fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: January 29, 2006 02:46AM
Wednesday’s landslide victory for Hamas over Fatah in the Palestinian
legislative elections should surprise no one. More than a dozen years after the
Oslo accords, Palestinians have passed a public verdict on the Palestinian
Authority (PA) and the old guard that it represents: They failed dismally at the
task of pressing for Palestinians’ inalienable rights under international law
and a bevy of UN resolutions.
Hamas’ victory can turn out to be a very positive development if handled with
sensitivity by the US, Israel and the EU. Wednesday’s election results, coming
on the heels of Ariel Sharon’s apparent demise, may well open new spaces for
vision and action, particularly among EU members who have, over the last year,
misplaced their collective backbone when it came to speaking out unequivocally
against massive and systematic Israeli violations of the Fourth Geneva
Convention in Palestine.
The “Palestinian street” has long considered the PA to be corrupt,
high-handed, and worse: far too subservient and obsequious to Israeli and US
demands. Its integrity was long ago compromised, and its effectiveness
undermined, by a pronounced dependence on external funds, humiliating kow-towing
to Israel, and its leaders’ craven fears of risking their privileges and power
by siding with the people. Contrary to being a dramatically negative and
cataclysmic event, Hamas’ victory is in fact a welcome sign of change and a
possible turning point, not a breaking point, in the long, painful, and
cynically named “peace process.”
It is also an index of democracy in action. By assuming the role of the
governors, not the governed, Hamas must now grapple with the gaps between
ideological purity and political compromises. Rhetoric and demonstrations will
only get it so far from now on. Effective politicking, of the sort rarely seen
since Oslo, will be crucial to Hamas' success.
International law versus ideological posturing
The Palestinians have employed a variety of ideologies – emancipatory,
universalist, Arab nationalist, as well as Islamist – to press for their
rights on the world stage. But in the end, their “ace in the hole” was never
ideological posturing but rather, demanding Israeli accountability before the
international community on the clear strength of UN resolutions, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and International Humanitarian Law.
Hamas’ victory was all but guaranteed by the draconian unilateral policies
adopted by the Israeli government, which did everything it could to ensure it
had “no partner for peace." Even so-called Israeli doves enthusiastically
rallied to support Ariel Sharon’s attempts to limit the Palestinian
“demographic threat," although this meant violating international
humanitarian law. A country whose peace movement is sympathetic to ethnic
cleansing is a country with serious problems, a country in need of a reality
check. Hamas' emergence may be just such a wake-up call.
Sharon, as well as most Likud members, initially opposed the building of
Israel’s “security barrier,” or Apartheid wall, on the grounds that it
would only clarify and institutionalize the 1967 borders. Ever the wily fox,
however, Sharon quickly realized that building the wall on Palestinian lands in
a manner that would be advantageous for illegal settlements and devastating for
Palestinians would advance the most hard-line of all Likud visions and
practices, which amount to Apartheid, a clear violation of International Law and
accepted interenational norms.
Some Palestinian factions’ unwise and illegal use of suicide bombings to kill
Israeli civilians worked against the Palestinian people as a whole in the
post-9/11 era, lending seeming credence to Israel's cynical argument that the
Wall was crucial for Israeli security, and that the safety of every individual
Israeli trumped Palestinians’ claims to the basic modicum of rights and
resources required for human beings to live lives of dignity and hope.
The massive and ugly wall has not prevented subsequent bombings, has been
decreed a grave violation of International Law by a July 2004 advisory ruling of
the International Court of Justice, and is simply creating more anger,
frustration, and humiliation among Palestinians, i.e., providing the basic
ingredients for making more young people conclude that suicide bombings are
rational and meaningful responses to the deep existential crises afflicting
their and their families' lives. The wall is nothing but land theft and the
crushing of Palestinian self-determination disguised as a security measure.
Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza was an attempt to “dump” the Gaza
quagmire it had created on Palestinian laps. If the Oslo process was an attempt
to subcontract the occupation to the PA, then the unilateral withdrawal without
any coordination with a Palestinian partner was a way of sub-contracting
violence and abuses against Palestinians to the Palestinians themselves.
