SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Netanyahu at the U.N.: A Speech Worth Reading

METRO POLICY SEPTEMBER 24, 2011

Netanyahu at the U.N.: A Speech Worth Reading

I take the liberty of suggesting that you read a speech given yesterday by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the U.N. General Assembly. Netanyahu has been unlucky in the treatment of his remarks for a quarter century. He has been even more unlucky in the treatment of his offers to the Palestinian people to start the peace process which they, alas, have refused to do.

An article by Neil MacFarquhar and Steven Lee Myers in the Times projects Dame Catherine Ashton, the “foreign minister” of the European Union, as the leading light in the diplomacy of Europe towards Israel/Palestine. Maybe she is. In which case, it is a tragedy. All over Europe she is known to be simply stupid. In any case, given its own current economic and political crisis, Europe possesses just about zero credit to spearhead a settlement to what is now a hundred-year conflict. Russia, which is another party to the “quartet,” is still an imperial power in Europe and Asia. Its only influence among the Arabs is Syria. The U.N. is ... well, the U.N. The only power with lingering credentials is the United States. I hope President Obama reads this speech and reads it closely. I hope you do, too.  

Ladies and gentlemen, Israel has extended its hand in peace from the moment it was established 63 years ago. On behalf of Israel and the Jewish people, I extend that hand again today. I extend it to the people of Egypt and Jordan, with renewed friendship for neighbors with whom we have made peace. I extend it to the people of Turkey, with respect and good will. I extend it to the people of Libya and Tunisia, with admiration for those trying to build a democratic future. I extend it to the other peoples of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, with whom we want to forge a new beginning. I extend it to the people of Syria, Lebanon and Iran, with awe at the courage of those fighting brutal repression.

But most especially, I extend my hand to the Palestinian people, with whom we seek a just and lasting peace. 

Ladies and gentlemen, in Israel our hope for peace never wanes. Our scientists, doctors, innovators, apply their genius to improve the world of tomorrow. Our artists, our writers, enrich the heritage of humanity. Now, I know that this is not exactly the image of Israel that is often portrayed in this hall. After all, it was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland—it was then that this was braided—branded, rather—shamefully, as racism. And it was here in 1980, right here, that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt wasn’t praised; it was denounced! And it’s here year after year that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It’s singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel—the one true democracy in the Middle East.

Well, this is an unfortunate part of the U.N. institution. It’s the—the theater of the absurd. It doesn’t only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi’s Libya chaired the U.N. Commission on Human Rights; Saddam’s Iraq headed the U.N. Committee on Disarmament.

You might say: That’s the past. Well, here’s what’s happening now—right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the U.N. Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world’s security.

You couldn’t make this thing up.

So here in the U.N., automatic majorities can decide anything. They can decide that the sun sets in the west or rises in the west. I think the first has already been pre-ordained. But they can also decide—they have decided that the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest place, is occupied Palestinian territory.

And yet even here in the General Assembly, the truth can sometimes break through. In 1984 when I was appointed Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, I visited the great rabbi of Lubavich. He said to me—and ladies and gentlemen, I don’t want any of you to be offended because from personal experience of serving here, I know there are many honorable men and women, many capable and decent people serving their nations here. But here’s what the rebbe said to me. He said to me, you’ll be serving in a house of many lies. And then he said, remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide.

Today I hope that the light of truth will shine, if only for a few minutes, in a hall that for too long has been a place of darkness for my country. So as Israel’s prime minister, I didn’t come here to win applause. I came here to speak the truth.  The truth is—the truth is that Israel wants peace. The truth is that I want peace. The truth is that in the Middle East at all times, but especially during these turbulent days, peace must be anchored in security. The truth is that we cannot achieve peace through U.N. resolutions, but only through direct negotiations between the parties. The truth is that so far the Palestinians have refused to negotiate. The truth is that Israel wants peace with a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want a state without peace. And the truth is you shouldn’t let that happen.

Ladies and gentlemen, when I first came here 27 years ago, the world was divided between East and West. Since then the Cold War ended, great civilizations have risen from centuries of slumber, hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty, countless more are poised to follow, and the remarkable thing is that so far this monumental historic shift has largely occurred peacefully. Yet a malignancy is now growing between East and West that threatens the peace of all. It seeks not to liberate, but to enslave, not to build, but to destroy.

That malignancy is militant Islam. It cloaks itself in the mantle of a great faith, yet it murders Jews, Christians and Muslims alike with unforgiving impartiality. On September 11th it killed thousands of Americans, and it left the twin towers in smoldering ruins. Last night I laid a wreath on the 9/11 memorial. It was deeply moving. But as I was going there, one thing echoed in my mind: the outrageous words of the president of Iran on this podium yesterday. He implied that 9/11 was an American conspiracy. Some of you left this hall. All of you should have.

Since 9/11, militant Islamists slaughtered countless other innocents—in London and Madrid, in Baghdad and Mumbai, in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in every part of Israel. I believe that the greatest danger facing our world is that this fanaticism will arm itself with nuclear weapons. And this is precisely what Iran is trying to do.

Can you imagine that man who ranted here yesterday—can you imagine him armed with nuclear weapons? The international community must stop Iran before it’s too late. If Iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter. That would be a tragedy. Millions of Arabs have taken to the streets to replace tyranny with liberty, and no one would benefit more than Israel if those committed to freedom and peace would prevail.

This is my fervent hope. But as the prime minister of Israel, I cannot risk the future of the Jewish state on wishful thinking. Leaders must see reality as it is, not as it ought to be. We must do our best to shape the future, but we cannot wish away the dangers of the present.

And the world around Israel is definitely becoming more dangerous. Militant Islam has already taken over Lebanon and Gaza. It’s determined to tear apart the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan. It’s poisoned many Arab minds against Jews and Israel, against America and the West. It opposes not the policies of Israel but the existence of Israel.

