Eldar on Settlements

I went this morning to a discussion with Akiva Eldar, notorious anti-semite Haaretz columnist and co-author of Lords of the Land, a new book (new in English, at any rate) about the Israeli settlements in the post-1967 era. He had a good line about the incompatibility of the settlement policy with the Zionist dream of a secure, democratic Jewish state, noting that commitment to the policy had made Israel "less Jewish, less democratic, and less secure."

Beyond that he had the striking observation that since Israel signed on to the "road map" and thereby committed to dismantling "unauthorized" settlement outposts (i.e., the ones that are illegal under Israeli law) only nine houses have been removed. Meanwhile, he said that while just two percent of the Occupied Territories are actually under settlement control, a much larger swathe of the West Bank is now off-limits to Arabs, either because it's been set aside for further settlement expansion or else because it's part of the network of no-Arabs-allowed roads that connect the settlements, etc.

On the flipside, he observed that the Balfour Declaration came in 1917, the UN plan for a Jewish state came in 1947, Sadat's visit to Israel came in 1977, so we're due for good news in 2007, possibly out of the peace conference scheduled to be held in November in Annapolis.

Comments

I think you and Ezra have officially merged into the same person. Or same blog, at least.

Posted by SP | October 2, 2007 4:16 PM

49ers going to the Super Bowl?

Posted by Guy in Jersey | October 2, 2007 4:24 PM

The Arabs blew off the UN in 1947, invaded Israel and lost. Starting wars and losing them has consequences.

Posted by danceswithgoats | October 2, 2007 4:54 PM

less Jewish, less democratic, and less secure

Not that you're claiming that Eldar was the first to say this, but it's interesting to note that Thomas Friedman says the same thing in From Beirut to Jerusalem (a.k.a. his only good work ever).

Posted by washerdreyer | October 2, 2007 4:59 PM

Matt should buy anti Israel books every week and post something about it. That way his weekly "what can I say thats bad about Israel" post will have a better excuse.

Posted by Dave | October 2, 2007 4:59 PM

Colonial enterprises have a relatively low rate of success, and the odds that Israel's colonies on the West Bank will last more than another twenty years are relatively low. Either Israel is a democratic state or an apartheid state. Currently it wishes it was the former while existing as the latter, and folks like Eldar continuing to point this out makes them no less complicit in the colonial project of apartheid.

In this Eldar shares responsibility with the American taxpayers, who are pretty much subsidizing the colonies on the West Bank, directly and indirectly. Maybe those folks from Brooklyn could colonize someplace in Montana? I hear there are some really nice vistas, and land is much more plentiful there.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | October 2, 2007 5:37 PM

The Arabs blew off the UN in 1947, invaded Israel and lost. Starting wars and losing them has consequences.

Maybe so (though I might add that this description of what happened in 1947 is wildly decontextualized), but I can't see how symbolic desires to let the Arabs have it outweigh the need to find a solution that allows Arabs and Jews to more peacefully coexist.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 2, 2007 5:41 PM

All this reminds me of the old line that Israel can be Jewish...democratic...large: Pick two. (Note that 'large' here refers to including the occupied territories.)

In many ways this sums up the Israeli (as opposed to pro-Israeli American) dilemma.

Posted by jeb | October 2, 2007 6:27 PM

Here's another slant on leftists like Elder and the self hating Jews who write for Haaretz.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1191257210927&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | October 2, 2007 6:42 PM

Awww, the old self-hating Jews bit shows up. It's like when people tell me I'm not really Indian for not reflexively hating Pakistan and supporting what India has done in Kashmir. It's like when Jesse Jackson says Barack Obama is not really black. It's so full of crap. Who gets to decide who really is or isn't a member of their own community anyway?

Posted by Reality Man | October 2, 2007 7:02 PM

I went this morning to a discussion with Akiva Eldar, notorious anti-semite Haaretz columnist

I missed the part where Eldar alleged that American Jews drove the U.S. into invading Iraq in order to strenghten Israel - oh, wait, he didn't say that, did he. He just thinks that Israel needs to withdraw from most of the West Bank and dismantle the majority of the settlements.

