Dieharddoves-&-Settlement >
02 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Please check
PeaceNow to Beinisch: Don’t Send Political Message to Settlers!
Please check
Peace Now Website
Wikipedia: Yesh Din / Yesh Din: Volunteers for Human Rights
Recent Articles (Updated on MARCH 3, 2009)
3. Peace Now report on West Bank construction, March 2009
2. Peace Now: Israel planning 73,300 new homes in West Bank Mar 2, 2009 / By Haaretz
1. Netanyahu: Likud-led coalition wouldn’t build new settlements Jan 26, 2009 / By Haaretz
Talkbacks for this article 76
3. Accommodating Natural Growth = I L L E G A L 04:38 / Samual / 26/01/09 12. The salesman takes the day… 07:17 / Esther 13. insult to the intelligence 07:33 / MarkC
14. Need to start sometime… now is good. 07:45 / Ethan
15. Settlement, or stealing land again. 07:48 / The Prophet
31. How cute, of course the world leaders will believe Mr.Netanyahu.. 09:55 / Swiss (Dino)
33. Didn`t we hear this before? 10:24 / Gray
34. Our Chameleon-like Politicians Change Color 10:43 / Tzfonit
36. a path that leads to nowhere! 10:54 / eric
47. Beware of Bibi`s charms – he has not changed, still a snake 14:29 / hopeful
50. Same Old Bullshit 15:38 / Yaakov Sullivan
58. No need to swear not to build new settlements… 22:49 / Silvienne
73. Such marvelous use of weasel-words 06:14 / Johnbov
76. Instead of the same old drivel – vote for Meimad 23:01 / Akiva
FAQ: Please compare this with Phoenix-Bibi’s Settlement Plan. Whose Defense Minister was Labor’s Barak during Seventeenth-Knesset? 12th PM Olmert or Opposition Leader Phoenix-Bibi’s? How many ILLEGAL settlements has Phoenix-Bibi’s DM Barak removed? Whom has Phoenix-Bibi’s DM Barak blamed when I started to organize articles on this issue?
ANSWER: Phoenix-Bibi’s DM Barak! ZERO!! DORIT BEINISCH!!!
Please check
MARCH 15 – 20, 2009 in Section: Nationalist-Govn’t-Please
4. Still, I feel no need to count the numbers during the Election Show by Phoenix-Bibi’s DM Barak. It made the situation worse, more messy.
3. Peace Now: Search – Illegal: 79 items have been found for “illegal”
2. 2008 – the Year in Settlements in Review – February 2009
1. Did Barak evacuate any outposts? – December 2008
01 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
‘PA strongman Dahlan once called Lieberman key to peace’ Feb 17, 2009 / By Haaretz, Lily Galili
(…) Yossi Beilin contends that Deri (Shas) has distanced himself from the peace camp in recent years. In the wake of the election, Beilin supports a government headed by Netanyahu “with Lieberman and the Kahanists.” He says that only a right wing deprived of a left-wing fig leaf will be compelled to adopt the diplomatic initiatives of U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration.
Analysis: Does the Left really want Kadima in the opposition? Feb 17, 2009 / By Jerusalem Post
Labor and Meretz members keep on publicly attacking Kadima leader Tzipi Livni for even thinking about sitting in a coalition with the Likud and Israel Beiteinu, but some observers say it may just be for show.
(…) Labor MKs Ophir Paz-Pines and Eitan Cabel harshly criticized Livni and Kadima for pursuing negotiations with Israel Beiteinu’s Avigdor Lieberman. However, no Labor MKs agreed to say on the record that Labor preferred Kadima in the opposition.
Hatnua Hahadasha-Meretz chairman MK Haim Oron, on the other hand, said his party had no problems sharing the opposition benches with Kadima and Livni.
“Kadima is no left-wing party and it doesn’t feel the need to define itself like that. I am always glad to have new partners in the opposition,” Oron said.
