Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Want to end the occupation? Start talking to settlers and Mizrahim

The very people the Left categorically rejects — Mizrahim and settlers — are exactly whom they need to make peace.

By Avi Dabush

Three weeks ago, I attended the Peace Now rally in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square, standing among the “peace camp” and meeting many people whom I love and value. They are committed, devoted, and get out of the house to actually protest and work toward peace.

As I was listening to the speeches, I thought of a poem by Roy Hasan that ends in the line “They’ll never make peace, because if there’ll be peace, all the arsim[1] will come.” And I thought to myself that the reverse is also true — that all the arsim need to be here in order for there to be peace.

I don’t doubt that all those who filled Rabin Square that night want peace. But the rally, and all the other actions taken by the white-liberal camp, aren’t exactly bringing an end to the occupation and a solution to the conflict. They don’t amount to an effective political plan. It’s been 50 years, and they still haven’t generated enough political energy to significantly alter the status quo. On the contrary — among certain groups, the current discourse around peace simply reaffirms the longstanding hegemony and position of the elite. People talk about peace in order to feel superior, which is the exact opposite of effective political action.

Fixing this has to start with Mizrahim. It’s precisely the boogeymen of the Left who represent the sole chance for peace, and there will be no success without the full participation of the very people the Left categorically rejects. And that begins with Mizrahim and Arabs, without whom the Oslo process would not have taken place. Whenever I’m asked who has inspired my political outlook, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is one of the first people I mention. His ruling backing peace with Egypt, and nudging the ultra-Orthodox Shas party to allow the Oslo peace process to proceed, was critical to building a political alliance that could bring about change.

As for Arab citizens of Israel — talk to them, in depth, about the frustration of being caught between their national commitments as Palestinians and their Israeli civic commitments. They are neither an annex nor a bridge. They have their own voice, which is renewed with each generation....

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

What's the story with the siege on Doha?

It is very difficult to accept at face value this newfound determination to defeat terrorism by the Gulf states by humiliating a smaller neighbor whose differences consist primarily of alternative choices of distasteful proxies.

By Gary Sick

There are several things that I find confounding about the current conflict within the GCC:

First, as a member of the US policy team that first applied sanctions against Iran when our diplomats were being held hostage in Tehran, we drew the line at food and medicine. That has remained true in the succeeding 37 years. Despite all the onerous sanctions that the US has imposed against Iran over the years, which verge on economic warfare, there has never been a formal restriction on sales of food or medicine, including by US companies. The Saudi-UAE boycott, however, closed off food and medicine shipments to Qatar wherever possible, in the middle of Ramadan. I don’t know if this technically constitutes a breach of international humanitarian law, but it is certainly drastic by modern standards of political conflict.

Second, and related, it is striking that the attacks on dissident forces in Yemen have employed the same tactics. Access to food and medicine have been denied routinely in the name of military expediency, reducing the population to near starvation and subject to outbreaks of cholera and other epidemics. And these are neighbors, who physically resemble each other and who have long historical ties, but severe political differences. Family schisms are often the cruelest and most devastating of all.

The Saudi foreign minister, in Washington, said there was no blockade, since air and sea routes remain open. That is true, and Qatar agrees that it is a “siege” not a blockade. The Qataris are sufficiently wealthy to find alternative sources of supplies. They are not going to starve. But the fact remains that Qatar has traditionally imported up to 80 percent of its food via the ports and roads of its immediate neighbors, who slammed the door shut without warning. The inclusion of food and medicine is unusually draconian in this day and age.

Third, I am struck by the extreme nature of the demands placed on Qatar, and for that matter Yemen as well. Perhaps this is a bargaining position. We shall have to wait and see. But strict compliance with the demands as stated would constitute a substantial surrender of national sovereignty. It would require...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Israelis release paper lanterns in solidarity with blacked-out Gaza

As the Israeli government begins implementing a decision to reduce the already insufficient electricity supply in Gaza, to just three hours a day, activists just across the border send a little symbolic light their way.

