She’s back… thank G-d.
She put up a post yesterday– her first since August 5– in which she somberly considered the recent Lancet study on Iraqi mortality and the controversy it has generated.
She writes,
- So far, the only Iraqis I know pretending this number is outrageous are either out-of-touch Iraqis abroad who supported the war, or Iraqis inside of the country who are directly benefiting from the occupation ($) and likely living in the Green Zone.
The chaos and lack of proper facilities is resulting in people being buried without a trip to the morgue or the hospital. During American military attacks on cities like Samarra and Fallujah, victims were buried in their gardens or in mass graves in football fields. Or has that been forgotten already?
We literally do not know a single Iraqi family that has not seen the violent death of a first or second-degree relative these last three years. Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations, car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids, death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret prisons, torture, mysterious weapons – with so many different ways to die, is the number so far fetched?
There are Iraqi women who have not shed their black mourning robes since 2003 because each time the end of the proper mourning period comes around, some other relative dies and the countdown begins once again.
Let’s pretend the 600,000+ number is all wrong and that the minimum is the correct number: nearly 400,000. Is that better? Prior to the war, the Bush administration kept claiming that Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis over 24 years. After this latest report published in The Lancet, 300,000 is looking quite modest and tame. Congratulations Bush et al….
As for her long absence from the blogosphere, she writes:
- There were several reasons for my disappearance the major one being the fact that every time I felt the urge to write about Iraq, about the situation, I’d be filled with a certain hopelessness that can’t be put into words and that I suspect other Iraqis feel also.
It’s very difficult at this point to connect to the internet and try to read the articles written by so-called specialists and analysts and politicians. They write about and discuss Iraq as I might write about the Ivory Coast or Cambodia- with a detachment and lack of sentiment that- I suppose- is meant to be impartial. Hearing American politicians is even worse. They fall between idiots like Bush- constantly and totally in denial, and opportunists who want to use the war and ensuing chaos to promote themselves…
I am so, so glad she is still alive, and still getting her unique voice out into the world. I can only imagine how hard, how soul-searing and desperate the past few months must have been– for her, and for all other Iraqis.
Bring the US troops home.
Even 400,000 dead puts us in a class with the Mongols and Crusaders in terms of Middle Eastern infamy, and they have long memories there. I am dismayed at how little our pious, God-fearing nation has even taken notice of this calamity.
It seems that “first hand” testimony of this nature would seem more believable if we had any evidence whatsoever that Riverbend was an actual Iraqi writing from within Iraq. Unlike many other Iraqi bloggers (including many who are strongly critical of the invasion) she’s remained completely anonymous. None of the “non-public” information revealed in her site is verifiable; the rest seems gleaned exclusively from Western news media. She could easily be writing her posts from Toronto or Detroit.
Respectfully, I find it odd that Helena, ordinarily so sensitive to issues of “identity…life experience, or the other sources of …claimed expertise” should find anonymous ‘testimony’ like this informative.
Vadim
I asked myself the same question last year and verified with three reliable sources that Riverbend is real and is who she says she is.
I asked myself the same question last year and verified with three reliable sources that Riverbend is real and is who she says she is.
Frank, hope you’ll excuse me for remaining unconvinced by even more anonymous hearsay. I don’t know who you are, or your reliable friends, or how they came about their opinion. It’s especially relevant here, since ‘Riverbend’ is slandering Iraqi skeptics of the Lancet study as venal and out of touch. Many of whom have names and faces and are no less vulnerable to violence than she claims to be.
Since Riverbend isn’t claiming expertise in inferential statistics, the entire basis for her post is personal experience. But for all any of us know, she could be posting her haunting testimonials from New Jersey.
Vadim, I have corresponded with Riverbend. I’ve read her blog closely since 2003. I’m comletely satisfied that she is who she says she is– though of course the wonderful, flowing, idiomatic texture of her prose in English is quite notable.
She has a blog-based book out that won the “Blooker” prize. She has had so much publicity for her work, both inside Iraq and outside, that if there had been any credible questioning about her identity from Iraqis we would certainly have heard it long ago. There has been none.
The fact that you even raise this question at this time indicates to me that either you really don’t know much about Iraq and about the Iraqi blogosphere, or you just want to make trouble here.
