Since Hamas’s victory in last Wednesday’s elections most of the MSM in the west– Israelocentric as ever– has focused overwhelmingly on “What on earth would this mean for the peace process?”
(As if there had actually, over the past four years existed any peace process! What peace process? Since 2002, Israeli PM Ariel Sharon completely refused to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority– and he maintained that boycott of peace talks even after the election of Mahmoud Abbas as PA President last January… Ehud Olmert, despite stating that he “wants” to get back into talks with the Palestinians, hasn’t gotten around to doing anything about it… So I am still totally mystified by all those “concerned” pundits who say “What will the Hamas victory do to the peace process?” What on earth are they talking about?)
Meanwhile, in the real lives of real Palestinians, chafing under their 39th year of life under foreign military occupation, there will be the huge challenge of trying to assure a peaceful transition of authority from the old Fateh-dominated PA to the newly elected Hamas adminsitration. Ensuring the peacefulness of a political transition from one party to another is a task at the core of democratization… A task that is perhaps even more important than being able to hold a “free and fair” election.
I’m remembering the role Jimmy Carter played, in Nicaragua, in 1990, when Daniel Ortega’s ruling Sandinista Party suffered a surprise defeat at the hands of Violeta Chamorro’s party. Carter played a good role then, stressing the essential democratic principle of ensuring an orderly and calm political transition from one party to another…
And he’s playing the same role in Palestine today. At a time when pundits in what’s called the “western donor community” are voicing all kinds of scary warnings (or perhaps, veiled threats?) to the Palestinians, that the US and EU donor governments “are constrained by law” from directing funding to the PA if it led by a pro-Hamas government, Carter is telling us that isn’t so, and we should all remain calm. This, from today’s NYT:
- Former President Jimmy Carter, who led a team of election observers for the Palestinian voting, said in an interview on Friday that the United States and Europe should redirect their relief aid to United Nations organizations and nongovernmental organizations to skirt legal restrictions.
“The donor community can deal with it successfully,” Mr. Carter said. “I would hope the world community can collectively tide the Palestinians over.” He urged support for what he said [international aid-to-Pals boss] Mr. Wolfensohn was describing to him as a $500 million appeal.
“It may well be that Hamas can change,” Mr. Carter said, remembering his presidency, when the Palestine Liberation Organization under Yasir Arafat finally agreed to recognize the existence of Israel and to forswear terrorism. “It’s a mistake to abandon optimism completely.”
He urged Israel and the world: “Don’t drive the Palestinians away from rationality. Don’t force them into assuming arms as the only way to achieve their legitimate goals. Give them some encouragement and the benefit of the doubt.”
Good for him.
There are, of course, many other problems of the political transition that the Palestinians face, even before they get to these issues of economic aid.
Fateh has been in power in the PA since it was established in 1994, and before that in the nationalist movement since 1969. It has massive, deeply entrenched systems of patronage that criss-cross right across the Middle East and around the world. Nearly all of those are now in jeopardy– both because the new, pro-Hamas government will rightly seek control over all national resources, which have become sadly and badly commingled with Fateh’s resources over the years– and because, even while Hamas and its allies will be trying to do that, there’s a very bitter power battle going on inside Fateh, itself.
I wrote a long “obituary” for the secular-nationalist vision of Palestine represented by Fateh, here, on December 30. There, and in the piece I wrote on Palestine for Boston Review two years ago, I noted the crumbling/implosion of the last vestiges of internal discipline inside Fateh.
This near-complete absence of internal discipline in Fateh is already considerably complicating the task of ensuring an orderly post-election transition to the newly-elected administration. In this story, from AP, we learn the following:
- Angry [Fateh-affiliated]police stormed the parliament building in Gaza and armed militants marched into Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’ compound in Ramallah to demonstrate their rejection of Hamas’ authority. Their defiance raised fears of a spike in violence between Palestinian factions.
Clashes have already broken out between the two sides. Hamas gunmen wounded two policemen in Gaza early Saturday in what authorities said was a roadside ambush. The attack came hours after another firefight wounded a Hamas activist and two police officers, one of whom was in a coma Saturday.
Let’s hope for an improvement in discipline, calm-seeking, and de-escalation from all sides. (We are much more likely to see it coming from the Hamas side, than from Fateh’s.)
We learn from that AP story, too, that Hamas’s over-all leader Khaled Mashaal, has suggested that Hamas’s armed forces could be merged into the Palestinian forces— and also, very significantly indeed, this:
- Mashaal also said Hamas would abide by existing agreements with the country “as long as it is in the interest of our people.”
