[wvns] Salman Abu Sitta Debates Rabbi Lerner
Debate Between Salman Abu Sitta and Michael Lerner of Tikkun on The
Right of Return
The Right of Return
by Dr Salman Abu Sitta
http://www.plands.org/debates/1.htm
1. Michael Lerner wrote:
Would you be interested in participating in a roundtable discussion on
the telephone or writing a piece for us on "the right of return"?
Please let me know if and when you'd want to write something or when
in the next week you'd be available for a phone call (give me your
phone number, please).
2. Abu Sitta wrote:
Because of time difference and different weekends, I think writing a
piece will be better. Since my piece would be published in a
pro-Israel or pro-Zionism environment, and the idea, I presume, would
be to hear the 'other side' point of view, I appreciate some input about:
Who will be invited to participate?
What are their reasons for denying the Right of Return or their views
of it?
What length you allow for my piece? How much time do I have?
3. Michael Lerner wrote:
If we do it your way, with writers writing, I will probably have your
piece read and commented on by some others. But you will not be the
only pro-return piece-I've asked Adi Ophir and Benny Morris also
(though I never know who will actually write, because I always find
people saying they will do x and then not doing it). But you can have
1600 words to make the point.
4. Abu Sitta wrote:
This is my contribution.
It is more than the 1600 words limit. I could not cover the subject,
even in an outline, in less words. Our voice has not been heard for
years and there is so much to cover. If you decide to edit (shorten)
it, please consult with me. You have at least one writer who said he
would write and did.
Quote Contribution to Tikkun on the Right of Return At the age of ten,
I became a refugee. About a million people met that same fate in 1948.
Their life has suddenly been transformed from a state of tranquillity
to a state of utter destitution: families expelled at gunpoint in the
middle of night or in the heat of a summer day, screams of help, cries
of pain, children lost, mothers clutching pillows instead of their
children, thirsty old men shot in the head if they stopped for water
in the forced march, a whole family dismembered to pieces by a bomb
dropped from a plane while having supper, survivors of (35 reported)
massacres walking about in a daze.
The scenes of devastation filled the landscape: the sea of wretched
humanity trailing along the sea coast in Gaza or in the ravines of the
West Bank, resting under a tree, in a mosque or a school, counting
their number; the distraught father or mother rushing back aimlessly
looking for a missing loved one; houses deserted with a bed undone, a
hot food in the kitchen; a dog looking for its owner; plants remain
unwatered; cattle and sheep wandering about out of their open sheds.
Screams of Yahud, Yahud (Jews, Jews) are heard and the tired crowd
disperses frantically in crevices and behind rocks.
A jeep with mounted machine guns sprays all moving objects. A plane
hovers gently, almost soundlessly, then drops barrels of destruction
on concentrated masses, limbs flying in the air, hanging on a branch.
All this and more is indelible in my mind, and my children's. Yet my
biggest trauma is not all this. My experience during my expulsion is
relatively mild when compared to thousands who went through all these
horrors. My biggest trauma was that my child's mind could not
comprehend that there was such a cruel, hateful, vengeful enemy who
was determined to destroy my life. Why? What for? What have I, we,
done to him? I could not put a face, certainly not a human face, to him.
You see I have never seen a Jew before, not for many many years after.
The enemy was faceless. I heard all kind of stories: the enemy landed
on our shores, the enemy speaks a bable of languages, has many faces,
dialects, but is united in ruthless destruction of my people.
It took me many years of diligent work to put a face to this enemy.
All the years of my adult life, I carried with me my history, intact
and alive, while my geography was severed from my physical existence,
but remained ensconced in my psyche. I longed for the day of return,
when my history and geography are united again.
You see, I am Palestinian, a typical refugee. Only with the Right of
Return exercised, only with my history and geography united again,
then, only then, I, my children and grandchildren, can shed the title
of 'refugee'. Not a day before.
* * * To the Palestinians, the Right of Return is sacred, legal and
possible.
It is sacred because it is embedded in their psyche. Although they
have been dispersed, their family structure is strong. They still
marry, across geographical divides, from the same family had they not
been expelled. According to UNRWA records, fully 72% of villages moved
to only one area of the five UNRWA fields of operation, 20% to two
areas and only 8% to three.
