The former Nigerian Senate President Mr. Ken Nnamani ventured into the Zoning Debate this week. He should not have. Mr. Nnamani is definitely one of the eminent Nigerians of this decade. His Senate Presidency displayed a man with a good sense of what National Interest really means. He presided over the senate with integrity and was primarily the last hurdle that stood between Mr. Obasanjo and the third term agenda. He handled it as only a sure footed legislator would.
His reputation soared and he left the senate with his head held high.
By the way Mr. Obasanjo was from his party.
But his journey into the murky field of zoning is a different story any way one looks at it. He defended zoning via the most illogical argument possible. First he says it is the only way an Igbo presidency could emerge. This raises all kinds of headache for everybody. It smirks of tribalism for starters. It gives the impression that he is no longer the great statesman that his senate presidency suggested; that the triumph of the Igbo is the guiding principle in his mind.
Something else is wrong with this line of thought. Is Mr. Nnamani implying that the Igbo cannot compete in Nigerian politics? What is the evidence? They have competed successfully in all other spheres of activity in Nigeria from the football field to economic achievements to educational honors. Why is politics different? He should let the Igbo sink or swim. A hand out is not the solution. If the Igbo have not learned politics, the best place to learn is on the field, playing.
Give a man a fish or show a man how to fish, which works best?
Mr. Nnamani's other idea, that it emanated from the south is not reassuring. I want to accept that he is factually correct. But so what? Should we accept it just because it is a southern idea? What of the merits of the principle? Is it the best way to get the best man or woman to guide the country? That should be the thought that is uppermost in everybody's mind, not the source of an idea.
The most ridiculous concept of all is his assertions is that it benefits the south more than the north. If this were the case, it is enough and sufficient reason to debunk the arrangement. A system that favors one group over the other is bad for the country. We should be advocating a system that does not play favorites, a plan that would give equal access to all Nigerians.
There are other differences among Nigerians than the north/south divide. There are religious differences, not just between Christians and Muslims but within each religious group. How would such differences be resolved through zoning? There is nothing like south or north. The Yoruba is not any closer to the Igbo than he is to the Fulani. Why should it be just north and south and not east and west? One makes as much sense as the other.
If Nigerians want zoning, the first logical step would be to abolish national elections. Let us zone the presidency to the 774 local governments, which would ensure that every area gets a chance to select a president. We can start by casting lots. With this arrangement only local government elections would be necessary. The current N70 billion would be reduced to no more than N1 billion.
What Mr. Nnamani should have said is that an amendment to the constitution of Peoples' Democratic Party should be amended to allow all Nigerian citizens to compete in a free and fair election. If the election always produces only the Aduba's of Eastern Nigeria so be it.
Let the rest of Nigeria figure out how to beat them.
So long as their elections are beyond doubt free and fair.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Budget: Reps summon Aganga, rap President
Finance Minister, Dr Olusegun Aganga has been summoned by the House of Representatives to explain the alleged poor implementation of the 2010 budget. He is expected to brief the House on the subject.
This was as the federal lawmakers recently resolved not to accept 2011 budget proposals from President Goodluck Jonathan until the National Assembly is convinced on the level of budget implementation.
These were highpoints of a motion deploring the alleged poor budget implementation by the executive arm of government.
The federal lawmakers who took turns to criticize the Jonathan administration for the poor budget implementation said it amounted to a criminal offence for any government official to subvert implementation of the budget which was duly passed into law.
Chairman, House committee on Police affairs, Abdul Ningi urged his colleagues to go beyond criticism and wield the big stick against public officers hindering smooth budget implementation.
Disclosing that the anomaly dates back to Olusegun Obasanjo's presidency, Ningi said it is now time to put a stop to the practice in the interest of the nation's economy.
He wondered how the various macro-economic variables bandied at the beginning of each fiscal year could be attained if successive budgets are not fully implemented.
Also, Hon. Rabe Nasir who described the poor budget implementation as an act of corruption and irresponsibility, also called for stiff sanctions against the finance minister and his other culpable colleagues.
Similar sentiments were expressed by other federal lawmakers, inckuding Uche Ekwunife, Garba Matazu, Labaran Dambatta, Samson Positive and Bukar Abba Ibrahim.
Matazu said he does not know how to explain the anomaly to electorates who daily seek explanations from him on the poor budget performance.
Coming on the eve of an election year, the lawmaker said it portends worrisome development for those seeking re-election into public office if it is not urgently addressed.
In his contribution, Positive queried whose interest the government is serving if it fails to faithfully implement a budget that seeks to provide basic amenities and other relevant projects for the people.
Attempts by chairman, House committee on finance, Hon John Eno to blame the poor budget implementation on dwindling revenue was rejected by the lawmakers who at a point called for immediate resignation of the finance minister.
Presiding deputy speaker, Usman Nafada interjected and said the affected ministers cannot be absolved of blame.
He said at a meeting at the official residence of deputy Senate president, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, on the budget earlier in the year, petroleum minister on her own gave the revenue profile from crude oil which she assured was attainable.
He said the legislature would not entertain any excuses over the poor budget implementation.
Nafada said the capital side of the budget is crucial in addressing the needs of the people more than the overheads, wondering why the poor implementation did not affect salaries and allowances of government officials.
The House resolved to direct the ministry of finance to immediately release all capital allocations to the various ministries, departments and agencies.
This was as the federal lawmakers recently resolved not to accept 2011 budget proposals from President Goodluck Jonathan until the National Assembly is convinced on the level of budget implementation.
These were highpoints of a motion deploring the alleged poor budget implementation by the executive arm of government.
The federal lawmakers who took turns to criticize the Jonathan administration for the poor budget implementation said it amounted to a criminal offence for any government official to subvert implementation of the budget which was duly passed into law.
Chairman, House committee on Police affairs, Abdul Ningi urged his colleagues to go beyond criticism and wield the big stick against public officers hindering smooth budget implementation.
Disclosing that the anomaly dates back to Olusegun Obasanjo's presidency, Ningi said it is now time to put a stop to the practice in the interest of the nation's economy.
He wondered how the various macro-economic variables bandied at the beginning of each fiscal year could be attained if successive budgets are not fully implemented.