By Eli Bitan

After Israel announced that it had begun reducing the already insufficient electricity supply to Gaza on Monday, dozens of Israeli activists released 150 paper lanterns at Ashkelon beach, just north of the Strip, in solidarity with the residents of the besieged territory. Among the activists were Israeli residents who live in the towns surrounding Gaza, who joined the action to protest the potential humanitarian catastrophe on the other side of the fence.

The Israeli government announcement that it had begun reducing the electricity it sells to the Gaza Strip ostensibly fulfilled a request by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who said he was stopping to pay for the power Israel supplies to Gaza. The cuts would leave Gaza with around three hours of electricity a day.

According to Gisha, an Israeli legal NGO that focuses on Gaza, Israel has for years been selling 120 megawatts to Gaza — supplied through 10 power lines — with each line carrying 12 megawatts. On Monday morning, Israel cut supply on two lines from 12 to eight megawatts. Meanwhile, Israel continues to severely limit the import of generators and spare parts needed for their repair to Gaza, as well as import of transformers and equipment.

Last Wednesday, a coalition of 16 civil society organizations sent an urgent letter to Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, emphasizing the unlawfulness of the cabinet decision to cut Gaza’s power supply under both Israeli and international law. The attorney general has yet to respond, and it is unknown whether there will be further reductions to the electricity supply.

This past week, over 3,200 activists called on Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman to prevent an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe in the Strip. Maayan Dak, campaign manager for Zazim, the Israeli NGO behind Monday night’s action, told Local Call: “It has been nearly three years since the last war, and Israel is still preventing replacement parts for Gaza’s power station, which it bombed in 2014, from entering the Strip. Millions of people are living with four hours of electricity a day, at best. We cannot let this continue.”

Eli Bitan is a journalist in the ultra-Orthodox press in Israel, and is a blogger on Local Call, where this post was...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Overcoming bigotry, Be'er Sheva to hold first pride march

A year after the Be’er Sheva march was cancelled following threats by extremists, the LGBTQ community in the city wins its greatest victory to date.

By Daniel Beller

A year after it was cancelled by the municipality, the southern city of Be’er Sheva will hold its first ever pride parade this coming Thursday. Last year’s cancellation came after organizers were forced to march on side streets and in a closed-off area, following pressure by the religious community in the city, and after the police claimed they had received concrete intelligence that extremists were planning on attacking the marchers.

This year, after months-long negotiations between the LGBTQ community in the city and the municipality, 18 years after the first pride march in Tel Aviv, and after years of attempts to hold a march in the city — pride flags will finally fly in the “capital of the Negev.”

The march is organized by the Be’er Sheva LGBTQ Center, the municipality, and its daughter company, Kivunim. The march will pass through Reger Boulevard, the city’s main thoroughfare, and will end outside the municipality that will include both drag and musical performances. Mayor Ruvik Danilovich is also set to speak, as he has in previous events put on by the LGBTQ community in the city.

On Sunday, I published an article on a Facebook poll by a popular southern news outlet in tandem with the Facebook group, “Be’er Sheva Together,” which has 80,000 members. The results of the poll were surprising and hopeful: out of 2,510 users who participated in the poll, which was not anonymous, a large majority supported holding the march in the city. According to the poll, 68.8 percent (1,713 respondents) backed the march, while 31.8 percent (797 respondents) opposed it.

Zion Raz, the spokesperson for the Be’er Sheva LGBTQ center, says that allowing the march to proceed on Reger Boulevard is a “historical achievement,” and explains how last year, the compromise was to march for 100 meters on a nearby side street. “This year, the march on Reger will continue for over a kilometer. This is a 180 degree change on the part of the municipality and the police, which is a result from the hard work we put in this past year.”

However, despite the positive developments, as the march approaches there has been a noticeable increase in homophobic comments on local social networks, including threats of violence. On Saturday afternoon,...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Queer Jews should think again before celebrating Israel

We were labeled homophobes and racists for disrupting a group of queer Jews at a pro-Israel parade this month. But as queer Jews ourselves, we could not stand aside while being used to distract from Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

By Stephanie Skora

Just under two weeks ago, on the eve of the 50th anniversary of Israel’s occupation, members of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) staged six disruptions of the Celebrate Israel parade in New York City. There were several points of protest, including support among New York politicians and Jewish organizations for Israeli policies; the NYPD’s participation in the parade; and exchange programs between Israeli security services and U.S. law enforcement (including the NYPD), which involve sharing “worst practices” that disproportionately affect people of color.

