Barack Obama links Israel peace plan to 1967 borders deal
Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv and Sarah Baxter, TIMES ONLINE
Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect.
Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party.
[NO SURPRISE HERE. ALL LEFT-THINKING PEOPLE ARE SUPPORTING THIS INITIATIVE]
[SEE ALSO: Report suggests Obama press Israel over nuke program ]
The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.
On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be “crazy” for Israel to refuse a deal that could “give them peace with the Muslim world”, according to a senior Obama adviser.
The Arab peace plan received a boost last week when President Shimon Peres, a Nobel peace laureate and leading Israeli dove, commended the initiative at a Saudi-sponsored United Nations conference in New York.
Peres was loudly applauded for telling King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who was behind the original initiative: “I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people.”
A bipartisan group of senior foreign policy advisers urged Obama to give the Arab plan top priority immediately after his election victory. They included Lee Hamilton, the former co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat former national security adviser. Brzezinski will give an address tomorrow at Chatham House, the international relations think tank, in London.
Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, joined in the appeal. He said last week that the Middle East was the most troublesome area in the world and that an early start to the Palestinian peace process was “a way to psychologically change the mood of the region”.
Advisers believe the diplomatic climate favours a deal as Arab League countries are under pressure from radical Islamic movements and a potentially nuclear Iran. Polls show that Palestinians and Israelis are in a mood to compromise.
The advisers have told Obama he should lose no time in pursuing the policy in the first six to 12 months in office while he enjoys maximum goodwill.
Obama is also looking to break a diplomatic deadlock over Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons technology. A possible way forward, suggested last spring by Dennis Ross, a senior Obama adviser and former Middle East envoy, would be to persuade Russia to join in tough economic sanctions against Iran by offering to modify the US plan for a “missile shield” in eastern Europe.
President Dmitry Medvedev signalled that Russia could cancel a tit-for-tat deployment of missiles close to the Polish border if America gave up its proposed missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Ross argued in a paper on How to Talk to Iran that “if the Iranian threat goes away, so does the principal need to deploy these [antimissile] forces. [Vladimir] Putin [the Russian prime minister] has made this such a symbolic issue that this trade-off could be portrayed as a great victory for him”.
Ross and Daniel Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel, accompanied Obama on a visit to Israel last July. They also travelled to Ramallah, where Obama questioned Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, about the prospects for the Arab plan.
According to a Washington source Obama told Abbas: “The Israelis would be crazy not to accept this initiative. It would give them peace with the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco.”
Kurtzer submitted a paper to Obama on the question before this month’s presidential elections. He argued that trying to reach bilateral peace agreements between Israel and individual countries in the Middle East, was a recipe for failure as the record of Bill Clinton and George W Bush showed. In contrast, the broader Arab plan “had a lot of appeal”. A leading Democratic expert on the Middle East said: “There’s not a lot of meat on the bones yet, but it offers recognition of Israel across the Arab world.”
Livni, the leader of Kadima, which favours the plan, is the front-runner in Israeli elections due in February. Her rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Likud, is adamantly against withdrawing to borders that predate the Six Day war in 1967.
Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, last week expressed his support for Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank Golan and east Jerusalem.
This is an indication of a President-elect who does not have all his marbles.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — November 16, 2008 @ 11:50 am
The definition of “chutzpah”:
This coming from the man who, within a few days of the Chi-Comm massacre of hundreds of its own citizens in Tiananmen Square, flew to Beijing to toast champagne glasses with the Chinese Premier.
Comment by Charles Martel — November 16, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
I just noticed the name of the source. Mr. Bunk. Investigate a little bit. About as reliable as a 1970 Fiat.
Comment by Shy Guy — November 16, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Peres, Kurtzer, Ross, Brzezinski, Scowcroft.
Reads like a “Who’s Who” in the cookbook to liquidate Israel.
Comment by Charles Martel — November 16, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
See Israel Matzav’s take on this and note his links on Mahnaimi being unreliable as a source.
Comment by Shy Guy — November 16, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
Has Afghanistan EVER officially recognized the 1893 Durand Line as their official border with post 1948 Pakistan? Seems THAT should be first on the foreign policy to-do list.
