Friday, July 24, 2009

Give Us A Border

The following column, adapted from a former post, appears in today's Haaretz.

There is something about the Netanyahu-Obama stand-off on settlements that seems beside the point. Had Ronald Reagan, following Jimmy Carter's lead, demanded a total freeze in 1980, the idea might have worked. Today the demand for a freeze reminds me of the joke about the implacable customer at a restaurant who, having waited too long for his dinner, says he can be appeased only by being served "15 minutes ago."

President Obama clearly wants to make a clean break with the past, and even make a show of force to Israeli extremists. But a total freeze is now out of the question. About 400,000 settlers live in crowded communities more or less contiguous with Israel (like Gush Etzion), or in Jerusalem suburbs (like Gilo and Ma'aleh Adumim). These urbanized areas are clearly not going to be moved or dismantled. And they cannot stop growing. Rather, a new border must be drawn around them and Palestine will have to be compensated in some way. Even the Geneva Initiative negotiators agreed on this.

The people who will be moved as part of any conceivable peace, who have turned Palestine into strangulated enclaves, are the 75,000-100,000 residents of settlements scattered around Hebron and between Ramallah and Nablus - vexingly, the very people who are most mobilized against any kind of deal and must be confronted by the international community and mainstream Israelis. (Salam Fayyad's offer of Palestinian citizenship to Jews who are more attached to the ancient land than the modern state will be scoffed at by most of these settlers.)

All of which raises a question. Clearly, the issue here is not a settlement freeze. The freeze has become a proxy for the larger question of where to locate an internationally recognized border between two states. Why, then, should Obama fight - with little chance of success - over a symbol and defer the fight over what is symbolized, which will eventually require a hard line from America and the world anyway?

Consider another approach, that taken in Geneva. The fact that large settlements are immovable means the June 4, 1967, border is not feasible, but the principle of defining a border on the basis of June 4 certainly is. America needs to offer support, and fast, for a 1:1 land swap to insure that territories allotted to Israel and Palestine are equivalent in area to what existed on June 4. It should appoint a Quartet commission, answerable to Senator Mitchell, to suggest a map. Palestine is not Israel's internal affair, nor will Palestinians ever accept the border envisioned by Netanyahu. Only a new "international" map will reconcile the Arab League peace initiative with the difficulties of moving settlers back into Israel.

Sketching a border will bring obvious immediate benefits, such as helping government officials, businesspeople and others on both sides to plan and invest. But it will also help prepare the ground to evacuate those who must ultimately be moved. This will take years, just like moderating Hamas by rehabilitating the Palestinian Authority will take years. The Israel Defense Forces and the police could never muster enough manpower to simply move these settlers by force - anyway, many IDF officers sympathize with settlement.

And to get these people out, you have to do four things: marginalize them politically, that is, create a conflict of interest between settlers living within an agreed-upon border and the more fanatic types outside; induce them to return to agreed settlements or to within the Green Line with time-limited financial compensation; threaten them with power and water cuts; and, should all else fail, remove them by siege or, if necessary, force. All that is going to be very hard. As it withdraws, the IDF should work with NATO forces to replace its own soldiers.

There is nothing fanciful about projecting a border. For most Israelis, the line between Israel and occupied territory is self-evident. Palestinian leaders have all but said they're willing to compromise on the 1967 line, and effectively demilitarize their state, so long as a way can be found to compensate Palestine with land that is as much and as good as land annexed to Israel, and compensate and resettle the original refugees of 1948 in a Palestinian state - or, as one Ramallah friend suggested, so long as the futures of Israel and Palestine are linked to larger federal arrangements. Nor do you need more than common sense to see where the contention will come. For example, Ariel (smack-dab between Ramallah and Nablus) could never be part of a future Israel. Olmert insisted that it must be, which is one reason his talks with Mahmoud Abbas went nowhere. Here is where America's view becomes crucial, so why not apprise the sides of it now?

In any case, Obama is right to try and keep new settlement projects from being added to the 160 that already exist -­ that is, to insist that Israel remove new outposts, and prevent construction that fills in the gaps between existing settlements; and to forestall projects that would further compromise the viability of East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. But we are beyond the talk of the road map's freeze now, or should be. What we need is a destination and a driver.