Now, some argue that the spread of militant Islam, especially in these turbulent times—if you want to slow it down, they argue, Israel must hurry to make concessions, to make territorial compromises. And this theory sounds simple. Basically it goes like this: Leave the territory, and peace will be advanced. The moderates will be strengthened, the radicals will be kept at bay. And don’t worry about the pesky details of how Israel will actually defend itself; international troops will do the job.

These people say to me constantly: Just make a sweeping offer, and everything will work out. You know, there’s only one problem with that theory. We’ve tried it and it hasn’t worked. In 2000 Israel made a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of the Palestinian demands. Arafat rejected it. The Palestinians then launched a terror attack that claimed a thousand Israeli lives.

Prime Minister Olmert afterwards made an even more sweeping offer, in 2008. President Abbas didn’t even respond to it.

But Israel did more than just make sweeping offers. We actually left territory. We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and from every square inch of Gaza in 2005. That didn’t calm the Islamic storm, the militant Islamic storm that threatens us. It only brought the storm closer and make it stronger.

Hezbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated. See, when Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, the moderates didn’t defeat the radicals, the moderates were devoured by the radicals. And I regret to say that international troops like UNIFIL in Lebanon and UBAM in Gaza didn’t stop the radicals from attacking Israel.

We left Gaza hoping for peace.

We didn’t freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. We did exactly what the theory says: Get out, go back to the 1967 borders, dismantle the settlements.

And I don’t think people remember how far we went to achieve this. We uprooted thousands of people from their homes. We pulled children out of—out of their schools and their kindergartens. We bulldozed synagogues. We even—we even moved loved ones from their graves. And then, having done all that, we gave the keys of Gaza to President Abbas.

Now the theory says it should all work out, and President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority now could build a peaceful state in Gaza. You can remember that the entire world applauded. They applauded our withdrawal as an act of great statesmanship. It was a bold act of peace.

But ladies and gentlemen, we didn’t get peace. We got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority collapsed in a day—in one day.

President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.

Thousands of missiles have already rained down on our cities. So you might understand that, given all this, Israelis rightly ask: What’s to prevent this from happening again in the West Bank? See, most of our major cities in the south of the country are within a few dozen kilometers from Gaza. But in the center of the country, opposite the West Bank, our cities are a few hundred meters or at most a few kilometers away from the edge of the West Bank.

So I want to ask you: Would any of you—would any of you bring danger so close to your cities, to your families? Would you act so recklessly with the lives of your citizens? Israel is prepared to have a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but we’re not prepared to have another Gaza there. And that’s why we need to have real security arrangements, which the Palestinians simply refuse to negotiate with us.

Israelis remember the bitter lessons of Gaza. Many of Israel’s critics ignore them. They irresponsibly advise Israel to go down this same perilous path again. Your read what these people say and it’s as if nothing happened—just repeating the same advice, the same formulas as though none of this happened.

And these critics continue to press Israel to make far-reaching concessions without first assuring Israel’s security. They praise those who unwittingly feed the insatiable crocodile of militant Islam as bold statesmen. They cast as enemies of peace those of us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.

So in the face of the labels and the libels, Israel must heed better advice. Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel’s legitimate security concerns.

I believe that in serious peace negotiations, these needs and concerns can be properly addressed, but they will not be addressed without negotiations. And the needs are many, because Israel is such a tiny country. Without Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, Israel is all of 9 miles wide.

I want to put it for you in perspective, because you’re all in the city. That’s about two-thirds the length of Manhattan. It’s the distance between Battery Park and Columbia University. And don’t forget that the people who live in Brooklyn and New Jersey are considerably nicer than some of Israel’s neighbors.

So how do you—how do you protect such a tiny country, surrounded by people sworn to its destruction and armed to the teeth by Iran? Obviously you can’t defend it from within that narrow space alone. Israel needs greater strategic depth, and that’s exactly why Security Council Resolution 242 didn’t require Israel to leave all the territories it captured in the Six-Day War. It talked about withdrawal from territories, to secure and defensible boundaries. And to defend itself, Israel must therefore maintain a long-term Israeli military presence in critical strategic areas in the West Bank.

I explained this to President Abbas. He answered that if a Palestinian state was to be a sovereign country, it could never accept such arrangements. Why not? America has had troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea for more than a half a century. Britain has had an airspace in Cyprus or rather an air base in Cyprus. France has forces in three independent African nations. None of these states claim that they’re not sovereign countries.

And there are many other vital security issues that also must be addressed. Take the issue of airspace. Again, Israel’s small dimensions create huge security problems. America can be crossed by jet airplane in six hours. To fly across Israel, it takes three minutes. So is Israel’s tiny airspace to be chopped in half and given to a Palestinian state not at peace with Israel?

Our major international airport is a few kilometers away from the West Bank. Without peace, will our planes become targets for antiaircraft missiles placed in the adjacent Palestinian state? And how will we stop the smuggling into the West Bank? It’s not merely the West Bank, it’s the West Bank mountains. It just dominates the coastal plain where most of Israel’s population sits below. How could we prevent the smuggling into these mountains of those missiles that could be fired on our cities?

I bring up these problems because they’re not theoretical problems. They’re very real. And for Israelis, they’re life-and- death matters. All these potential cracks in Israel’s security have to be sealed in a peace agreement before a Palestinian state is declared, not afterwards, because if you leave it afterwards, they won’t be sealed. And these problems will explode in our face and explode the peace.

The Palestinians should first make peace with Israel and then get their state. But I also want to tell you this. After such a peace agreement is signed, Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. We will be the first. 

And there’s one more thing. Hamas has been violating international law by holding our soldier Gilad Shalit captive for five years.

