PLANK NOVEMBER 26, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The ceasefire struck last week between Israel and Hamas after eight days of conflict seems to be holding. But that’s not to suggest that the time for diplomacy is over. To the contrary, it’s precisely now that the United States needs to survey the new landscape that has emerged in the Middle East, and determine how it can shape it going forward.
The place to start is with the most obvious question of all: who won and who lost? In this particular case, there is an irony: Israel, Hamas, and Egypt all gained something.
Israel’s declared goal was to re-establish its deterrent. In fact, Israel sought to prevent Hamas from defining a new normal—where Israel would tolerate periodic rocket attacks into the south, with the lulls between attacks shorter and shorter, life for a million Israelis frequently disrupted, and the IDF unable to preserve a buffer along the border. In the weeks leading up to the conflict, Hamas did less and less to prevent Jihadi groups from firing rockets into Israel and also began to conduct its own attacks against the IDF on the Israeli side of border. Three Hamas attacks, in particular, set off the Israeli alarm bells: an IED attack, a tunnel dug under the fence and packed with explosives and ignited, and an anti-tank missile attack on an Israeli jeep. It was as if Hamas’ leaders thought the new Egypt, Israel’s concerns about not threatening its relationship with its post-Mubarak neighbor, and Israel’s election preoccupation, all combined to allow Hamas to establish a new baseline for attacks against Israel and have it tolerated.
So Israel felt it must act and prove to Hamas that it had crossed a line and would pay for that. Unquestionably, Hamas miscalculated and Israel caught it by surprise, and, in so doing, was able to eliminate Ahmed Jaberi. Killing Jaberi, the architect of Hamas military buildup and the mastermind of attacks against Israelis, was certain to trigger a barrage of rockets in retaliation for some period of time—and the Israelis knew that. But the Israelis hoped to temper that with their threat of a ground invasion of Gaza and the ability to use Iron Dome to minimize the costs to Israel. Israel also believed that its mobilization of ground forces would give Egypt a reason to persuade Hamas to stop, recognizing that the last thing Egypt needs now is an extended Israeli military operation in Gaza that could divert Egypt from addressing its failing economy.
Did Israel calculate correctly? In a general sense, it did. There is a good chance the calm that has been restored will last for at least the next several months and perhaps longer. Hamas knows that Israel means what it says about a red-line and Egypt does as well—and Egypt having brokered the ceasefire deal has a strong stake in it not breaking down any time soon. So Israel’s achievement is that it has both restored its deterrent and destroyed an extensive part of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad arsenal. That is the good news.
The bad news is that arsenal in Gaza will be rebuilt. True, Prime Minister Netanyahu garnered a commitment from the Obama Administration to do what it can to stop the smuggling of the arms. Washington’s efforts will hinder and slow the rearmament—but Iran, Islamic Jihad and Hamas will be determined to rebuild the arsenal in Gaza and are likely to succeed over time. The key remains what Egypt can and will do to gain control over the Sinai and disrupt this supply of arms into Gaza. Mubarak’s Egypt did little to deal with it. It’s not clear whether Morsi will do more.
Thus, the Israeli achievement is real but inevitably limited—and, of course, part of the reason it is limited is because Hamas has also gained as a result of the conflict. Its gains are both tangible and intangible. Tangibly, the gains will relate to opening the passages and crossings for the movement of goods and peoples into and out of Gaza. The ceasefire understandings may only speak about beginning discussions on “procedures of implementation” to ease the restrictions on such movement. But they build an expectation that such a relaxation will take place, and it is almost certainly a given that the Egyptians have promised Hamas to open up Rafah and dramatically ease their restrictions on movement between Gaza and Egypt. Until now, Egypt has been a partner with Israel in keeping movement into and out of Gaza limited—that is about to end.
But Hamas’ gains are not limited to the crossings and passages. Hamas has gained in the region and internationally in political stature and weight. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to Ramallah on her trip to try to make the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, relevant and bring him into the picture. No one had any illusions that he had a role to play in what was going on in Gaza. Hamas is far more of an address now, and, at least for the time-being, its popularity among Palestinians is high.