Regarding the accusations that Riv makes about Iraqis who contest the Lancet study, if what she says about these people is true, then it is not slanderous… And certainly, there is plenty of evidence of US $ having been shoveled into the circles of “pro-occupation” Iraqis– or as they prefer to describe themselves, pro-“liberation” Iraqis– that such claims have considerable prima facie credibility.
Vadim, your desperation is becoming embarrassingly blatant. Truly, truly pathetic.
Vadim, your desperation is becoming embarrassingly blatant. Truly, truly pathetic.
More charming testimony from another anonymous “Iraqi.”
if there had been any credible questioning about her identity…The fact that you even raise this question at this time indicates to me that either you really don’t know much about Iraq
Questions aren’t assertions. ‘Credible question’ is incoherent. I’m not positing anything about Iraq or even Riverbend, I’m seeking more information (and getting precious little- “Blooker Prize?”) But your hostile, defensive and decidedly uninformative reaction speaks volumes. I’ll know not to ask uncomfortable questions in the future. Consider me chastened.
A hint for our friend Vadim: there’s this amazing new thing called the “internet” that you can “search” on for information about things you don’t know much about… To do that, you can use something called “Google” and then you can even– my goodness!– find out about “Riverbend”, about her blook/book, about the Blooker Prize, and much, much more…
Try it sometime.
Try it sometime.
Well gee Helena, it seems like Riverbend didn’t win the vaunted Blooker award after all! That distinction goes to “Julie and Julia: 365 Days, 524 Recipes, 1 Tiny Apartment Kitchen.” Maybe the ‘Blooker’ committee had the same problem I did with ‘Riv’s’ blook and blogdentity. Maybe the Blooker committee decided that ‘Riv’s’ “identity…life experience, or the other sources of …claimed expertise” didn’t check out. Or maybe they felt uncomfortable signing a $2,000 check over to a cipher.
You’re right, Vadim, Riverbend is actually Nasrallah of Lebanon fame writing under the name of Riverbend. But then, how do I know that Vadim is a real person and not Omri channeling papa Sharon?
Guess you never know, kassandra. Since all you need is an unsigned US-hosted weblog and a few hits on Google, then presto – instant credibility! Maybe some hasbarista out there, Helena’s mirror image, would praise my flowing english and anonymous musings as an “authentic Israeli voice” even though I live in New York and don’t speak a word of Hebrew. Maybe I could even win my own ‘Blooker’ prize someday.
Thanks for the great idea, kassandra. If I win, you get half.
I’ve been reading Riverbend’s weblog since shortly after the US invasion of Iraq. She was actually quite pro-American in the beginning, quite disposed to think that some good would come from the war. Even when things started to go badly in Iraq, when the military occupying forces failed to protect the country against common thieves and when the electricity was not restored, even then Riverbend continued to signal her faith in America and her liking for us and her belief that it would end well.
It was painful reading her over time after that and seeing her slowly, inexorably lose that trust and liking. Succumbing to despair sometimes, without much hope for the future.
There is no question in my mind that she is an Iraqi woman living in Occupied Iraq. She is first and formost a writer. She would write about the daily life and culture around her, little sketches and vignettes. I don’t need any other proof of her identity and her address. I’ve done enough reading in my lifetime to recognize the authenticity of what I’m reading.
Riverbend expresses the “difficulty” of reading commentary by Americans who write about Iraq, as she says, “with a detachment and lack of sentiment that- I suppose- is meant to be impartial.”
This statement is proof enough of Riverbend’s Iraqi “authenticity” because only an Iraqi (or perhaps a neighboring Arab) would make this observation about American commentators.
In other words it would be surprising if an American pretending to be Iraqi would make such a statement.
On the other hand it is hardly surprising that Vadim (who lives in New York and takes his Middle East politics served “well done Israeli”) represents the typical American commentator on Iraq.
Vadim’s pretension about maintaining “healthy skepticism” and making “objective analysis” about the horrors occuring in Iraq is exactly what Riverbend finds so difficult.
Well done, Vadim, for providing double confirmation of this point.