They haven’t given even one Red Cross visit. He’s held in a dungeon, in darkness, against all international norms. Gilad Shalit is the son of Aviva and Noam Shalit. He is the grandson of Zvi Shalit, who escaped the Holocaust by coming to the—in the 1930s as a boy to the land of Israel. Gilad Shalit is the son of every Israeli family. Every nation represented here should demand his immediate release.  If you want to—if you want to pass a resolution about the Middle East today, that’s the resolution you should pass. 

Ladies and gentlemen, last year in Israel in Bar-Ilan University, this year in the Knesset and in the U.S. Congress, I laid out my vision for peace in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state. Yes, the Jewish state. After all, this is the body that recognized the Jewish state 64 years ago. Now, don’t you think it’s about time that Palestinians did the same?

The Jewish state of Israel will always protect the rights of all its minorities, including the more than 1 million Arab citizens of Israel. I wish I could say the same thing about a future Palestinian state, for as Palestinian officials made clear the other day—in fact, I think they made it right here in New York—they said the Palestinian state won’t allow any Jews in it. They’ll be Jew-free—Judenrein. That’s ethnic cleansing. There are laws today in Ramallah that make the selling of land to Jews punishable by death. That’s racism. And you know which laws this evokes.

Israel has no intention whatsoever to change the democratic character of our state. We just don’t want the Palestinians to try to change the Jewish character of our state. We want to give up—we want them to give up the fantasy of flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians.

President Abbas just stood here, and he said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that’s odd. Our conflict has been raging for—was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the—I guess that the settlements he’s talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be’er Sheva. Maybe that’s what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn’t say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict. 

The settlements have to be—it’s an issue that has to be addressed and resolved in the course of negotiations. But the core of the conflict has always been and unfortunately remains the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state in any border.

I think it’s time that the Palestinian leadership recognizes what every serious international leader has recognized, from Lord Balfour and Lloyd George in 1917, to President Truman in 1948, to President Obama just two days ago right here: Israel is the Jewish state. 

President Abbas, stop walking around this issue. Recognize the Jewish state, and make peace with us. In such a genuine peace, Israel is prepared to make painful compromises. We believe that the Palestinians should be neither the citizens of Israel nor its subjects. They should live in a free state of their own. But they should be ready, like us, for compromise. And we will know that they’re ready for compromise and for peace when they start taking Israel’s security requirements seriously and when they stop denying our historical connection to our ancient homeland.

I often hear them accuse Israel of Judaizing Jerusalem. That’s like accusing America of Americanizing Washington, or the British of Anglicizing London. You know why we’re called “Jews”? Because we come from Judea.

In my office in Jerusalem, there’s a—there’s an ancient seal. It’s a signet ring of a Jewish official from the time of the Bible. The seal was found right next to the Western Wall, and it dates back 2,700 years, to the time of King Hezekiah. Now, there’s a name of the Jewish official inscribed on the ring in Hebrew. His name was Netanyahu. That’s my last name. My first name, Benjamin, dates back a thousand years earlier to Benjamin—Binyamin—the son of Jacob, who was also known as Israel. Jacob and his 12 sons roamed these same hills of Judea and Sumeria 4,000 years ago, and there’s been a continuous Jewish presence in the land ever since.

And for those Jews who were exiled from our land, they never stopped dreaming of coming back: Jews in Spain, on the eve of their expulsion; Jews in the Ukraine, fleeing the pogroms; Jews fighting the Warsaw Ghetto, as the Nazis were circling around it. They never stopped praying, they never stopped yearning. They whispered: Next year in Jerusalem. Next year in the promised land. 

As the prime minister of Israel, I speak for a hundred generations of Jews who were dispersed throughout the lands, who suffered every evil under the Sun, but who never gave up hope of restoring their national life in the one and only Jewish state.

Ladies and gentlemen, I continue to hope that President Abbas will be my partner in peace. I’ve worked hard to advance that peace. The day I came into office, I called for direct negotiations without preconditions. President Abbas didn’t respond. I outlined a vision of peace of two states for two peoples. He still didn’t respond. I removed hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints, to ease freedom of movement in the Palestinian areas; this facilitated a fantastic growth in the Palestinian economy. But again—no response. I took the unprecedented step of freezing new buildings in the settlements for 10 months. No prime minister did that before, ever. Once again—you applaud, but there was no response. No response.

In the last few weeks, American officials have put forward ideas to restart peace talks. There were things in those ideas about borders that I didn’t like. There were things there about the Jewish state that I’m sure the Palestinians didn’t like.

But with all my reservations, I was willing to move forward on these American ideas.

President Abbas, why don’t you join me? We have to stop negotiating about the negotiations. Let’s just get on with it. Let’s negotiate peace. 

I spent years defending Israel on the battlefield. I spent decades defending Israel in the court of public opinion. President Abbas, you’ve dedicated your life to advancing the Palestinian cause. Must this conflict continue for generations, or will we enable our children and our grandchildren to speak in years ahead of how we found a way to end it? That’s what we should aim for, and that’s what I believe we can achieve.

In two and a half years, we met in Jerusalem only once, even though my door has always been open to you. If you wish, I’ll come to Ramallah. Actually, I have a better suggestion. We’ve both just flown thousands of miles to New York. Now we’re in the same city. We’re in the same building. So let’s meet here today in the United Nations.  Who’s there to stop us? What is there to stop us? If we genuinely want peace, what is there to stop us from meeting today and beginning peace negotiations?

And I suggest we talk openly and honestly. Let’s listen to one another. Let’s do as we say in the Middle East: Let’s talk “doogli”(ph). That means straightforward. I’ll tell you my needs and concerns. You’ll tell me yours. And with God’s help, we’ll find the common ground of peace. 

