IMO, it's a provocation because

Post #4,754 by Another Scott 8/12/01 3:14:43 PM Reply	IMO, it's a provocation because it's a unilateral imposition by one side on the other side, by force, of an interpretation of previous agreements changes the status quo. It doesn't do anything to reduce tensions on the two sides. It doesn't build a foundation for greater understanding and compromise. It makes it more difficult for an agreement to be reached. Do you think it's going to reduce anger among Palestinians who want to blow themselves up? I don't. [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/A1027-2001Aug12.html\|20 Injured in Israel Bombing (washingtonpost.com)] [link\|http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=737783\| Downsizing amid the uprising (economist.com)] On August 9th, a suicide bomber blew himself up in a restaurant in Jerusalem, killing at least 15 people and wounding scores. It was followed early on Friday by the Israeli response: security forces seized the Palestinian headquarters in Jerusalem and Israeli jets destroyed a Palestinian police station in Ramallah in the West Bank. The seizure of Orient House, as the Palestinian toe-hold in Jerusalem is known, will exacerbate Palestinians' fear that Israel plans to squeeze them out of their putative capital, and perhaps prompt further violence. But, in addition to the horrific toll in lives, the uprising entails another, seldom noted, toll on the livelihoods of Israelis and Palestinians alike. Even if the fighting stopped tomorrow, it would take years to undo the economic damage. [...] Damage from the intifada looks paltry next to the $63 billion in paper value lost in the past 18 months by the 100-odd Israeli technology stocks listed on foreign exchanges\ufffda sum equal to more than half of Israel\ufffds GNP. Of course, nearly all that cash was lost by foreign punters. Israel\ufffds economy was in its best shape ever before the uprising began, allowing it to weather the storm better than might have been expected. But that has made the shock at the sudden downturn all the more severe. [...] Silvan Shalom, Israel\ufffds bullish finance minister, likes to quip that this year\ufffds 50% decline in foreign direct investment, and the withdrawal of $1 billion in portfolio investment \ufffdis more Nasdaq than Nablus\ufffd. But a successful industrialist notes that his customers now refuse to come to Israel on business. People are unlikely to put their money where they themselves fear to tread. There are many, many reasons why Israel should rethink its policies with respect to the Palestinians. Simple self-interest is a big one. Siezing Orient House and blowing up police stations isn't going to do anything to further Israel's goal of ending the intifada and bringing peace. The sooner they realize that, the better. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #4,756 by a6l6e6x 8/12/01 3:40:34 PM Reply	Excellent post! I could not have said it as well. Alex Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe. -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Post #4,785 by boxley 8/12/01 8:42:34 PM Reply	how very one sided of you you said it's a unilateral imposition by one side on the other side, by force, of an interpretation of previous agreements changes the status quo. It doesn't do anything to reduce tensions on the two sides. It doesn't build a foundation for greater understanding and compromise. It makes it more difficult for an agreement to be reached. end said And the bombings by the PA are not propvocations? The daily PA controlled Media calling for Jews to be killed is not? The daily snping and motar attacks are not? So lets compromise by all of us kill ourselves so the poor Pals wont feel provoked and the rest of the world can breathe a sigh of releif because the middle east question is solved. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,795 by a6l6e6x 8/12/01 10:15:00 PM Reply	Nah! The Palestinians are not a monolithic... entity any more that the Israelis are. Sooner or later (excluding eternal war) there have to be agreements made with some Palestinian entity. As has been said before by others, Hamas is nor the same as PA. Some group is less evil than the others and that is the one you do not want to undermine. Taking over the Orient House strengthens Hamas and weakens the PA. Think about it. Kill or at least humiliate every Palestinian you can may be a feel good thing but it is a stupid policy. It only makes sense if your are playing the game of "last one standing, wins". Alex Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe. -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Post #4,798 by boxley 8/12/01 10:23:28 PM Reply	So every attack by the Pals must be suffered in silence and negotiate a lasting "whatever" while under attack and after the lasting "whatever" with the bombing, sniping and killing goes on just shrug and say that is the price? Kinda harsh isnt it? Peace is a 2 way street. Give them what they want and see if they change? weell kets see, Oslo gave them stuff and they abused it. Orient house with bomb supplies and weapons. I have an idea that might work but what is your solution? thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,805 by a6l6e6x 8/12/01 10:54:05 PM Reply	No, "turning the other cheek" is not a solution. It may have worked for Ghandi, but this situation is different. Focusing on the Hamas for the stick, and the PA, or someone more moderate for the carrot, is one thought that comes to mind. Hamas needs to fail and their failures need to be publicized. The other guys need to be succeed publicly. As impossible as it seems, Israel has to divide and conquer the hearts of the Palestinians. There needs to be a "win-win". Alex Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe. -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Post #4,808 by boxley 8/12/01 11:04:14 PM Reply	doesnt the targeted assainations do just that? hamas loses the people pulling the trigger and Peres is willing to negotiate. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,818 by a6l6e6x 8/12/01 11:43:49 PM Reply	Sure, to some degree. But using helicopter gunships and rockets loses points. Although objectionable in some ways, even low tech "accidents" would be an improvement on that. Humane and civilized approaches (i.e. do it without killing) get bonus points. The Israeli infiltration into Hamas must be pretty good. Capturing and trying them in court, especially if it was the World Court, would be better. If a PA police and court would do that it would be ideal. But we know that wouldn't happen at present. But such a time can come. From today's (8/13/01) New York Times: Four Hamas members were reportedly arrested by the Palestinian Authority over the weekend, including a man said by Israel to have been the one who sent the pizzeria bomber on his deadly mission. But the arrests were waved off by Israeli officials today as too little too late. PA can't win for losing. Alex Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe. -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Post #4,840 by boxley 8/13/01 8:37:38 AM Reply	arresting them is one thing just like Arafat arrested them before then sent them all on the street becausehe needed them. Those folk need a set of laws and a juidicial system. Right now it is chaotic. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,811 by boxley 8/12/01 11:12:15 PM Reply	actually a ghandi approach would work I dont have the courage for it but if I was terminal or lost all my family I would try. Cadres of thirteen approach the flashpoint with the understanding that the israeli's would not interfere. Pass to the PLA area dressed as old style jews and ask to speak to Arafat and start walking there. The mob would kill them, televise it. The second group of mayrters would have to be the most courageous because they would see the fate of the first. It would be replayed world wide on the tube. After a few groups the palestinian people would abbhor the perps and the persp would take more glee in dismembering the cadres and the world would be revulsed. Then negotiations that had meaning would take place. I think it is going to take the deaths of a lot of innocents get anywhere. :( thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,820 by a6l6e6x 8/12/01 11:46:18 PM Reply	Point taken. Alex Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe. -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Post #4,821 by Ashton 8/12/01 11:52:07 PM Reply	Sound psychology, but as you said - only heroes need apply. Nor could anyone actually 'apply', for the essence of using shame is that - the event must be ~unpremeditated, certainly not orchestrated. But always and everywhere there be Chance: The Vietnamese monks immolating selves - got even Kennedy's attention (thus a whole bunch under him) as evidence of how much Ngo Dinh Diem was unloved as a puppet installed by us. (Didn't help that JFK was later said to have begun the planning for withdrawal from that morass..) nor did it help that Greer, the driver in Dallas on 11/22: stopped dead after first shot - he hadn't driven that car before either - instead of swerving and gassing it.. (The first shot didn't kill) So we got Johnson riding on JFK's martyrdom and Pricess Di emotional mandate - and a (already, previously) disgraced Nixon next President and.. all the rest of accidental history. The only kind there is. Irrelevant? I think not: there just is no way I can imagine, starting from here - for a deliberate, methodical and sane new 'peace process' to spring from the forehead of er ___ anyone alive. Next: accidents, deaths and if the world is Damn lucky, Shame! of the sort you mention. Only that level of shame can change habits rapidly enough if.. all next goes uncharacteristically well. So I agree with your sense of it all. You just can't "do" it! It must just happen. My 3 shekels
Post #4,813 by Another Scott 8/12/01 11:27:34 PM Reply	I think I'm fairly even-handed. Hi Bill, And the bombings by the PA are not propvocations? AFAIK, the suicide bombers aren't members of the Palestinian Authority. Of course, bombings are a provocation. Israel can't control the bombers, but can control how she responds to them. The daily PA controlled Media calling for Jews to be killed is not? There's stupid, inflamatory rhetoric on both sides. The Palestinian media's commentary certainly seems to be excessively inflamatory. Yes, it's a provocation. But Israel can control how she reacts to it. The daily snping and motar attacks are not? Of course they are. The issues for me are: 1) Israel, since the 1967 war, is and has been the occupying force in the West Bank and Gaza. (Yes, they've ceded much control to the PA, but it's clear that the PA can't control the situation. Israel's destruction of PA police stations illustrates that.) As such, and as a western-style democracy, they have a responsibility to act lawfully no matter what the actions of the other side. 2) [link\|http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00p40\|UN Resolution 242] from 1967 calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. I think any peace settlement should be based on this and the rest of 242. 