Y. Ben-David said...

I am still waiting to hear from you "progressives" how Obama is going to force the Arabs to accept the terms that you and the Jews in his administration think is "reasonable", in other words, the agreement that you keep telling us is "the one everyone knows the terms of". The Arabs have never indicated at all that they will accept those terms. What leverage does Obama have with them?
You assume that somehow the Arabs will give up actual implementation of the "Palestinian Right of Return" after Israel supposedly "symbolically" accepts it. In spite of what you think, the Arabs are not stupid and will not simply have their "pride" assuaged by a meaningless acceptance without the refugees going back to Israel.
Face it, there isn't going to be a peace agreement for the foreseeable future, even with pro-Arab Messiah Obama as President, a man who, in his Cairo speech, shows that he accepts the Islamist rewriting of history.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps a bit of elaboration on why you're so confident that most of the settlers will scoff at the offer of Palestinian citizenship?

I've read several articles lately on how settlers are feeling distance between themselves and Israel as they realize that their state will eventually pull out of Judea and Samaria. As this process continues to unfold, they will feel even more alienated, and perhaps the offer of Palestinian citizenship (while not something to celebrate) will not seem all that bad compared to living in a state that kicked you out of your home.

William Burns said...

It seems that since accepting that the large settlements will become part of Israel is yet another major Palestinian concession, the ratio of Israeli land swapped should be more than 1:1, possibly 1.5:1.

Aryeh Amihay said...

I second Mr. Burns notion, and would add that considering only land captured during the six-day-war is unsound.

That, as well as the unfounded comment on settlers "scoffing" on the possibility of living under foreign rule, point to the classic narrow-minded, Jewish-supremist type of solution - the only one that the so-called left in Israel is willing to consider.

The comments, that the author fails to respond to, point to the reason it has never succedded to bring peace, and never will.

Y. Ben-David said...

Aryeh Amihai-
I just read your piece on "The Two State Solution". It is very good, and includes ideas that I have had for some time:

For the record: I am an Orthodox/Religious Zionist who is pro-Judea/Samaria settlements. I view the ultimate fate of Judea/Samaria as a slow evolution to an unofficial modus-vivendi consisting of a Jordanian/Israeli condominium. It will be unofficial since the Arabs will never be able to make peace with Israel regarding the disposition of the Palestinian territories because this involves insoluable conflicts over the holy places like the Temple Mount and problems like the Palestinian "Right of Return".

Having said this, you piece about the "Geneva" Leftists is right on the mark. The reason is that the bottom line is that they don't believe in peace with the Arabs any more than I do. They want to push this ridiculous plan in order to "feel good about themselves" ("see, we gave them a state!"), and to get the Europeans off our backs. But they know there can never be real peace or reconciliation. You see the contempt Dr Avishai has for the people like me whom he calls "Judeans". Do you think he really has any more respect and trust in the Arabs?

Charlton Price said...

As elsewhere in this blog and his other writings, Dr. Avishai is cool, calm, collected, pragmatic, and not trapped by illusions and old "he/she said" exchanges. Sadly, most comments on this topic parrot these old points of cynicism and despair, or put forward additional or recycled reasons for cynicism and/or despair. No doubt "progress" toward less danger and more justice for all concerned (forget "solutions") will be long drawn out, and will move at a tectonic pace. But some changes in tone and even substance can be sensed in such developments as President Obama's Cairo speech outline of, and Dr. Avishai's analysis of, what the situation is and how it might change.

Shoded Yam said...

The reason that most Israelis are willing to come to some sort of accomodation with our cousins;

Friday Poll in Israel shows Majority/Solid Support for Settlement Evacuation

By Jo-Ann Mort - June 5, 2009, 8:19AM

Yes, We Can Surrender
Yedioth Ahronoth (p. 4) by Sima Kadmon / Dahaf Polling Institute

Q: Should Israel agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state as part
of a peace deal?
Agree -- 55%
Not agree -- 41%

has less to do with any great love for the palestinians and more to do with their physical and emotional well being and that of their countrymen as Mr. Amihay points out when he illustrates the sort of independence that the Palestinians might expect in any sort of peace deal. That being said, if given the choice of no state at all, while their land is stolen out from under them by criminals, master race purveyors, and hooligans or nominal independence, its likely they will choose the latter.


"...This is the two-state solution that people are looking forward to, and that are appalled that Netanyahu opposes. Here are the names of some of the major proponents of this agreement:

In Israel: Colette Avital, Uzi Baram, Yossi Beilin, Avraham Burg, Naomi Chazan, Tzvia Greenfeld, David Grossman, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, Amram Mitzna, Haim Oron, Amos Oz, Ophir Pines-Paz, Dalia Rabin, Mossi Raz, Zeev Sternhell, Yuli Tamir, Avshalom Vilan, Einat Wilf, Avraham B. Yehoshua."