There’s an old Arab saying that you cannot applaud with one hand. Well, the same is true of peace. I cannot make peace alone. I cannot make peace without you. President Abbas, I extend my hand—the hand of Israel—in peace. I hope that you will grasp that hand. We are both the sons of Abraham. My people call him Avraham. Your people call him Ibrahim. We share the same patriarch. We dwell in the same land. Our destinies are intertwined. Let us realize the vision of Isaiah—(speaks in Hebrew)—“The people who walk in darkness will see a great light.” Let that light be the light of peace.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 34 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

34 comments

Thanks for posting the speech. I liked it better reading it than listening to it. I did like the fact that he criticized the UN in a speech at the UN. I would have liked to have seen the faces of those delegates who were in attendance.

- arnon

September 24, 2011 at 12:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And that’s why we need to have real security arrangements, which the Palestinians simply refuse to negotiate with us." Obscured, as ever, is that Israel refuses to negotiate with Palestine the return to Palestine of territory illegally settled by Israel, territory given to the Arabs by the UN partition. Also ignored is that Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians, who have recognized Israel, must now recognize Israel as "the Jewish state," something that does not exist in diplomatic practice. What does that then mean? Michael Oren explained in the NYT. It means that Palestine must first surrender, in advance of negotiations, in exchange for nothing, one of its core demands, a right of return for Palestinians to west of the Green Line, a matter that is supposed to be settled in negotiations. All of this we and the world are to ignore as Netanyahu carries on about negotiations Netanyahu is a liar in a house of lies. One of the boys. His entire career consists of avoiding negotiations and advancing illegal settlement while attempting as best he can, as he does here, to lay blame at the feet of the Palestinians. Does this serve the future of Israel, its security, its well-being? Is this the path to the peace that Netanyahu claims he wants?

- roidubouloi

September 24, 2011 at 8:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

of course that speech was an absolute waste of time. And I sure as hell don't believe his intentions, sure Israel wants peace...on their terms. Who wouldn't? The Palestinians also want peace...on their terms. Since neither side will ever give in on their core demands the talks that Netanyahu wants are just for show. I think Israel can impose peace, and give a just settlement that will satisfy most reasonable people. Tear down the settlements in the West Bank, unilaterally impose the borders along the line that Barak suggested and build a huge wall, if the Palestinians lob rockets militarily (but just militarily) occupy the territory. I could then give a rats ass if Palestinians make their lives miserable, they would only have themselves to blame. And frankly I want America as far away from the peace talks as possible. Both sides are spitting in our faces, for Americans not to be spit at by Israelis Obama has to be 100% for Likud and Netanyahu. Now America has no standing with the Palestinians anymore. At this point I think that is fine since this means this farce of peace talks will be over. Netanyahu seems intent on destroying Israel as a true Democratic state since he has to know that continuing settlement expansion means they will never be dismantled or allowed to be part of an independent Palestine, which means there will never be an independent Palestine, which means Israel will officially become an apartheid state (which, I hate to say, would still be better than Syria or most of the other Middle Eastern countries). I see no reason why the US has to be part of this farce. Real Politik will make Israel an ally, but it will no longer be a friend. Why didn't Marty post Olmerts editorial from the NYTimes, which had a far, far greater ring of truth to it. The guy might have been corrupt but his vision was the only one that could work.

- blackton

September 24, 2011 at 1:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Israel refuses to negotiate with Palestine the return to Palestine of territory illegally settled by Israel" Other than Jordan's conquest of that territory, what makes it "belong" to the Palestinians? "must now recognize Israel as 'the Jewish state,' something that does not exist in diplomatic practice" There's something fundamental in recognizing a "Jewish state" that apparently doesn't register with you, recognizing that Jews are entitled to have a state, that they are not divinely intended to be an abased people subject to the whims of whoever surrounds them, specifically the Muslims within the Middle East, as dictated by the Pact of Umar. "It means that Palestine must first surrender, in advance of negotiations, in exchange for nothing, one of its core demands, a right of return for Palestinians to west of the Green Line" You mean Israel is not entitled to say that its survival is non-negotiable.

- sighthnd

September 24, 2011 at 11:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It belongs to the Palestinians because the same UN partition plan that is the legal basis for the statehood of Israel gave it to them. It cannot be incorporated into Israel under outstanding UN resolutions, nor would Israel do so if it meant giving the Palestinians Israeli citizenship, and it cannot be settled as long as it is occupied territory, which it is. The Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, says so. The Palestinians recognized Israel at Oslo. Any time the question has come up, Abbas has reiterated that the Palestinians have already recognized Israel and accepted publicly its right to live in peace and security. They have not conceded the claims of Palestinian refugees, a matter which Oslo consigned to the final settlement. The formula of "recognize Israel as a Jewish state" is but one other means by which Netanyahu dishonestly tries to sabotage negotiations while doing what he can to deflect blame to the Palestinians. Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the US, explained on the Op-Ed page of the NYT, that what "recognize Israel as the Jewish state" actually means is that the Palestinians must abandon their claims on behalf of refugees. Israel can negotiate about the Palestinian right of return, but it cannot expect the Palestinians to abandon their claims west of the Green Line in exchange for nothing. Nor can it expect to declare this non-negotiable after agreeing at Oslo that it is negotiable, to be resolved as part of the final settlement. This all just a part of Netanyahu's endless dishonesty and bad faith. He belongs in the house of lies where he used to sit because he is a liar in exactly the mode of diplomats.