Newsflash, this is not a radical position even among the alleged "lobbyists." Alan Dershowitz writes an entire book endorsing a Palestinian state along the lines of the Clinton plan - and the prog-blogosphere deems him a Likudnik uberhawk. On the other hand, the same people know that Hamas has a "moderate wing" on the basis of vague statements made in English to the foreign press that hint at pragmatism.

Anyone who can't tell the difference between Mearshimer/Walt's arguments and those of Eldar is simply being willfully ignorant.

Posted by mhpine | October 2, 2007 7:12 PM

Well, that seals it: nutty right wing racist freak Israeli politician argues that leftists are to blame for all of Israel's problems in the J-Post, therefore Haaretz is a self-hating Jew paper. The logic is flawless.

Posted by El Cid | October 2, 2007 7:27 PM

You gotta be f**king kidding me...

The three worst things to ever happen in the unHoly Land are the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the UN Partition Plan of 1947 and the Sadat visit to Israel in 1977.

By this trend, this year should witness the complete ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians.

Posted by saifedean | October 2, 2007 8:29 PM

Re saifedean

"By this trend, this year should witness the complete ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians."

A consummation devoutly to be wished.

Posted by SLC | October 2, 2007 8:50 PM

Posted by saifedean
"The three worst things to ever happen in the unHoly Land are ... the Sadat visit to Israel in 1977.

???
HUH?

Actual relations between Israel and its neighbors that lead to peace negotiations constitutes a "worst thing?"

Posted by SKI | October 2, 2007 9:39 PM

A consummation devoutly to be wished.

what's a little Lebensraum between friends, right SLC?

mobile vans, ovens, or uzi's, what would be your favorite "solution" to the Palestinian Problem?

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | October 2, 2007 11:01 PM

I think the basic problem is that the creation of Israel and its expansion happened after its time.

Strip away religion and you get to an even more basic dynamic here: European conquest and settlement of lands controlled by non-Europeans, i.e. colonialism.

Israel came into being in 1948. But one year earlier in 1947, India gained its independence from Britain, marking the beginning of the end of European colonial rule. Fundamentally, Israel has been going against the tide of history for the past 60 years.

Which really wouldn't be a pressing issue for me, if my tax dollars weren't subsidizing it. Since it's a losing venture, it's not exactly a great return on my investment. Which seems to be the pattern for most of our involvement in that region.

Posted by Naveen | October 3, 2007 12:06 AM

The "good news" in 2007 is that Israel is going to get its ass kicked - again - when they invade Syria and Lebanon - again.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 3, 2007 1:03 AM

"The Arabs blew off the UN in 1947, invaded Israel and lost. Starting wars and losing them has consequences."

Israel invaded Lebanon - twice - and lost.

Israel pressed for the US to invade Iraq - and is now pressing for the US to invade Iran.

Starting wars and losing them has consequences.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 3, 2007 1:05 AM

By the way, folks, a war game done by the Pentagon in 2002 between the US and Iran - where Iran was represented by a retired US Marine general - resulted in Iran sinking one US aircraft carrier, several Marine transport ships, and 13 other US naval warships, resulting in thousands of US casualties - in the first 48 hours of the conflict.

Then the Pentagon called time out...

Had it happened in real life, it would have been the worst US naval disaster since Pearl Harbor.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 3, 2007 1:11 AM

Re saifedean

"By this trend, this year should witness the complete ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians."

A consummation devoutly to be wished.

Wow, SLC. I never thought I would see the day where someone in these comment threads seriously and openly advocated such brazen bigotry against the Palestinians.

I think you have just disqualified yourself from serious discourse on these issues.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 3, 2007 1:51 AM

No, you're wrong.

SLC disqualified himself way back when.

Somewhere around birth, I think.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 3, 2007 2:45 AM

I see SLC is banned from Washington Monthly. (at least while he writes his usual racist scheiss)

It takes quite a lot of nastiness to upset Mr. Drum, too.

Posted by MFB | October 3, 2007 2:57 AM

He just thinks that Israel needs to withdraw from most of the West Bank and dismantle the majority of the settlements.

I haven't read the piece, but if he indeed advocates for withdrawal from merely most of the West Bank and dismantling the majority of the settlements - then he's not better than all the rest of Israel's expansionist elite.

