A world without Zionism

[Jacpher]

Double post.

[NGONGE]

Lander,

 

Sounds like you’re after a history lesson here, saaxib. What you wrote there, with all due respect, though interesting and educational to all the other readers, is nothing but a red herring.

 

Are you asking for a definition of International law? Are you pointing out that it’s faulty? Are you attempting to prove that Israel is an illegal state? What exactly are you after there?

 

First, let me return to the Palestinian State and why it has not been declared, yet. In 1988 the PLO declared the independence of Palestine. This is different to what the Palestinian Authority has been dying to declare ever since the Oslo accord. You see, everyone can declare independence (see our beloved Somaliland), however, in order for that to be set in stone, you also (in the case of the Palestinians) have to announce your borders, air space and areas that fall under your jurisdiction. The Palestinian Authority wants to announce that its land is all that land which was occupied in 1967. Israel and the international community (mainly America & UK) don’t want such a declaration. As you’re aware, the UN (and therefore, the international community) is committed to recognising a Palestinian state and its authority over its lands. If the PL (Palestinian Authority) goes ahead and (unilaterally) declares itself as a sovereign state with control over all the occupied lands (including the disputed East Jerusalem), this will put the rest of the world (again, America, UK and all those they influence) in a very embarrassing position. Do they accept the declaration or do they reject it? Yassir Arafat knew this was his ACE card and did not want to use it until he was forced to do so. The PL now knows that too. They’re using it as a stick (since they have no carrot) to force Israel to make more concessions. The West (America mainly) keeps urging the Palestinians not to go ahead with such a declaration. This is how I understand the situation thus far.

 

Now, we come to the issue of International law being faulty or being misused or abused. In order to prove or disprove this, you’ll need to consult a specialist in this area. I’m not one. However, I know and you MUST (since you’re an ardent Somalilander) that International diplomacy plays a great part in shaping International law. I also know (and hope you do) that Law works on precedents. I’ll use Somaliland. as an example again and say that when it gets recognised it will set a precedent that other ‘separatist’ nations would cite in their efforts to receive recognition too. It’s the way things work, saaxib.

 

Sadly, in the case of Palestine, if you look at all the resolutions passed by the United Nations, you will notice that they’re all recommendations and not demands (these are called chapter VI resolutions). The resolution that led to the invasion of Iraq is a chapter VII (it‘s more severe). Incidentally, 1559 is a VI resolution: Syria was only forced to withdraw from Lebanon when Hariiri was assassinated. Hizb-u-Allah has not put down its arms).

 

 

Still, all of this is neither here or there. These laws are questionable, and what law isn’t? Have you been following the debate about the American Supreme Court and the choice of new judge? Bush chose a conservative judge who is also a catholic (the new one and not the woman that was rejected)! Out of the nine Supreme Court judges, nine are Catholics. Supporters of abortion must be feeling very jittery now(I hope you follow my drift).

 

The main point here is that the procedures followed are correct. This is why the United States went to the UN and forced it to issue resolution 1441 against Iraq. At the time it was issued, not many nations (or observers) believed it would be used to INVADE Iraq and all thought an extra resolution would be needed. However, diplomacy and brute force prevailed. Did the US set a precedent there? If it were possible, could it be persecuted for invading Iraq? Will it have a good case?

 

Be that as it may, we are chasing shadows here and arguing over details and semantics (which, if you ask any lawyer, is the whole point of law). Israel is, sadly, legal now because the Palestinians (as represented by the PLO) recognised it in 1994 (or was that 93?). We might dislike that state and agree with the sentiments of the Iranian leader, but, like him, when it comes to International Law (at least) we have to accept realities on the ground (to borrow a phrase from Messers Bush and Sharon) and play along.

[Yoonis_Cadue]

There is no such thing as "Israel".

 

Israel was a good person and a muslim and I reject people calling the Zionist entity as "Israel".

 

Let's just call it the "Jewish State" instead.

 

The Jewish State is illegal and it defines our weakness to fight against it.

 

We tried it in 1968 in the six day's war against them but we couldn't break them down.

 

Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Irak and the rest of the arab nations tried to destroy them but what can actually arab-nationalism and ba'athanism actually destroy? We've seen what they're capable off.

 

Only a return of a true Islamic state can actually crack those zionists.