Also, Hon. Rabe Nasir who described the poor budget implementation as an act of corruption and irresponsibility, also called for stiff sanctions against the finance minister and his other culpable colleagues.
Similar sentiments were expressed by other federal lawmakers, inckuding Uche Ekwunife, Garba Matazu, Labaran Dambatta, Samson Positive and Bukar Abba Ibrahim.
Matazu said he does not know how to explain the anomaly to electorates who daily seek explanations from him on the poor budget performance.
Coming on the eve of an election year, the lawmaker said it portends worrisome development for those seeking re-election into public office if it is not urgently addressed.
In his contribution, Positive queried whose interest the government is serving if it fails to faithfully implement a budget that seeks to provide basic amenities and other relevant projects for the people.
Attempts by chairman, House committee on finance, Hon John Eno to blame the poor budget implementation on dwindling revenue was rejected by the lawmakers who at a point called for immediate resignation of the finance minister.
Presiding deputy speaker, Usman Nafada interjected and said the affected ministers cannot be absolved of blame.
He said at a meeting at the official residence of deputy Senate president, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, on the budget earlier in the year, petroleum minister on her own gave the revenue profile from crude oil which she assured was attainable.
He said the legislature would not entertain any excuses over the poor budget implementation.
Nafada said the capital side of the budget is crucial in addressing the needs of the people more than the overheads, wondering why the poor implementation did not affect salaries and allowances of government officials.
The House resolved to direct the ministry of finance to immediately release all capital allocations to the various ministries, departments and agencies.
SOCIETY GIVES KUDOS TO OBI ON EDUCATION
An educationist, Dr. Chris Madumelu, has described Anambra State under Governor Peter Obi as the most educationally progressive State in Nigeria.
In a statement made available to the press on Tuesday in Nnewi, Madumelu, who is the President, Education and Society Initiative, said the declaration was based on an assessment of investments in education by the thirty-six States of the federation.
He explained that the findings of the organization showed that though there were other State governments that have done well in the education sector, the Obi administration stood out for its consistency in funding education.
What we have done is to look at the degree of funding; the areas of coverage, that is, how many sub-sectors are covered. Then, are these in the short term, medium term and long term? And has there been continuity in these provisions?
Madumelu said that Governor Obi was being commended because since assuming office, he had consistently built and renovated hostels, classrooms, laboratories and provided water boreholes, generators and learning materials in schools.
Pointing out that the society was a think-tank for assisting policy formulation, Madumelu said Governor Obi's recent donation of 100 buses, 6000 laptops and sundry sports equipment to schools during President Jonathan's visit to the State, reflected Obi's commitment to the education industry.
The President of Education and Society Initiative announced that the organization will soon unveil a blueprint for private sector part-funding of primary and secondary education.
In a statement made available to the press on Tuesday in Nnewi, Madumelu, who is the President, Education and Society Initiative, said the declaration was based on an assessment of investments in education by the thirty-six States of the federation.
He explained that the findings of the organization showed that though there were other State governments that have done well in the education sector, the Obi administration stood out for its consistency in funding education.
What we have done is to look at the degree of funding; the areas of coverage, that is, how many sub-sectors are covered. Then, are these in the short term, medium term and long term? And has there been continuity in these provisions?
Madumelu said that Governor Obi was being commended because since assuming office, he had consistently built and renovated hostels, classrooms, laboratories and provided water boreholes, generators and learning materials in schools.
Pointing out that the society was a think-tank for assisting policy formulation, Madumelu said Governor Obi's recent donation of 100 buses, 6000 laptops and sundry sports equipment to schools during President Jonathan's visit to the State, reflected Obi's commitment to the education industry.
The President of Education and Society Initiative announced that the organization will soon unveil a blueprint for private sector part-funding of primary and secondary education.
House Orders Probe of MDG Constituency Projects
The House of Representatives has ordered a probe into the spate of abandonment and non-execution of constituency projects awarded by the Federal Government under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) programme.
It has also invited the Minister of Finance, Dr Olusegun Aganga, and the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Millennium Development Goals, Hajiya Amina Az-Zubair, to appear before it and brief the lawmakers on the state of the projects across the country.
The resolution to invite the duo was sequel to a motion brought before the House seeking to correct public misconceptions on the true state of the MDG projects in terms of who awards the contracts, the source of funding and whether funds meant for the projects are paid to individual lawmakers on behalf of their constituencies.
In the motion sponsored by Hon. Leo Ogor (PDP Delta) and eighteen other lawmakers, the House noted that constituency projects were essentially projects included in the national budget to be executed in all Federal Constituencies across the country.
Ogor argued that although such projects were usually nominated by members of the National Assembly in the process of budget preparation, it is the responsibility of the executive arm of government to expend the funds so appropriated in the execution of the constituency projects.
He expressed disappointment that in the face of gross misconception and public criticism launched against the legislators, the executive arm of government has failed to clarify the role and limitations of the legislature on constituency projects.
We are concerned that the way and manner the Executive Arm of the Federal Government has handled the issue of constituency projects in the country has left some members of the public with the notion that the funds for the projects are paid to members of the National Assembly.
The failure of the Executive Arm of government to own up publicly to their responsibility as regards the execution of constituency projects is the reason some members of the public have continued to accuse members of the National Assembly as having pocketed the monies meant for constituency projects,Ogor said.
Several lawmakers who contributed to the debate claimed that they have become victims of politically motivated attacks in the constituencies owing to the issue of constituency projects. They lamented that the misconception that lawmakers were in custody of the funds meant for the projects has become a ready tool in the hands of their political opponents in the build up to the 2011 elections.
Besides tasking the Presidency to ensure the prompt execution of the constituency projects across the country, the House has asked the Office of the Senior Special Assistant to the President on MDGs to clarify the role of the lawmakers in the scheme of things. It called on the Department of Information and Media of the National Assembly to take up the issue by enlightening the public on the role of the lawmakers in the selection, award, funding and execution of these projects.
The House also resolved to set up an ad hoc committee to identify all abandoned contracts under the MDG Constituency Project scheme across the federation with a view to re-awarding the contracts in the next six weeks.
It has also invited the Minister of Finance, Dr Olusegun Aganga, and the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Millennium Development Goals, Hajiya Amina Az-Zubair, to appear before it and brief the lawmakers on the state of the projects across the country.