Schvitz, Schumer, schvitz.
Comment by Birdalone — November 16, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
This is an indication that the president-elect is at the very least, dangerously naive.
Comment by Laura — November 16, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
Shy Guy
Does anything above seem implausible to you?
Comment by Charles Martel — November 16, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
Charles, you’re asking me to succumb to the temptation of relying on “false but accurate” information. I posted the link to this item at Israel Matzav. Read the last paragraph there, which I’m in full agreement with and which should satisfactorily answer your question.
In the meantime, keep that name, Mahnaimi, somewhere in memory for future reference. It won’t hurt to know.
Comment by Shy Guy — November 16, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
Obama’s statement proves he is either completely inexperienced and naive, or, he is going to be heavy handed against Israel and try to force them to cede land without adequate security conditions and full acknowledgement by all parties of their right to exist.
While he may have “bipatisan” support it is very limited and only to anti-Israel people.
Comment by Gat New York — November 16, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
Not at all. There’s no evidence that this story is false. In fact,
This is true.
This is true.
This is true.
This is true. (By the way, Obama’s other key ME advisor, Malley, has written the same).
Even the Bush Administration has been moving progressively towards the Saudi plan since the Road Map was effectively jettisoned with the election of Hamas.
All that remains frankly, is for Obama to punctuate this story with his first official foreign policy address.
Comment by Charles Martel — November 16, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
With Obama surrounding himself with American Jewish advisers who share his perspective on both the nature and causes of the Israel - Palestinian/Arab problem and on the one and only solution that has ever been on the table and Israeli leading voices like Olmert, Shimon Peres, Tzipi Livni, Peretz, Barak and the left wing controlled Israeli media to point to as sharing his vision, Obama is poised to push Israel to accept the Saudi plan and in his so doing will have absolute credibility that what he does, he does only for the good of Israel and Israelis.
If Livni and Kadima win to carry on Olmert’s grand plan, you can expect that Obama will graciously be handing Livni the knife with which to slash Israel’s wrists and Livni will with much pomp and ceremony thank Obama for his caring and his help.
The only people who can stop Obama from selling Israel down the Saudi Plan river will be the winning party and leader in the Israeli election next February and that is only if Israel’s next PM has a mind to.
American and Western leaders and that includes some Israeli leaders and many leading Jewish voices within Israel and the diaspora, refuse to even consider that the conflict between the Palestinians/Arabs and Israel is part and parcel of fundamentalist Islam’s war with the West.
It is a fundamental tenet of Islamic belief that land once Islamic and lost, must be returned to Islam and that Muslims are commanded to continue their efforts to that end, stopping only once they have again established dominion over that former Islamic land.
Israel was under Islamic dominion until liberated at the end of WWI. Not only are Muslims religiously commanded by Islam to ensure all of Israel is returned to Islam, there have been many calls by so called secular Palestinian leaders for just that objective.
These Western leaders continue to turn a blind eye to systemic Islamic Jew hatred and the Islamic belief that Jews can be nothing more then dhimmis to Muslims.
These Western leaders turn a blind eye to the fact that the Palestinian Jihadist Islamists are represented not only by Hamas but by Fatah that thinly disguises their hatred and contempt for Israel, Israelis and Jews.
Fatah continues to wear that barely there disguise because Western leaders and that includes some Israeli leaders and many Israeli and diaspora Jews, because insanely Western leaders need them to do so in order to maintain the perverse and completely dishonest illusion that Fatah represents moderate and reasonable Palestinians.
All this self delusion, self deceit and maximum efforts to deal with more comfortable lies instead of having to confront harsh and painful truths is a crying shame.
Tears now being shed by some Jews over this appalling state of affairs will become a river of tears once Jews who were complicit in ultimately bringing about Israel’s destruction, finally see what they have done and they join with their anguished feelings of overwhelming guilt, all other Jews to mourn Israel’s passing
Comment by Bill Narvey — November 16, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
Narvey: writes .These Western leaders turn a blind eye to the fact that the Palestinian Jihadist Islamists are represented not only by Hamas but by Fatah that thinly disguises their hatred and contempt for Israel, Israelis and Jews.