The celebratory outburst in Gaza over the ceasefire reminds us, however, that Hamas for its own reasons will not want to invite an end to the calm any time soon—because Palestinians in Gaza want the calm and Hamas will not want to undo its achievements. (Egypt will also be pressuring Hamas to maintain the ceasefire.) Hamas will thus face a dilemma as it is forced to impose its will on recalcitrant jihadi groups that are likely to soon challenge its “resistance” credentials and its long-term strategy vis-à-vis Israel?
And, here, we come to Egypt and its gains. President Morsi made Egypt the indispensable player. Egypt suddenly assumed again a central role in the region. It was not President Erdogan of Turkey who played a role—or the Emir of Qatar—both of whom have seemingly vied to become Hamas’ leading patron. It was Egypt—and it was not Mubarak’s Egypt, but Morsi’s. It is noteworthy that in Mubarak’s last years, Egypt seemed increasingly to be a bit player in the region. It was the Saudis who Washington looked to, not the Egyptians, on the issues that mattered most to it in the area. Now, at a time, when its economy is in desperate shape, President Morsi has demonstrated a leadership role.
The reason he was able to do so is Egypt’s releationship with Israel. Notwithstanding the Muslim Brotherhood’s blatant antipathy toward Israel, it was Egypt’s ability to talk to Israel that made it the broker. Morsi proved that even if he won’t refer to Israel by name in public—and even if he had his intelligence channels broker the deal so he would not have to talk to any Israelis—he has a stake in preserving the peace treaty it has with his country. Indeed, he seems to understand well that Egypt cannot get the economic and financial help it needs from the international community if it breaks with Israel.
There are, then, multiple ironies in this conflict and what has emerged from it. All three players in the events of last week gained. The Muslim Brotherhood dominated government in Egypt has gained in stature—and President Morsi has already moved to exploit this internally—but it did so precisely because of Egypt’s relationship with Israel.
Washington needs to build on this. It needs to reinforce Morsi’s understanding that assistance and investment from the outside depend on preserving Egypt’s relationship with Israel and ensuring that calm prevails. It should push on the issue of arms in Sinai, if for no other reason than the threat it may pose to Egypt if the arms there are used by jihadi Islamists to resume conflict with Israel or to threaten Egyptian sovereignty.
The larger question for the United States will relate to whether Egypt’s relationship with Hamas will now be used to push anew for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. In the current context, Hamas would have all the leverage—it is emerging stronger from its conflict with Israel, and Fatah and Abbas are clearly weaker. President Abbas’ new push in New York for a U.N. resolution on recognizing Palestine as a non-member state won’t have much significance for most Palestinians, but it will trigger Israel’s impulse to punish the Palestinian Authority for such a unilateral move.
Washington, too, will oppose the Abbas move at the U.N. But that’s not enough. In addition to cooperating with Egypt on Israel, the U.S. also needs to work together with Israel in determining whether the future address and identity of the Palestinians will be Islamist or nationalist. After the coming vote on the resolution in New York, will Abbas choose to focus on a legacy of symbolism or is he still willing and able after the Israeli election to try to make peace? Given the stakes, the Obama administration would be wise to work with Israel to test that possibility, even as we both position ourselves to hedge against a Palestinian future that could be shaped more by Islamists than nationalists. Because what’s clear is that Hamas’ interest in preserving calm with Israel does not equate to an interest in making peace.
Ambassador Dennis Ross, counselor at The Washington Institute, previously served as special assistant to President Obama and senior director for the central region at the National Security Council.
19 comments
"The larger question for the United States will relate to whether Egypt’s relationship with Hamas will now be used to push anew for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah." In other words, this latest round of violence against Israel was actually a manifestation of the internal conflict between Hamas and Fatah, the former with the actual power in Gaza and the latter, led by Abbas as president of the Palestinian National Authority, merely a titular head, and with Israel, Egypt, and the US being drawn in to limit the physical and political damage incited by the Fatah extremists. One of the many complexities of this region is the difficulty of defining friends and enemies. With the experience in Iraq, the US should have learned that fundamental lesson, but the neocon interventionists learned nothing from the experience, Ms. Rice's op/ed in the WP this weekend being an embarrassing (for her and her neocon friends) example.