The resolution to invite the duo was sequel to a motion brought before the House seeking to correct public misconceptions on the true state of the MDG projects in terms of who awards the contracts, the source of funding and whether funds meant for the projects are paid to individual lawmakers on behalf of their constituencies.
In the motion sponsored by Hon. Leo Ogor (PDP Delta) and eighteen other lawmakers, the House noted that constituency projects were essentially projects included in the national budget to be executed in all Federal Constituencies across the country.
Ogor argued that although such projects were usually nominated by members of the National Assembly in the process of budget preparation, it is the responsibility of the executive arm of government to expend the funds so appropriated in the execution of the constituency projects.
He expressed disappointment that in the face of gross misconception and public criticism launched against the legislators, the executive arm of government has failed to clarify the role and limitations of the legislature on constituency projects.
We are concerned that the way and manner the Executive Arm of the Federal Government has handled the issue of constituency projects in the country has left some members of the public with the notion that the funds for the projects are paid to members of the National Assembly.
The failure of the Executive Arm of government to own up publicly to their responsibility as regards the execution of constituency projects is the reason some members of the public have continued to accuse members of the National Assembly as having pocketed the monies meant for constituency projects,Ogor said.
Several lawmakers who contributed to the debate claimed that they have become victims of politically motivated attacks in the constituencies owing to the issue of constituency projects. They lamented that the misconception that lawmakers were in custody of the funds meant for the projects has become a ready tool in the hands of their political opponents in the build up to the 2011 elections.
Besides tasking the Presidency to ensure the prompt execution of the constituency projects across the country, the House has asked the Office of the Senior Special Assistant to the President on MDGs to clarify the role of the lawmakers in the scheme of things. It called on the Department of Information and Media of the National Assembly to take up the issue by enlightening the public on the role of the lawmakers in the selection, award, funding and execution of these projects.
The House also resolved to set up an ad hoc committee to identify all abandoned contracts under the MDG Constituency Project scheme across the federation with a view to re-awarding the contracts in the next six weeks.
Dialog and peace are the Zionist way
The Israel Project recently hosted a dinner with Palestinian PM Salem Fayyad, partnering with the American Task Force for Palestine, a Palestinian organization dedicated to coexistence and a two-state solution. This makes sense, because peace is at the heart of Israel advocacy, and mutual recognition is at the heart of peace.
The peace initiative of an Israel advocacy organization has given fits to fake “peace” pundits like M.J.Rosenberg, because it violates their demonic stereotype of “establishment Zionists” as evil and unreasonable warmongers. They are afraid that people will find out: Zionists and Israel advocates do not have horns and tails. Zionist organizations such as AIPAC, which has been cast as the evil “Israel lobby,” are also talking to ATFP.
The conflict has always been about mutual recognition. It has never really been about settlements or occupation. The conflict did not begin with the occupation in 1967. Settlements in West Bank did not cause the first Arab Israeli War in 1948 or the Six Day War. Palestinians and people like Rosenberg want you to forget this.
In the Irish Times, Hikmat Ajjuri, the Palestinian ambassador to Ireland writes:
THE ROOT of the problem in Palestine is Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza, which began in 1967.
Really?? That is “the root” of the problem? The only Jewish “occupation” that existed when the PLO wrote the Palestinian National Charter and the Fateh wrote the Fateh constitution, was inside “green line” Israel. The Jewish “settlements” were in places like Tel Aviv, Qiriat Malachi, and West Jerusalem. The PLO and Fateh nonetheless vowed to destroy Israel. In line with their underlying goal, Palestinians have refused to compromise in any way on their refusal to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, and on their demand for ‘right’ of return for refugees in recent negotiations.
In an article entitled “The Real Path to Peace,” Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, founder and president of The Israel Project, responded to Rosenberg and other critics:
J Street – like MJ Rosenberg — mislead when they assert that the main obstacle to a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians is settlements. They argue as if settlement expansion suddenly stopped, the conflict would magically disappear. This is not only hogwash – it is dangerous. Yes, settlements are an issue. But they are no more an issue than security, incitement, final borders, Jerusalem, water and refugees. All of these issues must be dealt with at the negotiating table — something Israel is eager to do.
When you misdiagnose the underlying condition in the Middle East — as J Street and MJ Rosenberg have done and convinced others to do — you become unable to cure it.
The fact is that Israel has repeatedly offered to uproot settlements as part of a deal creating a Palestinian state – but the Palestinians did not agree. It is clear from the statements of Prime Minister Netanyahu that he too, like Israeli Prime Ministers before him, is willing to make painful sacrifices for peace and a two state solution. Israel has proven by its withdrawals from Sinai, Southern Lebanon and Gaza that it will make genuinely bold moves for peace.
The chief impediments to an Israeli-Palestinian peace are the lack of mutual acceptance and the misuse and abuse of ideology. Israel needs its neighbors to embrace the idea of mutual coexistence, dignity and respect.
Why is it so hard for some Arabs and Iran to accept that Israel should be the national and democratic homeland of the Jewish people – while living alongside a Palestinian state? Why is it that, despite the fact that 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs who have full rights, that some Palestinians can only imagine a state that is Judenrein?
Yes, I say again, there are issues with settlements. But there are zero settlers and settlements in Gaza today. There have not been any since the summer of 2005 when Israel and close to 10,000 Israeli citizens withdrew from all of Gaza with hopes of peace. And still, after thousands of rockets fired by Iran-backed Hamas at Israel later, the official Hamas charter demands that their people “kill the Jews.”
Regrettably Israel also has a small minority of extremist, right-wing ideologues. While the fruits of their ideology are not anywhere near as reprehensible as those of Islamist extremists, they also can pose obstacles to peace and must be condemned.
Thankfully, many on both sides want to negotiate peace. To show that they are serious about helping to achieve a peace agreement, MJ Rosenberg and the people at J Street should focus talent and funds on replacing the Palestinian culture of hate with a culture of hope. They should support Palestinian leaders who want to stay at the peace talks and resolve painful issues once and for all. Israel longs for a time when Palestinians will finally “miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” by saying ‘yes’ to peace.
Palestinians need jobs, not jihad. Many moderate Palestinians know this and they are the future of their future country. Those who care about peace have a moral obligation to use facts, not ideology, as our guide. Being honest and open is the only way to create a better future for all sides.>
Facts, not “narratives,” are the keys to understanding.
