews now enjoy.

Encountering Peace: Five minutes to midnight

By Gershon Baskin

Nov. 22, 2010



Israel is facing the most severe crisis in its history. Surprisingly, most of its citizens choose to ignore this reality. The growing movement to delegitimize our right to exist cannot simply be dismissed by calling it anti- Semitism. The reasons are more complex than that.

The country is also losing its best friends, and even Jews inside and outside of it are beginning to dissociate themselves from it because of the ongoing occupation. Many Jewish students on campuses across the US have told me that Israel’s behavior embarrasses them. The house is on fire and it’s time to wake up before everything we have built is destroyed by our own doing.

Most objective observers, even supporters of Israel, believe that the two-state solution is no longer viable. They say: How can a Palestinian state be created where there are so many settlements and bypass roads exactly in the place it is supposed to exist? They add that the situation is getting worse – the refusal to freeze all settlement building, especially in Jerusalem, means no Palestinian state will be possible.

Everyone knows that the Palestinians will never agree to a deal that does not include east Jerusalem as their capital. Removing Palestinians from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan and in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City and replacing them with Jews is erasing the chances of two states for two people.

Everyone knows that the Palestinians will not accept a state on less than 22% of the land between the river and the sea. In accepting the Oslo and Madrid paradigms, they agreed to give up 78% of the land. Next week we will mark Kaf Tet Benovember (November 29, 1947), when the UN partitioned the land into two states. Then, the Palestinians refused to accept a state on 45% of the land; today they are willing to accept one on only 22%, but not on less.

Danny Danon, Tzipi Hotovely, Reuven Rivlin, Nir Barkat and Binyamin Netanyahu are not acting on behalf of the Zionist movement by continuing their rapid settlement growth in the name of the Jewish people. By their own hands, they will succeed in destroying the Zionist dream. I correct myself – there will continue to be a Jewish state, but no one will be able to claim it is a democratic state.

A very large minority, which in a short period will become a majority, will not accept to live in a Jewish state. The two-state solution will lose its viability when it is no longer supported by the majority of Palestinians – both citizens of Israel and residents of the occupied territories. At that time a global campaign will be launched that will force Israel to become a democratic state, and then we will no longer be able to speak about a Jewishdemocratic state.

The call for equal citizenship and one-person- one vote will be compelling compared with lack of logic behind the idea of a Jewish nation-state where a majority are not Jews.

No one outside Israel’s right-wing and religious citizens will accept the idea of two types of citizens – Jews and non-Jews. No one, not even the US, will be able to support a state which is so blatantly antidemocratic.

The shared values that US leaders speak about regarding Israel will no longer exist. It will cease to be democratic, and so the occupation will finally delegitimize its right to exist.

THE CONSTRUCTION of settlements worries me less regarding the diminishing viability of the two-state solution than the diminishing legitimacy of the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad. Their legitimacy will completely disappear very soon if there is no credible peace process. Next year is the year for the establishment of a Palestinian state. There will be no Palestinian leadership able to publicly support that solution much beyond that.

We should not live in the illusion that the Palestinians will ever accept less than what has already been offered to them. The parameters of peace are on the basis of the June 4, 1967 borders with agreed-upon territorial swaps of 1:1 in the amount of about 3% of the West Bank, with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states, some sort of international regime in the Old City, or the Old City quarters divided along demographic lines, with an agreed upon solution to the refugee issues according to the Arab Peace Initiative.

For this kind of peace to be viable, it must also include peace with Syria (meaning the full return of the Golan Heights in exchange for all of Israel’s security demands) enabling the normalization of relations with the entire Arab world.

If peace is not achieved during 2011, the current moderate, practical and constructive Palestinian leadership will be replaced. The leadership contest will bring forward those who present a more extremist platform; the two-state solution will no longer be part of their political philosophy. The leaders competing for the top posts will say – I supported the two-state solution, I worked for it and even took part in the negotiations, but Israel said no, so today we say no more. We demand citizenship in a single democratic state – one person, one vote, one state from the river to the sea.

