TNR BLOGS

January 07, 2009 | 3:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:12 PM
January 07, 2009 | 2:37 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM
January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
January 07, 2009 | 1:51 PM
January 06, 2009 | 4:07 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
01.09.2008
Biden's Good Enough for Me

John Podhoretz who, mirabili dictu, by the time the season passes will have become editor of Commentary, had been preparing for real life at the New York Post. But the laws of primogeniture intervened and now here he is dispensing all kinds of insidious bits of gossip, not at this point about Barack Obama but about Joe Biden, the flimsy Obama file having already long ago been exhausted. See Contentions in Commentary on-line. There's a quote from an angry Menahem Begin but only a vague allusion to what Biden is said to have said to the Israeli prime minister.  The entire story comes from another story by the former editor of Ma'ariv, an Israeli newspaper, in another Israeli newspaper, The Jerusalem Post. in 1992.  Where, for God's sakes, is a citation from the official records of the committee hearings?

The committee meetings, however, were supposed to have taken place not in 1992 but ten years earlier, in 1982, exactly 26 years ago. Is it likely that a nasty exchange between the prime minister of Israel and a distinguished Democratic senator would not have been noticed?  By anyone, by me, for example?  Biden is alleged to have threatened to cut economic aid to Israel if the building of West Bank settlements was not curtailed.  This was the line of the at once unctuous and crude James Baker, who stole the election from Al Gore in 2000 on behalf of George Bush before whom I assume Podhoretz, père et fils still genuflect after morning prayers. 

Look, what is happening here is that a senator with a sterling record, an unexceptionable sterling record on Israel is now in the eyes of the snipers, a kind of political terrorism in which evidence has no place, history no relevance and real politics no standing. Joe Biden is one of the most astute and committed supporters of Israel in American politics.

Menahem Begin took easy umbrage at any question that was a real question.  He would put down anyone who questioned where he put the comma in a sentence.  "I am a proud Jew" was one of his favorite sentences, mostly used as retort to anything he thought questioned his wisdom.  I have not the slightest idea as to whether Joe Biden ever did.  But it is no sin, and it is certainly not evidence of hostility to Israel.  And, frankly, would Israel be better off now if it had not built bivouac camps and outposts in the middle of the densely populated West Bank but instead had established real population centers in the Jordan Valley rift?  And around Jerusalem?

Another allegation has circulated today about Biden having said somewhere, someplace that Israel may have to learn to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. Where did he say it and to whom? According to Israel Army Radio we don't know the answer to these questions.  But it is said to have occurred three years ago in a secret conversation with Israeli officials. McCain supporters like Podhoretz are playing with fire when behave so as to restrain Israeli leaders from having candid conversations with American leaders.  Both have to be able to speak honestly and openly with each other, putting to each other tough questions and answering them honestly.

In the meantime, we know that Biden considers himself a Zionist ("You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist") and considers Israel one of our country's most reliable and effective allies. Dayenu! That's enough for me.
   

 

 

Posted: Monday, September 01, 2008 3:18 PM with 24 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

rozenson said:

When there isn't anything concrete on which to attack Biden, rumor is the only substitute. Biden, Obama, McCain -- and almost everyone in American politics right now -- have the same vision for Israel and would treat Israel the same almost to a T. I cannot vouch for Sarah Palin's views on Israel, for she has never spoken publicly about Israel at all.

September 1, 2008 3:51 PM

JackR said:

For me as well.

September 1, 2008 3:53 PM

jacksondyer said:

"And, frankly, would Israel be better off now if it had not built bivouac camps and outposts in the middle of the densely populated West Bank but instead had established real population centers in the Jordan Valley rift?  And around Jerusalem?"

True, and there were plenty of Israeli politicians at the time who said the same thing.

Biden or even Obama's credentials on Israel are not the issue for me, and John Podhorets is speaking more as a partisan Republican connservative than a thoughful friend of Israel.

September 1, 2008 4:57 PM

jacksondyer said:

rozenson said:  "When there isn't anything concrete on which to attack Biden, rumor is the only substitute."

True and true for both sides, Rozy.

September 1, 2008 4:58 PM

nbarry said:

According to the Jerusalem Post, Gov. Palin has cultivated good ties to Alaska's small Jewish community.

