AP headline projects ‘Jewish state’s end’

Israel/Palestine
on 133 Comments

Great piece by Dan Perry of AP, from Tel Aviv, headlined “Israel left wing sees Jewish state’s end.” This is important because Ehud Olmert’s declaration of a few years ago, that Israel is committing suicide, is finally entering the mainstream in the United States. Though the Israeli speakers in the piece, including Amos Oz of J Street and Yuval Diskin of the Gatekeepers, are trying to save Zionism; they state that the choice is between rightwing apartheid and Palestinian rule. Maybe the choice is between apartheid and democracy? (Thanks to Omar Barghouti). Perry:

An apocalyptic tone has crept into Israel’s hitherto muted election season, with opposition leaders and others sounding increasingly desperate warnings that a few more years of rule by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s heavily favored right wing might well destroy the Jewish state.

…Perhaps the most strident proponent of this message is former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who four years ago led peace talks with the Palestinians and recently founded a new party whose primary message is that the Zionist project is in danger. “Netanyahu is leading us toward the end of the Jewish state,” she said in a statement Friday. “Israelis must choose between extremism and Zionism. Israel is in great danger and everyone must wake up now.”

Outgoing opposition leader Shaul Mofaz, a former military chief and defense minister, warns at campaign appearances that Arabs will soon outnumber Jews in the Holy Land and the main strategic priority must be to partition the land to prevent the emergence of a “binational state.” Leaders of the main center-left Labor Party say much the same.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

133 Responses

  1. Citizen
    January 13, 2013, 11:59 am

    “Israelis must choose between extremism and Zionism.”

    What does she mean? Zionism is never extreme? What policies would she change?

    • Krauss
      January 13, 2013, 3:03 pm

      Agreed, and I don’t think it was a good article in a liberal sense, rather it just exposed the racism inherent in the ‘liberal’ Zionist discourse.

      Remember, they want a 2SS not because it is just and moral, but because they are warning of a ‘demographic takeover’. This same kind of thinking led Aaron David Miller, a supposed ‘liberal’ Zionist in America to lament on the Op-Ed pages of the NYT that Israel have “too many Arabs”. Straight out of KKK from the 1950s Jim Crow.

      • seafoid
        January 14, 2013, 6:19 am

        Zippy is a fraud. Same as the rest of the thugs who pass for leading Zionist politicians.

        link to blogs.aljazeera.net

        “Livni is recorded confirming what Palestinians have always accused Israeli governments of doing: creating facts on the ground to prevent the possibility of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.”
        When Mr Erekat asked Ms Livni: “Short of your jet fighters in my sky and your army on my territory, can I choose where I secure external defence?”.

        She replied: “No. In order to create your state you have to agree in advance with Israel – you have to choose not to have the right of choice afterwards. These are the basic pillars.”

        “Israel takes more land [so] that the Palestinian state will be impossible . . . the Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that is impossible, we already have the land and we cannot create the state”. She conceded that it had been “the policy of the government for a really long time”.

        Another choice comment from Livni, this one from a Nov. 13, 2007 meeting, where she and Abu Ala (Qurei) were discussing what should be included in the “terms of reference” for the upcoming Annapolis meeting (the eighth meeting on this question):

        AA: International law?
        Livni : NO. I was the Minister of Justice. I am a lawyer…But I am against law — international law in particular. Law in general. If we want to make the agreement smaller, can we just drop some of these issues? Like international law, this will make the agreements easier.

        link to haaretz.com
        110308

        In a letter she appended to the article, Livni explained to me that the role of the leaders of the free world, and especially in Israel, is to harness the world to the future shaping of the region in accordance with those interests shared by Israel and the free world.
        Livni claims her initiative “correctly translates the values of democracy in a way that will be acceptable to all the pragmatic and moderate elements in our region.”>
        She proposes banning all parties that uphold violence and/or racism and/or do not respect international agreements.

        From the meeting on 4 May 2008 (document no. 2648):
        ————
        Livni: It is clear that Ma’ale Adumim, Giva’t Ze’ev, Har Homa and Ariel do not exist [in the proposed swap].
        Samih: Real peace cannot be reached with an 18-km long enclave inside Palestine. We do not want to create problems in the future. We do not wish to hurt peace.
        Saeb: Can you imagine that you accept for the sake of peace to have Jews as citizens with full rights in Palestine like Arab Israelis?
        Livni: But how can I provide Israelis living in Palestine with security?
        Saeb: Can you imagine that I have changed my DNA and accepted a situation in which Jews become citizens having the rights that I and my wife have. Can you imagine that this will happen one day?
        Dekel: I do not have such fancy.
        Livni: I have to think about this. I do not know. You have proposed something, but I believe we have to be creative. My problem is that of security. Some said to me that there would be violence among my people if I evacuated them, but the pressure will be less if I give the right to choose. I cannot bear the responsibility of their life in case they are exposed to danger and then the army will have to interfere. It is a legitimate question but we need to think about it.

    • Hostage
      January 13, 2013, 10:34 pm

      What policies would she change?

      She would abandon Netanyahu’s indifferent or negative approach, and revert to the Dov Weissglass policy of administering formaldehyde and the peace process (Endless repetition of “Yes, but . .” vs “Absolutely not”).

      She’s running around shreying that Israel has to come up with its own proposal for renewed peace talks to prevent the ministers of the UK, France, and Germany from “cornering Israel” with the proposals they intend to have Ashton introduce in March for the conclusion of a final settlement this year.

      • Hostage
        January 13, 2013, 10:47 pm

        P.S. Here is a link to the Ynet version of the story: “EU working on new Mideast peace plan: British, French FMs preparing plan to restart talks between Israel, Palestinians to be presented in March. ‘It will drive us into a corner,’ say Israeli officials”
        link to ynetnews.com

    • chinese box
      January 14, 2013, 6:32 pm

      @Citizen

      I don’t know if this is just more hasbara, or if Livni and others like her are just totally lacking in socio-political awareness.

  2. Blownaway
    January 13, 2013, 12:13 pm

    Tzipi Livni is really responsible for the failure of Israel to take the most generous deal ever imagined offered by the Palestinians. The deal described in the Palestinian papers that she declined shows Israels true intentions. They will never accept a contiguous Palestinian state. They have no intentions of dismantling even the most remote settlements that infringe on the ability of Palestine to have a minimalist state. Why is tzipi portrayed as a reasonable leftist?

    • Shingo
      January 13, 2013, 9:23 pm

      Tzipi Livni is really responsible for the failure of Israel to take the most generous deal ever imagined offered by the Palestinians.

      It’s interesting how this is spun by Liberal Zionists to mean that a deal was within reach, yet when Arafat said no to Camp David, he is referred to as a projectionist.

      Same with the 3 no’s of Khartoum vs Israel’s countless t no’s to the Arab Peace Initiative.

      • Taxi
        January 14, 2013, 1:11 am

        Hiya Shingo, just wanted to say helllllow and happy new year to you mate!

        And on another note, I’m of the belief that the more israel illegally builds on Palestinian land, the harder and sooner they’re gonna fall. Only an idiot would believe that “facts on the ground” are a PERMANENT reality. Remember: housing estates are just bricks and mortar and bricks and mortar are collapsible.

        Even though I can hardly wait for the fall of zionism in the mideast and the world, I’m still concerned that non-zionist jews will suffer immensely when the rogue state of israel keels over from its inherent greed and hostility. I don’t believe the ‘jewish problem’ has been resolved in europe, and seeing that the 2SS is dead and well buried, the future mideast will be intensely hostile to euro jews as well. Forget South America and the Orient: this leaves only the usa as a safe-ish haven.

        To watch the unfolding of a disastrous self-fulfilling prophecy of ruin that will take centuries to recover from, is about all that’s left for us critical observers of zionism.

        And whoever believes that israel has a prosperous and peaceful future, that its problems have progressive tactical solutions, is doped up to the eyeballs with a pleasant serum commonly known as naivete.

      • Shingo
        January 14, 2013, 6:21 am

        And a Happy New Year to you and all the crew here as MW. I’ve been pretty short of time, but I wanted to tell every one of you that you guys all rock. This is the best block out there and every one of you, from Phil and the crew to all the commenters here, you guys have my greatest admiration, love and respect.

      • James Canning
        January 14, 2013, 3:03 pm

        Why should the presence of Jewish “settlers” change the borders of Palestine?

      • James Canning
        January 14, 2013, 3:07 pm

        Let’s remember that Israel did not respond to the Palestinian offer made at Taba, Egypt in January 2001.

  3. ivri
    January 13, 2013, 12:39 pm

    “The Jewish state end” prediction accompanies Israel since its birth. In its early days, with a population of around a million or two, a narrow belly on the coastline where most people live, a relatively weak economy and in particular no high-tech capabilities plus a monolith of Arab countries that looked placid and free to deal with Israel as its main target, it surely looked more threateningly so. Granted, even with all the dramatic changes in all of those regards Israel`s existence is still precarious – dictated by its objective conditions – so such expressed fears are understandable and hence also now and then expressed even by key figures. There is really nothing new here and of course a heated period as election times is likely to bring everything out. In the essence though, “the show” just goes on.

    • James Canning
      January 14, 2013, 2:17 pm

      Israel has ignored the offer by ALL Arab contries, for recognition within pre-1967 borders.