The Palestine Solidarity Movement will probably not be hosting any Israeli officials for dinner any time soon,and neither will the BDS movement.That doesn’t matter. Their way is confrontation, not peace. Dialog, not divestment and boycott, is the only path to peace. That has always been the Israeli way and the Zionist way.
The peace initiative of an Israel advocacy organization has given fits to fake “peace” pundits like M.J.Rosenberg, because it violates their demonic stereotype of “establishment Zionists” as evil and unreasonable warmongers. They are afraid that people will find out: Zionists and Israel advocates do not have horns and tails. Zionist organizations such as AIPAC, which has been cast as the evil “Israel lobby,” are also talking to ATFP.
The conflict has always been about mutual recognition. It has never really been about settlements or occupation. The conflict did not begin with the occupation in 1967. Settlements in West Bank did not cause the first Arab Israeli War in 1948 or the Six Day War. Palestinians and people like Rosenberg want you to forget this.
In the Irish Times, Hikmat Ajjuri, the Palestinian ambassador to Ireland writes:
THE ROOT of the problem in Palestine is Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza, which began in 1967.
Really?? That is “the root” of the problem? The only Jewish “occupation” that existed when the PLO wrote the Palestinian National Charter and the Fateh wrote the Fateh constitution, was inside “green line” Israel. The Jewish “settlements” were in places like Tel Aviv, Qiriat Malachi, and West Jerusalem. The PLO and Fateh nonetheless vowed to destroy Israel. In line with their underlying goal, Palestinians have refused to compromise in any way on their refusal to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, and on their demand for ‘right’ of return for refugees in recent negotiations.
In an article entitled “The Real Path to Peace,” Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, founder and president of The Israel Project, responded to Rosenberg and other critics:
J Street – like MJ Rosenberg — mislead when they assert that the main obstacle to a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians is settlements. They argue as if settlement expansion suddenly stopped, the conflict would magically disappear. This is not only hogwash – it is dangerous. Yes, settlements are an issue. But they are no more an issue than security, incitement, final borders, Jerusalem, water and refugees. All of these issues must be dealt with at the negotiating table — something Israel is eager to do.
When you misdiagnose the underlying condition in the Middle East — as J Street and MJ Rosenberg have done and convinced others to do — you become unable to cure it.
The fact is that Israel has repeatedly offered to uproot settlements as part of a deal creating a Palestinian state – but the Palestinians did not agree. It is clear from the statements of Prime Minister Netanyahu that he too, like Israeli Prime Ministers before him, is willing to make painful sacrifices for peace and a two state solution. Israel has proven by its withdrawals from Sinai, Southern Lebanon and Gaza that it will make genuinely bold moves for peace.
The chief impediments to an Israeli-Palestinian peace are the lack of mutual acceptance and the misuse and abuse of ideology. Israel needs its neighbors to embrace the idea of mutual coexistence, dignity and respect.
Why is it so hard for some Arabs and Iran to accept that Israel should be the national and democratic homeland of the Jewish people – while living alongside a Palestinian state? Why is it that, despite the fact that 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs who have full rights, that some Palestinians can only imagine a state that is Judenrein?
Yes, I say again, there are issues with settlements. But there are zero settlers and settlements in Gaza today. There have not been any since the summer of 2005 when Israel and close to 10,000 Israeli citizens withdrew from all of Gaza with hopes of peace. And still, after thousands of rockets fired by Iran-backed Hamas at Israel later, the official Hamas charter demands that their people “kill the Jews.”
Regrettably Israel also has a small minority of extremist, right-wing ideologues. While the fruits of their ideology are not anywhere near as reprehensible as those of Islamist extremists, they also can pose obstacles to peace and must be condemned.
Thankfully, many on both sides want to negotiate peace. To show that they are serious about helping to achieve a peace agreement, MJ Rosenberg and the people at J Street should focus talent and funds on replacing the Palestinian culture of hate with a culture of hope. They should support Palestinian leaders who want to stay at the peace talks and resolve painful issues once and for all. Israel longs for a time when Palestinians will finally “miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” by saying ‘yes’ to peace.
Palestinians need jobs, not jihad. Many moderate Palestinians know this and they are the future of their future country. Those who care about peace have a moral obligation to use facts, not ideology, as our guide. Being honest and open is the only way to create a better future for all sides.>
Facts, not “narratives,” are the keys to understanding.
The Palestine Solidarity Movement will probably not be hosting any Israeli officials for dinner any time soon,and neither will the BDS movement.That doesn’t matter. Their way is confrontation, not peace. Dialog, not divestment and boycott, is the only path to peace. That has always been the Israeli way and the Zionist way.
French Ambassador Commends Developemnt in Anambra State
France has reiterated its determination to partner with Nigerian authorities in the conduct of the proposed 2011 elections.
The French Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr. Jean Michael Domoud, made the statement when he paid a courtesy call on Governor Peter Obi at the Governor's Lodge, Amawbia. Mr. Domoud, who acknowledged the efforts of President Goodluck Jonathan towards repositioning the nation's electoral system, extolled Governor Obi's pace of infrastructural development in parts of the State, especially in rural communities.
The Ambassador emphasized that the European Union , Which France is a member,has spent one hundred and twenty billion Naira in the course of her 2008 and 2009 assisted development projects in the country, stressing that presently they are training six thousand Nigerian teachers in French Language.
Responding while receiving the visiting Ambassador to the State, Governor Obi said that the courtesy call will afford him an opportunity to discuss on what France Government is trying to do in the country.
Governor Obi, who said that the State Government had been working with EU and assured that his leadership will not be found wanting in supporting the French teachers in the State, adding that the State has one hundred teachers to be trained in French Language.
He however, challenged the EU authorities to establish the country assistance projects that would meet up the needs and the aspirations of the State through adequate funding of such projects and strict supervision to ensure the execution of quality job. He observed that the relationship between Nigeria and France Governments is very cordial, noting that the State is today on the verge of real development, asking the EU to change her country assistance projects in the state from demand to supply driven as well as work towards making budgetary provisions for its projects in Nigeria nation.
The even feature presentation of some of the Professor Chinuea Achebe write-up to the visiting Ambassador.
