Newsnight goes a bit Chomsky
Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, FAIR, Robert McChesney, Media Lens and… Jeremy Paxman? That’s right, folks: if you’re looking for trenchant critique of media performance, rooting biased and misleading coverage in institutional structure and exploring the media’s broader social function beyond traditional pieties about the “adversarial press”, Newsnight is now the place to go. Sort of.
I’m referring of course to Newsnight’s presumably satirical hit-piece on PressTV, with Jeremy Paxman turning in a powerful performance as Chomsky, Martin Bright co-starring as Ed Herman and some poor bloke from PressTV playing, well, the likes of Jeremy Paxman and Martin Bright.
The piece, prompted by OFCOM’s investigation into charges that PressTV’s coverage has breached ‘impartiality’ guidelines, began with an introductory report by “culture correspondent” Stephen Smith that oozed condescension and contempt throughout. Paxman picked up where Smith left off, attacking PressTV’s representative with his familiar belligerence (familiar, at any rate, to leftists and other villains) and demanding to know how PressTV can possibly be independent when it is funded by the Iranian government (the first Filter – it appears Paxman has finally discovered the Propaganda Model).
Paxman and Bright took turns reading from the charge sheet, accusing PressTV of playing down the post-election protests in Iran, regurgitating government propaganda and reporting events within an interpretive framework that reflects the establishment line in Iran (hence, for example, explaining US policy formation in terms of “Zionist influence”). That all of this was delivered without a trace of irony might have left attentive viewers rather bemused.
This is the same BBC, after all, that frequently underplays or misrepresents resistance to British government policy, both at home and abroad; consistently takes government claims at face value and almost without fail reports events from within the establishment framework. This is the same BBC whose political editor declared, following the invasion of Iraq, that Tony Blair “stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result”; whose Washington correspondent dared to ask, following the massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians by U.S. marines in Haditha, “How and why have the liberators ended up killing the liberated?”; whose diplomatic editor condemned British anti-war protestors for “undermining the political will to achieve more in southern Iraq” and whose director of news defended a correspondent’s claim that the US and Britain invaded Iraq “to bring democracy and human rights” by appealing to “speeches and remarks made by both Mr Bush and Mr Blair”. This is the same BBC that systematically privileges Israeli sources over Palestinian ones, that rigidly adhered to the official US/UK/Israeli line on the causes and objectives of ‘Operation Cast Lead’ and that even refused, in an unprecedented move, to air a DEC aid appeal for Gazans affected by the attack.
To illustrate its depravity, Paxman observed that PressTV had failed to show its viewers the death of Neda Soltani, an Iranian women shot and killed for protesting against the Iranian regime. Yet, when was the last time Newsnight aired footage of the deaths of Bassem Abu Rameh and Yusuf Aqel Srur, Palestinian demonstrators killed by Israeli forces backed by the British government?
Bright concluded by advising “serious journalists” to refrain from working with PressTV so as to avoid lending it undeserved legitimacy. He and Paxman might want to consider that advice themselves.
Filed under: Media, UK | 4 Comments
Tags: BBC, Jeremy Paxman, Noam Chomsky, PressTV, propaganda model
Living in graves
(via)
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian, Videos | Leave a Comment
Tags: Gaza, house demolitions
(click image to hear the interview)
I haven’t posted anything on the situation in Iran, twitters and delicious links aside, but if you haven’t caught them already these articles are must-reads:
Iran, Gucci anti-imperialism and movement anti-intellectuals, Jews sans frontieres
Why the Islamic Republic has survived, MERIP
A question of solidarity, Lenin’s Tomb
Preliminary Analysis of the Voting Figures in Iran’s 2009 Presidential Election [.pdf], Chatham House
Filed under: Iran | Leave a Comment
Tags: Iran, left, Noam Chomsky, Obama, protests, solidarity
Daily humiliations
What was that phrase Obama used? The “daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation“.
[Ha'aretz] ‘Border Policemen have filmed themselves abusing and humiliating Palestinians in videos they have posted on YouTube over the past year.
