now for a moment of silence
Advisory: if you are looking for raucous remarks about a day in law school, this post will not satisfy. Also, if you would like to retain some kind of romantic, one-sided view about the Israeli occupation (from whosever side) I would direct you to look elsewhere.
I am posting here a statement from the Women's Coalition for Peace/Women in Black leader, Gila Svirsky, whom I met during my visit to Palestine (and Israel, though I didn't spend much time at all in Israel). I thought about adding my commentary below, but I think my cynicism inclines me to actually interweave them among her text, in red. Here we go.
Hamas and UsGila Svirsky 1) Who’s to blame? What a question... occupier(whose citizenry is so convinced that the land is theirs through either Manifest Destiny or a 5000 year old decree from a desert god that many of them actually asked me "what occupation?") vs. the occupied. Who should we blame FIRST? Listening to the reactions of passersby at the recent Jerusalem vigil of Women in Black (I have been to precisely two of these vigils and while I am impressed with their diligence, I was quite unimpressed with their analysis), you would think it was our peaceful little group that put the Hamas into power. This stems from Israeli right-wing politicians who are asserting that Hamas won because of the Gaza withdrawal and other conciliatory overtures, i.e., “rewarding terrorism”. Is it just something that colonizers tend to arrive at, or is Israel taking a page from the US? It seems however that the US is not the first imperial power to indignitly characterize indigenous resistance, in whatever form it might be, as illegal, barbarous, almost ungrateful? There is never any effort to understand or even realize anything basic about the motivation behind the attacks. For example, it seems that the British in Kenya where unbelievably brutal in their attempt to quash the Kikuyu resistance (came to be known as the "Mau-Mau Rebellion", a racist term mimicing a sound made by fighters), all the while villifying the Kikuyu for their unfair, unjust attacks on British "innocents", ie the Brits doing the actual physical colonizing. It's a basic "its ok when we do, but not you" thing. I think its so strange when people talk about how terrible and evil it is when anyone attacks US soldiers in Iraq. Its a war, dude. That's what happens. You attack them, they attack back, repeat. Are we really so convinced of our moral infallability that we think we can start a war and not get shot at in retaliation? Maybe that is the difference between an invasion type war and an occupation- in the second, the agressive force thinks its unfair and wrong when the other side attacks. Indeed, Bibi Netanyahu & co. are delighted with the Hamas victory, on which they can now build a fear-saturated election campaign, and return voters to the fold who lately had slipped into something more moderate (a nicer, more gentle genocidal occupation). I agree with the above to some extent. In the short term at least it will provide a reason to wreak even more havoc in the Occupied Territories. It will surely provide a new justification for the Wall. However, even the most brutal, rascist war-mongerers do not actually want an endless, perpetual state of war. The masses don't like it. There is a reason Israel and the US spent millions trying to influence people to vote for the ruling Fateh party. It has been easier to convince Fateh leaders, even Arafat although they were not ultimately completely successful in his case, that they are powerless to get more than what Israel and the US wants to give them and concede. The powers were able to set up a top-down, rent-payer, ineffective Fateh/PA ruling infrustructure throughout the country, many of whom were readily available and willing to fight with each other, undermine each other, and serve themselves instead of their constituents. It isn't like they were taking orders from Israel necessarily; its just that they could be trusted to not have their priorities straight ever. But here’s my take on what made Hamas victorious in the recent elections: (wait for it... my guess it will be something very profound and original) Israel’s failure to sit down and negotiate an end to the occupation. OK So I was wrong. Someone give her a prize. After the five hundreth explanation, someone finally got it. This is often phrased as “the failure of Fatah to make progress on peace”, but they amount to the same thing: the Fatah failed because Israel refused to offer any reward for moderation, refusing to sit down and negotiate with them. Fateh has degenerated into a disempowering force among the people. They continued to grasp onto hopes that