 

If we would actually return to our diin, we would have defeated them in one day.

 

But for no we're the lowest of the low.

[NGONGE]

 

Time to leave this thread.

[Qandalawi]

^^Why, go on make a point or two

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Yoonis:

There is no such thing as "Israel".

 

You can't arrogate yourself the right to say if there is such thing as 'isreal' or not. It is only your opinion, which counts for nothing. According to the UN and international community, Isreal exists.

 

Get over it!

 

BTW, you haven't presented coherent arguement why 'Isreal' doesn't exist.

[Foxy]

Waxaan is iri Isreal iyo palestine plight mal mahaan shaqa weyn baan ka dhiganay.....anyway

 

Even before Ahmadineejad's apocalyptic phrase had passed in to the world's headlines, Iran's apparent persuit of nuclear weapons and reluctance to respond to american threats or EU dimplomacy were feulling a growing sense of crisis in the gulf.

 

If I am not mistaken, late Ayatullah Khumani regarded as the spritual Father of the Iranian Nation, previously described isreal as a Virus for which the only solution was a complete "annihilation" and such believes were also shared by Rafsanjani eventhough he was viewed as a relative moderate,who also qouted that Iran developing Nuclear weapons were desirable because they would provide a means of destroying Isreal.

It seems that within Iranian society, verbal attacks on Isreal helps to shore up the rulling regime's domestic base.

 

Sincerely speaking though, many Iranians have a profound and genuine sympathy for the palestinians plight but the geagraphic distance of Iran from the occupied territories makes the issue an abstract one for most.

Alas, despite widespread disaffection in the Middle east, Iran's effort in this area have been entirely unsuccessful. If I recall it right,during the Iraq-Iran war, most Arab-Muslims rallied to the side of Saddam Hussien rather than the Mullahs of Iran.

The conflict came to be seen as an Arab-persian fight rather than a Muslim-Secular one.

 

So may be its about time Iran saved up all its energy from being pro palestine, as its own brethen(Arabs) has abandon them for years and focus more on progressing on usable nuclear devices in the near future.

Iran might be capable of inflicting fear and disruption on Isreal, but its far from being capable of erasing Isreal from the face of this earth(map).

 

By contrast, Isreal could destroy all of Iran's major cities today in a heart beat if it chose to. It has an undeclared nuclear arsenal thought to contain hundreds of warheads along with planes and missles necessary to deliver them to their Targets.

 

A more sane and seasoned leader would have been aware of his remarks would serve little purpose beyond providing ammunition to hawkish elements in the West

 

 

cheers

[Qandalawi]

Waxaan is iri Isreal iyo palestine plight mal mahaan shaqa weyn baan ka dhiganay.....anyway

For us yes,but it has been the work of the world super powers and even captured the news headlines of the Middle East for the past 50 years!

[Castro]

The state of Israel and the misery of Palestinians coexist in perfect harmony. The causal relationship is what confuses most people. One could argue the state of Palestine has never really existed and when it is declared as one, it would be the first time. Zionism, a multi-phase ideology, has achieved many of its goals. The establishment of the homeland and the continued support once established. Making sure that world focus and opinion is in favor of the state of Israel through diplomacy, public relations and evocation of sympathy due to the once rampant anti-semitism in the world.

 

What may have eluded the Palestinians, and Arabs in general, is striking the right balance between the use of force and the use of diplomacy. Too much of the former (in the past) and too little of the latter (in the present). Denying the existence of Israel is tantamount to an exercise in futility. Rejecting something does not make it go away. Instead, it makes dealing with it that much more difficult. And though, as Muslims, we are aware of the transgressions of the Jews in the Quran, it may be fair to say current muslims have caught up with the Jews in their transgressions. If they haven't, then it's only a matter of time. To expect Allah would give us an edge over them for past crimes is day dreaming.

 

Hard as both sides try to make this conflict a theological one, it isn't, yet. Today, it's a practical matter involving resources (land and water) and geopolitics. The solution will not come from the heavens. That solution involves the proper use of all available means: diplomacy, public relations and most of all unity among those who are friends of the Palestinians. Until then, the misery and Israel will go hand in hand.

[rudy-Diiriye]

so maxa iga 15 inga!! between isreal n plo!! waaba yaba~! yo i am homeless!! do u ever think about me!!

