Let's start at the beginning: Not only is Israel well within
its rights to seal off Gaza, it has done so in a way that has, over the years,
despite global opprobrium to the contrary, shown considerable restraint. The
Hamas regime in Gaza has systematically threatened and attacked Israel and has
abominably failed its own people. It's Hamas, not Israel, not the Palestinian
government on the West Bank, who pose the biggest obstacle to progress on the peace
talks -- and that's saying something.
In addition, given the above, Israel's intervention to board
the aid flotilla bound for Gaza was a reasonable tactic with regard to the
enforcement of its Gaza policy. The flotilla itself -- whatever its
humanitarian merits may have been -- was also clearly a calculated provocation.
The tragic outcome of the Israeli intervention was one of the well-understood
risks deliberately undertaken by the organizers of the flotilla and, I believe,
one that they foresaw as a potential victory.
That said, the flotilla must also be seen as an almost
inevitable response to a policy that is just as unsustainable as it is
justifiable. Isolating Gaza may provide
some security benefits to Israel but in the end, as this incident demonstrates,
it has created even greater risks. Not only does it give the Hamas regime an
excuse for its manifold failures, it fuels Gazan and global furor toward Israel
and strengthens a leadership faction that when studied up close is as callous
and incompetent as any in the world. The policy also clearly exacerbates
appalling conditions within Gaza. It is
therefore not only a policy that invited precisely this kind of multi-purpose
aid initiative... ultimately it is a policy
whose days are numbered for the very same reason.
As for the flotilla itself, every single outcome was good
for the organizers and bad for Israel. Delivering aid, being stopped, attempting to deliver aid but being
delayed and even a conflict on the high seas all were outcomes that would
advance the interests of the organizers and the Hamas regime in Gaza. Some among the organizers were certainly
sincere in their desire also to help the people of the enclave-people who
certainly deserve urgent relief from their intolerable circumstances. But some on board the flotilla were clearly
less interested in that. They are part
of an ongoing and currently escalating effort to derail peace talks, distract
from problems elsewhere in the region and to take advantage of what is seen as
a watershed moment -- a moment in which there is a sense the Unitd States is uncomfortable
with its historic policies and, despite its muted response to the weekend's
events, a sense that Washington may be willing to distance itself from the
Israelis to a degree to which the U.S. has been disinclined to do for half a
century.
In short, the Israelis were set up.
That said, their actions fall into the category of a
self-inflicted wound from a country that seems in recently to be mimicking the
old image of a guy holding a gun to his own head and saying "stop or I'll shoot."
The mission was botched and the costs are hard to
calculate. It is not just the tragic
loss of life. It is not just the
cancelled meetings in Washington or the further straining imposed on an already
strained relationship. It is not just
the global outrage and further isolation of Israel. It is not the real damage
done to the important Israel-Turkey relationship. It is also that the Israelis
will be forced in all peace discussions in the months ahead to focus on a Gaza
deal, one that almost certainly will strengthen the most dangerous enemies of
real peace (the Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian, militant faction) while providing, I
suspect, only marginal benefits to the Palestinians living in Gaza.
Finally, these events are also likely to take a material
toll on the Netanyahu government's viability. That may not be the reaction in
Israel at the moment. Many in Israel may reflexively react defensively in the
face of a wave of global negative sentiment that is over the top in its
hostility, insensitive to the underlying facts of the situation. But sooner or later -- as Israel's
international position materially deteriorates -- one has to wonder whether
they will start to ask whether this government that is so concerned with
"existential threats" to Israel may ultimately prove to be one of those
threats.
From the unnecessary and destructive settlements policy to
its blundering into severely degraded relations with the United States and the
world, Netanyahu is the face of a country that increasingly unable to show its
face anywhere internationally without provoking contempt. Admittedly, he is
only partially an author of the problems he faces. Circumstances and dedicated
opponents who are seen by most of the world to be advancing legitimate human
rights concerns are even more important co-authors. But absent one of the great
about-faces in the history of recent global affairs, it is reasonable to ask
whether it is only through the departure of the current prime minister that the
Israelis will be able to regroup and actually positively influence their own
destiny.