The French Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr. Jean Michael Domoud, made the statement when he paid a courtesy call on Governor Peter Obi at the Governor's Lodge, Amawbia. Mr. Domoud, who acknowledged the efforts of President Goodluck Jonathan towards repositioning the nation's electoral system, extolled Governor Obi's pace of infrastructural development in parts of the State, especially in rural communities.
The Ambassador emphasized that the European Union , Which France is a member,has spent one hundred and twenty billion Naira in the course of her 2008 and 2009 assisted development projects in the country, stressing that presently they are training six thousand Nigerian teachers in French Language.
Responding while receiving the visiting Ambassador to the State, Governor Obi said that the courtesy call will afford him an opportunity to discuss on what France Government is trying to do in the country.
Governor Obi, who said that the State Government had been working with EU and assured that his leadership will not be found wanting in supporting the French teachers in the State, adding that the State has one hundred teachers to be trained in French Language.
He however, challenged the EU authorities to establish the country assistance projects that would meet up the needs and the aspirations of the State through adequate funding of such projects and strict supervision to ensure the execution of quality job. He observed that the relationship between Nigeria and France Governments is very cordial, noting that the State is today on the verge of real development, asking the EU to change her country assistance projects in the state from demand to supply driven as well as work towards making budgetary provisions for its projects in Nigeria nation.
The even feature presentation of some of the Professor Chinuea Achebe write-up to the visiting Ambassador.
The case for peace: Why Israel must say “Yes” to the peace process
Summary: As much as we all love peace, we need to admit that the current Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations are a probably a sham. Palestinian leadership can’t agree to a real peace settlement that would allow the continued existence of Israel. Instead they have decided to maneuver Israeli leadership into being blamed for breaking off the negotiations, leaving Israel in an isolated and vulnerable position. The Palestinians will then seek, and get, international backing for a Palestinian state that has no peace agreement with Israel. The concessions that should have been the”price of peace” will be forced out of Israel without a peace agreement. That is why Israel must always say “yes” to peace initiatives.
Earlier I discussed the reasons why most Zionists and Israelis support peace, and why Israel‘s long term policy has always supported peace.
My views are those of most Israelis. Nonetheless, anti-Israel writers have assured everyone that Zionists are really nasty warmongers. Anti-Semites tell the world that the Jews are behind every war. Popular magazines declare that Israelis are not interested in peace. These enemies of Israel have been aided by certain self-proclaimed Zionists who insist that the peace process is bad for Israel, and that Israel must turn down peace negotiations.
Those who oppose the continuation of the peace process need to be honest: Are they really afraid of security threats, or are they really opposed to an extension of settlement construction freeze?? Let’s be frank. The settlement construction freeze is a red-herring issue It was devised by the Palestinians to avoid serious negotiations. The Palestinians have negotiated for years while Israel built new housing in settlements.The Americans and the Palestinians did not call a halt to negotiations.
Certainly, if negotiations break down, there will not be less settlement expansion. The moratorium on construction in the settlements continued for ten months. The Palestinians wasted almost the entire period on deliberately inconclusive indirect talks. The peace negotiations are an elaborate charade, but they are a charade with a purpose. We have to understand the purpose of the Palestinian tactics in order to understand what the Israeli response must be..
Realistically, if negotiations continue, the freeze on construction in settlements will probably be extended throughout the Obama administration, despite the current temporary “unfreeze,” courtesy of the U.S. congressional elections.
So what? We waited nine years until the British left and we could bring new immigrants to Israel. We have waited two thousand years to build in Jerusalem. We have waited two thousand years for a Jewish state. Are we going to give it all up for a few “housing units’ in Ariel? If the apartments are not built now, does anyone think Ariel will be given to the Palestinians in a peace deal? But building the apartments now may put the onus for the failure of the peace negotiations on Israel, feeding the delegitimization campaign of the Palestinians and their supporters. Rather than a few settlements or a few apartments being called into question, the whole idea of a Jewish state, even a postage-stamp sized Jewish state, is being jeopardized by the new construction.
A little reflection will show that a negotiated solution that ends in two states for two peoples is the only sane option for supporters of Israel and for the Israeli government, for the reasons given below. It looks like the only game in town for a peace solution. it will probably happen whether extremists want it or not. It is, in fact, the only reasonable option for both peoples. Since this is the Middle East after all, skeptics can point out that the sane and reasonable solution doesn’t stand a chance. Nonetheless, even in the Middle East, it is unlikely that the collective will of the EU, the USA and Russia will be thwarted.
The logic of the anti-peace crowd on both sides has a revolting symmetry. They all want a one-state solution. The Arab extremists want an Arab state, and the Jewish extremists (see Israel-Palestine: The one-state solution returns ) imagine that the single state will be Jewish. As for unfortunate surplus populations, the Arabs imagine, in the best case, that a Jewish minority will live in “Palestine” as “dhimmi” or “Arab Jews” in the same way they lived (or not, as was frequently the case) in Arab countries. In the worst case, the Arab “one state” proponents contemplate massive expulsion or genocide. The Jewish extremists evidently imagine that they can wish the Arabs and Muslims out of existence by fiddling with demographic statistics or sending them to Jordan or other countries that will not have them.
The same strange symmetry is reflected in the way history is viewed. The conflict between Israel and the Arabs did not begin in 1967, with the Israeli conquests of the Six Day War. It is foolish to believe that returning all the territories will end the conflict, no matter what florid and deceptive declarations are made in documents such as the Arab Peace Initiative. Conversely, allow me to point out that Israel existed before 1967, and won a war against tremendous odds. The territories did not make us powerful or grant us security. Israel conquered territories in 1967 because it was more powerful and organized than its enemies. Israeli security was always provided by the Israeli people. Security was never provided by conquest of real-estate.
Right-wing opponents of the peace process tell us that it will establish a Hamas-dominated state, which will rain down rockets on Ben-Gurion airport and Tel Aviv from the West Bank. That is probably true. What could be worse than that? The model for such a state, as everyone agrees, is Gaza. An Israeli pullout there resulted in the Hamas takeover and the rain of rockets on the Western Negev. Opponents of Israeli withdrawal insist that only settlements backed by a military presence can keep the peace. They forgot that Gaze rocket fire began before the disengagement, when Israel had both settlements and an armed presence in Gaza. The soldiers guarded the settlements and could do little to stop the rocket fire. They forgot that Israeli helicopters, and aircraft are made in USA, that Israeli-made arms such as the Merkava tank or various unmanned aircraft incorporate parts that are made in USA, France. Germany or the U.K.
