or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Avraham Burg essay
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Avraham Burg essay - Page 2

post #21 of 86
Thread Starter 
I have to go to sleep and but will add more tomorrow:

Quote:
And 3boy4us, I agree with you again ... ... twice in one month, man, what's goin' on here?
I know - it's a little spooky - now what shall we argue about?
post #22 of 86
Quote:
Originally posted by merpk
And for an actual breakdown of the actual number of those killed, their ages and genders, all graphed out ... last updated in May, so it doesn't include all the fatalities since ... here is a study conducted about that very subject.
Amy - that is amazing (and enlightening) information. I hope everyone takes a look at that link to see the break down.
post #23 of 86
Thread Starter 
Well I slept and looked at your link Amy -

since it is run by the former head of Mossad and has a staff consisting of almost entirely of former civilian/miltary Israeli govt. officials - I think I'll pass.

I'd rather use this - B'tselem - a joint human rights organzation of Israelis and Palestinians:

Quote:
In the Occupied Territories

2,115 Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territories, of whom 389 were minors under the age of 18.

Ages of the minors killed: Seventy Two minors were age 17, Sixty Nine were age 16, Fifty Five were age 15, Fifty Three were age 14, Forty Four were age 13, Eighteen were age 12, Fourteen were age 11, Twelve were age 10, Six were age 9, Twelve were age 8, Four were age 7, Five were age 6, Four were age 5, Four were age 4, Six were age 3, Four were two years old, Five were One year old babies, One was a 6 month old baby girl and One was a four month old baby girl.

Within Israel

48 Palestinians, residents of the Occupied Territories, were killed by Israeli security forces gunfire. One of those killed was a minor aged 14.

346 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians, residents of the Occupied Territories. 70 of them were minors under the age of 18. Of them: Twelve were age 17, Thirteen were age 16, Fourteen were age 15, Six were age 14, Four were age 13, Three were age 12, One was age 11, One was age 10, One was age 9, Two were age 8, Two were age 7, One was age 5, Two were age 4, Two were age 3, One was an Eighteen month old baby, One was a 14 month old baby, One was a two years old baby, One was an Eleven month old baby, One was a nine month old baby, and One was a seven month old baby
But enough of the "who's dying faster"

I wanted to debate the points of the article - which I guess you can't do.

http://www.btselem.org/

I guess we have something to argue about still -

And finally - I am always surprised by those who pull up these links and still don't look at who's supplying them.
post #24 of 86
I was put off also by the amt of military ppl who make up this organization..............

The People Behind ICT


As for the numbers (below are their most recent totals), they do tell a story. The story that BOTH sides are losing many children. Many innocent children. And, as we well know, both sides are angry. Will more killing by both sides stop the killing?

Breakdown of Fatalities: 27 September 2000 through 31 August 2003



And a fence can make good neighbors................provided you don't put it up on my property.


El
post #25 of 86
Quote:
I wanted to debate the points of the article - which I guess you can't do.
I thought this community was not for debating.

And personally, I can't or I won't debate the article. It ends up the same thing. I live in eretz yisrael, I happen to also be a citizen of the state of Israel. I want peace. I don't kill anyone. I don't run the government. I don't agree with everything they do, but as a stupid immigrant my opion doesn't count for much.
I got involved in this "discussion" because I saw one point that I totally disagree with. and I don't see it as a matter of opinion.

Anyway, enjoy your debate.

-BelovedBird
post #26 of 86
Sorry to tell you, El's, but every single organization in Israel is filled with former military and Mossad people. Including Shalom Akhshav (Peace Now) and B'Tselem. Because of the state of war Israel's been in for the last 50+ years, there is a draft, you know.

And second, what does that have to do with cold, hard numbers?

The point is most easily observable in the pie charts.

The point is the moral equivalence being batted around so cavalierly, that a government attempting to eliminate a terrorist organization (or two or three or four) is different than a terrorist organization (or two or three or four) attempting to eliminate Jews wherever they happen to find them.





And debate Burg's article? Nothing to debate. He's disgusted with the Likud's government, as many are. Me, too. But I'm not an Israeli citizen, so who cares what I think. He's the opposition, and has every right to trash his government as the Democrats do to the Republicans here.