——————————————————–
The self appointed mideast experts mouth simplistic slogans like jingles. Narvey either forgets, ignores, or might not even know that Fatah and Hamas have been engaged in a lengthy violent struggle over the whole question of negotiating a peace treaty with Israel.Instead he lives in his own “alternative reality” where both entities are actually one. Mr. Narvey ignores the fact that Hamas did not exist for most of the 60 years of the Israeli Arab conflict.Fatah is a secular organization. and has absolutely nothing to do with the Jihadi movement. Hamas is the problem,but it is not written in stone that Hamas will be the governing party for ever in Gaza. The hope and plan is that eventually it will lose favor and be replaced with a more accomodating party.Mr.Narvey is no mideast expert, even if he thinks he is.
Comment by h peskin — November 16, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
Narvey: I would concur with the previous post. We have too many contributors making predictions based on uninformed and purely speculative points of view. What makes you more knowlegeable than anyone else on this subject. You have an air of authority which might just be undeserved. What exactly are your credentials. I would also make the same observation about Belman, Levinson and so many other prophets of doom, who just might be totally wrong in their predictions. The past is not always a basis for what might transpire in the future.We have been surprised too many times.
Comment by palworthy — November 16, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
Peskin and palworthy, open your f’n eyes.
You both are on side with reality deniers who find it easier to conjure up false illusions then to deal with very difficult truths. You both have eyes, but do not see.
Peskin, I am well aware of the struggle for Palestinian leadership between the religious military organization called Hamas which had its start in the 1980’s and Fatah, PLO/PA of the 1960’s vintage which has been characterized as secular.
Power struggles between competing Muslim factions, each vying for essentially the same or similar national/religious goals is not unusual in Arabic/Muslim history. The objective of each competing faction is power and the respect it brings within the Muslim world that is an honour-shame based culture.
To say that because Fatah is secular it has nothing to do with the Jihadist movement is utter rubbish. Fatah is part of the Arabic culture and is not separate from it. Palestinians glorify a culture of death and hatred for Israel, Israelis and Jews. Their charter still expresses the same goals in somewhat different language then do the Hamas founding charter documents.
Just because Fatah may be secular compared to Hamas does not remove Fatah from the Jihadist cultural creed.
Peskin and Palworthy, is your reluctance to open your eyes because neither of you are prepared for the harsh light of painful and difficults truths?
Comment by Bill Narvey — November 16, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
Narvey: Saying ALL Palestinians glorify a culture of death is tantamount to saying all Jews worship money, all Jews are crafty and not be trusted. You Mr. Narvey are practising the old game of grouping people in a generalized, sereotypical package. In essence, you Mr. Narvey are a yidishe anti-semite engaged in hate mongering.You are no better than a Hamas anti-semite.
It is time Mr. Narvey to look at yourself in the mirror and see yourself what you are. The refection is not all that good.
Comment by celia — November 16, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
Narvey:
Palworthy makes some excellent points. Why have you ignored his post?
Comment by h peskin — November 16, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
Peskin, excellence is not a word to characterize what Palworthy had to say.
He made an ad hominem attack against myself, Belman, Levinson and other unnamed contributers, impertinently and snidely asking what makes us more knowledgeable on the subject and he goes on to suggest we may have an air of authority that may not be deserved and that we might be wrong in our predictions and assessments of the future.
Peskin, Palworthy has said nothing more than I and others might not have all the facts and we might be wrong in our assessments and predictions. Palworthy’s iffy comment is what you think are excellent points that deserve a response from me?
Other then yourself Peskin, who are you trying to kid with such narishkeit?
If you and palworthy want to write a considered opinion on the subject, any subject, do so, but writing to simply complain about me or some other commenter who took the time to make their point, does not cut it!
Comment by Bill Narvey — November 16, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
I imagine you using the same logic in defending Germany in the 1930’s.