3) A small minority on the Palestinian side is willing to use extreme violence to try to prevent a peace settlement. Using violence against the PA and extra-legal actions against the suspected terrorists only plays into the hands of the extremists. Remember Timothy McVeigh? He hoped the OKC bombing would cause people to rise up against the government. What would have happened if the FBI and ATF overreacted and attacked suspected militia groups? Israel has a responsibility to use restraint, act within the law, and look at the long term. So lets compromise by all of us kill ourselves so the poor Pals wont feel provoked and the rest of the world can breathe a sigh of releif because the middle east question is solved. You know that I'm not saying anything like that. As Alex said, Israel is going to have to find a way to reach an agreement with the other side. Eventually, this situation will be resolved. Neither side will get all it wants - there will be a compromise of some sort. Agreed? Unfortunately, some on each side think that they'll be able to prevail. That Israel will be able to keep whatever lands it wants and impose any conditions it wants on the Palestinian side. Some Palestinians feel that they'll be able to push Israel out into the Mediterranean. Neither side can nor should defeat the other. There has to be an eventual compromise. Israel's actions in response to acts of a small minority are making it more difficult to reach a compromise. You've earlier asked whether the Jews have a right to a homeland that they can call their own and rule as they see fit. Yes and no in my opinion. The world decided decades ago that the Jews needed a homeland. I agree with that decision. But unless Israel starts a policy of mass deportations of non-Jews, she's going to have a large (and growing) Arab minority. If she remains a democracy, she's going to eventually lose her majority-Jewish character (unless demographics change). I think it's more important that Israel remain a democracy than she maintain her majority-Jewish character. If it's necessary to have an official policy of discrimination between first-class (jewish) and second-class (non-jewish) citizens, or to prevent people from getting citizenship in Israel based only on their being gentiles, then I think history has shown that such a society can't continue to function without major conflict. The present troubles would seem minor in such a case. :-( My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #4,824 by boxley 8/13/01 12:00:06 AM Reply	Not a problem with the resolution apparently Israel is wasting time negotiating with the PLO and should according to tjhat document negotiate with the Jordanian King and let him do whatever he wants in that area. :) part two we are fscked and might as well give up now. No apatheid doesnt work and immegration is staying ahead of birth rates so far. But hmmm that declaration makes no mention of 73 when Syria, Egypt and Jordan attacked on 3 fronts. So UN resolutions are only good until the next war or binding forever? What about the UN resolution of 1948? doesnt matter? I know that many folks here on this board and elsewhere are well meaning and want a safe lasting solution to this as I do. We can do it with help. The other side seems nwilling and unable to abide by anything. I dont know where you live but if a partisan group locked out a part of town (lets use Cincinati's Ghetto for an example) and wanted self rule, and a modicum of self rule was granted but militants wanted to have more and send suicidse bombers into the white areas do you think the negotiating group would not be able to stop them? Or if they did not would you think that they are quietly encouraging them while playing kill whitey all the time on the negotiating groups wholey owned and operated radio station? and howe long would it last before people got totally fed up with the attitude? thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,833 by bluke 8/13/01 3:39:41 AM Reply	What UN Resolution 242 really says You and many others constantly misinterpret what UN Resoltion 242 really says. The following is a quote from Eugene Rostow(who was one of the drafters of the resolution) from an article he wrote in the New Republic in 1991: "Nothing could be further from the truth. Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from "the" territories nor from "all" the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from "all" the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the "fragile" and "vulnerable" Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called "secure and recognized" boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims. Resolution 242 leaves the issue of dividing the occupied areas between Israel and its neighbors entirely to the agreement of the parties in accordance with the principles it sets out. It was, however, negotiated with full realization that the problem of establishing "a secure and recognized" boundary between Israel and Jordan would be the thorniest issue of the peace-making process. The United States has remained firmly opposed to the creation of a third Palestinian state on the territory of the Palestine Mandate. An independent Jordan or a Jordan linked in an economic union with Israel is desirable from the point of view of everybody's security and prosperity. And a predominantly Jewish Israel is one of the fundamental goals of Israeli policy. ... But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors."