September 1, 2008 6:52 PM

sleepyavl said:

Whate can you expect from Podhoretz? The man's a propagandist going strictly by the party line. Zero independence there.

And yes, Peretz is right about the Jewish settlers in Samaria. They should have gone to the Galilee or the Negev, both in need of population. Let Samaria and gaza to the Palestinians. Let them have a Palestinian state. And let the Iaraeli army bomb them ferociously each time they attack - as they attack now from Gaza. The Pals WILL attack. I only hope they wll be given harsh lessons, not like now, when the israeli government doesn't bomb the shit outta the Gaza bastards that continuously bomb Sderot.

September 1, 2008 8:09 PM

jacksondyer said:

"And yes, Peretz is right about the Jewish settlers in Samaria. They should have gone to the Galilee or the Negev, both in need of population."  Sleepyavl

Excellent THOUGHT! They should be transferred to the Emek Ha-Yarden and other areas in the Galil.

September 1, 2008 8:28 PM

jacobt1 said:

Forget Obama Biden.

Can Marty explain the difference between Obama and McCain-Lieberman  views on international issues? Can Marty explain is own views? Can he tell us where he agrees with Obama and where he agrees with McCain-Lieberman?

September 1, 2008 9:36 PM

scrubbyoak said:

McCain-Lieberman? What are you smoking, Jake? Why would you take Bidden out from Obama but then add holy Joe to McCain? I suggest you leave Lieberman out of it and focus instead on just the two top honchos in the race - Obama and McCain.

I think Obama's views are well thought out, robust, and very good for American interests both in the short and long term. McCain's, on the other hand, are almost the same as what's been going on the last eight years with an extra dash of jingoism  thrown in for effect -- you know, knee-jerk sound good feel good reaction with very disastrous consequencies. (e.g Iraq)

That's my opinion, Jake.

September 1, 2008 11:48 PM

ginzy said:

I guess I'm in a unique position having actually heard the Army Radio (a.k.a, Galei TzaHa"L) report live, and I see the J.Post left out some critical info.

The meeting took place some years ago between some (unnamed, I think, Israeli gov't & security officials and Biden.  Present at the meeting was then-Israeli ambassador to Israel Danny Ayalon (this important point was omitted by the J.Post), who was interviewed (live) as part of the Galei TzaHa"L report.  Ayalon confirmed the gist of the story, that Biden told Israel to forget about a US attack on Iran and that he was doubtful that economic sanctions would work against Iran (unspecified was whether sanctions would not work in and of themselves or because the EUniks may talk a tough line but will still run to do big business with Iran as is happening now).  As such, Israel will just have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

After confirming these basic points, Ayalon (ever the professional diplomat) tried to excuse Biden by saying that 3 years ago when Americans were getting blown up in Iraq at every turn, Biden couldn't see the US also taking on Iran militarily, but maybe now that Iraq is going much better, particularly after the "surge" (force works), Biden might see things a bit differently.

I am sure that TNR could assign one of its enterprising journalists to contact Danny Ayalon to confirm the story to them, in English.  That is, if they really want to know.  But I am beginning to suspect they'd much rather play ostrich.

My problem with Biden is that everything I've heard in Biden's name from before he got the VP nod (anything he says after the nod is inherently suspect) indicate that he hasn't changed his mind.  And a variety of reports in the Israeli press all indicate that Israeli officials across the board are concerned.  No one doubts that Biden is very pro-Israel and a self-described Zionist, and means well, but his judgment on Iran may simply be wrong.

There is a very broad, and very very very rare consensus across the political spectrum here in Israel that the Iranian nuclear program has to be greatly slowed down, if not stopped, fairly soon before Iran solves the technological & engineering problems in make a nuclear weapon.  And there is an increasing acceptance of the very bitter fact that we will have to do this alone, with the U.S. not only not helping but actually hindering.