“I have an annoying habit of asking first what is better for the country,” he added. “I think that the right-wing bloc, which has been screaming in the past week that it won, should not look for a fig leaf to cover itself with, and simply implement the policies it claims it has and prove once and for all what it can do.
“Who knows, if they succeed, maybe we will vote for them next time,” Oron quipped.
MK Dov Henin, chairman of the left-wing Hadash Party, which actually gained a mandate last week, said that if Kadima wanted to maintain its integrity it would sit in the opposition and not join an extreme right-wing government.
“I expect Livni to be loyal to the path she has proclaimed she would follow. Otherwise the politicians will lose what little respect the public has left for them,” Henin said.
Gideon Levy: Netanyahu, put your money where your mouth is Feb 19, 2009 / By Haaretz
Why isn’t Benjamin Netanyahu setting up a right-wing government? Why isn’t he carrying out the voters’ will to position the right wing in power? Why isn’t he taking the opportunity that fell into his hands to form a government in tune with his doctrine?
Why is he talking about a broad coalition, knowing it would force him to compromise his principles? Because he is afraid. Now, at the moment of truth, when he has the ability to implement his ideology, he has gotten cold feet and wants to dilute his government with components that are alien to his doctrine.
Together with Yisrael Beiteinu, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Habayit Hayehudi and National Union – a majority of 65 Knesset members who are all distinctly far right – Netanyahu could carry out his political ideas. After all, the right wing always has answers for everything, a solution to every problem. So go for it, Netanyahu, go for it.
First, go for the economic peace. Let’s see you obtain funding – from the Arab world and perhaps from Israel, too, especially in these economic times – to carry out the projects you promised. Persuade the Palestinians and Americans that this is enough. Let’s see what happens after the first suicide attack in the industrial zone built on the outskirts of Nablus or behind Hebron.
Been there, done that. We’ve had industrial zones – so-called “peace parks” – in Erez, Tul Karm and Atarot. They stand abandoned, in ruins.
Why? Because they weren’t enough for the Palestinians. Because the Palestinians understood the deception behind the approach that we give them work and they remain quiet. After all, Palestinians, like other nations, need not only bread but also freedom and self-definition. A weird sort of notion that Netanyahu’s fathers also dreamed of.
So go for the economic peace, Netanyahu, the right-wing government will applaud you. A broad coalition may, however, demand more.
Bomb Iran, Netanyahu, because sanctions aren’t enough for you, you don’t believe in diplomatic negotiations with Iran and you pledged that you, Mr. Iran, would prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear arms at any cost. Let’s see you get Barack Obama’s permission for the most dangerous escapade of all. Bombard and let’s see what happens.
A broad government could stop your quirks, so why go there? This is the most crucial issue on your agenda. Topple Hamas’ rule in Gaza, as you promised. Release Gilad Shalit without freeing murderers, as you wrote in your book about terror. Go forth on your way.
In your speech at the last session of the 17th Knesset you outlined this way: Any territory released from the IDF’s control would be occupied by Hamas, so don’t evacuate a single dunam, you said. Explain that to Obama and Mahmoud Abbas. Tell them you won’t ever negotiate over Jerusalem. That the Jordan Valley and Judean Desert will remain in our hands for eternity. Ya’akov Katz (National Union) will cheer you on, Moshe Ya’alon will salute you. A broad coalition, however, could demand something else.
Offer the Syrians peace for peace. After all, you wouldn’t uproot the tender sapling you planted in the Golan just last week, on Tu Bishvat. You wouldn’t renege on your statement, “Gamla will not fall again.”
Build more and more settlements – there is plenty of “state-owned land” and private land to usurp. Then annex the territories. There is no reason not to apply Israeli law to territories that will remain forever in our hands. Annex and annex, from Jenin to Hebron, distribute Israeli identity cards to the residents and, hey, on to the next Knesset elections with two million new voters.
Perhaps America will finally tell you, annex or evacuate, and you will have to decide. Try selling Obama this political merchandise, and we’ll see how he reacts. And let’s see how you react if he says no. Why not ask his administration for more and more weapons, more economic aid, more diplomatic support and still stand on your principles. Let’s watch you in action, Netanyahu.