 

i am somali.......n my country dont exist no more!! tell me something i dont know!! jes..!

[LANDER]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Lander

,

 

Sounds like you’re after

a history lesson

here, saaxib. What you wrote there, with all due respect, though interesting and educational to all the other readers, is nothing but

a red herring

.

 

Red Herring eh...Mayee wa BLACK herring , must be one of those posh words I think I heard prince charles use that before. Something along the lines of going off topic ain't it? Yet in this last response you've managed discuss Iraq, The U.S. supreme court, precedents in LAW 101, Somaliland, Catholics and Israel/Palestine etc..Ngonge if there was so many hours in the day perhaps I would respond to you in a more elaborate manner, but let me get to the point since I have no such time:

 

 

The superpowers (and most of the West) recognised Israel as a legal entity the minute the state of Israel was declared in 1948. So, at least from that angle, Israel is a legal state.

 

 

The PLO (the body that represents Palestinians) recognised Israel as a legal and sovereign state when signing the Oslo agreement in 1993 (or was it 94?). Egypt full recognised Israel in the Camp David agreement of the early 80s. Jordan recognised Israel in 1994 (I think).

 

Many of the remaining Arab (and Muslim) countries are willing to recognise the state of Israel as soon as the issue of occupied lands is resolved (the occupied lands are only those that were taken after the 67 war. Anything before that is widely accepted now to be part of Israel proper).

 

Syria has a territorial dispute with Israel and would jump at the chance of resolving it (favourably of course). Lebanon has bad history with Israel and is too weak (for now) to go against the wishes of the Hezb-u-allah movement in the South. A movement that vows to carry on bombing Israel until the last bit of occupied Lebanese lands is given back (Israel claims that disputed land is Syrian and not Lebanese and insists that it will only negotiate with Syria there).

 

So, as you can see, Israel (at least in political terms and in the view of international law) is a legal state.

^^^^^^these views were simplistic and made generalizing statements specially regarding International law and its application in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am no lawyer or student of law, but even my modest knowledge is enough to refute your views. So, as long as we are both being pretentious (since you claim that I am after "a history lesson") let me be equally as bold and claim that your statements are similar to those found on CNN or BBC, they lack appreciation for the complexities of these issues and sound like regurgitated statements. Surely I didn't expect you to write every single implication in one short post, however you could've explained the grey areas that exist in "international law" and for example how or why it makes Israel a legal entity and an illegal occupier at the same time and whether these laws are equitable or not in your opinion. Btw the "ace" you speak of that yasser arafat had in declaring independence I think your off on that point. Fact of the matter is Bush jr. is the first U.S. President to even publicly state a "two state solution" and therefore the first president to acknowledge that the palestinians have a right to their own state. U.S. policy prior to that was to never publicly acknowledge the right to a "Palestinian State" and as a consequence if any resolution came in front of the U.N. where Palestine declared independence whitout consulting and receiving the green light from Israel or the United States, it surely would have been brought down by the U.S. ALSO, your references (or I would refer to them as "jabs") on Somaliland lack any "snap". When you speak of "precedents" there is so much to be said of that matter that I'll leave it alone for now, since it seems to me that even your example of Somaliland independence setting a "precedent" is another simplistic pop term that is often floated around to explain the international communities lack of recognition. My advice to you on that front is that if your not singing the praises of mandeeq, move along homey you need not concern yourself with that matter all together.

[NGONGE]

^^^^^^these views were simplistic and made generalizing statements specially regarding International law and its application in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I am no lawyer or student of law, but even my modest knowledge is enough to refute your views

. So, as long as we are both being pretentious (since you claim that I am after "a history lesson") let me be equally as bold and claim that your statements are similar to those found on CNN or BBC, they lack appreciation for the complexities of these issues and sound like regurgitated statements

So far, you have not refuted anything. Go ahead and refute them. It's the way discussions work, saaxib.

 

Surely I didn't expect you to write every single implication in one short post, however you could've explained the grey areas that exist in "international law" and for example how or why it makes Israel a legal entity and an illegal occupier at the same time and whether these laws are equitable or not

in your opinion

.

I believe I’ve already done that. Saaxib, if every time you read something someone writes you come in with your preconceived ideas of what that someone is saying, you will never be able to understand a word that person is writing. You came here with some predetermined ideas of your own about my take on things (this bad habit is very rampant in SOL).

