anti-Zionism Egypt Far left Israel MondoWeiss Tahrir Square

Chilling video from Tahrir Square…and chilling rationalizations

Check out the video posted below, from Tahrir Square yesterday. They are chanting “To Jerusalem we are heading, martyrs in the millions.”

Then check out the responses to the same video from the gang at Mondo Weiss. A coterie of commentators who think of themselves as proponents of human rights and universal values fall over themselves trying to justify and rationalize the same scene. I don’t know which is more chilling–the video, or their reactions.

48 thoughts on “Chilling video from Tahrir Square…and chilling rationalizations

  1. Teddy-
    Phil Weiss was invited last year by the supposedly “pro-Israel” J-Street group to conduct a panel discussion at their national conference. He was joined by other Israel bashers Richard Silverstein and the slightly more restrained “Jerry Haber”. Thus, somehow the anti-Israel groups view him as some sort of spokesman or barometer for “progressive Jewish” thinking.

  2. Here is a comment I posted elsewhere regarding the question of why the Palestinians decided to push Obama into the corner and force him into vetoing the UNSC resolution on the Israeli settlements. I think it is directly related to the turmoil in the Arab world and the firestorm that came out of the Al-Jazeera leaks regarding the Palestinian negotiating position:

    The question I think that needs to be asked was why the Palestinians felt that they had to press the issue now, of all times. At the moment they have the most pro-Palestinian President in the White House of all times. He is under great pressure due to the turmoil in the Middle East, agonizing over whether to continue to support unpopular pro-American leaders. He is also coming off a devastating defeat in the mid-term elections. So why did he need this headache thrust on him at this very time?
    The answer, I believe, comes from the fact that the Palestinian Authority now feels they have no choice but to finally end the charade of the Oslo “peace process”. The whole thing was based on the idea that, eventually, a compromise peace would emerge from negotiations with Israel. I emphasize the word “compromise”. The problem was that such a peace would never be acceptable to the Palestinians, because the Palestinians are not interested in simply receiving an “independent Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and prosperity”, nor is their goal merely “self-determination”. Their goal, is a they see it, as JUSTICE. This means rolling back 1948. Thus, the Palestinian has now evolved from what people (i.e. Israelis and Americans) thought was a “compromise peace” to what the Palestinian terms aways really were, as enunciated publicly innumerable times by Arafat and Abbas, by both FATAH and HAMAS as being:
    (1) Complete withdrawal to the pre-67 lines.
    (2) Unlimited and unrestricted right of return of Palestinian Refugees
    (3) No “end of conflict” but rather a limited cease-fire.
    These demands would be met by irresistable international pressure on Israel which would come as the culmination of a long-period of an international campaign against Israel’s very legitimacy conducted in various forums around the world. In other words, the world would finally come around to the position that, not only were settlements criminal, and the “occupation” unacceptable, but that the Palestinian refugees MUST be allowed to return and the creation of Israel in 1948 must be defined as a criminal act that must be reversed. A “compromise” peace is light-years away from bringing about the justice the Palestinians are seeking.

    While it is true that in the secret negotiations between the sides in 2000-2001 and 2008 the Palestinians did refer to some sort of minor territorial compromises which were never agreed upon and ambiguous statements that the Palestinians could “understand” that Israel couldn’t accept an unlimited “right of return” of Palestinian refugees , we can see from the howls of outrage from the Palestinian street and from Jews who support the Palestinian cause, following the Al-Jazeera leaks that any sort of compromise on the three demands I listed above was unacceptable and actually treasonous.
    Abbas, faced with the turmoil in the Arab world and the embarrassment of the Al-Jazeera leaks, added to the pressure from HAMAS, finally concluded that he had no choice but to break out of the “Oslo” straitjacket he was in. It must be remembered that he is taking a risk in doing this, because the Palestinian Authority is dependent on American handouts, but it seems he felt he could take the chance.
    However, it seems that finally, all the lies and deceit of the Oslo “process” have been exposed and the Palestinians now feel they have to express their true aims.

  3. In contrast to your analysis Yakov, I believe that Abbas is in earnest about drafting a proposal to bring to the populations, that does articulate a real peace.

    The video from Tahrir Square was not as chilling to me as many presented, as in looking at it, only a minority of the crowd are chanting, and that the term was not meant in as violent a manner as I originally interpreted. (“not as violent” is still horrid, compared to the praise of the Egyptian movement that it was not violent, not oriented to blaming some third party, Israel or US, for their present problems.)