- roidubouloi

September 25, 2011 at 1:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Israel ... cannot expect the Palestinians to abandon their claims west of the Green Line in exchange for nothing. " The question is, what you mean by nothing. In exchange for recognition and relegating RoR to the attic Palestine will be getting territory, quiet borders, a good neighbour that will be open to Palestinian workers, whose universities will be open to Palestinian students who wish to get a first class education at a fraction of the price of what it now costs them when they seek it abroad, whose good economic standing and experience can provide them with extremely useful guidance and assistance reach a first world economy, and much more. The question remains: compared with these goods, what will RoR provide the Palestinians with, except the satisfaction of seeing Israel destroyed? As for your much vaunted solution, here is what I think will happen: For every settler a Palestinian "refugee" will be allowed to enter Israel and in no time and at the first available opportunity 5 Israelis from the thriving and very populated center will pack their bags and leave Israel. Your solution will only accelerate the demise of Israel as a democratic and prosperous Jewish state.

- noga1

September 25, 2011 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The numbers can be limited to what Israel will accept. If that number is zero, then the illegal settlements must go, zero. Netanyahu demands that the Palestinians abandon their claimed RoR in advance of final settlement, that is,, in exchande for nothing. The territory is theirs already, given to them by the UN. It is not Israel's to give. Nor ultimately is international recognition, as we shall see by and by. Vis Palestine, israel is entitled to security in it's state. Nothing more. If it wants more, legitimation of it's settlements, it must give in exchnge. Palestinian refugee claims have legal stature. If Israel wants them extinguished, it must give in exchange. Giving means the offer of something the other side wants and cannot otherwise have. That is why Israel won't negotiate.

- roidubouloi

September 25, 2011 at 12:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"then the illegal settlements must go, zero." Since Jerusalem is included in their definition of settlements I cannot see how your formula will work. "It is not Israel's to give." You could say that Sinai desert was not Israel's to give, too. But since Israel controlled it, it was hers to give, for the right price.

- noga1

September 25, 2011 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What noga says. Israel is hated by Muslims not because it oppresses Arabs, but because it is a prosperous, modern democratic state where Arabs have more freedom and a higher standard of living than in any Arab country. Seeing this, Muslims are ashamed of the poverty, tyranny, and stagnation that characterize their own countries. Out of envy and spite they want to destroy what they are incapable of creating. That any educated American or European would advocate replacing Israel with what would likely be an Islamofascist snakepit is just sick.

- bulbman1066

September 25, 2011 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is Israel's to give, unless it isn't. And it won't be forever. That's the entire reason why Netanyahu's intransigence and game-playing will ultimately prove very costly for Israel. The Palestinians have only to keep playing their cards right and Israel will be forced out of the West Bank. Could be another 10 years. Could be another 20. It will happen. It might happen just around the time that oil price really start to rocket and the Saudi's make clear that they can inflict almost unlimited pain on the West by relatively modest cuts in their supply of oil. Israel is a tiny country with pretensions that it is a super-power, delusions that it can maintain only because an actual super-power, the United States, has lent its shoulder to those pretensions. Until it won't because the price gets too high. Israel ended its occupation of the Sinai for exactly what it was entitled to, a peace treaty with acceptable security arrangements. The intractability of the Palestinian problem is that Israel will not accept what it is entitled to, security for the State of Israel, but insists on gaining title to land that it has illegally settled as part of the bargain while offering nothing other than the statehood to which the Palestinians are in any case entitled and will achieve without Israeli consent. Hence, it is fair to conclude that Israel does not want peace. It wants land. Or it wants land a lot more than it wants peace. All Netanyahu's mewling about peace is just the lies of a diplomat. That is why Israel will not negotiate. It can negotiate peace, but experience has shown that it cannot successfully negotiate the theft of Palestinian land. Netanyahu's entire game is therefore to try to be provocative enough at all times to prevent negotiations while trying not to be so provocative that Israel must squarely bear the blame. Beginning and end. Regarding the earlier comment, are we really to understand that if Israel agreed to accept, say, 300,000 Palestinian returnees in exchange for Palestinian acceptance of 300,000 Israeli settlers as permanent residents of Palestine that this would the demographic end of Israel? If so, the future is quite bleak with or without peace. As to Jerusalem, while "they" may define residents of Jerusalem as settlers, that no more determines the outcome of negotiations than does the ranting of Israelis about how the obvious and inevitable outcome is that Israel will obtain the settlement bloc in exchange for bits of desert that no one want. The matter of Jerusalem is to be negotiated. In exchange for conceding a Palestinian East Jerusalem, Israel can negotiate to hold the curtilage that it has annexed to the east. Just as Israel cannot expect to get something for nothing, so too the Palestinians cannot expect to get something for nothing.

- roidubouloi

September 25, 2011 at 2:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What noga says." I would like to see exactly where I said it. Do explain to me how what I said about the benefits of peace with Israel for the Palestinians translates into that sarcastic and stupid rant. I do agree with you that prosperity, normalcy, freedom, and peace are not high on the Arabs' list. Consider the following from Prof. AbuKhalil: "We hate Israel (while disliking Amr Moussa and Husni Mubarak). We hate it immensely. No shame in admitting to that. Political spite is not only justified; it fuels fundamental change. Would the apartheid regime in South Africa have collapsed had Blacks not abhorred it? Zionist propaganda not only wants to crush armed resistance, but it depicts our hatred of it as a kind of racism per se, because racism is reserved for the white man (and the Israeli – the latter strives to model himself after the white man, ignoring Israel’s non-European population). The storming of the embassy was a television and internet moment. Every calamity that befalls the enemy is an opportunity for us to celebrate as we await the greatest celebration, when the usurping entity falls. Who didn’t rejoice at the sight of the lowering of the flag, and the competition among the Egyptian uprising’s youth to climb the building? Who didn’t notice that the enemy’s building insisted on opening in a residential building (without the residents’ knowledge or input, of course, but this was decided by the Sadat-Mubarak regime) in order to use the residents as human shields? The enemy’s embassy used the building’s residents as human shields, to guarantee it would never experience an explosion or a fire. The Egyptian government should’ve required the Israeli embassy to move elsewhere, where it would be accessible to protesters. The enemy’s embassy wants to enjoy the government’s protection and that of civilians, who are forced to bear the burden of sharing space with the enemy’s outpost in Egypt. Jubilation and congratulations about the storming of the embassy spread on Facebook and Twitter. It might be a watershed moment in the Egyptian uprising’s history. We may say “after the storming of the embassy, not before.” This has destroyed the Zionists’ dreams of peaceful coexistence with the Egyptian uprising’s outcome."