Tensions between various armed factions are running high. This produces feelings
of schadenfreude among the Likud Party, who point to Palestinian disarray as
evidence that Palestinians cannot govern themselves. This may yet prove the
pretext for another punishing IDF assault on Gaza, or a rationale for refusing
to give up any illegally gotten lands in the West Bank.
Despite the Oslo Accords, which blithely sidestepped all relevant UN resolutions
and International Law, particularly the requirements of the Fourth Geneva
Convention concerning the proper behavior of an occupying power, the Israeli
occupation never ended. In fact, more settlements were built, more lands and
water resources stolen, in the 1990s than in the decade preceding Oslo,
according to studies by the Foundation for Middle East Peace. Palestinians
suffered from increasing economic hardships and ever tighter limitations on
their freedom of movement after the institution of harsh “closure” measures
by the IDF in 1994, even before suicide bombings had begun. Poverty and famine
are now a daily scourge in many communities in the West Bank and Gaza. Given
these stark realities, is it any wonder Palestinians refused to vote again for
the PA?
Hamas’ victory stems, ultimately, from the blatant corruption, mediocrity, and
lack of leadership in the Palestinian Authority, the elite of which were
supported and propped up by successive US administrations. The late PLO Chairman
Yasser Arafat governed the Palestinians with a mixture of patriarchy and a
mafia-like system of patronage that helped to fragment institutions and through
them, families and regions. The Palestinian leadership also ignored the
emergence of a new generation impatient with the lack of future job prospects
and disgusted by the Byzantine politics of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority.
Hamas shrewdly played on these shortcomings and contradictions by offering a
clear and simple message: "Salvation comes from religion and the faithful
application of Qur'anic principles, which are based on social justice and human
dignity." Over the last 25 years, the Islamist movement has created an
impressive framework of effective and minimally corrupt social services
institutions to help the poor, widowed, orphaned, and those who have sacrificed
life and limb for the liberation of Palestine.
Regional and international repercussions
At the regional level, Hamas’s victory is a response to the disastrous war in
Iraq. In Arab and Muslim eyes, America’s military invasions are viewed as
proof that the US was bent on killing as many Arabs and Muslims as possible to
avenge the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. Vengeance disguised as
democratization. Support for Hamas can then be seen as a final rebuke of, and
turning away from, any US-proposed interventions and plans. This might be a very
salutary development for Palestinians, who have lost their political agency to
the Fatah elite subsidized by "peace process"-related funding from the
US, Canada and the EU.
How should the West react to Hamas, a political player long defined as a pariah
because of its use of violent tactics that have also contradicted International
Humanitarian Law? First, the Bush Administration and the European Union must not
withhold aid from the Palestinians. The more impoverished and desperate they
become, the more they will be thrown into extremists’ hands. Hamas, despite
its dramatic electoral showing, really does not represent the majority of
Palestinian public opinion. The vote was not so much a mandate for Hamas as it
was a protest vote against the PA, Oslo, and US and Israeli policies.
Second, enhance the role of international principles and institutions such as
the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations, as well as increasing and
diversifying the Palestinian voices that must weigh in about the future. Where
are the women? The youth? The artists, educators, lawyers and intellectuals? The
US cannot continue to set conditions for Palestinian interlocutors, while
providing Israel with a blank check to act unilaterally and in violation of
established international norms, a course of action the US is now, alas,
pursuing to its own and others' detriment.
A time of testing and challenge awaits Hamas. The West -- especially the EU --
ought to welcome and assist the democratically elected members of the new
Palestinian legislative council for the sake of stability in an already volatile
region. No matter how it is viewed, Hamas’ victory marks a crucial
intersection of new opportunities and persistent dangers, not only for
Palestinians or the Middle East as a whole, but also for the US, the EU, and the
UN
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: January 29, 2006 06:13AM
"It is extraordinary that anyone would think Americans are safer as a
result of Bush invading two Muslim countries and constantly threatening two more
with military attack. The invasions and threats have caused a dramatic swing in
Muslim sentiment away from the US.
Prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq, a large majority of Muslims had a favorable
opinion of America. Now only about 5 percent do.
A number of US commanders in Iraq and many Middle East experts have told the
American public that *the three year-old war in Iraq is serving both to recruit
and to train terrorists for al Qaeda* , which has grown many times its former
size. Moreover, the US military has concluded that *al Qaeda has succeeded in
having its members elected to the new Iraqi government* .