In one clip uploaded to the video sharing website an Arab youth is shown in arid terrain, slapping himself, while a voice is heard instructing him to say “I love you, Border Police,” and “I will f**k you, Palestine,” in Arabic. The victim is forced to respond to everything he is ordered to do, to the raucous laughter of the cameraman and his friends, all Border Policemen.
In another video, a Palestinian is seen sitting inside a vehicle reciting the words “One Hummus and one ful [cooked broad beans], I love you Border Police” (which rhymes in Hebrew), while applause and shouting is heard in the background.
Forcing Palestinians to sing is a common occurrence and is perceived by Border Policeman as quite humorous, it has emerged from recent Haaretz interviews with Border policemen’.
Update: Video has been removed from YouTube (which has similarly censored Max Blumenthal’s recording of racist attitudes in Jerusalem), but it’s still available on Blip.tv. Ha’aretz has a longer article about it in the Friday magazine. [h/t JSF]
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian, Videos | 9 Comments
Tags: border police, IDF, occupation, Racism
Life under occupation
‘In the course of the past few years, Palestinian children from two small villages in south Hebron, who walk every day to the elementary school in At Tuwani village, have faced regular harassment by Israeli settlers, including being verbally abused, physically assaulted, chased and having stones thrown at them. Though the Israeli authorities have failed to bring an end to the harassment, the IDF has committed to escorting these children to school. Yet, despite the commitment, the soldiers often abandon the children partway along the route, leaving them vulnerable to settler attack. This month, Christian Peacemaker Teams, an international NGO working in the area, reported that in three occasions (4, 17 and 20 May), the soldiers rode in jeeps, forcing the children to run in order to keep up with the escort. Children expressed unhappiness with the escort to the NGO staff, reporting that, in cases, soldiers either revved the jeep’s engine, frightening the children, or approached the children in their jeeps at high speeds.’
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian | 1 Comment
Tags: children, Hebron, IDF, occupation, settlers
‘We, United Nations and non-governmental humanitarian organisations, express deepening concern over Israel’s continued blockade of the Gaza Strip which has now been in force for two years..
These indiscriminate sanctions are affecting the entire 1.5 million population of Gaza and ordinary women, children and the elderly are the first victims.
The amount of goods allowed into Gaza under the blockade is one quarter of the pre- blockade flow. Eight out of every ten truckloads contains food but even that is restricted to a mere 18 food items. Seedlings and calves are not allowed so Gaza’s farmers cannot make up the nutritional shortfall. Even clothes and shoes, toys and school books are routinely prohibited.
Furthermore the suffocation of Gaza’s economy has led to unprecedented unemployment and poverty rates and almost total aid dependency. While Gazans are being kept alive through humanitarian aid, ordinary civilians have lost all quality of life as they fight to survive.
The consequences of Israel’s recent military operation remain widespread as early recovery materials have been prevented from entering Gaza. Thousands of people are living with holes in their walls, broken windows and no running water.
We call for free and uninhibited access for all humanitarian assistance in accordance with the international agreements and in accordance with universally recognised international human rights and humanitarian law standards. We also call for a return to normalized trade to enable the poverty and unemployment rates to decrease.
The blockade of the Gaza Strip is creating an atmosphere of deprivation in Gaza that can only deepen the sense of hopelessness and despair among people. The people of Gaza need to be shown an alternative of hope and dignity. Allowing human development and prosperity to take hold is an essential first step towards the establishment of lasting peace.’
Action Against Hunger
cted
Acsur-Las Segovias
American Friends of UNRWA
American Near East Refugee Aid
Asamblea de Cooperacion Por la Paz
Austcare
Biladi
CARE International West Bank and Gaza.
Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions
DanChurchAid
Defense for Children International
Enfants du Monde-Droits de l’Homme
International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy – Canada
Japan International Volunteer Centre
Life Source
Medecins du Monde France
Medecins du Monde Spain
Medecins du Monde Switzerland
Medical Aid for Palestinians
Movement for Peace
Mujeres por la Paz y Acción Solidaria de Palestina
Norwegian People’s Aid
Norwegian Refugee Council
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Oxfam International
Paz Ahora
Peace and Solidarity Haydée Santamaría, Cultural Asociation
Premiere Urgence
Relief International
Spanish Committee of UNHCR
Spanish Committee of UNRWA
Swedish Organization for Individual Relief
Terre des Hommes Italy
United Nations Development Fund for Women
United Nations Relief and Works Agency
War Child Holland
World Vision International
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian | Leave a Comment
Tags: blockade, CARE, collective punishment, Gaza, Oxfam, siege, UNRWA
Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh today declared that Hamas is “prepared to accept a state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967″. He continued:
“We are pushing towards the dream of having our independent state with Jerusalem as its capital…
“If there is a real project that aims to resolve the Palestinian cause on establishing a Palestinian state on 1967 borders, under full Palestinian sovereignty, we will support it”.
This follows similar remarks by Khaled Meshaal, who stated that Hamas ‘will not obstruct’ a two-state settlement. Senior Hamas official Salah Bardawil described Meshaal’s comments as part of “Hamas’s new policy”, explaining:
“We aspire to establish a Palestinian state from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. But practically, considering the situation, Hamas wants to realize its rights, to establish a Palestinian state. The entire world talks about the principle of two states for two peoples, but we see only one state, the State of Israel, which still has no clear borders and does what it wants even in the area under control of the PA. Give us a state and we’ll talk about recognition.”
Asked if the Palestinian state with Hamas would recognize the State of Israel, he said yes, “If our demand is met and a Palestinian state is established, we will recognize Israel, because we will have a state and they will have a state. At the moment, the situation is that one state controls another state.”
He also said: “The matter of recognition is a personal matter, you recognize us and we’ll recognize you. There are no magic solutions. One way is to continue the violence and the war, another is mutual recognition and the establishment of the Palestinian state. The state of Palestine will end the fighting with Israel.”
These statements from Hamas are pretty unequivocal in their support for a two-state settlement, and yet they are receiving far less media play than Netanyahu’s rejectionist rant, despite being much more significant. True, neither Hamas nor Netanyahu is saying anything particularly new: Hamas has made a raft of similar statements supportive of a two-state settlement in recent years, and Netanyahu was peddling his “limited Palestinian state” nonsense as far back as 1996. He even had an op-ed published (h/t Mondoweiss) in the Washington Post six years ago in support of ‘a limited Palestinian state’ on terms identical to those he outlined on Sunday. But whereas Israel’s rejectionism has always been and will continue to be supported by the US, Hamas’s alleged intransigence has been used as a pretext to isolate and overthrow an elected government, subject an occupied people to “possibly the most rigorous form of international sanctions … in modern times” and rain down bombs and missiles upon a defenceless civilian population for years on end.
Hamas’s recent statements were issued in close proximity to Netanyahu’s speech. A simple comparison demonstrates what has long been clear: Hamas is far closer to accepting a two-state settlement than either Israel or the US.
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian | 5 Comments
Tags: Binyamin Netanyahu, Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, Khaled Mesha'al
Still torturing children
A Defence for Children International report published earlier this week contains the testimonies of 33 children subjected to abuse by Israeli soldiers.
The report finds that,
‘illegally obtained confessions are routinely used as evidence in the military courts to convict around 700 Palestinian children every year. And the most common charge against these children is for throwing stones. Once sentenced, the children who gave these testimonies were mostly imprisoned inside Israel in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention where they receive few family visits, and little or no education.’
It concludes that ‘widespread and systematic abuse is occurring within a general culture of impunity where in 600 complaints made against Israeli Security Agency interrogators for alleged ill-treatment and torture, not a single criminal investigation was ever conducted’.
Read the full report, Palestinian Child Prisoners: The systematic and institutionalised ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian children by Israeli authorities [.pdf].