Israel and the Palestinians have a host of agreements dealing with everything from administration to peace frameworks. Mashaal did not say which agreements he was referring to.
These are, it seems to me, very mature early decisions to be coming from an organization that, just a week ago, probably did not dream it would end up winning a clear majority in the parliament…
I want to write more, sometime, about the “international aid” that has been doled out to the Palestinians over the past 12 years, and the function it has played in actually keeping the Palestinians in subservience to Israel. The Americans and Israelis– and some EU nations– want it to carry on playing this role! But Hamas is very unlikely indeed to play ball with that.
That’s why I think Jimmy Carter’s suggestion– that aid should continue to go to the Palestinians, but not through the old US- and Israel-dominated channels– is an excellent one. Let’s have international “aid”– to both the Palestinians and the Israelis– that actually supports a robust international diplomacy that terminates this conflict rapidly, and in a decent and sustainable way. Let’s end the system of international “aid” that has massively subsidized Israel’s illegal colonial project in the Palestinian territories while supporting a corrupt Palestinian administration that was expected to do the Israelis’ work of internal repression, for them.
On NPR’s Weekend Edition this morning Rami Khouri of Beirut’s Daily Star said essentially the same thing as Helena that the West needed to give Hamas a chance to sort out how they might reconfigure their stance on Israel. Khouri seemed fairly optimistic that over time a working relationship might be developed.
Further to the comments of Bob Gaines, Rami Khoury had an excellent editorial piece in today’s Beirut Daily Star:http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=21769
“It’s a mistake to abandon optimism completely.”
While I don’t have the ability to tell you how things will work out, I think it’s clear that Carter’s plea to essentially abandon optimism but not abandon it 100% is about on the mark.
The Palestinian and Israeli leadership are further apart than before and so a compromise agreement is less likely. There are many Israelis who simply will never trust Hamas or it’s people. And vica versa. Hamas is committed to the eradication of Israel so it’s hard to see what they would talk about, anyway.
I think the Israelis will continue with some form of disengagement. What that probably means in practice is further separation, some territorial pullback, and continue building the wall.
The real big questions, though, are: Will there be another Intifada? How will the Hamas victory impact the upcoming Israeli elections? I’d guess it helps the Israeli Right. And: What will the new Palestinian and Israeli governments do?
I think the new Israeli government should offer to begin negotiations. But I’m not optimistic on their outcome. As I say, it’s not clear what areas are available for compromise. The working hours of the checkpoints?
Helena asks: “What Peace Process?”
As Helena knows, the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were scheduled to be resumed as soon as both entities finished their elections. It was acknowledged by all sides. Now, those negotiations are very unlikely to occur. That’s what people are asking about. Why Helena pretends to be ignorant on this issue is a mystery.
Also, Mubarak is an enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is an offshoot of the MB. How will this effect the Gaza-Egypt border?
As I posted here on January 6th, the immediate concern is not the impact of the election on the peace process, but “how the Fatah generation that takes for granted its patronage control and entrenched bureaucratic positions will respond to having to turn over their portfolios to Hamas.”
This is the point or the fact that the Israelis and the elite in the power in Israel need to understand.
If the world take oppositions stand to the Palestinians voting which bring Hamas to lead , without give them the opportunity to see them and deal with them and realised this the chose of the people there, if they believe in democracy otherwise then all west talk and thoughts in ME will make all Arabs/Islamic nation guarantee their believes that the west in favours of State of Israel, there is no way that they will reconsidered whatever they do to get support from the west to be democratically dependent and free to rule themselves without interference from others.
Drive Palestinians away from rationality Mr Carter?
How rational is a suicide bomber? And how rational is sending teenage suicide bombers, the rational thing would be to send septuagenarians with terminal diseases.
And why do my taxes have to subsidize terrorism and rabid anti-American extremists? Let the Saudi and Iranian dollars “keep them rational”.
But fear not tired pundits, whatever the US does, Europe will give in as usual and keep sending strong Euros to fund Kassams, and then rehash Helena’s nonsensical excuse that they are inaccurate anyways. Maybe with Helena’s upcoming visit to Palestine she will witness a Kassam launch in her honor, maybe they’ll let her push the button. But I am sure she won’t take physical risks. She avoided Iraq and critized American journalists for staying in the green zone. What about ABC’s Woodward, badly injured riding with the Iraqi army?