Yet the disruption of the parade’s LGBTQ contingent by queer and trans Jews provoked the most vitriol. The group, which held signs reading “No Pride in Apartheid,” had organized the disruption in response to an open call for participation by the parade’s LGBTQ contingent.

Although the action was planned by queer Jews to send a message to their own communities that they cannot celebrate while Palestinians are denied basic rights, JVP was accused of antisemitism and homophobia. A statement from Jewish Queer Youth even compared JVP’s actions to that of a “hate group.”

As a transgender lesbian, a proud anti-Zionist Jew, and a JVP member, I have been particularly troubled by the charges of homophobia. I am used to the unfortunately common accusations of anti-semitism against activists for Palestinian rights, which simply cheapen and distort the meaning of the term while distracting from the human rights issues at stake. But accusations of homophobia felt like a new low in attempts to denigrate Palestinian solidarity activists, and to avoid hearing what they have to say.

The queer JVP activists at the Celebrate Israel parade sought to disrupt pinkwashing, the term commonly used to describe the Israeli government marketing a positive image of LGBTQ rights in the country to distract from, and even excuse, its ongoing denial of basic human rights and freedoms to Palestinians.

Born out of the 2005 Brand Israel marketing campaign, and expanded in 2009, pinkwashing often takes the form of city and campus tours by queer or trans Israelis, Islamophobic and racist ads and flyers about how poorly Palestinian queers are treated in Palestine, and Israeli organizations participating...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

What we choose to ignore about the 1967 War

The sins of the 1967 War are still with us. Not only in the continuing crime of the occupation and the new victims it takes, but also in the unanswered questions and the still unaccounted for victims.

By James J. Zogby

In June of 1967, I was in the midst of my final weeks in college when the war broke out. At the time, I knew little about the Middle East, since I was more engaged in the anti-war and civil rights movements. And so as I watched the UN Security Council debates that preceded and followed the war, I saw what was unfolding through the prism of those struggles with which I was more familiar—the one in opposition to the war in Vietnam and the other for civil rights and justice in America. As a result, I was skeptical both about the U.S. and Israel’s justifications for the war and the reporting and political commentary that followed. The story, as it was being told, was too simple and, therefore, it just didn’t ring true. I knew there had to be more.

The war started and ended quickly and in the U.S., the media and political establishment were quick to celebrate the Israeli victory. It was, we were told, “clean and quick” and “miraculous.”

There were two haunting photos from that period that were intended to capture the essence of the war. One featured handsome and hopeful young Israeli soldiers standing next to Jerusalem’s Western Wall. It was meant to convey their joyous victory and their conquest of Jerusalem. The other was a more ominous picture of shoes in the Sinai’s desert sand. We were told that they had been left by fleeing Egyptian soldiers, clearly intending to portray Israel’s enemies as vanquished cowards.

I knew enough about the “fog of war” to know that we didn’t know the whole story, but it wasn’t until years later that the bloody horrors that accompanied these pictures became known establishing that this war had neither been “clean” or had it been “miraculous.”

50 Years Too Many in-text banner

In September of 1995, The New York Times ran a story under the headline “Egypt Says Israelis Killed...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

What Northern Ireland can teach us about Israel-Palestine

Imagine if Jerusalem had an Israeli mayor from the Likud party, and a Palestinian deputy mayor from Fatah. It’s not so far-fetched — the equivalent is already in place in Belfast.

By Liel Maghen and Eran Tsidkyahu

Walking around Belfast’s various neighborhoods can remind one of the situation in Jerusalem. It’s not just the wall that divides residents of the same city — it’s also the graffiti of Israeli flags on one side of the street and statements in support of Palestinian prisoner Marwan Barghouti on the other. As a group of Jerusalemites, we couldn’t help but compare the reality in our home city to that in Belfast, and the situation in our country to what’s going on in Northern Ireland.

