Trending Topics:

Kerry and Shapiro bring the one-state news the NYT failed to deliver

on 33 Comments

Today in an editorial, the New York Times all but throws in the towel on the two-state solution:

With only a year left in office, President Obama is unlikely to make another run at a peace process or even apply serious pressure on Israel to halt settlement-building. With the Kerry and Shapiro speeches, the administration is hoping to prod Israelis and Palestinians to think hard about the future they are creating. Tragically, it may already be too late for the one formula that has the best chance of establishing a durable peace: two independent states, side by side.

What drives this understanding? State Department officials, as the Times states.

Last week the US Ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro, lit up the Israeli establishment with a speech suggesting that Israel was installing apartheid in the West Bank and that it was hurting the United States.

too many attacks on Palestinians lack a vigorous investigation or response by Israeli authorities; too much vigilantism goes unchecked; and at times there seem to be two standards of adherence to the rule of law: one for Israelis and another for Palestinians.

Hovering over all of these questions is the larger one about Israel’s political strategy vis-à-vis its conflict with the Palestinians. What is Israel’s plan for resolving the conflict? For remaining a Jewish and democratic state?… What tools can Israel provide to assist us in our global diplomatic defense of Israel, to which we will always be committed?

Last month, Secretary of State John Kerry lit up the same government by telling a pro-Israel thinktank in D.C. that there is an “untenable one state reality” taking hold between the river and the sea and that the Israeli government seems to endorse this process. Soon after that he suggested Israel is creating an apartheid state (to David Remnick at the New Yorker): “Will it be a democracy? Will it be a Jewish state? Or will it be a unitary state with two systems, or some draconian treatment of Palestinians, because to let them vote would be to dilute the Jewish state?”

The sad thing about this process is that it should not be the labor of the State Department to acquaint the American elites — via the New York Times editorial board– with the reality in Israel and Palestine. The paper’s own reporters failed miserably in this basic descriptive duty; both Ethan Bronner and Jodi Rudoren failed to report rampant apartheid conditions and the rightwing Israeli polity’s support for the settlers because of what I conclude after long study were Zionist attachments these reporters were never upfront about. A generational attachment to Zionism extends throughout the Times’s chattering department, from Paul Krugman to Thomas Friedman to Roger Cohen to David Brooks (who has lately described the entire occupied West Bank as “Israel”). Cohen and Brooks are at least transparent about it.

Of course, our press generally has failed at this important task– and surely for the same sociocultural reason, because reporters and editors deferred to idealistic Zionists in their own ranks and leadership. Robert Simon tried at 60 Minutes, Karl Vick tried at Time. The Nation did a good job with its Apartheid on Steroids piece of a few years back, but generally the American press has failed a central informational task. NPR has been miserable. The New York Review of Books was too pained by the sight to look (though it managed to publish David Shulman). The New Yorker did publish Yousef Munayyer on the need to imagine a one-state outcome, years ago, but that was an exception; the magazine has largely treated one-state as a threat to Zionist dreams and world order, rather than the lived-reality of Palestinians right now.

So Americans who wanted to understand what is really going on over there have had to rely on witnesses like Diana Buttu, Rula Jebreal, Phyllis Bennis, Mazin Qumsiyeh, Max Blumenthal, Ali Abunimah, Munayyer, and Mustafa Barghouti to convey this reality. All of these people have been shunned by the mainstream to one degree or another because of their heresy. Blumenthal said that it was because of the elite’s belief in a “dreamcastle Israel” that his important book never got a hearing in the New York Times or NPR; and he stamped a generation with that remark.

We can only hope that the (relative) bravery of high State officials will enable the media to step up to its duties at last. (And I say this as someone who made a living out of the media’s abdication; I hope that part of my job description ends.)

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

33 Responses

  1. Rooster on January 23, 2016, 1:57 pm

    Despite this, CNN still puts this story out on their website’s front page:
    “Au revoir and shalom: Jews leave France in record numbers”

    The story lays out numbers (unchallenged) from the Jewish Agency, and makes the case that Israel [as it stands] is necessary as an island of protection for world Jewry due to perceived rising antisemitism in Europe: “Israel’s Jewish leaders have always proclaimed that the country will always offer a home to Jews from anywhere in the world.”

    Nothing on the displaced peoples who have no comparable safe haven.
    Nothing on statistics of anti-arab nor anti-muslim attacks.
    Nothing on emigration FROM Israel.
    Nothing on the question of what people will do in the name of creating the feeling of a “safe place.”
    Nothing on the questionable nature of the statistics from the Jewish Agency, its ties to the Israeli governmnent, and therefore ties to ethnic cleansing, of which an appeal to judaic-only migration to Israel is a significant component.
    Is CNN therefore, with this story, cheerleading ethnic cleansing?
    And, topically, actually BEHIND the NYT on the matter?

    Or is it just me?

    So am I wrong in interpreting this as naked propaganda?

    • Krauss on January 24, 2016, 8:14 am

      When you read the stats, most are leaving because of the poor economy and aggressive state secularism, not AS. Of course that doesn’t jibe with hasbara.

      • diasp0ra on January 24, 2016, 11:55 am


        Do you perhaps have a link to the in depth stats?

      • Mooser on January 24, 2016, 12:08 pm

        “and aggressive state secularism,”

        Wow, and I thought I had a problem figuring out what “diddy-wah-diddy” means! I wish somebody could tell me what “aggressive state secularism” means and how it drives people to Israel.

    • pabelmont on January 24, 2016, 9:19 am

      Rooster: Beautiful laying out of what is NOT said. Relying on Jewish Agency, do they say these folks are going to Israel or just leaving France?

      As to whether it is propaganda, it is surely self-serving propaganda for Jewish Agency. As to CNN, it might be propaganda (coerced by money or ideology) but might just be perceived as “of interest to readers” since so much USA media cover Israel and Jews these days that an editor might mistake all that for generalized interest.

      Your list of related (but ignored) topics s/b sent to CNN for THEIR comment.

    • Misterioso on January 25, 2016, 5:02 pm

      Israel’s emigration/immigration:

      Haaretz | Dec.15, 2012

      “Bye, the beloved country – why almost 40 percent of Israelis are thinking of emigrating”

      “According to a new survey, more than a third of Israelis would leave the country if they could, citing economic opportunities as the main reason. Who are the wannabe leavers, and what can be done to induce them to stay?”;_ylt=AlaFpS34FCiOTTYACR3b_e4UewgF
      EXCERPT: “Zeev Bielsky, the head of the Jewish Agency in charge of bringing in immigrants to the Jewish state, expressed concern over the falling numbers. Diaspora Jews today ‘have fewer reasons to leave their countries of origin’ as Israel has become ‘less attractive as a land of immigration,’ he told army radio.”

      JERUSALEM (AFP) – “Jewish immigration to Israel continued to slide in 2007 with the number of newcomers at just 19,700, the lowest level in 20 years, according to figures published on Monday. ”

      “Immigration was down six percent from 2006, the immigrant absorption ministry said.

      “The number of immigrants from former Soviet countries, which made up 30 percent of all newcomers, dropped 15 percent from 2006.

      “Zeev Bielsky, the head of the Jewish Agency in charge of bringing in immigrants to the Jewish state, expressed concern over the falling numbers.

      “Diaspora Jews today ‘have fewer reasons to leave their countries of origin’ as Israel has become ‘less attractive as a land of immigration,’ he told army radio.

      “Numbers from former Soviet countries have declined because the economic situation in Russia has improved and Jewish communities there are flourishing, he added.

      “Immigration from France has also fallen following the election as president of Nicolas Sarkozy, whose ‘popularity in the Jewish community gives it a better sense of security.’ One of Sarkozy’s grandparents was Jewish.

      “Israel’s Law of Return allows anyone who is Jewish or has a Jewish spouse, a Jewish parent or a Jewish grandparent, to obtain Israeli citizenship.”,7340,L-3388445,00.html
      “Shoah survivors forced back to Germany due to Israel’s lack of restitution laws”

      “Documentary shows Israel worst place for Holocaust survivors to live throughout Western world. Hundreds protest outside Knesset, demand government help survivors with financial difficulties.” By Ines Ehrlich Published: 04.16.07, 11:32 / Israel News
      Haaretz – 16.09.11

      “Why are Israelis moving to Germany?”

      “Thousands of Israelis, among them many artists, have chosen to live in Berlin because of its relaxed atmosphere and relatively low cost of living, even if it means living in a country with a fraught history.”

  2. pabelmont on January 23, 2016, 2:31 pm

    Dreamcastle Israel? With whipped cream and a cherry? But — importantly — can only be looked at through rose colored glasses. Best, indeed, not to look at the reality at all. That’s why NYT & NPR et al. refuse to report on the unpleasant realities, like Victorians who refuse to speak the words “piano legs” because in their time to mention “legs” was obscene (or something like that). Does make you wonder what the schools of journalism have to say about such “reporting”. See no evil, speak no evil.

    And USA will protect Israel no matter how far it slides into apartheid, fascism, or anything else.

    • Egbert on January 24, 2016, 7:38 am

      “With whipped cream and a cherry?”

      Surely you mean – With whipped cream and a cherry tomato?

  3. Donald on January 23, 2016, 2:52 pm

    This is a long problem with the NYT and foreign policy in general– they tend to let the American government set the agenda. They act like they need its permission to report on some stories, no matter how obvious.

  4. JWalters on January 23, 2016, 4:51 pm

    Thanks for this excellent article on the sad state of the press.

    The massive injustices inflicted on the people of Palestine cannot be justified by

    1. the Torah
    2. the Holocaust
    3. a hypothetical future persecution of Jews in the U.S.

    or any combination of these.

    The only reason these injustices have been sustained is because the U.S. public has been kept unaware of them.

    The U.S. public deserves an apology, and the people of Palestine deserve an apology.

  5. Kay24 on January 23, 2016, 9:49 pm

    Again, this is yet another reminder that we will never see the Palestinian people have their freedom, will never have the right to return, will have lost their lands, farms, and other resources, and many of them will be killed, injured or chased away. They will be marginalized, and no other nation will lift a finger to help them, not even their Arab brothers in surrounding nations (shame on them all).

    Whether some ruthless zionist said this or not, the zionists have fulfilled that statement.

    “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”

    The above crimes which we see going on today, also indicates these are people with terroristic tendencies, resort to ruthless crimes against humanity, and are resorting to a slow genocide of people who have no voice, nor support from the world community. At this point it seems no one gives a damn.

    Meanwhile in the US the zionists have made American people believe that Iran is the terror state, although I have not heard of any Israeli scientist being brutally killed by Iran yet.

  6. Krauss on January 24, 2016, 8:15 am

    Sleep well, Phil. You have a decade or more ahead of you of talking about issues that the zionist press refuses to broach.

    • Mooser on January 24, 2016, 1:10 pm

      ” an ethnic status symbol”

      Ouch! That one smarted.

  7. Atlantaiconoclast on January 24, 2016, 12:09 pm

    “What tools can Israel provide to assist us in our global diplomatic defense of Israel, to which we will always be committed?” – See more at:

    How pathetic. You shouldn’t whine but keep enabling something and act surprised when nothing changes. The special relationship MUST be destroyed. Expose Israel’s long history of harming the US. It is the only way to get most Americans to care.

    • Dutch on January 24, 2016, 9:51 pm

      [‘What tools can Israel provide …’]

      How about ye good ol’ donkey …?

  8. JLewisDickerson on January 24, 2016, 12:47 pm

    RE: “the elite’s belief in a ‘dreamcastle Israel’ ~ Blumenthal

    M Y COMMENT: Excellent imagery! Also, “dreamcastle Israel” is somewhat akin to “The Dissociative State of Israel”, a diagnosis* I sometimes (only half-jokingly) like to proffer.
    I was also quite intrigued back in 2011 when Howard Sachar** referred to Israel as American Jewry’s much-loved surrogate homeland and ethnic status symbol.
    * Dissociation (psychology) –
    ** Howard Sachar –

    A MID-WINTER EVENING’S MUSICAL INTERLUDE, proudly brought to you by the purveyors of new Über-Xtreme Ziocaine™ Inhalable: “Dreamcastle Israel is just a breath away!”

    We’re knights of the round table
    We dance whenever we’re able
    We do routines and chorus scenes
    With footwork impeccable

    We dine well here in Camelot ‘dreamcastle Israel’
    We eat ham and jam and spam a lot

    We’re knights of the round table
    Our shows are formidable
    But many times we’re given rhymes
    That are quite unsingable

    We’re opera mad in Camelot ‘dreamcastle Israel’
    We sing from the diaphragm a lot

    War we’re tough and able, quite indefatigable
    Between our quests we sequin vests
    And impersonate Clark Gable
    It’s a busy life in Camelot ‘dreamcastle Israel’

    I have to push the pram a lot (rhymes with Camelot) . . .

    P.S. Ziocaine™ is a registered trademark of The Mooser Corporation, U.S.A

  9. Ossinev on January 24, 2016, 12:58 pm

    “At this point it seems no one gives a damn”.

    I tend to be a little more optimistic if only because the PA and the role and relevance of the PA is in free fall and I think it will soon implode with or without any further “recognition “. approach to the UN Security Council. The Palestinians on the ground , particularly the younger generation , as opposed to the their 5 star hotel leaders see and experience on a daily basis the reality of the 500,000 + (and growing ) settlers and the physical impossibility of a 2SS and will turn their voices soon I hope to a call for citizenship rights in a single state ( whatever it is called). Given what the International Community has put into resolving the I/P conflict over the years I do not believe that they ( and I include the US ) will simply ignore the situation if Israel chooses to suppress calls for these rights and as is likely given their track record , opt for full frontal in your face Apartheid.

  10. Tchoupitoulas on January 24, 2016, 1:41 pm

    There’s a fundraising appeal in my inbox this morning from JStreet, referencing Shapiro’s speech, and I think it’s representative of how much more acceptable it’s becoming to criticize the Israeli government and state policies. Of course Jeremy Ben-Ami is very careful, very diplomatic in his choice of words, very aware to the emotional sensitivities of his target audience, but the warning and rebukes are clear — that Israel is on a self-destructive path. An excerpt:

    These are not spurious attacks coming from Israel’s enemies. They are vitally important — if not desperate — warnings from Israel’s friends. These friends see that the current Israeli leadership is protecting and prioritizing the settlement movement at the expense of Israel’s future as a liberal democracy, and they are trying to do anything reasonable and in their power to avert catastrophe. One can imagine they don’t relish the role of critic. But they also understand their inaction could prove disastrous.

    Sadly, if unsurprisingly, Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government have expressed outrage in response to these statements by the United States and the EU. They have refused to acknowledge even an ounce of legitimacy to the critiques of their policy, to recognize that under international law Israel is occupying the West Bank illegally and that it is unacceptable to the world for Israel to control millions of West Bank Palestinians who lack the rights of the Israeli settlers who live alongside them.

    The Netanyahu government and its close allies in the settler movement are choosing to stake Israel’s reputation on the legitimacy of the occupation. In their insistence that Israel is the settlements and the settlements are Israel, they have begun to treat all those who oppose the occupation and actively support the two-state solution as enemies of the state — including those who are in reality some of Israel’s best friends.

    But friends of Israel, devoted to its future as a secure, democratic Jewish homeland, have an obligation to push back against these efforts. Some of Israel’s current leaders may be blind to the consequences of turning their back on the two-state solution, on democratic principles, and on their friends and allies — but we are not.

    The whole thing is here:

    Am I crazy? I feel a sea change is happening. People are saying things it seems they would not have dared to say two years ago, especially with respect to drawing a clear distinction between the idea of an “ideal” Israel (that dreamcastle ref’d above) and the disturbing reality of what it actually is. It seems like real progress.

  11. Kathleen on January 25, 2016, 4:46 am

    As Walt and Mearsheimer, Carter and others have so clearly provided verifiable material for in their books about the lobby and conflict is that the two state solution has been over for a very long time.

    Netanyahu confirms that fact during his press conference with Obama where he clearly states the internationally recognized 67 line at 1:24.

    BB “it’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen. And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forth rightly it’s not going to happen”

    The Palestinians have known this for a very long time. Netanyahu has said it very clearly “it’s not going to happen”

    BB did not hesitate to publicly acknowledge his apartheid state that he very much helped create

    One state, one person, one vote.

    • Sibiriak on January 25, 2016, 5:36 am


      Another quote from Walt and Mearsheimer exemplifying their liberal Zionist position (if it has changed since the publication of this book, please correct me):

      We are not challenging Israel’s right to exist or questioning the legitimacy of the Jewish state. There are those who maintain that Israel should never have been created, or who want to see Israel transformed from a Jewish state into a binational democracy. We do not. On the contrary, we believe the history of the Jewish people and the norm of national self-determination provide ample justification for a Jewish state.

      We think the United States should stand willing to come to Israel’s assistance if its survival were in jeopardy. And though our primary focus is on the Israel lobby’s negative impact on U.S. foreign policy, we are also convinced that its influence has become harmful to Israel as well. In our view, both effects are regrettable. [emphasis added]

      “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” (p.12)

      • Kathleen on January 25, 2016, 12:56 pm

        Mearsheimer has indicated for quite a long time that the trajectory looks like the only solution is a one state solution based on Israel’s actions that they really have no desire for a two state solution. “inevitability of one state” or what is taking place now …apartheid

        Mearsheimer ” Israel is not going to allow the Palestinians to have a viable state of their own in Gaza and the West Bank. Regrettably the two solution is now a fantasy. Instead those territories will be incorporated into Greater Israel which will be an apartheid state baring a marked resemblance to white ruled South Africa.” He goes on.

        Carter’s book “Palestine: Peace Now Not Apartheid” is full of sound reasoning about how the opportunities for a two state solution had slipped away. Do not have the time to look now. He has also addressed the closing door more recently.

        What do you think about how Netanyahu has confirmed that “it’s not going to happen” Not going to happen

      • Sibiriak on January 26, 2016, 4:27 am

        Kathleen: Mearsheimer has indicated for quite a long time that the trajectory looks like the only solution is a one state solution based on Israel’s actions that they really have no desire for a two state solution. “inevitability of one state” or what is taking place now …apartheid


        I agree that the current trajectory is toward the consolidation and deepening of apartheid.

        I don’t think the trajectory is towards a single democratic state, or any other “solution”.

        The Israeli leadership rejects BOTH a two-state solution and a 1S1P1V solution. That leaves the apartheid option (or total expulsion, which I don’t think is likely.)

        If the trajectory toward apartheid is going to change, massive external pressure will have to be put on Israel– via BDS, ICJ/ICC actions, UN actions, arm-twisting by the “Great Powers”, Palestinian resistance etc.

        International sanctions will be critical, and the conditions that will be set for the lifting of sanctions will be Israel’s acceptance of international law, UN resolutions, and the international political consensus regarding a solution to the conflict–of all which call for two states– not Israel agreeing to legally merge with the West Bank and Gaza to form a single democratic state. The U.S., EU, Russia, China, et al will not condition sanctions on Israel agreeing to dissolve itself into a single bi-national state.

        IMO–and now I’m just speculating about the future– if and when the pressure becomes unbearable, Israel’s leaders will opt for the UN mandated two-state solution, giving up a part of the Zionist dream, long before they would ever opt for 1S1P1V, giving up the entire Zionist dream.

        Unlike the South Africa scenario, that internationally-backed two-state solution will always be a fallback option for Israel. They’ll try for the maximum, but if they can’t get it, they won’t commit 1S1P1V Zionist suicide.

        What do you think about how Netanyahu has confirmed that “it’s not going to happen”

        I don’t think Netanyahu has the power to confirm the future. The future is open.

      • Sibiriak on January 26, 2016, 5:21 am


        Look at it another way.

        The first goal of the BDS movement is Israel ending the occupation of territories seized in 1967. There is nothing about Israel merging with Gaza/West Bank to form a single democratic state.

        Now suppose BDS was actually successful and that goal was achieved.

        The West Bank and Gaza would no longer be occupied by Israeli forces.

        Okay, now it’s also a fact that Palestine already exists as a state de jure , it’s borders already declared as the pre-1967 borders and recognized by numerous UN member states.

        Add those two realities together–Israel ending the occupation across ’67 borders + Palestine already existing as a state de jure within ’67 borders– and what do you get?

        Palestine would now exist as a state de facto as well as de jure .

        In other words, a successful BDS movement, with goals as currently defined, leads directly and inexorably to two states, Israel and Palestine.

        (Of course, that alone wouldn’t constitute an full “solution”, since the issues of Palestinian refugees, equal rights within Israel etc. would still need to be resolved.)

      • RoHa on January 26, 2016, 11:25 am

        “I don’t think Netanyahu has the power to confirm the future. ”

        Has anyone told him that?

      • Kathleen on January 26, 2016, 1:12 pm

        However Sibiriak Netanyahu and many Israeli’s agree (along with Zionist in this country) “it’s never going to happen, Everybody knows it is never going to happen” Given those stances “it’s never going to happen”

        Totally understandable that Palestinians facing these facts would be pushing hard for one state….exposing the apartheid facts on the ground more clearly for the rest of the world.

      • annie on January 25, 2016, 1:48 pm

        thanks kathleen!

      • MHughes976 on January 25, 2016, 2:44 pm

        I don’t altogether agree with the imagery of closing doors and things’ becoming impossible. Israel has locked and barred the door from the beginning but could at any time throw it wide open. It’s as possible as it’s always been. They’re just not going to do it. Refusal is a sign of possibility. Refusal in the face of incessant appeals is a sign of power.

    • Kathleen on January 26, 2016, 1:00 pm

      Carter referencing apartheid being enforced by Israel in the West Bank, Gaza

  12. Sibiriak on January 25, 2016, 5:16 am

    Kathleen: As Walt and Mearsheimer, Carter and others have so clearly provided verifiable material for in their books about the lobby and conflict is that the two state solution has been over for a very long time.

    Actually, Walt, Mearsheimer and Carter (unless I missed a recent statement) support a two-state solution based on the international consensus: pre-1967 borders, symbolic “right of return” w/compensation, etc. (Walt and Mearsheimer are liberal Zionists.)

    In “The Israel Lobby”, W/M write:

    Above all, the United States should use its considerable leverage to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an end.

    […]U.S. leaders have been engaged in virtually every aspect of the peace process, but they have never used the full leverage at their disposal to push the process forward. While reaffirming its commitment to Israel’s security within its pre-1967 borders, the United States should make it clear that it is dead set against Israel’s expansionist settlements policy— including the land-grabbing “security fence”— and that it believes this policy is not in America’s or Israel’s long-term interests.

    This approach means abandoning the Bush administration’s moribund Road Map (which emphasized a timetable for negotiations) and instead laying out America’s own vision for what a just peace would entail. In particular, the United States should make it clear that Israel must withdraw from almost all of the territories it occupied in June 1967 in exchange for full peace. Israel and the Palestinians will also have to reach agreement on the rights of displaced Palestinians to return to the lands they fled in 1948. Allowing this “right” to be exercised in full would threaten Israel’s identity and is clearly infeasible. But the basic principle is both an essential issue of justice and an issue on which the Palestinians will not compromise save in the context of a final settlement.

    To resolve this dilemma, Israel will have to acknowledge a “right” of return— in effect acknowledging that Israel’s creation involved the violation of Palestinian rights— and the Palestinians will have to agree to renounce this right in perpetuity in exchange for an appropriate level of compensation. The United States and the European Union could organize and finance a generous program of reconstruction aid to compensate the Palestinians, which would terminate all claims for their actual return into what is now and will forever remain Israeli . [emphasis added]

    “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” (pp. 342-343)

    BB “it’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen. And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forth rightly it’s not going to happen”

    If BB declared that one state, one person, one vote is never going to happen, would you accept it? Would you give up on 1S1P1V just because BB said it was impossible?,

    Why are you giving BB’s views so much weight? ANY solution, one state, two states, three states, whatever, is going to have to be forced on Israel by BDS and other forms of external pressure, BB be damned.

  13. Kathleen on January 25, 2016, 5:27 am

    Phil ” Cohen and Brooks are at least transparent about it.”

    Accepting “it” Israel is an apartheid state

  14. arihalli on January 25, 2016, 10:05 am

    Thank you for well written and informative article.

    What puzzles me is why the Israeli gov’t continues a policy that both brands Jews worldwide as avaricous and…….their continued efforts to violate international law as regards the settlements. How short-sighted a view it is to create ‘facts on the ground’ . Its just going to come back and haunt them in the future.

  15. James Canning on January 25, 2016, 12:59 pm

    Should one assume that Israel can change the borders of Palestine, by growing illegal colonies of Jews in the occupied West Bank? I do not

Leave a Reply