    The response of the Mondoweiss regulars to the chanting, urging that it signal the end of Israel, and desiring that it strike fear in Israelis, sickened me.

    On a televised panel on one of the Sunday morning news shows a couple weeks ago, an Egyptian columnist described that Egyptians are not easily able to distinguish nuance, that they think in much more black/white terms, that something is either right or it is wrong, that an event or relationship is just or it is unjust.

    Another commentator at Mondoweiss described her understanding (appreciatively) of the Arabs that she knew, that they preferred (even were unable) to drop an injustice, that it was stone in their shoe. I remember comments from an Algerian documentary of their revolution that stated similarly, that the dissenters would stop feeding their children rather than give up their agitation against a perceived injustice.

    Many others than Arabs hold the same standards.

    And, I have met Arabs that were able to live with an internal tension.

    If the commitment to justice is strong, and is more importantly measured on oneself more than on a politically expedient “other”, then I admire that.

    If, on the other hand, the commitment to justice is only oriented to “other”, then the fixation and willingness to harm to “right the injustice” is fascist, however it is presented and thought of.

  4. YBD, re: #2.

    Phil wasn’t invited by J Street. He was part of an independently organized panel that asked J Street to let them meet during and at their conference. J Street agonized over it and then agreed. There is a difference.

  5. Dan, I haven’t been your biggest fan but your finally getting it about Phil Weiss and his little gay side kick. If he woke up tomorrow and Israel was destroyed and there was another six million dead Jews it would be a good day for him.

  6. Too cute by half on j-street. I don’t think they agonized at all. I think they like Phil Weiss and what he stands for.

  7. Dan-
    J-Street knew perfectly welll the kind of filth that Weiss has on his site, and they also knew what Silverstein stands for. I don’t see any difference at all.

  8. I don’t think most of the mondoweissers in that thread were advocating war, though certainly a few of them had me uneasy. Some of the conversation was at cross purposes with Richard Witty here, who immediately assumed that “martyrs” meant “martyrdom operations” which meant 2 million suicide bombers and he apparently thought that everyone praising the chant had that same interpretation. The Mondoweiss crowd, or most of them, interpreted it to mean that there would be mass demonstrations or even marches on Israel. They’re happy at the thought that a democratic Egypt would no longer cooperate with Israel in oppressing Palestinians. For instance, here is one quote from a Mondoweisser–

    “They aren’t talking about an invasion. that just pure paranoria.”

    There are a handful of Mondoweissers who like to talk about war–war between Israel and Egypt, or war between Israel and Turkey, or war between Israel and Hezbollah. This is all pretty foolish, IMO, but I don’t think I’d get real worried about what a handful of people say in a comment section at a blog.

    What does matter is what the changers meant. I have no idea. It’d be useful to have reporters interview Egyptians so we could find out.

  9. That’s helpful, Richard. Though by far the most bloodthirsty comment in that long trainwreck of a thread (which covered almost every topic known to man) was this–
    “If the people in Tahrir Square really want millions of dead Arabs, Israel can oblige.” That, of course, was one of the resident Mondoweiss Zionists.

    I’ve said there and here that people who advocate war except when there is no other choice are foolish–that goes for people who say Israel was right to bomb Gaza and right to force the Palestinians out in 1948 and people who think that Egypt and/or Turkey should duke it out with Israel. And you’ll generally find violence glorifying remarks in the comment section at any blog covering the I/P conflict. I sorta suspect you could find rationalizations for inexcusable violence written in the comments section at this blog, for instance, if one were willing to look.

    Anyway, there are always going to be armchair warriors on the internet–again, it’d be really nice to know what exactly the Egyptians in that crowd meant.

  10. Don, I think your being racist. Imposing your western mindset on the Egyptians. I take them at their word. And if you don’t think Phil ( Hitler should have finished the job ) Weiss. And his cheering section isn’t rooting for a war. A war that Israel loses with everything that goes along with it. Your not reading what they are saying.

  11. Donald,
    1948 was 63 years ago. The urging of a couple million martyrs converging on Jerusalem is a currently applauded action.

    It is similar in tone to the intoxicated joy that Jews expressed worldwide after the 6-day war, in which Jerusalem was conquered/liberated.

    If the Mondoweiss regulars (more than regulars, including those with the authority to post and presumably moderate comments) indulge in that intoxication, then they are act-ing (a present tense verb).