Having been "speaker of the Knesset" doesn't mean he was part of the ruling coalition (party, in American terms). It means he was speaker of the Knesset. And still the opposition.

Remembering, ladies, that there are also Arabs ... Israeli citizens ... in the knesset, too.

All hail democracy.

And his point that the Likud's sucking up to all types has led to a real breakdown in all sorts of societal infrastructure and moral compass is a solid one.

Then again, Peres sucked up to Arafat ... and remember how Madeline Albright made an ass out of herself doing that, too? ... and look where it got us all ... :LOL ... Likud doesn't have the monopoly on that huge sucking noise ...


















We can still debate the fence, though ...
post #27 of 86
Quote:
We can still debate the fence, though ...
not if you just built it on my land.


El
post #28 of 86
Quote:
... by Els' 3 Ones
... not if you just built it on my land. ...


El



Aaahhh, and the cycle continues ...




Well, which is whose land? If the fence followed precisely on the '67 lines, would that be encroaching on Palestinian land?

And if not, why not?

After all, the '67 borders are the arbitrary borders of the cease fire at the end of the '48 war. What's so holy about those lines?

Or would only the borders of the '47 partition plan work? And those were imposed by a UN commission ...

Or would the only ideal solution be to ... what?




The whole purpose of this is to stop terrorists getting wholesale easy access over Israel's borders and murdering indiscriminately.



So what should Israel do to stop it?


Pull out of the settlements?

Okay, but when there were no settlements, terrorists had wholesale easy access over Israel's borders and murdered indiscriminately. So what should Israel have done then? Made a fence? Or maybe the settlements aren't the problem, since the terrorists were doing the same thing when no settlements existed.


Hand over control of land to the PA?

Recall that throughout Oslo Israel continuously handed over control of land to the PA, so that large swaths of it had no Israeli presence. And throughout it, the suicide bombings continued, so obviously that wasn't the problem.


Stop all military action against terrorists, or reprisals?

Remember also there were long stretches of restraint, even during Sharon's tenure. And restraint, and restraint, and the attacks against Israeli civilians would continue. Until what? Should Israel just sit back and say, "Go ahead, keep exploding bombs and killing our people, we won't do anything to stop you or deter you, because we don't want to upset you?"

Seems like they're upset already, right?

So what should Israel do when it has information about a leader of Hamas?





It goes round and round, right?





So what should Israel do?




Really, I want to know what you think, how they can get the murdering to stop.

Will making the West Bank completely Judenrein make it stop? Or what?



Really, I'd like to know.
post #29 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Pull out of the settlements?

Okay, but when there were no settlements, terrorists had wholesale easy access over Israel's borders and murdered indiscriminately. So what should Israel have done then? Made a fence? Or maybe the settlements aren't the problem, since the terrorists were doing the same thing when no settlements existed.
But the settlements were created by extremists to begin with. It has been repeatedly affirmed by the UN and its members time and again that these settlements are illegal. Israel puts itself in company of China and the occupation of Tibet or Indonesia and the the occupation of East Timor or the former Soviet Union and its occupation of many nations.

Quote:
Hand over control of land to the PA?

Recall that throughout Oslo Israel continuously handed over control of land to the PA, so that large swaths of it had no Israeli presence. And throughout it, the suicide bombings continued, so obviously that wasn't the problem.
What large swaths? I don;t recall Israel ever offering the PA anything more then blocks of land that are surrounded by Israeli land. Roni Ben-Efrat critiques Oslo and noted that it contained nothing to offer the Palestinian people. She noted that unless the US stopped subsidizing Israel, Israel could continously build settlements and deny rights to the Occupied Territories.


Quote:
Stop all military action against terrorists, or reprisals?

Remember also there were long stretches of restraint, even during Sharon's tenure. And restraint, and restraint, and the attacks against Israeli civilians would continue. Until what? Should Israel just sit back and say, "Go ahead, keep exploding bombs and killing our people, we won't do anything to stop you or deter you, because we don't want to upset you?"
Please - Sharon is not a man of peace. He's just as guilty as any suicide bomber. What is sad is that after 50 years of fighting, Israel, which probably has a better and more able military then even the US, still can't stop the "terrorists".