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian, Torture | 2 Comments
Tags: abuse, administrative detention, children, Defence for Children International, IDF, Torture
Free Ezra Nawi
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian | 2 Comments
Tags: Activism, Ezra Nawi, house demolitions
Obama’s ‘bold’ vision
So here I am back in the UK, bleary-eyed and smelling like I’ve been travelling for three months. Curious, I switch on the computer to see what the you’ve all been up to in my absence: shocking revelations that MPs can sometimes be a bit crooked have England in revolt, another mortal threat to national security courageously thwarted by the Met, world population massively pissed off about everything, pigs finally launch their plan to take over the Earth, and – what’s this? – tensions between Israel and the US are reaching ‘crisis point’ as Obama prepares for an ‘unprecedented’ confrontation with Netanyahu over the ‘peace process’ and Israeli settlement construction. Well.
It is difficult to divine the basis for the mass of excited speculation surrounding this anticipated ’showdown’ between the US and its most reliable client, which peaked with Obama’s much-hyped speech in Cairo. Western commentators reacted to Obama’s ‘diplomatic and intellectual tour de force’ of ‘historic and moral importance’ with rapture, praising his ‘bold vision’ for peace in the Middle East – if, in some cases, raising questions about his ability to realise it, given the intransigence of local parties. Reaction in the Middle East was more cautious – evidently Palestinians and Arabs were less impressed than their Western counterparts at the sight of a US president lecturing them about non-violence while what’s left of Gaza continues to rot under US/Israeli siege (they might also recall, even if Western commentators do not, that the December/January massacre was “carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the USA and paid for with US taxpayers’ money”).
Before examining the content of Obama’s ‘bold vision’, it’s worth taking a brief look at the immediate context on the ground. Settlements are being constructed in the West Bank at a rate not seen since 2003, the year the ‘road map’ was formulated. More than 3,200 housing units have been built in West Bank settlements since the beginning of 2008, and construction is planned for a new town in the ‘E1′ area of the West Bank, a development that would render a contiguous Palestinian state impossible and would, observers warn, ‘trigger the collapse of the weakened Palestinian Authority, or drive it into armed resistance again’. House demolitions continue: on June 4 Israeli soldiers demolished the homes of 18 families in the Jordan Valley, displacing 130 people, including 67 children. In East Jerusalem settlement activity continues apace, with the government planning to demolish a Palestinian kindergarten and wholesale market to make way for a hotel and a commercial building. Only 13% of East Jerusalem is zoned for Palestinian construction, while illegal settlements occupy 35%.
Ahead of Obama’s speech attacks by PA and Israeli forces against Hamas sharply escalated, perhaps in an attempt to provoke a politically useful response.
In Gaza, reconstruction efforts are non-existent in the face of the “extreme closure regime” (World Bank) being imposed by Israel.
In recent months the Israeli government “has been steadily reducing the variety of supplies entering Gaza” [.pdf]:
“Over the three months of February to April 2009, an average of 65% of all commodities entering Gaza were food items, 86% of which were restricted to a narrow range of seven basic foodstuffs; even then, items, such as macaroni and dates, have been denied entry. It was only after the intervention of US officials that the government of Israel allowed macaroni into Gaza after weeks of delay. On a visit to Gaza in February 2009, a US Congressman asked, “When have lentil bombs been going off lately? Is someone going to kill you with a piece of macaroni?” In March 2009, the government of Israel prevented US-funded food parcels from entering Gaza due to the inclusion of canned tuna, biscuits and jam; they were added to a long list of items ‘under review’,which included wooden toys and maths and science kits.”
Sara Roy, a leading academic specialist on Gaza, reports that since ‘Operation Cast Lead’, “Gaza’s already compromised conditions have become virtually unlivable”:
Livelihoods, homes, and public infrastructure have been damaged or destroyed on a scale that even the Israel Defense Forces admitted was indefensible. In Gaza today, there is no private sector to speak of and no industry. 80 percent of Gaza’s agricultural crops were destroyed and Israel continues to snipe at farmers attempting to plant and tend fields near the well-fenced and patrolled border. Most productive activity has been extinguished.