Of those that question Riverbends identity as well as her reality I ask- do you question the current U.S. government on their facts? It seems to me that they out right lie and no longer even pretend to have actual facts to back up any of their claims. I feel much more comfortable with Riverbend’s description of what is going on in Iraq than I would during a face-to-face meeting with Bush or anyone representing him. Specifically to Vadim….you are deaf, blind and small minded! If you don’t car to read what Riverbend has to say and you have no proof that she does NOT exist then keep your opinion to yourself and don’t waste your time reading her blog. I for one am thrilled that she is still blogging and I was beside myself with worry when she was silent.
Come on people! Have some pity on poor Vadim. Clearly it seriously upsets his equilibrium to seriously consider that an intelligent, thoughtful, articulate – in perfect English, no less! – woman like Riverbend could possibly be an Iraqi. It clearly threatens his sense of security to have his fond stereotypes threatened, so leave him in peace.
Brenda, Riverbend’s transition from hopefully pro-American is typical of the experience of many, many – probably most – Iraqis, particularly the educated, urban professionals. I would say that virtually every friend and family member I had inside Iraq went through a similar experience, as did most of them who were outside at the time. Very few shared my absolute and whole hearted opposition, and some were quite unhappy with me for being so active and vocal about it. It did not take too long before reality and disilusion set in, particularly for those who lived through shock and awe, and saw the unspeakable and utterly wanton chaos, death, and destruction. The polls also reflect this shift in attitude.
Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations, car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids, death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret prisons, torture, mysterious weapons
Almost this entire list is deaths perpetrated Iraqi to Iraqi, Arab to Arab, moslem to moslem.
Why would the US be responsible for the deaths caused by their own sick set of priorities that put sectarian victory over human life?
Whatever records against mongols or crusaders this may break, chalk it up to the Arabs themselves, just like Sudan’s genocide.
With all due respect, the issue is not about “Riverbend”. Irrespective of who she is and where she blogs from, her input does not really add much credence to the highly questionable Lancet studies.
Frankly, I would have found the latest “study” less questionable had it been released, say, on November 8. I suggest that you all read the reviews and criticisms on both studies, including this one that I posted earlier, before being so quick to believe the astronomical numbers presented by this “research”:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php
Well, well. Here’s an interesting one for the Hizbolobby:
Human Rights Watch condemned Hizbullah on Thursday for using cluster bombs on an estimated 113 occasions during this summer’s war, according to research performed by the NGO’s investigators.
Thursday’s announcement also repeats earlier criticisms of Israel’s firing of what the UN has estimated to be four million cluster bombs and submunitions.
“We are disturbed to discover that not only Israel but also Hizbullah used cluster munitions in their recent conflict, at a time when many countries are turning away from this kind of weapon precisely because of its impact on civilians,” said Steve Goose, director of Human Rights Watch’s Arms Division.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193478190&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
If you don’t car to read what Riverbend has to say and you have no proof that she does NOT exist
..otherwise known as ad ignorantium – “prove me wrong!” Lets make all kinds of unverifiable claims, then impose on our audience the burden of disproving them. Let’s anonymously accuse others of faking it. Irony alert! I’m explaining to you why anonymous testimony is less informative than the other kind. A theme Helena has engaged over and over again.
don’t waste your time reading her blog.
I don’t! That doesn’t prevent me from encountering her florid “testimonials” in forums like this one.
Clearly it seriously upsets his equilibrium
Gee Shirin, if my stereotypes about Iraqis were the issue I wouldn’t have mentioned the many Iraqi blogs critical of the US invasion, that are more authentic and informative because they’re written by people with names and faces who are verifiably Iraqi. Who link to non-Anglophone sources from time to time rather than the BBC, “Dilbert” and “The Onion.” Sounds like its more of a sore spot for you than for me, or you’d have coughed up a name or an IP or some other hard evidence that ‘Riv’ is who she says she is, & not a faker.
Vadim, JES, Dvd, David, Davis, Joshua, and a whole troop of “commentators” on JWN are all like-minded Hasbara propagandists. Broadcasters on Fox News-America provide the same type of commentary, “Fair and Balanced” in support of the American Zionist alliance 24 hours each day.
This of course is the reason why Iraqis like Riverbend (who suffer through the current horrors in that long-suffering country) find great difficulty listening to the standard American/Israeli “objective” analysis of the Middle East.