For Netanyahu and for Israel, this weekend's tragedy is
therefore a turning point. It doesn't matter whether it is being misunderstood. It doesn't matter whether it was a set up. It
doesn't matter what the facts are. Israel, born at a disadvantage and
vigorously playing defense ever since, is now on its heels. The next few years
will see it lose ground demographically, diplomatically and literally. Whether
after all that what is left actually is secure and sustainable will depend on
decisions about how it wishes to present itself during the months ahead -- decisions
that must necessarily involve reversals of Netanyahu policies regarding
settlements, Gaza and confusing self-destruction for self-defense.
A UN Fact Finding mission lead by South African Judge Richard Goldstone suggested that the blockade was a war crime and possibly a crime against humanity:
"Israeli acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed."[6] The Goldstone report recommended that the matter be referred to the International Criminal Court if the situation has not improved in
Not just the Goldstone Report. What “right” does Israel have to blockade another country? In fact, Israel is in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention; which the Security Council has unanimously held for thirty years that it applies to Israel. Israel has been condemned by the UN, the Secretary General and the Human Rights Chief, the ICRC, and a variety of other governments and NGOs.
In fact, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights noted in 2008 that the Gaza blockade “is in direct contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law. It must end now.” Rothkopf’s assertion that the Israeli’s have shown “restraint” is quite surprising. I mean, sure, the Israeli’s are not carpet bombing Gaza. Sure, Israel is not leveling hospitals and dropping iron-fragmentation bombs on the refugee camp that is Gaza. So, yes, in a way Israel has shown restraint. However, it is almost unanimously held that the blockade of Gaza has led to terrible conditions, lack of water and medicine, high unemployment and a humanitarian crisis.
As Navi Pillay noted in her report, “By function of this blockade, 1.5 million Palestinian men, women and children have been forcibly deprived of their most basic human rights for months.
Rothkopf has just repeated party dogma and raised bogeyman instead of discussing the topic honestly and critically. He likes to point out that Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, and other militant groups are the ones blocking peace in the region. This leads me to assume he thinks the US and Israel have supported peace. Really? He does not provide evidence of Hamas or Hizballah blocking peace- repeating dogma never requires it). In fact, Khalid Meshaal just told Charlie Rose that he would accept Israel and peace if (and only in this context) Israel moved back to the 1967 boarders. Thus, the leader of Hamas gave a de facto acceptance to Israel. In fact, a majority of the Arab world (a majority of the world generally) has accepted this; the US and Israel haven't.
Could be turned into a positive:
Obama stands with Israel, regaining their trust;
in turn, realizing their isolation, he is able to force them to make hard decisions for a 2-state solution; and
if, a big if, there is an actual interlocutor on the Palestinian side this time to make peace, we then get peace and 2 states. Maybe it's crazy, but maybe not...
is either a propagandist or an Israeli "hasbara" agent. People can legitimately disagree with you and have a valid point. Calling the author names such as "Soviet" just discredits yourself and your inability to conceptualize something outside of your own narrow opinion.
no one was called "terrorist" "pro-hamas" or "antisemitic." Whereas, there was name calling of "propagandist" and "soviet" above. Please read above if you failed to notice this earlier. I ask you politely to learn to read before you comment.
lobbies and I can tell you that in neither one do you have to establish your "credentials." In fact, most of them are really quite bland. The firebrands and those needing to prove their credentials are members of more fringe groups which you do not hear about until something crazy happens. In both situations I've actually been quite bored at what I heard from the credentialed speakers. Moreover, sitting in the audience, you will see that the members are also of a diversity of opinions. This really is nothing like the "soviets" you brought up.