One powerful expression of Gaza’s economic demise—and the Gazans’ indomitable will to provide for themselves and their families—is its burgeoning tunnel economy that emerged long ago in response to the siege. Thousands of Palestinians are now employed digging tunnels into Egypt—around 1,000 tunnels are reported to exist although not all are operational. According to local economists, 90 percent of economic activity in Gaza—once considered a lower middle-income economy (along with the West Bank)—is presently devoted to smuggling.
Today, 96 percent of Gaza’s population of 1.4 million is dependent on humanitarian aid for basic needs. According to the World Food Programme, the Gaza Strip requires a minimum of 400 trucks of food every day just to meet the basic nutritional needs of the population. Yet, despite a 22 March decision by the Israeli cabinet to lift all restrictions on foodstuffs entering Gaza, only 653 trucks of food and other supplies were allowed entry during the week of May 10, at best meeting 23 percent of required need.” [my emph.]
Turning now to Obama’s speech, there is little to celebrate, at least with regards to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Rhetorically it achieved everything it set out to: distance Obama from the overtly imperial posture and reckless aggression of the Bush administration, portray the US as interested in dialogue over confrontation and win points in the region by appearing to empathise with popular concerns and aspirations. After seeing Obama’s PR team in action during the election campaign, the competence of the speech should come as no surprise. More interesting was the importance attached by media commentators to what was openly billed as an exercise in propaganda. For example, Obama won much praise for describing the plight of the Palestinians as “intolerable” and for declaring a need for a Palestinian state. Yet his predecessor used precisely the same language and this didn’t stop him from facilitating accelerated settlement construction, the continued fragmentation and dismemberment of the West Bank and the virtual destruction of Gaza.
With regards to policy, what little the speech offered was totally inadequate. When he spoke about settlements, Obama chose his words carefully:
“The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.” [my emph.]
In other words, Obama had nothing to say about the vast network of settlements and settlement infrastructure Israel has already constructed in the West Bank, which by itself is more than sufficient to prevent the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. Instead he restricted himself to opposing on-going settlement construction. In so doing he merely repeated the official (though not operative) position of virtually every US administration since 1967:
“[T]he immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be fee and fairly negotiated”.
“I don’t think there is any greater obstacle to peace than settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an advanced pace.”
“Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.”
Those were the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations, respectively. In policy terms, as Yehuda Ben-Meir observes, “not only could Bush have delivered the same speech, he did – almost everything the current U.S. president said in Cairo was said many times over by his predecessor.” Geoffrey Aronson notes that “for more than three decades, on again off again promotion of a settlement freeze by the U.S. has failed to slow settlement expansion”, and indeed “more often than not” has resulted in “U.S. support for settlement expansion”. Unless Obama is willing to go beyond rhetoric and apply real pressure on Israel to end its rejectionism, even this limited demand will get lost amidst endless Israeli protests about “natural growth”, attempts to re-draw settlement boundaries, and so forth. Unfortunately he appears to have ruled out all but the most ’symbolic’ measures to secure Israeli compliance, with even the mild step of placing conditions on loan guarantees reportedly ‘not under discussion’. Certainly there are no indications that the U.S. will place conditions on military aid to Israel, which Obama has pledged to massively increase.
In another echo of his predecessor, Obama repeated his previously stated policy of refusing to engage Hamas until it renounces violence and recognises Israel’s “right to exist” – conditions accurately described by a former chief of Israeli military intelligence as “ridiculous, or an excuse not to negotiate.” Moreover, there are signs that he will retain the disastrous Bush policy of ‘divide and rule’ in the occupied territories. The US continues to train and finance PA “security forces” that effectively function as proxies for the US and Israel, and Obama recently praised Abbas for refusing to share power with Hamas:
“One thing that I didn’t mention earlier that I want to say I very much appreciate is that President Abbas I think has been under enormous pressure to bring about some sort of unity government and to negotiate with Hamas. And I am very impressed and appreciative of President Abbas’s willingness to steadfastly insist that any unity government would have to recognize the principles that have been laid by the Quartet.” (h/t MondoWeiss)
Given the almost universal recognition among serious analysts of the conflict that political reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is a prerequisite for any serious attempt at peace, Obama’s refusal to engage Hamas and apparent opposition to a unity government reveals a lot about the sincerity of his ‘vision’.