If they do want peace, they need to get out of the whole of the West Bank and all the rest of the occupied territories, end the blockade of Gaza, and, most importantly, implement some acceptable form of the right of return.

Does Mr. Elgar understand that, should I read his piece? I doubt it. If he did, the Haaretz wouldn't have published it.

Posted by abb1 | October 3, 2007 3:39 AM

Re abb1

The Government of Israel will agree to resteelement of Palestinian refugees in Israel when Mr. abb1 sees the back of his own ear.

Re MFB

It would be difficult to be banned from the Washington Monthly web site since I have never been there.

Re Richard Steven Hack

Mr. Hack continues to repeat his lies about Israel supporting the invasion of Iraq. Apparently, like his hero, Josef Goebbels, he thinks that if he repeats a big lie often and loudly, people will come to believe it.

Re SKI

Mr. Saifedean thinks that the Sadat visit was a mistake because he agrees with Mr. Amadinejad that the State of Israel should be removed from the map.

Posted by SLC | October 3, 2007 5:53 AM

The Government of Israel will agree to resteelement [sic] of Palestinian refugees in Israel when Mr. abb1 sees the back of his own ear.

Right, I suspect it's true. That was pretty much my point, actually. That's why I'm not impressed by Eldar's ruminations on the subject.

It's becoming increasingly clear (to me, at least) that the difference between the frothing-at-the-mouth zionists (like our friend SLC here) and the moderate kind (like Mr. Eldar or MY) is mostly cosmetic.

Posted by abb1 | October 3, 2007 6:28 AM

All this discussion about who's guilty of what attrocities, and who started this bloodbath is moot. That's like a decade old vendetta, with the killing still going on after everybody having forgotten how it started. It's just a vicious circle of violence, and it has to be broken up at one point. The real question is, "which solution can ensure a peaceful coexistence in the future", not "who is most guilty".

Posted by Gray | October 3, 2007 7:04 AM

Hack, vile Hack, of course is a degenerate anti-Semite. But, can can be answered without being a disgusting lying racist in turn. Can you understand, SLC? I do not think so but I'll try.

Posted by Jennifer | October 3, 2007 8:33 AM

SLC you are truly a disgusting racist liar, more disgusting and more of a racist and more of a liar each day. Trying for the disgusting racist liar record, and closing in. How about stopping?

SLC is the disgusting person who despises people in Israel but pretends to defend Israelis by hating them selectively.

Stop the disgusting racist lying, SLC.

Posted by Jennifer | October 3, 2007 8:35 AM

SLC, stop the disgusting racist lying.

Posted by Jennifer | October 3, 2007 8:39 AM

Wasn't the Balfour Declaration in intent about ethnically cleansing Britain of its Jewish population? Many Jewish groups in Britain were against it for that very reason.

Posted by Reality Man | October 3, 2007 8:47 AM

Re Reality Man

The actual basis of the Balfour Declaration was to buy off potential critics of US intervention in WW 1 on the side of Britain and France in the Jewish community in the US, particularly those of German descent, like the publishers of the New York Times. The British government had concluded that opposition to US intervention by the influential German Jewish community in the US might prevent the desired intervention. In fact, had there been no US intervention, it is highly possible that Germany would have won the First World War. It had nothing whatever to do with Jews in Britain or France.

Posted by SLC | October 3, 2007 9:25 AM

Re abb1

One of the things we will never hear from Israel bashers like Mr. abb1 is the issue of Jews ejected from the Arab countries in 1948. They don't count to people like him.

Posted by SLC | October 3, 2007 9:28 AM

Incidentally, you never hear about the issue of Jews ejected from the Arab countries from the Jews ejected from the Arab countries. Well, except the former Iraqi Jews - they blame Mossad.

Posted by abb1 | October 3, 2007 9:38 AM

Re abb1

"Well, except the former Iraqi Jews - they blame Mossad."

Would Mr. abb1 be so kind as to supply a source for this statement. This sounds very much like it comes from the David Irving school of "the Jews are to blame for their own misfortunes (see attached link)." Of course, one problem with it is that the Mossad didn't exist in 1949.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/10/surprise_surprise_holocaust_denier_david.php#more

Posted by SLC | October 3, 2007 10:27 AM

Here, buddy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naeim_Giladi
Enjoy.