I look at your posts and I see an enabler of putrid, pure and ugly evil.
Comment by Shy Guy — November 17, 2008 @ 1:58 am
Pride and Prejudice
By HILLEL HALKIN
Jerusalem Post, 2002
Perhaps it’s naive to think that the Arab society I’m embroiled with in a century-old conflict is going to function any better because I’m nice to it.
I was called a racist the other night. I’ve been thinking about it.
I was sitting at a table at a dinner in Jerusalem of the board of governors of the American Jewish Committee, which was to be followed by a panel discussion in which I had been asked to participate. On my left was a rabbi, originally English, who lives in Israel, and next to him, a board member of liberal views.
The rabbi, whom I knew, has been active for years in interfaith dialoguing with Christian and Muslim clergy. Engaged in conversation with the woman on my right, I wasn’t listening to what he and the board member were talking about - not, that is, until, during a lull with the woman, my left ear heard him say that Islam and the Arab world were being blamed these days for so many of the world’s problems.
“With justification,” I said, turning in his direction. It’s a bad habit of mine: I sometimes find it hard to keep my mouth shut.
It wasn’t a lengthy comment, but it was enough. The rabbi said something about the foolishness of generalizing about subjects as diverse as Arabs and Islam. I said that, diverse or not, they were depressing subjects. He asked what I meant. I said it was obvious what I meant: Wherever one looked at Arab and Muslim countries, one saw backwardness, fanaticism, and the inability to modernize and democratize.
“You’re generalizing,” the rabbi repeated.
“Of course I am,” I said. “It can’t be an accident that nearly all the Arab world is a sink of human misery. Its whole culture is screwed up.”
“You’re a racist!” the board member exclaimed.
The rabbi nodded. At last he had heard a generalization he agreed with.
Am I?
It would be easy to be indignant. Who, me? Me, who lived for a year in a black neighborhood in the American South and marched in Selma and went to jail with Martin Luther King? Racist?
Too easy. In the first place, that was 40 years ago. And secondly, Arabs and Muslims aren’t Afro-Americans. And I really have been having, lately, some not-very-nice thoughts about them. Not about Arabs and Muslims as individuals - I honestly don’t think I have a problem there. I’ve never thought, and don’t think today, that, on an individual basis, the Arabs I’ve known have been any less dependable, intelligent, or honest than Jews, or that Jews are less likely to be scoundrels or idiots.
When it comes to my feelings about someone, his being Arab has nothing to do with it. I’ve liked and trusted, and disliked and distrusted, Arabs and Jews pretty much equally. I’ve felt as comfortable in Arab homes as in Jewish ones, and I’ve been enraged when I’ve heard Jews say stupid things like “All Arabs are liars,” or “Every Arab will stab you in the back.” As if we lacked Jewish liars and back-stabbers!
But that’s individually. Get a lot of Arabs together, in a crowd or in a country, and something happens to them, something not good. That’s my perception, as it is that of many Israelis.
It’s also that of many non-Israelis. There is by now a vast literature, much of it written in recent years, about whether Arab and Islamic culture (the two things, of course, are not identical but neither are they easily differentiable) are intrinsically responsible for the authoritarianism, poverty, anger, self-pity, paranoia, lack of freedom, intellectual stagnation, religious fanaticism, repression of women, conformism, mob psychology, and near total absence of self-criticism that characterize most Arab countries today or whether these things are the product of political and economic circumstances and can change as they do.
The issues are complex and weighted with implications - the possible outcome of the American intervention in Iraq being one of them - and it’s silly to pretend that there are simple answers.
BUT WE in Israel have had our own special experience, and it has predisposed us to answers of our own. Many of us, despairing over the behavior of the Palestinians, as well as of their Arab supporters elsewhere, have given up all hope of our two societies being able to coexist - and when you give up hope, it’s natural to justify it by deciding that the other side is congenitally incorrigible and constitutionally incapable of changing. That, really, is what support for the security fence is all about. Many Israelis who once thought it was possible to get along with Arabs as a polity, rather than merely as individuals, have lost faith in this. I’m afraid to say I’m on the verge of becoming one of them.