What could be worse than a Hamas-dominated state established by a peace agreement?? How about a Hamas-dominated state that has no peace agreement with Israel, that claims all the land of the British Mandate, that claims the “right” of return for Arabs who fled in 1948, and that has the backing of the EU too?? The rocket fire would be legitimized as “resistance.”That would be considerably worse, wouldn’t it?
The EU has pledged itself to back a Palestinian state, no strings attached, by the beginning of 2011. If that happens, Hamas would indeed rain rockets on Ben-Gurion airport, an effort supported by the EU as well as the usual terror groupies, and Israel would be absolutely powerless to stop them.
Fatah-Hamas unity talks that would almost certainly result in a Hamas-dominated state have gotten a big boost in recent weeks, contingent on the fate of the peace talks:
Sides said before the talks began that if the latest round failed, Palestinians would work to earn world support for the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.
According to a subsequent report:
Officials from the rival movement have said that significant progress has been made following recent talks in Damascus over the ratification of the Egyptian deal, reaching consensus on issues that Hamas said were points of contention, including the structure of the PLO, the Central Elections Committee, and an elections court.
The situation at this moment is fluid. The Arab League has evidently decided not to decide. According to one report, the Arab League has given Abbas the green light to end the direct peace talks. Other reports (e,g. here) insist that the Arab League has given the U.S. more time to broker a deal about settlement construction, while ruling out direct talks as long as construction continues in the settlemnts:
Ambassador Hesham Youssef, a senior aide to the secretary general of the Arab League, said Friday that the Arab ministers were supporting the Palestinian position “not to resume direct negotiations as long as settlement activities are ongoing.”
“This is an Arab and Palestinian position,” he said, speaking by telephone from Sirte, Libya, where the Arab League is meeting. “Not a single Arab country is saying go ahead with the talks.”
But he and other officials said that the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, had raised some additional options that he refused to discuss, but said that the Arab League would meet to discuss them in a month’s time.
Indirect talks will probably go on for now.
Among the appetizing alternatives being discussed by the Arabs are an appeal to the U.N. and an appeal to the U.S. to back a unilaterally declared Palestinian state or a U.N. “mandate for Palestine” in what Palestinians like to call 1967 borders (actually 1949 armistice lines). Then the Palestinians, backed by the oil might of the Arab League, will manipulate the U.S., the EU and the U.N. to impose an unfavorable two-state solution on Israel. They are just waiting for Israel to say “no” to the peace process. If Israel says “no” to peace negotiations, Israelis are walking into a trap.
Abbas can never say “No” to peace negotiations, since the Palestinian Authority government would lose the generous financial backing of the EU and the US, as well as the backing of the Arab League countries, who are anxious for Western help against non-Arab Shia Iran. Abbas can never say “No” to peace negotiations, but he can’t agree to peace either. Admitting the existence of Israel as a Jewish state and giving up the “right” of “return” for Palestinian “refugees” are preconditions of real peace, and they are politically impossible for Abbas at present.
If the peace process really fails because of any Israeli action, Mahmoud Abbas would conveniently be saved from having to make politically unpopular concessions. There are repeated threats that Abbas will resign If Abbas resigns, the way will be open for more extreme elements in Fatah and the PLO, and it is more likely that Palestinians will agree to a Hamas-dominated unity deal.
We can at last understand the purpose of the elaborate melodrama that the “moderate” Palestinians are staging for the benefit of the Americans, which is to have negotiations fail in a way that can be be blamed on Israel. That is why they raised the settlement construction issue as a condition for talks. In this scenario, the peace negotiations will fail, the “moderate” Palestinians of the West Bank will have “no alternative” to a unity government with Hamas. Israeli refusal to continue the talks on Palestinian terms will grant them a license to make the most extreme demands, and the international diplomatic situation will be favorable to the Palestinians, .
Don’t you love it when a nightmare plan comes together??
Of course, none of the above may ever happen, at least not right away. Fateh and Hamas may go on hating each other forever, and the EU might not back a Palestinian state.
The unilateral Palestinian state threat began in1988 with the Palestinian declaration of Independence , remember that? George Bush promised a Palestinian state by 2009, and then by 2008. A measure of healthy skepticism is justified. But the Europeans and president Obama might be more serious about a Palestinian state than President Bush, and Palestinian Prime Minister Salem Fayyad who plans a Palestinian state, may be more serious and methodical than Yasser Arafat.
However remote, the possibility that diplomats really mean what they say cannot be ruled out. There are precedents.
Fateh – Hamas unity has always been just in the offing, but nothing has happened except the short-lived disaster of Palestinian unity, that ended in the Hamas coup in Gaza. That doesn’t mean unity will not happen.
Suppose it all never happens. What then? Israel would still be isolated internationally as an “obstacle to peace.” Our army could defend nothing without the spare parts and ammunition that come from abroad. Our economy could not be sustained without American and European trading partners. Israel would face world-class threats such as Iran without the diplomatic backing of the EU, without any military capability, and possibly without the diplomatic backing of the US. Is that really worth a few trailers in Izhar, or even a new neighborhood in Jerusalem?? Aren’t Iranian missiles a bigger threat than Hamas rockets?
What is the alternative? It’s simple. Let the Palestinians say “no” to peace. The American definition of a reasonable peace settlement is given in the Clinton Bridging Proposals of 2000. These do not include return of Palestinian refugees. It is very unlikely that Mahmoud Abbas would ever agree to this plan, as he explained in 2000.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has now offered to resume the settlement freeze if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. That puts the focus back on real issue. See The Peace Gap and Netanyahu reveals the real Issue. The Palestinians are unlikely to agree, but those supporters of Israel who are opposed to any peace negotiations would presumably be opposed to accepting a freeze on construction in settlements even in those circumstances. If you rule out any Israeli concessions, you can’t expect any Palestinian concessions.