    Its a different content than the angry postings of a single individual.

    If you applaud the concept of the “liberation of Jerusalem”, rather than acceptance of the other and equal rights, then you are complicit.

    The statement by MANY of the “advocates for human rights” was ‘you are scared, good’.

    Is that your view? ‘You are scared, good.’

  12. Y. Ben-David,
    Shamir knew perfectly well what his organization, Etzel b’Eretz Israel (Lehi) was doing in 1941 when it met with a representative of Nazi Germany in Beirut.

    By your logic this means that Lehi were Nazi collaborators. I have yet to hear Shamir denounce Yair for the meeting.

  13. Can I ask what you guys were or are naively expecting?
    Of course Egyptians, with few exceptions, do not like Israel. Like most Arabs, they regard it as an aggressor state oppressing Arabs and occupying Muslim holy sites. Why should this change merely because they managed to chase their dictator away and move towards democracy? The underlying causes for their dislike of Israel have not changed.

    “The statement by MANY of the “advocates for human rights” was ‘you are scared, good’.”
    Not being scared is not a human right.
    Anyway, if being scared serves to shake Israel out of its complacent ‘status quo is fine by us’ attitude and injects it with a much-needed dose of humility, I don’t object.

  14. “I’ve said there and here that people who advocate war except when there is no other choice are foolish”
    What does ‘no other choice’ mean? Isn’t there always the choice to surrender and let your enemies do whatever they like to you? I mean, the US could have given to all Japanese demands before or after Pearl Harbour. South Korea could have just let North Korea conquer it. Kuwait could have just agreed to surrender to Saddam.
    So what do you mean?

  15. “Filth”, “Hitler”, “Nazi”, “little gay side kick”… yeah those guys on Mondoweiss surely say the most offensive things. Oh wait. That wasn’t them!

  16. Koshiro,

    You’re right. Those are deeply offensive comments. On this blog, I and others have argued vociferously with Pearlman in the past and taken exception to his over-the-top and childish insults of Weiss. So, your point is…?

  17. “So, your point is…?”
    My point is that people who spew this kind of hateful language have very little cause to complain about anything that’s said over at Mondoweiss, nor much to say about what those Egyptians are chanting.

  18. “I’m personally not impressed by “you are scared, good”.”
    That’s not terribly relevant. Then again, you have no reason to be scared anyway, seeing as you are thousands of miles away.

    But if Israelis come to the realization that the status quo is not exactly stable and that the chance to accept something like the Arab Peace Initiative is not there forever, it might spur them into action. That in turn might result in a Palestinian state that deserves to be called that, and that would be good.

  19. Tom, I can not figure out what why the heck you are bringing up the Shamir-Yair-Nazi connection for the umpteenth time. What does that have to do with J-Street inviting Phil Weiss? I am not responsible for what Stern did. How do you know I even approve of it? I think J-Street IS responsible for knowingly inviting Israel bashers to its conference.

  20. Betting on invoking fear is a giant gamble, and gambles usually lose.

    In 2008, Hamas’ shelling of civilians evoked fear among Israelis, and they shifted their voting enough that a right-wing government took power.

    Unintended consequences for Palestinians is as likely.

    (Though who knows what or if Hamas had any intentions re: Israeli elections in 2008. To not have considered the consequences on Israeli elections indicates a political amateurishness, a grave negligence, to my mind.)

  21. “So what do you mean?”

    I mean that war is a terrible option, only to be chosen when the alternatives are worse. There’s little chance a war between Egypt and Israel would do anything except kill a lot of people on both sides, make Israel even more paranoid and self-righteous, and on the chance that Egypt actually seemed about to win (or “liberate Jerusalem”), well, Israel probably didn’t build 200 nukes for nothing. I’ve heard (whether true or not) that they were panicky enough in 1973 to consider the nuclear option, so I can’t fathom why anyone would think that having Turkey and/or Egypt starting a war with Israel would be a good idea. You don’t know what sort of insanity might result.

    More generally, what exactly is so attractive about war in the Middle East? Was there some war over there that led to good results and nobody told me?

    But anyway, I don’t think either the Egyptian military or Turkey has the slightest interest in doing this. For one thing they also know which side the US would take. As a means of yanking Witty’s chain I suppose internet warmongering is one tactic that can be employed, but if meant seriously it’s just crazy.

  22. Donald-
    Why does anyone start wars? What chance did Hitler and the Japanese have to win World War II? Why did Saddam Hussein provoke the Americans into a war he could never win in 1990?