This past Friday, Ma'ariv journalist & commentator Ben Caspit  (who is well connected in the government establishment and a moderate lefty) reported that Israel's plans to hit Iran are being Bushwhacked, presumably by Condi & Gates.  The shortest, most secure route to Iran is over Iraq, but to fly that way, Israel needs US permission and the necessary "Friend or foe" transponder codes.  The Bushies are not forthcoming in this regard and instead are offering Israel radars, direct access to intelligence satellite data so that we can better batten down the hatches if Iran launches missiles in our direction.  The recent reports of the Russians strongly considering to sell their much vaunted S-300 anti-aircraft system to the Iranians is shrinking the window of opportunity for an attack even more.

So even if Israel wanted to blindly believe Obama that "tough diplomacy" not backed by effective, harsh and immediate sanctions and credible threats of military force (Obama is just not credible in that regard), by the time that it became clear that the Obama "tough diplomacy" was just another name for the demonstrably impotent "soft power" of Javier Solana & the EUniks, it may well be too late to do anything.

One more point:  Here and elsewhere, many have sung the praises of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, as an effective deterrence against Iran.  Setting aside the rather dubious comparison between the Soviet communist leadership and the Iranian theocrats steeped in the apocalyptic "Twelver" eschatology, for MAD to work the mutual destruction has to be assured.

During the primary campaign Obama took off the table the possibility of a devastating US retaliatory strike against Iran were it to attack Israel with nuclear weapons (by contrast, Clinton said that Iran would be utterly destroyed by the US in retaliation.  I don't know whether or not to believe what any Clinton says, but at least it  was on the table if only as a theoretical possibility).

So barring a US retaliatory strike, could Israel do it? Well even assuming Israel has nuclear capability (widely believed, but never confirmed) it is far from clear that Israel has a second strike capability that could be launched in the aftermath of a devastating nuclear attack.  And even if we do have such a capability, it is far from clear that we would be "allowed" to do so (after all, revenge is so uncivilized and so unchristian, and besides what good would it do?).  So absent the second strike, the assured retaliatory second strike, there is no MAD.

Memo to Obama & Biden:  We already feel like our back is against the wall.

Hershel Ginsburg

Jerusalem / Efrata

September 2, 2008 8:46 AM

jacobt1 said:

scrubbyoak said:

"I think Obama's views are well thought out, robust, and very good for American interests both in the short and long term. McCain's, on the other hand, are almost the same as what's been going on the last eight years"

Dare to say anyting specific?

As I understand Obama foreign policy is to use Obama personal charm as the main strategic asset of American policy. He would charm people all over  the world to unite them and he would charm dictators into changing their behavior.  To charm Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas he would tirelessly work to "resolve" Israel Palestinian conflict Did I miss anything?

ginzy said,

"And even if we do have such a capability, it is far from clear that we would be "allowed" to do so (after all, revenge is so uncivilized and so unchristian, and besides what good would it do?).  "

You are correct,  This attack on innocent ciivilians  would be considered a war crime by most West Europeans and by most Obama supporters..

September 2, 2008 10:06 AM

ginzy said:

"This attack on innocent ciivilians  would be considered a war crime by most West Europeans and by most Obama supporters.."

And therefore there is no MAD.  Hence Israel cannot assume deterrence as a viable policy vis a vis Iran.

And again, this is WITHOUT factoring in the apocalyptic "Twelver" eschatology to which the entire theocratic leadership of Iran subscribes, going back to Khomeini.  As Bernard Lewis, the doyen and elder statesman of Middle Eastern scholars has pointed out time and again, to the Iranian leadership, MAD is not a deterrence but an incentive.

Hershel Ginsburg

Jerusalem / Efrata

September 2, 2008 10:29 AM

jacobt1 said:

Hershel ,

Don't worry.  Under  Obama leadership. people of the world. will stand united expressing their disapproval of  Iran attack. Obama himself will ask both sides to stay calm.  Many liberals will say that Israel foolishly provoked Iran. I'm glad it's good enough for Marty.

September 2, 2008 11:04 AM

jwl2672 said:

The bottom line is that the Obama/Biden ticket is questionable on their position re: Israel.  We KNOW where McCain/Palin stands re: Israel.  If you feel comfortable with the unknown entity, then by all means, support O-B.

Ask yourself, why is it that dictators, terrorists, and Europhiles alike prefer O-B? Who would Israel's PM prefer?