This is not fantasy and this is not a threat.

In the meantime, Netanyahu is seeking to postpone tough decisions. Yes, of course he supports negotiations. There is nothing better from his point of view. But making decisions? That’s an entirely different matter.

Borders in three months? Absurd. Will Netanyahu tell some 80,000 settlers that they have to leave their homes, or stay in the Palestinian state under Palestinian sovereignty? Those people are potential Likud voters; how could the prime minister tell them that? It is far easier to blame the Palestinians for refusing to negotiate while settlement building continues.

BUT PRIME Minister Netanyahu, when the clock strikes midnight and there is no longer President Abbas to negotiate with and the Palestinian leadership says to you, “We don’t want to negotiate any more,” the peace process as you know it will be officially over. They will say “We want peace, but we no longer want the small piece of land you are willing to give us. You can keep your state, you can keep all the land, we agree. Now give us citizenship, the right to vote and the right to enjoy Israel’s democracy.”

You will then have to decide if the state for the Jewish people will continue to be a Jewish state or a democratic state. There will be no possibility to claim it is a Jewish and democratic state. The bells of freedom and democracy will ring, and you know very well that the world will choose democracy.

I have been a peace activist for more than 30 years. Over that time I have heard many people warn that we have reached the end of the road on the two-state solution. I never joined the chorus. But today I lead it, and as a believer in the idea of a state for the Jewish people (and all its citizens), an Israeli patriot and a lover of Zion, I see the possible end of our shared dream just around the corner. At five minutes to midnight, there is no time to wait for negotiations; it is time to put the real peace offer on the table, one that you know the Palestinians and Syrians can accept. By doing so, not only will you win the Nobel Peace Prize, you will be saving the State of Israel.

The writer is co-CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information ( and is in the process of founding the Center for Israeli Progress (


 Published first in the Jerusalem Post

 RELATED: THAT DAY and This 9/11

THAT DAY, This 9/11 and Bob Dylan 

The Illegalities of the Bush/Obama War Against Afghanistan


By Francis A Boyle

Sep. 4, 2009 (Atlantic Free Press delivered by Newstex)


The "Blowhard Zone"


On September 13, I got a call from FOX News asking me to go on the O'Reilly Factor program that night, two days after the tragic events of September 11, to debate O'Reilly on War v. Peace. It is pretty clear where I stood and where he stood. I had been on this program before. I knew what I was getting in to. But I felt it would be important for one lawyer to get up there in front of a national

audience and argue against a war and for the application of domestic and international law enforcement, international procedures, and constitutional protections, which I did.




   Unfortunately, O'Reilly has the highest ranked TV news program in the country. I thought someone should be on there on September 13. I think most people agree that I beat O'Reilly. By the end of the show he was agreeing with me. But the next night he was saying that we should bomb five different Arab countries and kill all their people. But let me review for you briefly some of the international law arguments that I have been making almost full time since September 13. They are set forth in the introduction in my new book, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence.


Terrorism v. War


First, right after September 11 President Bush called these attacks an act of terrorism, which they were under the United States domestic law definition at that time. However, there is no generally accepted definition of an act of terrorism under international law, for reasons I explain in my book. Soon thereafter however and apparently after consultations with Secretary of State Powell, he proceeded to call these an act of war, ratcheting up the rhetoric and the legal and constitutional issues at stake here. They were not an act of war as traditionally defined. An act of war is a military attack by one state against another state. There is so far no evidence produced that the state of

Afghanistan, at the time, either attacked the United States or authorized or approved such an attack. Indeed, just recently FBI Director Mueller and the deputy director of the CIA publicly admitted that they have found no evidence in Afghanistan linked to the September 11 attacks. If you believe the government's account of what happened, which I think is highly questionable, 15 of these 19 people alleged to have committed these attacks were from Saudi Arabia and yet we went to war against Afghanistan. It does not really add up in my opinion.