    I’ll tell you why a lot of people want to drag Israel into a war. There are three groups of people in the world who are hoping for this to happen.
    (1) Radical Progressive/Left. These are the people Prof Ernest Sternberg calls “the Purificationists”. They view Israel as an outpost of American-Capitalist-Globalist Imperialism (what Sternberg calls “Empire”). They view Israel as an artificial state that exists only because it is propped up. Once the Arabs get their act together they can force Israel, either through actual warfare, or maybe merely the threat of war, to fold up since “Empire” can’t stand up to an outraged, empowered movement of the “masses”. The “Angry Arab” blogger is excited since he believes the rising up of the Arab masses will mean the end of Israel (just like they said in the 1950’s and 1960’s and 1970’s).

    (2) The classic antisemitic Nazi-Fascist Right. They view Jews as plutocratic manipulators who are a threat to humanity. Nothing new here.

    (3) The mainline Arab world, particularly the Islamists. Wherease Baathist-Nasserist-Pan Arabism viewed Israel like the first group (the ‘progressives’), the Islamist go back to their sources in the Qur’an. Muhammed taught that the Jews are corrupt cowards, and all a true Muslim has to do is show his martial courage and, once again, Israel will fold up. Having the “powerful” IDF run away from southern Lebanon and Gush Katif under the leadership of “tough generals” like Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon proves this is true to them and has been a major recruiting incentive for this view. It seems Qaradawi in Egypt is using this line…Israel defeated the Arab/Muslim countries in the past because they abandoned Islam, a return to Islam will ensure the defeat of Israel. The point is that the Arab wars against Israel were doomed to defeat up until now because the Muslims didn’t get their act together…now with Islamists having the prospect of coming to power thoughout the Middle East, confrontation with Israel is now conceivable and desirable.

    This is what they think. I’m sorry if you don’t like it. I don’t believe Israel’s position is hopeless, but we are just going to have to tough it out, because once Islamism has proven a failure, just like Nasserite Pan-Arabism did, there will be a change for the better.

  23. Here is a link to Sternberg’s article. I highly recommend it. It makes the permanent state of rage of the “progressives” and their unending demonization of Israel understandable, particularly that of the Jewish ‘progressives” (e.g. MJ Rosenberg, Phil Weiss, Richard Silverstein, rabbis Brian Walt, Brant Rosen) who are always in the lead of “true believers” in these utopian schemes:

  24. “In 2008, Hamas’ shelling of civilians evoked fear among Israelis, and they shifted their voting enough that a right-wing government took power.”
    That would be of relevance if the supposedly non-right-wing government that had been in power had been more willing to grant the Palestinians sovereignty and justice. But it hadn’t.

    From a purely strategical viewpoint, the main reason that Palestinians should refrain from violence right now is a lack of effectiveness. You’re right: Rocket attacks from Gaza do little but cause anger. They are simply not dangerous enough. So before reverting to terrorism again, Palestinian organizations would have to find a better means of terrorism.

    It would also be advisable to try forceful, massed nonviolent actions first, like gathering huge groups of unarmed Palestinians to tear down the annexation fence, to block settler bypass roads with their bodies and maybe, indeed, to break through the border and march on Jerusalem. The question is whether this is practical and whether one is willing to accept the thousands of deaths the Israeli response would cause.

    What is clear is that the current course is not working. Ending violence and agreeing to negotiate has brought the Palestinian side nothing. And why should it? Israel’s aims are – and that is equally clear – to keep as much territory and resources as they deem sufficient for their ‘needs’ and keep the Palestinians in continual subjugation on whatever territory remains, under tight Israeli control. As long as there is neither meaningful international pressure on Israel and as long as no threat whatsoever arises for Israel, what incentive does it have not to continue pursuing these aims?

    P.S.: I wish people would stop calling the charade of negotiations a ‘peace process’. The PA and Israel are not at war. Indeed, Israel insists that all (Palestinian) violence end before the ‘peace process’ can begin, which should win a grand prize for oxymorons.

  25. “I mean that war is a terrible option, only to be chosen when the alternatives are worse.”
    Yeah, my question kinda was which alternatives you consider to be worse. It still is.
    I mean, if – and just for the benefit of the terminally clueless, I neither believe this will happen nor want it to happen – Egypt marches its armies toward Israel with the goal of ‘liberating Palestine’. You would or would not in such a situation advise Israelis to throw down their arms and surrender?