      • mondonut
        January 15, 2013, 2:12 pm

        James Canning says: Israel has ignored the offer by ALL Arab contries, for recognition within pre-1967 borders.
        ==========================================
        Small wonder. How does that offer deal with the RoR and possession of the Kotel?

      • James Canning
        January 15, 2013, 6:37 pm

        Off the record, Arab leaders make clear there will be no right of return for the great majority of displaced Palestinians.

      • mondonut
        January 15, 2013, 11:04 pm

        James Canning says: Off the record, Arab leaders make clear there will be no right of return for the great majority of displaced Palestinians.
        ===================================
        First of all, you are wrong. Why else would the PA support it? Secondly, there is no such thing as “off the record” in the Arab and Saudi Peace Initiatives. If they want there to be no right of return they should put that in writing.

      • Taxi
        January 16, 2013, 1:55 am

        “Arab leaders”.

        You mean the handful of cowardly, despotic, self-appointed Arab royals supported and protected by us. NOT all Arab leaders are anti Right of Return, dear James. And most certainly NOT the vaster majority of the Arab people.

      • James Canning
        January 16, 2013, 2:12 pm

        Mondonut – - I take it you are not aware that Yassir Arafat conceded privately in the early 1970s that the Palestinians would not be allowed to return to their lost homes in Israel, and that they would be obliged to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders.

        Israeli officials are well aware that most Arab leaders privately accept there will be no right of return for the great majority of displaced Palestinians.

        Take a guess why Arafat would not say openly what he said privately.

      • James Canning
        January 16, 2013, 2:17 pm

        My understanding is that virtually all Muslim leaders, not just Arab, accept that Israel within its pre-1967 borders is a fact of life the Palestinians, and the Arabs, and other Muslims, have to accept if there is to be peace.

      • mondonut
        January 16, 2013, 3:58 pm

        James Canning says: Mondonut – – I take it you are not aware that Yassir Arafat conceded privately in the early 1970s that the Palestinians would not be allowed to return to their lost homes in Israel, and that they would be obliged to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders.
        ================================
        In other news, Yassir Arafat is still dead. As to why he could not say publicly what he said privately – he would have dead even sooner. And therein is the crux of your problem. Unless your “leaders” come out publicly and prepare the Palestinians for what they are willing to concede privately, there is no deal and there is no real offer. And that is why the Israelis are correct to dismiss the Arab and Saudi initiatives, they are not real offers.

        The Palestinians believe those initiatives include their right of return, hence they support them. And that support will vaporize without their so called RoR.

      • Hostage
        January 16, 2013, 4:20 pm

        If they want there to be no right of return they should put that in writing.

        That implies that you are literate enough to recognize a written guarantee when you stumble across one.

        FYI, the Arab Peace Initiative already satisfied that objection, by including a clause that called for an “agreed upon settlement” of the refugee question. You never require the consent of a second party for the exercise of an unqualified legal right. If the Holocaust era refugees are any example, then it really doesn’t matter what the governments decide, there will be class action lawsuits against third parties anyway.

        The original General Assembly resolution applied to “Palestine refugees”, not just “Palestinians”. That included thousands of Jewish refugees who were register by the UN. The resolution employed qualified language, like “should” instead of “shall”, and further conditioned return by limiting it to those non-belligerent refugees who are willing to live together in peace.

        So the right of the Jewish refugees to return to places, like the Etzion Block and East Jerusalem, are just a limited as the rights of their Palestinian brethren under any “agreed upon” final settlement.

      • mondonut
        January 16, 2013, 4:53 pm

        Hostage says: That implies that you are literate enough to recognize a written guarantee when you stumble across one.
        ==========================================
        The Arab Peace Initiative did not satisfy the refugee question, it simply kicked that can down the road by obliquely referring to “Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194″. All without defining what the solution might be or even who is an actual refugee. It is left entirely open to interpretation, for example yourself, James Canning, the Israelis and the Palestinians all have different ideas of it that means. The initiative was presented as an end solution yet it failure to define the refugee issue is its own undoing. That along with Hamas’ insane response – the Passover Massacre.

        And for the record UNGA 194 did not create an unqualified legal right, it did not create any rights at all.

      • Shingo
        January 16, 2013, 4:55 pm

        If they want there to be no right of return they should put that in writing.

        If Israel does not plan on annexing the West Bank, stealing homes, expelling Palestinians and imposing apartheid, they should put it in writing too.

      • Hostage
        January 16, 2013, 9:47 pm

        The Arab Peace Initiative did not satisfy the refugee question, it simply kicked that can down the road by obliquely referring to “Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194″.

        If Israel had accepted, then no solution could have been proposed without its consent. That’s not the case with the proposals for an imposed solution that have been made by the EU ministers, e.g.:

        “After a fixed deadline, a U.N. Security Council resolution should proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution,” Solana said, adding this should include border parameters, refugees, control over the city of Jerusalem and security arrangements.

        —-EU’s Solana calls for UN to recognise Palestinian state link to reuters.com.

        And for the record UNGA 194 did not create an unqualified legal right, it did not create any rights at all.

        That’s a moot point. The resolution was citing rights of refugees to be repatriated or reestablished and compensated. Those rights were already the subject of both customary or conventional international law. See for example Article 6(4) of the 4th Geneva Convention. link to icrc.org

        FYI, General Assembly resolution 194 was reaffirmed or endorsed every year until 1967 by both the General Assembly and the Security Council, in the interest of restoring international peace and security.

        Decisions pertaining to the maintenance of international peace and security adopted by either body are binding on all of the member states. Resolution 242 and 338 undoubtedly created a legal obligation to provide a just settlement of the refugee question. In a number of cases the ICJ has advised that a Security Council resolution can be used in accordance with Article 103 of the Charter to preempt conventional law, e.g. Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America). But Security Council resolutions do not preempt customary norms or customary law (Bosnia, Provisional Measures).

        So UN resolutions about the subject of refugees do not create any loopholes in the law, but “acceptance” of the terms of the Arab Peace Initiative might. The international courts have usually employed principles similar to contract law in such cases and held that the parties are bound by the terms of their acceptance. Israel wants ethnically cleansed land more than peace. So even a deal that lets it exercise a veto over the right of return is unacceptable, because it will not withdraw from the captured territory.

      • mondonut
        January 17, 2013, 1:48 am

        Hostage says: If Israel had accepted, then no solution could have been proposed without its consent.
        =====================================
        Accept what? Either it is a complete plan (it is not) or it is simply the basis of negotiations. If it were the basis of negotiations they are expecting the Israelis to commit to a full withdrawal prior to discussing the elements that would guarantee actual peace. That would be foolish.

        As for the 4th Geneva of 1949-1950, it certainly does not apply the events of 1948, and more so to a civil conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

        194, it does not matter how many times it is reaffirmed, it is no more binding than the first time. And contrary to your assertion, decisions pertaining to the maintenance of international peace and security adopted by the GA are not binding on member states.

        The fact of the matter is that the Israelis correctly interpret insistence on the RoR as an assault on their state, an attempt to end the State of Israel as they themselves define it. If and when the Palestinians decide they want their state more than they want to defeat Israel, they can probably have it. Unfortunately they passed on the best offer they were ever likely to receive (Olmert), presumably over the RoR. More foolishness.

      • Taxi
        January 17, 2013, 3:06 am

        James,
        Only three Arab countries officially ‘recognize’ israel: Mauritania, Jordan and Egypt – kinda unwillfully, I may add.

        What you refer to as a “fact of life”, is a ‘proposition’ that was made at a conference: a suppositional thread dangling from cloud nine. All sorta sh*t gets spoken by “leaders”for the sake of political convenience/appeasing a western master – we all know that – but the unspoken “fact” remains that in every muslim and Arab corner, there is TOTAL rejection of zionism and it’s representative and practitioner: israel. This rejection is unabated, in fact has been on the rise since the beginning of the Arab Spring.

        Also, out of 57 muslim countries, only ten recognize israel. So I’d be careful with the “Virtually all Muslim leaders…” angle if I were you.

        Here’s another “fact” to digest: a zionist israel will NEVER know peace, whether Arab and muslim “leaders” sell Palestinian refugees to the israeli abattoir or not.

        It’s all about zionism in the region. No one wants it there in the holy land, in the region, or across the continent for that matter: having tasted it’s cruel jack-boot and remorseless dungeon, up close and personal.

      • Hostage
        January 17, 2013, 3:51 am

        Hostage says: If Israel had accepted, then no solution could have been proposed without its consent.
        =====================================
        Accept what?

        The formula contained in the framework required an “agreed upon” solution. Acceptance of those terms would have given Israel the right to veto proposals that weren’t to its liking. It doesn’t possess any such legal right under the other framework agreements.

      • James Canning
        January 17, 2013, 1:48 pm

        Taxi – - ALL Arab countries agree to accept Israel within its pre-1967 obrders. IF Israel gets out of the West Bank. You need to read more about the 2002 Saudi peace plan.

      • James Canning
        January 17, 2013, 1:51 pm

        Mondonut – - I will say it again: Israel knows that it can make a deal with all Arab countries, and obtain “clear title” to the 78% of Palestine “stolen” by 1949.

        Problem is insane illegal colonisation programme in the West Bank, and associated delusions.

      • James Canning
        January 17, 2013, 1:57 pm

        Mondonut – - Arab leaders are very much aware that if they concede on “right of return”, Israel will then say “what are you offering?” And Israel will assume that issue is settled, but Israel can continue to keep much of the West Bank. Delusion.

      • Taxi
        January 17, 2013, 11:57 pm

        Yes it’s true the Saudis, through the Arab League, put forth a conditional “peace offer” which was immediately lost in the frigging israeli post!

        2002 is NOT 2013 mister Canning. The 2006 Lebanon war and Gaza Assaults part 1 and 2 have occurred since 2002, not to mention the ongoing Arab Spring.

        But I suppose you haven’t heard about the above mentioned tectonic changes, and if you have, you just don’t think they matter right? Totally irrelevant events, right smartypants?!

        Do link/tell James, tell us how “virtually all Arab leaders” are still bringing up the Saudi peace offer, pushing for it, talking about it etc. Give us their numerous names and their categorical statements since oh say the past five years.

      • James Canning
        January 18, 2013, 2:29 pm

        I said that all Arab countries agree to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders. You appear not to be following this issue closely. The Saudi foreign ministry has made clear the offer remains on the table. The problem is Israel’s insane effort to keep much of the West Bank permanently.

      • Taxi
        January 19, 2013, 3:00 am

        Canning,

        Your information is OUT OF DATE mate. Provide a recent link to your assertion!

        NOTHING is on the table at the moment – there ain’t even a table there mister knowitall!

      • Hostage
        January 19, 2013, 10:59 am

        Canning,

        Your information is OUT OF DATE mate. Provide a recent link to your assertion!

        President Abbas consulted the member states of the Arab League during summits about the text of the application for UN membership and the resolution requesting upgraded observer status. Palestine can’t introduce resolutions in the General Assembly or the Security Council without at least one co-sponsor.

        For example, all of the members of the Arab League co-sponsored the upgrade resolution, which specifically cited the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (API). link to un.org

        The members of the League specifically requested the Secretary General to forward copies of the API to the General Assembly and Security Council and make them official UN Documents: A/56/1026-S/2002/932, annex II, resolution 14/221 link to un.org

        The Arab Peace Initiative was subsequently cited in the Middle East Quartet’s Road Map which was adopted by the UN under the auspices of Security Council resolution 1515:
        Performance Based Road Map
        link to un.org
        UN SC resolution 1515
        link to un.org (2003)

      • Hostage
        January 19, 2013, 11:54 am

        P.S. Its a standing offer that hasn’t been formally withdrawn, but there’s no danger of the Israelis withdrawing from the Arab territories captured in 1967 anyway. Netanyahu and the Congress forced Obama to walk back his support for the 67 lines. The Palestine Papers revealed that Mitchell himself had abandoned the requirement that Israel stop construction in the settlements, including natural growth – which is still supposedly part of the Quartet framework and his own Mitchell Report).

      • mondonut
        January 19, 2013, 11:56 am

        James Canning says: Mondonut – – I will say it again: Israel knows that it can make a deal with all Arab countries, and obtain “clear title” to the 78% of Palestine “stolen” by 1949.
        —————————————————–
        You can keep repeating yourself all day but that does not make it correct. The only Arab country Israel really needs a deal with is “Palestine”. And the Palestinians have no intention of making final peace with Israel simply in return for land. Fatah wants millions granted the RoR and Hamas (their legal government) wants Israel to vaporize.

      • MHughes976
        January 19, 2013, 12:27 pm

        A very interesting question. It seems that there was a relevant Arab League meeting on December 9 at which the Qatari PM said that it was ‘logical to reconsider’ the peace offer. This seemingly to general agreement and amid rather hard words, though not barnstorming rhetoric, about Israeli arrogance. At this rate the peace offer seems to have a grey, sickly but not quite defunct look.

      • James Canning
        January 19, 2013, 2:19 pm

        Hostage – - Israel can get out of the West Bank or have endless war or near-war.

      • James Canning
        January 19, 2013, 2:22 pm

        Mondonut – - Both Fatah and Hamas endorsed the 2002 Saudi peace plan.

        Palestinian leaders generally comprehend that Israel will never agree to abolish itself. Meaning very limited right of return. If any.

      • James Canning
        January 19, 2013, 2:24 pm

        Yes, and Saudi foreign ministry confirms offer remains on the table. Sadly, Aipac’s near-c0ontrol of the US Congress has not worked in favor of the deal.

      • Taxi
        January 19, 2013, 3:49 pm

        @Hostage,
        It’s an offer that’s not been “formally withdrawn”, or formally attended to, formally promoted, formally rebooted, formally celebrated or whispered of since the 2006 Lebanon war – not forgetting here too that there’s not even been a “formal” acknowledgement of receipt of offer by the israelis since the offer was made ten years ago. It’s an offer that may as well be formally nonexistent today, so stuck in a zone of stagnation and infertility.

        @MHughes,
        Of course the Qatari PM would bring that up – as opposed to the Syrian PM, the Lebanese PM, the Egyptian, Palestinian or Jordanian PMs. Nobody who is a direct neighbor to israel, like the countries above, would even think to bring it up cuz if you put your finger on the pulse in the above countries, you’ll find that after 3 recent Arab wars with israel and the outbursting Arab spring, none of these countries have the appetite, the time or patience to even consider sitting in the same room with israelis. The israeli problem can wait, as far as they’re concerned. They’re using their time and energy to stabilize their own turf – they’ve turned inward, focused on internal conflict resolution.

        And in the meantime, having willfully white-washed the Arab’s peace offer from it’s arrogant brain, israel has been taking darker steps into Apartheid, rendering the Arab peace offer more and more meaningless, in practice.

        And let’s just face up to this little reality, folks: like the israelis would ever consider, let alone accept a peace offer from an Arab – an offer that doesn’t include the whole of Jerusalem especially. The question here begs: why would the Saudis mastermind an offer that was bound to be rejected?

      • James Canning
        January 19, 2013, 6:25 pm

        Taxi – - Are you contending that the Saudis have withdrawn the offer made in the 2002 Saudi peace plan?

      • Hostage
        January 20, 2013, 12:08 am

        It’s an offer that’s not been “formally withdrawn”, or formally attended to, formally promoted, formally rebooted, formally celebrated or whispered of since the 2006 Lebanon war – not forgetting here too that there’s not even been a “formal” acknowledgement of receipt of offer by the israelis since the offer was made ten years ago.

        That’s probably not correct. See for example Saudis assure Obama of Arab peace initiative support-W.House link to reuters.com

        I’ve commented here in the past, that I thought the Saudis had probably given the Obama administration a two year deadline for US brokered results, after which they would back unilateral actions by Palestine. When the Abbas-Fayyad plan to Establish the State and End the Occupation reached its deadline, the Quartet stalled for an additional year, but couldn’t even get a map with proposed borders from the Israelis.

        While all of that was going on, Qatar was volunteering to fund the legal team for another round of cases in the ICJ and other Arab states were making similar statements about funding independent investigations, like the Arab League’s fact finding mission to Gaza after Cast Lead, with the intention of making their own referrals to the ICC.

      • Taxi
        January 20, 2013, 10:59 am

        @Hostage,

        The saudis can “assure Obama” all they like – means nothing to the israelis and to all its direct neighbors. Even Hariri Jnr, the Saudi’s Lebanese poodle declared after the 2006 war: “I will never, never, make peace with israel”. Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora also said in 2006 that Lebanon would be the “last Arab country to make peace with Israel!”. They’ve made no contrary statements since. We’re talking here about Lebanese leaders whom the West considers “moderate”.

        I could dig out more negative quotes by Syrian, Egyptian, Tunisian, Algerian etc leaders regarding peace with israel, but I think you can get my drift: since it’s declaration, the Arab peace offer has not made even a ripple of a difference. Like a spermless load: yes it’s there, but oh so utterly meaningless and inconsequential.

      • MHughes976
        January 20, 2013, 12:39 pm

        Part of the diplomacy on the part of the moderate Arabs directed at the West, I think, not at Israel. It’s not killed off because we’re meant to notice that that arrogant old Israeli brain doesn’t buzz when the Arab mods try to stimulate it. As usual, we do look at this fact but don’t see it.

      • James Canning
        January 20, 2013, 1:17 pm

        The Saudi peace plan of 2002 had the back luck of being launched when a moron was in the White House.
        If you think Lebanon will not accede to the Saudi plan, if Israel does, you are simply dead wrong.

      • James Canning
        January 20, 2013, 1:19 pm

        Gaddafi’s Libya accepted the Saudi peace plan. Iran tacilty accepted it. The plan was directed to Israel. ISRAEL LOBBY in the US has done its best to keep the Saudi peace plan concealed from the ignroant American public.

      • James Canning
        January 20, 2013, 1:24 pm

        Good points. We should note here that Aipac does not like the 2002 Saudi peace plan, and does what it can to bury it.

      • Taxi
        January 20, 2013, 1:24 pm

        You’re right, MHughes. Relatively speaking, everybody knows about the Arab peace offer but by JimBeamz it’s gotta be the least talked about, the least publicly dissected peace initiative in the history of the conflict.

        Where’s Sean McBride to give us a list of all the I/P peace initiatives, graded by how much PR and media each received?

      • James Canning
        January 20, 2013, 1:30 pm

        @Taxi – - I take it you do not likethe 2002 Saudi peace plan even though more than fifty Muslim countries back it.

      • sardelapasti
        January 20, 2013, 1:50 pm

        Canning:
        “Palestinian leaders generally comprehend that Israel will never agree to abolish itself. Meaning very limited right of return. If any.”

        The fact is that “Israel” or any Zionist entity has never ever, in over a hundred years , compromised on any of its conquest and aggression. Wherever it has been forced to reverse steam it has done it facing military defeat or, in the good old times, under threat by the US.
        That it will never agree to anything doesn’t even have to be discussed at this point. Any pretense of negotiation is by definition a show for the lawyers the Zionists are putting on. They will have to be forced to give in, and it’ll be too ugly for the lawyers.
        Meaning it will never agree to change anything; even though “Israel”s twin South Africa did agree to abolish itself without a huge bloodbath it’s hard to predict if the nuthouse of the Jewish State can have some last-minute saving convulsion of logic like ZA had. The South Africans, after all, were just racists, not messianic racists. Logical Israelians, with their unmatched freedom to travel and settle practically wherever they want, are already leaving the boat to the insane.

      • Hostage
        January 20, 2013, 3:58 pm

        The saudis can “assure Obama” all they like – means nothing to the israelis and to all its direct neighbors.

        Jordan has the largest refugee population. It already signed a peace treaty that normalized relations with Israel. That agreement didn’t even mention the Palestinian right of return, compensation, or the UN resolutions on the subject.

        It’s the Saudi ruling family that installed Hariri as Lebanon’s prime minister in 1992, and helped fund his rebuilding efforts in Beirut. They and their GCC allies are: 1) bailing out the Palestinians and Egyptians at the moment; arming the opposition in Syria; and backing the sanctions that are impoverishing the Iranian Ayatollahs and undermining their ability to fund their Shī’ah allies.

        I could dig out more negative quotes by Syrian, Egyptian, Tunisian, Algerian etc leaders regarding peace with israel, but I think you can get my drift:

        Yeah you’re ignoring the fact that what Arab leaders say about making peace with Israel in public and what they actually do in private (e.g. the Israeli Armistice Agreements with Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan and the final agreements with Egypt and Jordan) are usually two very different things.

      • Taxi
        January 21, 2013, 12:44 am

        Hostage,
        I ain’t ignoring nothing, pal. And it’s not what is ‘said’ that I’m objecting to, it’s that it’s a pointless bureaucratic exercise in the first place, considering that the Arab peace plan is unimplementable due to israel’s clear interest in further illegal land acquisition and not peace.

        The armistice agreement is NOT a final peace agreement and it’s held because it benefits all countries involved for the time being. The peace agreements between israel and Egypt and Jordan are fake and continue to stagger and teeter on collapse.

        So what do we have then? We have a bunch of words and declarations that appease mostly the West and israel but do nothing to change the lives of the millions of victims of israel.

        In reality ( I can speak of reality here cuz I’ve been traveling the mideast for the past 15 months, am still there with my finger on the pulse), and especially after the 2006 war with Lebanon and the Gaza assaults, israel’s neighbors have lost all faith in peace with israel and they are vocally suspicious of Saudi involvement. I haven’t met a single person over here who doesn’t break out in cussing or rage at the mere mention of israel.

        There is very little reliance on peace agreements nowadays and no present leader, either Arab or Western, is fair and charismatic enough to change the minds of the Arab masses.

        Israel’s neighbors can finally hit back now and having given up on multiple sham peace offers/roads, they’re hunkered down and waiting for the big war.

        There is NO peaceful solution to the I/P conflict. We’re in a lull at the moment, a convenient ceasefire – but war will come way before any peace plan is agreed upon by both sides and signed.

        Whoever believes that zionism can ever be embraced by the Arab masses and has a prosperous future in the mideast is suffering from delirious optimism.

      • RoHa
        January 21, 2013, 1:04 am

        “you’re ignoring the fact that what Arab leaders say about making peace with Israel in public and what they actually do in private … are usually two very different things.”

        Hostage, are you suggesting that we cannot always take politicians at their word? That they say one thing but do another?
        What a shocking idea! Totally unheard of!

      • Hostage
        January 21, 2013, 7:31 am

        Hostage, are you suggesting that we cannot always take politicians at their word? That they say one thing but do another?
        What a shocking idea! Totally unheard of!

        No I actually had in mind a very specific exchange between the US State Department and the Israel’s from the 1964–1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967. The Israelis were citing Nasser’s public statements about annihilating the Zionists. The State Department spokesman was completely unimpressed. He advised the Israelis that what Arab leaders say about Israel, and what they actually do, are two completely different things.

        Behind the scenes, Nasser was telling anyone who would listen that all he wanted was for the Israelis to withdraw from the DMZs, stop the IDF from initiating border clashes, and respect the terms of the armistice agreements (that Ben Gurion had declared null and void).

      • Hostage
        January 21, 2013, 7:40 am

        The armistice agreement is NOT a final peace agreement

        In fact that was an alibi that was created to give the Arab leaders cover with their constituencies for negotiating with the enemy. The declassified documents in the FRUS indicate that the armistice agreements were negotiated under the guise of truce negotiations and the permanent settlement arrangements were negotiated under the guise of an armistice. There was no requirement for any further negotiations in the UN Security Council resolutions on the subject or in the armistice agreements themselves. The US State Department noted that the US was one of the 3 countries serving on the PCC, but that it had no direct mandate to do anything.

      • James Canning
        January 21, 2013, 1:21 pm

        Taxi – - Egypt and Jordan are unlikely to renounce their respoective treaties with Israel.
        Why shouldn’t Palestine simply be recognised by the UN as independent, with “1967″ borders? Problem then would become how to achieve exit of Israeli soldiers, police, etc etc.

      • James Canning
        January 21, 2013, 2:02 pm

        Great post.

        Israel knew Nasser had no intention of attacking Israel in June 1967, and that what obtained was an opportunity to launch an attack on Egypt that could be blamed on Egypt.

      • James Canning
        January 21, 2013, 2:04 pm

        RoHa – - Diplomacy often requires public statements that are inconsistent with private assurances.

      • Taxi
        January 22, 2013, 12:05 am

        “Egypt and Jordan are unlikely to renounce their respoective treaties with Israel.”

        But they will. Fake peace don’t last. Neither do brownozing leaders in times of change and upheaval.

      • Walid
        January 22, 2013, 4:26 am

        About the 2002 Saudi plan being discussed, it was redrafted by the Arab League in 2007 and that year, Olmert was invited to address it and the League members in Cairo but he backed out at the last minute for personal reasons and said he preferred to start private discussions with the Palestinians at Annapolis. The following year in July, Saudi King Abdallah invited Shimon Peres to one of his interfaith conferences in Madrid and that too failed to yield any result. Earlier in April that year, Livni had been invited to Qatar to meet with the Emir and that too did not yield any result.

        Israel is not interested in any peace plan of any kind and the Arabs don’t appear overly anxious about one either. Nobody is talking about the 2002 Saudi plan anymore eventhough it was a sweet deal for Israel since the Arabs and Arafat had agreed to the concept of 67 borders and a partial RoR for Palestinians that had to be acceptable to Israel. It’s obvious Israel wants all of former Palestine.

      • James Canning
        January 22, 2013, 1:24 pm

        Great post. I think many Israeli leaders think Israel can try to keep most of the West Bank permanently, without too much risk. And of course depending on continuing near-control of the US Congress by Aipac and other extremist groups (some of which pose as moderates).

      • James Canning
        January 22, 2013, 2:19 pm

        @Taxi – - You are simply mistaken. Egypt has peace with Israel. Jordan too. Syria nearly made a deal with Israel, for peace, in 2008. Moron in the White House allowed deal to be wrecked.

      • Taxi
        January 22, 2013, 11:23 pm

        James,
        Do continue educating me on the obvious, why don’t you?!

        Meanwhile, I WON’T be educating you on the difference between a fake peace and a genuine one.

      • James Canning
        January 23, 2013, 1:18 pm

        What is a “fake peace”? You want Arabs to thank Israeli Jews for taking 78% of Palestine?

      • Taxi
        January 23, 2013, 2:08 pm

        A fake peace is like a fake orgasm. I’m sure you’ve experienced one or two.

      • James Canning
        January 23, 2013, 3:07 pm

        Meaning the Arabs should pretend to be pleased that Jews have taken 78% of Palestine?

      • Taxi
        January 24, 2013, 9:15 am

        You’re very confused, aren’t you? Repeating the same silly question at me. A quick peruse through my 4723 posts should answer your ridiculous question.

        And stop being such a sourpuss cuz I pointed out your pompous exaggeration: “Off the record, Arab leaders make clear there will be no right of return for the great majority of displaced Palestinians.”

        And how about this racist colonialist imposition: “My understanding is that virtually all Muslim leaders, not just Arab, accept that Israel within its pre-1967 borders is a fact of life the Palestinians, and the Arabs, and other Muslims, have to accept if there is to be peace.” So the victim “has to accept” the criminal “if there is to be peace”?!!!!!!!

        Newsflash: Your understanding is wrong: “virtually” all Arabs don’t want to “accept” being forced into giving up their ancestral land for a bunch racist euro psychopaths.

  4. seanmcbride
    January 13, 2013, 12:41 pm

    Blownaway,

    Tzipi Livni is really responsible for the failure of Israel to take the most generous deal ever imagined offered by the Palestinians.

    Tzipi Livni is a liberal Zionist. End of story.

    Some other liberal Zionists: Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Haim Saban, Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller, Martin Indyk, etc.

    Liberal Zionists are playing a double game: trying to provide a fig leaf of respectability for Likud Zionism and Greater Israelism. They have talked peace while Israel continued to build more Jewish-only settlements under both Labor and Likud.

    It was understandable that many sincere and idealistic people were taken in by this game during the 1990s and the first half of the last decade — but no longer.

    And this is why Israel is now on the verge of a total breakdown in relations with the United States and Europe.

    • Blownaway
      January 13, 2013, 12:56 pm

      They all think they can have their cake and eat it too..There is no adult here to speak the truth to power.

      • seafoid
        January 14, 2013, 3:16 pm

        They have half of the people and they want all of the land.
        That wouldn’t even work in kindergarten.

    • seanmcbride
      January 13, 2013, 1:06 pm

      How this good cop/bad cop routine works: the bad cops move forward with the messianic grand project of building Eretz Yisrael. The good cops express principled opposition to the project but take no effective measures to obstruct the project. Supposedly we should be focusing on the pretty and empty words of liberal Zionists while paying no attention to the actions of Likud Zionists.

      This good cop/bad cop routine became fully exposed when Barack Obama and Joe Biden attempted to stop the building of more Jewish-only settlements in the illegally occupied territories early on during Obama’s first term. What happened? Liberal Zionists in the Democratic Party, like Ronald Lauder, Chuck Schumer and Ed Koch, moved quickly to silence Obama and Biden through the application of massive pressure.

      Now we understand what is really going on. There is no longer any excuse for the United States and Europe to be taken in by this game. It’s time for new rules.

      • Shingo
        January 14, 2013, 6:33 am

        Great observation Sean,

        The liberal Zionist crowd are always happy to hand wring until the blood drains from their faces, but they remain the gatekeepers against any punitive measures taken against Israel – juts like JStreet.

    • Krauss
      January 13, 2013, 3:06 pm

      Sean, I agree with much of what you say, except two things.
      First, please don’t forget to put scare quotes around ‘liberal’ when discussing ‘liberal’ Zionism. You cannot have liberal anything that is a violent ethnic nationalistic ideology. End of story.

      Second, Labor are not a fig leaf. They are the source of Israel’s policies. Likud is arguably more blunt with them, they don’t have the sophistication of Labor in ethnic cleansing campaigns(Likud doesn’t even bother to speak the language of peace and pretend they care), but ultimately, Likud is just a follower of Labor’s and Mapai’s footsteps, not a trailblazer.

      • sardelapasti
        January 14, 2013, 12:38 am

        Krauss: “You cannot have liberal anything that is a violent ethnic nationalistic ideology. ”

        Oh? And what about the “Liberals” as they are called in the US of A, who traditionally support imperialist war, landgrab, Zionism, “American interests overseas”, etc.? What about the policies of Mr&Mrs. Clinton, Obama, et al.? If these aren’t violent ethnic nationalists, who is?

      • aiman
        January 14, 2013, 6:52 am

        Krauss, that’s like saying a person is not a human if he projects inhumanity. Let’s face it, liberals can be war-mongers, close-minded and imperialists. The argument that liberalism and Zionism are incompatible is a different one, even here we must note that contemporary liberalism is vastly different from classical liberalism.

      • seanmcbride
        January 14, 2013, 11:27 am

        Krauss,

        Second, Labor are not a fig leaf. They are the source of Israel’s policies. Likud is arguably more blunt with them, they don’t have the sophistication of Labor in ethnic cleansing campaigns(Likud doesn’t even bother to speak the language of peace and pretend they care), but ultimately, Likud is just a follower of Labor’s and Mapai’s footsteps, not a trailblazer.

        You are right on that.

        Probably at this point in the history of Zionism, one can safely drop all distinctions among Zionists — Zionists are Zionists. Zionism at the core was always about messianic Greater Israelism and, sorry to say, racism. During the last decade all the false propaganda about “liberal Zionism” has been stripped away by the actions of “liberal Zionists” — actions which consistently contradict their words.

        Liberal Zionists are now confronted with a terrible dilemma: will they line up with the values of modern Western democracies or with the values of Zionism?

        Curiously, Meir Kahane always predicted this day would come — in retrospect he appears to have been a prophet.

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 5:01 pm

        “Zionism at the core was always about messianic Greater Israelism and, sorry to say, racism.”

        So, Sean, you are saying that if the Jews of Europe and Asia were all prosperous, accepted, and had full political and economic rights, and were not persecuted on a religious basis, they would have attempted the Zionist project anyway, simply on the basis of “messianic Greater Israelism” (hmmm, seems a funny locution for a time before there was any Israel) and “racism”?
        Cause if you are right, the more accepted, the more rights, and the more money Jews have, the more resources they will have to pursue the Zionist project, and the fewer reasons to stop it. Goodness Gravy, what on earth can you do about people like that? People who will go out and steal a country for themselves even if there’s no need for it, just to indulge their “messianism” and “racism”. Those are not nice people!

      • seanmcbride
        January 16, 2013, 6:38 pm

        Mooser,

        My reading comprehension is quite good, but I often find your “serious” comments to be even more difficult to make sense of than Leander’s. Your “logic” sometimes eludes me entirely.

        Examples of logical writers and commenters here: Hostage, Sibiriak, Phil, American, CitizenC, lysias, Shmuel, German Lefty, Klaus, Krauss, etc.

        In any case, are you trying to argue that Zionism is completely the product of persecution by “the nations” — the bestial goyim — and has nothing to do with internal archetypal forces within Judaism and Jewish culture that originated in the Pentateuch and developed and extended over several thousand years?

      • seanmcbride
        January 16, 2013, 7:30 pm

        Mooser,

        When you survey the relentless and ever-escalating torrent of unfair verbal attacks that have been directed by Jewish pro-Israel activists against non-Jews during recent decades, all around the world, what thoughts go through your mind?

        I am referring to brutal and outrageous verbal attacks like those by Elliott Abrams against Chuck Hagel, by Pamela Geller against Barack Obama, by Jeffrey Goldberg against Stephen Walt, by Alan Dershowitz against Jimmy Carter, by Martin Peretz against George H.W. Bush, by Jonah Goldberg against James Baker, etc.

        Where do you think this dysfunctional pattern of social interaction between Jewish pro-Israel activists and non-Jews is heading? Who is responsible in this situation for the deterioration in good and sane relations? What is the core psychological driver of the Jewish pro-Israel activists who are making these attacks?

        What do you think are the real thoughts and feelings, beneath the facade of controlled civility, of those who have been the targets of these attacks?

      • Mooser
        January 19, 2013, 1:55 pm

        You are, as always, avoiding the question. The question is: If Zionism is a product of intrinsic qualities, “core drivers” (as you say) in Judaism, what will we have to do to prevent them from doing Zionism? If Zionism is an inevitable product of “Jewish ideology”, how can we prevent the Jews from it?

        Seems to me, if Zionism is “intrinsic” a “core driver”, the better things are for Jews, the more they will do it. Do you agree?

      • seanmcbride
        January 19, 2013, 2:21 pm

        Mooser,

        I am not sure you understand my basic perspective on these issues: I think all ethnic and religious groups have strong intrinsic tendencies towards ethnocentrism, chauvinism, triumphalism, xenophobia, cultism, etc. — my group no less than yours. This is a fundamental human issue, not a Jewish issue. I think we all need to discuss our respective problems in this area with the objective of overcoming them.

        Zionism is on the front burner at the moment because Israel has become a huge factor in American and global politics — it is getting a lot of attention. But you never know when white militancy, or Christian militancy or European militancy might flare up again. If it does, we will be all over it.

        Many Jews since the Enlightenment have demonstrated brilliantly that they can overcome a narrow ethno-religious nationalist outlook on the world — and I regard Jewish humanism to be as much a “core driver” of Jewish civilization as ethno-religious nationalism.

        Perhaps I have not communicated my views with clarity — and I apologize if any of my statements have upset you.

      • Mooser
        January 20, 2013, 12:28 pm

        “I regard Jewish humanism to be as much a “core driver” of Jewish civilization as ethno-religious nationalism.”

        So, Sean. if I return to your Dec. 5th comment in which you say: (and I quote)

        “Judaism’s core driver: messianic ethnocentrism and ethno-religious nationalism organized around a particular physical territory (Eretz Israel and Jerusalem).

        The key components:

        1. ethnocentrism
        2. territorialism
        3. nationalism
        4. messianism”

        I will now find “Jewish humanism” listed as one of the “core drivers” ? I’ll give you this, Sean, you are good with computers! My comments have to stand as I wrote them, but not yours!
        So anything you write can mean anything else you want it to, at any given time you want to completely change it’s meaning? Okay, then, that’s nice to know. Thank you for making it so apparent, for somebody who is as dense as me.

      • seanmcbride
        January 21, 2013, 12:54 pm

        Mooser,

        Joel Kovel on the primal connections between Judaism and Zionism, which the contemporary worldwide Jewish religious establishment has ardently embraced:

        The Zionist era is typically seen in light of the ancient Jewish narrative of selection by God to be the Chosen People and subsequent exile and suffering, with its dream of redemption located in the building of Israel. Thus Israel becomes Judaism’s destiny….

        … Zionists have generally been strident modernists only a small fraction of whom were originally at all religious. Yet, in seeking the path of violent expropriation, they have been driven by Old Testament belief in an angry and jealous God. Thus Zionist modernity sprouts its atavistic Doppelganger. One side takes the form of hip technocracy; the other, of a burgeoning ultra-Orthodox segment that would make the founders of Israel turn over in their grave. They are joined, hatefully, in Zionism; and each works to legitimate the violence essential to Israel’s existence.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        Your thoughts?

      • seanmcbride
        January 21, 2013, 1:08 pm

        Mooser,

        Regarding my December 5th comment– during the course of this discussion, and thanks to your reasonable challenges and questions, I have modified it. I would currently summarize my views this way:

        The worldwide organized Jewish establishment (which in part can be described fairly as the Jewish lobby) is dragging the worldwide Jewish community (Israeli and Diaspora Jews) into an apocalyptic confrontation with the entire non-Jewish world on the basis of Old Testament (Torah) myths enshrining mystical ethnocentrism (sacred peoplehood, the Jewish people), mystical nationalism (sacred nationhood, Eretz Yisrael) and mystical territorialism (sacred land, the Land of Israel).

        Have it at! :) I may have all this wrong. But this is how I currently see the world.

        Notice that I am now organizing these ideas around three core cultural drivers — all three of which are messianic.

        The only hope for changing this dynamic is for Jews who care about Enlightenment streams within Jewish civilization to assert themselves strongly and effectively and to acquire control over the Jewish establishment. And these Jewish humanists need to seek out alliances with non-Jewish humanists to increase their leverage within the Jewish world.

    • James Canning
      January 13, 2013, 6:33 pm

      Illegal settlements are indeed causing Israel a number of diplomatic problems in Europe. But with the US? Israel lobby continues to suppress discussion of most of the issues, facts, etc etc etc, in hopes of continuing to deceive the American public.

      • W.Jones
        January 13, 2013, 7:17 pm

        Yeah. They took a page out of US campaign tactics. It’s typical that one politician will make the other sound bad, corrupt, too pro-corporate, but then turn around and follow very similar policies.

        It’s like a US politician saying “We are about to have a climate change catastrophe (True? Not true?). The other guy doesn’t care about the change. Vote me in”, when you know they are both connected.

        You make a good point – Labor was pretty similar in the years it was in power, and after that Livni has supported the attack on Gaza in 2009. Didn’t she again in 2011?

        Since she is a liberal, she takes a more liberal position and then backs it up with very strong rhetoric like thinking Vote me, the liberal, in. Exagerrated campaign justification: We are on the verge of pluralism. Ahhh! Of course, a conservative could make a similar fear-mongering statement.

        I am being pessimistic about this, but you are making a good point.

        One difference I see is the settlement issue: the liberals are less likely to support building settlements. But they have done that too in the past. It’s weird.

  5. eljay
    January 13, 2013, 12:45 pm

    >> “Netanyahu is leading us toward the end of the Jewish state,” she said in a statement Friday.

    This is a good thing, especially if the end toward which he is leading is a secular, democractic and egalitarian Israel, a state of and for all Israelis, equally.

    >> “Israelis must choose between extremism and Zionism. … ”

    Israelis must choose between Zio-supremacism – and the injustices and immorality that it comprises – and peace, justice, morality and equality (among other positive values).

  6. pipistro
    January 13, 2013, 1:03 pm

    “…a few more years of rule by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s heavily favored right wing might well destroy the Jewish state.”

    Might it? I guess this is an optimistic assessment. And about “right wing”, I would not give it that weight.

    Apart the times before Oslo (and let alone Oslo, anyway), the Labourist Barak at Camp David, effectively backed by the ZIonist bunch (Ross & Co.), and with the aid of substantive Clinton’s incapacity towards Israeli unwillingness to cope with their own political errors, threw the two-state solution under a train.
    Since then, a plethora of analysts progressively argued that the most desirable solution was killed, or brought to suicide by the choices of the State of Israel.
    If it has lead to the death of the Zionist project, I don’t think that the radical Zionist “dreamers”, as well as the left-wing and/or liberal Israelis, should blame anyone other than themselves, and the irresponsible choice of their leaders.
    Moreover, it’s possible that owing to the short sight of an die-hard lobbying activity without frontiers, in the future, will require, if possible, even more time to settle the I/P problem, and implement a viable, democratic, one-State alternative.

  7. Klaus Bloemker
    January 13, 2013, 1:20 pm

    In 2004, Benzi Lieberman, chairman of the Council of Settlements, told Jeffrey Goldberg: “We will destroy the Palestinians. We won’t kill them all. But we will destroy their ability to think as a nation. We will destroy Palestinian nationalism.”
    (Elliott Horowitz, ‘Reckless Rites’, page 1)
    ———————
    While being busy destroying Palestinian nationalism, Israeli-Jewish nationalism surged. Now what? – Maybe, a return to the “authentically prophetic Jewish values” (Siegman) can help. Unfortunately, I know too little about these prophetic values to explain how this may work.

    • seafoid
      January 14, 2013, 6:09 am

      “We will destroy the Palestinians.”

      that worked real good, didn’t it ?

  8. seanmcbride
    January 13, 2013, 1:28 pm

    Liberal Zionists have been backed into the corner of choosing between two options: joining forces with Likud Zionism and Greater Israelism or abandoning Zionism altogether.

    My prediction: 90% of them will break towards Likud Zionism; 10% of them will break towards anti-Zionism or non-Zionism.

    • Mooser
      January 14, 2013, 12:31 pm

      Jeez, not being fluent in C++, I hesitate to lodge any objections, but a % is pretty useless unless we know what 100% is. I’m sure you do, of course, you just haven’t told the rest of us.
      Edit: Oh no, now I’m frightened he’ll come back and tell me that, of course, 90% plus 10% = 100%

      • seanmcbride
        January 14, 2013, 2:16 pm

        Mooser,

        If you want to do statistical stuff, learn R.

        I didn’t entirely pull the numbers out of nowhere — they are based on my impressions of the psychological centers and emotional loyalties of many liberal Zionists I’ve noticed. For many of them, their Zionism is a much more instinctive and passionate factor in their lives than their liberalism. That’s how they roll — tribalism trumps everything else.

        Can you really envision Chuck Schumer or Debbie Wasserman Schultz abandoning Zionism under any circumstances? Ain’t gonna happen. Their programming runs deep.

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 5:06 pm

        “I didn’t entirely pull the numbers out of nowhere”

        You didn’t pull out any numbers at all Sean.

      • seanmcbride
        January 16, 2013, 7:46 pm

        Mooser,

        You didn’t pull out any numbers at all Sean.

        I clearly stated that my prediction that liberal Zionists will break towards Likud Zionism, and not to anti-Zionism, was based on my personal and subjective impressions of the behavioral patterns of a large pool of liberal Zionists I have observed over the years. My 9 to 1 ratio was simply a way to express my intuitions on this issue in a way that is easy to grasp.

        I predicted with 100% certainty long before it started that the Iraq War would end as a foreign policy disaster — it is that kind of prediction.

        In what direction do you think liberal Zionists will move once they realize that Israel is on a collision course with the entire world, and why do you think what you think? What are you intuitions on this issue?

        You may well disagree with me. You may be right. We are making bets.

      • Mooser
        January 19, 2013, 2:06 pm

        So, this must be that new math they always talk about. Amazing, you can figure out percentages, without knowing the numbers! If we don’t know the total number of Zionists, how do we know what percentage any number of them doing anything represents?

        And yes, I knew it, you basically replied to tell me that 90% + 10% = 100%. Can’t dispute that!

  9. amigo
    January 13, 2013, 3:49 pm

    The Zionist State is past the point of return.

    No ammount of back pedalling will change the outcome.

    When a nation allows it,s PM to over rule the Supreme Court (at will) as he did Bab al Shams, that nation is past it,s use by date.

    Meanwhile , check the following reported at Haaretz.

    “Netanyahu visits isolated West Bank settlement for first time as PM
    Netanyahu’s visit to Rechelim settlement – kept partially secret for security and diplomatic reasons – was part of an effort to reclaim Likud voters lost to Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi.
    By Barak Ravid | 22:25 08.01.13 | 11

    No IDF or police sent to visit these “Campers” .

    Hell no. They get the Full treatment.

    Hypocrisy.

  10. Les
    January 13, 2013, 3:49 pm

    Next we’ll hear a call for Zionism lite.

    • RoHa
      January 13, 2013, 11:36 pm

      Which, like everything else labelled “Lite”, “Lo-Fat”, “Reduced Salt”, “Sugar-free”, etc., will be tasteless, repulsive, and not fit for anything.

  11. mcohen
    January 13, 2013, 4:50 pm

    quite right

  12. James Canning
    January 13, 2013, 6:26 pm

    The land was partitioned, in the late 1940s. Problem is foolish colonisation programme in the West Bank.

    • W.Jones
      January 13, 2013, 7:21 pm

      They did the same thing before Partition. They just decide unilaterally they are going to build settlements (kibbutzes) on other people’s land based on shaky justifications. Then partition came along and about the same time they did ethnic cleansing.

      Ironically the conservatives at that time used native Palestinian labor, while the liberals refused to, claiming it would be “exploitative.” Does anyone else think this does not make sense?

    • Shingo
      January 13, 2013, 9:24 pm

      The partition was very problematic itself. It was very unfair and unjust,

      • pjdude
        January 14, 2013, 2:58 pm

        true each jew in palestine was worth 2.5 times as much as each palestinian .

    • RoHa
      January 13, 2013, 11:59 pm

      “The land was partitioned, in the late 1940s. ‘

      Not legally. The partition plan was rejected by the majority of the population, and so had no force.

      • James Canning
        January 14, 2013, 2:54 pm

        All Arab countries agree to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders. Meanin, accepting the armistice line as the partition line. Full stop.

      • Hostage
        January 14, 2013, 11:40 pm

        Not legally. The partition plan was rejected by the majority of the population, and so had no force.

        As a matter of intertemporal law it was perfectly legal in 1947. By the late 1930s the Jews and Arabs were resorting to the use of force and terror to settle their dispute over Palestine.

        After the London Conference, the British government simply informed them that if they failed to come to an agreement on their own, their dispute would be submitted to binding international arbitration by the UN. See the FRUS, The Near East and Africa, 1947, page 1037 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        The Zionist Biltmore resolutions had already proposed UN arbitration of its demands. See the Aide Memoire from the British Embassy to the Department of State in the Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1942, The Near East and Africa, page 551 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        On June 14th, 1946 the Egyptian delegate to the League of Nations, Mahmoud Mohamed el Darwiche Bey, proposed that Palestine be added to the agenda of the final session of the League Assembly along with the resolution on Transjordan’s independence. He added that he would take the issue of the mandate up with the General Assembly when it convened in the fall and oppose any proposal for a trusteeship. The British Mandatory government subsequently submitted the Question of Palestine to a Special Session of the UN General Assembly.

        The Arab Higher Committee formally requested that the General Assembly should terminate the British Mandate and create a unitary Arab State in Palestine in a letter dated 10 July 1947.

        The Trusteeship Council was the fourth principle organ created by the UN Charter. It became senescent as a result of The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. But that does not mean that it was previously illegal for the UN General Assembly to govern or partition countries under its auspices as part of an arbitrated settlement adopted by 2/3rds of the states concerned regarding the status of a territory that was subject to an international trust. In fact, Articles 10, 18, 80, and 85 of the Charter specifically entrusted the General Assembly with the necessary power to conclude trust agreements (like the one regarding the Corpus Separatum in the partition plan) or to adopt decisions on “any question”, like the independence or recognition of a new state or states in a territory that had been part of an international trust.

        It’s pointless to argue that the General Assembly was legally competent to terminate the mandate and create a unitary Arab state against the wishes of the Jewish inhabitants, but that it wasn’t competent to terminate the mandate and create two states as part of an arbitrated or internationally adjudicated settlement simply because the Arab inhabitants opposed the idea.

        On 20 June, 1962 the UN General Assembly adopted a decision to accept a UN commission’s proposal to partition Ruanda-Urundi into two independent states, Rwanda and Burundi. Those actions paralleled exactly the steps taken earlier by the UNSCOP commission and the General Assembly in the case of Palestine.

        In the case of the former Class B mandated territory of Ruanda-Urundi no one questioned the legal competence of the UN to adopt a decision which denied the inhabitants independence and retained the international status of the territory under a new trusteeship arrangement. Similarly, no one questioned its legal competence to create two states, instead of one, when it dissolved the trusteeship.

        I expect that Kosovo will follow Palestine’s example of applying for full membership in UN agencies and observer state status. When the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo is terminated, there will probably be a resolution which recognizes the new state, despite the Security Council resolutions which confirmed Serbia’s territorial integrity.

        At some point it will be useful to ask for an advisory opinion about the applicability of the veto to matters, like membership applications, which appear to be procedural.

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 5:12 pm

        Thanks, Hostage. Each comment a lesson.

  13. eljay
    January 13, 2013, 8:48 pm

    >> The land was partitioned, in the late 1940s. Problem is foolish colonisation programme in the West Bank.

    Problem is also the terrorism and ethnic cleansing used help create a supremacist state, the supremacist state itself, the on-going plight of Palestinian refugees and the complete lack of Israeli and Zio-supremacist accountability.

    • James Canning
      January 14, 2013, 3:40 pm

      Israel’s borders were established, and Israel itself is foolishly eroding them, in a sense.
      Focus surely must be on getting Israeli troops and police out of the West Bank.

  14. Nevada Ned
    January 13, 2013, 8:56 pm

    Blathering about “the end of the Jewish state” is hysteria.
    Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Israel decided to give Palestinians the same rights as Jews. Would that be so terrible? Would that be the “end” of Israel?

    I am old enough to remember the civil rights movement in the 1960′s, in which another oppressed group rose in revolt. Naturally, southern whites were appalled at the prospect of equal rights for non-whites. They didn’t put it in quite the same words, but they might have: the end of Alabama, the end of Mississippi, the overthrow of the southern way of life and its (alleged) virtues. We all know now that the Jim Crow system of racial discrimination was overthrown. Alabama and Mississippi are still there. The former Confederate states had to change their policies, and it was not a small change.

    If (or when) the Palestinians gain their rights, the Israelis will have to change their policies. It won’t be “the end of Israel”, but it will be a change, and not a small change.

    Will it be an end to “the Jewish state”? Israel has a minority of 20% non-Jewish Israeli citizens, so even today Israel isn’t an exclusively Jewish state.

    And since when is racial exclusiveness some kind of moral virtue?

  15. southernobserver
    January 13, 2013, 11:09 pm

    Let us not dismiss the original partition too lightly. The original plan represents the only borders with any legitimacy. 55% to the Zionists was (and is) injust but it is clearly closer than the ~ the 40% of 22% currently on offer.

    • Hostage
      January 14, 2013, 6:35 am

      Let us not dismiss the original partition too lightly. The original plan represents the only borders with any legitimacy. 55% to the Zionists was (and is) injust but it is clearly closer than the ~ the 40% of 22% currently on offer.

      Frankly the root of the problem has always been the refusal to implement the original partition plan. It called for equal rights and constitutional democracies in both of the new states. Private property, transit, and religious rights were not effected by the new borders. There was no real division, since the plan called for an economic union between the two states that would have transferred revenues from one to the other to provide for essential public services when needed. In other words, these were independent states in name only. The plan would have resulted in a de facto bi-national entity if it had been fully implemented.

      • Mooser
        January 14, 2013, 12:18 pm

        “The plan would have resulted in a de facto bi-national entity if it had been fully implemented.”

        If I grasp this correctly, if the “original partition plan” had been “implemented”, the Zionists would have had to pay for every dunam(?) of land they wanted, at the going rate. Is that right?

      • Hostage
        January 14, 2013, 8:19 pm

        If I grasp this correctly, if the “original partition plan” had been “implemented”, the Zionists would have had to pay for every dunam(?) of land they wanted, at the going rate. Is that right?

        Yes private property, communal property, and holy sites were the subjects of legal guarantees. Note: More than half of the initial population of the so-called Jewish State were Arabs. They were supposed to be given proportional representation in the democratically elected government bodies. The UN Ad Hoc Committee report, A/AC.14/32, dated 11 November 1947 noted the updated population figures supplied by the British mandatory government indicated that, from the outset, Arabs would constitute a majority of the population of the proposed “Jewish” state – 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. See pdf file page 42 of 69.

        Here are the applicable extracts on that subject and expropriation of private property from the “Plan for the Future Government of Palestine”:

        The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, not later than two months after the withdrawal of the armed forces of the mandatory Power, hold elections to the Constituent Assembly which shall be conducted on democratic lines.

        The election regulations in each State shall be drawn up by the Provisional Council of Government and approved by the Commission. Qualified voters for each State for this election shall be persons over eighteen years of age who are (a) Palestinian citizens residing in that State; and (b) Arabs and Jews residing in the State, although not Palestinian citizens, who, before voting, have signed a notice of intention to become citizens of such State.

        Arabs and Jews residing in the City of Jerusalem who have signed a notice of intention to become citizens, the Arabs of the Arab State and the Jews of the Jewish State, shall be entitled to vote in the Arab and Jewish States respectively.

        Women may vote and be elected to the Constituent Assemblies.

        During the transitional period no Jew shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Arab State, and no Arab shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Jewish State, except by special leave of the Commission.

        The Constituent Assembly of each State shall draft a democratic constitution for its State and choose a provisional government to succeed the Provisional Council of Government appointed by the Commission. The Constitutions of the States shall embody Chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C below and include, inter alia, . . .