What if by some miracle, the Palestinians and the Arab states agree to what Americans consider a reasonable solution? What if they agree to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people? What if against all probability they agree that Jews have at least some rights in east Jerusalem? True, Jerusalem would be divided, and Israel would lose all those potential Palestinian Arab citizens, as well as precious parts of East Jerusalem. But what remains at least would be recognized as ours by the western world.
The Arab agreement will probably not be the real thing. There will always be yet one more claim. They will always be waiting for an opportunity to destroy Israel. At least some Palestinian leaders do not hide the fact that their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel through peace negotiations, as Abbas Zaki explained.
So what? The Palestinians and the Arabs have been planning the destruction of Israel for over sixty years. Most of the world was indifferent to our fate, as they are indifferent to the fate of Tibetans or Kurds. In the past, only we Israelis have really objected to this plan, and we will not get much sympathy in the future if the EU and the U.S. see us as evil warmongers.
Realistically, the conflict will probably continue with or without a “peace” agreement. The real choice for Israel is between fighting from the moral high ground, with a few allies, or being isolated as a pariah colonialist warmonger state.
Earlier I discussed the reasons why most Zionists and Israelis support peace, and why Israel‘s long term policy has always supported peace.
My views are those of most Israelis. Nonetheless, anti-Israel writers have assured everyone that Zionists are really nasty warmongers. Anti-Semites tell the world that the Jews are behind every war. Popular magazines declare that Israelis are not interested in peace. These enemies of Israel have been aided by certain self-proclaimed Zionists who insist that the peace process is bad for Israel, and that Israel must turn down peace negotiations.
Those who oppose the continuation of the peace process need to be honest: Are they really afraid of security threats, or are they really opposed to an extension of settlement construction freeze?? Let’s be frank. The settlement construction freeze is a red-herring issue It was devised by the Palestinians to avoid serious negotiations. The Palestinians have negotiated for years while Israel built new housing in settlements.The Americans and the Palestinians did not call a halt to negotiations.
Certainly, if negotiations break down, there will not be less settlement expansion. The moratorium on construction in the settlements continued for ten months. The Palestinians wasted almost the entire period on deliberately inconclusive indirect talks. The peace negotiations are an elaborate charade, but they are a charade with a purpose. We have to understand the purpose of the Palestinian tactics in order to understand what the Israeli response must be..
Realistically, if negotiations continue, the freeze on construction in settlements will probably be extended throughout the Obama administration, despite the current temporary “unfreeze,” courtesy of the U.S. congressional elections.
So what? We waited nine years until the British left and we could bring new immigrants to Israel. We have waited two thousand years to build in Jerusalem. We have waited two thousand years for a Jewish state. Are we going to give it all up for a few “housing units’ in Ariel? If the apartments are not built now, does anyone think Ariel will be given to the Palestinians in a peace deal? But building the apartments now may put the onus for the failure of the peace negotiations on Israel, feeding the delegitimization campaign of the Palestinians and their supporters. Rather than a few settlements or a few apartments being called into question, the whole idea of a Jewish state, even a postage-stamp sized Jewish state, is being jeopardized by the new construction.
A little reflection will show that a negotiated solution that ends in two states for two peoples is the only sane option for supporters of Israel and for the Israeli government, for the reasons given below. It looks like the only game in town for a peace solution. it will probably happen whether extremists want it or not. It is, in fact, the only reasonable option for both peoples. Since this is the Middle East after all, skeptics can point out that the sane and reasonable solution doesn’t stand a chance. Nonetheless, even in the Middle East, it is unlikely that the collective will of the EU, the USA and Russia will be thwarted.
The logic of the anti-peace crowd on both sides has a revolting symmetry. They all want a one-state solution. The Arab extremists want an Arab state, and the Jewish extremists (see Israel-Palestine: The one-state solution returns ) imagine that the single state will be Jewish. As for unfortunate surplus populations, the Arabs imagine, in the best case, that a Jewish minority will live in “Palestine” as “dhimmi” or “Arab Jews” in the same way they lived (or not, as was frequently the case) in Arab countries. In the worst case, the Arab “one state” proponents contemplate massive expulsion or genocide. The Jewish extremists evidently imagine that they can wish the Arabs and Muslims out of existence by fiddling with demographic statistics or sending them to Jordan or other countries that will not have them.
The same strange symmetry is reflected in the way history is viewed. The conflict between Israel and the Arabs did not begin in 1967, with the Israeli conquests of the Six Day War. It is foolish to believe that returning all the territories will end the conflict, no matter what florid and deceptive declarations are made in documents such as the Arab Peace Initiative. Conversely, allow me to point out that Israel existed before 1967, and won a war against tremendous odds. The territories did not make us powerful or grant us security. Israel conquered territories in 1967 because it was more powerful and organized than its enemies. Israeli security was always provided by the Israeli people. Security was never provided by conquest of real-estate.
Right-wing opponents of the peace process tell us that it will establish a Hamas-dominated state, which will rain down rockets on Ben-Gurion airport and Tel Aviv from the West Bank. That is probably true. What could be worse than that? The model for such a state, as everyone agrees, is Gaza. An Israeli pullout there resulted in the Hamas takeover and the rain of rockets on the Western Negev. Opponents of Israeli withdrawal insist that only settlements backed by a military presence can keep the peace. They forgot that Gaze rocket fire began before the disengagement, when Israel had both settlements and an armed presence in Gaza. The soldiers guarded the settlements and could do little to stop the rocket fire. They forgot that Israeli helicopters, and aircraft are made in USA, that Israeli-made arms such as the Merkava tank or various unmanned aircraft incorporate parts that are made in USA, France. Germany or the U.K.
What could be worse than a Hamas-dominated state established by a peace agreement?? How about a Hamas-dominated state that has no peace agreement with Israel, that claims all the land of the British Mandate, that claims the “right” of return for Arabs who fled in 1948, and that has the backing of the EU too?? The rocket fire would be legitimized as “resistance.”That would be considerably worse, wouldn’t it?
The EU has pledged itself to back a Palestinian state, no strings attached, by the beginning of 2011. If that happens, Hamas would indeed rain rockets on Ben-Gurion airport, an effort supported by the EU as well as the usual terror groupies, and Israel would be absolutely powerless to stop them.
