48 thoughts on “UN General Assembly Campaign for Palestinian State Gathers Momentum – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. For all the sympathy such an act would garner, including my own, I do not believe the Palestinians will apply for statehood within the ’67 borders. First of all, they don’t have the institutions in place that Israel did when it declared independence. Nor does it have the powerful states behind it that Israel had. Nor does it have the military power that Israel had to enforce it. It is all talk and wishful thinking. If they were to go ahead with it, I believe it would end not in another Intifada as you describe, rather in another Nabka. What is more likely is that Israel, with the complicity of the US, will continue to attempt to rid Palestine of its indigenous peoples in order to make it one large Jewish state, which would serve as a proxy for US hegemony in the region.

  2. Not sure I agree with your optimism. You’re right in that the UNGA always shows overwhelming support for the two-state settlement. Every year when the GA votes on the “peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine” – the entire GA votes for it (typically around 160 votes) and the US and Israel are conspicuously isolated in their rejection of it.

    To become a member of the UN, the ball starts rolling in the Security Council, and although the US has committed itself to the establishment of a Palestinian state, as we saw a month or so ago, they are perfectly happy to veto their own policies, regardless of how foolish they look.

    And also, with regards to the vote on partition, the initial head count was lacking the required two thirds majority. The US had to threaten to pull its aid to a several countries to “convince” them to change their mind, including Belgium, France, Haiti, Liberia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Paraguay and the Philippines.

    Truman, in his memoirs wrote that he had never experienced “as much pressure and propaganda” aimed at the White House as he had in this instance. The delegate from the Philippines had said immediately prior to supporting the resolution that his country could not support the dismemberment of Palestine, since his country thought this proposal would not be in accordance with the UN Charter.

    In his memoirs, Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan recalled this telling incident. I will quote it directly as it’s too good to paraphrase:

    “The representative of Haiti met me in the lounge and with tears literally coursing down his cheeks, said, ‘Mr Minister, what can I do? I have now received instructions that in spite of my speech, in accordance with the instructions of my Government and my declaring that we were opposed to the partition, I have now to vote for it.”

    Had it not been for this extraordinary pressure, Zionism would have fallen at the first hurdle. As it turned out, the partition resolution was abandoned anyway, not that that stopped Zionist from declaring a state.

    1. @ Tim)
      Thank you for reminding the circumstances under which the Resolution 181 was adopted. Concerning Liberia and the Philippines, we can talk about outright black-mailing. Australia made a U-turn too, if my memory is correct. Not to talk about former French Prime Minister Leon Blum, ardent Zionist, and his lobbying.
      The Sir Zafarullah Khan Speech in the UN:
      To show the hypocrisy of the West, Sir Zafarullah Khan further asked if the United States would be ready to accept the 5 million displaced from Punjab if they wished to leave the place of their sufferings and settle down in the United States.

  3. Great article, Richard. Just one correction: Arafat did not “orchestrate” the First Intifada. The historical record shows that it was a genuine grassroots uprising that started in the camps of the oPt, far from the exiled Arafat and his elite, who were caught quite unaware by it.

    Arafat and the PLO did their best to ride on the coattails of the Intifada, and of course the Israelis went to great lengths to portray him as its chief architect.

  4. German chancellor Merkel recently promised Netanyahu during his latest visit to Berlin that unilateral steps regarding a palestinian state were not considered helpfull by her government. That doesn’t sound like supporting the palestinian cause…

    1. Merkel is widely & publicly known to have given Bibi a severe dressing down. Certainly Germany will be one of the first EU countries to recognize Palestine after the GA acts. France too will do so along with Spain & perhaps Ireland.

      1. Wether France nor Germany will act in a matter of such an importance against advices of the US, you bet!
        Spain will be very probably in severe economic trouble in autum. Can’t say nothing about Irelands behaviour in this case.

      2. Cyprus in fact recognized a Palestinian state on the 1967-borders already back in 1988 in the aftermath of the Declaration of Algiers, but that was before being a member of the EU.

        The new French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppé, declared at the end of March that “there’s no point recognizing the Palestinian state on our own. It must be done together”. He added that “Personally, we’re not there yet but it’s a possibility that should be kept in mind”. That’s just a way of saying no, isn’t it ?
        With presidential elections next year, no French major politician would risk too much.