For Dvd to suggest that the responsibility for the horrors of Iraq do not lie with the American occupying force (the responsible party under international law, just as the Israelis are the responsible party for the ongoing starvation of the Palestinian people in Gaza), but instead to place responsibility on the Iraqis themselves, is symptomatic of all that is wrong with this pretentious “objectivity.” It’s like saying Gen. Arik Sharon was not responsible for the massacres at Sabra and Chatila.
Read the outrageous book “End of Evil” (2004?) by Richard Perle (one of the chief neo-con architects of American policy in the Middle East, and major lobbyist for Israel ‘R Us in American politics) and David Frum (former advisor to President Bush, and also an active lobbyist of all things Israel). In this book Perle and Frum describe the ultimate hopes of the neo-cons, namely that the tensions between Shia and Sunni in Iraq will spill over into the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia.
In Perle and Frum’s wishful imagination, the “Shia majority” in eastern Saudi Arabia will rise up against the Sunni (Wahhabist) Saudi regime, overthrow the government, and seize the chance to control the main oil fields on the Arabian peninsula. In other words they hope that the Sunni-Shia violence resulting from the US invasion of Iraq will spread to other countries. This is clearly stated in their book.
No matter that an eastern Shia uprising would lead to greater instability, violence, and death in the region. Neo-cons like Frum and Perle always intended that the invasion of Iraq would lead to a total political transformation in the region. This was originally spelled out in the “Clean Break” document that Perle helped write for Bibi Netanyahu back in the mid-1990s.
The question, therefore, concerns different layers of responsibility for the horrors plaguing Iraq today. It is certainly true that most of the killing results from Sunni-Shia violence, so the immediate responsibility lies with the individuals who carry out these acts. However, the responsibility for the wider environment in which this Shia-Sunni violence occurs must be placed in the hands of the US neo-cons who launched the deceitful invasion of Iraq.
The greatest responsibility lies with Pres. Bush, VP Cheney, Pentagon Chief Rummie, and the neo-cons like Perle and Frum who sit comfortably in padded chairs inside the DC beltway, “regretting” the violence of Iraq while insisting we must still “stay the course.” In their minds the violence and killing is dwarfed by the promise of their Grand Strategy. Splits and divisions appear in the Bush/neo-con alliance, but they all have fingers in the pie, so to speak.
The idea that responsibility for the killing in Iraq rests primarily with the individuals who are killing day-to-day is nearsighted in the extreme. It fails to see that American strategists in Iraq have regularly shifted their alliances on the ground depending on who is on top and who is not. At first the US was aligned with the Kurds; then the US wanted to empower the Shia; then when the Shia looked too strong, the US sought greater Sunni empowerment.
Playing this game is not some abstraction. It means that American forces are supplying arms, training and advice to one faction/private militia or the other at various times. It is naive in the extreme to think that US armed forces are merely acting as peacemakers in all this. Sure, US commanders would prefer Iraqis love one another and love America for toppling Saddam’s regime, and as Paul Bremer made clear, open the floodgates to a privatized economy on which American corporations could feast. But they know they are not acting in a Disney movie, and they are certainly not averse to playing a role in the devil’s game.
The fact that American Grand Strategy is based on “divide and rule,” playing one Iraqi faction against another is quite obvious. At the start of the US invasion, America had already established a protected “zone” in “Kurdistan.” The Kurdish peshmerga have played a continuous role in US military operations, serving as fighters, policemen, translators, guides, etc. Sy Hersh documented that Israeli special forces are also involved with this American-Kurdish coordination. And of course the Israelis practice their own “divide and rule” policy among the Palestinians and Lebanese.
The Israelis show no more care about the Fateh-Hamas fighting in the Gaza Strip today than the US shows about the ex-Bathist vs. Badr Brigade vs. Mahdi Army fighting in Iraq. Sure the individual killers are responsible for their own actions, but look at the bigger picture. Who is enabling this violence? Who sets the parameters of the violence?
As Henry K famously stated [I am paraphrasing] during the Iran-Iraq war (at a time when US weapons manufacturers were providing arms to both the Iranians and the Iraqis), “our main interest in this war is that it should continue until both sides are defeated.” This is the same as Pres. Bush saying today “we want to take the fight to the enemy, and make them fight over there rather than on American soil.” In other words, “no matter that we draw Jihadists of various stripes into Iraq and set off a Sunni-Shia conflict that will spread to other regions,” they imagine that all this violence is in the American interest.