It is legal because it is enshrined in international law and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is protected by the sanctity
of private ownership which cannot be extinguished by occupation,
sovereignty or passage of time. No amount of legal sophistry will
undermine this right.
Now I advance the thesis that the return is possible. If the reverse
is true, that will not of course nullify or diminish the right of
return. Land robbery does not confer ownership rights. This thesis is
aimed at those well-meaning people who accept the validity of the
Palestinian right of return, but fear this may trigger off another
Nakba, a Jewish one this time. They do not want the horror of Nakba to
be experienced again, even by the perpetrators of the original Nakba.
Others claim that the return means the dilution of the Jewish
character of Israel, or as Begin often claimed, the destruction of
Israel.
This futile effort is intended only to legitimize material and
political gains made by military conquests. Let us examine these
contentions one by one.
* * * Can the refugees return to their homes without causing a reverse
exodus? Is there room for them?
We examined the 46 natural regions of Israel and determined for each
region the number of urban and rural Jews, the present Palestinians in
Israel and the refugees whose homes were in this region.
We then grouped them in three groups: A, B, C a la West Bank. Group A
has an area of 1,628 sq. km and has a population of over 3 million
Jews, or about 70% of the Jews.
This is the same area and largely in the same location as the land
which the Jews purchased or acquired under British protection in 1948.
Its area is 8% of Israel. This is the total extent of Jewish ownership
in Israel.
Here is the heaviest Jewish concentration. Area B has a mixed
population. Its area is 6% of Israel and is just less than the land of
Palestinians who remained in Israel. A further 10% of the Jews live
there. Thus, in a nutshell, 78% of the Jews live in 14% of Israel.
That leaves Area C, which is 86% of Israel.
This is largely the land and the home of the Palestinian refugees.
Who lives there today? Apart from the remaining Palestinians, the
majority of the Jews there live in originally Palestinian, now mixed,
cities and a few new towns. The average size of a new town in Area C
is comparable to the size of a refugee camp.
If Jabaliya camp were a town in Israel, its rank in terms of size
would be in the top 8% of Israeli urban centers. Who then controls the
vast Palestinian land in area C? Only 160,000 rural Jews exploit the
land and heritage of over 5 million refugees packed in refugee camps
and denied the right to return. The refugees in Gaza are crammed at a
density of 4,200 persons per sq. km.
If you were one of those refugees, and you look across the barbed wire
to your land in Israel, and you see it almost empty, at 5 persons/sq.
km, (almost one thousand times less density than Gaza!) what would you
feel? Peaceful? Content?
This striking contrast is the root of all the suffering. It can only
be eliminated with the return of the refugees.
What do those rural Jews do? We are told they cultivate the
(Palestinian) land and produce wonderful agriculture.
We are not told that three quarters of the Kibbutz are economically
bankrupt and that only 26% of them produce most of the agriculture. We
are not told that the Kibbutz is ideologically bankrupt; there is
constant desertion, and very few new recruits. Irrigation takes up
about 60-80% of the water in Israel, 2/3 of it is Arab water.
Agriculture in the southern district alone uses 500 million cubic
meters of water per year.
This is equal to the entire water resources of the West Bank now
confiscated by Israel. This is equal to the entire resources of upper
Jordan including lake Tiberias for which Israel is obstructing peace
with Syria. Total irrigation water, a very likely cause of war,
produces agricultural products worth only 1.8% of Israel's GDP. Such
waste, such extravagance, such disregard for the suffering of the
refugees, and such denial of their rights is exercised by 8,600
Kibbutzniks who depend on agriculture for their livelihood.
When the refugees return to their land, they can pursue their
traditional agricultural pursuits, and no doubt this will take up the
slack in GDP. More importantly, peace will be a real possibility.
Let us consider two scenarios, which if applied are likely to diffuse
much of the tension in the Middle East. Let us imagine that the
registered refugees in Lebanon (362,000) are allowed to return to
their homes in Galilee. Even today, Galilee is still largely Arab.
