The Demilitarization of Palestine
Apparently David Ignatius came away from his meeting with Bibi Netanyahu convinced that the key stumbling block to Israeli acceptance of a Palestinian state is something that doesn’t get much attention:
Binyamin Netanyahu’s friends liken him to a good poker player. They explain, for example, that before the Israeli prime minister plays the card marked “Palestinian state,” he wants an American commitment that this state will be demilitarized. [...] Here’s where Netanyahu’s poker skills will be tested. The Israeli prime minister wants U.S. and Arab leaders to pledge that any future Palestinian state will be demilitarized — with no army and no control over its airspace — before he agrees to negotiate the details of statehood. Netanyahu probably isn’t bluffing on this one: Unless a formula can be reached that protects Israeli security, he won’t play.
One thing to note on this is that it’s not an irrational Israeli demand—this really would advance Israel’s interests and wouldn’t, per se, be a gross violation of Palestinian human rights.
But another thing to note is that this is not the usual picture you get of Israel eager for peace and ready to make a deal, but constantly thwarted by the lack of Palestinians willing to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. In Ignatius’ telling, what Netanyahu is doing is essentially holding millions of Palestinian civilians’ basic rights hostage hoping to force them into a situation of such utter desperation that they’re willing to accept an infringement on their sovereignty that no other country accepts.
60 Responses to “The Demilitarization of Palestine”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 21st, 2009 at 8:42 am
Actually, President Osama is a poker player who used to have a weekly game when he still lived in Chicago. However, he was known as a conservative player who rarely bluffed. If he bet high, he probably had the cards to back it up.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:45 am
No army is a crappy deal, but that is something that the Palestinians could survive without. I mean it’s not like what weaponry they have right now is really doing them any good. No control over their airspace is bullshit though. That’s just an attempt by Israel to have another chokehold on their economy.
Is Israel’s master plan here to offer the Palestinians statehood, but with none of the benefits that go with it?
May 21st, 2009 at 8:47 am
Is Israel’s master plan here to offer the Palestinians statehood, but with none of the benefits that go with it?
Put quote marks around “statehood” and that sounds about right.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:54 am
What I’m struck by is the lack of equivalence between the two terms. A future Palestinian state, militarized or not, will be of no significant military threat to Israel. What will continue to be a threat to Israel are harassment attacks by rocket or mortar and infiltration of small attack forces from the territory of that state. These are likely to be attempted by third parties with or without the blessing of any Palestinian government, and the Israeli proposal removes any possibility of that government being able to oppose such parties or protect their population from interference or intimidation. Presumably the Palestinian government would instead call upon the military support and friendship of Israel in order to prevent such incidents as they would otherwise be blamed for by their friend and ally Israel. This would require an extensive subordination of the Palestinian security and intelligence apparatus to the Israeli one, and it seems unlikely the such a state could be credibly independent, or even democratic, in any significant way. In pragmatic terms, it would most likely represent a greatly inferior defense against terrorist attack than one provided in good faith by an independent Palestinian government.
I have difficulty seeing how even a nation that was a close friend and ally of Israel would be willing to accept such terms, even in any other part of the world than the Middle East. Given that, this strikes me as being little more than a smug way of being plausibly blameless for the indefinite derailment of peace talks. One should ask Bibi what conditions would need to be met after the ‘demilitarization’ of Palestine while he’s still feeling clever and confident. Locking down the Israeli right win on such matters is the only near-term progress that’s likely to be made.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:56 am
Good insight by Sleepy Commentator.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:18 am
Could such an arrangement work with a ‘demilitarized zone’ similar to the one separating the Koreas? Presumably occupied and secured by some foreign neutral countries?
May 21st, 2009 at 9:23 am
No army is one thing. But no control over one’s own airspace? That’s pretty hard for anyone to swallow. Any independent country has to be afforded at least a minimal capacity to defend itself. Controlling who can fly and in and out of one’s territory is an essential component of self-defense these days.