The Palestinians have spoken, and now they have to chose between food or aggresion. We saw this movie, recall Pakistan’s “willing to go hungry to get nukes”. Peace loving religion… Rational… Give me a break.
David
It sound’s as if David is saying that the Palestinians have voted for the wrong side, so now they must be punished. Then, I suppose, we will all wonder why they turn ever more radical.
Helena,
Sorry for making this long post to your comments section, but given the pointedness of the discussion during the last few days I could not resist. I wish I could master the brevity of Henry James, but c’est la vie.
These days the blogosphere is filled with punch/counterpunch arguments about the Middle East and particularly Israel-Palestine, generally addressing the issue of “democracy” and its values/risks. The evolving consensus opinion is that American policy in the ME/I-P has foolishly encouraged “democracy” in a region of the world that is “unprepared/unfit to sustain democratic government.” Salah’s point is correct: if Americans now withdraw their support after the results of democratic elections are clear, then this will appear hypocritical to people throughout the region (except, of course, to those in the inner circles of so-called “secular” Arab/Muslim regimes/ruling parties who are familiar with the practice of ignoring the popular will, and additionally to the Israelis who want to continue claiming that their country is the “one and only democracy” in the region).
The specter of an Islamist victory at the polls is an old bogey; it has a long history in Egypt, Turkey, and in the late 80s, early 90s in Algeria. Thus there is a wider context for arguments on the blogosphere today. A US ambassador once coined a phrase describing the likely results of an Islamist victory — “one person, one vote, one time,” the implication being that rule under an Islamist party would quickly descend into undemocratic rule. The assumption is that Islamists would deny the opportunity for other parties in future elections to unseat them, and in the worst case scenario, i.e. the real “bogey,” drive a country into deeply oppressive, totalitarian style rule. Thus the “bogey” is dressed in fascistic terms, with ayatollahs and mullahs appearing as Nazis. This too has a long history, and while there is some merit to concerns about rule under an Islamic party (witness the practice of the Iranian regime, vetting candidates with acceptable “Islamic” credentials and tolerating street vigilantes who assault “unIslamic” enemies of the state), the problem has proven more complex in countries like Egypt, Turkey, and Algeria.
To compare the problem of Islamist party rule in the Middle East today to the rise of totalitarian fascist regimes in Europe in the mid-twentieth century parallels the arguments made by anti-communist Red-baiters in the past who imagined FDR’s New Deal as the beginning of communist rule in America. Just as FDR’s Keynsian-inspired program to lift Americans out of the Great Depression arose in a different context (and served a different function) than the Bolshevism of Red Russians in 1917, so too the context (and function) of Islamist parties in the Middle East (including Hamas) differs from the context (and function) of the Nazis in the Weimar Republic of the 1930s. Americans (and Israelis) are gradually being led to the conclusion that the majority of people in the Middle East (i.e. Muslims) have known from the very beginning. This is that their own Islamic culture/identity contains the seeds of life in a good and just society. Here is the irony: those regimes that deny the popular will supporting Islamist parties in the Middle East demonstrate the very same undemocratic “one person, one vote, one time” principle that keeps them in power. Turkey under the current “Justice and Development” party is the only country to have broken the mold, and there is a good argument that the experience of allowing Islamists the chance to govern is more beneficial than not. It moderates the Islamists’ political aspirations, and if they fail to govern properly the old “secularists” have a chance to win back popular support.
While this is the wider context of arguments on the blogosphere today, there are unique complicating factors behind the results of the Islamist democratic victories in Palestine as well as in Iraq. Leaving aside the issues in Iraq (relating mainly to the American occupation and inter-ethnic relations in an evolving federal system), the arguments about Hamas’ victory in Helena’s comment section over the last few days show how polarizing the issue of Islamist democracy can be in its Israel/Palestine context. What I hear Helena saying is that for the sake of renewing the process of peace-making and reconciliation it is best to give Hamas the chance to govern. Helena is hardly a Hamas party loyalist or a supporter of terrorism, so she has different reasons for making this argument. If Americans are true to their commitments to democracy, then we should respect the will of the Palestinian people and deal with the leadership of Hamas. Helena alternatively suggests that Americans might enable UN bodies to properly play the role of “aid-provider” to the Palestinian administration, and engage in mediating/coordinating the handover of power between Fatah and Hamas. Since US officials are unlikely to play a constructive role in Fatah-Hamas relations (what are the chances the Bush administration would appoint a good will ambassador like Jimmy Carter?), and Fatah and Hamas are unlikely to agree on allowing those US officials an intermediary role in the first place, Helena’s suggestion is practically the only way that the western/American “international community” could play a helpful role in this situation.