We have seen similar developments both in Egypt and in Pakistan. In the recent
Egyptian elections, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, despite being suppressed by
the Egyptian government, won a large number of seats. In Pakistan elements
friendly or neutral toward al Qaeda control about half of the government. In
Iraq, Bush's invasion has replaced secular Sunnis with Islamist Shia allied with
Iran.
And now with the triumph of Hamas in the Palestinian election, *we see the total
failure of Bush's Middle Eastern policy* . Bush has succeeded in displacing
secular moderates from Middle Eastern governments and replacing them with
Islamic extremists. It boggles the mind that this disastrous result makes
Americans feel safer!
What does it say for democracy that half of the American population is unable to
draw a rational conclusion from unambiguous facts?"
aDCBeast Report This Comment Date: January 29, 2006 06:52AM
The NEOCon Bush crew have bungled the future of the world when they invaded
Iraq.
shaDEz Report This Comment Date: January 29, 2006 07:46AM
steven colbert said this group was tied to the bears (the No. threat) but later
discovered that they were not
Hamas is not tied to the bears however so they are nolonger on watch
i think Hamas is a type of =humus= a delicious dip type of shit that is made
outta garbonso beans and usually dip pita chips into with a little olive oil and
paparika mmm delicious...
The_Central_Scrutinizer Report This Comment Date: January 29, 2006 12:47PM
DCBeast nailed it. As everybody now knows, even those that hate so bad to be
wrong they can't admit it.
ShaDEz is funnier though.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: January 29, 2006 01:54PM
it's not bushes fault these people voted in a gov. that they wanted.
it was their own fault for voting themselves down the wrong path for the rest of
the worlds opinion.
bush helped make it possible for them to choos, he didn't ram secularism and
hate down their throats
1485: muslims never liked the U.S. in any way, quit lying to yourself man.they
don't like anyone that doesn't beleive the same things they do, and are
hell-bent on wiping out the "infidels".
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: January 29, 2006 02:42PM
JERUSALEM - It took acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert more than 12
hours to respond.
Maybe, like most Israelis, he was caught off guard by Hamas's stunning victory
in the Palestinian parliamentary elections. Maybe, having stepped into the role
of acting prime minister just three weeks ago after Ariel Sharon suffered a
massive stroke, he did not want to hurry his reaction.
When he did finally respond, it was clearly the reaction of a man caught between
the need to balance immediate electoral considerations with broader diplomatic
ones.
A government headed by Hamas, said Olmert, could not be a "partner"
for peace, and Israel would act to make sure it was marginalized. "If a
government led by Hamas or in which Hamas is a coalition partner is established,
the Palestinian Authority will be turned into an authority that supports terror.
Israel and the world will ignore it and make it irrelevant," he
declared.
That was strong rhetoric, so as to ensure he cannot be portrayed as being too
conciliatory by parties on the Israeli right, especially the Likud headed by
Benjamin Netanyahu. But also no announcement of immediate punitive measures
against the Palestinian Authority, so as not to invite pressure from an
international community that was equally shocked and disappointed by the
results, but which finally got what it wanted – a democratic election in the
Arab world.
In the wake of the Hamas victory, Israelis are asking themselves two questions:
will it send the moribund diplomatic process into an even deeper freeze, and
what impact will it have on the outcome of their elections on March 28?
Olmert is likely to adopt a wait-and-see approach. He knows that taking measures
aimed at punishing a Hamas-led government, like holding back vital funds in the
form of tax duties that Israel forwards to the Palestinian Authority, will raise
eyebrows in the United States and in the European Union (EU).
Even though the Americans and the EU have listed Hamas as a terror organization,
their almost sanctified goal – especially that of U.S. President George W.
Bush – of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East will make it
impossible for them to delegitimize the results, at least until it becomes clear
how Hamas behaves once in government.
The Americans have got what they wanted: a democratic election in an Arab state
– or a quasi-state in the case of the Palestinians – in the Middle East. But
democracy, as they found out this week, has a price: you cannot choose the
winner.