Second, please stop with the German analogies. These are the most commonly thrown around analogies to get attention. Glen Beck does it. Now Sarah Palin's neighbor, author Joe McGinniss, thinks its cute to use Nazi analogies. These are analogies used to get attention and divert from the point. If you have a point to make, then make it. If you just want to incite people, they please stop.
Mr. Rothkopf: Let's look at this from an unusual angle and see what we get out of it. Let's say you were a cartoonish, Ahmadinejadesque lunatic fixated on destroying Israel. How would you go about achieving your goal?
Well, priority number one would be to isolate the Israelis from their allies, so they have no diplomatic or military cover. A good start would be to take actions that infuriate military partners like the Turks by killing a load of Turkish civvies, then telling them to fuck off by pretending that the civvies you killed deserved it. You'd definitely want to sabotage relations with allies like Greece, so that they'd withdraw from joint military operations and bar your military leaders from the country.
You'd want to blacken the Israelis' image by finding as much video footage as possible of exploded children and Merkava tanks doing donuts in the rubble of civilian housing, preferably from insane, murderous, indefensible and counterproductive wars. You'd want to rile up Israel's enemies by marching the Israeli military into conflicts in Lebanon that they can't win so that they look much weaker than they are, and you'd want to destroy the reputation of Israel's special forces. At least since the raid on Entebbe, Israeli special forces have looked courageous and invincible - getting some good footage of them blowing away a load of civvies in a clusterfuck operation would be propaganda gold.
Plus, you'd want to isolate the country from the United States by blowing up a load of pointless political pissfights that gain Israel nothing and damage its supporters as badly as possible. The Israelis don't need the US to give them every item of military hardware excepting nukes and aircraft carriers, but trying to fund that stuff out of general taxation rather getting them for free would be much more difficult.
In short, you'd want to make Israel look like a paranoid, bloodthirsty and extremely belligerent nation of racist freaks, determined to murder fuck out of civilians with total impunity year-in, year-out, so that the entire planet disowns them by, for example, withdrawing their ambassadors and issuing a barrage of denuncations.
This, I contend, is the actual policy of the Israeli political class, and I'm now certain that the Israeli government is packed to the hoop with Iranian sleeper agents. Short of handing Syrian intelligence the launch codes to their nuclear arsenal, I really can't think of any way in which the Israeli political class could do their country more harm.
It's been clear for years that the Israeli right is utterly dependent on the looniest fringe of Palestinian society for their power and legitimacy, and that both sets of nutters use violence against the other as a means to cementing their rule. The basic situation over there is that both Hamas and the Israeli government are committed to policies that harm their populations but ensure their own continued rule. It's a godawful, mutual death spiral that's heading in precisely the wrong direction.
Shorter - there really is an urgent and perilous threat to Israel. It's called "the Israeli government".
If Israelis were set up then Americans fought for freedom in Kosovo, and Russia attacked Georgia. Before making blatant and such bold statements maybe you can start from explaining that part ? And also at least try to move your "pro-Israeli" attitude out of the picture because it gets really out of hand. Besides if Israel is so white and angelic, then why Israel cannot send in the army like it did before, in order to secure "its" territory ?
Mr Rothkopf, you are a dimwit. Your assessment of the situation is barbaric and inhumane. Israel's apartheid policies are repulsive to most of the world community.
I find it absolutely shocking that a country might even be considered to be "well within it's rights" for creating a Warsaw-like ghetto, and murdering anyone who tries to ease the suffering of the prisoners within. This is not what the Holocaust taught us, this is not what zionism is about.
Regardless of their alignment or nationality, humanitarian aid workers are not to be killed, alright?
Very disappointed that such a shortsighted, one-sided article can be associated to FP.