On the other side of the argument are those who say Hamas should be isolated and ignored, borrowing the language used to describe the Islamist “bogey.” The implication is that for anyone like Helena to suggest that Hamas should even be given the “time of day” is to coddle Islamo-fascist terrorists. Now it is true that there is rhetorical power behind the use of this “bogey,” but in the blogosphere where increasingly more sophisticated readers must consider the true merits of an argument, one truly senses the weakness and defensiveness of the contra-Helena position. Consider the suggestion that what really is at stake is “how Hamas and the Palestinians will now handle their problems when the international community cuts off their funding.” This may be realistic and sadly true, since it provides a glimpse of realpolitik in the coming months and years when the heat gets turned up in the pressure cooker of Palestinian politics. But the position Helena takes is intended to get us to think outside the box of realpolitik (the same box that has created a downward spiral of Israeli-Palestinian relations in the last eighty plus years), and envision what is required to move forward the process of reconciliation in Israel-Palestine. Stop and think: given the complexity of the problems in the Middle East and the increasingly more sophisticated understanding that blog readers have of these problems, why would any reader in the blogosphere give the “time of day” to the makers of these bogey-conflated, realpolitik arguments.
We all know that Israel sits in a difficult situation. We all know that there are risks and dangers for Israelis in any policy and any decision taken by the American government. We all know that the lives of real people are at stake in Israel, and the security concerns of Israelis are legitimate. But readers in the blogosphere also know that the same is true of Palestinians. Arguing over the numbers of individual Israeli and Palestinian lives at stake today or in the past is a senseless game to play. The real game that is being played today concerns hard issues of politics. It concerns how the instruments of political authority (whether official government or unofficial non-government) are constructed in ways that foster a more just and peaceful world. If we understand that this is the real game being played in the Middle East, then I think we all would have cause and reason to argue about these issues in more constructive terms.
David
America obtains cheap oil from the Saudis in exchange for providing them with security.
Keep going and speaks hard on Sadies, I hope they come to you and pay you to bribe you as usual behaviours from Stupid Saudis, I think you looking for some bribe from them. All we know the oil money used unwisely to serve their purposes rather that Palestinians and Arab/Islamic world.
Some times I suggested if those wealthy states pay for a land to established a STATE of ISRAIL on it instead of Palestine will be better and more economic solution for all of with the billions spent for 75yeras in additions to unforgettable human life lose.
I wish US turned back the billions of Sadies “estimated US$400B, some estimated US$800B” and ignore their money that invested or lender to US.
Keep going David one day you will rushed with Stupid Saudi money as usual
Rupert Murdoch The bulldozer media baron that pulled strings and evaded national laws to build his global media empire, running rough shod over politicians and other media companies that got in his way? If the New York Times for November 17 has it right, John Malone, a minor stockholder in Murdoch’s News Corporation and owner of a relatively minor media firm compared to the five or six giants, suddenly increased his shares in Rupert’s News Corp and Rupert finds himself in danger of losing control of his empire to this once-friendly Denver multi-millionaire. So in panic, Rupert needs money and allies to defeat an attempt to take over his empire, once considered invulnerable. Where has he turned? The same place that the Bushes have turned for years, the Saudi royal family, whose Prince Walid bin Talal, who has heavy investments in media companies, originally had 3 percent of non-voting stock in Murdoch’s News Corporation. In Rupert’s sudden desperation the Prince said he is willing to swap his small bloc of non-voting shares for enough voting shares to bail out Murdoch from his takeover danger.
Had a dream last night. Went like this:
1) America announces to Israel that the game is up…that any further American “aid” to Israel is contingent on Israel reverting to its 1967 borders.
2) America announces that it will henceforth guarantee Israel’s security and its borders (the 1967 ones, that is).
3) America announces that it will henceforth guarantee Syria’s and Jordan’s and Egypt’s borders (1967, that is) and security. Ditto Palestinian territory.
4) America announces that it will henceforth play an absolutely straight bat in the Middle East. Which, amongst other things, means “matching funds” – dollar for dollar – in terms of “aid” to the two semitic peoples in the area.
5) America announces a “Marshall Plan” compensation/reparation scheme for all peoples – Palestinians, Iraqi Jews, etc. – dispossessed and displaced by 1948 and its immediate aftermath
6) Bush is lionized the length and breadth of the Islamic world (and almost everywhere else)…prior to accepting his Nobel Prize (the which ceremony is the curtain raiser on his apotheosis).