The positions adopted by Hamas in government will be critical. If the
organization continues to trumpet its refusal to recognize Israel's right to
exist and supports attacks by its armed wing on Israelis, the new Palestinian
government will find itself isolated.
If it refrains from attacks, then international pressure will grow on Israel to
engage the Islamic movement. Over the last year, Hamas has largely adhered to
the period of calm agreed by Israel and the Palestinians, and in the immediate
aftermath of the election some of its leading figures declared that they were
ready to extend the truce.
After the success of Hamas became clear, Israeli leaders united in their
conviction that Israel should not engage the Islamic group, which carried out
most of the suicide bombings during the second Intifadah uprising.
Amir Peretz, the new leader of the left-wing Labor Party, who has spoken of the
need to re-engage the Palestinians around the negotiating table, declared that
Israel would now have to continue taking unilateral measures in establishing its
borders, since talks with Hamas were not feasible.
"We will not negotiate with a party that does not recognize Israel's right
to exist," he said. "If we have to, we will take unilateral
measures...we will not become hostages to the changes in the Palestinian
Authority."
Politicians were also quick to apportion blame for the success of Hamas. Likud
leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who resigned last year in protest over the Gaza
withdrawal, which Olmert strongly supported, declared that the unilateral
pullout had strengthened hardline Palestinian groups like Hamas and contributed
to its electoral victory.
"The state of Hamastan has been created in front of our very eyes, a
satellite of Iran, in the image of the Taliban," he said. "The policy
of unreciprocated withdrawals was a reward to Hamas terror."
Hamas's victory, it would seem, is most beneficial to Netanyahu and the Likud,
which has been in a state of electoral meltdown ever since Sharon left the party
last November to set up a new party called Kadima (Forward).
Their prospects will improve if violence reignites in the period leading up to
the elections. If suicide bombers again make their way into Israeli cities, the
right-wing bloc, which has been faring very poorly in opinion polls, is likely
to experience a resurgence.
If the violence remains muted, however, it could be Kadima, which Olmert now
heads, that turns out to be the main beneficiary of the Hamas victory.
Even more than Sharon, Olmert has been a firm believer in the unilateral
approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is based on the belief
amongst many Israelis that Israel cannot continue to control 3.5 million
Palestinians, but that there is no partner on the Palestinian side with whom to
make peace. The only remaining option, therefore, is for Israel to unilaterally
determine its borders with the Palestinians.
This view, which made Sharon's decision to unilaterally exit Gaza so popular
amongst Israelis, will have been strengthened by the ascendance to power of a
party that does not recognize Israel's right to exist. Ehud Olmert will
certainly be hoping Israelis interpret the election results this way.
(Inter Press Service)
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: January 29, 2006 02:52PM
Elections results in the Occupied Territories show that Fatah has lost its
majority in the Palestinian parliament by a stunningly large margin. This is a
transformational event with lasting geopolitical importance, for Hamas and
Fatah, for Palestinians and Israelis, and for the world.
Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah and head of the make-believe Palestinian
“government”, was never an inspiring figure. Palestine today is still at a
stage that requires a liberation movement. Yet Abbas, even more than Arafat
before him, bought into the Western conceit that he was a head of state in the
making. Rather than leading the struggle for liberation, Abbas focused on being
a technocrat to satisfy the rhetorical needs of the EU and the US who funded
him. In his speeches, he sometimes channeled the words dictated to him by his
donors more than the aspirations of his constituents. His handling of his
greatest challenge as a politician -- restoring cohesion and a sense of purpose
to Fatah -- was mediocre. The necessary takeover of Fatah by the younger
generation of leaders is happening, but far from smoothly, and older figures
widely perceived as corrupt and ineffectual continue to cling to power. Finally,
Abbas has staked his grand strategy on the continuation of Oslo and a negotiated
peace with Israel. On that front he has achieved nothing; although, to be fair,
it wasn’t his fault.
