I need to make a correction to my post about faux Jewish-Arab dialogue from last Friday. In it I quoted the distinguished American literary critic Edward Alexander as the author of the quip that rightly noted, “universalism is the parochialism of the Jews.” The source, or so I thought, for that quote was Alexander’s wonderful 1988 book The Jewish Idea and Its Enemies. However, my memory appears to have betrayed me: a look at the original text revealed that, in fact, on page 101 of that volume, while endorsing the substance of this remark, Alexander credits this insight to writer Cynthia Ozick. My apologies go to both Mr. Alexander and Ms. Ozick.
Contentions
Who First Said That Universalism Was the Parochialism of the Jews?
Jonathan S. Tobin
| @tobincommentary
01.13.2010 - 3:18 PM
01.13.2010 - 3:18 PM
0 Responses to “Who First Said That Universalism Was the Parochialism of the Jews?”
May 2013
-
Articles
-
"My Negro Problem-and Ours" at 50
Norman Podhoretz -
Gay Marriage, the Court, and Federalism
Tara Helfman -
The Spirit of '75?
Algis ValiunasAn audacious, and wrong, argument about the American Revolution.
Fiction
-
Onto a Good Thing
Joseph Epstein
Politics & Ideas
-
The Bureaucrat-Driven Life
Heather Wilhelm -
The Making of an Education Reformer
Sohrab Ahmari -
Bork's Watergate
James Rosen -
Dear Prudence
Paul O. Carrese -
Whose Accomplishments?
Mona Charen
Culture & Civilization
-
The Parenting Trap
Dana Mack -
George Saunders, Anti-Minimalist
Fernanda Moore -
A Chekhov in Training
Terry Teachout -
What Ailes the Liberal Media?
Andrew Ferguson
John Podhoretz
-
Taking Obama's Foreign Policy Seriously
John Podhoretz
Threat Assessment
-
More Genocide Threats from Iran
Jonathan S. Tobin
Letters
-
Denying Jewish Peoplehood-and Reality
Our ReadersResponses to Robert S. Wistrich's "The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism"
-
Gun Laws, Crime, and Freedom
Our ReadersResponses to Benjamin Domenech's "The Truth About Mass Shootings and Gun Control"
-
Don't Confuse Principle and Pose
Our ReadersResponses to Matthew Continetti's "Poseur Politics in the Era of Obama"
-
Jews and Sports
Our Readers
Enter Laughing
-
Get Our Free Newsletter
I share your views.
Moreover, Obama is enjoying the exchange now because it propels him from the primary to the general election and supports his thesis that McCain is the third term of the Bush Administration.
It would be more favorable to engage Obama on this after he is actually nominated, and once a more thoughtful response is formulated.
Simply engaging now in a battle of soundbits cheapens the debate on such a predominate subject.
Totally strange thoughts about Obama. Did the writer forget the sequence in Obama’s last major statement regarding the Iran v. Israel issue ~ he suggested that If Iran totally destroys Israel and kills all the Jewish people then he will encourage serious negotiations and diplomacy.
Not sure that’s a good idea from the Jewish position.
Hillary Clinton promised anihilation of Iran should they anihilate Israel.
Only McCain (and our last 11 Presidents) have threatened anihilation to the enemy state before it has a chance to anihilate Israel.
So, how is McCain losing the argument? Certainly the American people have no more taste for genocide.
I am still, in the back of my mind hopeful that George Bush is going to make Obama prevarications on Iran, moot by embracing the meaning of “unacceptable.”
That would actually help Obama were he to be elected. Bush can take the heat and Obama can go on his much anticipated grovelling tour for the next four years while Iran puts back together its smouldering ruins. Hey, he may even be able to go look into shiny metal things while wearing a toga with Haniyieh and Abbas in Mecca given his Muslim roots, all while not having to worry about Tehran. He can then wag his finger “I would have been able to use my tough diplomacy to stop Iran, but I never got then chance. Hey Abu Mazen and Haniyeh, let me get you back together while I hold the mirror up to Israel. They must make more concessions, don’t you agree.”
“Did the writer forget the sequence in Obama’s last major statement regarding the Iran v. Israel issue ~ he suggested that If Iran totally destroys Israel and kills all the Jewish people then he will encourage serious negotiations and diplomacy.”