Good post but you essentially miss the point - Israel's existential situation comes down to two fundamentals. Firstly, there's a large demographic out there that wants to see Israel fail - because of anti-Americanism, anti-semitism, the naive posturing of liberal ideologues and of course your Islamist fascists - whatever, the dominant opinion in the world is anti-Israel - therefore, what choice does Israel have other than to do what it's doing? The alternative is extinction - sure, it could tolerate some moderation maybe, but even a small movement towards appeasement risks inviting extinction - so Israel has no choice [although they obviously need to shake up their military establishment because it keeps making mistakes that simply shouldn't be happening] - therefore when you say Mr Rothkopf that Israel is now backed into a corner and must change, I don't see how that can or should happen - it'd be like telling a pitcher who just blew out his elbow that he's gonna have to learn to throw with the other arm - that's simply not possible - he either fixes the arm or he retires.
And secondly, and of most importance probably - is America's view of a viable Israel as a linchpin to its regional and overall security - as long as America continues to see a 'strong' Israel as vital, nothing changes - and so the question to ask is what would motivate America to back away from Israel? Well, obviously, oil ceasing to be a prime energy source would certainly not be good for Israel - although since oil exporting Muslim states would also decline accordingly, that could prove a wash from Israel's point of view; possibly an Obama-like president who out of a delusional arrogance hands a long sought victory to the radicals in the region by pulling the plug on Israel - but even though Obama has been test driving that approach, one imagines there'd be an outright insurrection on the right in this country if he or someone of his ilk ever followed through on it so can't really see that happening; and world opinion - but would an America that still saw Israel as a linchpin to its own security ever abandon Israel because of something as enervating and unsavory as 'world opinion'? Hard to believe.
So, Mr Rothkopf, I don't see this turning into a watershed moment - or rather, if it does turn that way, expect it to be an ugly, unpleasant and uber dangerous shedding - if you're caught on the banks of that river you'd better be a damn good swimmer.
Israel has never been exactly useful to the USA, except perhaps for spy stuff for which we have certainly lost at least as much as we have gained. It's hard to establish exactly when Israel became a net liability. By 1980, certainly. By 1971, certainly. By 1966, definitely. 1956? Probably 1948? Hard to be sure.
That's an intangible argument which is based solely on your opinion. Since you have never served in the military (in a position that would know about Israeli cooperation) or in any intelligence agency, I suggest you either retract your opinion or admit you are not an expert and basing this on your private emotions. You cannot know what intelligence or military contributions Israel has made to the US....from sending us the top secret - top of the line soviet radar system (which helped our pilots in Vietnam) to training our Marines on how to fight urban combat in Iraq, to supplying advanced electronics for the M-1 Abrams tank Israel has made a huge contribution to our security. These past instances are only a few facts vs. your emotionally based opinion.
and yes based on your comments I know you haven't served the U.S. in any capacity. I don't need to assume. So, before you make security arguments stop being an arm chair general.
but, I assume you know more than all of these decorated, combat experienced men combined?
Israel's June 1982 destruction of Syria's Soviet-made anti-aircraft batteries and the Syrian air force. Those stunning Israeli achievements were the first clear demonstration of the absolute superiority of US military technology over Soviet military technology. Many have argued that it was this Israeli demonstration of Soviet technological inferiority that convinced the Reagan administration it was possible to win the Cold War.
In both military and non-military spheres, Israeli technological achievements - often developed with US support - are shared with America. The benefits the US has gained from Israeli technological advances in everything from medical equipment to microchips to pilotless aircraft are without peer worldwide.
A strong, secure Israel is an asset upon which American military planners and political leaders can rely. Israel is a democracy - a rare and precious commodity in the region - and Israel shares our commitment to freedom, personal liberty and rule of law.
Throughout our travels and our talks, the determination of Israelis to protect their country and to pursue a fair and workable peace with their neighbors was clearly articulated. Thus we view the current tension between the United States and Israel with dismay and grave concern that political differences may be allowed to outweigh our larger mutual interests.
As American defense professionals, we view events in the Middle East through the prism of American security interests.
The United States and Israel established security cooperation during the Cold War, and today the two countries face the common threat of terrorism by those who fear freedom and liberty. Historically close cooperation between the United States. and Israel at all levels including the IDF, military research and development, shared intelligence and bilateral military training exercises enhances the security of both countries. American police and law enforcement officials have reaped the benefit of close cooperation with Israeli professionals in the areas of domestic counter-terrorism practices and first response to terrorist attacks.