Giladi's position that the bombings were "perpetrated by Zionist agents in order to cause fear amongst the Jews, and so promote their exodus to Israel" is shared by a number of anti-Zionist authors, including the Israeli Black Panthers (1975), David Hirst (1977), Wilbur Crane Eveland (1980), Uri Avnery (1988), Ella Shohat (1986), Abbas Shiblak (1986), Marion Wolfsohn (1980), and Rafael Shapiro (1984).[4] In his article, Giladi notes that this was also the conclusion of Wilbur Crane Eveland, a former senior officer in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who outlined that allegation in his book "Ropes of Sand" [2].

Posted by abb1 | October 3, 2007 10:44 AM

Incidentally, you never hear about the issue of Jews ejected from the Arab countries from the Jews ejected from the Arab countries.

Not true.

Here's some information to get you started:

http://www.americansephardifederation.org/sub/sources/jewish_refugees.asp

http://jimena.org/index.htm http://jimena.org/jaw.htm

http://www.hsje.org/homepage.htm

Posted by SoCalJustice | October 3, 2007 11:18 AM

Well, if you think I am an opponent of Jews ejected from the Arab countries going back to their Arab countries if they choose to - obviously you're mistaken.

What's your point here? What does it have to do with the right of return? Nothing whatsoever, obviously. You're certainly much smarter than either 5-year-old or 95-year-old SLC with his/her logic of 'the Jews do this because the Arabs do that', SoCalJustice.

Posted by abb1 | October 3, 2007 11:34 AM

The latest Ha'aretz editorial, but obviously no one here should read it, because they are merely self-hating Jews (who live in Israel) and according to the standards of this comment blog ethnic cleansing and possibly genocide are perfectly laudable policy options.

Where is the occupation?

By Haaretz Editorial

The occupied territories and the Palestinians living there are slowly becoming virtual realities, distant from the eye and the heart. Palestinian workers have disappeared from our streets. Israelis no longer enter Palestinian towns for shopping. There is a new generation on each side that does not know the other. Even the settlers no longer meet Palestinians because of the different road systems that distinguish between the two populations; one is free and mobile, the other stuck at the roadblocks.

While the politicians argue over dividing the land between two peoples, the public is apathetic. The people feel that the division has already taken place. The disengagement from the Gaza Strip, the evacuation of Gush Katif, the construction of a separation barrier - the problem is solved to our satisfaction. The settlers are conducting a settlement policy of their own, taking over new areas, expanding settlements, anything to prevent a permanent solution. They are also satisfied with the status quo that relies on the Shin Bet security service and the Israel Defense Forces.

The de facto separation is today more similar to political apartheid than an occupation regime because of its constancy. One side - determined by national, not geographic association - includes people who have the right to choose and the freedom to move, and a growing economy. On the other side are people closed behind the walls surrounding their community, who have no right to vote, lack freedom of movement, and have no chance to plan their future. The economic gap is only getting wider and the Palestinians are wistfully watching as Israel imports laborers from China and Romania...

...Can this situation continue indefinitely? The more Israelis see less of the occupation, the easier it becomes to ignore. In September, 33 Palestinians and one soldier were killed in operations against terror and Qassam rockets. Only in the next intifada, or after missiles are fired at Israel from the West Bank, will we once again be reminded of the occupation.

Excerpt. Follow link for full content.

Posted by El_Cid | October 3, 2007 11:43 AM

Well, if you think I am an opponent of Jews ejected from the Arab countries going back to their Arab countries if they choose to - obviously you're mistaken.

I don't really care what you are an opponent of or not, abb1.

What's your point here?

Nothing more than trying to inform you that your remark about Mizrachi/Sephardi Jews failing to tell their stories was not completely accurate.

Posted by SoCalJustice | October 3, 2007 11:46 AM

Yes, I'm sure there are stories. But I was talking to my friend SLC and you're just confusing us.