if they wait it out, bear with the leaders, they would eventually get something. And so they did just that- wait. There is no transparency, little grassroots participation at the government levels, and again, very little effort on the part of many Fateh members to make the people and their needs a priority. The very deep dependency of the "mainstream" resistance on the international community, ie ineffectual rulings by the UN, to pressure Israel into doing the right thing is, while needed, hurting the will of the average Palestinian to continue working for an end to the occupation. It hasn't brought any real result, so people have been left feeling hopeless and desperate. And what about the corruption claim – that voting for Hamas was also a vote against the corruption of the Fatah politicians? It was a secondary reason, surely. There is lots of anger toward Fateh, especially the Fateh members who act like they are the rightful leaders of the Palestinians and don't have to do anything to stay in power. Plus, there was an obvious intention on the part of many Palestinians to vote for ANYONE besides those who have been apparently chosen and sanctioned by Israel and the US. Is that so strange, that Palestinians would purposely not vote for America and Israel's candidate? Taking money from your enemies to secure your place is also corruption. Obviously the PA taking money from the US and Israel to do projects right before the election made many Palestinians angry enough to not vote for them. Secondly, many Palestinians are convinced that their Fateh leaders are secure no matter what- they make money off the Occupation (Abas making money off the concrete sold to Israel for the Wall is an oft-cited example) and will make money afterward too, while the rest won't. This may have played a role for some voters, but since when does corruption bring down a politician? Certainly not in Israel, where Sharon’s corruption has been an open book, but forgiven by those who support his politics. Westerners will support corrupt leaders as long as the leaders are macho strongmen-types and the corruption isn't so noticeable that it actually starts affecting their daily lives in an obvious way. Corruption is tolerated when approval ratings are high in other respects. The corruption of the previous Palestinian government would have been overlooked, had the politicians only managed to show some progress on ending the occupation. It's not that they even have to show progress in the short term as they have to keep acting like strong leaders. Bush has shown no progress on Iraq, actually much the opposite, and although his support for the occupation has decreased, he hasn't lost it completely. He keeps a strong rhetoric and promises results, not in the short term, but overall.
When terrorists become politicians
I remember standing on the balcony of my home in Jerusalem on a lovely May morning of 1977 and gasping when I heard who had won the Israeli election: Menahem Begin, former head of a Jewish terrorist organization that had killed 91 civilians by bombing the King David Hotel in 1946. Further proof that it is only collateral damage if the agressor is white. And then it was Begin who returned the Sinai Peninsula and negotiated peace with Egypt. In 2001, Israel elected Ariel Sharon, responsible for blood-soaked episodes in Qibiya, Beirut, Gaza, Sabra and Shatila, and more. And then it was Sharon who returned Gaza – imperfect, but a singularly important precedent. I condemn terrorism, whether ‘rogue’ or state sanctioned, and I would never have voted for Hamas (or Begin or Sharon). But who is better positioned than Hamas to reach a compromise peace agreement? We have the mirror image of Israel in the Palestinian election: Just as the Israeli right (Begin and Sharon) could more easily make concessions than Yitzhak Rabin, who had to fight our right wing all the way, so too the Hamas can mobilize more support for concessions than the more moderate Fatah could now undertake. That's because their leadership is more respected. It looks different for a group that has devoted itself solely to the liberation of a people or land to make certain concessions than one who appears that it hasn't been in that fight for a long time. It will look necessary (even if it isn't or shouldn't be) as opposed to mealy-mouthed and weak. They are also less likely to give up things that can be won with more pressure exerted over time. It is also possible that Hamas will go through the same transformation Fateh did after it became the ruling party institutionalized in the PA. It is hard to continue as a liberation movement after you become a ruling power that has to do the actual work of governing.