But in contrast to Jerusalem, where the conflict is far from over, Northern Ireland is deeply engaged in a reconciliation process that began at the end of the ‘90s. So we sought to try and learn from Northern Ireland’s recent history how to put a stop to the cycle of violence in Jerusalem.

We visited Belfast as part of a group of Israeli and Palestinian Jerusalemites who work on Jewish-Arab political and cultural issues. Our trip was a collaboration between the joint Israeli-Palestinian NGO IPCRI and the Irish Embassy, and involved studying, over several days, how a national conflict expresses itself in shared urban spaces.

Our trip revealed to us the complexity of the British-Irish conflict. The Palestinians in our group naturally identified with the Catholic struggle for independence from the U.K. and for the unification of historic Ireland, along with the quest for equality in the face of historic discrimination by the Protestant British hegemony. The Israelis, meanwhile, found themselves likened to that same Protestant hegemony, thought of as a foreign power occupying the local population.

50 Years Too Many in-text banner

Belfast’s residents have also scrawled political messages on the so-called “peace lines” that separate the city’s various neighborhoods — and communities — from one another. Protestant areas of the city feature Israeli flags alongside monuments commemorating British participation in various battles to “liberate the land of Israel. Catholic areas, on the other hand, are home to Palestinian flags next to signs supporting the...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

I left Gaza, but it failed to leave me

I feel guilty for living in a safe country while my family does not. But I want a future, and to start a family with children who don’t know what an F-16 is.

By Abeer Ayyoub

It has been almost an entire year since I left Gaza, although to me it feels as if it was only yesterday. I was lost in Europe — between working, studying, and comparing every single aspect of my life here to Gaza. I left Gaza, but it failed to leave me. I still care about and think of all the loved ones I left behind because I felt that Gaza was too small for my dreams.

Many of my friends left before and after me, and many others are still waiting either for Egypt to open up the Rafah border crossing, or for an Israeli officer to grant them a permit.

One of my best friends, who has been contemplating leaving Gaza for the past year, finally decided to do so last week after he reached the conclusion that Gaza is not getting any better. He wrote me a long message saying the following:

I wrote back to him:

Sometimes I cry because I never decided to leave without feeling any pressure, I cry because I feel guilty for living in a safe country while my family does not. I cry because hearing a door slam still scares me, reminding me of where I come from. I cry when the internet back home disconnects during the power cuts, while I am Skyping with Mama, asking her about food recipes.

Some friends say they left their hearts in Gaza, and I feel the same whenever I follow the news on Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp groups, sometimes more than the people living there. But no, I think I need my heart, soul, and mind here, to think of my career and future, to start a family with kids who know what a day with 24 hours of electricity is, and who don’t know how to pronounce the term F-16.

Abeer Ayyoub, 30, is a Palestinian journalist from Gaza, and currently a research fellow at Oxford University. 

Donate banner

View article: AAA
Share article

Bloated time and the death of meaning

By Ala Hlehel

The occupation deprives you of your humanity by depriving you of the ability to control time. A free human being controls his time: he gets up when he wants and goes to bed when he wants; he goes to work according to a simple daily routine; she visits her relatives and her fiancé; he goes to the movies; she goes for a walk amid nature around her home any time she wishes. A human being is human because he makes his own decisions, because he has the ability to plan for tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, for next week and for the next ten years. A human being pursues her freedom through her ability to control her time. Freedom guarantees that simple, extraordinary, and sometimes hard-to-define thing: dignity.

The occupation is a machine: a complex, octopus-like regime that functions to exhaust those who are subject to it. It is a regime based on repression under the cover of administrative legitimacy, the courts, and legal authority. At first glance, everything is legal, and human rights are vouched for. A boy accused of throwing stones will enjoy legal representation in the military court, and an interpreter, and his mother’s right to weep yearningly in front of him for the four minutes the expeditious deliberation lasts in the reinforced plastic trailer. Tables, chairs, computers, soldiers male and female, secretaries, the national emblem, its flag, smart security cameras, a metal frame around the place where the accused are seated, a brown wooden podium behind which stands the defense attorney, white shirts with black neckties, an impatient military judge, and three young men in the prime of life who threw stones at a military jeep during a demonstration. Everything but justice.