Posted by abb1 | October 3, 2007 12:24 PM

Re SoCalJustice

Mr. SoCalJustice apparently failed to note that I stated that it is the Israel bashers like abb1 who never mention the Jews ejected from the Arab countries like Iraq. Obviously, I mention it all the time.

Re abb1

Gee, Mr. abb1 isn't opposed to the Jews from the Arab countries returning to their homes therein. Boy, that's really big hearted of him. What makes Mr. abb1 believe that the Arab countries like Iraq would accept them? Iraq, in particular, is in no position to accept anybody, considering that currently more then 2 million Iraqis are living in refugee camps in Jordan and Syria.

Posted by SLC | October 3, 2007 12:37 PM

What makes Mr. abb1 believe that the Arab countries like Iraq would accept them?

OK, I'll tell you this: as soon as the first Jew from an Arab country hijacks a plane or blows himself up on a bus - I'll admit that this is a life-and-death/war-and-peace issue. Otherwise, why should anyone outside their families care about their sad stories?

Moreover, it seems to me that these unfortunate people - if they indeed have been suffering, as you say - should understand the significance of the right of return and insist on its immediate implementation. What do you think, buddy?

Posted by abb1 | October 3, 2007 2:17 PM

Re abb1

Mr. abb1, I have a flash for you. The Palestinian refugees aren't going to be resettled in Israel. Period, end of story. If Mr. abb1 doesn't like it, tough noogies.

Posted by SLC | October 3, 2007 2:43 PM

You already expressed your opinion on that in this very thread; why repeat? Do you feel you always need to have the last word?

Posted by abb1 | October 3, 2007 3:25 PM

"Re Richard Steven Hack

Mr. Hack continues to repeat his lies about Israel supporting the invasion of Iraq. Apparently, like his hero, Josef Goebbels, he thinks that if he repeats a big lie often and loudly, people will come to believe it."

Here you see the essence of Zionism as SLC and his ilk represent it: the projection of his own philosophy and attitude on his opponents.

HE is the one lying about Israel supporting the Iraq war based on ONE comment from Colonel Wilkerson, who , as Scott Ritter points out in his book, was talking with Israelis at the beginning of 2002. By the END of 2002, which SLC ignores, Israel was fully on board with attacking Iraq. Ritter even notes that Israel supplied phoney intelligence on Iraqi "WMDs" to the US in support of the run up to war.

This article by two ex-CIA analysts lays it out:

The Teflon Alliance with Israel
http://www.counterpunch.com/christison09272007.html

Scott Ritter, who served as a weapons inspector in Iraq during the 1990s, paints a somewhat more complex picture in his 2006 book Targeting Iran. He makes it clear, supporting Wilkerson's statement, that over the years of weapons inspections, Israel had come to regard Iraq as a diminishing threat (unlike Greenspan, apparently), whereas Iran was increasingly viewed as a new looming danger. By August 2002, according to Ritter, when the Israelis passed intelligence about the threat from Iran to the Bush administration, "there was barely a reaction in Washington" because "all eyes were on Baghdad, not Tehran." But Israel's Ariel Sharon was, in Ritter's words, "quick to catch on," and in those last several months of 2002 -- the critical months of war planning, coming well after the early 2002 period that Wilkerson was discussing -- Israel jumped on the Iraq war bandwagon, publicly and privately, and began to press for and justify a U.S. invasion. Sharon assigned a senior Israeli military intelligence official to give the U.S. Israeli intelligence assessments on Iraqi WMD activity, according to Ritter, and at the same time, with an eye to later broadening the conflict to Iran and beyond, Israeli intelligence "pressed home to [the U.S.] the notion that the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq must serve as a springboard for a larger transformation within the Middle East, one that swept away not only Saddam Hussein, but also anti-Israeli elements in Syria, Palestine, and, of course, Iran."

This dovetails precisely with the neocon agenda, which was ultimately the operative ingredient in determining whether there would be war or not. This agenda was laid out publicly in the mid-1990s in the now infamous "Clean Break" paper, written in Israel for then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a group of Israelis and Americans, three of whom later entered the Bush administration and began planning for the attack on Iraq. The principal elements of the paper involved overturning the Palestinian-Israeli peace process to save Israel from having to make any territorial concessions and then sparking massive changes, through force if necessary, in Iraq, Syria, and Iran, leading to an era of peace in which Israel and the U.S. jointly dominated a transformed and intimidated Middle East.