        1. exactly. In fact even after the elections chances about France recognising Palestine are close to zero, coz on one side you have Sarkozy whose anti-muslim credo reaches new racists heights every passing day , and on the other the parti socialiste who was mockingly nicknamed parti sioniste for years (although it’s a bit simplistic, it’s certainly not without reason…) its champion & probably presidential candidate dominique Strauss-Khan declared one day he wakes up each morning to think how he could be useful to…Israel.

          1. Keep in mind that Angela Merkel hasn’t exactly been an enemy of Israel nor has Germany historically. On the contrary. But this woman is at the end of her rope. It would’ve been unthinkable for Germany to recognize a Palestinian state even a year ago. Yet, the thought of it is quite thinkable.

  5. Come September, such near universal recognition of a Palestine homeland may indeed provide a welcome and significant boost towards a peaceful settlement of the whole affair. There again, it may not.

    It must be remembered that this conflict has been with us for more than half a century and it will be difficult, perhaps, impossible to ever fully erase the memories and the pain it has generated. Other conflicts, even older, still smolder today and can trace their lineage back through many hundreds of years. Some memories, it would seem, can never be forgotten. And it is certain that yet more bloodshed will not ease their pain.

    It is only when those memories translate into further acts of violence or acrimonious dispute that the cycle perpetuates and reinforces itself. If all of us are ever to come to terms with this Palestinian/Israeli conflict, then the requirement for such an ending might be summed up in a line from a certain well-known film.

    ‘Your ‘re going to need a bigger boat!’

    I just have the feeling that the vessel that is to deliver this September’s UN resolution may not be big enough.
    We may have to send the whole fleet if we want it known that we really mean business this time.

  6. Here’s a thought experiment: Suppose UNGA “recognizes” (announces?) a Palestinian State in the 1947 boundaries proposed in UNGA 181, but with Jerusalem split as in 1967, presumptively allowing Israel and Palestine to exchange territory (such as a corridor to the Wailing wall for Israel and a path from Gaza to West-Bank for Palestine.

    Now the 1947 borders are “unthinkable”, so Israel would reject them. But Israel would also reject the 1966 boundaries.

    The advantages to the initial proposal of the proposed 1947 boundaries is that it makes (more) clear that boundary adjustments are to make Palestine BIGGER and Israel SMALLER, which is right and proper.

    As to enforcement, well, where is there any enforcement for anything in all this mess?

    As I’ve said since 2008, the proper path for settlement of all this is NOT PEACE, BUT I/L, with UNGA performing a “BDS” operation to get the settlers, the settlements, and the wall out of the West Bank and the siege lifted in Gaza.

    But they could do both: statehood AND BDS.

    1. Maybe the question of enforcement could be solved in a more comprehensive and systematic manner when or, indeed, if a decision is made in September to adopt 1948/1967 borders.

      Why not make the borders themselves hostage to any instance of a violent or unacceptable nature that may take place thereafter, whether within or without the region?

      Where the concept of an adjustable border is present, a defined and stable geophysical structure on both sides is thereby guaranteed with almost 100% certainty. Any complaint or violation of the peace can then be referred to higher authority. Here, a yea or nay can lead to an ‘adjustment’ of the borders, leaving those responsible to explain to their friends and neighbours why it was so important for them to do what they did.

      There are times when you’ve just got to make the situation work for you. To do otherwise is to accept the inevitable, that this entire conflict will end in major catastrophe and, as usual, mankind will have learned nothing new nor anything of real value, no matter how much blood and tears will have been shed by then.

      I think that in September, if any long term results are to be expected from whatever transpires, it might be worthwhile making all combatants in this matter this very special offer. They can, of course, say yes or no. But, if you think about it, is that decision ultimately theirs to make? Or is it ours?

      Because we will all still have to live with the consequences if such an opportunity is wasted. We do that now and the feeling is not a good one. How much worse might it be if, after September, no change is still apparent in the conduct of this conflict?