September 2, 2008 1:29 PM

ndmackenzie said:

The bottom line is that the McCain/Palin ticket is questionable on their position re: USA.

And that is the only position that matters.

September 2, 2008 3:55 PM

jacobt1 said:

I agree  that the McCain/Palin ticket is questionable on their position re: USA.

We need to question Obama and McCain on their position re: USA. So far there are no clear answers from Obama on any questions.

September 2, 2008 4:23 PM

ndmackenzie said:

jwl2672 writes:

-- Ask yourself, why is it that dictators, terrorists, and Europhiles alike prefer O-B? Who would Israel's PM prefer?

Ask yourself, why is it that 50% of registered voters in America support Obama with only 42% supporting McCain?

www.gallup.com/.../Gallup-Daily-Obama-Hits-50-First-Time.aspx

September 2, 2008 4:28 PM

jacobt1 said:

Sure, the same people who thought that housing prices can only go up believe now that richest 5% of Americans can finance all his wonderful  plans, free health care, fixing SS,  build schools, create alternative energy  sources., create 5 million new jobs and so on

September 2, 2008 5:10 PM

scrubbyoak said:

ginzy,

Please, give Obama some credit for he's not an idiot. There are lots of rumours about him and 99% of them are outright lies and the other 1% are half-truths. Why would you believe something as ridiculous as "tough diplomacy not backed by effective, harsh and immediate sanctions and credible threats of military action." Please, ginzy, the man is running for the US presidency, not secretary of the UN. If he even as much as think - yes, think - something  that stupid, he's toast. Are you talking of the same Obama that threatened that, as president, he'll  unilaterally bomb eastern Pakistan if there's credible intel about al Qaeda or any of those lunatics over there. McCain mocked him for it only to have George Bush bomb a terrorist hide-out inside Pakistan a some weeks later.

Listen, all he's saying is that we should not be afraid to talk, but *NOTHING* should be off the table, including diplomacy and military action. First, diplomacy should be given a chance and if that fails,  the ante should be raised. Unlike what we have now: all threat, chest thumping, little action, and many disasters both happening and brewing.

I understand not agreeing with his policies but what you wrote is a mischaracterization of what he said and has been saying without backing down.  Do you think Marty would be supporting Obama if all he's willing to use is "tough diplomacy"? You are an intelligent man, ginzy, so I'll leave it at that.

I'll also say that I love you posts, most of them anyway. Keep posting, please.

September 2, 2008 8:35 PM

scrubbyoak said:

jacob,

I think you know Obama's positions all too well so I won't give you specifics because all you do is distort and make silly fun out of them. But, if you give me any specific policy of McCain, I promise to counter with an Obama specific policy.

I think you are having too much fun with Obama supporters on these boards, quite the comedian that you are. You should be on tv, Jake. Anyway, looking forward to your specific McCain policy if you can find any, especially ones that's different from Bush's. Good luck.

September 2, 2008 8:59 PM

ginzy said:

Scrubs,

I'm sorry that I cannot be as sanguine as you & Marty Peretz.  Not that Obama's bad, not that he doesn't mean well not that he isn't smart.  Just that his judgment and understanding is wrong.  He wouldn't be the first president to be smart but snookered by naiveté in foreign policy.  See Jimmy Carter (and I DO NOT compare Obama to Carter; if anything I compare Obama to Chamberlain)

First of all it was Obama himself who took the US mediated "second strike" off of the table.  Explicitly.  I was very wary of Clinton and I took everything she said about Iran & Israel with a grain of salt, but at least she said point blank that she would nuke Iran back to a primordial entropic state were they to nuke Israel. I had my doubts about whether she actually would do it, but at least she said she would.  Obama promptly distanced himself from Clinton's statement.  Given what I said above about what it takes, in theory, for MAD to be an effective deterrent, Obama took one of the most critical components off of the table.