Hard to believe, to say the least. Do you have a link?
What an odd judgment. Losing the debate according to what standards? Short-term, long-term? In the mass media? In the blogosphere? In the public mind? Among all voters? Among independents?
Certainly not in the writer’s mind: He knows exactly where he stands, and nothing about the debate has changed his view. So in whose minds are the terms now reduced to “diplomatic engagement vs. diplomatic isolation,” with McCain getting the worst of it?
McCain is being “dragged into a debate about presidential-level diplomacy” because that’s where Obama’s original promise to meet the dictators placed it. In terms of the election, it opens up a fundamental question about Obama’s qualifications for the job. You may not agree with, for instance, Dean Barnett at THE WEEKLY STANDARD that it should be the central issue of the campaign, but it is in inevitable question, and, if won, might be decisive.
As for the specific questions regarding the desirability and actual history of engagement with Iran, those are obviously important. The answers may even conceivably rise to the level of decisive, but there is little evidence that they at this point the particulars move large numbers of voters. For someone exquisitely focused on Iran and the Middle East – no shame in that – it might be regretful that the details of the policy aren’t receiving a more thoughtful and publicly edifying treatment, but I doubt that it will be the last time the campaign will fail on that score regarding complex and significant issues.
It’s hard for me to believe that the debate of last few days has significantly altered perceptions about McCain vs Obama on trustworthiness as CinC. McCain’s advantages on the issue are so large that only a tremendous gaffe or series of gaffes would be likely to affect the calculation significantly. Merely having foreign policy disagreements in the headlines – including some harsh criticisms that haven’t been and probably can’t be nswered effectively, consistently, or directly – has highlighted doubts about Obama. Those already firmly in his camp may be cheering, but we already know that they’ll cheer him when he blows his nose.
Noah – one thing I think you are losing sight of is that Bush has basically rendered the misleading NIE moot. Even Obama’s suggestion that the Iran is a tiny problem was not based upon the NIE. That is a plus plus victory for all of us. Seems to me that if McCain can keep the notion of whether Iran is a threat alive, he wins the argument if Obama is going to stick to his appeasement platform. I may be wrong, but at least that is right debate to be having as opposed to whether Iran is really a threat to obtain nuclear weapons.
So, if I get the drift, McCain caused himself political harm by saying something true but politically inconvenient, whereas Obama helped himself out by lying again.
In my perfect world, candidates would not earn points for sleazy verbal maneuvers.
I agree with Muawiyah that it’s not clear Obama is coming off better here. The mainstream media may be presenting his Delphic utterances in a more positive and flattering light, but there are still Americans with basic common sense who recognize Obama’s Ivy League bromides for what they are: the fragrant stuff that comes out the back end of a bull.
As for why McCain is not making better hay of Obama’s unclothed-emperor ineptitude, well, McCain is a natural triangulator, as well as a completely conventional defense thinker. He doesn’t have a lot of fundamental positions of his own. His whole political career has been built on distinguishing himself from others — being NOT-movement conservative, being NOT-Bush — as opposed to outlining an unvarying basic posture to brand himself with. That’s what mavericks do: they define themselves in the negative sense of not fitting in to the programs of others.
There’s a limit to the power of a maverick to define terms in the public debate, to take ownership of the big muscle movements of a polity, and to direct our course. We are seeing such a limit now. McCain is still better than Obama, who would be an unmitigated disaster. But we will see more such limits on the leadership capacities of maverickism in the future.
Speaking of debates, Maverick should challenge his opponent to at least a half dozen.
I agree with you, Noah. A quicker Republican candidate could have put this issue to bed already. It’s a failure of American society that so many in the electorate are persuaded by ‘community organizing’ on the global stage. I often ask for comments from Obama supporters on the specific failings of the multilateral negotiations with Iran, Europe and the IAEA. It’s not even on their radar.
As an alternative arguement to make re: a sitdown with Iran, North Korea, etc.: Why not let demand that Obama debate you in a public forum on this issue? or Dennis Prager? or John Bolton? (to take some conservatives at random.) The Obama campaign would never let that happen, because it would be opening their candidate up to looking pretty foolish.
“McCain should be asking Obama what concessions he realistically thinks he’s going to get from the Iranians upon going hat in hand to Tehran.”