What I see here is not an open discussion (sorry I'll remove debate) but Americans (who enjoy extraordinary amounts of freedoms) denying those rights to people under occupation. Americans who are willing to subsidize a military govt. to the tune of $11 million/day while turning their heads at the suffering by ALL peoples this extremist govt. has caused.

The fence stuns me - because what I see a religious nation such as Israel - who would deny these people the basic right to earn a living. To steal their land - isn't that against one's religious principles?

What would the justification be to seperate a farmer form his land?
post #30 of 86
Now we're getting somewhere.




First, the "swaths" were not an issue of offering or not. Under Oslo, Israel pulled out of parts of the West Bank. Withdrawals is what I referred to.
And if you're offended by an offer at negotiation, then you make a counteroffer. You don't shoot the offerer.




And please, I never called Sharon "a man of peace." I said he practiced ... on occasion ... restraint. There would be attacks and no reprisals ... and there would be more attacks and still no reprisals... and then, whoa nelly, yo, you blow up a Passover seder, sorry, enough restraint already.

I'm not about to praise Ariel Sharon. Just to clarify that already.




Also, who said Israel is a religious nation? It is decidedly not, thank you. It is a Jewish nation, it is a nation where Jews are (in theory, anyway ) safe to live as Jews. It is quite far from a theocracy ... and quite secular, which is why many Jews don't support its existence as a state, but that's another discussion entirely.




I agree, BTW, separating a farmer from his land is horrendous. Horrible things happen during a war. And this is a war.





Oh, and since the B'Tselem link was provided, here's another page from that same link with regard to moral equivalency and I must also point out that you were very selective in your quoting statistics.

You only included a small segment of the reporting on Israeli casualties, and misrepresents/understates the numbers on the B'Tselem page. Why is that?




Those numbers aren't in any way (that I can see) refuting the ICT study. Pie-chart 'em, take a look. You'll see.





You didn't answer my comment about settlements. Whoever started them is not relevant to my point.

The settlements are always used as a reason for the violence against Jews, along with the occupation. My point was that the violence against Jews was already unbearable before the settlements ... before there was even an occupation. So what was the problem then?

And why wouldn't the violence stop then?

And why won't it stop now?

Please, answer that question.









Rotten fences can make rotten neighbors stay out of each other's hair.
post #31 of 86
Thread Starter 
Well let's talk settlements -

The population of the Israeli settlements are probably around 400,000 plus. The biggest reason to move to a settlement is probably the economic factor, the huge subsidies that Israel gives to those person who live there.

Sharon has repeatedly refused to freeze of the settlements instead offering a lame attempt at restricting "expansion" of some. The Sharon govt. uses settlements as an expression of their power over the area. And it increases Palestinian discontent as more Palestinians are shoved into smaller area.

The economic toll of Sharon's policies on Israel has been definative - both the Israelis and the Palestinians suffering higher unemplyment and an increase in poverty levels.75% of Gaza's citizens live on the less then $2.00/day. Meanwhile Israel spends about 1.3$billion (of the $3-4 billion the US gives to Israel) on subsidising/protecting the settlements. Settlement population represents about 5% of Israel yet receives the lion share of services. Israelis themselves do not as a whole support the settlements, however it is the bastion of the reliious conservatives.

The Bush govt. has asked for a certain amount of economic refoms from Israel for the recent handout. Sharon did most and it is costing him and the newly unemployed.

Mr. Avraham's essay aknowledges the failure of the govt. to reduce the amount of the violence perpetrated by the Palestinians. He suggests perhaps it is time to try a different way.

Quote:
Between the Jordan and the Mediterranean there is no longer a clear Jewish majority. And so, fellow citizens, it is not possible to keep the whole thing without paying a price. We cannot keep a Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as Jew. We cannot keep the territories and preserve a Jewish majority in the world's only Jewish state — not by means that are humane and moral and Jewish.
This is what I mean by being religious. As the world's sole Jewish nation - a nation built on the principles of Judaism - isn't it wrong to create 2 systems - one for the haves and one for the have-nots. Isn't this worng for a nation calling itself a democracy? A nation that prides itself as being the only democracy in the mid-east, yet still manages to justify its occupation and violence towards these people?