  7. People get ready, there’s a train a comin’…
    You don’t need no baggage, you just get on board

    There ain’t no room for the hopeless sinner
    Who would hurt all mankind just to save his own…

    To a degree, I am happy for the Palestinians,there are many good people among them and it would be nice to see the pragmatic approach of Fayyad succeed and prove its superiority to the ideology of Hamas.
    It would be a dream come true for a new era of mutual acceptance to dawn in the Middle East.
    However,I do not understand how Israel can be portrayed as a hopeless sinner who would hurt all mankind to save her own.
    Was not all of Israel aboard the Oslo train.
    Is is not wise to think that what happened in Gaza could happen in the new Palestinian state.
    Remember “the poor of your house before the poor of your town” ,our first duty as Jews is to own own.
    Let us accept the new Palestinian state and wish our Palestinian brothers well but let us do so with trepidation
    and careful planning.
    How easy for those who have never felt the fear as their sons away away from them in uniform.

    1. Is is not wise to think that what happened in Gaza could happen in the new Palestinian state.
      Remember “the poor of your house before the poor of your town” ,our first duty as Jews is to own own.

      No, it is not wise at all. Gaza and Hamas is not Fatah and the West Bank.

      The problem w. Israel is that it takes care of its own & doesn’t give a flying fig about the poor of its town, that is Palestine. That’s a violation of this injunction which never says show extreme indifference to those outside your own house.

  8. What about the “Right of Return” of the refugees, THE key demand of the Palestinians….more important than any particular territorial issue? If the UN proclaims a state in the manner described, doesn’t it leave the refugee problem hanging in the air? Aren’t the Palestinians facing the possiblilty that the West will say “okay, you have your state, now get off our backs!”

    1. ROR may be a more important issue for you than territory, but for Palestinians I’d say territory is at least equal in weight. The main issue immediately is territory. ROR can be dealt with later. I don’t mean that it can be postponed indefinitely. But first things first. First you get a state, then that state makes a claim regarding ROR which is negotiated.

      1. A future palestinian state cannot really be interested in loosing a part of his population to a right of return to Israel? They would very probably share the same interests with Israel…

        1. What dunderheadedness. Palestinians want to preserve the Right of Return. Any Palestinian government which betrays this right will be booted in the pants & out of office. All you do is show how ignorant you are of how Palestinians views their own interests.

          1. If these border proposals are placed squarely on the UN agenda in September and the 1948 or 1967 lines of demarcation are confirmed by (almost) universal acclamation, what then will be the likely outcome?

            Are Israelis going to comply with such an arrangement or will the perceived loss of so much territory make it impossible for them to accept this as a necessary precursor for peace throughout the entire region?

            I think some very major guarantees will be needed before the prospect of either side signing off on such a venture comes about. The trouble is that, at the moment, no guarantee, no matter how well formulated or sanctioned by the powers-that-be, will do the job. The fear of Israelis will be too great and the memories of Palestinians too deep. All that can be guaranteed is an eventual return to hostilities when some minor incident takes place or pressure from this quarter or that causes events to escalate and boil over.

            It has always been something of a pressure cooker situation anyway, its release valve activating time and time again whenever that ever-present spectre of violence, imbedded deep within its confines, decides to surface.

            Maybe in September, when all the arguments, plans, proposals, demands and objections have been debated and finalised, someone will remember that release valve and its rather primitive design. It will, of necessity, need to be replaced, preferably by something a little more sophisticated, more in keeping with the times in which we all live.

          2. Maybe! But if so, this demand (ROR)would exclude anything else but a one-state-solution. I think there will be a change in palestinian demands after the declaration and installation of a palestinian state? It simply doesn’t make sense to fight for a own independent state, and once this goal is achieved, fight for the right of return to another place?

          3. Nonsense once more. ROR does not mean a 1 state solution. That’s so simplistic as to be preposterous. It means that a defined number of refugees would return to settle in Israel just like thousands of Jews do every year. No difference. Of course Palestinians will fight for ROR even after they have their state. Just because YOU think it’s illogical for them to do so means they have to obey YOUR illogic?

            Holding on the demand of ROR after the founding of a palestinian state would be like if the zinonist founders of Israel would have demanded a ROR back into the states they initially came from.

            This is one of the dumbest, more irrelevant analogies I’ve heard in ages. These refugees came from ISRAEL, not Palestine. They want to return to Israel, from which their families were expelled unjustly & illegally. YOU are the one who’s going to have to learn to deal with it, not them. YOU are one who owes them reparations because of what YOUR leaders did to them in 1948. Deal with it. Stop trying to weasel out of it. Face it.