The machine resembles an old clock with its cogwheels: each wheel turns and pushes the wheel interlocked with it to turn as well. Cogwheel turns cogwheel turns cogwheel, and so on. And so the occupation machine is so tightly wound, integrated, and coherent that it is hard to distinguish its beginning from its end. Who drives whom? Do the settlements drive the government, or vice versa? Do financial resources drive the ideology, or is it the other way around? Does the army drive the security justifications, or is it the other way around? Do the bypass roads drive settlement population growth, or is it the other way around?

Why do...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Can the Iran Deal survive the Trump administration?

From a White House flirting with a policy of regime change to a changing political reality in the Gulf to the terror attacks in Tehran, the Iranian nuclear deal’s survival is anything but guaranteed.

By Derek Davison

The Iran nuclear deal—Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA—is facing multiple threats, and whatever hope there may once have been that it could serve as a basis for improving U.S.-Iran ties is probably gone. Between the Trump administration’s emerging focus on Iranian regime change and recent instability in the Persian Gulf, simply maintaining the deal itself is proving to be a serious challenge.

That was the consensus at a June 13 panel discussion hosted by the Atlantic Council as part of its day-long “Preserving and Building on the Iran Nuclear Deal” event. Panelists—the Atlantic Council’s Amir Handjani, the Brookings Institution’s Suzanne Maloney, and the National Iranian American Council’s Reza Marashi—agreed that Washington’s shift in attitude toward Iran and recent tensions related to Qatar and the June 7 terrorist attacks in Tehran have made this a critical time for the JCPOA’s survival—even for avoiding another war in the Persian Gulf.

Flirtation with regime change

The Trump administration increasingly represents a break not just with the Obama administration, which itself broke with over three decades of Washington consensus on Iran to adopt a policy of engagement after the 2013 election of relatively moderate President Hassan Rouhani, but with the previous consensus as well. U.S. policy toward Iran has occasionally hinted at or even offered limited support to the idea of regime change in Tehran, but for the most part it has focused on containing Iran’s regional ambitions. According to Maloney, who acknowledged that a Hillary Clinton administration would also have been more confrontational toward Iran than the Obama administration was, it’s still too early to really say what Trump’s Iran policy will eventually look like. Still, there’s something different about the Trump administration’s approach:

This administration has a certain commonality in terms of Iran policy, which is a fairly hardline stance across all relevant cabinet officials and at the sub-cabinet level. So to the extent that there was going to be a shift toward confrontation, there’s really no counterbalance to that perspective within the administration that I’ve been able to discern at this stage. At this stage there is a determination to turn up the heat on Iran on a...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Nikki Haley's view of Gaza is through Israeli eyes only

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley came to Israel to see the conflict up close. It’s a shame that when it came to Gaza, she only got one perspective.

By Yoni Mendel

“We are at the height of an important visit from UN Ambassador Nikki Haley in Israel. We are visiting the towns around Gaza. We both visited the terror tunnels. She saw how the cement we transfer to Gaza for rebuilding homes and building hospitals is used by Hamas to dig tunnels. She saw this with her own eyes. This is very important.

She visited the Kerem Shalom Crossing, where she saw the goods that we transfer to Gaza. Here she met the residents, the mayor of Sderot, she listened to the residents’ hardships of living on the border with Gaza. And despite it all, she saw here beautiful faces, she saw Zionism at its best, and our message that despite Hamas’ hatred, that we will continue to build Israel, a beautiful country, a country to be proud of, and I have no doubt that when we return to the UN building in New York that she will continue to defend the State of Israel.”

These were the words spoken by Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, according to Ynet. These are the words uttered by the person charged with using every trick in the hasbara book to blind us. As if these words could ever accurately summarize the political situation in Israel without mentioning the anti-democratic legislation in the Knesset, without mentioning the occupation, without saying the word “settlements.” And all of it without blinking.

But this is Danon — this is his job. And after all, this is the Israeli government. This is how both view the situation. Danon does not have ability to enter Gaza, and because he is a Jewish-Israeli-Zionist, his immediate association with Gaza is rockets, mortars, and terror.