Nevertheless, Abbas is about to make history, and leave his people and the whole
region an inspiring gift. Abbas is overseeing the first grand democratic defeat
of an Arab leader in a popular election. If he steps down as he has promised to
do, he will have completed an achievement without parallel. Let it be noticed
that losing was not as easy as it may seem. Abbas had to overcome and ignore the
persistent calls within his own party to postpone the elections. He had to
contend with a grand chorus of Israeli, US and EU voices calling on him to
undermine the democratic process by excluding Hamas. He had opportunities
aplenty to cave in. He did not. Palestinians, not the least because of their
poverty and years of stubborn resistance, have a more democratic culture than
the rest of the Middle East. Nevertheless, it is to Abbas’ credit that he
accepted and expressed this democratic spirit. It is a rare leader anywhere, and
rarer still in the Middle East, who doesn’t imagine himself God’s gift to
his nation. For defending the integrity of this fragile democratic exercise even
as it went against him Abbas deserves an unqualified Bravo.
Hamas is the big winner of the elections. It too deserves a Bravo. (From reading
the mainstream Western media, one gets the impression that the only interesting
question is when Hamas will recognize Israel and renounce violence. Our
“objective” journalists cannot possibly adopt a perspective other than that
of the Israeli state. Do send them a nice card; their “profession” is the
oldest in the world. I will not bore you with the same question. I hope Hamas
does what Palestinians expect them to do and nothing else -- lead the fight for
liberty and dignity.)
For many years now Hamas has been at the forefront of the struggle for
Palestinian liberation. While far from being alone, Hamas recognized early that
Oslo was a cul-de-sac and a fraud. For better or for worse -- and the jury is
still out -- Hamas played a crucial role in the decision to meet the militarized
Israeli repression of the second intifada with arms. Hamas was early to adopt
the tactic of suicide attacks. Thanks to the usual double standard, these are
viewed in the West as more reprehensible than the much more lethal weapons
routinely used by Israel. Fatefully, Hamas took a hard line on the use of
suicide attacks, refusing to accept distinctions others proposed, such as
between civilian and military targets, or between targets inside the Occupied
Territories and those in pre-67 Israel. While I believe this was Hamas’
biggest mistake and a missed opportunity to drive a wedge between Israel’s
bellicose leadership and less bellicose public, Hamas’ position reflected
significant segments of Palestinian public opinion and was neither less nor more
immoral than Israel’s military practices.
Crucial to its current electoral success is Hamas’ recognition that resistance
is more than guns. Since its inception, Hamas has operated mosques, schools,
clinics and charities. It has made the survival and maintenance of Palestinian
society a major priority, providing vital services in an economic environment
that got bleaker by the day. Despite not having access to the larger sums and
apparently useless expertise that the PA received from the US and the EU, Hamas
is widely recognized to have done a better job than the PA as a provider of
services. That is no small success and reflects well on the qualities of
Hamas’ leaders and cadres. Beyond that, it demonstrates Hamas ability to
maintain a spirit of dedication and personal integrity.
Public rejection of corruption is no doubt a major explanation for the rise of
Hamas. But so is religion. Palestinian society has turned increasingly to
religion in response to the hardships of daily life under Israeli occupation. At
the same time, it is hard not to credit the religious bond and commitment for
Hamas’ strength and ability to resist the lure of corruption. It is
fashionable in the West, especially at the center and left of the political
discourse, to compare “our fundamentalists with theirs.” While there is
truth in that comparison, it misses quite a lot. “Our fundamentalists,” from
George Bush to Pat Robertson, are fundamentally corrupt. Their religion is a
racket. On the Muslim side the opposite seems often to be the case. Far from
being a shakedown, religion over there is an antidote to corruption. Karl Marx
famously dismissed religion as “Opium for the masses.” In the Middle East it
is more like amphetamines. It keeps people going past the end of exhaustion and
despair.
While Palestinian society turned more religious, Hamas turned more ecumenical.
Palestinian parliamentarian Hanan Ashrawi expressed fear that “militants will
now impose their fundamentalist social agenda and lead the Palestinians into
international isolation.” That is a distinct and worrying possibility, but it
is not set in stone. In these elections the candidates for Hamas’ new
political party “Reform and Change” included women, Christians, and
moderates. Hamas is now a larger political tent of Palestinian nationalism with
a strong religious orientation; it encompasses radicals, moderates and
conservatives with a variety of perspectives. Tensions between democratic and
religious authority will continue to exist, and narrow fundamentalist tendencies
are clearly present. But there is also hope that the current openness will hold
and that Hamas will continue to develop toward increased democracy and
inclusiveness.