About creeping fundamentalism
Yes, I am worried about Hamas rule, particularly its domestic agenda in Palestine: I worry about women, non-Muslims, journalists, gays, people in the arts, and all those who benefit from the open society. You're worried? What about me? I live in the US, and unlike Palestine, no one in the international community is talking about the rise of radical right-wing Christianity in our country and the subsequent loss of our liberties and rights. To what extent will the Hamas increase the role of Shari’a (Muslim) law in civilian life? To what extent will the Republican Party in Texas legislate a literal, extremely conservative reading of the Bible as law? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? The world may never know. Or religious education in the schools? Once, when I was in the seventh grade, one of my teachers in Oklahoma told us, under the guise of the mandatory sex-ed lesson, told us to keep our knees shut. Darwin was never mentioned in class until I went to a special science magnate school. On the other hand, it’s quite evident that Palestinians have experienced democracy and will not easily tolerate a closing of their society. Hopefully they won't tolerate it in the same way Americans have. Or Israelis. Sharon had to give up his Saturday afternoon tennis game to court the more Orthodox vote; Kerry had to promise us (so radically different than Kennedy promising to NOT be religious just 50 years before) that he really did believe in Jesus. Seriously though folks, far be it from us to talk about the rise of conservative, radical Islam in Palestine. It is true that the majority of Palestinians are Muslim, the women wear hijab and conservative clothing (so do the men for the most part), and Palestinians for the most part abide in a traditional, conservative culture (marriage and family are supposed to be more important to women then their careers,for example; although many women are very educated, they often times will not pursue careers outside the home, due in part to not wanting to give the appearance of neglecting their children and due in another part to the worsening state of the economy- there are not enough jobs to employ men and women both, so women give up opportunities so that men can have them. This is no different fundamentally than America 50-60 years ago.) However, there are plenty of non-extreme, even non-practicing Muslims in Palestine and there are many Christians (some of whom also don't practice). A vote for Hamas in this election would not always indicate that the Palestinian had become more conservative in his/her religion. There are unknown massive numbers of Palestinians who would not tolerate, for example, women being denied education, the right to drive, or subjected to mandatory hijab or, for another example, armed gangs of young conservative Muslim males driving around closing down stores that sold alcohol. Many of these same ones would not "deny the right of Israel to exist", ie demand that the country be blown off the map and all the Jews driven back into Europe. They will act as a moderating force in Hamas, as they already have. In Bethlehem municipality, the majority (although it is slimer than it once was) is Christian and the large minority is Muslim. Christians are allowed to vote for both and Muslims are allowed to vote. The city council is mandated to be half+1 Christian (personally, not necessarily belonging to a religious party) and the rest Muslim. In the last election, almost all of the Christian representatives elected were members of the socialist Party for the Liberation of Palestine and all the Muslim representatives were either members of the Islamic Jihad party or Hamas. This means that Christians voted for these parties in the election. Do they want to live under a radical conservative Islamic regime? No way. Do they want strong leadership who is going to fight to improve Palestine domestically and end the occupation? Yes. They see these two Muslim parties as able to do that, but they of course do not agree with the idea of a Muslim theocracy set up in Palestine.
I take heart from this week’s survey of the Palestinian population, published in the Palestinian Authority’s Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda and reported in the Jerusalem Post*: 84% of Palestinians support a peace deal with Israel. Peace with justice. Let's see how many Israelis want peace, and then start the name calling. Palestinians aren't monstervilliandemons. They aren't vampires. They don't like blood and guts. Of course they want peace. Who doesn't? Oh yeah, that's right... the people in the West who have become monstervilliandemons and vampires. In case you wondered if this includes the Hamas, 75% of Hamas voters are opposed to calls for the destruction of Israel. Yeah. Please see above. Hamas knows that seculars comprise a large portion of their constituency.
And who benefits from ending foreign aid? Three guesses. Is it the American taxpayer? Hmm, its not... so... So along come American and Israeli politicians advocating for a policy that would isolate and punish the Palestinians by withholding financial aid. The American press is jabbering like monkeys in a tree about the whole election. I guess they want to give aid when it could sway an election in their favor. Hey guys, remember that whole democracy thing? If you push for elections, then you sort of have to abide by what happens. No one in Washington had a problem with funding Indonesian terrorists for 25 years; since they have just reinstated that military aid, I wouldn't imagine that they would have an actual problem funding Hamas. Everyone knows this would destabilize the fragile economy, harm the innocent (but not the politicians), and foster increasing bitterness against the secular west. Secular? hehehe. A much more reasonable approach would be to extend support and see how responsibly Hamas uses it. How many rocket launchers does $20 million buy? Or maybe we should take that money and reinvest it in the States to see if we can buy our government, our media, and ourselves a collective brain. One amongst all of us might be worth it. It might do more good for the Palestinians than a brand new rocket launcher for every adult over 18 in the West Bank. Hamas actually has a lot to prove right now, and they had one of the best grassroots charity systems set up in Gaza without financial aid from the West. I can only imagine what Palestinians could get out of them if they actually had money to spend. Or does someone have an interest in sowing chaos in the Palestinian territories? Yes, I too would like to demand a renunciation of terrorism and violence as a precondition for talking I think Hamas should issue a pre-emptory statement saying they don't negotiate with or take money from terrorists. …I’d like to demand it from both sides. But realistically this has to be done as part of the negotiations. Hey boys, just in case... bring the rocket launchers.