- rayward
November 26, 2012 at 7:32am
Ms. Rice lecturing Obama to pay more attention to the sectarian divisions in the region is laughable. Bush: "Sunni and Shia? What are those?" Rice: "I'll look it up later after the invasion and the glorious victory". Not once in her op/ed does she mention that the Alawites are Shia, something that might be relevant to our Iraqi "friends" and Iranian "enemies".
- rayward
November 26, 2012 at 7:59am
the "New Middle East" is changing daily. Still think everyone with an opinion should at least wait until Wednesday. I half expect the Tampa Twins to reveal their emails with Morsi :)
- K2K
November 26, 2012 at 8:57am
"The place to start is with the most obvious question of all: who won and who lost? In this particular case, there is an irony: Israel, Hamas, and Egypt all gained something." Well, no, that's not the "place to start". Focusing on winning and losing is how the conflict is maintained. The "place to start" is "what is necessary for peace?" And the answer to that question right now is that Hamas wants Israel gone, while Israel wants to keep Jerusalem. You might notice that these are two completely inconsistent goals, there's no way to make a "compromise" solution between them. A "Two-State Solution" seems like a possibility, which Israel is willing to accept, but Hamas has said it will not. That being true, America running in like a local sheriff with both six-guns loaded insisting that "we can fix this thing" is an illusion. It's a dangerous illusion, because insisting the Israeli's (the only ones we really have influence over) make compromises with Hamas for peace (when Hamas doesn't really want peace) simply heats up the situation. It simply tells Hamas they can rocket Israel with impunity, America will blame Israel for it. Reducing this situation to "who won" and "who lost" is just more of this myopic view that ignores the reality on the ground. The violence is stopped, for now. If Hamas uses this pause to re-arm their rocket batteries, there's no progress made toward peace.
- AllanL5
November 26, 2012 at 10:02am
I agree with AllanL5. I would add that Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which is unalterably opposed to Jewish statehood. That point of view in routed in early Islamic teachings and was later augmented by the Brotherhood's collaboration with the Nazis. This conflict can only be managed, not resolved, until such time that Muslims reform their religion and politics. We should seek to contain and reduce their influence, not appease them. Their teachings are a deep affront to our liberal Western values of tolerance and respect for all people irregardless of sex, ethnicity, and religion.
- amidut
November 26, 2012 at 11:30am
Israel needs to make peace with the PA. If the contentious issues of borders, security, settlements, refugees, water, and Jerusalem are all resolved, it is utterly implausible that the Gaza strip will continue to fight a war that is over. If the Palestinians make peace, the rest of the Arab world will have no incentive whatsoever to continue the battle. It will be over. A treaty with the PA need only provide that Gaza can accede to the treaty, as part of a unified Palestinian state or as a separate state, upon the negotiation of satisfactory security arrangements to ensure that there are no further hostilities. The carrot is Israel's agreement with the PA that this will result in a right of passage between Gaza and the West Bank. What will the Gazans do at that point? Continue to fight a completely hopeless war that is already over, remaining under siege while the West Bank becomes a fully functioning state in pursuit of an objective that can never be achieved? To what purpose, even if they believe that the settlement should be undone? And if they remain under siege because they will not make peace, things would still be vastly better than they are today. In a worst case, if violence continues, Israel could seize a strip of Gaza along the Egyptian border and itself put an end to weapons smuggling. Gaza is simply unable to prosecute a war against Israel on its own no matter how much Hamas might wish to do so.