 

Did I not attempt to explain the way international law works? Did I not (rather weakly and humbly for I am not a lawyer) try and explain how LAW works? What more could you possibly want? An opinion? I thought I already asked you if that’s what you wanted to know in my first post!

 

Still, I agree with you that the views were simplistic. They were, after all, in reply to the simplistic statement that Israel is an illegal state, like with like, dear Rumpole. However, they remain correct.

 

As for regurgitating what the BBC and CNN say, well, they are news sources, inaadeer. They don’t make the news up (like our Somali news sources), they deal with facts. The spin only comes in the way the facts are presented. Are you following me or am I going too fast for you?

 

 

Btw the "ace" you speak of that yasser arafat had in declaring independence I think your off on that point. Fact of the matter is Bush jr. is the first U.S. President to even publicly state a "two state solution" and therefore the first president to acknowledge that the palestinians have a right to their own state. U.S. policy prior to that was to never publicly acknowledge the right to a "Palestinian State" and as a consequence if any resolution came in front of the U.N. where Palestine declared independence whitout consulting and receiving the green light from Israel or the United States, it surely would have been brought down by the U.S

It's as if the Camp David and the Oslo Agreement did not take place! War, this case did not start with 9/11, saaxib. Go and read up on the subject. It's very irritating when one puts in the effort when taking part in a discussion only to find out that those on the other side are merely pulling his leg.

 

ALSO, your references (or I would refer to them as "jabs") on Somaliland lack any "snap". When you speak of "precedents" there is so much to be said of that matter that I'll leave it alone for now, since it seems to me that even your example of Somaliland independence setting a "precedent" is another simplistic pop term that is often floated around to explain the international communities lack of recognition. My advice to you on that front is that if your not singing the praises of mandeeq, move along homey you need not concern yourself with that matter all together.

Now, here, paranoia rears its ugly head again. You do me a huge disservice when you consider my mention of Somaliland as a dig (or jab as you put it). Here, again, you come with baggage from previous discussions and personal assumptions.

 

Lander, there are many ways of explaining things to people. With children, in order to keep their interest in the subject you’re speaking about, you’ll mention oranges, apples, stars or toys. Have you never had to count apples in order to learn maths?

With football lovers, one makes a football metaphor or two. With you, whom I know is an ardent Somalilander that follows the politics of the place and is aware of all the issues to do with recognition; I use Somaliland to illustrate my points. There are no hidden agendas or childish digs. As for singing the praises of Mandeeq or not concerning myself of the place, well, erm: I’m going to complain to adeero Silaanyo about you and demand that you’re banned from dhulkayaga. Adigo kolay waxad tahay an Udub nincompoop anyway, mese Ucid baad aheed?

 

This also takes me back to the following comment of yours:

 

 

Red Herring eh...Mayee wa BLACK herring , must be one of those posh words I think I heard prince charles use that before. Something along the lines of going off topic ain't it? Yet in this last response you've managed discuss Iraq, The U.S. supreme court, precedents in LAW 101, Somaliland, Catholics and Israel/Palestine etc..Ngonge if there was so many hours in the day perhaps I would respond to you in a more elaborate manner, but let me get to the point since I have no such time:

I’ve tried this with many Nomads before you but it never seemed to work. However, I’m a sensitive soul and would not be able to sleep at night if I didn’t at least try to share, spread and sprinkle some of my wisdom to my fellow brothers and sisters.

 

You see, my dear Lander. All those that frequent discussion forums are salespeople of one sort or another. We’re all selling opinions and arguments. In order for me to convince you of my argument, I’ll have to have the best sales pitch possible.

 

Let us assume this discussion is about houses, your house and mine. In your argument so far, you’re trying to sell me your house ,because, your neighbour has a good and pretty house or some such nonsense! There is no mention of YOUR house and its qualities.

 

I’ve given you my argument already (which is the house). I then went further in trying to sell you the house by showing you how great its French windows are (see the mention of precedents). I then took you to the back of the house and showed you what a big garden it has (diplomacy playing a great part in shaping international law. It is a big garden, saaxib).

 

I hoped that by this time you would be wavering and I tried to incorporate something that is dear to you into my sales pitch, your house (Somaliland). I believe that I beautifully linked it to my argument (sales pitch).

