Benjamin Netanyahu Outlines Terms for a Palestinian State

DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
edited June 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced he will back a Palestinian state - but only if it is completely demilitarised.

He said a Palestinian state must have no army, no control of its air space and no way of smuggling in weapons.

And a Palestinian state must recognise Israel as a Jewish nation, he said.

Mr Netanyahu's speech, laying out his plans for regional peace, came a month after US President Barack Obama urged him to accept a two-state solution.

The BBC's Paul Wood says Mr Netanyahu broke ground by accepting the principle of a demilitarised Palestinian state, albeit with conditions, and this will be what the White House is looking for.

But our correspondent says the question is whether this will be enough to make up for the lack of movement on the issue of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Mr Obama has stressed that he wants all settlement activity to stop.

But in his speech Mr Netanyahu said settlers were not "enemies of peace" and did not move from his position of backing "natural growth" in existing settlements.


Guarantee needed

The Israeli leader offered to talk to the Palestinians immediately and with "no preconditions".

"We want to live with you in peace as good neighbours," he said.

Mr Netanyahu also said he was willing to go to Damascus, Riyadh and Beirut in pursuit of a Middle East peace deal.

He said Israel would "be prepared for a true peace agreement [and] to reach a solution of a demilitarised Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state".

But only if "we receive this guarantee for demilitarisation and the security arrangements required by Israel, and if the Palestinians recognise Israel as the nation of the Jewish people".

Well, it's a big start certainly, even with the whole settlement issue. I disagree with him on that, but it's good to see that there is some progress with the peace dealings.

What do you think? Can this start working? Will the settlements forever stand in the way of peace or will the settlers or the Palestinians give up on that issue?

DarkCrawler on
«134

Posts

  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    So basically, it'll change absolutely nothing except for calling Palestine a state. Israel will continue to invade, and take their land, and keep them completely repressed. Yeah, that sounds like a really sweet deal.

    deadonthestreet on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    How exactly is no ability to control their own internal security, no control of their airspace, and no way to smuggle in weapons (ie no control of their own imports) different in any meaningful way from Israel continuing to occupy Palestine?

    It's a rhetorical bone being thrown to Obama, but unless I'm misreading the situation (and Israel/Palestine has been stroked into a frenzy of hanging on every shade of meaning in every word) this is a bid for time and to change the framing of the issue to take pressure off Israel from the US more than any kind of actual meaningful concession or legitimate attempt to advance the process.

    werehippy on
  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    The only way a Palestinian state with no military and no air power could exist for long is if some semi-neutral foreign power agrees to provide security for it. Which would basically mean that either the EU or the UN would have to have peacekeepers there permanently.

    Hedgethorn on
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    It's a trap.

    Jealous Deva on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Like Code Geass?

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    The key thing that makes Obama's push different from previous presidents is that he isn't being undercut by Congress. Absent a few flair ups that have either been immediately walked back (a couple of NY congressmen) or fall into old man yelling at clouds territory (Lieberman), all of which have been extremely mild, there has been pretty much universal support for Obama pushing Israel on this. The neocons are deep on the outs, so their almost rote attempts at rebuttal have been marginalized and there has been no mainstream attempts to apply pressure for the right wing position in Israel, which is what has let them keep getting away with playing dirty in the past.

    The usual Jewish hawks in the US have been trying to bring pressure to bear inside the US too, and for a change of pace have actually been almost completely unsuccessful. The attempts to start up a campaign against Donna Edwards (among the more progressive on the issue) got shut down almost immediately when J Street (the liberal Israel lobby) raised $15K for her overnight.

    Once Netanyahu was faced with a president who actually meant what he said about holding Israel to the terms of their agreements, a Congress who supported the president, and either marginalized or ineffectual internal US political support he had no choice but to make some sort of concession. The problem being he's leading a coalition of the right and far right and anything substantive would be more likely than not to break his coalition. So Netanyahu is trying to thread the needle of saying just enough in just the right way to give his political support here in the US the leverage to get Israel back in the right and make Palestine the unreasonable ones in the mainstream eye without actual doing anything that might lead to any deviation from the hard right line.

    werehippy on
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    This announcement is absolutely useless and is not at all a sign of progress.