          4. Holding on the demand of ROR after the founding of a palestinian state would be like if the zinonist founders of Israel would have demanded a ROR back into the states they initially came from.

          5. @ almabu)
            I don’t know about Germany, maybe an average German don’t care whether he lives in München, Hamburg or the Schwartzwald, but Palestinians were mainly peasants and their attachment was first of all to their village, town and its hinterland. The regional differences, culturally and linguistically, are huge.
            And the ROR is simply applying international law and the numerous UN resolutions on that subject, and has nothing to do with ‘figthing for return to another place’. Akka, Haifa, Yaffa, the Galilee, those are NOT other places for the Palestinians.

            You go to a Palestinian refugee camp in, let’s say, Lebanon, and you’ll see, people have organized, living together according to their village of origin. They have named the alleys in the refugee camp-ghettos as the places back home, every child can describe the destroyed village, and knows who lived next to who, and who married who. The oral memory is immense, and every Palestinian is carrying the lost homeland in his heart and his mind.
            Don’t transplant a Western, industrialized way of living and social interrelations on non-Western people.

            If you want to read about the attachment of the Palestinians to their land, “We belong to the Land” by Abuna (‘our father’) Elias Chacour, a Christian priest, living within the State of Israel as a “Displaced” is a good start.
            You know, people who are able to, still go on annual pilgrimages to their lost villages to commemorate the Nakba. If you don’t undertand the Palestinian attachment to their land, you’ll never undertstand their ‘stubbornness’ and resistance. That’s called ‘sumûd’.

            When Ben Gourion said ‘The old will die, and the young will forget”, he simply didn’t know what he was talking about.

          6. @Deïr Yassin:
            First of all, let me express clearly that I respect totally your history, feelings, tradition and culture!

            But if I understand the essence of your post correct, and the ROR is essential for the palestinians, any two state solution seems automatically excluded, right?

            If so, a one state solution, ONE state for jews and palestinians, had to be a secular state and not a jewish one, right?

            Only under this conditions the ROR would made sense, right?

            In case of a TWO states solution and the ROR a part of the palestinians would live in the new state Palestine(?) and another part would go back to their former homes in Israel becoming citizens of Israel, right?

            We would see palestinians with different citizenships and israelis with diffent statuses as well?

            Regarding Germany: We had to integrate millions of refugees from the former parts of Germany in Eastern Europe. This was a job for at least one generation and overall it worked very well. Helpfull was a sense of guilt for WW2, the Cold War with the Iron Curtain, the “Wirtschaftswunder”…

          7. Again, way too simplistic. Of course it would be best if Israel was a secular state. But there’s no reason why religions can’t be respected as long as they are EQUALLY respected. Judaism & Israeli Jews should get rights, but they should be equal to those of Palestinians, whether Christian or Muslim. And as for 1 state solution, again, not at all.

            I’d really prefer if you asked questions & didn’t put words in others’ mouths or presume what their answer to yr question is going to be.

            I have no idea what you’re talking about regarding German refugees in Eastern Europe. That too, doesn’t seem clear to me.

            Do not publish comments twice. It just wastes space & gives me more work to do in cleaning it up.

          8. @almabu. The Jews had every right of return to the states they came from in Europe. And many wanted to return. Unfortunately the Zionists put pressure on them to go to Israel to increase its population. No laws stood in the way of Jews remaining in their countries of origin, and many did remain. Hence the Jewish populations in Europe today. Many even returned to Europe after unhappy experiences among the Zionists in Israel.

            In the case of the Palestinians, ROR is written in international law. Israel is an occupying power.

          9. Gene: You have absolutely NO IDEA what it was like for Jews immediately after the war. I know. I’ve done oral histories of Auscwitz survivors who told me about their experiences. One for example in Hungary DID return to her village where she was welcomed by graffiti saying: “Itzik, we’ll finish the job.” That certainly encouraged them to return & resettle in their villages. And this was not a singular experience. Such hatred was common. And why would you wish to return to a society that collaborated with Nazis to send you to camps? Or at least stood by & did nothing to prevent it?

            Yr ideological bias is showing.

          10. @ almabu)
            Personally I’m for a One State-solution, and always have been. It’s the only solution that can pay justice to the Palestinians – my primary and, let me be honest, only concern – and as Zionist occupation in the OT is advancing, the only realistic solution, too.