 

I then went on to show you how houses in America are bought and sold (Supreme Court and the fact that a majority of Catholics might mean a risk that abortion laws will be reversed). This last one was to hint at relevant issues when talking about law and how it changes (it was supposed to be the one that clinches the deal).

 

Alas, I couldn’t close the deal. It was a brilliant sales pitch. I gave a marvellous presentation and I was attentive to my customers’ needs. Why then is nobody buying it?

 

Eur-bloody-eka! As ever, I’m trying to sell meat to a vegetarian!

 

And I bet the rest of the vegans are shaking their heads with confusion as they read this too.....

[LANDER]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

I believe I’ve already done that. Saaxib, if every time you read something someone writes you come in with your preconceived ideas of what that someone is saying, you will never be able to understand a word that person is writing. You came here with some predetermined ideas of your own about my take on things (this bad habit is very rampant in SOL).

where did you mention Israel was in violation of international law?

 

Did I not attempt to explain the way international law works? Did I not (rather weakly and humbly for I am not a lawyer) try and explain how LAW works? What more could you possibly want? An opinion? I thought I already asked you if that’s what you wanted to know in my first post!

 

Still, I agree with you that the views were simplistic. They were, after all, in reply to the simplistic statement that Israel is an illegal state, like with like, dear Rumpole. However, they remain correct.

 

As for regurgitating what the BBC and CNN say, well, they are news sources, inaadeer. They don’t make the news up (like our Somali news sources), they deal with facts. The spin only comes in the way the facts are presented. Are you following me or am I going too fast for you?

pls slow down

 

Btw the "ace" you speak of that yasser arafat had in declaring independence I think your off on that point. Fact of the matter is Bush jr. is the first U.S. President to even publicly state a "two state solution" and therefore the first president to acknowledge that the palestinians have a right to their own state. U.S. policy prior to that was to never publicly acknowledge the right to a "Palestinian State" and as a consequence if any resolution came in front of the U.N. where Palestine declared independence whitout consulting and receiving the green light from Israel or the United States, it surely would have been brought down by the U.S

It's as if the Camp David and the Oslo Agreement did not take place! War, this case did not start with 9/11, saaxib.

Go and read up on the subject

. It's very irritating when one puts in the effort when taking part in a discussion only to find out that those on the other side are merely pulling his leg.

I've done some reading, I stand by my statements. I suggest you go back and carefully read what I said about Bush jr., if you EVER find evidence to the contrary I shall bow to your infinite knowledge on this matter.

 

Now, here, paranoia rears its ugly head again. You do me a huge disservice when you consider my mention of Somaliland as a dig (or jab as you put it). Here, again, you come with baggage from previous discussions and personal assumptions.

lol...Sure I am making assumptions on your part, but I like to think they're informed ones based on what you write on this forum anyway. Nonetheless I don't remember having such specific discussion with you regarding Somaliland

 

 

Lander, there are many ways of explaining things to people. With children, in order to keep their interest in the subject you’re speaking about, you’ll mention oranges, apples, stars or toys. Have you never had to count apples in order to learn maths?

sorry, I'm mathematicaly challenged

 

With football lovers, one makes a football metaphor or two. With you, whom I know is an ardent Somalilander that follows the politics of the place and is aware of all the issues to do with recognition; I use Somaliland to illustrate my points. There are no hidden agendas or childish digs. As for singing the praises of Mandeeq or not concerning myself of the place, well, erm: I’m going to complain to adeero Silaanyo about you and demand that you’re banned from dhulkayaga. Adigo kolay waxad tahay an Udub nincompoop anyway, mese Ucid baad aheed?

None of the above, I plan on making coup and establishing myself as supreme leader, wanna be my secretary/enfocer? your job description would be to dhirbax occasionally a few renegade parlimentarians that act up.

 

 

This also takes me back to the following comment of yours:

 

 

I’ve tried this with many Nomads before you but it never seemed to work. However, I’m a sensitive soul and would not be able to sleep at night if I didn’t at least try to share, spread and sprinkle some of my wisdom to my fellow brothers and sisters.

 

You see, my dear

Lander

. All those that frequent discussion forums are salespeople of one sort or another. We’re all selling opinions and arguments. In order for me to convince you of my argument, I’ll have to have the best sales pitch possible.

 

Let us assume this discussion is about

houses

, your house and mine. In your argument so far, you’re trying to sell me your house ,because, your neighbour has a good and pretty house or some such nonsense! There is no mention of YOUR house and its qualities.

 

I’ve given you my argument already (which is the house). I then went further in trying to sell you the house by showing you how great its French windows are (see the mention of precedents). I then took you to the back of the house and showed you what a big garden it has (diplomacy playing a great part in shaping international law. It is a big garden, saaxib).

 

I hoped that by this time you would be wavering and I tried to incorporate something that is dear to you into my sales pitch, your house (Somaliland). I believe that I beautifully linked it to my argument (sales pitch).

 

I then went on to show you how houses in America are bought and sold (Supreme Court and the fact that a majority of Catholics might mean a risk that abortion laws will be reversed). This last one was to hint at relevant issues when talking about law and how it changes (it was supposed to be the one that clinches the deal).

 

Alas, I couldn’t close the deal. It was a brilliant sales pitch. I gave a marvellous presentation and I was attentive to my customers’ needs. Why then is nobody buying it?

 

Eur-bloody-eka! As ever, I’m trying to sell meat to a vegetarian!

 

And I bet the rest of the vegans are shaking their heads with confusion as they read this too

..... [/QB]

Brilliant indeed, no more is to be said on that front, except I'm not particularly fond of real estate knock offs!Yourhouse is pretty and shines from the outside but a closer would reveal leaky pipes and most importantly a shaky foundation . The house is unstable and needs a balanced and solid foundation in order to be even considered for sale.

[LANDER]

Originally posted by Tolstoy:

Dear Mr. Lander and Mr. Ngonge

,

 

 

For his endless cynical view about all things Somaliland,...but still I still think on this argument, I believe, he is correct to a fault, particular the issue of Israel, her legitimacy under the international law, and how the law is essentially a construct that is largely based on precedence, and most importantly, how diplomacy seemed to take a larger place, when international laws are getting formulated at the UN's security council.

 

 

Tolstoy

.

^^^The obvious was not the source of my antagonism towards saxiibkay Ngonge, rather the not so obvious and further reaching facts.

[NGONGE]

Lander,

 

You ask:

where did you mention Israel was in violation of international law?

I gave you the quote below about international law. To state the obvious is vulgar, saaxib. One needs to read between the lines. Shall I write it with big letters (as they say in Somali)?

 

Sadly, in the case of Palestine, if you look at all the resolutions passed by the United Nations, you will notice that they’re all recommendations and not demands (these are called chapter VI resolutions). The resolution that led to the invasion of Iraq is a chapter VII (it‘s more severe). Incidentally, 1559 is a VI resolution: Syria was only forced to withdraw from Lebanon when Hariiri was assassinated. Hizb-u-Allah has not put down its arms).

I'm not sure what the following means:

 

^^^The obvious was not the source of my antagonism towards saxiibkay Ngonge, rather the not so obvious and further reaching facts.

:confused: Care to explain?

 

 

Tolstoy,

 

My feelings towards Somaliland are honourable ones, saaxib. I wish her nothing but the best. However, I'm not sure what happens there right now is the best or that those in charge are the best. You’re right, I am cold hearted, cynical and pessimistic by nature. We’ve spoken about this before and I’m sure you understand my position on the issue. Still, every once in a while my pessimism is suspended and I find myself, suddenly, unexpectedly and very wildly waving the Somaliland flag and singing the praises of my motherland (it normally happens when there are any journalists within earshot). However, while I’m in the height of this euphoria someone would pass me a cutting of a radio interview, newspaper article or political speech by some prominent Somalilander and I find myself slowly, visibly and painfully getting deflated and losing hope again. One such occasion was after the recent parliamentary elections. I’ve got to admit that I too (yeah, I know it’s hard to believe) got swept along in the wave of optimism and proudly applauded the wisdom of the Somaliland politicians. Someone then passed me a link to an interview that the tireless, hardworking and dedicated Mrs Edna Aden gave to the Africa Today magazine. I truly admire Mrs Aden, I truly do. However, I believe that our most famous midwife is not going to deliver this baby (if the baby is to be delivered at all)

 

Here, read her interview