I’m more interested in how much more of the farm Hussein Obama wants to give away.
I don’t agree, Noah. Obama has shown himself to be severely limited in this exchange, making rookie mistakes and looking foolish going back and forth on whether the threat is tiny or grave (maybe it’s a tiny threat we should take gravely, or perhaps the other way around?). His inexperience and ignorance of basic facts have hurt him more than I think you realize this week.
His misguided notion that any regime can be negotiated with flies in the face of the American people’s better understanding of the problem. Let’s not forget that he wants to make nice, for no apparent gain whatsoever, with the guy who helped hold American hostages for 444 days.
And so it will go for the rest of the year whenever they discuss national security. Obama cannot come close in this arena. McCain should emphasize more of your second point, no doubt. But so far — despite the MSM’s best attempts to prop up this guy — Obama has come off looking anything but presidential.
J.E. Dyer makes good points about McCain’s limitations as a campaigner, as a debater, and (in the unlikely event he wins the election) as a chief executive. Some of us saw these weaknesses when the GOP nomination was still in contention, and are not at all surprised by McCain’s plodding, aimless, unimaginative performance thus far. Romney would have had obvious weaknesses of his own if he were the nominee, but he is quick, smart and verbally adept, and I think he would have performed far better in the Iran debate now in progress.
“Why is McCain allowing himself to be dragged into a debate about presidential-level diplomacy”
Because the man is a 72 year old amateur.
Here we go down the rabbit hole.
Allow me to offer a few words of clarification: the point is not that the Iran issue is a loser for McCain generally — far from it — only that the manner in which the debate is taking shape is a loser for McCain, or at least does not allow for some important advantages that could be gained if the subject was approached differently. By promising to pursue nothing but more diplomacy, Obama is actually furthering the Bush administration’s Iran policy, not rejecting it. One might say that Obama is promising a third Bush term, not McCain.
Incidentally, if you ask a Democrat who purports to recognize the danger from Iran why it is that the diplomatic efforts to rein in its nuclear program over the last five years or so have thus far failed so miserably, he or she will blame the Bush administration for so “alienating” our “allies” that they have refused to apply the necessary pressure. (Try this at home, kids!)
One thing that makes political discussion with anyone on the left pointless these days is the insistence of the left on blaming Bush and the Republicans, not only for their own (many) failings, but also for the failings of our enemies, of our feckless “allies” (real and imaginary), and of the Democrats themselves. As an example of the latter, if you ask a Democrat why no good arguments were made against invading Iraq prior to the invasion (i.e., why didn’t they make an argument concerning the sort of problems we had until the recent success of the surge, rather than spouting bromides about the need for UN approval), you will be told that the GOP “suppressed” debate by “questioning the patriotism” of any who disagreed with Bush (i.e., offering counterarguments).
The political intelligentsia of this country has gone insane, and now seems to have taken the majority of the electorate with it.
“The political intelligentsia of this country has gone insane, and now seems to have taken the majority of the electorate with it.”
The “elites” are dishonest pacifists. They will yell up and down that this is the most ridiculous thing they have ever heard. And yet, when you push them to the limit—they suddenly blurt out the truth. Hard power supposedly causes nothing but grief. Soft power is therefore the only way to go. This is also especially true if the United States is confronted by dark skinned foes. Racial guilt underpins just about everything. This insidious intellectual virus may very well destroy our society.
It doesn’t matter what Obama says about foreign policy w.r.t. any international issue. The vast majority of the people who will vote for him neither know nor care a whit about foreign policy. The Middle East makes people’s heads hurt because no one knows how to fix it. (And I think that is true of everyone, regardless of their politics.) Some people, e.g., the people who read and comment on blogs like this, fight through the pain and keep thinking about it because they believe it is important. Most people, however, react to the pain by jumping on whatever easy, sacrifice-free, feel-good solution someone tries to sell them, and then forget about Middle East policy in favor of something more congenial.
Look, it was Obama who fired the first shot (of indignation). Why? Because at this juncture, as we are still in the primary season, he elevates his stature amongst democrats and antiwar independents.
Better to wait until the democratic nominee is formally nominated. Then is when McCain make proclamations like toothless EU-3 and Bush Administration talk more resembled third-term Bush than McCain.