There are two things wrong with this statement. Firstly, is its basic disingenuity. Statements such as; "...This is the two-state solution that people are looking forward to, and that are appalled that Netanyahu opposes.", implys that the reason Mr. Netanyahu won't accept it is because of its fundamental injustices and he's waiting for a better deal, not because the very concept goes against every grain of his being.

The second thing thats wrong is the insinuation that the Geneva Accords because of its strictures were not worthy of such "leftists" as Collette Avital, Avraham Burg, et al. Its as if once they became "leftists" they ceased to be Israelis. The fact is, they were, are now, and will always be Israelis, first and foremost. As leftists, they recognize the injustice that has been done to the palestinians. As Israelis, they understand that for any peace treaty to be acceptable to themselves and the majority of Israelis, Palestinians cannot be given a long leash at the outset and strict security safeguards would have to be built into any agreement until such time that the Palestinians stabilize themselves and begin to behave in a fashion more befitting a legitamate nation-state and less like a street gang. The implication that these people are putting there ideology before their country is unfounded, and considering that the settler movement consistenly places their ideology before the interests of their countrymen, slightly absurd. The fact that the settler movement conflates their interests with that of the rest of the electorate is their folly, no one elses.

Jeff said...

I actually find myself agreeing with Y Ben-David. I do not think there will be any agreement of substance between Israelis and Palestinians in the foreseeable future. No Palestinian leader,no matter how much he has been co-opted by Washington or Israel will agree to a Palestinian state has defined by either Netanyahu or Bernard Avishai.

Is it not curious that we only hear or read of Israelis or American Jews defining their vision of an agreement? No matter how many times it may be wished away,no Palestinian negotiators will agree to a demilitarized state limited to police functions with Israeli security outposts or negating the Palestinian right of return (which, according to UN Res.194, is an individual decision). They will also make no deal that does not include a substantial part of Arab Jerusalem which it appears Israel is not about to give up. Meanwhile, Obama is already being stabbed in the back by the Knesset West (the US Congress) and by his funders as well, and will find a way to retreat from the scene while appearing to walk forward. Hence, the status quo will continue which means greater Israeli settlement and further expropriation of Palestinian land until kaboom! Because it can't go on forever. The best thing that could happen is that the EU will have grown tired of Washington's ineffectiveness and will use economic pressure to bring Israel to heel. The increasingly successful BDS movement in the UK and Europe is a herald of better days to come.

Y. Ben-David said...

Unless there were other results published in the poll you are so happy about, the 55% that supposedly support the creation of a Palestinian state does NOT mean a "solid block of support for dismantling settlements" because the question is so general and no terms are stated that it is essentially meaningless. It is like asking "in the Messianic Era of eternal peace, are you willing to see the creation of a Palestinian state?". But no such situation is being offered Israel.
If you were to ask the same people if they would support creating a Palestinian state that would use the territories evacuated to launch rockets against Israel, as happened in Gaza after the destruction of the settlements there, and if you were to ask if they would support creating a radical Islamic Palestinian state, you would get a very different answer.
There is no majority for dismantling settlements under the current situation and there is no majority for a unilateral settlement freeze. Face the reality.

William Burns said...


Are you ever going to explain why the Jordanians would see this "condominium" as in their interest? Because frankly, until you do it's a fantasy.

Y. Ben-David said...

Mr Burns-
It is in their interest because both a situation of chaos in Judea/Samaria or an independent Palestinian state threatens them. The Palestinian state would be irredendentist both against Israel AND against Jordan, since the majority of the population of Jordan is Palestinian. The Jordanians have maintained quiet on their border with Israel since 1970 because they view it as being in their interest, in spite of their solidarity with the Arab cause against Israel. This shows they can be pragmatic if it is seen to be a vital interest. Same for Syria, which maintains a quiet border on the Golan Heights with Israel, in spite of the absence of a peace agreement.
Such a condominium will also be in the Palestinian interest because it is clear to everyone that they are not capable of running their own state. The stability would finally allow economic development in addition to a gradual lifting of restrictions caused by the security situation. Everyone would benefit, but I must again emphasize...this will be an INFORMAL arrangement because the Arab side can never formally acknowledge such a situation, de jure.