    Netanyahu is basically saying that there can be a sovereign Palestinian state only so long as it gives up one of the main hallmarks of sovereignty.

    Andrew_Jay on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Cantido wrote: »
    Like Code Geass?

    No, because I refuse to see Bibi as either Lelouch or Schnizel.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Cantido wrote: »
    Like Code Geass?

    No, because I refuse to see Bibi as either Lelouch or Schnizel.
    How about Clovis?

    Der Waffle Mous on
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Netanyahu isn't stupid enough to think Obama will accept this BS, is he?

    Fencingsax on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Netanyahu isn't stupid enough to think Obama will accept this BS, is he?

    The audience isn't really Obama. It's the MSM by way of the K Street lobby and neocons, the people who outright support Netanyahu's hardline positions. You can't get away with advocating that at the moment though, so the entire point is to put enough BS out there that your allies can spin it into Israel making concessions and taking the moral high ground and the Palestinians being in the wrong and the problem again. If you can win that argument you can get back to the business of pressuring Congress to pressure Obama to back off not because he isn't right but because it isn't worth the political capital to continue the fight when he has other things he needs to do.

    werehippy on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Its a "we made concessions, now the palestinians got to make even more" move. Despite the fact that he has made no concessions.

    The "we will talk without preconditions" part? look to that being played up bigtime.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I can't help but think that the world backlash would be much bigger if Israel attacked a sovereign state in the same way that it has been doing right now. Especially after a peace deal that established said state.

    Also, on the army issue...I agree that they should have their own, but does anyone have the power or the capability to make Israel agree on such terms? Even if they were right? I mean, look at the settlement issue. How can anyone stop them except the goverment of Israel? How far does the international community need to go to make Israel agree to any decision? Sanctions? (which I would totally agree on but how probable would those be?)

    DarkCrawler on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    This is just so they can claim some sort of attempt to be reasonable while they murder folks.

    Incenjucar on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Also, on the army issue...I agree that they should have their own, but does anyone have the power or the capability to make Israel agree on such terms? Even if they were right? I mean, look at the settlement issue. How can anyone stop them except the goverment of Israel? How far does the international community need to go to make Israel agree to any decision? Sanctions? (which I would totally agree on but how probable would those be?)

    In the short term, there's nothing that could be realistically be done to make Israel, or any other country for that matter, do something they don't want to do. Short of regime change, which is thankfully off the table for the next 15-20 years.

    Over the longer term, the model to look at would be South Africa. It would take a period of pressure for years, not weeks or months, to force real concessions and even then it would take not just political pressure but a cutting off of support and civilian economic action to the point where continued resistance was untenable. All of which would require a delicate balancing act because while South Africa was a strategically insignificant country with minimal political connection in the US Israel is a strong ally in a region we continue to care deeply about with massive domestic political pull.

    werehippy on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2009
    You guys do realize that a lot of this is posturing for the negotiations, right? It's not like Israel would go to the trouble of dismantling at least one major metropolis and allowing a state that could elect Hamas to have a functional military for nothing, do you? Hell, we still haven't allowed Japan to have a military, and the most offensive thing to come out of that country in decades is tentacle rape.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Japan has a military.

    deadonthestreet on
  • thorpethorpe Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Japan does have a military, its simply not constitutionally allowed to be used offensively. I think its unclear whether Netanyahu is suggesting a similar arrangement or literally no standing army, though I suspect the latter.

    thorpe on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Japan has a "defense force" that just by coincidence happens to be one of the major military powers in the hemisphere.

    werehippy on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    You guys do realize that a lot of this is posturing for the negotiations, right? It's not like Israel would go to the trouble of dismantling at least one major metropolis and allowing a state that could elect Hamas to have a functional military for nothing, do you? Hell, we still haven't allowed Japan to have a military, and the most offensive thing to come out of that country in decades is tentacle rape.