But the truth is, Netanyahu knows that this would be a horrific sight. He wants Kadima and Labor in his government to hold him back, to prevent him from carrying out his doctrine. This is exactly why they must not join his coalition. Render unto Netanyahu the things that are Netanyahu’s. Let’s see how it ends up working out for him. And for us.
1 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
05 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Akiva Eldar: Enough with the cosmetics Mar 23, 2009 / By Haaretz
Don’t let them tell you that Benjamin Netanyahu needs Labor in order to handle the Iranian threat. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will probably continue building the bomb, regardless of whether Ehud Barak continues comfortably filling the defense minister’s chair or, like Tzipi Livni, supports action against Iran from the opposition bench.
Netanyahu knows that if he decides to sign a peace agreement with Syria, or to resume negotiations with the Palestinians, Labor and Kadima MKs will be competing for the coalition positions vacated by the far right. The prime minister-designate will not be losing sleep over the Labor Party’s vote tomorrow, fearing he might lose partners in his political philosophy. Netanyahu is not seeking excellent backup players to help him fight his biggest enemies. He needs cheerleaders to fend off pressures from his closest friends.
The last elections gave Netanyahu the mandate to destroy the remaining vestiges of the Oslo Accords, to ramp up settlement construction, and to destroy homes in East Jerusalem. But he was not given a mandate to sabotage the special relationship with the United States, or even to harm relations with the European Union. The voter wants to behave like a conqueror and to be treated like a victim.
Netanyahu has learned from his predecessors that this is possible so long as he cooperates with the “elites” he so despises. Because when the bearers of “Rabin’s legacy” are on missions in the world’s capitals, praising his government, how could he be called a peace rejectionist?
As is known, it takes two to negotiate. The peace circus roving the world’s capitals would not have any success without the cooperation of the acrobats in Ramallah, headed by Mahmoud Abbas. So long as the Palestinian Authority exists, Israel has a partner in the peace dance. One step forward, two backward, until Hamas or demography wins in the end. Meanwhile, the citizens of Europe pay the teachers’ salaries in the West Bank, instead of the military government, and the Japanese pay to rebuild public buildings Israel bombed in the Gaza Strip.
If the U. S. is serious about its declarations of friendship with Israel and its commitment to ending the conflict, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton needs to pass up on some of the makeup. Her declaration that Israel is the one who must decide whether it supports a two-state solution is obviously deceptive. This principle has not been an Israeli matter, or even a regional one, for some time now.
Seven years ago the Bush administration passed Security Council Resolution 1397, which called for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The resolution even welcomed the Saudi Peace Initiative, which is based on Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 lines. Is this what the Obama administration wants? To assure Israel that it can conduct right-wing policy while enjoying the blessing of a liberal American administration?
The New York Times correspondent in Jerusalem, Ethan Bronner, reported last week that after the right-wing election victory, the Foreign Ministry was given another $2 million in order to “improve Israel’s image around the world.” The deputy director general for cultural affairs, Aryeh Mekel, said that the ministry intends to dispatch well-known authors, artists, theater and expositions to “show Israel’s prettier face.” The ministry has a special department for “rebranding” Israel. This is straightforward cosmetics.
Negotiations for territory and for freezing settlement construction may cause wrinkles.
It is much better for the skin to send hardworking artists to perform from New York to Los Angeles. But as far as we know, no makeup can heal wrinkles and cracks.
Therefore, instead of volunteering for the cosmetics corp, politicians, artists and educators who do not consider themselves part of the right’s policies should stay home and focus on exposing our real face. They must explain to the youth that there is no “enlightened occupation.”
Let them tell the immigrants from Russia that the Palestinians lived in Ashkelon and Talbiyeh many years before them, and remind everyone that more than 20 years ago, the Palestine Liberation Organization gave up on 78 percent of Israel/Western Palestine.