William Burns said...

But the border between Jordan and the West Bank is quiet now. Israel is efficiently suppressing any movement towards a Palestinian state. By your analysis, Jordan has everything it wants now. If it became involved in administering the territory, formally or informally, it would be in the same position as the PA is now--responsible for everything that goes wrong, but not wielding any effective power, which would remain in the hands of Israel. And if the West Bank Palestinians ever get it together for a third intifada, any Jordanian role in suppressing it would instantly cause massive unrest among the Palestinian population of Jordan.

Bottom line: It's Israel's mess. Why should Jordan run substantial risks to bail Israel out?

Shoded Yam said...

"...Unless there were other results published in the poll you are so happy about, the 55% that supposedly support the creation of a Palestinian state does NOT mean a "solid block of support for dismantling settlements" because the question is so general and no terms are stated that it is essentially meaningless."

Friday Poll in Israel shows Majority/Solid Support for Settlement Evacuation

By Jo-Ann Mort - June 5, 2009, 8:19AM
Yedioth Ahronoth (p. 4) by Sima Kadmon / Dahaf Polling Institute --

Q: Should Israel freeze settlement construction?
Yes -- 52%
No -- 43%
Q: Should the illegal outposts be evacuated?
Yes -- 70%
No -- 25%

Q: If it is decided to evacuate the settlements, will you join those
resisting this?
Yes -- 12%
No -- 85%

The poll questioned 501 people. The margin of error is 4.4%. In
questions where figures do not amount to 100%, the missing percentages refer
to those who chose not to reply.

Okay Don Qixote, crunch the numbers 7 ways from sunday or tilt at another windmill, either way, you and the people you support are on the wrong side of the equation.

Y. Ben-David said...

There are recent polls that say the exact opposite. Depends on how you ask the questions. Your poll is meaningless. In any event, considering that Israeli Arabs are part of the group being polled, there is no majority among Jews even according to the poll you quote, there is no Jewish majority for freezing the settlements. EVen including the Arabs, it is not a large majority. Give me five minutes with most of those who say they are for a freeze and I could change the minds of most of them.

If, as you claim, most people do support the positions of the Left, why do they lose most of the elections?

Shoded Yam said...

"...If you were to ask the same people if they would support creating a Palestinian state that would use the territories evacuated to launch rockets against Israel, as happened in Gaza after the destruction of the settlements there, and if you were to ask if they would support creating a radical Islamic Palestinian state, you would get a very different answer."

Most people are not kool-aide imbibers. Among this groups is a subset of people who are actually self-aware. THEY understand that the Qassams had nothing to do with the evacuation of the settlements. It had to do with stealing the land and then building settlements there in the first place. SO, the real question is knowing what they know now, would they continue to support the theft of Palestinian land in order to warehouse orthodox jews, theo-facists, dis-affected mizrahim, etc, etc, just so that they wouldn't be forced to live next door to undesirables(their judaism notwithstanding)or be faced with the failure of their social engineering endeavours such as the development towns.

BTW. You don't like being called "Judaens"? I agree. Its somewhat non descriptive. Lets take a page out of Rock-n-Roll history. How about "The Assholes", or pehaps "The 'Roids". Not only are these names suitably descriptive, their also a tribute to musical history. My personal favorite is "The Roids". Not only does it illustrate physical attributes, but being a chronic pain in the ass, it describes how the rest of Israel looks at the settlers

Shoded Yam said...

Look Ben David,

Undestand something. Not every solipscism that spews forth from your pie hole is credible by virtue of the fact that it does so.

"..In any event, considering that Israeli Arabs are part of the group being polled, there is no majority among Jews even according to the poll you quote, there is no Jewish majority for freezing the settlements."

You have no proof of this and neither do I. Again speculation and conjecture don't become facts because they emanate from your mouth. Just because you lend yourself credibilty, don't expect the rest of us to.

Shoded Yam said...

Its understood that you feel the mainstream newspapers in Israel are biased to the left and therefore, the poll numbers that they produce are not credible. Unfortunately for you, these papers represent the majority opinion in the republic.

"..There are recent polls that say the exact opposite"

Yes? Very well. Then lets see them. But if your going to start quoting poll numbers out of Ariel University or the Voice of The American Jewish Judeo-Fascists, The J-Post, don't bother. You're absolutley correct when you say; "it depends how the questions are being asked" because I'm quite sure that such "venerable" institutions as Ariel University would not bother asking questions in such a way that would not illicit a response in line with their agenda or that of the minority.