- noga1

September 25, 2011 at 2:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It belongs to the Palestinians because the same UN partition plan that is the legal basis for the statehood of Israel gave it to them." The Palestinians forfeited that basis of their right when they launched a war of annihilation. "Netanyahu demands that the Palestinians abandon their claimed RoR in advance of final settlement, that is,, in exchande for nothing." Netanyahu demands that Israel be allowed to continue to exist. That might be an excessive demand to you roid. If so, please be honest about your beliefs: "Israel has no right to exist unless Abbas consents." That is what the right of return is about. That is why recognition of Israel as Jewish state means no right of return. If Abbas' intent is not Israel's destruction, then why does all internal Palestinian communication describe the whole of Israel as being part of Palestine. Jewish settlement in Palestine, or carving out Jewish enclaves from Palestine, is not an existential issue for Palestine. There is no moral equivalence between an existential issue and a non-existential issue.

- sighthnd

September 25, 2011 at 4:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The fundamental goal of Israel's enemies in the region is to bring about a second Holocaust. Two things are necessary to prevent this. One is unchallengeable military superiority on the part of Israel. The other is the unwavering support of the United States for Israel's right to exist as a majority Jewish state.

- bulbman1066

September 25, 2011 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid: If your basis for the land belonging to the Palestinians is the UN Partition plan, on what basis do you say Jerusalem belongs to them? The Partition plan designated Jerusalem as an international city, which the Arab world did not seem to respect where and when they had control.

- sighthnd

September 25, 2011 at 4:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bulbman: "Israel is hated by Muslims not because it oppresses Arabs, but because it is a prosperous, modern democratic state where Arabs have more freedom and a higher standard of living than in any Arab country." Not quite. The Muslims hate Israel because she is part of Dar al Islam occupied by infidels. The sentiment is expressed in a rhyme from back in the 1920's, "Filastin bladna w'al yahud clabna," Palestine is our land and the Jew is our dog. In other words, what they really hate is that the Jews have arrogated to themselves a status that is higher than that of dogs. There will never be peace until enough Arabs are broken of the notion that the Jews do not deserve a status that is higher than that of dogs.

- sighthnd

September 25, 2011 at 4:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a mess. I was answering with roi in mind for something bulb said. Sorry. Ignore this: "I would like to see exactly where I said it. Do explain to me how what I said about the benefits of peace with Israel for the Palestinians translates into that sarcastic and stupid rant.". (That's what happens when you read something while trying to blot out the shrieks and chatting of two little girls working on a project right next to you.)

- noga1

September 25, 2011 at 4:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When you say that Israel has to come to accommodations with Abbas, there's something you should consider about Abbas' real motives. The journalist Pierre Rehov (http://www.seconddraft.org/index.php?Itemid=159&catid=58:according-to-palestinians-sources&id=522:pallywood-qaccording-to-palestinian-sourcesq&option=com_content&view=article, second comment) went to the Palestinian territories to film the Palestinian media operations. The reality is captured in this line: "In one, a Palestinian refugee is saying 'We want to destroy Israel,' and someone else tells him, 'No, you can't say that on camera. The West needs to think we just want our own state...' " That summarizes Abbas' aims. He wants to bring about the end of Israel by means which seem to the West that he is only trying to build a state for himself. Why should Israel cooperate with him? What's really needed is to give up on the PA and work with local level Palestinian leaders who have demonstrated that they do not seek an end to Israel. Building them up to a national entity would be difficult. But unlike convincing Abbas to recognize the right of Jews to be self-determining in the Middle East, it would not be a fool's errand.

- sighthnd

September 25, 2011 at 5:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I never said Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians, sighthnd. I pointed out to K2K somewhere here not very long ago that it was not part of the Arab partition or the Jewish partition. It therefore makes some sense if Israel is going to claim Jerusalem without regard to its internationalization by the UN to allow the Arabs to do the same, if that is a means can be found to do so in both a secure and demographically stable way. I think that is possible if East Jerusalem is an enclave within Israel so that it is nominally under Arab sovereignty but effectively under Israeli control.

- roidubouloi

September 25, 2011 at 5:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are talking to yourself, sighthnd. The Arab claim to the Arab partition vanished in 1948? Why, ecause you said so? Not according to the United Nations, the source of both claims. See UNSC resolution 242. I have never said that Israel must concede the right of Palestinian return, only that it cannot expect the Palestinians to concede their legal claims in exchange for nothing. Israel has the option of making peace and allowing the Palestinians to pursue their legal claims by non-violent means. Israel won't do that. Moreover, it is bad faith on the part of Israel to insist on the prior concession of a core Palestinian claim in advance of the final settlement. Netanyahu so insists because he has no interest in peace, only in claiming to have an interest in peace. He is just as bad as Abbas with much less of an excuse. Colonization has been an existential issue for every people subjected to it. No point in pretending otherwise, unless one thinks that delusions are the path to peace of security. "If Abbas' intent is not Israel's destruction, then why does all internal Palestinian communication describe the whole of Israel as being part of Palestine." The Arabs have accepted the principle of peace on the basis of the Green Line. Only Israel refuses to accept peace on this basis. As to Arab intentions, perhaps Ben Gurion explained it best: "The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan: one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today, but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." Speech in 1937, accepting a British proposal for partition of Palestine which created a potential Jewish majority state, as quoted in New Outlook (April 1977) It seems that Ben Gurion also liked to nod to greater Jewish aspirations in Palestine even while accepting in the present much less than the whole.