Gila SvirskyJerusalem
I am posting here a statement from the Women's Coalition for Peace/Women in Black leader, Gila Svirsky, whom I met during my visit to Palestine (and Israel, though I didn't spend much time at all in Israel). I thought about adding my commentary below, but I think my cynicism inclines me to actually interweave them among her text, in red. Here we go.
Hamas and UsGila Svirsky 1) Who’s to blame? What a question... occupier(whose citizenry is so convinced that the land is theirs through either Manifest Destiny or a 5000 year old decree from a desert god that many of them actually asked me "what occupation?") vs. the occupied. Who should we blame FIRST? Listening to the reactions of passersby at the recent Jerusalem vigil of Women in Black (I have been to precisely two of these vigils and while I am impressed with their diligence, I was quite unimpressed with their analysis), you would think it was our peaceful little group that put the Hamas into power. This stems from Israeli right-wing politicians who are asserting that Hamas won because of the Gaza withdrawal and other conciliatory overtures, i.e., “rewarding terrorism”. Is it just something that colonizers tend to arrive at, or is Israel taking a page from the US? It seems however that the US is not the first imperial power to indignitly characterize indigenous resistance, in whatever form it might be, as illegal, barbarous, almost ungrateful? There is never any effort to understand or even realize anything basic about the motivation behind the attacks. For example, it seems that the British in Kenya where unbelievably brutal in their attempt to quash the Kikuyu resistance (came to be known as the "Mau-Mau Rebellion", a racist term mimicing a sound made by fighters), all the while villifying the Kikuyu for their unfair, unjust attacks on British "innocents", ie the Brits doing the actual physical colonizing. It's a basic "its ok when we do, but not you" thing. I think its so strange when people talk about how terrible and evil it is when anyone attacks US soldiers in Iraq. Its a war, dude. That's what happens. You attack them, they attack back, repeat. Are we really so convinced of our moral infallability that we think we can start a war and not get shot at in retaliation? Maybe that is the difference between an invasion type war and an occupation- in the second, the agressive force thinks its unfair and wrong when the other side attacks. Indeed, Bibi Netanyahu & co. are delighted with the Hamas victory, on which they can now build a fear-saturated election campaign, and return voters to the fold who lately had slipped into something more moderate (a nicer, more gentle genocidal occupation). I agree with the above to some extent. In the short term at least it will provide a reason to wreak even more havoc in the Occupied Territories. It will surely provide a new justification for the Wall. However, even the most brutal, rascist war-mongerers do not actually want an endless, perpetual state of war. The masses don't like it. There is a reason Israel and the US spent millions trying to influence people to vote for the ruling Fateh party. It has been easier to convince Fateh leaders, even Arafat although they were not ultimately completely successful in his case, that they are powerless to get more than what Israel and the US wants to give them and concede. The powers were able to set up a top-down, rent-payer, ineffective Fateh/PA ruling infrustructure throughout the country, many of whom were readily available and willing to fight with each other, undermine each other, and serve themselves instead of their constituents. It isn't like they were taking orders from Israel necessarily; its just that they could be trusted to not have their priorities straight ever. But here’s my take on what made Hamas victorious in the recent elections: (wait for it... my guess it will be something very profound and original) Israel’s failure to sit down and negotiate an end to the occupation. OK So I was wrong. Someone give her a prize. After the five hundreth explanation, someone finally got it. This is often phrased as “the failure of Fatah to make progress on peace”, but they amount to the same thing: the Fatah failed because Israel refused to offer any reward for moderation, refusing to sit down and negotiate with them. Fateh has degenerated into a disempowering force among the people. They continued to grasp onto hopes that if they wait it out, bear with the leaders, they would eventually get something. And so they did just that- wait. There is no