But as for the predictable new “Bibi the poker player” theme from the equally predictable apologists like Ignatius, we have been hearing for several decades now about how each Israeli move to incorporate yet more of Palestine into the Israeli sphere of control is just some sort of “gambit”, and an accumulation or bargaining capital for the great deal to come. But you know what? I don’t buy it. There is no deal to come. I think Israel just wants to keep absorbing more of Palestine, and the only clever game-playing here is the endless series of feints, misdirection plays, PR offensives and winks to the credulous in the US suggesting these moves all just part of some ingenious land-for-peace master plan.
If there is one thematically consistent type of story that Israel can always count on American media to run with, it’s that Jews are just way fucking smarter and craftier than Arabs, and that what looks like blatant territorial aggression and expansion isn’t aggression and expansion after all, but just some kind of ingenious chess mid-game.
The sooner Barack Obama learns to ignore the denialists, and wraps his head around the blindingly clear notion that Israel is going to keep on expanding its territory until it is firmly compelled to stop, the better it will go for him.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:25 am
How is this in Israels interests. If they could get a Palestinian state that was at peace with them and then also get peace with all their neighbors that would be pretty awesome for Israel. For them to say no, we will only accept this if Palestine gives up control of its airspace is totally insane.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:31 am
Gee, you don’t suppose the continual rocket fire from PA territory into Israel has anything to do with that desire to infringe on their sovereignty, do you? It must be a real puzzle for Matt, pondering that one…
May 21st, 2009 at 9:44 am
I second Dan’s remarks. The NYT story today said that Bibi said no to a settlement freeze because that issue is “politically difficult right now”. As if there is going to be a time in Israel when stopping right-wing religious nutjobs from stealing land that they believe God gave them the deed to is going to be politically easy…
This has been a pretty consistent tactic of Israel’s for decades – stalling, stalling, coming up with more excuses just to wait a bit longer, moving more people in, and never seriously coming to the table. Then, if ever forced by a US administration with a spine and not cowed by a dipshit Congress, they would say “Oh but Mr. President, surely we can’t expel all of these settlers, they are just too many and that is too great a price to pay.”
It’s all bullshit and it only ever will end if the US calls their bluff.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:48 am
Yglesias the master negotiator strikes again.
First, Netanyahu represents the Israelis. It’s his obligation to negotiate for their benefit, not the Palestinians’.
Second, the deal won’t be done until all the details are settled. That includes borders; refugees; security; Jerusalem. And until the deal is done, Israel can ameliorate the harsh reality of occupation. But what it can’t do is simply give the Palestinians what they want — a state — up front, and then hope to get what they want — security — in subsequent negotiations. So, golly gee, guess what, “Netanyahu is … holding millions of Palestinian civilians’ basic rights hostage” until the deal is done. This is neither surprising nor shocking. It’s what the negotiation IS ACTUALLY ABOUT.
The question regarding Yglesias’s post is this: Either he somehow managed to get through Harvard with this level of acuity, which I suppose is possible, or he’s being disingenuous.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:48 am
Adrock -
No. Because unlike the DMZ in Korea, people actually live along the border (which would include Jersulem). The DMZ Korea is effectively in the middle of no where with the exception of one village of 200 or so people. As such it’s fairly easy for both sides to patrol and watch for crossers. An Isreali/Palestinian DMZ would be a nightmare since people would be living within it and cross it all the time.
The Korean DMZ is relatively straight as well. The Isreali\Palenstinian boarder darts all over the place and would include in Isreal non-contigous portions. Also following past Isreali DMZ (see Lebenon), Isreal would require the entire DMZ be carved out of Palenstian space.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:52 am
On brief reflection, I’m going with disingenuous. I used to think Yglesias was what used to be called a “useful idiot.” This post has convinced me that his intentions are actually malign.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:06 am
what Netanyahu is doing is essentially holding millions of Palestinian civilians’ basic rights hostage hoping to force them into a situation of such utter desperation that they’re willing to accept an infringement on their sovereignty that no other country accepts
Japan? Not trying to be provocative here, but wasn’t one of the consequences of unconditional surrender no army?