            From a Two State point of view, I’ll answer affirmative to all your questions except the “we would see Palestinians with different citizenships and Israelis with different statuses”.

            I guess you’re talking about the more than 500.000 Israeli settlers living in the OT since 1967. Those settlers are living there illegally according to international law. The Fourth Convention of Geneva consider transfer of civilians into conquered territories as illegal, and those settlers should be ‘retreated’ without any counterparts.

            According to the Partition Plan, 55% of Palestine was granted to the Jewsih state though the Jewish population only represented 1/3 of the population, in their huge majority recent immigrants in 1948. The Plan was adapted to prevent too many Jews from living in the Arab state, only 10.000 were supposed to be residents of the Arab state, whereas nearly 50% of the population within the Jewsih state were Arabs. After the conquest of another 23% of Palestine, Israel ended up with 78% and a nearly ‘Araberrein’ state.
            If you’re not aware of the step-by-step ‘theft’ of Palestine, the gradual expulsion of Palestinians and the settlement of Israeli and diaspora Jews in the OT, the Two state solution with the ROR seems injust to the Jews. I think that why most Zionists always start their narrative in 1947: “The Arabs refused the Partition Plan, the Jews accepted it”.

            I am aware of the massive transfer of, I think, 12 millions ethnic Germans after the WWII, and though I haven’t studied this topic specifically, it still doesn’t have anything to do with the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. If my historical knowledge is correct, the Germans were the agressors and the populations in German-occupied Eastern Europe were Natives …

          11. Richard, PLEASE don’t tell me I have no idea. You weren’t yet born, but I was already sixteen yrs old when family members and friends came to the US from Europe. I spoke with Auschwitz survivors, too, at the time. I didn’t need oral histories as I heard their tales directly. Certainly there was latent anti-semitism remaining in Europe, and it showed. But everyone had the right of return if they wanted to. And many did. I’ve also spoken to people who were forced to go to Israel because no one else would take them, thanks to Zionist efforts to keep them from migrating to England and the US. They’ve told stories of how they as (there’s a derogatory word for them that I can’t remember) refuges were treated by the native Israelis. Not with open arms.

            You’re no one to talk about ideological bias.

          12. Again, there was no “latent bias” & yr attempts at euphemism only display yr bias. There violent genocidal hatred & Jews were murdered even after the war, not to mention intimidating threats of violence from local anti-Semites.

            The numbers of Jews who returned to their home villages was very small.

          13. Oh yes, that derogatory word was “yekke”, referring to the displaced German Jewish immigrants to Israel.
            Cf Hajo Mayer and/or wikipedia.

          14. @ Richard)
            Almabu is German, and NOT Israeli 🙂
            He’s just trying to undertand, and is not defending any Israeli politics, if I remember his comments correctly.

            @ Gene Schulman)
            Ilan Pappe is MY hero too. His writings and speeches are great. And Hajo Mayer too, that I’ve heard speaking with IJAN a couple of years ago.

            Ilan Pappe is a ‘yekke’ by the way. And he once described how his parents chose a particular valley in the Galilee that they called Switzerland, they went there for picknick, longing back to Europe. Cf. the pine trees that Atzmon mentioned in his article after the Carmel-fire.

          15. Almabu is German, and NOT Israeli

            My mistake. I couldn’t make heads or tails of what his perspective was or what he was trying to get at. I guess I was too hard on the fellow as a result.

          16. @ Re-Gene)
            Sorry, I forgot.
            Tom Segev, the Israeli historian, has a great book on the various immigrations into the State of Israel, and how the different ethnic groups were accepted by the Sabras.
            “The First Israelis”, highly recommendable, as all his books.

          17. Richard: The word latent has nothing to do with bias. I really meant to say “blatant anti-semitism.” But the number remaining was not as small as you think. To take a page from Dier Yassen’s reference to Segev, I recommend you read his recent bio of Simon Wiesenthal. You will find that not only did Wiesenthal remain, but many others, too; in Austria, Germany and France.

            I agree I have strong opinions, based on facts and reading, and of course I have biases based on the same. What I think you’ve been trying to attach to me is prejudice, which is not the case.

            So, please, we are not so far apart. Shalom.