7) The two most talented peoples in the Middle East – the Israelis and their Palestinian brethren – get on with building a shared if “semi-detached” civilisation that is the envy of the world.
8) Unable to recruit, Al-qaida goes belly up.
M. M. T. Upharsin at January 29, 2006 05:50 PM
a dream last night.
Wish your dream come true…
But for some of you in the west they like to continue the game as its and more killing, wars, occupations and more oil ” more money” its all about the jealousness in their hearts of that wealth and money flow easy from the ground to the packets of those ruthless regimes “Friendly Regimes to US” in ME, which I believe cause the chose all around the world because they are the most stupid humans on the earth. whom the west throw the red carpets under their feet’s and make there nights like 1001 Nights with all slavery girls and boys serving them just because their BILLIONS ” You love Their Money You Dislike Their Ugly Faces”.
Another shock in Israil today
In response to the news of the rabbi’s passing, MK Eli Yishai (Shas) said, “The entire house of Israel is grieving as one family today.”
“This is a huge loss for all of Israel,” Yishai told Israel Radio. “He saved many with his prayers.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/675824.html
New addition to “the axis of evil”?
Professor Anchar’s article is an awaited consistent historical assessment of Hamas victory in WBG in January 2006. Thanks a lot! A few remarks.
A brief summary of the situation is that now neocons have all reasons to consider PA as a new addition to their “axis of evil” and treat it pretty much the same way as Iran, Syria and N.Korea. As we know, Hamas always was more or less isolationist in general and from the West in particular, they never showed any interest in political and economical cooperation with Israel, US and the EU. In practical terms, “destruction of Israel” comes to total cold war and certain level of guerilla activity. It is hard to imagine why this should change.
On the Arab side, electoral victory of Hamas is the end of certain era and beginning of another. The secular phase of Palestinian movement is pretty much over, now it is turn for the religious radicals. Also, with Arafat and Sharon gone, the Oslo process is dead and finally buried. Again, in practical terms, it means that whatever will happen in military terms, there can be no return to “democratic reforms”, that is, PLO style semi-loyal Arab administration of the WBG. Now it is just direct Israeli rule or Hamas – and nothing in between.
Everybody agrees that PLO is corrupt. What is usually omitted is that this corruption is driven by nothing else than European and American aid! From the other side, this aid is supposed to facilitate the reconstruction. But, as we know from Afghanistan and Iraq, reconstruction is what colonial power wants to pursue and rebels are determined to disrupt. In I/P parlance. it is known as “de luxe occupation”. From this prospective, any further aid to the PA turns out to be a lose-lose game for the West. With or without it, Hamas influence is likely only to strengthen.
For Hamas, cleansing Gaza and, if possible, the WB from pro-US / Israeli forces is likely to be the fist priority. So, we can expect certain period of internal Palestinian instability leading basically to the consolidation of the Islamist rule.
Foreign policy of Hamas is very likely to be pro-Syrian, pro-Iranian, it is natural for them to ideologically support the Iraqi rebels. Paradoxically, since hard neocons use any “peace dividend” from I/P for further pressure on other members of the “axis of evil”, more I/P tension can result in more peace of mind for Ahmadinejad, Assad and Kim!
Gilbert Achcar. First Reflections On The Electoral Victory Of Hamas: http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/achcar-on-hamas-guest-editorial-first.html
I want to really thank Sd and M.M.T.Upharsin for their contributions– thorough and helpful (Sd) and inspiring (MMTU).
Some of my friends who read the blog say they find the constant stream of highly personalized attacks made against me here very disturbing. I find them pretty disturbing too. But also psyhcologically/sociologically interesting. What, I wonder, prompts someone like “David” to take the time to post something hateful and ridiculous like this: Maybe with Helena’s upcoming visit to Palestine she will witness a Kassam launch in her honor, maybe they’ll let her push the button. But I am sure she won’t take physical risks. She avoided Iraq and critized American journalists for staying in the green zone…
Is this “David” just a twisted individual with a paranoid mind? Or is he part of a salaried tag-team of people sent by one of those discourse-suppressing organizations like “Flame” or “Camera” to make my comments boards unreadable and hostile?
I have no idea because “David”, like all the other hatemongers here, is quite able to hide behind a cloak of anonymity and launch his stupid barbs as though they are a contribution to a “serious” discussion. I have tried banning his IP address in the past, but that didn’t work. He still keeps butting in here despite knowing his hate-fueled propaganda is not welcome here.