- roidubouloi
November 26, 2012 at 8:17pm
Moshe Feiglin
- K2K
November 26, 2012 at 9:19pm
WIKIPEDIA.....ALAWITES.....SYRIA...BA'ATH PARTY...... Ba'ath party and Hafes al Assad are more secular than Shia/Allawites religious. There you have it the Syrian dilemma and the bad luck of the Sunni Moslem Brotherhood. """After Syrian independence Syria became independent on April 17, 1946. In 1949, following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Syria endured a succession of military coups and the rise of the Ba'ath Party. In 1958, Syria and Egypt were united through a political agreement into the United Arab Republic. The UAR lasted for three years. In 1961, it broke apart when a group of army officers seized power and declared Syria independent anew. A further succession of coups ensued until, in 1963, a secretive military committee, which included a number of disgruntled Alawi officers, including Hafez al-Assad and Salah Jadid, helped the Ba'ath Party seize power. In 1966, Alawi-affiliated military officers successfully rebelled and expelled the old Ba'ath that had looked to the founders of the Ba’ath Party, the Greek Orthodox Christian Michel Aflaq and the Sunni Muslim Salah al-Din al-Bitar, for leadership. They promoted Zaki al-Arsuzi as the "Socrates" of their reconstituted Ba'ath Party. The Assad family In 1970, then an Air Force General, Hafez al-Assad, an Alawite, took power and instigated a "Correctionist Movement" in the Ba'ath Party. The coup of 1970 ended the political instability having lasted since the arrival of independence.[41] Robert D Kaplan compares to/like an untouchable becoming a leader in India or a Jew becoming tsar in Russia—an unprecedented development shocking to the Sunni majority population which had monopolized power for so many centuries."[34] In 1971, al-Assad declared himself president of Syria, a position the constitution at the time allowed only for Sunni Muslims to hold. In 1973, a new constitution was adopted that omitted the old requirement that the religion of the state be Islam and replaced it with the statement that the religion of the republic's president is Islam. Protests erupted when this was known.[42] In 1974, in order to satisfy this constitutional requirement, Musa Sadr, a leader of the Twelvers of Lebanon and founder of the Amal Movement who had earlier sought to unite Lebanese Alawis and Shias under the Supreme Islamic Shiite Council without success,[43] issued a fatwa stating that Alawis were a community of Twelver Shia Muslims.[44][45] Under the authoritarian but secular Assad government, religious minorities were tolerated more than before, but political dissidents were not. ,............................. Syria Traditionally Alawis have lived in the Alawite Mountains along the Mediterranean coast of Syria. Latakia and Tartous are the region's principal cities. Today Alawis are also concentrated in the plains around Hama and Homs. Alawis also live in all major cities of Syria. They have been estimated to constitute about 12% of Syria's population[59][60][61]—2.6 million people of Syria's 22 million population.[2] There are four Alawi confederations—Kalbiyah, Khaiyatin, Haddadin, and Matawirah—each divided into tribes.[23] Alawis are concentrated in the Latakia region of Syria, extending north to Antioch (Antakya), Turkey, and in and around Homs and Hama.[62] Before 1953 they held specifically reserved seats in the Syrian Parliament, like all other religious communities. After that, including for the 1960 census, there were only general Muslim and Christian categories, without mention of subgroups in order to reduce "communalism" (taïfiyya). [edit] """
- JAIMECHUCH
November 26, 2012 at 9:24pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/support-palestinian-statehood.html?hp I don't at all understand why Mr. Ross says Abbas will fail at the UN. Seems to me he will succeed, despite the opposition of the US and Israel. I was curious yesterday about what further political and legal options Palestine might gain if recognized by the General Assembly. It looks to me as though it will be eligible to accede to the Rome Statute that governs the International Criminal Court. As I understand it (from conversation with a close friend who is an ICC prosecutor), even if Israel continues not to accede to the Rome Statute, crimes committed in the territory of Palestine would still be prosecutable in the court if Palestine submits to jurisdiction, something the PA has already sought to do. When the PA attempted to accede to the Rome Statute, the ICC prosecutor essentially said it was for the General Assembly or Security Council to determine whether there existed a Palestinian state that can accede to the statute. This week may well settle that question. I have also previously noted that illegal settlement is not a crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention because not designated as a "grave breach" of the norms set out there. But Protocol I of 1977 does make both transfer of the occupier's population into occupied territory and apartheid into explicit grave breaches and war crimes. Israel had not acceded to Protocol I, but it may not matter jurisdictionally if Palestine does so. It appears that if the General Assembly recognizes Palestine as a non-member state that Palestine can accede to the Geneva Conventions and their Protocols. It may also be possible to accede to the ICJ. There are apparently provisions for non-member (of the UN) states to do so, but I have been unable to find the relevant text. If Palestine successfully accedes to the Rome Statute, it then becomes possible that Israel's leaders may at some point find themselves the subject of arrest warrants issued by the ICC, although there are some knotty jurisdictional questions to be answered between here and there. The fact that the ICJ has issued already an advisory opinion that that finds Israel in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention would certainly bolster the case for the opening of an inquiry. Netanyahu can continue to bluster about the nascent State of Palestine, but he should start losing sleep. What will Europe do if such an arrest warrant is ever issued? Will it not be compelled to start imposing sanctions, even without the blessing of the UNSC and the United States? If Netanyahu has an ounce of brains, he will read the handwriting on the wall, get himself to the negotiating table, and make a deal. Even better, he should step up and recognize Palestine immediately, for the reasons Yossi Beilin, linked above, cites. Not at all clear, however, that Netanyahu does have the brains.