The larger responsibility for the killing in Iraq rests with the larger war’s managers in the US, just as the larger responsibility for the use of cluster-bombs in Lebanon rests with Israel.
Hasbara propaganda is becoming less and less effective as people see more clearly the reality of war in the Middle East.
Regarding his opinion about Riverbend’s authenticity — an opinion to which he has no legitimate right given that he has never read her weblog — Vadim writes to Tana:
“it seems to be more of a sore spot with you than with me…”
Vadim, it’s a sore spot with me also. The commentary on this thread from you and JES puts me in mind of a Rolling Stone thread where I engaged with a brash trio of AIPAC/Israeli’s who had the unspeakable gall to smear the sacrifice and the memory of Rachel Corrie.
And that experience put me in mind of pigs wandering in from the yard and shitting all over the carpet.
Brenda,
I think that Vadim has every right to hold and express his opinion about “Riverbend”. But I think that the whole issue of what “Riverbend” says in regard to the number of Iraqis killed is tangential and irrelevant to the facts. To the best of my understanding she has never investigated the topic and does not bring anything new to the table other than an impression based on what she sees in her immediate area.
As far as “pigs wandering in from the yard and shitting all over the carpet” goes, well maybe you live in a place where that happens. I certainly don’t, however.
BTW Shirin, if you want an “intelligent, thoughtful, articulate” blog in immaculate English, written by a putative Iraqi, I recommend Iraqpundit. Disclaimer: unlike ‘Riv’ he acknowledges posting from outside Iraq, and his political analysis isn’t reflexively, monotonously hostile to the US. I’m guessing in your eyes this makes him ipso facto a “collaborator”. how very sophisticated! [/sarcasm alert!!!]
For Dvd to suggest that the responsibility for the horrors of Iraq do not lie with the American occupying force (the responsible party under international law
How long after the inevitable redeployment (quite welcome, as far as I’m concerned) before we find a new way to deflect responsibility for Iraq’s mounting death toll from its actual authors: the car bombing “resistance” committing the bulk of Iraq’s lethal atrocities?
brenda, this conversation with you reminds me of a conversation I had with some neo-nazis once. They also thought the US was controlled by a Jewish conspiracy. They also called me a pig for disagreeing with them. You remind me of them.
Vadim, this post and discussion are not about you. They are about a plucky and talented young Iraqi woman called Riverbend who has borne incredibly powerful witness to the tribulations of her people throughout 42 months of living under foreign military occupation. If you read her blog archives, which I highly recommend you do, you can follow the dynamic of her feelings and her analyses, with her feelings being expressed with great acuity, her observations of daily life being clear, sympathetic, sometimes tragic and sometimes hilariously funny, and her analyses often being extremely sharp.
As noted above, back in 2003 she was much more pro-American. Since then she has noted the many mistakes the US troops have made, and she has also watched with fear as her country has disintegrated under the prolonged and careless rule of the occupying force and as hostile militias have arisen in her home city.
Maybe if you knew more about what you were criticizing when you criticize her, your comments would be better informed.
But as I said, this discussion is not about you, and you have hogged it quite enough already.
Thanks Vadim, JES, and troops in the Hasbara-Hit Parade for your “healthy skepticism” and always “fair and balanced” analysis here at JWN.
All ironic kidding aside, you guys sure know how to take these discussions downward into the gutter. This is after all what you prefer as a chosen propaganda tactic.
No wonder everyone ignores what you have to say, and does not bother to link to your muddied references from the Echo Chamber.
Sd,
Hear, hear!
JES,
I condemn, unreservedly, Hizbollah’s use of cluster bombs.
I also condemn, unreservedly, Israel’s use of cluster bombs while noting it was on a different order of magnitude and cynicism in terms of timing, i.e. in the last 72 hours of the war after a ceasefire had been agreed and the only possible motive, i.e. ethnic cleansing of Lebanese Shia south of the Litani River.
Based on posts by you in another thread on this site is it fair to assume that your unreserved condemnation is reserved for one side only?