04 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Zvi Bar’el: If we give in to Netanyahu from the start, Israel will become a footnote Mar 15, 2009 / By Haaretz
The following is a list of political events that took place this past week in the Middle East, and Israel was not invited. Turkish President Abdullah Gul, who was supposed to visit Israel in January, visited Iran with full media coverage. In Riyadh, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia hosted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the Kuwaiti ruler and Syrian President Bashar Assad for a little four-way summit. The gathering marked the great Arab reconciliation with Syria and the ending of the distinction between “moderate” and “extremist” Arab states.
Also this week a series of visits to Iraq by senior Iranian figures was rounded off with the signing of a number of bilateral cooperation agreements. And in Lebanon and Iran preparations for elections in June are at their peak. In Cairo, reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is being cobbled together. So far the agreements are to form a national unity government, bring Hamas into the Palestine Liberation Organization, establish joint security organizations, and hold presidential and parliamentary elections. Finally, the Arab League is meeting in two weeks and is expected to declare the existence of a new and quieter Middle East.
This is a Middle East that was quick to understand reality and appreciate the need to prepare a landing strip for Barack Obama, who seeks to make friends with the Muslim world and is interested in an American policy that favors dialogue, not war. The window of opportunity “to rescue the sinking Arab ship,” to quote Ghassan Charbel, an editor at the daily Al-Hayat, is not an original expression. The results of the Israeli elections have made it clear to the Arab leadership that they can present a moderate Arab Middle East vis-a-vis the extremist right in Israel; a sober and practical Middle East. Vis-a-vis the opponents in Jerusalem of a two-state solution, they are formulating a worthy Arab alternative that Washington will find appealing.
The Arab leadership’s work appears to be easier than ever. Like Israel, they think Iran is a problem that needs to be contained, but like Washington they prefer diplomacy over attack. They, unlike Israel, are sticking with the Arab initiative that the United States and the Europeans have adopted. They, like Israel, consider Hamas a problem, but unlike Israel, they are willing to accept a negotiated Palestinian solution. Finally, they no longer consider every friend of Israel an enemy of the Arabs, and have thus accepted Turkey as an inalienable part of the Arab strategy.
In face of the Arab “threat” to keep Israel out of the process of shaping a new Middle East, Israel has an answer. Except that it is accompanied by the assumption that we cannot expect anything other than an uncompromising stance from Benjamin Netanyahu and his government. This assumption has entrenched a sense of public despair, relinquishing the right to make rational political demands. It is not rational, we are told, to demand that Bibi gives up the Golan Heights, removes illegal outposts or ceases construction in the settlements. And what about a center-left government? Did that government meet expectations? Was it realistic to demand a political breakthrough from that government?
We should demand from Netanyahu precisely what was asked of the Olmert government, or what would have been asked of the government had it been headed by Tzipi Livni. He can and should renew negotiations with Syria because Washington has already begun talking with Syria. He can and should cooperate with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, because the European Union will talk with them and perhaps also Washington. He should declare that he is adopting the Arab initiative because it is accepted by the entire world, and he must formulate a vision for peace with the Palestinians and begin implementing it. Let him do it in comfortable ways: the economy, investments, lifting roadblocks and granting territorial contiguity.
We should not be afraid of the phrase “economic peace” because it seems to conceal a refusal for political peace. We can assume that Israel would not turn its back on an economic peace with Syria, or with Libya if it were offered. The other option is that Israel will become a footnote because it refused to do what was possible and gave in to its prime minister from the start.
03 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Henry Siegman: Is a right-wing government the answer? Mar 14, 2009 / By Haaretz
Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project in New York, is a visiting research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
A right-wing Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu is widely seen as spelling the end of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Given the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which Netanyahu has promised to accelerate, no other outcome seems conceivable.
While this view is undoubtedly correct, the belief that a center or center-left government would conclude a two-state agreement is a delusion Western leaders seem unable to discard, no matter how egregiously the current Kadima/Labor government continues to undermine a two-state solution – with continued seizures of Palestinian territory, expansion of existing settlements, and closing off Jerusalem to West Bank Palestinians.