            You might also want to read a review of Eva Figges’ book “Journey to Nowhere” that I published at this link:


          18. As long as I am still awake, and my night is all already white, perhaps I can take this opportunity to tell you a little story of my personal experience. During the mid 1950s when I was an intelligence officer in the US Air Force, I was stationed in Berlin where I had the opportunity to meet more than a few Jewish families who had remained in Germany. On one occasion, attending the Fasnacht artist’s ball, I danced with a lovely young girl who insisted that I meet her mother who was also in attendance. Sipping wine and discussing backgrounds, we discovered that we were each Jewish, though they were reluctant to admit it until finding that I, too, was a Jew. At which time the mother began advances to get me to become her daughter’s boy friend, hoping that I would turn out to be her knight in shining armor. In her cloying imagination she believed that I would be the one to sweep her daughter off her feet, marry her and take them all back to America with me. Through them I met several other Jewish families who had remained in Berlin, all inviting me to their homes and bragging about their one remaining synagog. Unfortunately, their fawning over me did more to drive me away than attach myself to them. I was truly sad because the daughter was really nice, but there was no way I could take the family. They were just too Jewish for me in a religious sense. So after several meetings, I stopped seeing them again. I hope the poor girl finally found someone to make her happy. I was only happy to get out of their clutches. As far I know they did not suffer overt anti-semitism living in Germany, but they had dreams of emigrating to America.

  9. RE: “A new campaign to declare a Palestinian state by the UN General Assembly this coming fall is gathering momentum. Both supporters and detractors are already in full battle dress.” – R.S.

    FOR INSTANCE: “Israeli Speaker Reuven Rivlin visits Tonga” ~ JTA, 04/11/11

    (excerpts) SYDNEY, Australia (JTA) — The speaker of Israel’s Knesset, Reuven Rivlin made a historic visit to the island of Tonga in the South Pacific.
    Rivlin became the first Knesset speaker to travel to the kingdom, spending three days on an official visit accompanied by Israel’s non-resident ambassador, Shemi Tzur…
    …“This is a visit to enhance and rekindle friendly relations between Israel and Tonga,” the Tonga Chronicle quoted Tzur as saying.

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/04/11/3086807/isareli-speaker-rivlin-visits-tonga

  10. People get ready, I love that.
    Especially the second verse, which begins…”People get ready for the train TO Jordan.”

    Also, in reference to the post above that discusses Arafat’s involvement in initiating the 1st intifada, I agree with RS that the point is debatable. It is undisputable fact however, that he He was fully responsible for starting the 2nd intifada on the eve of Palestinian statehood over a decade ago. Talk about a hopeless sinneer who has hurt all mankind just to save his own.

      1. But it’s not the sins of the past we have to worry about. They have happened, taken their toll and left us with the situation as it is now. We cannot take back that which has already been. The only thing we can do is plan for the future with the benefit of whatever new knowledge may have come our way.

        Has any new knowledge come our way? Or have we learnt nothing from all that has gone before?
        If we cannot learn from our mistakes, which must, to date, be multitudinous, then we are forever doomed to repeat them.

        And that will not help our situation one little bit.

    1. Ariel Sharon is the one responsible for starting the second intifada. I hope he lies in his bed reflecting on all of the sins he committed against the Palestinians.

    2. “It is undisputable fact…”

      It’s quite disputable. British journalist Robert Fisk makes Arafat out to have been an incompetent boob who could barely plan his daily schedule, let alone an intifada.

  11. @Gene Schulman:
    You must be in your seventieth, when having been stationed as intelligence officer in Berlin during the mid-fifties?
    Then you have probably heard that some thousands Jews survived the holcaust hiding themselves as “U-Boats” in the anonymity of the Nazi-capital Berlin? One of them was the late TV-showmaster Hans Rosenthal. The roundabout 100.000 members of the jewish society in Germany constists mainly of persons who stayed in Germany after the war and their descendants. After the opening of the easteuropean countries this number doubbled to 200.000 persons. Their integration is one of the mayor challenges of todays jewish society in Germany.

    I really enjoyed your blog! You’re doing a big job. I recommended it via my own blogroll to the german blogging scene and will do so in the future. But personally I’m not willing to discuss on such a level anymore! It would’nt be helpfull, it leads to nowhere, it would just be a waist of time…

    So I wish all of you all the best, almabu.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link