    Actually, that is an interesting question. Do you honestly think this Israeli government would actually negotiate with the elected leadership in Palestine, and if they did do you think it would be in good faith? I can't say I'd accept either premise, but I'd like to hear arguments to the contrary.

    werehippy on
  • GrimmyTOAGrimmyTOA Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Basically, this announcement boils down to: The Palestinians can have their own state if they abide by conditions they will not accept (no army) and could not enforce if they wanted (no smuggling), and as long as they accept that we will continue to nibble away at their country by allowing the natural growth of the settlements.

    Sigh.

    GrimmyTOA on
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I think it would be a fair deal if Israel also gave up their military and control over their airspace.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2009
    GrimmyTOA wrote: »
    Basically, this announcement boils down to: The Palestinians can have their own state if they abide by conditions they will not accept (no army) and could not enforce if they wanted (no smuggling), and as long as they accept that we will continue to nibble away at their country by allowing the natural growth of the settlements.

    Sigh.

    The Israeli government has previously shown willingness to trade land for the land the settlements reside on. Depending on what's offered, I can see that working.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    GrimmyTOA wrote: »
    Basically, this announcement boils down to: The Palestinians can have their own state if they abide by conditions they will not accept (no army) and could not enforce if they wanted (no smuggling), and as long as they accept that we will continue to nibble away at their country by allowing the natural growth of the settlements.

    Sigh.

    The Israeli government has previously shown willingness to trade land for the land the settlements reside on. Depending on what's offered, I can see that working.

    Take a look at where the settlements are. Then take a look at the rivers and highlands in those areas. You'll see a pattern.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • ChopperDaveChopperDave Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    The only "concession" this seems to make is that Netanyahu is "willing to talk to Palestinians immediately and with no preconditions" — and it's pretty noteworthy that he says "Palestinians" and not "Hamas." Getting rid of preconditions is less a concession and more ending an idiotic policy that led to escalations in violence. But if Netanyahu still proves unwilling to negotiate with Hamas (i.e., "Palestinians" is code for "Fatah") then nothing has changed at all.

    I am curious, however, to see if this is an evolution in Netanyahu's earlier visions of Palestinian "sovereignty." He's always believed in the "restricted sovereignty model" by which the Palestinian state would not be able to raise/maintain its own army, control its airspace, control its electromagnetic spectrum (i.e. Israel could jam communications at any time), or control its own borders. Additionally, he's previously insisted that Israel should retain control of over 50% of the West Bank (the Jordan Valley and the Judean Desert) as a security zone.

    Does this announcement mean he's given up on the electromagnetic spectrum and security zone? Not bloody likely. I agree with everyone else here: this looks like Netanyahu trying to manipulate US opinion without substantively changing Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. He may say he's now for the two-state solution—and this would be a big deal if it was true—but his words demonstrate otherwise.

    ChopperDave on
    3DS code: 3007-8077-4055
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    GrimmyTOA wrote: »
    Basically, this announcement boils down to: The Palestinians can have their own state if they abide by conditions they will not accept (no army) and could not enforce if they wanted (no smuggling), and as long as they accept that we will continue to nibble away at their country by allowing the natural growth of the settlements.

    Sigh.

    The Israeli government has previously shown willingness to trade land for the land the settlements reside on. Depending on what's offered, I can see that working.

    The only settlements Israel has outright withdrawn from are in Gaza. Wich quite frankly is a garbage dump with people living in it even before the last "security" sweep.

    The ones in the West Bank where small and unimportant.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    GrimmyTOA wrote: »
    Basically, this announcement boils down to: The Palestinians can have their own state if they abide by conditions they will not accept (no army) and could not enforce if they wanted (no smuggling), and as long as they accept that we will continue to nibble away at their country by allowing the natural growth of the settlements.

    Sigh.

    The Israeli government has previously shown willingness to trade land for the land the settlements reside on. Depending on what's offered, I can see that working.

    The only settlements Israel has outright withdrawn from are in Gaza. Wich quite frankly is a garbage dump with people living in it even before the last "security" sweep.

    The ones in the West Bank where small and unimportant.

    Several previous offers from Israel (camp David being the most famous) have offered to trade land in such a manner.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ChopperDaveChopperDave Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The Israeli government has previously shown willingness to trade land for the land the settlements reside on. Depending on what's offered, I can see that working.

    The only settlements Israel has outright withdrawn from are in Gaza. Wich quite frankly is a garbage dump with people living in it even before the last "security" sweep.