- roidubouloi
November 26, 2012 at 9:32pm
Moshe Feiglin? Interesting juxtaposition with Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Feiglin "Of Israeli Arabs, Feiglin said, "They will have to seek the right to self-determination in Arab states. Israel will encourage the Arabs to emigrate to their countries and assist any Arab who wishes to do so," Feiglin was quoted as saying.[1] He insisted there is no such thing as a Palestinian people and that they and Israeli Arabs should relocate, citing a text he had posted on the website of his Manhigut Yehudit ("Jewish Leadership") movement. In a 2004 interview with Yedioth Ahronoth he spoke of "a voluntary transfer to the 22 neighbouring Arab states" of the some 1.4 million Israeli Arabs, who make up 20 percent of Israel's population. "Arabs don't live in the desert, they create it," he was quoted as saying.[1] "The Arabs engage in typical Amalek behaviour. I can't prove this genetically but this is the behaviour of Amalek."[27] "We shall offer them human rights without civil rights, so long as they prove their loyalty to their Jewish state host and accept Jewish sovereignty over their land. In such a situation they will be given legal-resident status and they can carry on their private affairs without anyone infringing on their human rights."[28] Controversy over Hitler comments In an article in Ha'aretz, Yossi Sarid quoted Feiglin as saying, "Hitler was an unparalleled military genius. Nazism promoted Germany from a low to a fantastic physical and ideological status. The ragged, trashy youth body turned into a neat and orderly part of society and Germany received an exemplary regime, a proper justice system and public order. Hitler savored good music. He would paint. This was no bunch of thugs. They merely used thugs and homosexuals." Feiglin clarified his position to the Maariv newspaper that just because he considers Hitler a military genius this does not mean he admires him.[1] In an interview on Israeli television Feiglin accused Sarid and other left-wing journalists of a smear campaign against him by quoting him out of context. He explained his point as saying that just because Germany was a democracy does not give legitimacy to what Hitler had done.[29]" ______________________ Right-wingnuts. A curse wherever they are found.
- roidubouloi
November 26, 2012 at 9:41pm
Hence. Syria under the al Assad family , is a strong military dictatorship. Secular in form, although the leader follows Islam. Essentially secular. The opposition has been difficult to identify, although the Moslem Brotherhood are religious fanatics. It appears that the religious sectarian conflicts of other places does not apply to Syria. The islamo fascists jihadists like Iran Hamas Hezbollah are different from Syria. Is going to be difficult to defeat the al Assad' s. the conflict will continue for a long time, and the 40,000+ casualties so far might be a drop in the bucket. So, realignment of othe minorities as mentioned by some ,Klein from Time magazine commenting about Condoleezza Rice WP piece, like the Kurds minorities ( Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran) forming Kurdistan , might be a good wishful thinking. In the meantime the USA may become energy independent with the new shale oil advances. With Mexico discovering recent enormous oil deposits in Tabasco Mexican state. Israel with new oil/sea deposits . The Arab/Iran oil dependency will become much less important starting pretty soon. A good future. A very good future indeed.
- JAIMECHUCH
November 26, 2012 at 10:42pm
Forgot to mention solar electricity panels going strong. I have installed them, I am already saving 30% in my monthly electric bills. And the company Sunrun is very busy, they are telling me they are hiring like busy busy bees. Middle East move over. Next.
- JAIMECHUCH
November 26, 2012 at 10:48pm
Tough love:) jaimechurch: Syria is a client state of Iran, partly because only Iran's Shi'a officially recognize the Alawis as Shi'a. Alawi is very secret, but seems to incorporate elements of Christianity. And, Hezbollah is both Iran and Syria's proxy/client in Lebanon. Greater Kurdistan was promised by President Wilson at Versailles, 1919. The shame of the world is that they caved to Ataturk, and the Kurds were betrayed by the League of Nations. roid: you need to catch up on what just happened in the Likud/Beitenu list. wiki seems to not yet added Feiglin's win today. I have no opinion - had just read the story when I came here and read your comment. Israeli demographics, and the past 12 years, have definitely shifted the electorate farther right of whatever the center is in Israel or your view. Erin Burnett on CNN just asked for input as to whether Israel has committed war crimes, after her segment on Palestinian statehood and Abbas' stated intention of using upgraded UN status mostly to use the ICC. Good thing there are some good Jewish lawyers...