Noah, Most people are not that stupid. If you are not that stupid what makes you think everyone else is? Obama every day is getting deeper into his manmade quagmire and by the fall election this will be apparent to 50-55% of the voters. He will not become President
Gene: You are so right, I’m afraid.
Noah: Great post, and great point about how Obama is, in reality, seeking a 3rd term for Bush’s Iran policy. That should be a McCain slogan or commercial.
DJF: Great points.
I think Obama is looking good to his core base – the left and the MSM.
This did help him in move from the primary to general election campaign.
But the longer the debate is about Iran and security and the less its about the economy the better it is for McCain.
This clearly doesn’t help him with a wide swath of Jewish voters and I don’t think this moved any blue collar, lower middle class voters to his side – in fact, just the opposite.
This is the typical response of someone who has gone to debate class, thought it was pretty cool, and more importantly thinks that it represents real life somehow. This topic of how Iran should be handled isn’t a “victory for Obama”, it is a real topic to be discussed as if it is more meaningful than some sort of political talking point. You can blather endlessly about how much you love your hero, but at some point you’ve got to pull your head out of your own rectum and notice that Iran is driving headlong towards becoming an atomic power, and that they have a very long history of committing terrorist acts around the globe.
So, now – what the hell do you want to do about it? Talking to them won’t work, for the same reason that mutually assured destruction won’t work – the religious hyper-zealots in charge in Tehran don’t give a damn about either one.
Grow up!
The real question is not what Obama expects to get, but what he expects to offer as quid pro quo. This is a perfect set up for a “Peace in Our Time” by sacrificing Israel. Haven’t we been here before?
I am no McCain fan, but Obama comes across as silly and naive. It reminds me of college, when the professor wanted the class to have a “group hug” to get to know eachother. All but one person dropped the class the next day. Obama historical comparisons are so off the mark — Kennedy didn’t meet with the Soviet to stop a nuclear war. Kennedy met with them NAIVELy when he first got in office, and he was perceived as weak, thus leading to the brink. For an academic, Obama is not very smart.
Obama worshipers, i mean supporters will make any and every excuse they can for him. I’ve never seen a politician stick his foot in his mouth so many times and get away with it. The man is a fool and I believe even his supporters know it but their hatred of republicans and conservatives is so deep it blinds them to the false massiahs failings and lies.
“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows John McCain earning 46% of the vote while Barack Obama attracts 43%. This is the first time in nearly two weeks that the candidates have been separated by more than a single percentage point ”
“McCain is viewed favorably by 50% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 46%. Obama’s numbers are 49% favorable and 49% unfavorable ”
A week ago, McCain’s favorable-unfavorable numbers were 49-48, Obama’s 51-47.
Moreover, Obama’s _very unfavorable_ number is now 35.
It has not been so high since 3/24, in the heyday of Pastorgate.
Unlike _previous_ falls in Obama’s popularity, this is not an obvious result
of some scandalous revelation. On the contrary, he is on the threshold of winning the nomination, much of the Party and the press are already rallying to him. He ought to be
getting a boost, and he falls. What is it, then?
It may not be a verdict on the Iran debate, or on the appeasement debate _per se_.
I don’t think it is that _directly_. But I suspect it may be connected.
It may be a reaction to the new embattled Obama, to his new style: a
mixture of whining and snarling. Gone is Obama the uniter, floating above
the strife. Gone is the serene poise, the velvet caressing notes, the soothing bedside manner.
Maybe he is attempting to show himself a fighter, fit to be commander-in-chief.
Instead, he appears nervous, resentful, gloomy, and petty. These features may be partially in the eye of the beholder; his supporters may see him in a different light. It is evident, at least, that he _has changed_; and it is a fact that his great successes were won _before_ this change.
As for McCain, he hasn’t changed: the same happy warrior.
Possibly he might turn these issues to better advantage, find better words -
but at least he does not _act as a loser_.
The voting public may not understand subtle points of the Iranian problem – but it has eyes and ears.
I think Obama should take Reagan’s approach to Iran – sell them (at a discount) advanced weapons system to negotiate the release of hostages… The weapons were originally brokered through Israel – but the price was too high for Ollie North.
How many are on the record here calling Reagan the Geat Appeaser?
let’s not forget he also armed, trained and financed Islamic extremists to fight the Soviets. Both Reagan and his vice president would go on to sell weapons to Saddam.