In their book on the lobby, Mearsheimer and Walt provide overwhelming evidence for an Israeli link to the war that completely undermines the public myths revived by Wilkerson's and Greenspan's statements, and they build a convincing case against the notion that the war was "all about oil." They are the first who have done the extensive research necessary to bring the mountain of evidence together.

The two authors devote more than 30 pages and a remarkable 175 footnotes to constructing an irrefutable case for an Israeli role in helping plan, and a large lobby role in pressing for, the war. Although they do not claim that the effort to guarantee Israeli security was the sole reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, they demonstrate clearly -- citing public and privates statements by Israeli military and political officials, informed commentary in both Israel and the U.S., and analysis by foreign policy experts -- that "Israeli leaders, neoconservatives, and the Bush administration all saw war with Iraq as the first step in an ambitious campaign to remake the Middle East" in order to "make it a more friendly environment for America and Israel." Israel and the lobby "played crucial roles in making that war happen." Without the lobby and particularly the core of neocon policymakers inside government and neocon commentators and think-tank analysts on the sidelines, Mearsheimer and Walt conclude bluntly, "the war would almost certainly not have occurred" and "America would probably not be in Iraq today."

And I might add, today we have a former Israeli military officer, Dr. Lani Glass, planning the US attack on Iran.

Israel - and Zionist scum like SLC - see no problem in having thousands of US soldiers dying for Israel.

They also have no problem with an Israeli direct attack on US military forces such as the Liberty incident where Israel deliberately attacked a US warship, killing US naval personnel, and strafing their life rafts on orders to "insure no survivors."

New revelations in attack on American spy ship
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-liberty1002,0,3053738.story?coll=bal_tab01_layout

These are the sort of scum SLC represents. To the degree that they are US citizens, the word "traitor" doesn't even begin to describe them.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 3, 2007 3:45 PM

Richard Steven Hack - question:

Are you, by any chance, the "I want you do die for Israel/Israel Sings 'Onward Christian Soldiers'" guy in the Uncle Sam costume who always shows up at Bay Area protests?

Or are there more than one of you?

Posted by SoCalJustice | October 3, 2007 4:05 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

1. Mr. Hack quotes an article from Counterpunch, a left wing antisemitic web site with about as much credibility as its right wing counterparts rense and stormfront.

2. Mr. Hack repeats the lies concerning the Liberty incident which are spread by such web sites as Counterpunch, stormfront, and rense. This incident is something I happen to have some knowledge of as relayed to me by a former colleague at Florida State University who is from Lebanon. The story is too long to be repeated here but essentially was another CIA foul up.

3. I find it amusing that a convicted criminal like Mr. Hack refers to other people as scum. Mr. Hack is nothing but the slime off the bottom of the cesspool. I also find it amusing that Mr. Hack quotes child molesters like Scott Ritter as credible sources.

4. The fact that Walt and Mearsheimer are admired by scumbags like Mr. Hack is the best evidence as to the fact that they are a couple of fucking liars.

Posted by SLC | October 3, 2007 6:15 PM

"Israel invaded Lebanon - twice - and lost.

Starting wars and losing them has consequences."

Actually, Israel invaded Lebanon three times, in response to terrorist attacks emanating from there. But you are right: losing wars has consequences. Which is why Israel doesn't get any of Lebanon's land -- even if Israel whines to the world community for decades, it won't get that land.

Posted by Harry | October 3, 2007 9:05 PM

Posted by abb1:
OK, I'll tell you this: as soon as the first Jew from an Arab country hijacks a plane or blows himself up on a bus - I'll admit that this is a life-and-death/war-and-peace issue. Otherwise, why should anyone outside their families care about their sad stories?

Of all the bass-ackwards approaches....

Because a group doesn't commit terrorism, we shouldn't care about their situation. We should only take into account injustice if its victims are violent in their reaction to it. Gotcha...

Wow, Ghandi and MLK are rolling in their graves....

Posted by SKI | October 4, 2007 1:15 PM