But in any event this was not an act of war. Clearly these were acts of terrorism as defined by United States domestic law at the time, but not an act of war.

Normally terrorism is dealt with as a matter of international and domestic law enforcement. Indeed there was a treaty directly on point at that time, the Montreal Sabotage Convention to which both the United States and Afghanistan were parties. It has an entire regime to deal with all issues in

dispute here, including access to the International Court of Justice to resolve international disputes arising under the Treaty such as the extradition of Bin Laden. The Bush administration completely ignored this treaty, jettisoned it, set it aside, never even mentioned it. They paid no attention to this treaty or any of the other 12 international treaties dealing with acts of terrorism that could have been applied to handle this manner in a peaceful, lawful way.


War of Aggression Against Afghanistan


Bush, Jr. instead went to the United National Security Council to get a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. He failed. You have to remember that. This war has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council. If you read the two resolutions that he got, it is very clear that what Bush, Jr. tried to do was to get the exact same type of language that Bush, Sr. got from the U.N. Security Council in the late fall of 1990 to authorize a war against Iraq to produce its expulsion from Kuwait. It is very clear if you read these resolutions, Bush, Jr. tried to get the exact same language twice and they failed.

Indeed the first Security Council resolution refused to call what happened on September 11 an

"armed attack" - that is by one state against another state. Rather they called it "terrorist attacks." But the critical point here is that this war has never been approved by the U.N. Security Council so technically it is illegal under international law. It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan.


No Declaration of War


Now in addition Bush, Jr. then went to Congress to get authorization to go to war. It appears that Bush, Jr. tried to get a formal declaration of war along the lines of December 8, 1941 after the Day of Infamy like FDR got on Pearl Harbor. Bush then began to use the rhetoric of Pearl Harbor. If he had gotten this declaration of war Bush and his lawyers knew full well he would have been a Constitutional Dictator.

And I refer you here to the book by my late friend Professor Miller of George Washington University Law School, Presidential Power that with a formal declaration of war the president becomes a Constitutional Dictator. He failed to get a declaration of war. Despite all the rhetoric we

have heard by the Bush, Jr. administration Congress never declared war against Afghanistan or against anyone. There is technically no state of war today against anyone as a matter of constitutional law as formally declared.


Bush, Sr. v. Bush, Jr.


Now what Bush, Jr. did get was a War Powers Resolution authorization. Very similar to what Bush, Sr. got. Again the game plan was the same here. Follow the path already pioneered by Bush, Sr. in his war against Iraq. So he did get from Congress a War Powers Resolution authorization. This is what law professors call an imperfect declaration of war. It does not have the constitutional significance of a formal declaration of war. It authorizes the use of military force in specified, limited circumstances.


That is what Bush, Sr. got in 1991. It was to carry out the Security Council resolution that he had gotten a month and one-half before to expel Iraq from Kuwait. But that is all the authority he had - either from the Security Council or from Congress. And that is what he did. I am not here to approve of what Bush, Sr. did. I do not and I did not at the time. But just to compare Bush, Jr. with Bush, Sr. So Bush, Jr. got a War Powers Resolution, which is not a declaration of war.


Indeed, Senator Byrd, the Dean of the Senate, clearly said this is only a War Powers authorization and we will give authority to the president to use military force subject to the requirements of the War Powers Resolution, which means they must inform us, there is Congressional oversight, in theory, (I do not think they are doing much of it), controlled funding, and ultimately we decide, not the Executive branch of the government - we are the ones who gave the authorization to use force.


Again very similar to what Bush, Sr. got except the Bush, Jr. War Powers Resolution is far more dangerous because it basically gives him a blank check to use military force against any state that he says was somehow involved in the attack on September 11. And as you know that list has now gone up to 60 states.

So it is quite dangerous, which led me to say in interviews I gave at the time this is worse that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Better from our perspective than a formal Declaration of War, but worse constitutionally and politically than the Tonkin Gulf resolution. But still subject to the control of Congress and the terms of the War Powers Resolution. Indeed you might be able to use that War

Powers Resolution and the authorization in litigation that might come up. Keep that in mind.