- K2K
November 26, 2012 at 11:58pm
K2K: 'Russia supplying arms to Syria under old contracts' By JOANNA PARASZCZUK11/26/2012 19:08Medvedev says Moscow is neutral on Syrian conflict; Russia also printed banknotes for Syria, dispatched via Iranian airspace. http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=293520 Yes Syria has been the client of Iran and the conduit to arm Hezbollah and Hamas. But these alliances are flimsy. Hezbollah is Shia and Arab. Hamas is Sunni and Arab. Iran is Shia but Persian. Shia and Sunni detest each other. And Arabs and Persians are no friends. Although all of them are islamo fascists/jihadists. The friendships are weak and eventually will break. And to top it Egypt is Arab and Sunni. Turkey is non Arab and non Persian, and although Islamic they used to be more comfortable being governed by secular leaders. At any rate, as the USA and the West become energy independent from Arab/Persian oil as will happen soon , the Middle East will be less important.
- JAIMECHUCH
November 27, 2012 at 1:06am
And all of these will happen during the 2nd term of the BHO Presidency. Becoming energy independent of middle eastern oil. All of these together with alternative energy sources solar and more. The future looks better than ever.
- JAIMECHUCH
November 27, 2012 at 1:16am
Re Feiglin: Indeed, the more likely it becomes that the Palestinians are willing to make peace, the more Israel moves away -- adding further evidence to my point that Israel does not want peace, it wants the Palestinians' land and, in Feiglin's case, the Palestinians gone or subjected to apartheid. Israel moves closer and closer to becoming an apartheid state, all the while claiming that the Arabs are forcing it to do so. The bellicose language of the likely successor to Barak, who says he will not even discuss territory with the Palestinians, is one more step on the road to perdition. I find it astonishing that Israelis imagine they have the power to defy the world and actively court opprobrium. The power they imagine they have is actually that of the United States, shielding Israel from the consequences of its action. The moment US cover is withdrawn, Israel is in dire straits, and that may indeed change with General Assembly recognition of Palestinian statehood. It will become increasingly difficult for the US to join in the game of marginalizing the Palestinians and denying them the benefit of international law, particularly human rights law -- as long as Abbas and the PA keep to the line of non-violence. Without US cover, Israel's position on the occupied territory is hopeless. If the ICC ultimately accepts jurisdiction, US cover may not matter, but is in any case likely to be compromised. There is only so much burden on its larger interests that the US will tolerate in furtherance of Israel's colonial ambitions. If Israel does not change course -- and all the evidence is that it will not as it is moving further and further into the embrace of the extreme right -- Israel's claims to Jerusalem may be dragged down with its losing hand in the occupied territory.
- roidubouloi
November 27, 2012 at 1:20am
Notice the changes made by Hafes al Assad to the Syrian constitution, de emphasizing religion: "In 1973, a new constitution was adopted that omitted the old requirement that the religion of the state be Islam and replaced it with the statement that the religion of the republic's president is Islam. Protests erupted when this was known."
- JAIMECHUCH
November 27, 2012 at 1:24am
BTW. I took my information from the Wikipedia to which I made a contribution.
- JAIMECHUCH
November 27, 2012 at 2:19am
The ultra left wingers kept demonizing Bibi, they ain't seen nothing until they see Moishe Feiglin in action. Maybe the sister of le king will become a yoredet. For starters le king has already become paranoid . Don't fear le king, Bibi has been blocking Moishe Feiglin all these years , and it will do it again. Although in your madness you prefer military dictatorships because they are amenable to reason. Heck Syria, a military dictatorship, has already produced 40,000+ casualties, and there is no stop yet. Le king is obsessed with the legal liberated territories, that's why is brainwashed.
- JAIMECHUCH
November 27, 2012 at 2:39am