    The ones in the West Bank where small and unimportant.

    Several previous offers from Israel (camp David being the most famous) have offered to trade land in such a manner.

    Let's see: in 2005, Israel attempted a "land for peace"-type deal in Gaza, evicting around 8,000 settlers. That same year, they surreptitiously expanded and consolidated West Bank territory, with over 9000 (hyuk) new residents mysteriously appearing there— one of the largest settler population surges the West Bank has ever seen.

    8000 settlers leave Gaza... 9000 take up residence in the West Bank... yeah, certainly doesn't seem like the Israeli government was offering the evicted Gaza settlers land in the West Bank. And I can't imagine that any rational-minded Palestinian would ever suspect them of doing such a thing.

    Israel has been known to use "land for peace" as a cover—give the Arabs some land, then steal more land elsewhere. Most Americans only get the first part—"But ChopperDave, the Israelis tried land for peace in Gaza, and it didn't work!"—and never realize what is actually happening on the ground.

    The Palestinians do notice these things, however, and as you can imagine it makes them pretty damn cynical towards Israeli peace overtures. In order for the Palestinians to buy into "land for peace"—really, in order for them to buy into any sort of peace plan—they're going to need some guarantee that the Israelis won't use the peace process as a diplomatic cover while they continue to do shady, illegal shit.

    ChopperDave on
    3DS code: 3007-8077-4055
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2009
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    This announcement is absolutely useless and is not at all a sign of progress.

    Netanyahu is basically saying that there can be a sovereign Palestinian state only so long as it gives up one of the main hallmarks of sovereignty.

    Basically.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The Israeli government has previously shown willingness to trade land for the land the settlements reside on. Depending on what's offered, I can see that working.

    The only settlements Israel has outright withdrawn from are in Gaza. Wich quite frankly is a garbage dump with people living in it even before the last "security" sweep.

    The ones in the West Bank where small and unimportant.

    Several previous offers from Israel (camp David being the most famous) have offered to trade land in such a manner.

    Let's see: in 2005, Israel attempted a "land for peace"-type deal in Gaza, evicting around 8,000 settlers. That same year, they surreptitiously expanded and consolidated West Bank territory, with over 9000 (hyuk) new residents mysteriously appearing there— one of the largest settler population surges the West Bank has ever seen.

    8000 settlers leave Gaza... 9000 take up residence in the West Bank... yeah, certainly doesn't seem like the Israeli government was offering the evicted Gaza settlers land in the West Bank. And I can't imagine that any rational-minded Palestinian would ever suspect them of doing such a thing.

    Israel has been known to use "land for peace" as a cover—give the Arabs some land, then steal more land elsewhere. Most Americans only get the first part—"But ChopperDave, the Israelis tried land for peace in Gaza, and it didn't work!"—and never realize what is actually happening on the ground.

    The Palestinians do notice these things, however, and as you can imagine it makes them pretty damn cynical towards Israeli peace overtures. In order for the Palestinians to buy into "land for peace"—really, in order for them to buy into any sort of peace plan—they're going to need some guarantee that the Israelis won't use the peace process as a diplomatic cover while they continue to do shady, illegal shit.

    Read again. I was talking about land for land, not land for peace.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited June 2009
    Nobody takes this seriously.

    Organichu on
  • ChopperDaveChopperDave Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Read again. I was talking about land for land, not land for peace.

    I think that would basically amount to Palestinians getting Israel's garbage land, and retaining all the good land — i.e. water accessible, farmable, etc.

    Not to mention that the settlers are hardly contiguous. If the Palestinians negotiated those away, they'd end up with territory that looked essentially like a checkerboard.

    There's no getting around it: the settlements are going to have to go if a two-state solution is going to be negotiated.