I remain quite happy to interact in the discourse with people who disagree, even strongly, with my views. But not if they stoop to such discourteous and childish personal attacks. Buzz off, David. Let the adults here have a reasonable discussion without you.
M. M. T. Upharsin
Hamas does not share your dream and does not seem to be about to change. If Bush did what you said then Hamas just might launch another Intifada. Perhaps of a different kind. But some kind of war.
I concur that “David” lacks charm but his point that the Palestinians have not been behaving rationally has merit. And it may even be that the Palestinians may now have to choose between food and aggression.
I do not think that Helena will push the button on a Kassam launch. Do they even use buttons?
I think it far more likely that if Hamas decides to launch rockets it will arm itself the way its friends in Hizbullah do, with better rockets. If Hamas can hit a few hard targets with a Sagger rocket maybe they can provoke a bigger Israeli response and try to make a big press issue out of it. I think the Israelis also have a few new tricks up their sleeves.
That’s my take, that both sides have some new ideas they are going to put into practice. Whether these are military or diplomatic ideas I know not.
Warren W.
Are you privy to what the inner councils of Hamas are saying to one another?
If so, how so?
And why not tell us a lot more?
No Helena I don’t get paid. If you know of somebody willing to pay for my humble visceral reactions to your biased posts, just let me know. I can use the extra income.
Maybe it is time to think that some people find your writing biased, and offensive. Maybe others think that words do have consequences and are not willing to shut up just because you host this venue. If you write about highly controversial topics you have to deal with dissenting opinions. Can’t hide, deal with it.
The person angle is because I find it disgusting your smearing journalists that have the guts to take personal risks while you soil them from the safety of the beltway.
Will be happy to answer any other questions.
David
Dear Helena,
Suggest you have a word with your techie friends. I think the technology exists that would enable each of your readers – or in some cases correspondents – to block any given “postee’s” offerings from appearing on their individual terminal.
Sort of a This is a Troll (or a Fool or a Cretin or a Seriously Disturbed Person or a Well you can take your pick) Button. Hit it and you Blacklist Him. Not from the blog, but from said terminal. So hey presto any one of us who hits that button is in a David-Free Zone from there on out. It’s sort of like being cold called by someone trying to sell you storm windows or life insurance or a new cellphone or whatever and putting the phone down but not hanging up. The cold caller rabbits on and on, not realising – usually for a good few minutes – that he’s not talking to anyone. The added plus is that it runs up their phone bill and probably saves three or four other people from getting one of those phone calls. It’s a good-for-the-community, socially useful thing to do.
So David would be bashing away – and he’d see his “posts” on his terminal – but they wouldn’t be appearing on M. Upharsin’s screen, for example. To borrow James Wolcott’s rather dishy phrase, his flagrant acts of wankery would be private matters. As they should be.
I promise you, he’d go away in time. Or if he didn’t – still better. Better to have him spewing his ugliness where no one much is seeing it.
Upharsin,
Forget technology, just skip my posts. I am sure there are other who will read and maybe even resonate with my perspective. 60% of Americans do.
David
David,
No, let’s step back for a moment. I for one would like to know more about you. Where you’re coming from. What in fact your “perspective” is? How you arrived at it? What’s important to you? What you hope to achieve? Etc. All said, all offered, all set out in an open spirited, honest, indeed friendly manner. One human being to another. Perhaps, indeed, one American to a fellow compatriot?
For that matter, how old are you? What work do you do? Where do you live?
And also for that matter – and offering it up absolutely in a spirit of free inquiry – what is it that 60 percent of Americans agree with you about? And how do you know they do?
The door’s open…
All best.
yes.this is my site http://xluk.com/carisoprodol/carisoprodol_tablets___mg.html Thanks.
black jack group jack daniels black label http://pidorovtut.net/black_jack/anime_-_black_jack.html black engine jack strategy black jack in cuba http://pidorovtut.net/black_jack/jack_black_the_greatest_song_in_the_world.html and …. jack black ‘get naked and start the revolution’ police black jack http://pidorovtut.net/black_jack/general_black_jack_pershing.html black jack cool roof coatings black jack davy http://pidorovtut.net/black_jack/janne_da_arc_lyrics_black_jack.html black jack rules the black jack johnson project upcoming album http://pidorovtut.net/black_jack/best_gambling_online_black_jack.html .Thanks.