The “Hear, hear!” was to the longish post above by Sd above, which tied many strands together.
The references to the execrable “End of Evil” were particularly apt.
With utmost respect Helena, your co-idealists are the ones making it “about me” by calling me a gutter-dwelling pig. My intentions weren’t to ‘criticize’ Riverbend’s blog so much as question the epistemic value of anonymous testimony (as you’ve often done), esp. as applied to a nationwide, ostensibly scientific survey. My apologies for “hogging the discourse” all the same.
Vadim —
I am one of those who believes that Riverbend is the real thing, and writes with a feeling for day-to-day events that no one could readily match from the outside. I understand that you don’t agree, or at least that you question it.
But, at this point, does it make any difference? It’s clear from many sources that massive amounts of misery and death have been inflicted on the Iraqi people — whether or not Riverbend is genuine. It’s also clear that the U.S. is facing a major foreign policy catastrophe there — again, whether or not Riverbend is genuine.
If you told me that you had walked into a small office in New Jersey, found “Riverbend” hunched over a keyboard, and unmasked the whole operation — well, I’d feel like an idiot, but it wouldn’t change a thing about what’s happening in Iraq. And that’s what we really need to be focused on.
Art D.
while noting it was on a different order of magnitude and cynicism in terms of timing, i.e. in the last 72 hours of the war after a ceasefire had been agreed….
Hmmm… So, if I read you correctly, then Hizballah’s use of cluster munitions was prior Israel’s. Might not, then, Israel’s use of these munitions have been a response to Hizballah’s, rather than your supposed “ethnic cleansing” motive?
On a lighter note.
Given all this speculation over who is who, I am discombombulated just trying to figure out which of you is Laura and which of you is Barney, “because on the Internet nobody knows you are a dog”
George (W)
These shifting justifications are very confusing. So now it’s an Old Testament retribution thing, is it?
To recap. On July 25 Hezbollah commits a war crime by launching rockets into northern Israel containing up to 4,400 cluster bomblets.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1904963.ece
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/10/18/lebano14412.htm
In response (as JES would have it), from August 11 90% of the total cluster bomb munitions used by Israel during the entire war are fired into the south of Lebanon. The rockets are estimated to have contained between 1,400,000 and 2,800,000 cluster bomblets. The ceasefire becomes effective on August 14.
http://www.counterpunch.org/brooks10172006.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html
No doubt this was fully in accordance with Dan “LeMay” Halutz’s (nod to Billmon) interpretation of the code of “purity of arms” so that’s alright then. (“Purity of Arms”!!?? No need to make this stuff up. It’s already been done. Do I detect a small gap between self-image and reality?)
Beneath contempt.
Straying back on topic, why is there a burning need among some to discredit anything, be it Riverbend or the Lancet study, which casts the war in Iraq in a less than positive light? Is the hope that by showing a certain blogger to be a fraud or the findings of a report to be exaggerated they are somehow mitigating the utter debacle the invasion of Iraq has been (and thereby their share of the blame for supporting it in the first place)?
To the debunkers: less effort impugning the bona fides of Riverbend or the Lancet study and rather more examining your conscience might be in order.
why is there a burning need among some to discredit anything, be it Riverbend or the Lancet study, which casts the war in Iraq in a less than positive light?
Perhaps the “burning need” has to do with the timing and outlandish claims of both Lancet studies. Regarding the most recent study, the most serious criticism that I have seen comes from Iraq Bodycount – hardly your pro-Bush, “neocon” source. Actually, one might ask why the “burning need” to accept such questionable and exaggerated figures in the first place, and particularly a couple of weeks prior to the US elections?
Regarding “Riverbend”, again I don’t think that she is the issue here. I would really like to know what it is you think – irrespective of who or where she is – she adds to the discussion of the Lancet study.
Does your cigar have a burning need for a light?
No, Monica, it’s far more complicated than simply wanting to get his cigar off. JES has a burning need for the death and destruction to continue unabated, because from that chaos may come something to satisfy his burning obsession. His burning obsession is the birth of Eretz Israel. He fancies himself one of the fathers. Overlooking the gang-bang aspects of the pregnancy. Ah, JES, JES, if only you could find someone to help you sort out all these dark Id forces.