transparency, little grassroots participation at the government levels, and again, very little effort on the part of many Fateh members to make the people and their needs a priority. The very deep dependency of the "mainstream" resistance on the international community, ie ineffectual rulings by the UN, to pressure Israel into doing the right thing is, while needed, hurting the will of the average Palestinian to continue working for an end to the occupation. It hasn't brought any real result, so people have been left feeling hopeless and desperate. And what about the corruption claim – that voting for Hamas was also a vote against the corruption of the Fatah politicians? It was a secondary reason, surely. There is lots of anger toward Fateh, especially the Fateh members who act like they are the rightful leaders of the Palestinians and don't have to do anything to stay in power. Plus, there was an obvious intention on the part of many Palestinians to vote for ANYONE besides those who have been apparently chosen and sanctioned by Israel and the US. Is that so strange, that Palestinians would purposely not vote for America and Israel's candidate? Taking money from your enemies to secure your place is also corruption. Obviously the PA taking money from the US and Israel to do projects right before the election made many Palestinians angry enough to not vote for them. Secondly, many Palestinians are convinced that their Fateh leaders are secure no matter what- they make money off the Occupation (Abas making money off the concrete sold to Israel for the Wall is an oft-cited example) and will make money afterward too, while the rest won't. This may have played a role for some voters, but since when does corruption bring down a politician? Certainly not in Israel, where Sharon’s corruption has been an open book, but forgiven by those who support his politics. Westerners will support corrupt leaders as long as the leaders are macho strongmen-types and the corruption isn't so noticeable that it actually starts affecting their daily lives in an obvious way. Corruption is tolerated when approval ratings are high in other respects. The corruption of the previous Palestinian government would have been overlooked, had the politicians only managed to show some progress on ending the occupation. It's not that they even have to show progress in the short term as they have to keep acting like strong leaders. Bush has shown no progress on Iraq, actually much the opposite, and although his support for the occupation has decreased, he hasn't lost it completely. He keeps a strong rhetoric and promises results, not in the short term, but overall.
When terrorists become politicians
I remember standing on the balcony of my home in Jerusalem on a lovely May morning of 1977 and gasping when I heard who had won the Israeli election: Menahem Begin, former head of a Jewish terrorist organization that had killed 91 civilians by bombing the King David Hotel in 1946. Further proof that it is only collateral damage if the agressor is white. And then it was Begin who returned the Sinai Peninsula and negotiated peace with Egypt. In 2001, Israel elected Ariel Sharon, responsible for blood-soaked episodes in Qibiya, Beirut, Gaza, Sabra and Shatila, and more. And then it was Sharon who returned Gaza – imperfect, but a singularly important precedent. I condemn terrorism, whether ‘rogue’ or state sanctioned, and I would never have voted for Hamas (or Begin or Sharon). But who is better positioned than Hamas to reach a compromise peace agreement? We have the mirror image of Israel in the Palestinian election: Just as the Israeli right (Begin and Sharon) could more easily make concessions than Yitzhak Rabin, who had to fight our right wing all the way, so too the Hamas can mobilize more support for concessions than the more moderate Fatah could now undertake. That's because their leadership is more respected. It looks different for a group that has devoted itself solely to the liberation of a people or land to make certain concessions than one who appears that it hasn't been in that fight for a long time. It will look necessary (even if it isn't or shouldn't be) as opposed to mealy-mouthed and weak. They are also less likely to give up things that can be won with more pressure exerted over time. It is also possible that Hamas will go through the same transformation Fateh did after it became the ruling party institutionalized in the PA. It is hard to continue as a liberation movement after you become a ruling power that has to do the actual work of governing.