No War Against Iraq!


For example, on Iraq. Right now they cannot use that War Powers Resolution to justify a war against Iraq. There is no evidence that Iraq was involved in the events on September 11. So they are fishing around for some other justification to go to war with Iraq.

They have come up now with this doctrine of preemptive attack. Quite interesting that argument, doctrine was rejected by the Nuremberg Tribunal when the lawyers for the Nazi defendants made it at Nuremberg. They rejected any doctrine of preemptive attack.


Nazi Self-Defense


Then what happened after failing to get any formal authorization from the Security Council, the U.S. Ambassador Negroponte - who has the blood of about 35, 000 people in Nicaragua on his hands when he was U.S. Ambassador down in Honduras - sent a letter to the Security Council asserting Article 51 of the U.N. Charter to justify the war against Afghanistan. And basically saying that we reserve the right to use force in self-defense against any state we say is somehow involved in the events of September 11. Well, the San Francisco Chronicle interviewed me on that and asked what is the precedent for this? I said that the precedent again goes back to the Nuremberg Judgment of 1946 when the lawyers for the Nazi defendants argued that we, the Nazi government had a right to go to war in self-defense as we saw it, and no one could tell us any differently. Of course that preposterous argument was rejected by Nuremberg. It is very distressing to see some of the highest level of officials of our country making legal arguments that were rejected by the Nuremberg Tribunal.


Kangaroo Courts


Now let me say a few words about the so-called military commissions. I have a little handout out there called "Kangaroo Courts." It would take me a whole law review article to go through all the problems with military commissions. I have been interviewed quite extensively. I have some comments on it in my book. Professor Jordan Paust, a friend and colleague of mine at the University of Houston, just published an article in the Michigan Journal of International Law which I would encourage you to read. It goes through the major problems. But basically there are two treaties on point here that are being violated at a minimum.


First, the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. I will not go through all of them arguments here but it is clear that just about everyone down in Guantanamo (not counting the guys who were picked up in Bosnia and basically kidnapped) but all those apprehended over in Afghanistan and Pakistan would qualify as prisoners of war within the meaning of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, and therefore

have all the rights of prisoners of war within the meaning of that convention.

Right now however, as you know, all those rights are being denied. This is a serious war crime.

And unfortunately President Bush, Jr. himself has incriminated himself under the Third Geneva Convention by signing the order setting up these military commissions. Not only has he incriminated himself under the Third Geneva Convention, but he has incriminated himself under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 or so, signed into law by President Clinton and making it a serious felony for any United States citizen either to violate or order the violation of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949.


The Federalist Society Cabal


I am not personally criticizing President Bush. He is not a lawyer. He was terribly advised, criminally mis-advised, by the cabal of Federalist Society lawyers that the Bush administration has assembled at the White House and the Department of Injustice under Ashcroft. President Bush, Jr., by signing this

order, has opened himself up to prosecution anywhere in the world for violating the Third Geneva Convention, and certainly if there is evidence to believe that any of these individuals have been tortured, which is grave breach, let alone at the end of the day executed. So this is a very serious matter.


I did not vote for President Bush, Jr. But I certainly think it is a tragedy that these Federalist Society lawyers got the President of the United States of America, who is not a lawyer, to sign the order that would incriminate him under the Geneva Conventions and United States Domestic Criminal Law. This is what happened.


Jeopardizing U.S. Armed Forces


Moreover, by us stating we will not apply the Third Geneva Convention to these people we opened up United States armed forces to be denied protection under the Third Geneva Convention. And as you know, we now have U.S. armed forces in operation in Afghanistan, Georgia, the Philippines, in Yemen and perhaps in Iraq. Basically Bush position will be jeopardizing their ability to claim prisoner of war status. All that has to happen is our adversaries say they are unlawful combatants and we will not give you prisoner of war status. The Third Geneva Convention is one of the few protections U.S. armed forces have when they go into battle. Bush, Jr. and his Federalist Society lawyers just pulled the rug out from under them.