May 21st, 2009 at 10:15 am
Looks like Bibi is going to throw President Osama a bone or two.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052100719.html?sub=AR
May 21st, 2009 at 10:16 am
As occupying power, Netanyahu is required by international law to represent the interests of the people his country is occupying, as well.
The occupation of the West Bank is in violation of international law. Using the occupation itself as a bargaining chip to demand further concessions is also a violation of law.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:16 am
True, and in that context, the ‘no army’ demand makes perfect sense. The ‘no control over the airspace’ on the other hand just seems spiteful. All it does is harm the Palestinians, while not gaining much of anything for Israel. It’s a negotiating point that doesn’t make sense if you’re talking about setting up two equal states. It does make sense if you’re talking about making sure one side realizes that they lost and they should be happy with whatever crumbs they get.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:24 am
larry, I’m not sure how to put this to you, but you utterly failed to prove your intellectual or moral superiority over MattY in those comments.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:27 am
The occupation of the West Bank is in violation of international law. Using the occupation itself as a bargaining chip to demand further concessions is also a violation of law.
Right, the attitude of some Israelis seems to be that the West Bank and its people are some sort of hostage that it will release when it gets what it wants. The US government should be wary about doing anything that rewards hostage-taking.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:28 am
Re larry Birnbaum
On brief reflection, I’m going with disingenuous. I used to think Yglesias was what used to be called a “useful idiot.” This post has convinced me that his intentions are actually malign.
Actually, I think that Mr. Yglesias has concluded that, in order to be taken seriously by the liberal/left wing community he has to bash Israel because the intelligentsia of that community (e.g. Juan Cole, Noam Chomsky, counterpoint, etc.) consists of Israel bashers. It’s purely a case of knowing what side of the bread has the butter.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:31 am
Larry Birnbaum writes about malign intentions and useful idiots. Rather ironic under the circumstances.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:33 am
Heavy limits on armed forces are fairly common – the US (and the other WWII Allies) limited Germany and Japan’s permitted armed forces after WWII, the UK limited Ireland’s armed forces in Ireland’s independence negotiations, the WWI Allies limited Germany’s post-WWI military and so on.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:33 am
Actually, one of the biggest stumbling blocks was left out.
Water Resources. Netanyu’s position is that any hypothetical Palestine state should have no control over its water resources. These would remain under Israeli control.
It’s hard to minimize the impact of that. One might as well reserve a right to slaughter all teenage members of families.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:39 am
True, Burritoboy, that heavy limits on armed forces are not uncommon.
On the other hand, they haven’t worked out all that well. Limits on German armed forces were circumvented after WWI. Limits on Irish Armed forces did not ultimately save Ulster from the IRA terrorist campaigns.
In practical terms, I think that Sleepy Commentator has the right of it.
Netanhyu proposes a Palestinian entity so weak that it will not be able to adequately police its own population. The risk is cross border insurgency and incipient terrorism. The response would obviously be regular Israeli incursions into Palestinian territory and a self perpetuating spiral of internal repression, failing government and degradation. The real result would not be all that much different from what exists now, and certainly its unlikely to be a measurable improvement.
I’d have to say that Bibi’s proposal should be tossed for the nazi nonsense that it is.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:44 am
Den,
It is remarkable how little water enters into the discussion of possible I/P outcomes. I think it really is the elephant in the room when discussing the Settler movement. I notice that the greenhouses left in Gaza are often mentioned as an example of Palestinian’s failure to make good for themselves. The fact that greenhouses require water to function, and that said water was cut off, is rarely mentioned.
re: your analogy, I hate to say it, but I think in regards to male teenage members of families, Israel will very much insist it must reserve the right to target them for assassination, (be it via drone or angry settler) when it perceives the need.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:45 am
@14: No. Japan has an army, they just aren’t *called* an army, or allowed to operate outside Japan’s borders. Their formal name (in English) is the Self-Defense Force.