- roidubouloi

September 25, 2011 at 5:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes roid you made that point to me in a different thread. BFD. In March 2010, Obama should have renewed the call for Jerusalem to be internationalized by the UN instead of manufacturing a public diplomatic rift with Israel over proposed new apartments in the NORTH Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo - a public rift which you supported Obama on in endless, countless threads for at least a year. I was giving some thought to international Jerusalem today, after BiBi debated David Gregory (URL at end) on MeetthePress before becoming horror-stricken by Fareed Z's free CNN broadcast of Erdogan's lies. Tom Clancy had a sub-plot in one of his Jack Ryan novels where the Swiss took over policing of an international Jerusalem. Today, I decided the Swiss are too smart to do that, so I drifted off to a very long nap wondering whether the Gurkhas are available to police an international Jerusalem. The world is running out of trustworthy, neutral, highly effective soldiers. I think this is the link to Netanyahu on MTP, where he gets to question Abbas' denial of any Jewish historical connection to Jerusalem: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/44660796#44660796

- K2K

September 25, 2011 at 7:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agreed with Obama, and still do, that a complete cessation of construction in contested territory would be either a successful prelude to negotiations or a demonstration that no negotiations with the Palestinians are actually possible. I think Netanyahu was stupid in the extreme not to have used the request of the American president as a basis for doing what would otherwise have been politically impossible. He could have declared openly that, while not conceding anything, he believed it important in the interests of peace to give American diplomacy every opportunity to succeed. He would have won in every direction, the friendship and cooperation of the White House, demonstration to the world of his good faith, possibly even genuine negotiations, and on and on. The only interests with which he would have lost ground would have been with the religious Jewish wackos who, in my opinion, are every bit as offensive in their moral hubris and pretensions to know the mind of God as the religious wackos of every other faith and of course with the proto-fascist Israeli right. They are all a plague in whatever country they are found. Netanyahu, stupidly, missed a wonderful opportunity. But what could he do? He is just that stupid.

- roidubouloi

September 25, 2011 at 8:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where has Israel of late insisted that recognition of it as a Jewish state is a precondition to negotiations. See for example: http://beyondthecusp.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/palestinian-vs-israeli-pre-conditions-for-peace/ where the blogger writes on September 21, 2011 ...The Israeli wish list is fairly less complicated. Should both sides agree to meet and negotiate free of preconditions, Israel claims they will agree to do so. It is unknown if this would actually occur as the Palestinians have insisted on non-precondition guarantees every time without fail...

- basman

September 26, 2011 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Reading this speech is just as bad as listening to it was. Israel is not offering to participate in a peace process with the Palestinians. Rather, they are taking steps every day to make a peace settlement, and a settlement the world wants, all but totally impossible. The settlements are the key to everything, and Netanyahu did not budge one inch on that issue. So why should Abbas agree to negotiate when he has already lost? As for your new friend Obama, he is entirely wrong to interfere with letting the world, not rich (and loud) American Jews and Rapturous right-wing lunatics, decide what should happen to the land of Israel and Palestine. Among many other things, he is undercutting Abbas,who while not perfect (who is in this mess?), is the best hope anyone has at the moment of keeping things under control, let alone achieving a lasting peace. Once he is gone, there will be no one to contain Hamas and the Palestinian masses. I may have forgotten, but does TNR have anyone writing about Israel and Palestine who is not insanely biased?

- mlottman

September 26, 2011 at 4:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You stopped quoting a bit too soon, basman: "The Israeli wish list is fairly less complicated. Should both sides agree to meet and negotiate free of preconditions, Israel claims they will agree to do so. It is unknown if this would actually occur as the Palestinians have insisted on non-precondition guarantees every time without fail. Israel usually makes one main precondition when such occurs, and that is for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as being the Jewish State." In other words, Israel relies on the Arabs not to come to the table. Whenever it looks like they will, Netanyahu reiterates his provocative pre-condition, explained by Oren as the demand that the Palestinians concede their claimed right of return in advance. To keep the pot boiling, Netanyahu keeps building in the West Bank in violation of Oslo. Israel wants peace? What a sham. It wants nothing of the kind.

- roidubouloi

September 26, 2011 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Colonization has been an existential issue for every people subjected to it. No point in pretending otherwise, unless one thinks that delusions are the path to peace of security. " Stop with the sophistry roid! Losing a corner of your territory is NOT an existential issue. The settlements surrounding Nablus and filling every line of communications between Palestinian cities are an existential issue. Southwest Samaria, Etzion, suburban Jerusalem, even the Ariel corridor (just so long as such corridors do not multiply) are not existential issues for the Palestinians. If Palestine loses all of those with no compensation, Palestine would face no barrier to viability as a state. The cannot be said for Israel as a Jewish state if millions of "refugees" are allowed to flood in under the right of return. "The Arabs have accepted the principle of peace on the basis of the Green Line." They have mouthed acceptance to western audiences left and right. Name one single time they have done so where western audiences were nowhere around. They know that western audiences will turn on them if they present an image that they want to eliminate Israel. They even state that their public image of living side be side with Israel is for western consumption when on Al Jazeera and similar networks.