Fatah-Hamas unity talks that would almost certainly result in a Hamas-dominated state have gotten a big boost in recent weeks, contingent on the fate of the peace talks:
Sides said before the talks began that if the latest round failed, Palestinians would work to earn world support for the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.
According to a subsequent report:
Officials from the rival movement have said that significant progress has been made following recent talks in Damascus over the ratification of the Egyptian deal, reaching consensus on issues that Hamas said were points of contention, including the structure of the PLO, the Central Elections Committee, and an elections court.
The situation at this moment is fluid. The Arab League has evidently decided not to decide. According to one report, the Arab League has given Abbas the green light to end the direct peace talks. Other reports (e,g. here) insist that the Arab League has given the U.S. more time to broker a deal about settlement construction, while ruling out direct talks as long as construction continues in the settlemnts:
Ambassador Hesham Youssef, a senior aide to the secretary general of the Arab League, said Friday that the Arab ministers were supporting the Palestinian position “not to resume direct negotiations as long as settlement activities are ongoing.”
“This is an Arab and Palestinian position,” he said, speaking by telephone from Sirte, Libya, where the Arab League is meeting. “Not a single Arab country is saying go ahead with the talks.”
But he and other officials said that the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, had raised some additional options that he refused to discuss, but said that the Arab League would meet to discuss them in a month’s time.
Indirect talks will probably go on for now.
Among the appetizing alternatives being discussed by the Arabs are an appeal to the U.N. and an appeal to the U.S. to back a unilaterally declared Palestinian state or a U.N. “mandate for Palestine” in what Palestinians like to call 1967 borders (actually 1949 armistice lines). Then the Palestinians, backed by the oil might of the Arab League, will manipulate the U.S., the EU and the U.N. to impose an unfavorable two-state solution on Israel. They are just waiting for Israel to say “no” to the peace process. If Israel says “no” to peace negotiations, Israelis are walking into a trap.
Abbas can never say “No” to peace negotiations, since the Palestinian Authority government would lose the generous financial backing of the EU and the US, as well as the backing of the Arab League countries, who are anxious for Western help against non-Arab Shia Iran. Abbas can never say “No” to peace negotiations, but he can’t agree to peace either. Admitting the existence of Israel as a Jewish state and giving up the “right” of “return” for Palestinian “refugees” are preconditions of real peace, and they are politically impossible for Abbas at present.
If the peace process really fails because of any Israeli action, Mahmoud Abbas would conveniently be saved from having to make politically unpopular concessions. There are repeated threats that Abbas will resign If Abbas resigns, the way will be open for more extreme elements in Fatah and the PLO, and it is more likely that Palestinians will agree to a Hamas-dominated unity deal.
We can at last understand the purpose of the elaborate melodrama that the “moderate” Palestinians are staging for the benefit of the Americans, which is to have negotiations fail in a way that can be be blamed on Israel. That is why they raised the settlement construction issue as a condition for talks. In this scenario, the peace negotiations will fail, the “moderate” Palestinians of the West Bank will have “no alternative” to a unity government with Hamas. Israeli refusal to continue the talks on Palestinian terms will grant them a license to make the most extreme demands, and the international diplomatic situation will be favorable to the Palestinians, .
Don’t you love it when a nightmare plan comes together??
Of course, none of the above may ever happen, at least not right away. Fateh and Hamas may go on hating each other forever, and the EU might not back a Palestinian state.
The unilateral Palestinian state threat began in1988 with the Palestinian declaration of Independence , remember that? George Bush promised a Palestinian state by 2009, and then by 2008. A measure of healthy skepticism is justified. But the Europeans and president Obama might be more serious about a Palestinian state than President Bush, and Palestinian Prime Minister Salem Fayyad who plans a Palestinian state, may be more serious and methodical than Yasser Arafat.
However remote, the possibility that diplomats really mean what they say cannot be ruled out. There are precedents.
Fateh – Hamas unity has always been just in the offing, but nothing has happened except the short-lived disaster of Palestinian unity, that ended in the Hamas coup in Gaza. That doesn’t mean unity will not happen.
Suppose it all never happens. What then? Israel would still be isolated internationally as an “obstacle to peace.” Our army could defend nothing without the spare parts and ammunition that come from abroad. Our economy could not be sustained without American and European trading partners. Israel would face world-class threats such as Iran without the diplomatic backing of the EU, without any military capability, and possibly without the diplomatic backing of the US. Is that really worth a few trailers in Izhar, or even a new neighborhood in Jerusalem?? Aren’t Iranian missiles a bigger threat than Hamas rockets?
What is the alternative? It’s simple. Let the Palestinians say “no” to peace. The American definition of a reasonable peace settlement is given in the Clinton Bridging Proposals of 2000. These do not include return of Palestinian refugees. It is very unlikely that Mahmoud Abbas would ever agree to this plan, as he explained in 2000.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has now offered to resume the settlement freeze if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. That puts the focus back on real issue. See The Peace Gap and Netanyahu reveals the real Issue. The Palestinians are unlikely to agree, but those supporters of Israel who are opposed to any peace negotiations would presumably be opposed to accepting a freeze on construction in settlements even in those circumstances. If you rule out any Israeli concessions, you can’t expect any Palestinian concessions.
What if by some miracle, the Palestinians and the Arab states agree to what Americans consider a reasonable solution? What if they agree to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people? What if against all probability they agree that Jews have at least some rights in east Jerusalem? True, Jerusalem would be divided, and Israel would lose all those potential Palestinian Arab citizens, as well as precious parts of East Jerusalem. But what remains at least would be recognized as ours by the western world.
The Arab agreement will probably not be the real thing. There will always be yet one more claim. They will always be waiting for an opportunity to destroy Israel. At least some Palestinian leaders do not hide the fact that their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel through peace negotiations, as Abbas Zaki explained.
So what? The Palestinians and the Arabs have been planning the destruction of Israel for over sixty years. Most of the world was indifferent to our fate, as they are indifferent to the fate of Tibetans or Kurds. In the past, only we Israelis have really objected to this plan, and we will not get much sympathy in the future if the EU and the U.S. see us as evil warmongers.
Realistically, the conflict will probably continue with or without a “peace” agreement. The real choice for Israel is between fighting from the moral high ground, with a few allies, or being isolated as a pariah colonialist warmonger state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)