With regards to the national struggle, which understandably casts a large
shadow, Hamas has staked two major differences from Fatah. These differences
underscore the threat that the victory of Hamas poses to the West’s colonial
strategies.
Hamas maintains it will continue to defend armed struggle as a legitimate
option. For now, Hamas is abstaining from violence, although the cease-fire
agreed in Cairo had officially expired. It is quite possible that Hamas will
continue to favor peaceful means. But it refuses to cave in to pressure and
maintains the right to evaluate its strategies from a Palestinian rather than
Western perspective. American, Israeli and European officials claim they will
not talk to Hamas as long as it doesn’t renounce violence. As long as these
hypocrites don’t renounce violence themselves, they have zero moral authority.
Hamas deserves credit for refusing to take moral guidance from self-righteous
bullies.
Hamas is also refusing to recognize Israel and negotiate on the basis of Oslo
and the roadmap. Instead Hamas candidates have outlined a strategy of
independence, strengthening Palestinian society and resistance and advancing
national goals without relying on Israeli and international approval. Hamas
calls this option “ignoring Israel.”
In the current international context, such a strategy is dangerous but not
without sense. While Israel demands to be recognized, it is clearly unwilling to
recognize minimal Palestinian demands. Both the White House and the Democrats --
“progressive” such as Barack Obama and regressive like Clinton and Lieberman
-- are parroting Israel like a second grade pupil reading from My Pet Goat. The
EU seems mostly interested in helping the US play a “good cop, bad cop”
routine. There will be a price to pay, but Hamas seems to think the West has
currently little to offer Palestinians beyond money to lubricate the wheels of
corruption. There is precious little evidence to prove them wrong.
As Hamas handles the pressure of assuming power, either in a coalition with
Fatah or alone, it is possible that these two principles will be watered down
significantly. The price for consistency may be too high, especially in lost
foreign assistance. Palestinians today survive on foreign charity (or, one could
rephrase that as saying that the Israeli occupation is financed by the EU and
the US). Unless Hamas can hook up new donors to replace the EU and US, it may be
willing to compromise rather than face a popular backlash. I hope that Hamas
finds creative ways to subvert this new phase of Western colonialism. But
realistically, the challenge is enormous.
As a secular leftist, I would have been more comfortable had Palestinian society
coalesced around a leftist resistance movement. I’m sure many readers share
that preference. But Palestine is not in Latin America, and our comfort level is
not the most pressing issue. Hamas is today an important face of the Palestinian
struggle for liberty, equality and justice. It is the face chosen by the
majority of the Palestinian public in the Occupied Territories in clear defiance
of Western colonialism. With its new power and old habits, Hamas will have
plenty of opportunities to go wrong. However, as long as it maintains its
commitment to democracy and strives to advance the rights of all Palestinians to
full human dignity, Hamas can be a force for good.
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: January 29, 2006 05:15PM
f_d must have cut and pasted that from somewhere; the English is far too good
to be his. How about giving credit to the true author?
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: January 29, 2006 06:26PM
I'm definitely not the author of any of these.
i don't think it's important who is the author. i've never heard of any of them
anyway.
sorry i don't use big words when I'm here my brain is off. + my typing skills
are very lame.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: January 29, 2006 06:37PM
i'm no journalist, english major, or have i ever claimed to be.
if you want to hear my paleontological speeches go to my site.
Ninepointfiver Report This Comment Date: January 30, 2006 06:41AM
I just can't comprehend the traitor-speak here! If you don't like the
President, FINE! Don't jump on the band-wagon of a known terrorist group's
party. Hamas promotes violence, the destruction of a country (Israel), and
refuses to denounce violence. They are already attacking the Fatah and
contemplating forming their own independant army. Of course it's our fault,
right Beast? They hate us and they'd hate you if they saw you,
UNLESS..........hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: January 30, 2006 01:43PM
good job man! i was wondering wwhen reality was going to set in.
Ninepointfiver Report This Comment Date: January 31, 2006 06:58AM
Too-Shea! Fossil........obviously I can't spell that french shit! Good point
idn't it?
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: January 31, 2006 03:05PM
:~}