Yet somehow, the right wing insists they know what they’re doing when it comes to foreign policy. Luckily, Obama is not affraid to keep slamming the so-called experts as incompetent boobs who’ve messed up the job for years. There’s little he could do worse than our present President – and the American people know this.
Anyone find those WMDs yet?
Whew, I thought McCain was getting creamed from the headline. McCain’s reminder that the Iranians were blowing up our troops that Obama cares so much about was pretty telling. OTOH, the shunning attitude is perhaps subtle in its justification and political campaigns are for us to consider alternative points of view. I don’t think from either side of most debates it should be considered desirable to annihilate the opponent.
A real leader knows how to make peace with one’s enemies, not war.
Noah, this is only a victory for Obama if you believe in short-term thinking. McCain, thankfully, is not that stupid. I firmly believe that he is going to pursue the continuum that you suggest, not simply stick with “no talks at the Presidential level”. As you suggest, that leaves the initiative with Barack.
Instead, raising the issue of the regime’s anti-Semitism, it’s genocidal intent, and its decades of warfare against the United States against all efforts by the U.S. to ameliorate this regime’s tendencies will make Obama look like the sucker he is.
Good point. The only thing I can imagine Obama might be advocating is changing 29 years of official U.S. policy toward Iran. However, I agree, the U.S. doesn’t have many carrots to offer Iran diplomatically, the U.S. has abandoned the Islamic Republic as a child and it’s managed to persevere in isolation, why would it require anything the U.S. could offer now? Regardless, Obama’s position still seems more logical, why not truly exhaust all avenues of diplomacy before calling it a lost cause?
#30 Samir Says:
“A real leader knows how to make peace with one’s enemies, not war.”
Yeah, shame on FDR and Churchill for defeating Hitler and Tojo. They should
have smothered them with kindness, shouldn’t they?
Neville Chamberlain and Daladier had tried just that, they tried “making peace with one’s enemies” by means of concessions, in Munich, 1938. Instead, they made the war inevitable, and made it more terrible because they made the enemy much stronger.
The one good result of Munich was a lesson. Since we paid
so much for it, we should recall it often, lest we forget.
There is no substitute for victory. _After_ victory, one can afford to be generous, as the USA were with Japan, Germany and Italy – to make a lasting peace
with _former_ enemies, defeated enemies.
Concessions to an undefeated aggressor are a costly mistake. When fire meets combustibles, it grows; when aggression meets concessions, it grows, too.
The proper time to “make peace with your enemies” is
after victory, when you are accepting their surrender:
as Reagan made peace with Gorbachev against the background of the
crumbling Soviet regime.
However, the case of Iran as an enemy is _special_. It is worse than most.
To the mad mullahs’ of Iran, the USA is not merely an obstacle or a
rival – but the Great Satan. Their hostility to us is a matter of sacred principle,
not just expediency. When they negotiate with us, they do not negotiate
away their principles: they aren’t making real peace with the Great Satan.
They are just gaining specific advantages for achieving the ultimate goal,
“Death to America”.
Their faith tells them that this goal is achievable -
and, strange as it may seem, it _is_, if we let them go on.
Asymmetrical warfare is the reason why.
9/11 did not kill the USA, but even it was a serious blow;
our economy reeled – and it only cost Al Qaeda half a million dollars or less.
But Iran has just donated to Hezbollah a _billion_ dollars.
Hezbollah is as terrorist as Al Qaeda, more powerful, more efficient,
with sleeper cells in the USA (e.g. http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/ClarkStaten/articles/140534/)
- and equally dedicated to our destruction.
In the words of Hezbollah’s top leader Nasrallah,
“Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan is absolute… Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America.”
These are cunning, patient people; they are able to wait for
their moment and to work for it quietly – and to “negotiate” if that helps
buy them time.
If this thing lives, we die.
We can make real peace with Iran only on the ruins of its terrorist theocracy.
Iran is hardly the threat that Nazi Germany was though. It’s a neo-con wet dream to invade tiny pushover countries and declare some kind of rah-rah victory.
Iran isn’t worth one more American soldier or Iranian civilian being slaughtered, sorry.
The Iran debate is being defined as one of diplomatic engagement versus diplomatic isolation,
No, the real difference is between neo-conservative hysteria and liberal pragmatism.