Post #4,839 by Another Scott 8/13/01 8:32:27 AM Reply	I think the English is clear. (From Google's cache of the 242 link above): The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security, Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter, 1.Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; 2.Affirms further the necessity For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; 3.Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution; 4.Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible. I don't see anything at all unclear about the text. The changing of borders by force is against UN principles. Israel needs to withdraw. And Israel's neighbors need to recognize Israel's borders. And to answer Boxley's question, I don't think (Google's cache of)[link\|http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:rU7zpgq2FrU:www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp%3FMFAH00p50+UN+resolution+242+338&hl=en\|UN Resolution of 338] changes the importance of 242. AFAIK, almost every subsequent UN resolution about the continuing conflict in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza states that 242 is still a centerpiece. Cheers, Scott.
Post #4,876 by bluke 8/13/01 1:54:20 PM Reply	You can't ignore the context The fact is as Rostow said there was a lengthy debate about whether the resolution would say "the territories" meaning all of them or "territories" meaning some of them. That is clear both from what Rostow himself says(and he was one of the architects of the resolution) and from the debate then. You can't just ignore all that and say the English is clear. In these kinds of matters every word is weighed and measured and counts. You are right the changing of borders by force is against UN principles, however the borders of 1949 were never established as permanent borders, they were just cease fire lines. The resolution states "within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;" the armistice lines of 1949 were never secure and recognized borders free from threats or force. It is also interesting to note that the resolution talks about the existing states. Nowhere does it even hint at the possibility of the creation of another state (a Palestinina state). Israel was supposed to withdraw and turn the territory over to Jordan. As an aside, it is interesting to hear from an American that the changing of borders by force is illegitimate, as based on this principle the US should give back much of the SouthWest to Mexico, Florida to Spain, etc. Once America decides to return Florida to Spain or California and Texas to Mexico, it can then feel free to offer advice to Israel. After all, why should America view its own "occupied" territories any differently than those of Israel?
Post #4,889 by Another Scott 8/13/01 3:11:13 PM Reply	I'm not ignoring the context. Hi bluke, First I can't read English ("...misinterpret what 242 really says..."), now I'm ignoring the context? Interesting debating style you have there. :-) Yes, there was apparently deliberate phrasing of the text of 242 that way so that it would have support. And it's interesting that each side can have diametrically opposed views of the text - especially those who look at different "identical" translations. [link\|http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0g9w0\|On Multi-Lingual Interpretation] Security Council resolution 242 (1967), adopted on November 22, 1967, contains the following phrase: "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." [...] That phrase has produced considerable controversy inside Israel, but within that controversy a secondary issue has arisen, of some juridical interest, since some of the protagonists of one point of view or another have purported to see a fundamental difference between one or other of these language versions of this phrase. [...] The above quoted phrase in resolution 242 (1967) is identical with the draft submitted by the United Kingdom on November 16, 1967, in Security Council document S/8247: [...] It is known from an outside source that the sponsors resisted all attempts to insert words such as "all" or "the" in the text of this phrase in the English text of the resolution,9 and it will not be overlooked that when that very word "all" erroneously crept into the Spanish translation of the draft, it was subsequently removed. [...] For instance, it is said that the indefinite quality of the English and Russian versions - which was a matter of political determinism-ought to be met by the introduction of a word such as "certains" into the French version (and its equivalent in the Spanish). But in such a context, certains would need some equivalent in English, for instance some, a word which does not appear in the English text and which, moreover, it is unlikely that a draftsman with any command of the English language, from either side of the Atlantic, would have willingly or wittingly inserted. If on this score there is any ambiguity in resolution 242 as it stands (which we do not think to be the case), it is rendered neither greater nor less by comparison of the different language versions, but is inherent in the text as adopted, in all its language versions. In this connection it may be observed