About creeping fundamentalism
Yes, I am worried about Hamas rule, particularly its domestic agenda in Palestine: I worry about women, non-Muslims, journalists, gays, people in the arts, and all those who benefit from the open society. You're worried? What about me? I live in the US, and unlike Palestine, no one in the international community is talking about the rise of radical right-wing Christianity in our country and the subsequent loss of our liberties and rights. To what extent will the Hamas increase the role of Shari’a (Muslim) law in civilian life? To what extent will the Republican Party in Texas legislate a literal, extremely conservative reading of the Bible as law? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? The world may never know. Or religious education in the schools? Once, when I was in the seventh grade, one of my teachers in Oklahoma told us, under the guise of the mandatory sex-ed lesson, told us to keep our knees shut. Darwin was never mentioned in class until I went to a special science magnate school. On the other hand, it’s quite evident that Palestinians have experienced democracy and will not easily tolerate a closing of their society. Hopefully they won't tolerate it in the same way Americans have. Or Israelis. Sharon had to give up his Saturday afternoon tennis game to court the more Orthodox vote; Kerry had to promise us (so radically different than Kennedy promising to NOT be religious just 50 years before) that he really did believe in Jesus. Seriously though folks, far be it from us to talk about the rise of conservative, radical Islam in Palestine. It is true that the majority of Palestinians are Muslim, the women wear hijab and conservative clothing (so do the men for the most part), and Palestinians for the most part abide in a traditional, conservative culture (marriage and family are supposed to be more important to women then their careers,for example; although many women are very educated, they often times will not pursue careers outside the home, due in part to not wanting to give the appearance of neglecting their children and due in another part to the worsening state of the economy- there are not enough jobs to employ men and women both, so women give up opportunities so that men can have them. This is no different fundamentally than America 50-60 years ago.) However, there are plenty of non-extreme, even non-practicing Muslims in Palestine and there are many Christians (some of whom also don't practice). A vote for Hamas in this election would not always indicate that the Palestinian had become more conservative in his/her religion. There are unknown massive numbers of Palestinians who would not tolerate, for example, women being denied education, the right to drive, or subjected to mandatory hijab or, for another example, armed gangs of young conservative Muslim males driving around closing down stores that sold alcohol. Many of these same ones would not "deny the right of Israel to exist", ie demand that the country be blown off the map and all the Jews driven back into Europe. They will act as a moderating force in Hamas, as they already have. In Bethlehem municipality, the majority (although it is slimer than it once was) is Christian and the large minority is Muslim. Christians are allowed to vote for both and Muslims are allowed to vote. The city council is mandated to be half+1 Christian (personally, not necessarily belonging to a religious party) and the rest Muslim. In the last election, almost all of the Christian representatives elected were members of the socialist Party for the Liberation of Palestine and all the Muslim representatives were either members of the Islamic Jihad party or Hamas. This means that Christians voted for these parties in the election. Do they want to live under a radical conservative Islamic regime? No way. Do they want strong leadership who is going to fight to improve Palestine domestically and end the occupation? Yes. They see these two Muslim parties as able to do that, but they of course do not agree with the idea of a Muslim theocracy set up in Palestine.
I take heart from this week’s survey of the Palestinian population, published in the Palestinian Authority’s Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda and reported in the Jerusalem Post*: 84% of Palestinians support a peace deal with Israel. Peace with justice. Let's see how many Israelis want peace, and then start the name calling. Palestinians aren't monstervilliandemons. They aren't vampires. They don't like blood and guts. Of course they want peace. Who doesn't? Oh yeah, that's right... the people in the West who have become monstervilliandemons and vampires. In case you wondered if this includes the Hamas, 75% of Hamas voters are opposed to calls for the destruction of Israel. Yeah. Please see above. Hamas knows that seculars comprise a large portion of their constituency.
And who benefits from ending foreign aid? Three guesses. Is it the American taxpayer? Hmm, its not... so... So along come American and Israeli politicians advocating for a policy that would isolate and punish the Palestinians by withholding financial aid. The American press is jabbering like monkeys in a tree about the whole election. I guess they want to give aid when it could sway an election in their favor. Hey guys, remember that whole democracy thing? If you push for elections, then you sort of have to abide by what happens. No one in Washington had a problem with funding Indonesian terrorists for 25 years; since they have just reinstated that military aid, I wouldn't imagine that they would have an actual problem funding Hamas. Everyone knows this would destabilize the fragile economy, harm the innocent (but not the politicians), and foster increasing bitterness against the secular west. Secular? hehehe. A much more reasonable approach would be to extend support and see how responsibly Hamas uses it. How many rocket launchers does $20 million buy? Or maybe we should take that money and reinvest it in the States to see if we can buy our government, our media, and ourselves a collective brain. One amongst all of us might be worth it. It might do more good for the Palestinians than a brand new rocket launcher for every adult over 18 in the West Bank. Hamas actually has a lot to prove right now, and they had one of the best grassroots charity systems set up in Gaza without financial aid from the West. I can only imagine what Palestinians could get out of them if they actually had money to spend. Or does someone have an interest in sowing chaos in the Palestinian territories? Yes, I too would like to demand a renunciation of terrorism and violence as a precondition for talking I think Hamas should issue a pre-emptory statement saying they don't negotiate with or take money from terrorists. …I’d like to demand it from both sides. But realistically this has to be done as part of the negotiations. Hey boys, just in case... bring the rocket launchers.
Gila SvirskyJerusalem
posted by thankgodforpbr at 2/01/2006 12:52:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home