Iran? Woah… you sure know how to pick a winning issue. Even if you were right, you are a dumb ass.
M .
:
. .
a tip for the MSM: maybe they should ask zbig brzezinski and jimmy carter about their meetings with syria and hamas, and what exactly were discussed.
at least there are “low level” talks now taking place between the terror organizations/supporters and the “carter administration”.
Obama won’t have to stick to his silly “without preconditions” statement.
Noah, McCain has said everything you want him to say but it hasn’t yet percolated up to front-page nightly news coverage. I am sure he will keep saying it and it will show up in GOP ads and hopefully in those juicy debates we all hope Obambi won’t run away from.
It would help McCain’s case if he stopped proving his ignorance on Iran and any issue related to Iran on a daily basis. From claiming that Iran was training Al Qaeda (he was corrected by Lieberman, but apparently forgot because he suggested it again later), to not understanding that Ahmadinejad is not the guy in power in Iran.
It’s hard to take a presidential candidate seriously when he is so thoroughly confused on such a regular basis.
Here is James Baker, several years ago, explaining why talking to your enemies – even official sponsors of terrorism – is not appeasement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYC3jVaDDEg
#34: “Iran is hardly the threat that Nazi Germany was though.
In _some_ ways, it it is more dangerous. The combination of fissionable materials and a wordwide terrorist network, with suicide killers at its disposal, is something new
and potentially deadly. There is also a threat of Iran taking hold of the world’s
energy lifeline.
Nazi Germany presented _other_ kinds of threats – also very bad, but not the same.
” It’s a neo-con wet dream to invade tiny pushover countries and declare some kind of rah-rah victory”
Irrelevant: no neo-cons have suggested _invading_ Iran (which is not tiny, of course. )
It’s easy to say that McCain should or shouldn’t do this, but with most of the media in Obama’s pocket, it’s pretty hard for McCain to set the terms.
pianub dlnvujmxg lspicnr jarzq uancf wbmjxnvi ogufa
mccain is a drain on the public eye . put him back in the old folks home . . he likes to bring up his history . . we dont need a history teacher john we need a great leader and it is not john mccain . . mccain is another bush clone . and he will not make it to the office of president . . i really could not stand to hear another lie from his lips . . i would hat to even look at him for another 4 years . . God . help us to keep John mccain out of office . he has old timers .
Путешествия Путешествия, туризм, отдых http://mpd.ru туризм туризм
Новый способ давления на кандидата на пост Главы г. Химки
Новый способ “наказать” тех, кто посмел участвовать в выборной кампании не на стороне действующей власти изобрели правоохранительные органы г.о. Химки.
Руководствуясь не нормой закона, а чьей-то “волей” сотрудники милиции решили “проверить” все фирмы, внесшие денежные средства в избирательный фонд неудобных кандидатов.
Начались “проверки” с телефонных звонков – где директор, сколько человек работает на фирме. После чего последовали “письма счастья” с просьбой предоставить всю бухгалтерскую документацию, учредительные документы фирмы, и даже, план экспликации БТИ.
Такие запросы химкинским фирмам рассылает 1 отдел Оперативно-розыскной части № 9 Управления по налоговым преступлениям ГУВД Московской области за подписью начальника подполковника милиции Д.В. Языкова.
И всё это в то время, когда Президент дал прямое указание правоохранительным органам о прекращении всех незаконных проверок малого и среднего бизнеса. С это целью внесены изменения в Федеральный закон “О милиции” – из статьи 11 этого закона исключены пункты 25 и 35, на основании которых ранее правоохранительные органы имели право проверять финансово-хозяйственную деятельность предприятий.
Видно, об изменениях действующего законодательства местные правоохранительные органы не уведомлены. И не смотрят телепередачи с выступлениями Президента.
Может быть, эта публикация подвигнет их к исполнению указаний Президента, а также к изучению и соблюдению действующего законодательства
Подскажите, как бороться с этим С П А М О М?
Hi forum members
I just joined this forum.
Great job by the admin, mods and seriously every member around.
A few days ago I read that there is a cure for diabetes on http://www.healthcaredaily.org
Can diabetes seriously be cured? The website http://www.healthcaredaily.org looks legit
Has anyone tried beating diabetes this way?
Thanks
CeashyTussy