Palestinians there outnumber the Jews one and a half times. If the
Lebanon refugees return, the Jewish concentration in Area A will
hardly feel the difference, and the Jews will remain a majority in all
areas, even when they are least in number, like area C.
Furthermore, if the 760,000 registered refugees in Gaza are allowed to
return to their homes in the south, now largely empty, they can return
to their same original villages, while the percentage of the Jewish
majority in the centre (area A) will drop by only 6%. The number of
these rural Jews who may be affected by the return of Gaza refugees to
their homes in the south does not exceed 78,000 or the size of a
single refugee camp.
This is a glaring example of the miscarriage of justice Another
striking fact is that the number of Russian immigrants, claiming to be
Jews, is almost the same as that of Lebanon and Gaza refugees combined.
Those refugees are denied the right to return home while the Russian
immigrants are taking their place, their homes and their land. So much
for the claim of the physical "impossibility" of the return.
The vacancy of Palestinian land is so problematic to Israel that it is
trying to find people to live on this land. None other than Sharon and
Eitan started a scheme in 1997 to sell the refugees' land to builders
to build apartments so that an American or Australian Jew can buy an
apartment without being an Israeli.
Kibbutz farmers who rented this land from the Custodian of Absentee
(i.e. refugee) Property received a "compensation" up to 25% of its
sale value. This illegal activity, selling a land in custody, prompted
the UN to issue resolutions affirming the entitlement of the refugees
to receive any income of their property for the last 50 years and
calling on all states to present all documents and information they
may have on the refugees' property. Now it is often said that Israelis
oppose the return of the refugees for fear that this will change the
Jewish character of the state.
What do they mean by the phrase "Jewish character"? Do they mean
legal, social, demographic or religious character? Let us examine
these one by one. First, what is the legal meaning of the Jewish
character? In the words of a noted Jurist, (Mallison):
"The Jewish character is really a euphemism for the Zionist
discriminatory statutes of the State of Israel which violate the human
rights provisions The UN is under no more of legal obligation to
maintain Zionism in Israel than it is to maintain apartheid in the
Republic of South Africa."
In March 2000, the reports of UN Treaty-Based Committees, such as
Human Rights Committee, Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and
Committee against Torture, have all condemned Israeli practices and
characterized, for the first time so clearly, the exclusive structure
of the Israeli law as the root cause of all those violations of
international law.
How, then, can the international community accept the premise of a
"Jewish character" as a basis for the denial of the right to return
home? If they mean a social Jewish character, this idea is clearly a
misnomer. There is not much in common between a Brooklyn Jew and an
Ethiopian Jew, or between a Russian claiming to be a Jew and a
Moroccan Jew. The gulf between the Ashkenazi and the Haredim can never
be bridged.
The Sephardim (Mizrahim) are allocated the lower rings of the social
ladder. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are being polarised on sectarian lines.
Israel has long given up on the idea of a melting pot. There are 32
languages spoken in Israel. Prof. Etzioni Halevi of Bar Ilan
University and a specialist on the Jewish national identity says, "we
are not a single people, language is different, attire is different,
behaviour and attitude are different, even the sense of identity is
different."
How can then the Palestinians, the inhabitants of 530 depopulated
towns and villages be the odd element in this mosaic? If they mean by
the Jewish character the numerical superiority of Jews, they have to
think again. The Palestinians who remained in their homes now
represent 26% of all Jews. How could Israel ignore their presence?
Will Israel plan another massive ethnic cleansing operation? Very
unlikely.
They are there to stay and increase. In the year 2010, Palestinians in
Israel will be 35% of Jews and they will be equal to the number of
Jews in 2050 or much earlier when immigration dries up.
So what is the value of chasing an elusive target while innocent
people wait in the refugee camps? If they mean the religious Jewish
character, who says this is in danger? For one thousand years, the
Jews did not find a haven anywhere for their religious practice better
than the Arab world. One must conclude therefore that the cliché
"Jewish character" is only meant to justify keeping the land and
expelling its people.
In practical terms, it is entirely feasible to plan the return in such
a way and in such phases that the Je-wish residents will not feel any
effect, except the pleasant feeling that a true peace is a reality at
last But the Israelis must come to terms with al Nakba, the
Palestinian holocaust, and its consequences. They must shed their
collective amnesia about the Palestinians, the notion that they landed
in an empty country, conquered 530 empty towns and villages,
cultivated a land where oranges, olives and wheat grew by divine
intervention, and found urban and rural landscape carved by genies.
