Exclusive: Obama’s Detailed Plans for Mideast Peace Revealed – and How Everything Fell Apart
WASHINGTON – Haaretz has obtained two previously unseen documents from the height of the Obama administration’s efforts to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which reveal how the talks fell apart in 2014.
They could offer U.S. President Donald Trump, who is currently trying to get the two sides to renew direct negotiations, some valuable lessons on what happened the last time the conflict’s core issues – such as borders, Jerusalem, refugees and mutual recognition – were put on the table.
They also show the exact language that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was willing to accept on the issue of the 1967 borders during the negotiations, and how far the Obama administration was willing to go on the delicate and sensitive issue of Jerusalem in order to try and get a “yes” to its peace plan from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
The documents are two internal drafts of then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s “framework agreement” in 2014, which was supposed to be the basis for the final stretch of negotiations between the two sides. One of the documents is from mid-February 2014 and the other from March 2014. Combined, these two documents show what it would take to “bridge the gaps” between Abbas and Netanyahu, as Trump is hoping to do.
Mid-February 2014 document: Netanyahu’s border concession
The first version of the framework agreement obtained by Haaretz is from mid-February 2014. It’s an internal U.S. draft that was written two days before a crucial meeting between Kerry and Abbas in Paris. The document’s title is “Working Draft Framework for Negotiations,” and its first line explains: “The following is a proposed framework to serve as the basis for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on a permanent status, final peace agreement.”
A former U.S. official familiar with the 2014 negotiations told Haaretz that during the first two months of that year, the U.S. team held extensive talks with Netanyahu’s most senior advisers over this document. The ideas and positions expressed in the document were mostly based on the contents of a secret negotiations track that operated in London up to that January between Netanyahu’s envoy for the peace process, Isaac Molho, and Prof. Hussein Agha, a close adviser to Abbas. Netanyahu asked the U.S. team to take the fruits of those secret negotiations and turn them into an “American document” outlining the basis for a final peace agreement.
In the days ahead of Kerry’s meeting with Abbas, the U.S. team was fervently discussing the contents of the “framework” document with Netanyahu’s senior advisers. The idea was that if the Americans and Israelis could agree on most of the framework, Kerry could then present the document to Abbas – and hopefully get his approval as well.
The document obtained by Haaretz is one of the very last drafts the U.S. team was working on, and includes suggestions and objections from the Israeli side, which are clearly marked within the document.
The document touches on all the “core issues” of the conflict – the same issues that Trump’s team, sooner or later, will want the Israelis and Palestinians to discuss and resolve together.
The first of the core issues mentioned in the document is mutual recognition between Israel and Palestine. The document states that the peace agreement between the two sides “will need to be based on a shared commitment to fulfilling the vision of two states for two peoples, with full equal rights and no discrimination against any member of any ethnic or religious community.
Achieving this outcome of two states for two peoples – Palestine, the nation-state of the Palestinian people, living in peace with Israel, the nation-state of the Jewish people – will enable the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the two states.”
A former senior U.S. official told Haaretz that this clause was an attempt to please both leaders: Netanyahu gets a clear reference to Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, but Abbas gets an immediate clarification that this will include full equal rights and no discrimination against Israel’s Arab minority.
The second core issue discussed is borders. This is perhaps the most dramatic part of the document, stating that “the new secure and recognized international borders between Israel and Palestine will be negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutually-agreed swaps whose size and location will be negotiated, so that Palestine will have viable territory corresponding in size to the territory controlled by Egypt and Jordan before June 4, 1967, with territorial contiguity in the West Bank. In negotiating the borders, the parties will need to take into account subsequent developments, Israel’s security requirements and the goal of minimizing movement of existing populations while avoiding friction.”
Many U.S. and Israeli officials told Haaretz that Netanyahu was aware that this paragraph, which effectively means Israeli acceptance of the 1967 borders as a basis for negotiations, would appear in Kerry’s framework. According to these sources, Netanyahu was willing to enter final-status negotiations based on these words. But he had one reservation, which is indeed mentioned in the U.S. document: He wanted to avoid direct usage of the words “territorial contiguity.”
The Americans, however, refused to accept this demand by the prime minister, claiming it totally emptied the rest of the borders section of any meaning.