I think it might be an interesting counter-offer if the Palestinians suggested having no army of their own (although they might turn out to have some curiously well-equipped police, but then, you need that when you have a history of terrorism, right?), but the right to arrange by treaty for an ally’s army to defend their territory. The ally wouldn’t be willing to be drawn into attacks on Israel that could embroil the ally in open (as opposed to proxy) war with Israel, but at the same time, they would probably be someone not disposed to allow Israel to violate Palestinian territory with impunity.
Since guaranteeing their continuing ability to violate Palestinian territory with impunity is exactly why Israel is making this demand, they will of course reject the counteroffer, and reveal their bad faith in the process.
Better yet, ask the UN to guarantee and defend Palestinian territorial sovereignty, instead of any one allied country (which could probably be credibly accused of anti-Israeli plotting anyway). Israel can’t screw around with *them* without stirring up more trouble than even they are willing to start, and nobody would believe that UN forces would connive in, or even turn a blind eye to, terrorism.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:54 am
It’s this simple, folks – Israel wants all the benefits of occupying Palestine without any of the obligations. They want Palestine completely hamstrung. In reality Palestine will never accept such a result, or any attempt to do so by Palestinian authorities will be undermined from within. So it’s all moot. Although the suggestion that this is all a starting negotiating point (i.e., he’s asking for more than he knows he’ll get, standard negotiating ploy) is interesting, and perhaps he doesn’t really mean it. Still, it’ll never happen.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:18 am
Den Valdron@23:
Israel already does reserve — and regularly exercise — that right… but it’s a point well taken nonetheless.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:23 am
It’s purely a case of knowing what side of the bread has the butter.
Shows how much you know SLC. We liberal/leftists don’t butter our bread anymore. We dip it in olive oils infused with spices and aromatics.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:26 am
…what Netanyahu is doing is essentially holding millions of Palestinian civilians’ basic rights hostage hoping to force them into a situation of such utter desperation that they’re willing to accept an infringement on their sovereignty that no other country accepts.
Which Palestinian’s will, of course, reject. This isn’t news, it’s Israel’s ongoing policy.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:37 am
Water resources are an excellent point. But Den writes that: “Netanyahu’s position is that any hypothetical Palestine state should have no control over its water resources. These would remain under Israeli control.”
What water resources? The West Bank has none to speak of. The Jordan River (which remains under Israeli control, and presumably will remain that way even with a two state solution) is virtually dry. It’s true that it’s dry because of water diversion from Israel, Syria and Jordan. But the Jordanians and Syrians are unlikely to give up any of their already meager water supply, and the Israelis will correctly point out that they are not doing anything different than their Arab neighbours and that the Sea of Galilee (for example) is in Israel, so they have a perfect right to divert that water if they please.
The problem of water is substantial and critical, but it’s not as straightforward as saying that Israel is controlling the West Bank’s natural resources.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:47 am
Hector–
I read here much more frequently than I post, but yes, many of the posters seemed to have been unhinged by the existence of the Israeli State. You are engaging in guilt by association by imparting their fanatical views to Mr. Yglesias’s eminently reasonable positions on the seemingly intractable conflict. Surely you wouldn’t say Yglesias has much in common with the repugnant Sailer or the illegal immigration troll-dude, or Al, politically simply because they hang out here.
And yes, SLC on the pro-Israel side frequently referring to the American President as “Osama” is just as juvenile and hateful as the ranting of the anti-Israel contingent. Anonymity makes for rhetorical perversity, sadly.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Tapir Boy,
You’re responding to my comment in the other thread, but that’s OK. No, I don’t think Mr. Yglesias’ position on the state of Israel is eminently reasonable. His ideal solution would be for the Israelis and Palestinians to sit down together around a campfire, hold hands, sing “Kum-Ba-Yah”, and agree to live together in a cosmopolitan, secular, binational state with no official religion. In other words, he thinks that if Jews and Palestinians turned themselevs into deracinated Yglesian cosmopolite hipsters like himself, then they could all be one big happy family. He thinks that since he himself has nothing he would be willing to die or kill for, then neither would the Israelies or Palestinians.