Quote:
You only included a small segment of the reporting on Israeli casualties, and misrepresents/understates the numbers on the B'Tselem page. Why is that?
But it comes down to numbers print them all. Remeber Palestinians die at a rate of nearly 6/1. And don't forget to print those who die at checkpoints trying to get to hospital care and don;t forget to print those who die because there is no medical care and don't forget to print those who die as part of the assasinations:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Stati...ies_Tables.asp



Quote:
Rotten fences can make rotten neighbors stay out of each other's hair.
But what about the fence? The fence clearly seprates in many areas the Palestinians from their land, the schools and their work. What can the reasoning be to seperate the Palkstinains for their livlihood? Bush has gotten Sharin to halt parts of the fence for now.

I have hard time understanding the fence. Please explain it to me - you as woman of religion and a woman who wants peace - explain to me how stealing land is justified.
post #32 of 86
I just wanted to pop in and address two small things to you, Rene. I know it won't make a difference to how you see things, and I for one don't want to debate (I leave that to Amy 'cause she's just so much more articulate than I am ) but I feel the need to simply state my view.

Quote:
A nation that prides itself as being the only democracy in the mid-east, yet still manages to justify its occupation and violence towards these people?
The justification of "violence" and even the presence of Israel in the territories, boils down to self-preservation. Israel is not going after the "people," indiscriminately murdering Arabs left and right... : No, its goal is eliminate the terrorists and their infrastructure.

Israel goes after the terrorists who are making life miserable for *everyone*. It is the terrorists who are ultimately responsible for people being held up at checkpoints; it is the terrorists who are responsible for ambulances being held up because they put explosives in them! So yes, Israel must hold up even ambulances to make sure they are not harboring terrorists looking to murder Jews.

Quote:
What can the reasoning be to seperate the Palkstinains for their livlihood?
Saving lives.
post #33 of 86
Quote:
what I see a religious nation such as Israel
I don't know where you are looking. But it certainly is not at this tiny country I live in, called Israel. Israel is a democracy and NOT religious.

-BelovedBird
post #34 of 86
There are those, admitted, in Israel who want to hold the territories in perpetuity.
They are a minority.

The vast majority agree with the land for peace formula.

There is only one thing holding up this equation: There has never been peace.

The UN resolutions that call for Israel to "return" land also call for the Arabs to stop the belligerence. That has never ever happened in the case of the Palestinians.

And that was the basis of Oslo, and all the agreements after.

Though Israel has had enough, apparently, of giving land and getting no peace. They are expecting some peace, and then they'll give the land. Or so it seems ...




See, you can talk about the details of the settlements all you want, but I'm asking about why the Palestinian terrorists are so insistent about murdering Jews, and why Imams directly employed by the PA teach that killing Jews is a religious imperative.


That murdering was happening before there were any settlements. The murdering was happening before there was any occupation.

What was the reason for it then?




It's safe to assume that that's the same reason for it now. The settlements and the occupation are just "gravy."





That reason is the same reason Israel is in this situation, and it is is the same reason Israel is building the fence.




I don't like that people are being separated from their livelihoods. I also don't like that terrorists blow people up indiscriminately.



Truly, a fence that forces some people to find a new job but saves lives ... which side of that moral compass is the high road? I'll go with saving lives.
Sadly, but with no regrets.






Those assassinations ... not pretty. And the innocents who have the horrible fate to be next to the leaders of Hamas on the sidewalk when they're killed ... it's horrendous.



I agree with you. Nothing can fix the death of innocents.



But again, if the terrorism against Israel would stop ... which it never ever has ... the Israeli military would stop.


If the Israeli military stopped, would the terrorism stop?


The answer to that is no. It never did before (when the military stopped), and it never did when there were no settlements and no occupation, so why should it happen in the future?

It's not looking good for the future.






Anyway, I agree that the fence is awful. But I believe it's a necessary evil. At least until the unnecessary evil (terrorism) stops.