Does this make me prejudiced against Arabs? Perhaps it does. It’s certainly a convenient way of telling myself that I don’t have to change because, no matter what I do, I’ll still never be accepted by them. Prejudice is the cheapest form of self-satisfaction. If someone else is worse, you’re automatically better.
But on the other hand, it may not be a question of prejudice at all. It may be simple realism. Perhaps Arab and Muslim societies, whatever their past glories and achievements, are maladapted to the modern world. Perhaps it’s laughably na ve to think that the Arab society I’m embroiled with in a century-old conflict is going to function any better because I’m nice to it.
My ecumenical rabbi and my liberal board member, after all, are also prejudiced - against thinking. It’s not as if they’re saying, “Well, we’d like to believe that you’re wrong about Arabs and Muslims, but it’s not our beliefs that matter; it’s what history, sociology, and political science can tell us, so let’s look at them carefully before drawing any conclusions.” What they’re saying when they cry “racism” is “Stop! You can’t be right about Muslims and Arabs because .well, because you can’t be. If you are, we’ll have to re-examine our basic multicultural assumptions, and that’s something we’re not prepared to do.” There is no small amount of self-satisfaction in such political correctness, too.
The rabbi was correct. Glib generalizations are dangerous. Iraq is not Palestine, and Tunisia is not Yemen, and Islamic Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkey are not Arab. Each of these countries has its own features that may make it more or less successful in coping. Yet each also shares common traditions and a common faith - and not to generalize at all about these is equally absurd. It precludes the very possibility of rational thought, and rational is what we need to be right now.
We shouldn’t be afraid to consider the possibility that if Jews adopt friendlier policies toward Arabs and Muslims, then Arabs and Muslims will adopt friendlier policies toward Jews, and we shouldn’t be afraid to consider the possibility that this is nonsense. There’s nothing racist about having an open mind.
Comment by Shy Guy — November 17, 2008 @ 2:03 am
Birds of a Feather: Peskin and his groupie Pals (Palworthy and celia)
Uzi Mahnaimi: is a local joke and nobody here takes him seriously. If he were an objective journalist and not an anti Israel basher he would never be employed by the most anti Israel and even antisemitic press in England which is second only to the Islamic and Arabic Press around the world in its virulent anti Israel positions and stories. His big break came with the Vanunu expose.
If it were up to me I would have had him (Mahnaimi) executed long ago, traitors do not require due process nor giving them legitimization by even commenting on his stories but since you have seen to do so and apparently our (3 little pigs) seem overjoyed with the prospect that Mahanimi’s story contains truth. Lets see what if carried out would mean to us.
The Saudi ‘peace’ plan
by Charles Krauthammehttp://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2002/03/06/the_saudi_peace_plan
The Saudi initiative was concocted in February 2002 as a public relations stunt on the part of then-crown prince and now King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. At the time, Saudi-U.S. relations were at an all-time low. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001 were Saudi citizens and in the months following that act of war against America, the media exposed Saudi Arabia’s massive role in financing the global jihad through direct aid to terror groups and the establishment of jihadist mosques and schools from Pakistan to Peoria to Paris.
Attempting to reassert their importance as an ally to Washington, the Saudi government wanted badly to change the subject. What better way to divert attention from their central role in the global jihad, whose forces openly called for the destruction of the U.S. and of the Western world, than by taking on the role of peacemaker in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians?
Six years ago, Israel rejected the plan completely, and reasonably so. Far from a “peace plan,” it is a recipe for Israel’s destruction. Without the lands that the plan requires Israel to surrender to the Palestinians and the Syrians, Israel is incapable of defending itself from invasion. The Arab peace plan, in other words, requires that Israel render itself indefensible.
Moreover, the demand that Israel allow the unimpeded immigration of millions of hostile Arabs is simply another way of saying that Israel must agree to allow itself to be overrun and so demographically destroyed.