  26. You are scary Koshiro. Advocating for more effective terror.

    That the PA and Kadima peace proposals are objectively so close, after 40 years of jockeying, is a sign that its a falsehood that “Palestinians have gotten nothing from the peace process.”

    They’ve gotten to the prospect of actual peace, an actual state, from nowhere near that.

    The deal needs to be closed, not kept as an “if”.

    And, you are accurate that your comments “successfully” contribute to deterring that.

    “Better that they be scared”.

  27. “What would be a “better means of terrorism”.”
    I have no idea. I’m not an expert on unconventional warfare. One concept that would probably work quite well against Israel or any other Western power – much better than against Islamistic terrorist organizations in fact – is the currently en vogue method of targeted killing of enemy leaders, whether by drone aircraft or by other means. But I do not see how this could be accomplished, technically speaking, short of Hamas getting its hands on a fleet of Predator drones.

    “You are scary Koshiro. Advocating for more effective terror.”
    I’m not advocating anything. I am describing strategic options. Violence is one – one quite liberally employed by Israel, I might add. Making violence more effective is all what war is about.

    “That the PA and Kadima peace proposals are objectively so close”
    On your blog, I explained to you in painstaking detail that they are not. I am not going to repeat myself.

    “is a sign that its a falsehood that “Palestinians have gotten nothing from the peace process.””
    No it isn’t. On the contrary, the peace process until this day is positive proof. All that has resulted until now, regarding the (entirely legitimate, I should add) actual aspirations of the Palestinians is at best a vague, empty, unfulfilled promise. And when I say ‘at best’ I mean it. At worst, the result has been flat-out rejection of rights that Israel and supporters take for granted for themselves – like the right of a state to sovereignty and self-defense.

    There has been, to this date, no Israeli offer containing anything remotely resembling a sovereign Palestinian state. There likewise has been no Israeli offer containing any acknowledgment of responsibility for the refugees.

    P.S.: That you should, in this situation, position yourself to the right of Liberman and insist that all settlers remain where they are, thereby negating the only (and it is a far stretch to call it that) concession Israel ever even alluded to and thus relieving Israel of any negative consequences whatsoever… well I can think of no other word than ‘grotesque’.

  28. Koshiro–

    Non-violent resistance by Palestinians is the sensible option, I think, assisted by supporters outside. Hopefully Egypt will become a democracy and then they can put non-violent pressure on Israel in whatever way they choose. They could start by ending the Gaza blockade on their part of the border.

    I tend to agree that the “peace process” has been a joke. I wish the Palestinian people would follow their Arab neighbors and rebel against both the PA and Hamas and establish a non-corrupt government which would stand up for them at the negotiating table. I don’t know what the odds are of that, but amazing things have been happening lately.

  29. Well, the underlying problem is, and I am sorry for repeating myself:
    Israel’s aims are to keep as much territory and resources as they deem sufficient for their ‘needs’ and keep the Palestinians in continual subjugation on whatever territory remains, under tight Israeli control. As long as there is neither meaningful international pressure on Israel and as long as no threat whatsoever arises for Israel, what incentive does it have not to continue pursuing these aims?

    It doesn’t really matter what kind of government the Palestinians elect or how they present themselves in negotiations as long as Israel is under no pressure to change its course. And, like it or not, violence is one means of exerting pressure. It’s not what I’d prefer, but as the Palestinians are rapidly running out of other options, it may soon make a comeback.

    As I said, I’d prefer for the Palestinian side to try forceful, nonviolent mass protests and blockades first. Maybe the inevitable brutal Israeli response will move the international community to exert some meaningful pressure after all. Seeing how neither the Gaza siege, nor the Cast Lead massacre, nor the ongoing disposessions and evictions, nor the daily humiliation and violence inflicted upon the Palestinians have up to now resulted in any such meaningful pressure, I have my doubts, however. But it’s worth a try I guess.

  30. Unless Meretz wins an absolute majority in the next Knesset election, fat good that’ll do.

    Your insistence that if only the pure peace angels of Kadima were in charge, everything would work out is so ridiculously out of touch with what actually happened the last time they *were* in charge. It’s pathetic, really.

  31. You exagerate Koshiro (for a change).

    What happened last time they were in charge, the PA and Israel got close to an agreement/proposal (how close? touchable).

    The civil resistance approach is a decade + away, if ever, with horrid process to get there.