That was typed while DD is fingerpainting in the other room alone, so I'm in a state of semi-panic. Will try to make more sense later ... :LOL
post #35 of 86
Quote:
Originally posted by merpk
The settlements are always used as a reason for the violence against Jews, along with the occupation. My point was that the violence against Jews was already unbearable before the settlements ... before there was even an occupation. So what was the problem then?
I don't think I want to get into every aspect of this discussion/debate thingie (Israel a "religious country"? What is a "religious country"? A theocracy? I guess Germany is one as well, they were run by the Christian Democrats for years...) but I do have to take issue with this. My understanding is that there have been more casualties on both sides since 2000 than in any three year period in Israel's history. Certainly more Jews have died at the hands of terrorists since Sharon took office than ever before.

Are you saying that there was as much terror before Sharon? Because I don't see how that can be true. I understood there were over 800 Israeli casualties and nearly 3 times as many Palestinian deaths. This is hundreds more Jews killed than in the first Intifada.

I support Israel's right to do what it needs to do to be safe and secure. But targeted extra-judicial killings, house demolitions and rocket attacks are not doing it. You could say, "Oh, it's a war, we have to protect our citizens" but what I see is that Israelis are LESS safe than ever before, and Palestinians are dying in bigger numbers. The Palestinians might be Israel's enemies, but as Rabin put it, you don't have to make peace with your friends. If you eliminate all the Palestinian infrastructure along with the terrorist infrastructure, you get what we have here: terror, retaliation, no hope on either side. This is Burg's argument, and I get it.
post #36 of 86

Glad to see this message thread is still here

I'm learning alot from all of you.

Is there any possible viewing option to reduce the redundant excessive spacing in "merpk"s posts? The multiple returns between sentences is messing with my eyes!!! It takes forever to scroll through all that - what is the setting I should use to avoid that? Thank you.
post #37 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
The UN resolutions that call for Israel to "return" land also call for the Arabs to stop the belligerence. That has never ever happened in the case of the Palestinians.

And that was the basis of Oslo, and all the agreements after
But where has Israel ever offered to return ALL the land? This is about the settlements - so where has Israel offered to remove the settlements? They have certainly made token gestures - removing tiny settlements but when has Israel offered to return the land? You make mention of them "giving" the land.

As I recall the settlement population has grown substantially since Sharon not decreased. If Israel wanted to really stick to Oslo - why should the settlements increase?

Tell me about the settlements and why they should be there.

Quote:
Anyway, I agree that the fence is awful. But I believe it's a necessary evil. At least until the unnecessary evil (terrorism) stops
Quote:
Saving lives.
But justify stealing their land? Come on you can do better then that! Israel could place the fence along property lines (but they don't) and they could offer to compensate any losses (but they haven't). I don't know - I'd call that stealing.

By denying them the right to earn a living - how will that stop the violence? By denying the right to access their property - how will that stop the violence? By denying the right to an education, to work, to have all those things that the settlers take for granted - how will that stop the violence? Come on - justify it for me.

And whose lives are being saved? Not the Palestinians - and so far not the Israelis.



CO - you're right I shouldn't have called Israel a religious nation. My intent was that Israel is a nation based on the religious notion of Israel originally - although it is a secular nation.

But Amy - you haven't mentioned Mr. Burg's essay - tell me what's wrong with his vision? (How was the fingerpainting - hit any of your walls?)
post #38 of 86
c'o, yes, there are more Israeli deaths during this Intifada than the last one. But you're arguing apples while I'm talking oranges. That's not before the settlements. Settlements were already a convenient excuse during the last Intifada ... and all through Oslo when there were suicide bombings (there were several in the week before my wedding, for instance).

They've been a convenient excuse for continuing murder that started before the settlements were even a twinkle in Arik's eye.

And speaking of which, returning the land, will find a quote, but Hosni Mubarak of Egypt was quoted in the last week as saying that Sharon is probably the right man to return land, as he was the one who implemented the return of the entire Sinai to Egypt ... and Sharon was the one who dismantled the settlements in the Sinai to accomplish that return.

Which is sort of a relevant aside ...

My point is that the terror must stop. And to say, "it's the settlements," or "it's the occupation," as if those were justification for terror, and as if Israel is the only one with responsibility in this mess ... ... well, folks, the facts show that the terror was there before the settlements and before the occupation.

And Rene, you ask about Israel following Oslo now. Why should Israel be following Oslo now? Oslo is dead. It died when Arafat's counter-offer in 2000 was rioting and murder, premeditated and preplanned and jump-started on a pretext. Arafat never lived up to his part of Oslo ... which was to combat terror.