    ChopperDave on
    3DS code: 3007-8077-4055
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Organichu wrote: »
    Nobody takes this seriously.
    The real test is how this shows up in USA Today and among the various retarded talking heads. Given what has been going down in Iran it'll get a quick toss out if anything. If that toss out is a credulous accepting of the idea the Netanyahu is making major concessions and willing to talk without pre-conditions; mission accomplished (as far as it goes, the Israeli government was going to turn the US around with any one move). If there's a bit of skepticism in the blurb then sanity prevails to fight another day.

    werehippy on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    GrimmyTOA wrote: »
    Basically, this announcement boils down to: The Palestinians can have their own state if they abide by conditions they will not accept (no army) and could not enforce if they wanted (no smuggling), and as long as they accept that we will continue to nibble away at their country by allowing the natural growth of the settlements.

    Sigh.

    The Israeli government has previously shown willingness to trade land for the land the settlements reside on. Depending on what's offered, I can see that working.

    The only settlements Israel has outright withdrawn from are in Gaza. Wich quite frankly is a garbage dump with people living in it even before the last "security" sweep.

    The ones in the West Bank where small and unimportant.

    Several previous offers from Israel (camp David being the most famous) have offered to trade land in such a manner.

    Camp David(2000) was fucking bullshit and everyone knows it. Ehud Barak even says so in his memoirs(though not as bluntly). The offer you talk about was never even put into writing. Most of the bad rep the Palestinians get for rejecting it, comes from Israeli-friendly media and self-serving politicans.

    Why Is Netanyahu even prime minister of Israel? It was his goverment from 95-99 that screwed the Oslo treaty beyond repair in the first place. Expanding Settlments and imposing impossible conditions for continued negotiation.

    Thats why his offer is such a gyp. He is not making concessions to the palestinians. He is stoping making outrageous demands of them.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Read again. I was talking about land for land, not land for peace.

    I think that would basically amount to Palestinians getting Israel's garbage land, and retaining all the good land — i.e. water accessible, farmable, etc.

    Not to mention that the settlers are hardly contiguous. If the Palestinians negotiated those away, they'd end up with territory that looked essentially like a checkerboard.

    There's no getting around it: the settlements are going to have to go if a two-state solution is going to be negotiated.

    It already does. If Israel offers land along the southern border, connecting the West bank and Gaza, they'd probably take it as long as the treaty put Jerusalem on the border between the nations.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    GrimmyTOA wrote: »
    Basically, this announcement boils down to: The Palestinians can have their own state if they abide by conditions they will not accept (no army) and could not enforce if they wanted (no smuggling), and as long as they accept that we will continue to nibble away at their country by allowing the natural growth of the settlements.

    Sigh.

    The Israeli government has previously shown willingness to trade land for the land the settlements reside on. Depending on what's offered, I can see that working.

    The only settlements Israel has outright withdrawn from are in Gaza. Wich quite frankly is a garbage dump with people living in it even before the last "security" sweep.

    The ones in the West Bank where small and unimportant.

    Several previous offers from Israel (camp David being the most famous) have offered to trade land in such a manner.

    Camp David(2000) was fucking bullshit and everyone knows it. Ehud Barak even says so in his memoirs(though not as bluntly). The offer you talk about was never even put into writing. Most of the bad rep the Palestinians get for rejecting it, comes from Israeli-friendly media and self-serving politicans.

    Why Is Netanyahu even prime minister of Israel? It was his goverment from 95-99 that screwed the Oslo treaty beyond repair in the first place. Expanding Settlments and imposing impossible conditions for continued negotiation.

    Thats why his offer is such a gyp. He is not making concessions to the palestinians. He is stoping making outrageous demands of them.

    His party came in second and several traditionally allied parties with heavy demographic appeal won enough for him to form a majority coalition.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • FCDFCD Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Organichu wrote: »
    Nobody takes this seriously.

    I would take it more seriously if part of the deal included having the UN send in peacekeepers, so that they could take the place of internal security for the Palestinians. Maybe if Netanyahu alters the deal to something along those lines, it will have more legitimacy.

    FCD on
    Gridman! Baby DAN DAN! Baby DAN DAN!
  • RussellRussell Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I'm wondering if Netanyahu is even serious about a two state solution at this point.

    Russell on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Russell wrote: »
    I'm wondering if Netanyahu is even serious about a two state solution at this point.

    He isn't.

    Hachface on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Isn't the entire point of the right wing in Israel "fuck those brown people, this shit be ours"?

    werehippy on
Sign In or Register to comment.