that categorical assertions that the resolution obliges Israel completely to withdraw all its armed forces from all the occupied territories are not based on preference for one or other of the language versions of the resolution, but on the resolution in its integrity, in each one of its language versions. That was made clear, by the pro-Arab spokesmen, using the English, French and Russian languages, in the Security Council debate in November 1967. However, the real problem of what the resolution means on this cardinal question, or to put it differently, what the Security Council intended, arises whatever the language in which the resolution be read or a given contention expressed. I don't contest that there was debate on the language of the resolution, or that the lack of "the" or "all" was important. I still think the resolution is clear, especially given the context of Article 2 of the UN Charter. The UN Security Council wasn't intending to impose a solution on the Middle East. It has no power to do so. It was listing principles that it felt a solution should entail and goals which should be met. That's all it could do (without veto by one member or another. Recall that the UN presence in the Korean War only happened because the USSR boycotted the important meeting.) Carter, Clinton and others seemed to have views closer to mine than the one you express. Consider this story: [link\|http://www.dawn.com/2000/07/02/int3.htm\|US dismisses Israeli view on pullout] from DAWN.com, a Pakistani English-language newspaper: WASHINGTON, July 1 [2000]: Washington on Friday confirmed that UN Security Council Resolution 242 - which called for Israel to withdraw from land it captured in 1967 - applied to the Israeli-Palestinian talks, dismissing controversial comments by the Israeli attorney general that it did not. "The resolutions 242 and 338 have been the cornerstone of the US approach to the Middle East for 30 years," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. Resolution 338, passed in 1973, calls for talks to start "aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East." In an opinion published in the Israeli media on Thursday, Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein said UN Security Council Resolution 242 did not apply to the Palestinians. He said that Israel was not required to return the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority because the two areas were under Jordanian and Egyptian control when Israel seized them, and not the Palestinian group, which only formed in 1994. Boucher said the 1967 UN resolution was the "framework that we've always worked in and it's the one we believe we should continue to work in". "It's our view that all negotiations should be based on Resolutions 242 and 338 - all negotiations between Israel and the Arabs, including the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians," the spokesman added. [...] I'd be happy if some compromise could be reached that each side was happy with. If that involved Israel keeping part of the West Bank and/or Gaza, so be it. IMO, it's not the land which matters, it's the people. But I don't expect any solution will have much success unless Israel withdraws to the pre-1967 borders. My $0.02. I think I've had my say on this topic. Cheers, Scott.
Post #4,982 by boxley 8/13/01 11:03:47 PM Reply	please continue it is with informed dissent that opinions are made and without your disagreements opinions may be less informed. Continue to participate. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #5,009 by bluke 8/14/01 1:13:27 AM Reply	Land for peace No insults were meant, the fact is most people have no idea of the history of Resolution 242, that is all I meant to say. I object to the whole formulation of Land For Peace because it can't bring peace. Peace can be only achieved when both sides are ready for it. The land for peace formula encourages the Arabs to not really want peace but to want land. If Israel today signed a peace treaty with Syria and withdrew completely from the Golan would ther be peace? How could there be after Bashar Assad described Israel as worse then the Nazis? Look at Lebanon, Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon according to the UN, yet the fighting goes on. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Israelis are ready to make peace with all their meighbors and are ready to make painful territorial compromises. The same cannot be said for the other side. No Arab leader has prepared their nation for peace. This is why after more then 20 years of peace with Egypt, it is at best a cold peace, where the newspapers are full of anti-semitism, tourism is non-existant etc. This is why,in Jordan, anyone who promotes or deals with Israelis is boycoted and not allowed to work. Peace can only come when it is Peace for Peace. Of course, there may be territorial negotiations etc. but those need to be secondary. The reason why Sadat was so successful in 1977 was that he at least seemed to embrace this nation, he came to Jerusalem and declared that he wanted peace. Because of that he got all the territory that he wanted. Unfortunately, he was assasinated and the Egyptian people have not continued in that path.

Welcome to IWETHEY!