And yet, a good case can be made for the counter-intuitive notion that only a right-wing government of the kind now being formed by Netanyahu holds the remaining hope for viable Palestinian statehood. Such an argument has nothing to do with the popular Israeli belief that, like Nixon’s 1972 visit to China, “only Likud can make peace, and only Labor [or Kadima] can make war,” for it ignores the fact that Nixon wanted to go to China, whereas no member of a right-wing Israeli government wants a Palestinian state. What Netanyahu and his prospective radical-right coalition parties want is more Palestinian territory and a Palestinian entity emptied of every vestige of sovereignty.
The argument in favor of a Netanyahu-led government derives from the certainty that a centrist government is equally incapable of reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians. For all the protestations by Kadima’s Ehud Olmert and Labor’s Ehud Barak that they are desperately seeking a peace agreement with their favored Palestinian peace partner Mahmoud Abbas, without unprecedented U.S. pressure on Israel to reach an agreement approximating the Clinton proposals, they are no more likely than Netanyahu to do anything other than use the peace process they champion as a cover for the continued expansion of settlements and the closing off of East Jerusalem to any future Palestinian entity.
After all, this is exactly what they have been doing since the Oslo accords and the various ensuing agreements, including the road map and the Annapolis-sponsored peace talks. The only remaining hope to prevent the two-state solution from disappearing entirely is a decisive change in America’s Middle East policy – from “facilitation,” which in the past meant helping Israel do what it wanted to do, to active intervention. This means presenting both parties with America’s outline for a permanent status agreement, endorsed by the international community and supported by significant and evenhanded sanctions on whichever side obstructs it.
While such an initiative can only be led by the U.S., it is unlikely to be undertaken while a center-left government is in place in Israel. American presidents do not enjoy challenging the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, and Congress by going toe-to-toe with Israeli leaders who are perceived in this country, however mistakenly, as truly committed to a two-state solution.
However, a Netanyahu-led government with coalition partners like Avigdor Lieberman and other extreme right-wing parties that do not enjoy much popular support in the U.S. (or anywhere else for that matter) would allow President Barack Obama and his administration to advance such an initiative. It is often forgotten that Netanyahu’s obstructionism while serving as prime minister from 1996-1999 was so unpopular that president Clinton was able to bar him from the White House, with hardly a whimper from the Israel lobby.
Given the imminent disappearance of the two-state solution and Israel’s military and diplomatic dependence on the U.S. (which has only increased with the growing anti-Israel mood in the region and beyond), an American president who is prepared to say “Enough” to the two adversaries, and present them with clear parameters for a permanent status agreement, is far more likely to do so with a recalcitrant right-wing government led by Netanyahu than with a centrist government headed by those who claim to seek an end to the conflict.
Netanyahu’s right-wing government would not yield to such pressure. But having finally established clear parameters and defined the red lines of what kind of peace agreement is acceptable to the U.S. – something a U.S. president is not likely or able to do when a centrist government is in power – such parameters would remain in place once Netanyahu’s government collapses, as it surely will, and a center-left coalition returns. This is the only conceivable scenario for a fair and sustainable peace accord that can prevent the disintegration of the Palestinian national struggle into another violent intifada that will do away with the two-state paradigm.
So far, other than appointing George Mitchell as the president’s personal emissary, little has happened to warrant the belief that the Obama administration is prepared to pursue a course markedly different from that of its predecessors. Indeed, nothing could be more discouraging than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s March 3 statement in Israel in which she qualified her strong support for the two-state solution with the observation: “But obviously, it is up to the people and the government of Israel to decide.”
Even the Bush administration did not argue that Israelis and their government can deny the Palestinian people the right to a “viable and sovereign” state of their own, as provided by the road map and international law.
One must hope that this was an impromptu, well-intentioned, but ill-considered off-the-cuff remark that does not represent the secretary of state’s position or that of the administration. Otherwise, the Kaddish should be recited for the two-state paradigm.
Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project in New York, is a visiting research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
02 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Merav Michaeli: Livni, go into opposition Mar 3, 2009 / By Haaretz
A mere day after the election, one could already read in the papers that Tzipi Livni would be under “public pressure” to join a government with Benjamin Netanyahu. This pressure was engendered primarily by journalists and the politicians they interviewed, who called a Likud-Kadima or Kadima-Likud government a “national responsibility government,” a “salvation government,” and of course, a “unity government.”
There used to be a “public” norm in Israel that dictated that if you don’t have a majority and are incapable of implementing your ideology, it’s appropriate for you to join the opposition rather than sell yourself to gain power, authority, benefits, a driver and the like.
Today the trend has been reversed: joining the opposition is considered “irresponsible,” “opportunistic,” “a luxury,” and other such offensive terms. It turns out that all those who consider themselves moderate, liberal, enlightened and worldly, and therefore identify with the “moderate” center-left image cannot entertain the possibility that they will not be in power. A right-wing government? One that doesn’t include them and doesn’t represent them? Oy!
They are full of reasons: Israel’s position in the world will be seriously impaired (we won’t be able to go on vacation or do business everywhere); the government will cause damage to the country (the country doesn’t belong to us anymore) or do crazy things (build settlements and go to war).
Such comments are unfounded and absurd. After all, since Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination, Israel has been subject to a right-wing policy in every way, and this policy is implemented by every government, whether led by Netanyahu and the right-wing Likud, by Ehud Barak and his so-called left-wing Labor Party, or by Ehud Olmert and his so-called centrist Kadima.
This includes right-wing economic policy – which has turned Israel into an extremist bastion of piggish capitalism, most of whose citizens are vulnerable when it comes to subsistence, employment and finances – and right-wing policies that hold education, culture and pluralism in contempt, consistently and successfully weakening them. It includes an aggressive right-wing policy of occupation, settlement development and growth, and racism toward Israeli Arabs. And it includes a right-wing policy that encourages imperialist, colonialist thinking and presumes we will be able to continue down this path forever.
Of course, there’s also the militaristic right-wing policy, which has manifested itself in a plethora of wars and campaigns, fatalities on all sides, and an intimidation regime that makes Israeli Jews frightened of Iran, of Hezbollah, of Hamas, of Israeli Arabs, and of the entire world, which is aligned against us. Some Jews are even made to fear other Jews; the secular are afraid of the religious and vice versa, the left-wingers are afraid of the right-wingers. Intimidate, then divide and conquer.
That’s why Livni is so right in wanting to join the opposition. If she wants to bring hope, as she has repeatedly said, a broad-based government is, as she put it, the wrong place to look. After all, experience shows there is nothing responsible about such a government.
There is no salvation. And the only unity such a government entails is a united stagnation, the preservation of the status quo of the occupation and the right-wing policy that leads to deterioration and despair.
If Livni were to join such a government, she would find herself once again part of a predetermined dynamic; at most, she would be able to touch up policies not her own. She would be incapable of bringing change or following through on the reason she entered politics: to dismantle the dichotomy between the Land of Israel and peace, to reach an agreement, to bring about the establishment of a Palestinian state, and to assure Israel’s existence.
In the opposition, by contrast, Livni has a great opportunity: to be a real alternative to a destructive policy. To oppose it, to sharpen the differences and to build a genuine alternative. To let the right be the right, and to diverge from it in a fundamental way.
It’s not just the election method, but the many years of broad-based “unity” governments that have caused such confusion, and “problematic” election results – because what difference does it make, really, who you vote for? Everyone’s doing the same thing anyway.
Livni is intrinsically a leader, and opposition will be good for her. More importantly, if Livni sits in the opposition, she will take apart the false depictions of unity and responsibility and build us an alternative. That is the most important thing to do for Israel now.
01 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Gideon Levy: Netanyahu, put your money where your mouth is Feb 19, 2009 / By Haaretz
1