Israel and the United States are drawn together by shared values and shared threats to our well-being.
The proliferation of weapons and nuclear technology across the Middle East and Asia, and the ballistic missile technology to deliver systems across wide areas require cooperation in intelligence, technology and security policy. Terrorism, as well as the origins of financing, training and executing terrorist acts, need to be addressed multilaterally when possible. The dissemination of hatred and support of terrorism by violent extremists in the name of Islam, whether state or non-state actors, must be addressed as a threat to global peace.
In the Middle East, a volatile region so vital to U.S. interests, it would be foolish to disengage - or denigrate - an ally such as Israel.
"to training our Marines on how to fight urban combat in Iraq"
We definitely got the worst of that one. When Israel does MOUT they have nothing to do with the reconstruction afterward. We did it their way and then we stayed behind to help clean up. That's a big job!
And we'd be going down the street and a sniper would shoot at us and we'd kill everybody we saw. That got us a whole lot of enemies. That approach is fine for Israel that never expects people it occupies to ever be anything other than fervent enemies, but it isn't a good approach when you want to set up a friendly democracy.
Totally false. Marines operated as humanely as possible and did an incredible job in clearing violent places like Falluja. You are inserting your opinion, which is patently false. Tactics developed by the Israelis saved Marine lives, which I care about. U.S. marines did not indescriminately kill people upon sniper attacks. These are highly trained men who know how to fight against such threats cleanly. Your comments dishonor them, their training, and their sacrifice.
"to supplying advanced electronics for the M-1 Abrams tank"
Contracts that would go to US companies if they weren't earmarked for Israel. Hell, if Israel disbanded those Israeli companies would *be* US companies themselves.
That's absurd. Contacts went to Israel because their companies developed the best hardware to put in the tanks. That hardware helps give us the edge in combat. There are no military contracts "earmarked" to Israel. Find one instance where the U.S. had to purchase Israeli goods. Conspiracy theories on "Zionist" pressure don't work. India also uses Israeli technology, was that also "earmarked" by them? Like the U.S., the Indians are going with what they feel is the best. In some instances, its definitely Israeli designed and made technology.
"Israel has made a huge contribution to our security."
Maybe. They might have made some contribution to 9/11, the public evidence is unclear. It's certain that Israel has made big contributions to America's need for security.
The public evidence is 100% clear that al qaeda did 9/11. I hope you are not a conspiracy nut. And, for a long time, Israel was not even on Al Qaeda's radar. It only picked up the "I hate Israel" mantra after failed attacks and to gain wider support from the arab world. Al Qaeda's main goal was to expel American forces out of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. This was their biggest grievance. And why were we in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf? to protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraqi attack and ensure our own oil supplies.
1967 - Arab nations Egypt and Syria believe they are well within their legal rights to setup a blockade on Israel. Israel, understandably, does not want that to happen and launches a pre-emptive war, defeating the Arabs, captured East Jerusalem, and killed a couple of dozen American sailors for good measure.
2006 - In their first genuinely free elections, the Palestinians throw out the corrupt Fatah party, and vote in Hamas, a terrorist organization that models itself after Irgun and The Stern Gang. Israel, which changes governments the way some women change fashions, does not like this outcome of free election, and puts in a blockade.
So, one blockade has to be prevented with pre-emptive war, but another blockade has to be accepted.
Again David, what does Israel do for us that warrants such indulgence?
Israel had every right under international law to stop and board ships bound for the Gaza war zone late Sunday. Only knee-jerk left-wingers and the usual legion of poseurs around the world would dispute this. And it is pretty clear that this "humanitarian" flotilla headed for Gaza aimed to provoke a confrontation with Israel. Various representatives of the Free Gaza Movement, one of the main organizers of this deadly extravaganza, have let it slip throughout Monday that their intention was every bit as much "to break" Israel's blockade of Gaza as to deliver the relief goods.
