Obama has met with the leaders of 14 American Jewish organizations. During the meeting he claimed that there has been no progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians over the last eight years, and strongly implied that it is Israel’s fault. None of the “leaders” present objected to this. Rick Richman at Contentions gives an excellent summary of what they should have said (the most obvious points being that Israel withdrew from Gaza during this period, and that the Palestinians—well, you can fill in the details yourself or read the post).
This is really horrible. They have essentially told him he can do anything he wants. There’s more about this from Jennifer Rubin as well.
With Jewish “leaders” like these, who needs antisemites?
Comments 42
Peter, what bothers you the most? Is it that Obama is said to have said that there has been no progress toward peace in the last eight years?
Or is it that Obama is said to have implied strongly that this is Israel’s fault?
July 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I can’t speak for Peter, but what bothers me the most is that so-called “Jewish Leaders” would pucker up to The One when he claims that Israel has stood in the way of progress. Israel has been the only one to make steps, whilst the Palestinians demand more and kill more. Thanks G-d that the Orthodox Union seemed to be a little questioning today(but hey, that’s the Talmudic tradition!).
July 14th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
The weird quiescence of the Jewish leaders struck me particularly in light of how events are marching on over there in the real world (increasingly, one we do not seem to think we inhabit).
I have a reply on this to JRub and Rick R up at contentions:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/j-e-dyer/73262
It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
July 14th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Of course I agree with everything Bruce has said. We have unfortunately grown used to Obama’s attitude toward Israel; the real shock is that these Jewish leaders would in effect endorse it.
fuster, the straightforward answer to your question is that what bothers me is Obama’s implying that the lack of progress is Israel’s fault. It’s not just something he “is said to have implied,” it’s something that he did strongly imply, according to the direct quotes in Rick Richman’s post. And it’s diametrically opposite to the facts, as RR demonstrates.
If Obama had said “The peace process is going nowhere because the Palestinians won’t accept the existence of Israel, and therefore I won’t pursue it,” that would have been fine. Pretending that the peace process as it is currently defined can go somewhere only puts unfair pressure on Israel. This is particularly dangerous right now, as Obama is telling Israel that her making still more concessions is a precondition for U.S. help against the Iranian nuclear threat. That’s what makes the whole thing so scary.
As I say, that’s the straightforward answer. Frankly, I thought this answer was already clear from my post. And this leads me to wonder whether your question itself was meant in a straightforward way. It would be more helpful to come out and say what you are thinking rather than to ask mysterious-sounding questions.
July 14th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
J.E., thanks for your excellent post at Contentions. I hadn’t seen it or read your comment #3 when I posted my comment #4.
This is all very upsetting.
July 14th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I’m sorry if I seem mysterious. I hadn’t meant to be.
I had hoped to redirect your focus toward consideration of the failure of peace.
I agree with saying that peace isn’t any closer and absolutely disagree that it’s Israel’s fault.
I doubt strongly that either side has done a damned thing designed to advance peace in the last eight years.
Withdrawing from Gaza might be seen as other than a significant move toward peace.
July 14th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Why can’t Obama express his opinions in a straightforward way;and the Israelis certainly shouldn’t be reticent to debate him. How about some two way honesty even if they totally disagree.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
RCAR, what is the context of your comment?
The Israeli leadership has not been shy about expressing disagreement with Obama.
My post was about a meeting between Obama and a group of American Jewish leaders. At a time when Israel is threatened and Obama has taken a basically hostile attitude toward her, I had hoped that these leaders would object. They did not.
As for Obama’s expressing his opinions in a straightforward way, it may be just as well that he doesn’t. He is an old friend of Rashid Khalidi’s and presumptively shares his views about the Arab-Israeli conflict. For an American president to express these views openly would be far more damaging than anything Obama has actually said.
I get the sense that you don’t take the existential threats that Israel has faced for 60 years very seriously. If you did, I don’t see how you could suggest that the U.S. should treat Israel in the same way that it treats Belgium.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
fuster, our points of view are obviously very far apart. Rather than make a speech on this, maybe I should ask what you think Israel should be doing to advance the cause of peace. I’m asking this in all honesty because I really have no idea what you have in mind.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
After looking at this list of attendees, I’m not so surprised at the “leaders” love for Obama. You got a couple of self-hating Jews and several who are Democrats before they are jews:
Guest list: The Obama meeting
By JTA Staff · July 14, 2009
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Sixteen leaders of 14 Jewish organizations took part in a Monday afternoon meeting at the White House with President Obama. Some of the groups not on the invite list, after having been invited to a larger meeting of Jewish leaders with Obama aides right before the inauguration, include Israel Policy Forum, the Zionist Organization of America, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom and B’nai B’rith International. Below is the full list of participants:
Jeremy Ben-Ami, (executive director, J Street)
Debra DeLee (president & CEO, Americans for Peace Now)
Ira Forman, CEO, National Jewish Democratic Council
Abraham Foxman (national director, Anti-Defamation League)
Marla Gilson (Washington director, Hadassah)
Malcolm Hoenlein (executive vice chairman, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations)
Jason Isaacson (Washington director, American Jewish Committee)
Kathy Manning, (chair, United Jewish Communities)
Nancy Ratzan (president, National Council of Jewish Women)
Lee Rosenberg (president-elect, AIPAC)
Stephen Savitsky (president, Orthodox Union)
Alan Solow (chairman, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations)
Andrea Weinstein (chair, Jewish Council for Public Affairs)
Rabbi Steven Wernick (executive vice president, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism)
David Victor (president, AIPAC)
Rabbi Eric Yoffie (president, Union for Reform Judaism)
July 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I get the sense that you don’t take the
existential threats that Israel has faced for 60
years very seriously.
it’s not my nation,but I take the threats to the US very seiously. All I said about Belgium,is that we ought to have a normal relationship with Israel,like we do with Belgium,the survival of Israel is not our primary mission,however,if Israel/Belgium is attacked,we will retaliate on
the attacker.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Peter, what i have in mind for israel is that Israel makes it clear once again that Israel desires peace, but that israel is here to stay, and that Israel isn’t going anywhere, and if the Palestinians will negotiate a state with the Israelis or not have one.
Then I would have the Israelis prove that they’re not going anywhere by having them stop going further into the West Bank.
I would have them start enforcing the laws more equitably when dealing with the issuance of building permits for non-Jewish citizens.
I would have them enforce the law when it’s broken by Jews as well as Arabs.
I would ask this and more while being fully aware that Israel is threatened and is forced to fight the threat with a sense of restraint that their opponents abhor.
July 14th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
I don’t want any nation attacked by bad guys,and if that happens,we should help that beleagured country,whether it’s Belgium.Israel,or Borneo,what else do you want?
July 14th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
RCAR: Do you understand that the newly
re-”elected” “president” of Iran has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and that his country is developing nuclear weapons? We cannot wait for Israel to be attacked. It will be too late.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
fuster: Israel is not “going further into the West Bank.” The boundaries of the existing legal settlements have been frozen. Many illegal outposts have been dismantled. There is new construction going on within the boundaries of the legal settlements, which are mostly in the suburbs of Jerusalem. Jimmy Carter has recently stated that these suburbs will remain part of Israel under any final status agreement. They are necessary for defense, as Israel almost learned the hard way in 1967.
I’m not sure what examples you have in mind when you talk about enforcing laws when they are broken by Jews as well as when they are broken by Arabs. In any case this would have no bearing on the issue of peace with the Palestinians since it would be an internal civil rights issue for Israel.
But the more basic question is how any of this would affect the peace process. The entire history of the conflict shows that the Palestinians never give Israel credit for moves toward peace, and never give anything in return. This is what Richman was documenting, just insofar as it applies to the last eight years. If you think a few more concessions by Israel are going to change something, you have to explain why they are going to be greeted differently from all the other concessions.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Who is the ‘we’ that cannot wait?
Is it the Israelis? They are unlikely to be able to stop the Iranians from developing weapons.
Is it our country? If it is our country that will have to frustrate the Iranians, will our doing so obligate the Israelis and require them to listen to Obama?
July 14th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
fuster #16: I can’t claim any expertise in military matters, but many experts believe that Israel can seriously damage Iran’s nuclear program, as they damaged Iraq’s nuclear program in the early 1980’s, but that in order to do so they will need at least the tacit support of the US. We should give them such support both because they are an ally and because they are a nation threatened with an unparalleled horror. In neither case would that make them a vassal state.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I think that Dyer estimates that Israel can do no more, through bombing, than slow them up 6-24 months.
Vassal state, to me, implies compulsion, not obligation.
Allied states don’t operate on the basis of pure altruism.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
fuster #18: Of course allied state don’t operate on the basis of pure altruism. Insofar as we would be helping Israel because she is an ally, it would be to protect our interests by saving an ally from a nuclear disaster. I said in my message #17 that we should help Israel *both* because she is an ally—as, for example, we helped Great Britain in the Second World War—and because she is the potential victim of a disaster—as, for example, we helped Indonesia a few years ago when there was a huge tsunami.
What do you mean exactly by “obligation”? Do Great Britain and Indonesis have obligations toward us?
J.E. may be right about six to 24 months; I don’t know. There are certainly experts who think Israel could set Iran’s nuclear program back for considerably longer than that.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Yes, Great Britain had many obligations to us in the period prior to our entry into WWII, and throughout the war and it’s aftermath.
We redirected their war efforts and insisted that their wartime strategy be consistent with the early post-war termination of their empire.
We influenced them to be more flexible in their policies in some obscure parts of the ex-Ottoman empire over which they were exercising mandatory power.
You may have noticed that when France refused to join our Iraq invasion, many here felt that the French were dishonoring an obligation that we held of them.
When I suggest that the Israelis will owe us, I don’t mean to suggest that they are not already in our debt. No one should doubt that. From the beginning, we knew that we would be taking on trouble by offering support for the establishment of Israel, and we have. What we did was the opposite of protecting our interests!
When you kvetch about your country putting Israel in an inconvenient position try to keep that in mind. I’m pretty sure that the American Jewish leaders you decry have an understanding that ours are the hands that have done more than fed the Israelis and that we are the people expected to prevent catastrophic harm from befalling Israel.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:33 am
fuster…Pardon my jumping in late. I think both you and RCAR are taking too short a view of the “Israeli” problem. We really do have a national interest in preventing catstrophic harm from befalling Israel. When, or if, Israel falls, we,and the rest of Western civilization, will soon follow. Do you think the Muslim Ummah only wants a Jerusalem capitol, or do they want D.C. and London as part of their plan? Not to belabor the canary and coal mine imagery, the Jews, and Israel, are, and always have been, potent predictors.
Steven from Indiana
July 15th, 2009 at 8:31 am
fuster, I am not “kvetch[ing] about [my] country putting Israel in an inconvenient position.” I am deeply worried about the threat of a nuclear attack on Israel, and as a U.S. citizen I am frightened that the most anti-Israel President ever is in office at a time of such danger to Israel.
When you say that “we are the people expected to prevent catastrophic harm from befalling Israel,” do you mean the US? And if so, am I supposed to be reassured by your saying that the American Jewish leaders know this? Are you suggesting I should trust them to the point of assuming, even when their behavior seems disastrous, that they have a plan that will make everything all right? And if you don’t mean that, perhaps it is time to explain what you do mean instead of sounding like an oracle.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Perhaps when you say “putting Israel in an inconvenient position” you are referring to Obama’s attempt to make Israel stop new construction in the Jerusalem suburbs. If so, the word “inconvenient” is inappropriate here. Obama’s plan would strangle communities that are vital to the defense of Israel, as even Jimmy Carter acknowleged. It gets worse: the State Department has said it wants Israel to stop construction in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, as if this were a “settlement.” This quarter has had a continuous Jewish presence since the 8th century BC, except between 1949, when it was reduced to rubble, and 1967, when it was rebuilt.
I don’t know how much you know about the history of Israeli concessions and how the Palestinians have responded to them. As I’ve said, Richman’s post is a place to start here. I have repeatedly stressed the point that it would be crazy for Israel to make another concession right now, especially such a damaging one, in view of this history. I don’t think you’ve replied to that point at all.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:26 am
And finally, I completely agree with Steven from my neighbor state.
Peter from Illinois.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:27 am
The fate of the Palestinians is both routine and novel. It is routine because it follows the well-trod path of what happenes to a region, province, district etc of a larger political entity when that entity loses a war. The Ottoman Empire freely threw in its lot with the Central powers in October, 1914. They did so with the expectation that they would avenge themselves on their ancient adversaries, the Russians, and regain something like a hegemonic status in Eastern Europe.
Of course that happy outcome deended rather decisively on the Central Powers winning the “Great War.” Perhaps the Turks were unaware of just what would transpire in their vast empire if they lost. It seems unlikely. There is no reward without risk. The Turks took a HUGE risk. They were in fact sharply divided as to who to side with or even whether to side with anyone (during World War II they remained neutral). To the victor go the spoils, which come out of the loser’s hide.
Is that a matter of might makes right? Of course it is. But so what? It is one of those critical outcomes that needs demands consideration BEFORE a decision to wage war is taken, not after. It’s impossible to point to a single square foot of the globe that is at present inside some INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED border that was not decided by the laws and customs of armed conflict fashioned over millennia and recognized by all belligerents.
In the aftermath of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire was dismembered almost entirely. The status of Palestine, which was part of the Turkish province of Damascus, I believe, was part of the postwar settlement. Most of Palestine was intended (q.v., the treaties of Sevres and San Remo) to be a Jewish state. There was nothing at all unusual about this arrangement, which is why I called the fate of Palestine routine.
In sum, the actions of the United Nations in 1947 was a logical consequence of the defeat of Turkey. True, it was a catastrophe from the point of view of Palestinians. The victors of World War I, however, were not REQUIRED to take any notice of Palestinian complaints, though, in fact, the UN partition plan was designed to mitigate their plight to some degree. Around the same time, other ethnic groups found themselves in similarly awkward and uncongenial positions after the map of Europe was redrawn at the end of World War II. Their complaints went unheeded no matter how vigorously they gnashed their teeth, rent their garments, and cast dirt upon their heads.
The Palestinians, had they shown the foresight and gumption of the Hejaz Arabs in actively siding with the British and the French against their Turkish masters during World War I, might also have emerged from San Remo with their own nation state. But they didn’t. They passively supported the Sultan throughout the war, and there’s nothing to be done about that anymore.
The ultimate fate of Palestine was novel in this crucial aspect: partition resulted in the creation of a non-Muslim nation on territory that had once been decidedly Muslim. What had once been part of Dar el Islam was now, by the unappealable and unimpeachable demands of Muslim theology itself, was now situated in the Dar el Harb, the Land of War. We cannot understand what happened in the Middle East if this fact is ignored or underemphasized (usually deliberately ignored): in Islamic theology every square foot of the globe that is not controlled by Muslims is ipso facto and so to speak “in play,” and especially if the square foot in question has apostasized in some way. The command to assault and harrass non-Muslims living there is absolute, simply cannot be abrogated, no matter how long is required to wrest it back, which is why Spaniards should be more worried than seem to be about their eventual fate, in my opinion (ditto the Lebanese).
To those inquiring minds who wonder why oh why the turmoil in the Middle East is interminable, read the Koran. Too often the easy assumption is made that the problem is about wounded Arab pride or that it is a political question. In some measure that is true, but inequitable treatment of Muslims, even if one grants that such a thing has occurred, is not proving to be the most important motivation to incessant war in the region. It would be more correct to say that, viewed in the long arc of history and culture, dedicated Islamists like Hizballah and Hamas have rightfully seized back the initiative from Arab nationalists vis a vis the conflict with Israel rather than hijacked it as is often thoughtlessly assumed. Arab Nationalism and extra-Islamic – indeed European – politcial movements such as Baathism represented a jarring of the compass, as it were, in the Middle East. With their decline, the needle has reoriented itself on the true poles: the Dar el Islam and the Dar el harb.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:39 am
So, Joe..you don’t think poverty in Gaza is the underlying problem?
I agree that rarely, if ever, has a people used military defeat to such advantage as have the Palestinians. It works so well for them, in fact, that they activley seek out those “murdered civilian” photo ops. It’s a strange world where every Israeli victory becomes a PR loss and every Palestinian kid killed while shielding a rocket launcher becomes a PR victory. Hopefully, the Palestinian victories will become so numerous that they (the Pals) will ultimately fail.
Peter…Go Cubs! OOOHHHMMM.
Steven from Indiana
July 15th, 2009 at 10:20 am
The last time Israel successfully resisted American pressure in matters of such import, Jimmy Carter was whip sawed by Ronald Reagan and Menachem Begin. Begin was a passionately articulate Jew, a genuine intellectual turned soldier/”terrorist” who had survived Hitler, Stalin, the Mufti and the “Season.” Reagan was the leading American politician of his day as well as that rare bird (Charlton Heston being the other one who comes to mind), a genuine and thoroughly affable A-list Hollywood conservative, who thus (especially in contrast to the cloyingly pious Carter) showed some actual cultural affinity with American Jewish aspirations. I don’t think it’s a disservice to Bibi Netanyahu to suggest that he lacks Begin’s political gifts, and there is no domestic American presidential contender around to serve as the repository of Jewish hope or disaffection. As against this, Israel itself is better positioned strategically and economically to defend itself that it was when one fifth of its national product was attributable to US aid, its Jewish population was barely half the current number and the Soviet Union was still very much in business with the studiedu acquiescence of the American mainstream. So the task is doable, but it will take more than polished talking points. But it is up to the Israeli electorate to continue to show the spine it can no longer expect from American Jews.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Seth, we give, we give, and we give. Can’t the Israeli electorate let us keep our spines?
July 15th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Steven, i think that we, nationally, have an interest in preserving and protecting Israel.
We’ve sure as hell been doing just that from the start and I hope that we continue.
What I’ve been trying to say in my obviously far from obvious fashion is that our interests aren’t identical to Israel’s, we have sometimes advanced Israel’s interests ahead of ours, the Israelis are desirous of our help in future, and they require our help with Iran at present.
At the same time, some Israelis, and some of their partisans here, think it wrong for our country to ask Israel not to pursue a policy in the West Bank that clearly complicates the pursuit of our own interests and also complicates our mustering of support for actions against Iran.
Some of you might ascribe to the very dubious notion that bedrooms communities
built outside of Israel are vital to Israel.
Israel seems to have done okay without them until now, and at present the threat from Israel’s west is minimal.
What you shouldn’t deny is that Israel’s debt to the US is massive and Israel’s need for our help in dealing with Iran outweighs the need for more construction of condos.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Steven, how did you know I was from the North Side? If I were a die-hard Sox fan, your foot would be in your mouth
Actually I’m an immigrant to Chicago, having grown up in New York, so I get to be weird and root for both teams.
July 15th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
fuster, you wrote:
“Some of you might ascribe to the very dubious notion that bedrooms communities built outside of Israel are vital to Israel. Israel seems to have done okay without them until now, and at present the threat from Israel’s west is minimal.”
Maybe the first thing to say is that the communities in question are to the east of Israel.
The more important point is that the last time these areas were not under Israeli control was 1967, when Israel was almost destroyed because of its then-indefensible borders. So your claim is demonstrably false.
Finally, I don’t know what you mean by the phrase “outside of Israel.” These communities are to all intents and purposes part of Israel, as Jimmy Carter has recently acknowledged.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Peter, sorry about the misdirection.
I can’t see that now things are akin to 67 and see no demonstration of falsity.
If you don’t understand what I meant by outside of Israel, perhaps it’s because you didn’t wish to understand. You can make the claim that the area has become, de facto, annexed to Israel, but please omit saying that you can’t understand.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
fuster, what has changed since 1967? Just recently all the Arab leaders reacted with outrage to Netanyahu’s demand that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state. They are all pushing for the “Saudi peace plan” which includes a “right of return” for “Palestinian refugees.” I hope I don’t have to explain to you that this is a plan for creating a Moslem majority in what is now Israel, making it as impossible a place for Jews to live as most other Moslem countries.
In other words, the Arab countries’ goal of eliminating Israel has not changed; only the tactics have changed, in large part because Israel controls the West Bank. A second, more recent, reason for this change in tactics was that the Soviet Union has fallen and the US has strongly supported Israel. Now that this support is eroding, military defense is all the more important.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Peter, the military situation has changed drastically. There is no army that’s going to be sending an armored force to invade Israel.
The political situation has changed dramatically. There is not a united bloc of Arab states that will call for the elimination of Israel or will openly support or finance anything beyond harassment campaigns.
Unless I reading very inaccurate translations of the Saudi plan, you’re absolutely wrong in understanding it to contain anything more than a call to “satisfy” claimants of a right to return.
This is an indication that the Arabs will not press for an actual return to Israel for the claimants.
Read it again if you have the inclination.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
What’s the difference between a “right of return” and “a call to `satisfy’ claimants of a right to return”?
July 15th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Compensation in money and/or property outside of Israel without getting their land back.
I would imagine this would be akin to the compensation that a few Jews got from Europeans and that no Jews got from the Arabs.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
fuster, it would be insane for Israel to agree to such a thing, for precisely the reason you have pointed out—that no Jewish refugee has ever been compensated by an Arab country. In any event, my point was that people from the Arab countries are constantly talking about a “right of return,” which is simply a non-military approach to eliminating Israel as a Jewish state.
My larger point is that even if the political situation has changed, there is no reason to think the change is permanent, given the on-going hostility and hatred among the Arabs which has not changed at all. This means that Israel needs secure borders, which is the real meaning of the settlement issue.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Peter, it would be nothing like insane to agree to having the refugees compensated as part of a deal. It would be smart and wise.
If there is to be a peace deal, it’s going to involve compromises. Something has got to be given.
The three things that the Israelis have are the land of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the land that the refugees owned before fleeing/getting booted.
If you aren’t going to give back all of the WB, aren’t going to give anything but tokenism about Jerusalem, and you sure as hell aren’t going to give back the land inside Israel, how the hell can you balk at compensation?
The compensation probably would come mostly from the US, EU & Gulf States.
As far as the political situation changing, that’s possible. But what is not possible is that masses of infantry and armor are going to be available to cross the WB, or could prove an effective threat under present conditions. Warfare has changed, and Israel has an effective air force.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:54 am
fuster, Olmert’s last offer would have given the PA an amount of land equal to 100% of the West Bank. Abu Mazen rejected it. My reading of this, and of similar events over the last 15 years, is that the Palestinians are not interested in peace, but prefer continued victimization and terrorism. I gather you have a different interpretation of these events. That seems to be the basic difference between our points of view; the rest is a matter of detail.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:45 am
I don’t think that we’ll agree, but for what it’s worth, the Palestinians are a group of humans, Peter, and aren’t going to have a single POV.
The extremists on both sides of this usually fall back on saying that the other side isn’t interested in peace.
What they fail to say is that most everyone, on both sides, has the very human desire to live a safe and comfortable life.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:55 am
fuster, I agree completely with your point in comment #40. When I say “the Palestinians” I mean the people who have political power in the PA, whether they are Hamas or Fatah. I see the PA as functioning like a dictatorship in which the majority of people are too far removed from power to have “opinions” in any functionally meaningful sense.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
To whom it may concern: I am in complete agreement with lester’s comment #41. He took the words right out of my mouth—it’s as if I had written the comment myself! Juggling different identities doesn’t seem to be my strong point.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1
[...] there’s been lots of moaning about who was there, who wasn’t there, bla bla bla. But even a Zionist website [...]
Post a Comment