Needless to say, I think that Kum-Ba-Ya, Rodney King approach is nonsense and particularly pernicious nonsense. The Jews and Arabs don’t want pot, porn and playstations. The only solution is a Jewish State for Jews, and an Arab State for Arabs.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Re Tapirboy1
And yes, SLC on the pro-Israel side frequently referring to the American President as “Osama” is just as juvenile and hateful as the ranting of the anti-Israel contingent. Anonymity makes for rhetorical perversity, sadly.
I only do that to annoy people. Obviously, Mr. Tapirboy1 is annoyed.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Re water isues
A year or so ago, a large natural gas field was found off the Gaza coast. It was proposed that Israel and the PA share the gas, with part of it going to fuel Gazan electric power plants and part of it going to fuel electric power plants in Israel which would use the power produced to desalinate Mediterranean water which the two entities would then share. The Gazan Hamas administration turned the deal down flat because Israel would receive a benefit, not caring that the Gazans would also receive a much needed benefit.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:08 pm
[...] via Yglesias, I see that David Ignatius, for one, has finally realized that Israeli “peace offers” [...]
May 21st, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“On the other hand, they haven’t worked out all that well. Limits on German armed forces were circumvented after WWI. Limits on Irish Armed forces did not ultimately save Ulster from the IRA terrorist campaigns.”
Sometimes they’ve worked, and other times they haven’t. It’s perfectly possible (perhaps even likely) that they won’t work in this instance. The point is that the US, UK and France (as well as others of course) have repeatedly advocated for demilitarization as a negotiating point in various peace processes over the past 90 years or more. Israel isn’t being particularly unusual in this negotiating stance.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Re: water and natural gas.
I’m not all that familiar with the details of the natural gas field in the Mediterranean near Gaza, except that it was explored in 2000, and a deal was struck between a British natural gas company and the PA.
The obstacle, as I understood it, was that the gas company could not reach a price agreement with the Israeli Government (the Palestinian Authority having granted rights to the company had nothing to do with the negotiation — correct me if I’m wrong.)
Eventually Hamas became an issue not because they refused to sell the gas, but because of the difficulty the Israelis had with paying a British company which would then pass along royalties to a government Israel sees as illegitimate, and a terrorist organization.
If I’ve misunderstood please correct me (preferably without calling me names).
My only point here, as with the water, is that the issues in Israel and the Palestinian territories are rarely as straightforward as they might at first seem.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
“@14: No. Japan has an army, they just aren’t *called* an army, or allowed to operate outside Japan’s borders. Their formal name (in English) is the Self-Defense Force.”
I’m well-aware of the Self-Defense Force. Demilitarization doesn’t necessarily mean “no army whatsoever” – it can mean all kinds of things. Of course, the Japan Self-Defense Force is:
a. limited in size
b. was not allowed to operate outside Japan’s borders for many decades
c. co-operated extensively with the US military
d. Japan has hosted extensive (indeed, initially massive) US military bases throughout its territories for over 5 decades now.
All of these are significant controls placed by the US over Japan’s military.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Hector and SLC–
Sorry for mixing up the posts. If you have MattY’s view on the Arab-Israeli conflict correct, then I disagree, although I think his comments on the region are typically well-stated. Personally, i support a Palestinian state not out of any empathy for the cause of Fatah or Hamas, but because I believe a two-state solution is the only way to ensure a prosperous future for a democratic, Jewish State of Israel. (I’d prefer a “State for the Jews” rather than a “Jewish State” per se, but that’s another point for another post).
SLC, if your point is to annoy, then yes, you have succeeded, so Mazel Tov. But note that your concession proves my point about the “juvenile” nature of your posts. It is always easier to generate heat than light.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Re TapirBoy1
Hey, I’m just a silly guy.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Re Mark
My comment was based on an article in the Jerusalem Post several months ago. This may not be the same field as the one to which you are referring.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Zionism is a disgrace and there is no point in negotiating with Zionists.