Second is the time factor.  More than anything else, the Iranians need to buy time and they have become adept at doing so.  If this were 4-5 years ago, I would defintiely say go for diplomacy, carrot & stick. That was tried by the EUniks, IAEC, etc. And Iran played them like Yitzhak Pearlman plays the violin.  The Iranian negotiators dragged them on, agreed to talk, talked, said nice things, and then promptly announced that it is their “right” to enrich uranium.  All the while the centrifuges are spinning away, the Iranians are figuring out how to solve the technical and engineering problems associated with producing >90% enriched U235.  And they have been expanding their centrifuge farms as they lick one problem after another.  But now it seems that the Iranians may also be trying to master the technology to make, purify, and weaponize plutonium, the other fissionable element.  The big advantage – no centrifuges!!  Just to be on the safe side, to make sure that they have something that can go boom.  But this too requires time.

Delivery vehicles, at least those with enough range to reach Israel, they have already.  With nuclear weapons, pinpoint accuracy is less important, even for a country as small as Israel.

Now I have to give the EUniks & the IAEC credit for noticing that their policies haven’t been working.  I’ll even give Javier Solana credit for noticing and saying that there seems to be a discrepancy between what the Iranians say to the EUniks in response to their carrots and what is happening on the ground.  Ditto for that most quintessential of useful idiots, IAEC head Mohammed al-Barradei.  But just like Einstein’s definition of an idiot (or is it a madman?) they keep trying the same thing over and over again to see if something different will happen.  And nothing ever does.

Third of all is the question of sanctions.  Ironically, it’s been Bibi Netanyahu who for years has been begging the US, the EUniks, and the rest of the so-called “International Community” to implement real, harsh, effective economic sanctions and to stick with them.  Netanyahu has been saying for years that sanctions could work given enough time and consistency of application.  But the EUniks have been dragging their heels, at best, with weak sanctions, with at most symbolic value and even these are regularly and easily sidestepped by the EUniks themselves.

Two examples of sanctions-futility:  One, an article whose URL I posted a couple of weeks ago on the schizophrenia in the German government regarding their Iran policy.  If you missed it, here is the URL again: online.wsj.com/.../SB121080192012192979.html

Please read it again and explain to me how this is consistent with a sanctions regime against Iran, or how Obama is going to get the Germans in general, and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Social-Democrats – a “progressive”!!) in particular to act against what they perceive to be their economic interest.  And don’t tell me since he’s also a social democrat at heart and has a nice smile and winning personality, Steinmeier will just melt in his hand like a piece of chocolate (not M&Ms of course) and do what Obama wants.

Example two:  Two Austrian companies just signed a deal with the Iranians to develop natural gas fields, fully countenanced (explicit or implicit, I am not sure) by the Austrian government.  How does that jive with “tough diplomacy”?  SIDE NOTE:  Former Israeli Labor Party M.K. Ephraim Sneh (certified lefty, son of the late Israel Communist Party M.K. Moshe Sneh) recently visited Austria to try to persuade the government to block the deal.  Sneh has said repeatedly that he sees eye-to-eye with Netanyahu on Iran (as I noted, there is a very broad consensus here on Iran, across the political spectrum).  Sneh made it clear to his hosts that Israel cannot live with or “learn to live with” a nuclear Iran.  The Austrians ho-hummed.  Sneh then told his hosts that investing in Iranian gas fields now, will as productive as investing in the Krups Steel Works in 1938.  His hosts didn’t respond but they did turn pale.

Fourth is the very real possibility that the Russians will sell their much vaunted S-300 anti-aircraft system to Iran, which in turn would make an already difficult and costly aerial attack even more difficult and costly (for more on this, see last Sunday’s London Telegraph, here: www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Russia-threatens-to-supply-Iran-with-top-new-missile-system-as-cold-war-escalates.html

This will further shrink the window of opportunity to take out or at least delay the Iranian nuclear project.

So let’s assume that Obama is elected (an eminently reasonable assumption at this point).  Let’s say on day 2 of his presidency he calls Iran’s Mad Mahmoud to “do” lunch & and talk fission rods.  What will happen and why?  What will be the “tough” component of the “tough” diplomacy?  More sanctions?  By whom?  Even if the EUniks agree to truly harsher sanctions (which is very unlikely given past performance) who will enforce them?  The UN, like they did for the Iraqi Oil for Food program?  And even if the harsher sanctions are imposed, how long before calls for allowing for the “humanitarian needs for the innocent Iranian civilians” effectively gut the sanctions regime?  Will Obama even want to stand up to that?