Donate banner

What is disconcerting is that the information given to Haley on Gaza ends with Danny Danon. Let’s not delude ourselves: Haley views herself as “pro-Israel,” and thus probably believes she is helping Israel. As if defending Israel from criticism, ignoring the...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Palestinians are the glue that holds Ashkenazim and Mizrahim together

Sixty-nine years after the founding of the state, the hatred between Mizrahim and Ashkenazim is the greatest threat to Israeli society. Instead of properly dealing with it, all our energy is spent on sowing a collective hatred toward Palestinians.

By Iris Hefets

Whenever “the occupation” is mentioned, someone will invariably ask about difference between Ariel University, in the West Bank, and Tel Aviv University, built on the remains of destroyed Palestinian village Al-Shaykh Muwannis. This subversive question indeed touches on an uncomfortable truth: the narrative of the settlers is that they are no different from those who fought and drew Israel’s borders in 1948. From their point of view, the Ashkenazi Jews who came to Israel in the 1930s built Jewish settlements in the dead of the night, establishing “facts on the ground” in central Israel while partaking in the libertine pleasures of free love and intellectual discourse. In the 1970s, other Ashkenazi Jews did the same, only in the West Bank.

There are, however, many differences between 1948 and the aftermath of 1967. One of them is the role of Mizrahi Jews. While the vast majority of Mizrahim arrived to Israel after 1948 — after the expulsion of the Palestinian people, the razing of Palestinians homes, and the rape of Palestinian women by Israeli fighters — they became active participants in the crimes of 1967.

After the leadership of the Jewish settlement in Palestine and Israel acted on their program to drive out some 700,000 Palestinians — since they were native to the land the Zionists wanted to settle — there was a “demographic problem” that could only be settled through bringing in Jews from Arab countries. Thus was launched a highly controlled and selective transfer of population groups from Arab and Muslim countries.

Donate banner

Israel’s Ashkenazi immigration institutions enacted a policy of “population dispersion,” in which new Mizrahi immigrants were sent to far-flung areas of the country. They mostly came from countries with colonial pasts or presents, either benefiting or suffering from colonial oppression and collaborating with the colonizer. They arrived in a steady and slow trickle (with the exception of Iraqi Jews, who encountered a different fate), which ensured that communities could no longer function as such and were...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Colonialism's latest victim

The Palestinian man killed in Kafr Qasim this week was just the latest casualty of a colonial system whose masters feel forever threatened by the natives they rule over.

By Marzuq Al-Halabi

The killing of a Palestinian man in Kafr Qasim by an Israeli security guard earlier this week was more than just a regrettable incident that raised questions about police conduct. It was also a near-exact repetition of other such episodes in which the victim was Palestinian and the killer a member of the security forces.

Fifty-two young Arab citizens have been shot dead by Israeli security forces since October 2000. They are classified in legal terms as separate cases, each assessed on its own merits, but they’re not. These killings are part of an ongoing phenomenon — a creeping process that has resulted not from the conduct of native Palestinian Arabs, but from the structural relations between them and Jewish society, which adopted a colonialist approach toward the native Arab population in the region.

Official spokespersons in Israel tell us that the killings of Muhammad Taha in Kfar Qasim, of Yaqoub Abu al-Qi’an in Umm al-Hiran, and of many others besides, resulted from security forces feeling that their lives were in danger and therefore they had no choice but to kill them. This story is invariably helped along by a fawning media and other advocates. And added to it will be the Kafr Qasim security guard’s defense attorney’s claim: “If the security guard hadn’t opened fire, he probably wouldn’t be alive now!”

When the master feels threatened

These classic colonial power relations, which are developing anew around us, always assert themselves as a paradigm in which the Jewish “master” feels endlessly feels threatened by any movement, utterance, gathering, singing or shouting by the natives.

This sense of threat invariably turns lethal when the friction between the native and the ruler becomes a reality, such as during home demolitions, crowd dispersal — even for gatherings with a permit — and so on. Every member of the Israeli security forces and every police unit is equipped with the most sophisticated military technology, which is particularly conspicuous to the Arab Palestinian public.

It’s no stretch to say that this army gear is intended to oppress those very natives who are the source of this constant threat, especially if they don’t acquiesce to the aggressive and provocative...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article