U.S. Police State


In addition the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights clearly applies down in Guantanamo. It applies any time individuals are under the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Guantanamo is a colonial enclave, I will not go through its status any further. But clearly those individuals are subject to our jurisdiction and have the rights set forth therein - which are

currently being denied.


If and when many of these Bush, Ashcroft, Gonzalez police state practices make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, we have to consider that a five to four majority of the Supreme Court gave the presidency to Bush, Jr. What is going to stop that same five to four majority from giving Bush, Jr. a police state?

The only thing that is going to stop it is the people in this room.



Mr. Francis A. Boyle is a Professor in International Law.


Copyright 2009 Newstex LLC All Rights Reserved Newstex Web Blogs

Copyright 2009 Atlantic Free Press



 RELATED: THAT DAY and This 9/11

THAT DAY, This 9/11 and Bob Dylan 


Visitors since 07.22.05
Visitors: 32251426

"HOPE has two children.The first is ANGER at the way things are. The second is COURAGE to DO SOMETHING about it."-St. Augustine

 "He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust." - Aquinas

BEYOND NUCLEAR: Mordechai Vanunu's Freedom of Speech Trial

Published 10/30/10

Order Books at

Vanunu's Message to

Hillary Clinton re:
The Apartheid Wall

Order My Books
"Memoirs of a Nice
Girl's Life in
Occupied Territory"

"Keep Hope Alive"
To order either book
click here.
Login Form
Become a registered member of this site to view archived articles and become a guest correspondent.



Remember me
Forgotten your password?
News Archive
Click here to view past articles of interest

View 30 Minutes with Vanunu and his Video Message to USA Christians
Articles Can Be Read Under VANUNU ARCHIVES  


Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


The Paradoxical Commandments
by Dr. Kent M. Keith

People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.

If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Do good anyway.

If you are successful, you win false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.

The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Do good anyway.

Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable.
Be honest and frank anyway.

The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds.
Think big anyway.

People favor underdogs but follow only top dogs.
Fight for a few underdogs anyway.

What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.

People really need help but may attack you if you do help them.
Help people anyway.

Give the world the best you have and you'll get kicked in the teeth.
Give the world the best you have anyway.

© 1968, 2001 Kent M. Keith

" In the final analysis, it is between you and God.  It was never between you and them anyway."-Mother Teresa

“You cannot talk like sane men around a peace table while the atomic bomb itself is ticking beneath it. Do not treat the atomic bomb as a weapon of offense; do not treat it as an instrument of the police. Treat the bomb for what it is: the visible insanity of a civilization that has obey the laws of life.”- Lewis Mumford, 1946

The age of warrior kings and of warrior presidents has passed. The nuclear age calls for a different kind of leadership....a leadership of intellect, judgment, tolerance and rationality, a leadership committed to human values, to world peace, and to the improvement of the human condition. The attributes upon which we must draw are the human attributes of compassion and common sense, of intellect and creative imagination, and of empathy and understanding between cultures."  - William Fulbright

“Any nation that year after year continues to raise the Defense budget while cutting social programs to the neediest is a nation approaching spiritual death.” - Rev. MLK
Establishment of Israel
"On the day of the termination of the British mandate and on the strength of the United Nations General Assembly declare The State of Israel will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel: it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion it will guarantee freedom of religion [and] conscience and will be faithful to the Charter of the United Nations." - May 14, 1948. The Declaration of the Establishment of Israel
Digg The WAWA Site?
Help spread the news by letting know you digg our site!

posted 3/25/2009

Download New eBook
So, That was 54...
An e-book

Read Why

Copyright © 2004-2021 On Track Marketing | Site Design and Hosting by On Track Marketing.
Proud team member of: Global Market Consulting.

submit to reddit Share/Save/Bookmark