What will happen is that Obama will talk and talk to Mad Mahmoud, the Ayatollahs who wield the real power & anyone else in the Iranian government, mouthing empty threats about harsh sanctions (even if he wants to impose sanctions, and I am willing to accept that he does, he won’t be able to because of the EU, Russia, China etc.).  As far as truly painful, effective military strikes, Obama has no credibility in my book, or most Israeli’s books, in that regard, regardless of what he says in the heat of an election campaign (again, I discount all out-of-character statements made by all candidates in a campaign).

But Obama will give the Iranians what they need most now – 6 months to 2 years to get to the point of no return, which together with Russian air defense systems will put them on track to force the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi.  And if you don’t know what that means or its significance, see Matthias Kuntzel’s superb article, “Ahmadinejad's Demons” that was published about 2.5 years ago in TNR.  Unfortunately, TNR has killed the URL that leads to that article (I wonder why), but Kuentzel has it on his WWW site:  

www.matthiaskuentzel.de/.../ahmadinejads-demons

So now do you understand why I am skeptical?  Now do you understand why we Israelis are already beginning to feel that our backs are up against the wall?  Do you get it?

Please note:  I don’t give a damn about any political party, Democratic or Republican or what-have-you.  I think party loyalty is the last refuge of the scoundrel.  I care about policies and the likelihood that they will occur.  Obviously, sitting on the bull's eye of Iran's nuclear ambitions focusses my attention on that issue in the campaign.  Most of my life I’ve voted Democratic (in the USA) although I did vote for John Anderson (who’s that?).  Last time around I voted for Bush (after supporting Gore in 2000).  From everything I see and read now, I will probably vote McCain (assuming I get my act together and get my absentee ballot; but it will probably be a waste since I vote through Illinois).  McCain is far from perfect but I feel he is the least bad of the two candidates.  If nothing else, a threat of military force from McCain is far more credible than one from Obama which conversely makes it a bit less likely to be necessary.

Hershel Ginsburg

Jerusalem / Efrata

September 3, 2008 9:42 AM

Mere Rhetoric said:

Remember that time when Obama was being advised by fiercly anti-Israel guru Zbigniew Brzezinski? And then his campaign issued a statement and said that Brzezinski wasn't actually an adviser? Except that he was? Or that other time when Obama...

September 3, 2008 11:58 AM

scrubbyoak said:

That was a very detailed post, ginzy, and yes, I  understand why you are skeptical, I understand why the Jewish state feels her back is against the wall. I do get it indeed.

The issues, facts and points as laid out in your post, I won't quibble with except for one: who presents a better credible threat to deter Iran? First, the next US president - Obama or McCain - won't bomb Iran in ways that's required to stop their nuke program no matter what either of them  say now. I'm no expert but my impression is that either an occupation or a nuke attack is required to stop the Iranian program and you and I know that those two things won't happen.  A threat is only credible if the intended target believes it but the Iranians with their smugness, and defiant attitude have shown they are not buying it, McCain's bluster notwithstanding. So, on Iran, both candidates don't have any credibility when they threaten the kind of military force REQUIRED to deter Iran, and the Iranians know this.

A threat by Israel to wipe out, or at least delay temporarily, the Iranian nukes is a different matter altogether. I have no doubts about the Israeli abilities in this regard, but would you guys do what it takes.......kill hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of Iranians in a nuclear first strike? I don't know.

So, the quandary remains. If only we are not ensnared in Iraq, on a mission that I believe is far LESS important than stoping the Iranian nukes program, maybe - just maybe - we would have better options. And if, as you pointed out, the window between now and Iranian nukes is 6months to two years, then why the hell would all concerned be sitting practically on their hands all these years? I must be missing something and can only imagine the level of angst and fustration of the Israelis.

Peace and God bless.

September 3, 2008 11:43 PM

Soccer Dad said:

Martin Peretz has been doing all he can to defend Sen. Obama this campaign. So recently he took issue with a report that Sen. Biden once threatened Israel's aid in a confrontation with then PM Menachem Begin. Peretz takes the approach that if it had happened

September 4, 2008 5:58 AM

Double click this space to insert your ad.