Finally, the plan’s statement that in response to these suicidal steps by Israel the Arab world will agree to have “regular” relations with it is itself meaningless because the term “regular” is an empty one.
the simple truth is that this plan, as was the case with all the previous failed “peace” initiatives between Israel and its neighbors, places the burden for solving the Middle East’s problems on the principal victim of those problems - Israel - rather than on the Arab governments, like Saudi Arabia, that are responsible for them.
Not only is the plan doomed to fail, it will cause the deaths of untold numbers of Israelis who will be killed because neither Rice, Olmert, Livni, or Obama is honest enough to admit that Saudi Arabia is neither a moderate nor a peaceful nation.
All in all, the Arab “peace” plan (modified Saudi plan) is nothing but a blueprint for Israel’s destruction.
Comment by yamit82 — November 17, 2008 @ 2:57 am
Ted my just posted comment was blocked Pls. release asap
Comment by yamit82 — November 17, 2008 @ 2:59 am
You are an ignoramus extraordinaire. There are literally thousands of video and audio clips readily available showing up the buffoonery of your false claims.
Comment by Shy Guy — November 17, 2008 @ 3:14 am
Unless you are a fascist dumb Liberal, seemingly brainless with malice: like Peskin, Palworthy and Celia. The three stooges, like Dorthy’s Tin Man who is in need of a brain.
Comment by yamit82 — November 17, 2008 @ 3:21 am
They are no less lacking in courage to confront the contradiction between the truth and the parallel universe they live in. And they are lacking in heart, theirs being stone cold.
Comment by Shy Guy — November 17, 2008 @ 3:30 am
More for the leftists liars who post here:
With Moderates Like Abbas…
And it has never been otherwise, except in their lying eyes.
Comment by Shy Guy — November 17, 2008 @ 3:56 am
For the three stooges: Fatah is only considered secular by those with a vested interest in seeing them that way . They themselves for the most part don’t. Even were they declared atheists their culture is Arabic/Muslim and all feel comfortable in their local mosques. Islam much like Judaism is an all encompassing religion, where it is virtually or almost impossible to separate temporal rule from ecclesiastic influences, for the most part they are integrated in Islam. Which includes language, culture, history,religion and deep hatred for Jews and Israel.
even today we have more terrorism attacks and have lost more lives to Fatah centered and supported groups and individuals than from the openly Islamic factions. The separations are more for external consumption than internal Arab realities. In Truth there are really no moderates and when you can find one and dissect him you will find no important differences between them and the known more radical Islamics.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MODERATE ARAB AND A RADICAL, IS THAT A MODERATE ARAB WILL MURDER JEWS MODERATELY
REMEMBER: NO ARABS = NO TERROR!
Comment by yamit82 — November 17, 2008 @ 4:47 am
Celia, #16, you are stereotyping all Palestinians yourself, not based on what the vast majority believe and do, but based on what a possible small minority of Palestinians believe and do.
A number of opinion polls over the last several years consistently show that between 65% to 85% of Palestinians support the ends of the Palestinian leadership as regards Israel’s destruction and the terrorist means Palestinians use to achieve that end.
That suggests that there is a small minority of Palestinians who are either against the destruction of Israel or the terrorist means Palestinian Jihadists employ to that end or both.
The only conclusion I can draw from these polls, coupled with the historical and continuous dissemination and incitement of Jew hatred by leaders of both Hamas and Fatah and the smaller splinter Palestinian terrorist groups like Islamic Jihad and al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, is that in spite of the madness of a degenerate Palestinian society that revels in its culture of Jew hatred and glorifying Palestinian death if it is in the cause of murdering and maiming Jews, there are probably a few Palestinians who have somehow managed to be immune from the worst in Palestinian culture and society.
If in WWII, the allies focussed their concerns for the welfare of a probable small minority of Germans who did not believe in Hitler or a small minority of Japanese who did not believe in their leader’s war against America, neither Hitler nor the Japanese enemy would have been defeated.
You should take your own advice about standing in front a mirror and see what you really look like.
The view from here Celia is pretty fractured by your hypocrisy and perverse views and in a word, your reflection here is not pretty.
Comment by Bill Narvey — November 17, 2008 @ 8:11 am