        C. Declaration

        General Provision

        The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

        No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be paid previous to dispossession.”

        link to yale.edu

        More importantly, the Plan for Economic Union created a common market economy with revenue redistribution under international supervision from the Jewish state to the Arab state to compensate for the fact that so much Arab revenue generating property and the major ports had been included in the Jewish state.

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 5:20 pm

        “Yes, private property, communal property, and holy sites were the subjects of legal guarantees.”

        Well, there you go, then. Did the Zionists budget ever run to the kind of resources it would have taken to purchase the thing legally? And even so, would that have gotten them what they really wanted?

      • Hostage
        January 16, 2013, 10:07 pm

        And even so, would that have gotten them what they really wanted?

        Not without ethnic cleansing. The Arabs constituted a majority of the inhabitants even before you factor-in the additional Arab voters in the territory captured beyond the borders contained in the plan of partition.

        There was no way of establishing a representative government with a democratic constitution and popularly elected lawmakers that would have permitted Jewish immigration or transfer of public lands to private Jewish entities like the JNF. End of Story.

      • Mooser
        January 20, 2013, 12:32 pm

        “There was no way of establishing a representative government with a democratic constitution and popularly elected lawmakers that would have permitted Jewish immigration or transfer of public lands to private Jewish entities like the JNF. End of Story.”

        Once again, Hostage, thanks for responding, and thanks for your clear writing. It’s as limpid as all get-out!

    • James Canning
      January 14, 2013, 2:56 pm

      As a practical matter, given that all Arab countries accept Irael’s taking of 78% of what was Palestine, the 78% is what Israel “gets”, provided the US forces a resolution of the dispute.

      • Hostage
        January 14, 2013, 8:57 pm

        As a practical matter, given that all Arab countries accept Irael’s taking of 78% of what was Palestine, the 78% is what Israel “gets”, provided the US forces a resolution of the dispute.

        The Arab Peace Initiative requires an agreed upon settlement regarding the refugees. Since that includes the disposition of millions of refugees that would be left on the territories of their States, that doesn’t necessarily imply that the “agreed upon settlement” is a bilateral one between Israel and the State of Palestine. In addition, the Palestinians have stated that the final settlement will be the subject of a national referendum and that the refugees in the diaspora will participate.

        I suspect that the US will have less influence over the subject of the right of return or compensation than it did over the membership of Palestine in UNESCO and its status as a non-member observer state in the UN.

      • James Canning
        January 15, 2013, 1:40 pm

        Arab leaders privately concede there will be, at best, a very limited “right of return” to Israel within Israel’s pre-1967 borders. Or would be, if Israel had the good sense to take the offer.

  16. American
    January 13, 2013, 11:32 pm

    The Israelis will refuse this of course and try more stalls. Britain and France better be up to slapping Isr around if they expect to settle I/P in 2013.

    link to telegraph.co.uk

    Telegraph.co.uk Monday 14 January 2013

    IsraelBritain and France ‘spearheading new Middle East peace plan’

    Britain and France are spearheading a new peace proposal for the Middle East that could put the Israel’s leaders on the defensive by pushing them to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians within a year, Israeli officials reportedly said on Sunday.

    Britain and France are spearheading a new peace proposal for the Middle East that could put the Israel’s leaders, including prime minister The initiative is expected to be tabled by March following the formation of a new Israeli government after next week’s general election. It will include a provision for a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem – a major sticking point in past negotiations.

    The Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper said the plan was being spearheaded by Britain and France with Germany’s support. It could eventually be adopted as a pan-European initiative by the EU’s foreign policy chief, Baroness Ashton, the newspaper reported.

    Disclosure of the initiative follows international condemnation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Right-wing government over a recent wave of plans to expand West Bank settlements, which the EU and US fear could kill off prospects for a two-state solution.

    “We do know that the EU is planning to come up with something after the elections, when the new government has been formed,” one Israeli official told The Daily Telegraph.

    “We don’t know if it’s going to be a fully-fledged plan, or an idea or something more or less ambitious because we have not been consulted. We believe they may want to put forward some sort of deal with parameters but they are perfectly conscious of the fact that an agreement can only be negotiated between the two sides.”

    Citing Israeli diplomatic sources, Yedioth Ahronoth, said the proposal would suggest negotiations based on pre-1967 borders with possible land swaps and push for all core issues to be resolved by the end of 2013. It would also demand a freeze on building work in the settlements.

    “There is great movement behind the scenes. The Europeans can’t force Israel to enter into an agreement, but they can certainly put us in an awkward position,” an Israeli diplomatic official told the newspaper.

    “It is likely the Palestinians will accept it and that Israel will have some difficulty. It will drive us into the corner.”

    Mr Netanyahu said Israel would continue to build after security forces early on Sunday evicted dozens of Palestinian activists from a makeshift protest camp in the highly-sensitive E1 area in the West Bank.

    The camp, known as Bab al-Shams, was erected last Friday in protest at Israel’s decision to start planning processes for building new settlements, despite warnings that it could destroy the territorial coherence of a future Palestinian state.

    “We will not allow anyone to harm the contiguity between Jerusalem and Maale Adumim [a Jewish settlement next to the area],” Mr Netanyahu told the Israeli cabinet after praising the eviction of the activists.

    The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, told the Commons last month that he was consulting with his French and German counterparts about how to lend European weight to a US-led peace initiative.

    “The Foreign Secretary has made the UK position clear in recent statements to the House,” a Foreign Office spokesman said. “The only way to give the Palestinian people the state that they need and deserve and the Israeli people the security and peace they are entitled to, is through a negotiated two-state solution, and time for this is now running out.

    “This requires Israelis and Palestinians to return to negotiations, Israel to stop illegal settlement building, Palestinian factions to reconcile with each other and the international community led by the United States and supported by European nations to make a huge effort to push the peace process forward urgently.

    “The UK is working with international partners to that end.”

    A spokesman for Baroness Ashton said she had been asked to take the lead in promoting peace talks. “There is no secret initiative on the Middle East peace process,” he said. “However, the last meeting of the EU Foreign Affairs Council tasked the High Representative [Baroness Ashton] to take the lead in advancing the work on the Middle East peace process on the various strands.”

    • Sumud
      January 14, 2013, 9:21 am

      I suspect (and hope) this upcoming push by Britain & France is their last straw – if Israeli isn’t forthcoming, then they will abandon ship.

      • American
        January 14, 2013, 11:57 am

        I want to see trade sanctions on Israel by the EU or at least by Britain and France if Israel doesn’t comply…and it won’t. Israel’s trade with Europe is just a tad larger than it is with the US, it would cripple Israel economically.

      • ivri
        January 14, 2013, 1:09 pm

        Not last or before last and they will never abandon anything. The way “main agendas” shift in our era you can rest assured that in just a year or two such “grand plans” will look ancient history

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 5:34 pm

        “Not last or before last and they will never abandon anything. The way “main agendas” shift in our era you can rest assured that in just a year or two such “grand plans” will look ancient history”

        So ivri, landsmann, let me get this straight. All “main agendas” can change drastically, but the West will never “abandon” the relationship with Israel? Gosh, with friends like that there, why did we ever leave?

  17. yourstruly
    January 14, 2013, 12:07 am

    fear of the binational state?

    increasing recognition/acceptance of its inevitability?

    not withstanding?

    the future racing towards us?

    palestine, just & free?

    a glimpse of tomorrow?

    too good to be true?*

    *much later, there was frequent reference made to somehow everything just seeming to fall into place

  18. talknic
    January 14, 2013, 10:41 am

    Israel cannot afford to abide by the law and pay reparations for 64 years of illegally acquiring Palestinian territory. It passed that point 1949 – 1967.

    Post 1967 it went way beyond…

    A Greater Israel has been a clearly defined project from the moment the Jewish Colonial Trust was set up almost a century ago by a small cabal of self elected people who did not represent the world’s Jewish population and who were not even from the region. If it continues, Israel will either have to commit genocide or be faced with an Arab majority. With an Arab majority it will either have to succumb to democracy and no longer be a Jewish State or become an apartheid state.

    There is no way out of the hell hole it has created for itself except to plea bargain with the Palestinians and although they may have agreed to negotiate, in the process there is absolutely no legal basis for the Palestinians to forgo ANY of their rights. Israel will be entirely dependent on Palestinian generosity.

    It has long passed the time where Israelis and the Jewish world must face up to reality. 64 years of ghastly lies and false blame must come to an end.

    • Mooser
      January 14, 2013, 12:14 pm

      “Israel cannot afford to abide by the law and pay reparations for 64 years of illegally acquiring Palestinian territory. It passed that point 1949 – 1967.
      Post 1967 it went way beyond…”

      “It has long passed the time where Israelis and the Jewish world must face up to reality. 64 years of ghastly lies and false blame must come to an end.”

      And gee, let’s see… if you were in a position (alive now, and playing a part in the Zionist regime) which might leave you with responsibility for this, either financial or criminal or both, how would you prefer that it ended? With truth, an accounting, and responsibility, or an apocalyptic confusion which might erase all responsibility and offer a chance for escape? And up the latter we go.

      • MarkF
        January 14, 2013, 3:57 pm

        “And up the latter we go.”

        Wearing flame-retardant undies I suspect….

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 5:26 pm

        “Wearing flame-retardant undies I suspect….”

        Yes, they weave them from 100% double-passport cloth.

Leave a Reply