Shoded Yam said...

"...If, as you claim, most people do support the positions of the Left, why do they lose most of the elections?"

Because Israeli democracy, by legislative slight of hand and political corruption and the fact that its modeled after the Zionist Congress and not an actual elected body, has manged to disenfranchise the majority to the benfit of the minority. Their wishes were thwarted not at the ballot box in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv but by Jewish paranoia and money in NYC.

Y. Ben-David said...

So you claim that most Israelis "don't know who they are voting for".
End of discussion.

Potter said...

William Burns about Jordan-totally correct imo.

Shoded Yam- my sentiments better than I can articulate them-


Borders I believe are the (possibly only) destination. Can the international community impose on Israel and Palestine a border?

Israel does not seem to feel the urgency as it hums along more or less normally and can play the bully role without consequence. But the Gaza War's unintended consequence was to point to the situation. To an extent it may have turned a notch more the way many see Israel. Indirectly it was Hamas rocket fire that woke, and perhaps intended to the wake, the rest of the world.

If borders imply sovereignty, their creation implies mutual agreement and are naturally followed by international recognition. Borders further imply the willingness for respect and cooperation… but in this case perhaps further down the road. We are as far away as ever from any of this, especially the latter happening by leaving both sides alone these last several years.

If Palestinians are not threatening, if they are quiet, I don't know where Israel gets the right to unilaterally stop a Palestinian state forming. If Palestinians are quiet Israel no longer has a right (or excuse) to occupy. Then the international community has some obligations.

They are pretty quiet now.

Israel has it's habit- the need to control Palestinians and take land-which makes the present easier but makes future coexistence ( if intended) or subjugation/occupation/rule (if intended) very difficult. And you hear it in the way the issues are framed... not "allowing" a full sovereign state. The Israeli government acts like it has the luxury of control, of dictating the pace and the terms.

Obama (more evolved than GWBush) should not defer the real issue (the creation of borders and by inference a Palestinian state) for the symbol of a freeze, I agree, but a total freeze, even for a limited time, is more than a symbol. It's a first step and maybe a step this Israeli government does not want to take. A freeze is a key in the ignition. The negotiations are otherwise not only compromised but the energy and hope needed to pour into them are not there.

For the same reason a total ceasefire is important. Settlements and violence could conceivably continue while an agreement is negotiated (as has happened before) but it's like walking up a down escalator.

At this point the Palestinians (and some on the Israel side)need the freeze for important psychological reasons. Despair, anger and cynicism is a factor. The publics need to engage in the direction. So a freeze is a test on Israel's sincerity and ability to deliver. Israel has to show sincerity too, not only Palestinians. Let’s not even bring in divisions which exist on both sides- not one.

Arguments against the freeze are pure resistance, no different from hardline arguments on the other side. The whole lot should be pushed aside by a train that is going somewhere good.

Bernard Avishai said...

I should only like to add one point to this discussion. The median age in Palestine is nineteen. One hears that 2 million people will be returning from refugee camps in the event of a deal with Israel. Palestine will inevitably become an Arab-speaking megalopolis spreading east toward Jordan from Jerusalem, yet intertwined with Israel, itself a mainly Hebrew-speaking megalopolis spreading north from Tel-Aviv to Haifa. Together, Israel and Palestine will look something like greater Los Angeles. In that environment, fellahin harvesting their olive trees are going to seem beside the point. The border will be necessary only for voting purposes: to place a political border around cultural concentrations. But the states will inevitably be significantly federated, for a dozen reasons, and the task of each will be to successfully plug into regional and global business networks, very much like LA, bring water from the north, very much like LA, and manage the huge tourist industry, very... We need to get out of 1948 style thinking. It is creepily outdated, no matter what our settlers and Hamasniks think, or how successfully their actions torpedo the emerging realities.