    I choose the quite good over the gamble.

  32. “You exagerate Koshiro (for a change).”
    Au contraire. I understate. Even Meretz positions on the Palestinian state are highly problematic and not likely to be accepted by the majority of Palestinians.

    “What happened last time they were in charge, the PA and Israel got close to an agreement/proposal (how close? touchable).”
    No, they didn’t. As I said, I already explained this en detail on your blog, I’m not going to repeat it here.

    “The civil resistance approach is a decade + away, if ever, with horrid process to get there.”
    The negotiation process has been going on for two decades without any tangible result.

    “I choose the quite good over the gamble.”
    You don’t get to choose though.

  33. I disagree with your assessment of the differences between the PA and Kadima positions.

    The proof is in the pudding, and there is none yet, so at this point, its my assertion of hope on the basis of things like the Palestine Papers vs your assertion that no negotiation has occurred.

    How far is real far? Fording a small stream can be daunting and a great divide, or it can be doable if one goes for it.

    I very much wish Netanyahu would go for it, unlikely. As Kadima would campaign on the effort to forge a peace, I’m much more confident about them.

    You also don’t get to vote, Koshiro, unless you are Palestinian. Noone knows who you really are, name, ethnicity, gender even. A masked man.

  34. “The proof is in the pudding, and there is none yet, so at this point, its my assertion of hope on the basis of things like the Palestine Papers vs your assertion that no negotiation has occurred.”
    I quoted to you those very papers which disproved your opinion, using the topic of demilitarization as an example. It’s not my fault you didn’t read them.

    “A masked man.”
    Batman? I actually like the Joker better.

  35. “You have so much vanity, Koshiro.”
    Do I? Or do I just assume that if you do not offer any fact-based arguments to back up your claims, it is probably because you cannot?

  36. Your vanity is in your presumption that you are stating and thinking “facts”.

    Its an exageration of the authority of your or even any analysis.

    The best that an analysis provides is a description.

    And, there are two characteristics of the usefulness of a description. One is whether it constructs a path to something better. The second is in serving that path to something better, it is representative (rather than misrepresentative).

    If you are interested in Israeli reform, then we are just arguing about the extent and means to accomplish that.

    If you are interested, even flirting, with the idea that Israel should not exist, then you are a revolutionary and from outside, an enemy of democracy.

  37. “If you are interested in Israeli reform, then we are just arguing about the extent and means to accomplish that.”
    I’m not really. I’m interested in ending the occupation for good, in giving Palestinians a viable, fully sovereign state with economic opportunities* and in achieving a just solution for the Palestinian refugees, which will primarily mean acknowledgment and compensation.**
    Whatever happens in Israel, whether it is ruled by Lieberman, by Netanyahu, by Livni or by Barak, is neither particularly important to me, nor do I think it actually makes a difference. There simply is no major Israeli political party which would support the above voluntarily.
    That leaves outside pressure on Israel, and all I’m really torn about is how to best apply it.

    * On the 1967 lines with minor adjustments, and just to clear it up, free of illegal Israeli settlers.
    ** Even though it is their right to return to Israel, I doubt that a majority would want to exercise that right if they were compensated. In addition, the states where they currently live would likely agree to accomodate them if they received generous financial incentives. Again, this is not for Israel’s sake. I just happen to think that the refugees would be better off not returning to a racist country that regards them as unwanted intruders. Especially if the current political developments in the wider Arab world lead where I hope they lead.

  38. Wow… I love this blog. What a great debate. I only wish I could see it on my television. One comment… someone said…

    “In 2008, Hamas’ shelling of civilians evoked fear among Israelis, and they shifted their voting enough that a right-wing government took power. Unintended consequences for Palestinians is as likely.”

    I would say that Israel’s actions regarding the Palestinians has also lead to some unintended consequences… Egypt… Lybia… Bahrain… Arab unification…

    That said I am, in general, an American supporter of Israel but the present Israeli leadership has me slipping away… and I’m not so inclined to financially support Israel as it now exists… I hope for change…

  39. Nevertheless, the preservation of food is still a daily affair
    and therefore, I have listed a few top tips on
    preserving foodstuff underneath, so that you will get the best from that
    which you have bought or grown in your very own garden even if
    it is a long while later. Allow the food to
    cook until there is no more flame; this will happen when all the alcohol
    has burned itself off. If you combine those three things with
    fiber, you will notice that you feel more energized for
    a long period of time, (several hours).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.