…that any future Palestinian state will be demilitarized
What he meant, of course, was “depopulated”. Goyim living in a close proximity always constitute a deadly threat to the Jewish State.
Also, any goyim anywhere with a functioning nuclear power station.
Also, any goyim.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Re abb1
Mr. abb1 is a disgrace to the Fakestinian cause and his diatribes aid the Zionist cause.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:04 pm
SLC, abb1
You guys think about maybe getting a room?
And abb1, SLC is right about you, he may be a shit disturber but you’re nothing but an embarrassment to your self-professed cause.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Did I profess some cause? I don’t think so; you must be confusing me with someone else.
And what exactly did you find in my comment that you think makes me an embarrassment to whatever cause you think I professed? Could you elaborate, please.
Thanks, buddy.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
You type a lot to say very little.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I’m pretty sure I don’t type more than the average commenter here. And what I say is not little, it’s essential.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:57 pm
No Army? That seems unrealistic, for three reasons.
Sleepy mentioned one of them above – that most of the damage now is being done by para-military type organizations that a Palestinian government would have little capability to control without something stronger than policemen.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:59 pm
No Army? That seems unrealistic, for three reasons.
Sleepy mentioned one of them above – that most of the damage now is being done by para-military type organizations that a Palestinian government would have little capability to control without something stronger than policemen.
Second, this is a dangerous part of the world, where governments funding militia groups is a common tool of statecraft. Not having a military would greatly decrease Palestinian security, with consequences for trade, political policies, and so forth.
Third, it’s a gap – and one that will probably be filled by unaccountable militia groups. I’d rather have an official Palestinian Army with forces that is accountable to the government, than a bunch of militia groups that aren’t.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:01 pm
The Jews and Arabs don’t want pot, porn and playstations.
No – they want to kill each other. Until they stop wanting to kill each other, they won’t stop killing each other. That’s kind of the point. The difficult part is convincing both sides to prefer peace to continued violence. Once that happens, the actual details of peace can be worked out. But right now, most Palestinian organizations and the Israeli government would rather keep killing people on the other side than make peace, which makes any peace settlement impossible, regardless of the precise terms or how many states it involves.
On the other hand, if Jews and Muslims *didn’t* want to kill each other anymore, and were willing to treat each other as equals, there’s no reason they couldn’t also live in a tolerant state with equal-protection laws similar to (or perhaps rather stronger than, just to be on the safe side) the US’s. The fact that this is very difficult to achieve doesn’t change the fact that it’s also the only way peace would actually work and not just be a label slapped on a reality of continuing terrorism and bombing runs.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:44 pm
if Jews and Muslims *didn’t* want to kill each other anymore…
Bullshit, man. Jews and Muslims lived in Palestine together for over a thousand years without any problems whatsoever. Then in the early 20th century racist Zionists began arriving there and they fucked things up beyond recognition. That’s the whole story, from A to Z.
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:33 am
“…they’re willing to accept an infringement on their sovereignty that no other country accepts.”
How about the Sioux, the Lakota, and the Navajo? Or the Tamils? Good thing the world doesn’t hold everyone to the same standards that it does the Jews.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:40 am
Bullshit. Sioux, the Lakota, the Navajo, and the Tamils are not states, they are tribes and an ethnic group.
Being an ethnic group doesn’t imply sovereignty, unless, of course, you’re a Zionist swine.
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:07 am
I dont’t think Netanyahu wants Palestinian statehood, regardless of the cirumstances. If Palestinians agreed to those terms, then new terms would be added.
I think the Israeli government’s overtures are based on nothing more than obfuscation and “waiting out” the current political climate. They are getting slight scrutiny and criticism from the U.S. government and it’s pissing them off. Dosen’t America know it’s supposed to roll over when Israel commands us to?
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:17 am
No Army? That seems unrealistic.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Couldn’t agree more.
That’s really a good move.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:48 am
lol You really think so?
May 27th, 2009 at 7:48 am
No way! Come on!
May 27th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Ho Ho ho! Not my problem!