Y. Ben-David said...

Dr Avishai,
Your articulately presented scenario for the peace you believe that will break out shows how out of touch with reality you are. Such a scenario would be considered a devastating defeat and surrender for the Arabs. A "Palestinian state living side by side with Israel with both prospering" would be seen as a historical betrayal of the Arab/Muslim cause. YOU may not like the Arab/Muslim view of things, but that doesn't mean that it is not real.
You say there is an "emerging reality". Where is this reality? What Arab states in the Middle East are moving in this direction? Those that have some sort of democratic base like Kuwait generally have the Islamists winning and demanding even greater religious controls on the population. And the unrest in Iran does not point to a true liberalization in the directions you want....the chief "Reformer" is Rafsanjani who, as I understand, was the one who is ultimately responsible for the two mass terror attacks against Jewish targets in Argentina. Thus, we are seeing a power struggle between different cliques in the ruling power structure, not true reform.
I saw your lecture at Vanderbilt U and as proof of the mythological "peace yearnings" of the Arab world, you brought a couple of anecdotal Libyan students who claim they want peace with Israel. Who exactly are they speaking for? The Libyan government? The whole Arab Umma? The burden of proof is on YOU to show that real change is imminent before you are going to convince us Israeli to abandon our security to foreign forces and our Jewish identity to be swapped for an imaginary "Hebrew Republic" that the Arabs would view as no different than the Crusader State of the Middle Ages.

William Burns said...

Hey, YBD, anyone who still believes in the Jordanian option doesn't get to call other people "out of touch with reality."

Y. Ben-David said...

Mr Burns,
I never talked about the "Jordanian option". That has Jordan take over Judea/Samaria (and Egypt take over Gaza) and run these places to make Leftists Israelis happy. I said clearly that it will be a condominium, with Israel having over security control (which is vital) in addition to controlling the Jewish settlements. Similarly, Jordanian authorities would be involved in administering the Palestinian territories and towns. I will repeat what I said...this will be a modus-vivendi situation, not de jure since the Arabs would never formally agree to such a thing. However, it is slowly being implemented today, even as we speak. Jordan has retaken control of the Waqf (religious endowment) which the Palestinians had gotten hold of after the Oslo agreements were signed. It is a very powerful organization. It is clear to EVERYONE that the Palestinians are incapable of running a state and so this scenario is the only one available and events will eventually push everyone to this realization.

William Burns said...

Yes, YBD, if one assumes the Jordanians are idiots. Arab regimes have a very strong sense of self-preservation, and Jordan isn't about to stick itself between Israel and millions of Palestinians who hate Israel and aren't particularly fond of the Hashemites. Go on living in your dream world if you want to, but don't accuse others of being unrealistic.

Y. Ben-David said...

Mr Burns-
Do you think Dr Avishai's miracle scenario is more realistic?

Shoded Yam said...

"...So you claim that most Israelis "don't know who they are voting for".
End of discussion."

Ben David, the party is only just beginning,
don't run away just yet. Of course Israelis know who their voting for. Most of them even know that they've already been disenfranchised. However, confronting that reality also means confronting those who are behind it, which means confronting the settler seditionists, the Haredi, their wealthy and powerful supporters, etc, etc. To do so would be the opening shot in the inevitable civil conflict, which most Israelis fear worse than death. So in lieu of confrontation they prefer to remain in a state of cognitive dissonance. That being said, most Israelis (especially after Olmert, Sharon, et al.) are not blind to the corruptive confluence of foreign moneys and foreign influences upon theier leadership. As they watch resources that should rightfully be theirs being used to build roads to subsidized villas while they pay exoirbarant amounts of money to rent a closet in TA, As they see "make work" jobs distrubted by the Misrad HaChinuch to various ne'er do-wells in the shtachim, while their downsized, as their children are short changed in an under-funded school system, they will have no choice but to confront those who are robbing their's and their children's future. A day of reckoning is sure to come, sooner rather than later.

Shoded Yam said...


"...Shoded Yam- my sentiments better than I can articulate them-"

Thank You, but don't short change yourself. You do very well. My Compliments


William Burns said...

Well, YBD, it doesn't strike me as any less realistic.

ibrahim said...

Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat

slw1111 said...

Large amount people consent that the top daidaihua hunger suppressants are creations which hold hundred percent genuine lida daidaihua. Most commercials for price cut lida daidaihua are moreover not pure lida daidaihua or they can't be confirmed as real lida daidaihua-gordonii from South Africa.

ekle paylas said...

nice blog Thanks for sharing. voicesohbet was really very nice.
sesli chat siteleri sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslichat seslisohbet
sesli siteleri chat siteleri
sohbet siteleri sesli siteler
voice sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli sohbet seslisohbet
sohbet siteleri sesli chat siteleri
seslichat sesli chat
herkesburda herkes burda
sohbetmerkezi sohbetmerkezi