They must learn to live with the Palestinians, not instead of them.
They must believe that: no return means no peace. Unquote
5. Michael Lerner wrote: I am unclear whose article this is. Can you
send me a one line biography with the article? I'm not sure whether or
not to publish it. It is very harsh, and doesn't recognize that Jews
came to Israel as refugees and that when they were homeless and there
was enough land to share the Palestinian people tried to keep them out
and would not share the land. Without that recognition, the article
seems to strengthen the hands of the Israeli right-wing, because it
seems so unwilling to acknowledge anything legitimate in Jewish claims.
Of course, that may be an accurate description of how many
Palestinians perceive the situation, but it doesn't really help move
things toward resolution. So, I'm not sure what to do. But in any
event, please put a name and a one sentence description of who the
person is who wrote it.
6. Abu Sitta wrote:
To: Rabbi Michael Lerner
From: Dr. Salman Abu-Sitta
Short Bio. Normally my letters are addressed and signed. But I
followed your example of responding to the contents only. Hence, a
possible confusion. My short biography: Long-time researcher on
Palestinian refugees (over 50 papers and other publications). Former
Member of Palestine National Council (for 20 years). President,
Palestine Land Society.
It is "harsh". I am not clear what you mean by this description. If
you mean the description I gave to the treatment meted out to the
Palestinians, this is a correct description. Every word in my piece
(p. 1) can be corroborated by dozens of refugees.
If you refer to my research about demography, Jewish character etc., I
have not heard any one yet challenging the facts, although this study
was read at the Israeli Anthropological Annual Conference in Jerusalem
in May 2000 and published by Ha'aretz on 23 July 2000 (Hebrew edition
only).
Jews are refugees too. Palestinians refused to share the land. This is
your long-held view (Tikkun, p. 46, Vol. 4, No. 5).
You add that "the collision of two nationalisms led directly to the
creation of the Arab refugee problem". The overwhelming evidence of
thousands of testimonies of refugees, now supported by evidence in the
declassified Israeli, British and American files, give a different and
more graphic picture. It clearly shows a pattern of a determined,
well-planned and sustained campaign (till today) of ethnic cleansing
against the Palestinians. Zionists wanted Palestine Arabrein. If
Zionists wanted to 'share' land, the Palestinians would have welcomed
them as they did German Templars, Circassians, Bosnians, Armenians and
others. In fact that is what they did until the infamous Balfour
declaration.
To publish or not. I cannot argue with an editor, can I? If you would
not, others would. But I thought the idea was to inform US Jews
particularly. My guess is that they have a distorted idea of the
Palestinians. They would do themselves a favour (at least in the long
run) to learn more facts about the Palestinians before events rush
them and then they complain about the "irrational" Middle East.
Just before I read your email, I listened over the phone to a
conference, held in Gaza, attended by PA ministers, political leaders
of all types and by over a thousand refugees. They together recited
the Oath of Return, they will not relinquish the Right of Return nor
recognize any agreement which does.
To strengthen the Right Wing Israelis. Who are they? The war criminal
Sharon? The fanatic settlers from Brooklyn? The "Kill the Arabs"
terrorists? Those who want to blow up Al Aqsa Mosque and incur the
wrath of over one billion Muslims? Those who committed the massacres
of Deir Yassin Tantoura and 33 others in 1948 alone?
The place to deal with those is the Truth and Conciliation Commission
or the International Criminal Court. The right wing Israelis aim to
complete the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, by continued exile, or
by resettlement anywhere in the world except their homes.
The Palestinians are determined to defend themselves against this
Nakba. History tells us that determined defenders win. In conclusion,
if you find any merit in informing your readers of the general
Palestinian position, I am prepared to reduce the length closer to
your limit of 1600 words. I understand your concerns but I hope they
can be met without sacrificing the truth.