- sighthnd

September 26, 2011 at 6:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If it is so trivial to lose "corners" of territory, why won't Israel give up the settlements that are not even it's territory? The Arabs have accepted the principle of peace on the 1949 armistice lines that are less than the Arab partition. Still not enough for Israel which will not accept this principle and considers it's mere mention a horrible betrayal. The settlements don't serve Israel's security, they complicate it. Yet Israel wants to compromise its security to keep them. Territory must be trivial indeed. Would Israel return to most of the partition lines, giving up a few corners of its territory in exchange for complete military control of the Jordan Valley because that is existential and otherwise not? You are kidding yourself, sighthnd. Territory is only a small matter when Israel wants to get it. Big matter if Israel must give it up, even if the territory involved does not belong to it.

- roidubouloi

September 26, 2011 at 8:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And how would a demilitarized Palestine, signatory to a final settlement, with Israel in military control of the Jordan go about eliminating Israel even if it wanted to? It would have neither the means nor even the pretext.

- roidubouloi

September 26, 2011 at 8:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are you trying to claim sighthnd that if Israel gives up the settlements its existence would be threatened? I hope not. That would be really ridiculous.

- roidubouloi

September 26, 2011 at 8:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not so sure roidubouloi as I read the quote. By it, Israel pulls out a precondition in response to Palestinian precondition guarantee demands. What is not known, according to this blogger, is if Israel will live up to its position of no preconditions if Palestinians drop theirs. It sounds rich to me to suggest that Israel relies on Palestinian scuttling. How would anyone know that? That sounds as if Israel is to blame for Palestinian intransigence. Israel's position is no preconditions, it seems. The Palestinian position scuppers things, at least as outlined in the blog post. But the larger point is that it is received wisdom that Israeli pre-demands, such as being recognized as a Jewish, state obstruct talks getting going. But from my brief jaunt through the web, fwiiw, I find no evidence of that as a recent matter. p.s. What's up with your doctoral studies?

- basman

September 26, 2011 at 10:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Still at it, basman. I have almost 3/4 of the credits, which gets you the masters degree, once I pass a rather demanding qualifying exam. To that end, I am working on math. Then it is some fairly undemanding seminar credits and a dissertation. I may have to start another doctorate when I am done for lack of anything better to do, unless that is I can actually stomach trying to use what I have learned in the public policy arena. We are surrounded by so much sheer craziness at the moment that it is very hard not to be deeply pessimistic. My sister is visiting at the moment because my mother is recovering from surgery. In the course of chatting with her this morning about her experience of the overall rightward shift in Israel (she was describing how the previously more "liberal" Sephardim have been adopting the customs of the Ashkenazim regarding separation of sexes), I said to her, and myself, that I think the deep reason why the left is struggling is that people all along the spectrum understand leftwing politics to be essentially rational in its intellectual disposition. The left can of course be profoundly mistaken, but the expectation is that the left is about achieving results. If, therefore, results are not achieved, including if not achieved immediately, the left is then discredited. It is expected to perform. The right on the other hand is essentially a form of religious belief, an attitude and disposition toward the world. If the attempt to implement those ideas in policy fails, it is not taken as a sign of failure, only of inadequate faith and zeal. Freed from the necessity of achieving positive outcomes in the real world, the right is almost impossible to discredit. It can be briefly, as with Bush, but only briefly. This, I think, is the heart of our dilemma. The right does not need any sort of rational solutions that might actually work, nor is it held to account for doing things that objectively have produced disaster. It is a faith, a latter-day religion, as impervious to refutation as the virgin birth. Makes it hard to know what to do. Shanah tovah, basman, to you and family. May you be written for a very good and sweet year.

- roidubouloi

September 27, 2011 at 9:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shanah tovah Roi and a fervent reciprocal wish for you and yours.

- basman

September 27, 2011 at 10:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, I trust your mother is doing well. I’m not sure whether an intellectual // faith based divide is adequate to align right against left in America or in Israel. While it of course self evidently aligns the religious against the secular, I’d think there are plenty enough of both each side of the political divide to render the primacy of that distinction questionable. For example consider the political alliance between Lieberman’sYisrael Beiteinu and Shas. As well, there can be different rational perspectives on how to approach Israeli Palestinian issues but that will track right left politics relatively irrespective of faith. Clearly, though, faith abounds on the right sufficiently such that it’s a hallmark and secularity is so on the left It’s sometimes said that a liberal democratic national polity reflects the tensions between roots and rights. Without some sense of a binding national myth, roots, nations lack glue but without rights that must in some instances traduce roots, nations lack equality and freedom. Clearly (to me anyway) the left tends rightsward and the right rootsward. But, in all, my sense is that insofar as people get the government they deserve, Israeli politics reflects a consensus, fractious to be sure, it’s Israel after all, based on years of experience trying to make peace with the Palestinians: that is to say, in an overarching way, not so much more and not so much less than that. So for myself, I wouldn’t characterize “the heart of our dilemma” as you thoughtfully have done. I’d put it, at this meta level, for all the disturbing tendencies in Israeli politics very much worth worrying about, as a function of steadfast Arab intransigence, ranging from the pragmatic to the fanatical, Israel, who has wanted to make peace and that has tried assiduously over the years to do so, to despair, internal turmoil and perplexed confusion evident in her roiling politics and in the increasing encroachment on her centre, which, perhaps, finally, cannot hold. I take a different view of the Republican right in America. There I think your meta analysis holds more strongly. For republican Americans there is no Palestinian analogue. Irrational faith, even amomg the secular, resides at the bottom their social and economic prescriptions as, for four example, in supply side economics, the incantations of the need for lower taxes and no tax increases, the blind jettisoning of regulations and the mantra of limited government.

- basman

September 27, 2011 at 2:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Second last paragraph, third last line: ...leading Israel...

- basman

September 27, 2011 at 2:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have to think about that. I will allow that there is far more objective reason for the Israeli right to believe what it believes than for the American right to believe what it believes. There couldn't possibly be less. My mother is doing fine, thanks. Being moved from the hospital to rehab today.

- roidubouloi

September 27, 2011 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close