Notice that that's a common theme? Israel has to compromise with this, give back that, ensure the other ... and all the Palestinians keep being asked to do in return is combat terror. And they have yet to do that to any extent at all.

Yes, that was a gross simplification, but not too far off ...






I don't argue with Burg's thesis, that territory must be returned, as being occupiers is horrendous for Israelis in body and in soul. Golda Meir's powerful line comes to mind (as close to verbatim as I can recall): I can forgive them for killing our children. I can never forgive them for making our children kill theirs.

I can't tell you what's wrong with his vision, except that he has couched it in extreme language. But even then, I get his point.

He has turned a powerful self-critical eye on his people and his land. Would that Palestinian voices did the same ...




Oh, and dh2Carmen, sorry 'bout my spacing. It's just often hard for me to see what I type when I'm nak'g, and it makes it easier to read. When he was an infant it was easier, now he's standing and nak'g and covers half the computer screen ... :LOL

And the finger paints were all over the table, a little on the chair, and two spots on the floor. None on the wall.

Whew.
post #39 of 86
Oh, almost forgot. About whose lives are being saved ... obviously nobody's.

But nothing else they do seems to work. What else can they do to stop the murder? That's what I've been asking you. What else can they do?

Withdrawing from every settlement and all of the West Bank and Gaza tomorrow won't end the murder. All those things didn't exist before '67, and there was still murder. As my previous links show, murder is being taught as a religious imperative by the PA. So when will it stop?

And as far as "giving back" all the land ... what precisely is all the land? Is it to the '67 border? That (as I pointed out) was merely the cease-fire line from '48. Is it to the partition plan lines from '47?

Maybe the Palestinian theory of the right of return will solve the problem, anyway. Allow all the Palestinians who had homes in pre-'67 Israel back to their homes, allow them citizenship and the right to vote, and they can make Israel a Muslim/Arab country, as they would instantly become a majority (Israeli Jews have birth rates on a par Americans; Palestinians have birth rates on a par with people who were told by their leader ... Yasser Arafat ... that having large families was their nationalistic and religious duty) with with the Jews being a minority like they are everywhere else in the world.

Sure.

post #40 of 86
Amy, I've been reading your comments with great interest, especially this thought:
Quote:
... well, folks, the facts show that the terror was there before the settlements and before the occupation.
It seems to me that this is somewhat of a moot point, as it denies the possibility that the motivations of the Palestinian people might have changed, that they might be willing to settle for less now than they would have back in 67. It is a fact that the Arab side thought it could defeat the Zionists back when all this started and so would not accept an Israeli state. But that was then, this is now. Think about it, hasn't Israeli public opinion changed? Seems to me that at one point the whole "land for peace" formula was very much out of favor in Israel. Now, as people are getting worn down by the violence, public opinion is more for it. Don't you think a similar phenonenon could be taking place in the occupied territories? The fact that they committed terror when the settlements were few back then doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not they would do now. I agree with CO that it is very clear that Israel current hardline policy is a miserable failure, all you have to do is look at the number of deaths. In your opinion, why won't Israel even try the strategy of dismantling a some major settlements and see if that doesn't make a change in Palestinian support for the extremists versus the moderates? What are they afraid of? More deaths? They already have that...
Oh, and I know that Hamas et al are still saying that they do not accept the state of Israel, but so are the conservative Jewish settlers saying that they will never accept the presence of Arabs on a single foot of historical Israel, so that extremist rhetoric which is found on both sides is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the masses in between who just want a decent job and to raise the families. At this point a large portion of Palestinians still support Hamas because the don't see Israel as being sincere in the land for peace formula when it has yet to dismantle any settlement beyond a few mobile homes and makeshift towers. It seems to me the the major sticking point in all of the peace plans has always been the settlements -- the fact that even if the Palestinians get a state, it could never be contiguous and viable with all the settlements in the way. So if the Israeli public is rather sick of the settlements... and they are such a drain on the public coffers... and they obviously are NOT contributing to security as the attacks rise as the number of settlements rise... why is the Israeli government so unwilling to abandon them?

I am not just trying to make my point here, I am truly baffled by this and would appreciate your take on it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Avraham Burg essay