Hamas, for its part, has struck an accomodatory tone in recent weeks, with Khaled Meshaal declaring that it ‘will not obstruct’ a two-state settlement. Senior Hamas official Salah Bardawil described Meshaal’s comments as part of “Hamas’s new policy”, explaining:
“We aspire to establish a Palestinian state from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. But practically, considering the situation, Hamas wants to realize its rights, to establish a Palestinian state. The entire world talks about the principle of two states for two peoples, but we see only one state, the State of Israel, which still has no clear borders and does what it wants even in the area under control of the PA. Give us a state and we’ll talk about recognition.”
Asked if the Palestinian state with Hamas would recognize the State of Israel, he said yes, “If our demand is met and a Palestinian state is established, we will recognize Israel, because we will have a state and they will have a state. At the moment, the situation is that one state controls another state.”
He also said: “The matter of recognition is a personal matter, you recognize us and we’ll recognize you. There are no magic solutions. One way is to continue the violence and the war, another is mutual recognition and the establishment of the Palestinian state. The state of Palestine will end the fighting with Israel.”
Hamas will issue an important statement tomorrow outlining its position on a potential Obama “peace process” that will likely continue this theme. The organisation has made many similar statements in recent years – for example in 2007, when Meshaal explained that,
“There will remain a state called Israel … The problem is not that there is an entity called Israel … The problem is that the Palestinian state is non-existent…
“As a Palestinian today I speak of a Palestinian and Arab demand for a state on 1967 borders. It is true that in reality there will be an entity or state called Israel on the rest of Palestinian land … This is a reality but I won’t deal with it in terms of recognizing or admitting it”.
All of Hamas’s overtures in the past were flatly rejected by the US and Israel, under the same ludicrous pretexts the Obama administration is using to isolate Hamas today.
Netanyahu will also issue a response to Obama’s speech tomorrow. He will likely use the words “Palestinian state”, thereby provoking the commentariat to collectively cream itself, while rejecting the complete settlement freeze Obama has demanded. Of course, Netanyahu’s use, or lack thereof, of the words ‘Palestinian state’ is completely insignificant unless the nature of that ’state’ is defined. Indeed, as Noam Chomsky points out,
‘it was Netanyahu’s 1996 government that was the first to use the phrase ['Palestinian state']. It agreed that Palestinians can call whatever fragments of Palestine are left to them “a state” if they like – or they can call them “fried chicken”‘.
As Aluf Benn reports, if the US applies serious pressure on Israel to end, or at least moderate, its rejectionism, Israel will ultimately be forced to comply. But as Amitai Etzioni observes, by manufacturing a dispute over such comparatively trivial issues Netanyahu will be able to present his ‘retreat’ to the rejectionist position of previous Israeli governments as a huge concession, thereby reducing the pressure to make genuine ‘concessions’ where it really matters. It is not difficult to see how Obama, eager to demonstrate to the Arab world his determination to confront Israeli expansionism, would benefit from such a contrived crisis either.
It is, in any event, clear from Netanyahu’s record and policy statements that any ‘Palestinian state’ he refers to will be “fried chicken” (i.e. something approximating the status quo) as opposed to the territorially contiguous, viable state demanded by the international consensus. That is Netanyahu’s vision, and the evidence thus far suggests that Obama, ‘bold’ rhetoric aside, will do nothing to seriously challenge it.
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian, US | 13 Comments
Tags: "peace process", Binyamin Netanyahu, Gaza, Hamas, settlements
-
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
Recent Entries
Categories
- Activism (34)
- Cool Stuff (13)
- European Union (16)
- Interviews (6)
- Iran (40)
- Iraq (46)
- Israeli / Palestinian (265)
- Latin America (8)
- Lebanon (16)
- Media (57)
- meta (2)
- News and politics (241)
- Quote of the Day (21)
- Torture (18)
- UK (101)
- Uncategorized (1)
- US (148)
- Venezuela (9)
- Videos (63)
- West Papua (8)
- WMD (20)
Archives
- July 2009
- June 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