7. Michael Lerner wrote:
Dear Salman Abu Sitta:
I have trouble understanding the underlying strategic vision of people
who hold your position. My view is that the Palestinian people should
build a movement fully committed to non-violence, and with realizable
goals (a Palestinian state on almost all the West Bank and Gaza, with
dismantling of the settlements and no Israeli military presence).
That is realizable, and should include massive aid to resettle
Palestinians in the West Bank, so that millions could return to that
Palestinian state. In that context, I believe that the world and a
significant section of the Israeli public and world Jewry could become
your active allies. I have watched other oppressive states like
England in India, South Africa, and the American southern racist
states melt under the moral pressure mobilized by that kind of
nonviolent movement led by people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
I cannot see how anyone can imagine that the Palestinian people will
ever win anything unless they adopt this kind of movement that creates
a moral split in the Jewish people between those who care for human
rights and those who do not.
So, taking the stance that rejects both non-violence and achievable
goals of the sort I mentioned, and clinging to violent struggle plus
maximalist demands (right of return) is simply a choice to perpetuate
the Occupation.
Now, I can't see how that is in the best interests of the Palestinian
people, so I don't understand the choice. Is it the belief on the part
of some significant section of the Palestinians who took the oath you
mentioned that they can militarily defeat Israel? If so, how? If not,
then aren't you choosing to perpetuate decades of Occupation? I really
don't understand-and hope you would take a minute to explain the
strategic vision underlying this approach. As to the article, I've
missed the March deadline, so now I'd like to turn to the next issue
of the magazine. I think what I would like to do is this: create a
roundtable discussion (on the telephone) with some Palestinians and
some peace-oriented Jews to have this discussion.
There would be maybe 6 people, and we would tape the discussion. .
Would you be willing to be part of such a discussion which would then
be edited and used in the magazine? And is there someone else you
highly recommend to be part of it? I want your perspective to be
heard. But knowing how many Jews in America today see me as a crazy
self-hating Jew who is really a Palestinian apologist, and then
recognizing that even I can't understand the perspective that insists
on return to Israel except by people who have given up on anything
real and so must retain fantasies of destroying the Jewish state
altogether, I can only imagine how others who think I am extreme would
react.
Still, my goal is to present an honest and accurate picture, and
that's why I think a roundtable might work. What do you think?
Warm regards,
Rabbi Michael Lerner
8. Abu Sitta wrote:
Rabbi Lerner,
This is turning into some sort of debate. I hope it will help. You
have trouble in understanding my/our strategic vision.
You advise that our strategy to recover our rights should have two
qualities:
(a) non-violent
(b) realizable.
I think you better direct this advise to the Zionist movement. This is
why.
(a) Non-violence The first military militia was organized by
Trempledor in the twenties, followed by the Haganah, Irgun and Stern
gangs. Just before the end of the British Mandate, Ben Gurion went
through his fourth version (Plan Dalet) of the plan for the
destruction of Palestine; yes, it said plainly: destruct, expel,
occupy, clear ...etc.
You must know, by now, that before the British departure, Ben Gurion
amassed 65,000 trained soldiers, many of them were veterans of World
War II, to conquer about 650 Palestinian towns and villages, which
were defended by dozens of poorly-armed peasants in each village,
totalling no more than 2,500.
You must know that, with this force, Ben Gurion managed to expel half
of the refugees before an Arab soldier set foot on Palestine soil. You
must know that half of the 17 reported massacres took place before the
British departure and Israel's creation.
Arab forces tried to rescue the remainder of Palestine, but they
obviously failed. Ultimately Ben Gurion expelled the inhabitants of
530 towns and villages and confiscated their land and property. So,
who is to be advised to be non-violent? Who today possesses the most
lethal weapons of mass destruction?
Who is responsible for the longest trail of blood, the largest volume
of destruction and the highest record of world condemnation?
Does it surprise you to know that the Zionists/Israelis have not ever
experienced the ravages of war domestically? never had whole villages
destroyed as in Palestine, never had whole town quarters destroyed as
in Beirut and Suez, never had water and electricity cut or railway
lines ripped off as in many parts of Palestine, never had hundreds of
victims lying dead as in Sabra, Shatila or Cana, or children heads
smashed by hammers as in Dawayima, pregnant women stomachs ripped open
as in Deir Yassin, or old men and women burnt alive as in Lajjun.
Yes, there were feeble attempts at dropping stray bombs on Tel Aviv
(by Egypt in 1948 and Saddam in 1991).
Yes, there is fear gripping the Israelis. But that is a chronic Jewish
ailment.
Israel's actions are like the one who commits an actual murder on the
pretext that the victim may think one day of harming him. No, Rabbi.
You are preaching at the wrong synagogue, so to speak. Please deliver
this sermon to those who need it. (By the way, I did not advocate
violence.
Where did you get this idea? I think that the moral power, especially
in the current surge in human rights advocacy and high-tech
communications, is the biggest support for Palestinians today.)
(b) Realizable aims If Herzl heard you, he will laugh. Imagine Jews
meeting in a Basle hotel room in 1897, and planning to expel millions
of people and occupy five countries. Is that realizable?
Imagine Ben Gurion pleading with Peel Commission in 1937 asking for a
Tel Aviv area to cede from Palestine, while in his mind he wants to
conquer all of Palestine, as he told Baltimore Conference in 1942! Is
this realizable? Yes he did it and more.
Now, the Palestinians' aims are more modest. They do not want to
attack any body. They simply want to return home. This return has
nothing to do with politics, sovereignty, occupation or even apartheid.
They lived in their homes under Memlukes, Ottomans, British and some
under Israelis. You see they do not have 'aims'; they have rights.
Because these rights are Inalienable, they represent the bottom red
line beyond which no concession is possible. Because doing so will
destroy their life. That they will not permit. You say: can they
militarily defeat Israel? I do not know.
I do not think this is the main issue. Let us remember that Israel did
not win, the Arab lost. This is not just playing with words. Tell me
of one 'real' war (except in 1973) in the last 50 years.
But if we are talking 'realism', let us consider the following:
In spite of many attempts at their destruction, Palestinians did not
vanish.
They (88% of the refugees) are in and around Israel. Depth behind them
is limitless.
If 99% admit they have no rights whatsoever, the 1% means 10,000 angry
people in each of the five UNRWA area. With local support, they can
seriously influence events. So the motto: no return = no peace is not
without foundation.
No human being will accept less than his fundamental human rights,
which include the return to one's home. You can bargain on secondary
levels of rights, political, economic or cultural, but not something
that basic.
How do you expect the refugees to accept their fate and remain in
exile when they see a million Russians (with little or no links to the
land) living in their homes and in their land?
How could any self-respecting Israeli to live in a house or on a land
robbed from its owner? Refugees consider every Israeli, who lives,
willingly, in their homes and on their land and deny them the right to
return, to be their adversary, until he ceases to do so.
So, the Israelis should be advised to abandon violence and seek
realizable aims. That is, they cannot continue to destroy the
Palestinians and deny their human rights. Jabotinsky's 'iron wall'
brought blood and fire but will never bring permanent peace.
Jews have no moral right to preach the west for what was done to them
in the tragic years of World War II when they continue to inflict
destruction on the Palestinians for all the years since then. They
should shed their collective amnesia. If they want to live within the
family of nations, they should first learn to live in Palestine with
(not instead of) its people.
The Article in March issue. I am sorry you missed the deadline for
publishing my article. I did my best to respond to your request by
writing within 6 days of request. Now, I think there are two approaches:
1) Either you publish my piece and other contributions. Then I could
have the opportunity to comment on them or
2) you organize a small (or big if you can) conference on the Right of
Return in which Palestinians, Israelis and neutral participants would
attend.
This way various aspects of the issue will be examined in a productive
manner. Hopefully some useful conclusions may be drawn from it.
I appreciate your continuing to explore the 'other' view.
Salman Abu Sitta
9. Michael Lerner wrote:
Perhaps we should turn it into a debate and put it on the TIKKUN
website? If so, maybe you'd like to try your hand at editing what
we've both said so far in some kind of logical and readable order?
then I'll to respond to your latest communication.
Michael
Thank you.
* This was the text of the Debate Between Salman Abu Sitta and Michael
Lerner of Tikkun on The Right of Return
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.
To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:wvns-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:wvns-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
No comments:
Post a Comment