Jerusalem should not be redivided
One of the most complicated issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the fate of Jerusalem – yet in the February 2014 draft of the American framework, only one short paragraph was devoted to it.
“Jerusalem is perhaps the most complicated and sensitive of all the issues to be resolved in the agreement,” it stated. “Any solution to these issues must correspond to the deep historic, religious, cultural and emotional ties of both peoples to the city’s holy sites, which must be protected. The parties agree that the city should not be redivided and that there cannot be a permanent status agreement without resolving the issue of Jerusalem.”
This paragraph is accompanied by two notes. The first note includes two different sentences, one of which was eventually supposed to be included in the framework. The man who was supposed to decide between the two was Netanyahu.
Here are the two sentences:
Option 1: “Israel seeks to have the city of Jerusalem internationally recognized as its capital and the Palestinians seek to have East Jerusalem as the capital of their state.”
Option 2: “Palestinians seek to have the internationally recognized capital of their state in East Jerusalem and Israelis seek to have Jerusalem internationally recognized as their capital.”
Haaretz could not confirm which of these sentences Netanyahu eventually told Kerry he preferred, but one thing is clear: Both sentences fall far short of the Palestinian demand to have a capital in East Jerusalem, which Israel conquered in the Six-Day War in 1967. When Kerry presented this kind of formula to Abbas, the Palestinian leader became visibly angry, saying he could not put his signature on such a document, according to former U.S. officials.
What Abbas didn’t object to, though, was the sentence stating that Jerusalem would not be redivided. This may come as a surprise to many Israelis, but Abbas has actually stated publicly in the past he doesn’t believe Jerusalem should be physically divided as part of a peace deal.
No Right of Return into Israel
On the “core issue” of Palestinian refugees, the document states: “The establishment of an independent Palestinian state will provide a national homeland for all Palestinians, including the refugees, and thereby bring an end to the historic Palestinian refugee issue and the assertion of any claims against Israel arising from it.”
What this means, in effect, is that there will be no “right of return” for Palestinian refugees and their descendants into Israel. Instead, the framework offers four different solutions for the refugees: resettling them in the State of Palestine; settling for good in their current host states; resettlement “in third countries” around the world that would agree to accept them; and, in special humanitarian cases, admission into Israel, which “will be decided upon by Israel, without obligation, at its sole discretion.”
Another section in the document states that “during the negotiations, the parties will seek to promote an atmosphere conducive to negotiations and do their utmost to prevent deterioration in this atmosphere.” This phrasing would have most likely led to a partial freeze on building in the settlements during the course of the final-status negotiations. There are no Israeli objections attached to it – at least, not in the version obtained by Haaretz.
The document also includes a reference to “an international effort to deal with the property claims” of Jews who were expelled from Arab countries as a result of the decades-long conflict with Israel.
In this 1952 photo from the UNRWA archive, refugees walk through Nahr el-Bared, Lebanon refugee camp, one of the first camps established as part of emergency measures to shelter 1948 refugees. AP
With regards to security arrangements, the framework draft states there will be a “full and final” Israeli withdrawal from all parts of the Palestinian state, but that this withdrawal will be phased and gradual. The document sets no timeline for this, and says only that it will be negotiated between the two sides.
The document also states that Israel will preserve the ability to defend itself, by itself, in any case of emergency “or an emerging threat,” and that Palestine will be a demilitarized state but with an effective internal security force.
Abbas responds with rage – and the document is altered
When Kerry met Abbas in Paris on February 19, 2014 and presented him with this version of the framework accord, the Palestinian president responded with anger and disappointment. Former U.S. officials say his biggest concern was with how the document addressed Jerusalem. The weak wording on this paramount issue was a nonstarter for him.
As a result of Abbas’ reaction, the U.S. team realized that in order to get a “yes” from the Palestinian president, they would have to change some parts of the framework document. The challenge was how to do it without losing Netanyahu, who had verbally expressed his openness toward the February version of the document (although he never accepted it in writing).
Abbas was scheduled to meet President Barack Obama in the White House on March 16, 2014 – less than a month after his dinner with Kerry in Paris. Ahead of that meeting, the U.S. peace team crafted an updated version of the framework, which, unlike the February document, was not pre-negotiated with the Israelis. The result was a different document, one that on a number of issues was tilted more toward the Palestinians.
March document: Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem
The March version of the framework, as obtained by Haaretz, was written on March 15, 2014, a day before Obama met Abbas in the White House. This document, too, is a last internal U.S. draft. The changes between this and the previous document start in the very first section, “The Goal of the Negotiations.” This states that one of the goals is “to end the occupation that began in 1967” – a choice of words that didn’t appear in the February document.
While the February document included very vague language on the future of Jerusalem, the March version states clearly that “in order to meet the needs of both sides, the permanent status agreement will have to provide for both Israel and Palestine to have their internationally recognized capitals in Jerusalem, with East Jerusalem serving as the Palestinian capital.”
The document also stated that “the Old City, religious sites and Jewish neighborhoods [will be] addressed separately as part of the final status negotiations.”
During his meeting with Abbas in White House, Obama read this document to the Palestinian leader – including the Jerusalem paragraph. With regard to mutual recognition, the document states: “Once the needs of both sides are met on all the foregoing issues, the two-state solution will have to be expressed in the Agreement through mutual recognition and establishment of a state of peace between Palestine, the nation-state of the Palestinian people, and Israel, the nation-state of the Jewish people. This is without prejudice to the historical narratives of both sides, and with full equal rights for all and no discrimination against any of their citizens.”
This language contains a major victory for Netanyahu: Even in the most “pro-Palestinian” version of the Obama administration’s framework, there was a clear reference to Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. However, it also offers a significant “carrot” to Abbas by stating that this mutual recognition will only be the very last part of the negotiations, and will come only after everything else has been resolved.
On most of the other core issues, the March document wasn’t dramatically different than the February one – including borders, refugees and security arrangements. There were, however, a number of language “tweaks” that seem more favorable to the Palestinians. The borders section, for instance, no longer includes the words “subsequent developments” that were included in the February version and are a clear reference to Israel’s major settlement blocs.
After failing to first negotiate a document with Netanyahu and then get a “yes” from Abbas, the Americans now wanted to test the opposite option: Getting the Palestinian leader to agree to a document on the core issues, and then take it back to Netanyahu. But Abbas didn’t accept Obama’s framework document. He didn’t reject it, though – he simply didn’t respond.
The Obama administration was disappointed and frustrated by his reaction. Obama asked Abbas to “see the big picture” instead of squabbling with “this or that detail” – to no avail. A month later, Kerry’s peace talks collapsed.
Palestinian and U.S. officials later explained that Abbas was disappointed by the fact Netanyahu’s government was planning to delay a promised release of dozens of Palestinian prisoners, and that he felt the Obama administration could not truly “deliver” concessions from Netanyahu.
“Abbas was always afraid of saying yes to something, only to then discover that Bibi [Netanyahu] doesn’t accept it. He was afraid of being blamed by his opponents of selling out the Palestinians in return for nothing,” one former U.S. official told Haaretz, adding that “perhaps with Trump, he will believe that Israeli concessions are more of a real possibility.”
Other American officials, as well as Israeli ones, see this episode as proof of Abbas’ inability to deliver a final peace agreement, mostly as a result of his internal political troubles.
The March 2014 meeting was the last time Obama invited Abbas to the White House. Netanyahu, meanwhile, backtracked publicly from the positions he expressed during his conversations with Kerry, and later also lied to the Israeli public multiple times during the 2015 Knesset election about what he agreed to during the 2014 negotiations.
Ultimately, both Israel and the Palestinians didn’t officially accept – or reject – Kerry’s framework proposals. Maybe the Trump administration will have more luck in getting them to commit to actual concessions on “the core issues.”
@ Edgar G.:
“you’re a better man than I, Charlie Brown.”
Funny, I was trying to find where I got that quote from and I accidentally stumbled upon Hillary Clinton’s Constitution. It isn’t it just countries that have constitutions, you know. People do, too.
Incidentally, did you intend “read” in the past or present tense? I get very little feedback, you know. You seemed to be chewing me out for stating the obvious but we are all saying the same thing over and over, you know. Not just Abe. Apart from analyzing what appears to be going on. A bit like a Christian sermon. The message is pretty simple. And repetitive. But, if there are readers who have “only a little dust in their eyes,” as the historical Buddha, Shakyamuni put it, perhaps a few in a position of influence or power can be directly or indirectly influenced. Otherwise, we will lose, you know. It’s propaganda that determines wars between first and third world countries. Every since Ghandi routed the British. And its propaganda that determined wars between Democracies and Dictatorships, ever since Hitler in the 30’s. In the fight between Might and Right, Might in a Democracy always loses before a clever seizure of the Moral High Ground by the immoral opposition as Eidelberg and the Cognitive Warfare analysts point out. This is not being pointed out enough, I believe, No? Nobody else is writing about it here, or much of anywhere else, are they? (If they were, I’d shut up or stick to silly humor) And our leaders clearly don’t get it.
anyway, here’s Hillary (humor)
https://youtu.be/Rxz2Dvxuy-4
@ Sebastien Zorn:
xx
i’ve ALWAYS understood it; even since long before you were born. Before the State was declared. After the WAR I was prevented from joining a few of my friends who were going to Palestine to fight with the Irgun by my dear late parents, G-D Bless Them. But my friends kept in touch with me and what they told me, and the reports I read convinced me right then, that NO Arab can ever be trusted, sworn word, legal document, NOTHING. And of course, in later years when I went on Aliyah (for 14 years) I found the very same myself, with my own eyes and ears.
Yes, I’ve ALWAYS understood. And I knew from the beginning that you did too, although you began your postings moderately. We all wanted to be gentlemen, but as time has passed and the full obscenity of the Arabim Mamzerim has been blatantly waved under our noses, we now “call a spade a spade” in no uncertain terms. Tikun Olam is not for the likes of us, at least not before we look after our own first. I read your posts with enjoyment and marvel at your computer research skills. The difference being that I was ALWAYS a strong right winger from childhood. Palestine always belonged ONLY to the Jews.
@ MELECH david:
Thanks. Nice. The bikinis make it better. I didn’t know. Even better given the M&Ms (Muslims) Victorian (puritanical is actually a misnomer; the Puritans weren’t especially puritanical, other than believing in marriage before birth) sensibilities. Maybe Next could be persuaded to pay for the tee shirt, thus killing two birds with one stone (or pound in the UK).
Just to be clear on everything, the Palis went to the Arab League every time there was a need for a refusal. They backed him up in the refusal which he then sold back home. This means that you can argue over everything ad nauseum, work out all the details, still depend on a refusal from the Arab League and still come up smelling of camel shit.
Why waste the time and effort. We have the current situation and it’s time the Palis became comfortable with it.
Actually, you can depend on them to complain whatever the outcome. By the way, they’ve never had it so good!!
Since all offers have been rejected so far by both sides, there is no offer on the table and all sides can start off with a clean sheet of paper.
It might be time to do some “real politik” magic and declare that the occupation by Jordan came to an end in 1967.
If the Palis want autonomy, they won’t get it from Israel.
How’s that for a fresh start?
Sebastien Zorn Said:
“Been there, Done that.” on one side and on the other, “Next”.]</ next would thank you. http://www.next.co.uk/ ceo
The Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise or
Simon Adam Wolfson
@ Edgar G.:
Read this. Eidelberg lays it all out.
http://www.afsi.org/pamphlets/SadatsStrategy_Eidelberg%5B1%5D.pdf
@ Sebastien Zorn:
@Edgar G.
Read this if you haven’t. It lays it all out.
http://www.afsi.org/pamphlets/SadatsStrategy_Eidelberg%5B1%5D.pdf
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Read this if you haven’t. It lays it all out.
http://www.afsi.org/pamphlets/SadatsStrategy_Eidelberg%5B1%5D.pdf
@ Edgar G.:
You are right. But it’s not merely because they are Arabs. This is their constitution. They have kept to it faithfully. These fools think they are just being recalcitrant not fanatical ideologues following a written program very successfully and are allowing themselves to be run through the same hoops over and over and over. Do you understand? The liberals who patronize the Arabs do not understand that is they who are being patronized and played by an enemy who understands their psychology better than these supercilious fools understand the Arabs. The liberals can’t see that it is not the Arabs who are hampered by their prejudice from seeing what is going on but they themselves. Each of these good will gestures changes the facts on the ground in their favor incrementally and that’s the whole point. That plus keeping the foreign funding flowing.
All they have to do is keep the infidels from noticing they aren’t saying anything and keep the game going.
Do you understand now?
@ Hugo Shmidt-Fischer:
CAMERA discredited Yitzhaki in another context.
For once, A7 staff didn’t do their homework.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=181&x_context=7
there can only be one acceptable plan its already written in stone LoN mandate and or u n charter article 80. one minor change in both the status of JERUSALEM u n has no claim to any idea/plan as they gave up that right during their acceptable hasimite illegal occupation 48-67
abbarse can have his weight in camels and carry the terror tomb to Egypt.
@ William Bilek:
True enough, but long before it would come to that, all Abbas would have to do is repeat this “peace” nonsense publicly on PA TV and radio and in official PA newspapers in Arabic before the “Palestinian” “electorate” and he’d just be lynched.
No agreement or offer should be considered real without that coming first, not to mention changing the National Covenant, like they promised in 1993, to remove the part about destroying Israel being their goal, like they promised to do in exchange for territory and autonomy under Oslo, but never did.
I’m not a lawyer but correct me if I am wrong, a contract is an exchange of promises, one conditional upon the other with consideration, in other words, some value must change hands as a sign of commitment.
The consideration here on the part of the Pals was changing their covenant, that of Israel was to give them a territory and autonomy. The Pals never did honor their promise to change their covenant to take that out. The contract was legally void from the outset.
The ruling of the “court”: Israel should take the territory back and send the PLO packing back to Tunisia, the gates of hell, or wherever, whichever is farther. And hotter.
“Peace proposals unaccompanied by a sworn covenant indicate a plot.” Sun Tzu, “The Art of War”. IX:26.
http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
@ sabashimon:
from
“Jordan Valley emerges as core issue in Mideast peace talks” January 25, 2014
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/jordan-valley-emerges-as-core-issue-in-mideast-peace-talks/2014/01/25/5b543d30-7f8d-11e3-97d3-b9925ce2c57b_story.html?utm_term=.421111c08600
SZ: Let’s not put the cart before the horse. I think much may depend on who the new President is when Obama’s second term runs out in three years. It’s still only February 2014, after all. In three years, the issues and the players may be very different. Or not. It’s much too soon to tell. I’m not a fortune-teller, you know. It looks like Hillary Clinton is likely to be our next President, God help us. But, who knows. Anything can happen in three years.
Things change.
“Netanyahu insists Israel retain Jordan Valley military control”
June 5, 2017
http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-insists-israel-retain-jordan-valley-military-control/
“PA: Netanyahu vow to retain Jordan Valley proves Israel ‘not ready’ for peace”
June 6, 2017
http://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/pa-netanyahu-vow-to-retain-jordan-valley-proves-israel-not-ready-for-peace/
“Netanyahu: Israel Will Never Cede Jordan Valley”
PM tells Knesset committee that area’s strategic location makes pullout impossible, even in peace deal” Feb. 3, 2010
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/netanyahu-israel-will-never-cede-jordan-valley-1.266329
“Netanyahu expands separation wall to Jordan Valley”
Israel/Palestine Allison Deger on November 4, 2013 – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/netanyahu-expands-separation/#sthash.uL0aTZNb.dpuf
Or not.
[Wouldn’t be funny for a bunch of us to show up at a two-stater event wearing blue and white tee shirts bearing the logo, “Been there, Done that.” on one side and on the other, “Next”.]
@ Sebastien Zorn:
xx
Sebastien, for a smart fellow you don’t see the hole at your feet. What difference would it ever make in this world whether “Palestinians” AGREED to any oir all conditions. They never keeo any of them. It’s part of their barbaric cult t o agre e, make treaties, and then break them when they feel ready.
So all that crap is just that…ordure. Nothing more needs to be said or read. Although…I suppose there is some vicarious satisfaction to be gained from believing and accepting an “agreement ” signed by an Arab…… I don’t even b other any more to think about it. It’s all been thoroughly thrashed out on these pages a hundred times already almost in every issue. All facets of any agreement ends the same way. I suppose they are not “agreeing” to a variety of things because it gives them enjoymernt to see the infidel “jump” and otherwise doesn’t affect the Islamic long term goal of world domination……
When they are ready of course, when the world is broken down enough from jumping through Islamic hoops set out to cause stumbles and fatigue.
So how does “territorial integrity” affect Israels need to control the Jordan Valley high ground, which obviously sits on the eastern flank of any so-called palestinian state?
Israels demand to control this vital area isn’t specifically mentioned. Why not?
These politicians are not working exclusively in Israel’s interest. Likely as not, many of them are ‘on the take’. Fine cigars for Bibi, bespoke suits for Olmert, a seafront ‘peace house’ for Peres and what else knows.
‘Taking care’ of Israel’s leaders is an old profession. Arutz Sheva News today reports that historian Aryeh Yitzhaki disclosed the following:
“Moshe Dayan, it can be said today clearly, was a foreign agent who was recruited by the US intelligence services in 1943 before the establishment of the state and the IDF…When Dayan completed his military service, he arrived in Vietnam as a guest of the American military system and stayed there for three weeks and took part in the fighting…In late May 1967 Dayan was appointed defense minister by Eshkol and directed the war, Jerusalem, etc. The connections continued after the war, for example, in December 1970 Dayan was the guest of President Nixon and Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger. A month before the Yom Kippur War, Kissinger was appointed secretary of state. This connection explains many puzzling moves in the Yom Kippur War and the Six Day War.”
Yitzhaki stated that decisions were not made only by Dayan. “Throughout the years Dayan was accompanied by Eli Zeira, whom I define as a sub-agent.”
Have you ever wondered how Ehud Barak purchased a multi-million dollar duplex in a Tel-Aviv tower?
He wouldn’t manage on an Israeli government’s salary in a hundred years. But a ‘manufactured’ director’s fee at the other end of the revolving door probably took care of that
I guess Ted is trying for a little variety these days – mixing the parody and humor of Haaretz and DEBKA with more serious sources of information. I guess the fake news trend has caught on at Israpundit too.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
more camel humor: like the photo ops of Clinton, Rabin and Arafat or Abbas and Trump shaking hands, you know: Camelot.
The final decision should be, and is, for the Israeli ELECTORATE to make. This was true at the time of Oslo, and is even more true today. Any potential agreement MUST be taken to the people, to have their voice heard, recorded, and FOLLOWED.
Anything else is a travesty which will come back to haunt the Jewish People, perhaps forever.
After reading this sickening story I can only say that everyone is lying and betraying except Abbas. He is the only one who is steadfast in his goal to destroy Israel. Kerry and Obama are without any credibility and nothing they promise can ever be relied upon. And Netanyahu is also someone who can be pressured to bow to the enemy. It is Oslo all over again with secret negotiations behind the backs of the Israeli people. I must salute our enemy, Abbas who never wavers on his evil principles and who has temporarily saved Israel from itself.
Abbas (t)alks a mile for a camel.
The PLO will never agree to end the conflict as a matter of core principle. All that matters is holding on to the land. Nothing else carries any weight, whatsoever.
article 3 of the 1974 PLO Ten Point Phased Plan
“The Liberation Organization will struggle against any proposal for a Palestinian entity the price of which is recognition, peace, secure frontiers…”
“Today Barak portrays Arafat’s behaviour at Camp David as a “performance” geared to exacting from the Israelis as many concessions as possible without ever seriously intending to reach a peace settlement or sign an “end to the conflict”.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3
It’s the goodwill “gestures” that increase Arab presence on the ground, however incrementally, that Abbas is after. The rest is smokescreen. It’s just more salami tactics.
Reminds me of the joke about Nasruddin, the Sufi Yogi Berra. Every week, he would cross this same border and every week the border guard would inspect the goods on his camel and never find any contraband. Finally, one day, the guard, said to him in desperation,
“look, I’m dying of curiosity, I’m retiring after today, and I’ll take anything you tell me to my grave, but, I just have to know, I know you’re smuggling something. Please, Please tell me. What, on earth, have you been smuggling all this time?”
“Camels.”