[…]
Regarding international law, blockades are quite legal. The United States and Britain were at war with Germany and Japan and blockaded them. I can't remember international lawyers saying those blockades were illegal—even though they took place on the high seas in international waters.
On that note, here are the relevant passages from the Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality:
5.1.2 (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion.
5.1.2 (4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they (a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces; (c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system; (d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or (e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
5.2.1 As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.
5.2.10 Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.
All of the various comments here, along with Mr. Rothkopf's analysis, appear to believe that this particular incident is some sort of vital watershed in Israel's relationship with the world...
It's not.
In the realm of the History of Israel or the Israeli/Arab conflict or the History of the various Arab groups or nations involved, this incident means nothing.
All of the various contentious parties have been around for approximately the same amount of time. All of the entities involved came into being in the early 20th Century.
And, they have all been fighting each other since they came into existence.
What is fascinating in the light of History, is that the focus of the world and the world's opinions appears to be always on Israel.
There is no logical explanation for this.
Turkey, one of the players in this Drama-of-the-Week, suppresses and persecutes its own Kurdish terrorists who murder Turks. I believe the last attack by Turkish forces against the Kurdish rebels was on May 20, 2010.
The Arabs in Gaza, another player, regularly murder each other and attack Israeli civilians on a daily basis.
And, Israel attacks the Arab Gazan supply routes on a regular basis...
Yet, no one sees the incredible illogical irony in that it is ONLY Israel that anyone gives a damn about?
And that it is THIS attack on the Hamas supply route that is going to be the "tipping point" for the Israeli government - because now Turkey is involved?
i would humbly suggest as there is no logical reason for the world to be obsessed with Israel's attempts to combat those that wish to destroy Israel, that there may be some other reason for this obsession.
I believe it is Divine Providence.
Others may have other views.
In any event, this is definitely NOT a "turning point" for the Netanyahu government. Unless, just perhaps, Netanyahu himself capitulates to this strange obsession... But he appears to be made of sterner stuff than that.
Some don't seem to understand what it means when one says Israel is vital to American security concerns in the region - this does not mean it's vital in the sense Japan is vital in the Pacific for instance - what it means is that if Israel declines there will be war, and that's bad - but even if an immediate war is somehow avoided, you'd still have a situation where in the wake of an Israel decline extremists will revel in a perceived victory, which will be bad and probably lead to war - and malingering at the end of any Mideast war is the threat of China being forced to support and align with our 'enemies'. So, vital interest in that sense.
Now, one can also argue that supporting Israel in the face of the international rabble calling for its head leads to unpleasant complications too - that's certainly a valid argument - but I don't see how we're anywhere near the point where dread of this latter scenario outweighs dread of the former
Regardless, it is possible Israel will be forced to make some dramatic gesture to reduce tensions - I doubt it, but possible - something like disengaging from Gaza entirely - but if they do that it will be out of spite, not compliance with left wing idealism, because Israel knows full well what evil a 'free Gaza' will let loose - and be rest assured if that day comes Israel will reduce Gaza to rubble.
So, again, it's in this sense Israel remains a linchpin to American security in the region.
in the sense that the U.S. uses Israel as its attack dog or bargaining chip in geostrategic affairs. If the U.S. wants the arabs to conform to some action or keep the status quo we always have the threat of Israel to use against them (like when the U.S. had Israel defend Jordan against Syrian invasion in 1970). On a similar token if we want concessions from the arabs, we can always reign in Israel or push it into a corner to win arab support. (like the Madrid Conference after the Gulf War I ) .
A totally biased, short-sighted and worthless arcticle but the user comments have been enlightening. It makes me think if the people commenting should actually be the ones writing the blog. But, again maybe even u are bound to turn spineless under the political influences that are bound to have some pressure when one is in a position of writing a blog. Ps-j.Thomas rules.
Read More
(23)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE