Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Capleton

Support for Israel

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1. Many are atheist, [i am atheist myself]. Living here, I know how many believe in god. To be honest, I am the only atheist in my family, [and I have a very large family.] I think that only 10% of the Israelis I know don't believe in god.

This directly contradicts your earlier statement that "being rational you know that there is no way that Jewish people will stop believing in their religion and God."

2. I've been to holland, England and France. In each I came across rasict behaviour, although I do not concider myself to be jewish, I just spoke Hebrew, or said that I am from Israel. I guess that if it happen to me, it could happen to annyone.

There isn't a country on earth where you won't find some degree of racism or bigotry. As long as it isn't institutionalized or sanctioned by the government and as long as the percentage of racists within any given population is small, you have no reason to fear for your safety.

3. "we" is people that use Israeli patents. "jewish mind" - well, I guess its just a term, because there are many Jewish creators.

Saying that "we" must save the "jewish mind" is a racist and collectivist statement. It implies that the creators of patents in Israel must not be considered as individuals, but as Jews, and that they are in some imminent danger that "we" must save them from.

4. I was saying that arabs are welcome there too. The country consider itself to be Jewish, therefore we understand if an Arab wouldn't like to take part of serving here, therefore its not obligated to them. Of course if an Arab would like to give his part and serve, they are very welcome to do so.

Your wording makes it seem like you support the idea of forcing Jewish citizens to serve in the army. Also, by using the phrase "we understand" you also seem to support the continued existence of Israel as a "Jewish" country as opposed to a secular one. Are these estimates accurate of your position?

Now, you understand me better?

Not yet.

Historically, Jews have been in grave danger in many European countries. The various ideologies (Christianity, Islam, National Socialism, Communism, Nationalism) that caused that danger are still around, in every country, and could be revived at any time. I would say the only other country where Jews are safe, at this time, is the United States. But even that could change, if antisemitic ideologies continue spreading.

This is pure hyperbole. There is no evidence whatsoever that Western countries are going to begin discriminating against Jews, let alone that the United States will.

If you haven't learned that Jews tend to be persecuted, from history, then you're looking at a very different history than the rest of us.

Ellison -

Every time I see that you respond to one of my posts I know that I'm in for a headache, since you consistently manage to misread, misinterpret, or distort my position. It's becoming tiresome.

If you go back a few posts up you'll see I was responding to the following statement Danielle made:

History teaches us that without a country, the Jewish people could be [by] extension [in] danger [sic]

History does not support that statement. Having a "jewish homeland" does not ensure the safety of the jews and a lack of one definitely doesn't place them in danger. What history does show is that the last time the Jewish people had a homeland they were conquered by the Romans, enslaved, and forced into a diaspora.

I never said that Jews were never persecuted. What I said was that "Jews that live in countries that respect individual rights are in no more danger than their goy neighbors." That is a true statement.

In the past 100 years, it has been perfectly rational for Jews to leave Europe and Russia, and form a new state some place else, despite the dangers of living in Israel, and it would've been irrational of them to hope that they would be safer where they were.

Yes, it would be perfectly rational for any group of men to establish a free state, if it were possible to do so.

Israel was not founded with that intention. It was created by the United Nations to restore the descendents of a biblical tribe of people back to to their historical homeland. If that isn't an irrational start to a country, I don't know what is. Israel started with and still has a socialistic foundation, active conscription, and a hodgepodge of theocratic discriminatory laws, the likes of which wouldn't even be concievable in the United States today.

I support Israel in its struggles against the even more backward and oppressive Islamic states bordering it, but I don't for one second believe that Israel is free by even European standards. For me, it is very much the preference of the lesser of two evils.

Edited by Myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every time I see that you respond to one of my posts I know that I'm in for a headache,

How very foolish of you to continue reading then. :)

Or is it? If I misunderstand, and my correction of your diatribe against Jewish self defense is of such great help, that it makes you ignore physical pain just to soak it in, I'll be happy to explain further.

Ellison -

Every time I see that you respond to one of my posts I know that I'm in for a headache, since you consistently manage to misread, misinterpret, or distort my position. It's becoming tiresome.

I read your post, and you rejected the notion that Jews should take the history of persecution against other Jews, in the past, into consideration when deciding on what country to settle in, because that would be racist.

Responding to racism with caution is not racist, it's smart. And since this particular brand of racism is so widespread, and it resulted in so many instances of mass persecution and murder already, it is extremely wise of Jews to seek out a safe haven, where they are surrounded by other Jews.

I'm sure you made many other points, but I stopped reading. It would indeed be inhumane of me to acknowledge someone, if the very act will cause them physical pain. And if I can't respond, what's the point of reading...I'd rather pick up a book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read your post, and you rejected the notion that Jews should take the history of persecution against other Jews, in the past, into consideration when deciding on what country to settle in, because that would be racist.

Responding to racism with caution is not racist, it's smart. And since this particular brand of racism is so widespread, and it resulted in so many instances of mass persecution and murder already, it is extremely wise of Jews to seek out a safe haven, where they are surrounded by other Jews.

I'm sure you made many other points, but I stopped reading. It would indeed be inhumane of me to acknowledge someone, if the very act will cause them physical pain. And if I can't respond, what's the point of reading...I'd rather pick up a book.

Congratulations.

You're the first person in my 5 years of posting here who made it to my "Ignore" list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never tried answering them. I refused to acknowledge your attempts to test my knowledge on anything, and I'll continue to do so. Except, this time, I had enough of even reading about it, so I'll ignore all your posts from now on.

For someone who likes to accuse others of evasion, this is rather ironic. You never even attempted to address my arguments, except by reference to ethereal concepts which you utterly failed to connect to any concrete reality. Then, when called on to do so, you declare that you don't feel obligated to consider them. Genius.

As for the word savage, that was used by Ayn Rand to describe the Arab states, so argue with her about the meaning of the word savage. I could care less about your definition of it, she meant precisely what I said she meant by it.

I can't argue with her, because she's dead. Even if I could, we'd be talking about different things...the Middle East has changed in the past 30 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congratulations.

You're the first person in my 5 years of posting here who made it to my "Ignore" list.

I tried that, at first, then realized that it makes more sense to continue arguing with him. He seems dense enough that using rational argumentation isn't likely to make him see things any differently but, hopefully, fence-sitters who read the conversation will be less apt to be taken in by his ignorant, simplistic view of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Objectivist Jew living in Israel, it is my opinion that given the way things are, forced conscript is the only way for us to survive as a country. In an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary. But we are surrounded by barbarians who are a thousand years behind and we must live by our sword in defense. I wish it weren't so but presently that's the way things are, and it doesn't look like our neighbors will be getting any more rational in the near future.

The only other option would be to flee to another country, the U.S. perhaps, where the threat of death is less imminent. And then maybe when Israel falls to the barbarians and antisemitism rises it's face like it has so many times in history I could run again, if there will be any place left to run.

But I refuse to run from my country just because our neighbors force us to have mandatory conscript. I don't think Israel is any less moral for having it. In fact I think it's more moral, because it does what it must for self preservation, which is an essential part of living on this world.

Having said that, I wish Israel was less Socialistic and adopts Laissez-Faire Capitalism. And that the people here would sober up from religion. But then again, I wish the same for many other western countries, including America. I guess this is something we just have to work on.

And Daniellecs, you are not alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that military conscription is moral under any circumstance, or that forced conscription is the only way for Israel to survive. I don't think you can use the fact that "we are surrounded by barbarians" as an excuse to force people into the IDF at gunpoint. The young men and women of Israel should volunteer to fight for their freedom and rights as a selfish act in a free or semi-free country, and not be forced into involuntary servitude, even if for a "good" reason. This would help restore confidence in a non-corrupt administration in Israel and volunteers who are insterested in saving their own lives and freedom always fight more effectively than conscripts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's pure pragmatism. We should support Israel over other states, because they share our political principles. We do have interests in the Middle East, and we do need a strong military and diplomatic presence there. The only country that is also a democracy and a free nation should be our ally.

Only pragmatists would discard the knowledge that free nations can be trusted to be allies, because they don't attack, and don't betray each other, and dictatorships cannot, for the sake of some supposed short term gains in terms of safety. Which, by the way, are only based on the principle that Arab terrorists hate the Jews, so if we join them in that hatred, they'll leave us alone.

But yes, this is consistent with the rest of your political views, Andrew: you hate military action, you distrust the military in general, so the only other way to try and keep yourself safe would be compromise with the Arab fundamentalists: we give you Israel, you leave us alone for a while. That's pragmatism, and it will not work. They'll just keep coming at us, because we have Jews in America, or because we refuse to implement Shari'a in Michigan, or because we are friends with India, or Russia, or because someone in Denmark published a hilarious cartoon. They'll find a reason.

I never said we shouldn't support Israel over other states. I said we shouldn't support them as we do now.

Perhaps we do have "interests" in the Middle East, but they can be obtained through means of trade and mutual benefit. Your assertion, though, that I hate military action is almost completely unrelated to the Israel/Palestine debate. Most of our support to Israel is done on a diplomatic and monetary level. And if we did have military subsidies to that country to a greater degree, that would only make the monetary expenditure a greater threat to our individual rights. There is no need to get our armed forces involved in an area that can be beneficial to us only through peaceful diplomacy, trade, and specialization.

You advocate a position that is completely unrealistic. It would be totally irrational to ignore the irrationality of the Middle East and their political systems. No matter how logical our actions may be, if they cause anything but benefit to the protection of individual rights, they are not rational. Our policies regarding the Israel/Palestine debate would only be rational if we accepted that all those involved are also thinking rationally - they're not. And I have a hard time believing for an instant that the US government acts with much rational thought.

Your lumping together of "free nations" hinders your argument's logic. Is the US a "free" nation? Perhaps according to your definition of the word, and perhaps as compared to the world overall, but that doesn't mean our government - nor Israel's - respects individual rights enough to be involved in the issues as they are. As I said, the US practices its fair share of statist and socialist policies, as does Israel. Yes, they're better than most countries in that regard, but does that mean they're up to the standard to practice interventionism, give hand-outs, or play favorites? Dealing with issues that could result in either life or death, as we do with Israel, is extremely sensitive. Things like that should only be tackled by the most logical and rational of minds. If the US were a freer nation, I am confident that it would be capable in that area, but for the time being, we are not any safer because of our involvement with Israel.

Supporting Israel as we do now is making the US less safe. We give an enormous amount of money to Israel for all sorts of whim-based reasons, many of which have nothing to do with our foreign policy at all.

What notion of "cause" are you working with w.r.t. the Hezbollah bombing of the marine barracks in 1983? Would you also say that the Treaty of Versailles "caused" the extermination of 6 million Jews?

Just because the connection is abstract doesn't mean it's invalid. Of course, it would be illogical to say that the Treaty of Versailles "caused" the Holocaust, but that obviously isn't what he meant. In the case of the Treaty of Versailles, it was an irresponsible piece of diplomacy. The treaty attempted to quell Germany's military, which it did not succeed in. Any rational person would have had the foresight to understand that a treaty like that would send Germany spiraling into chaos, which would leave the region extremely unstable. Unstable regions, as history has shown, tend to produce radical figures, and those radical figures tend to be successful in gaining power in these regions. As I said earlier, if you ignore the irrationality of the parties involved, then you aren't acting rationally yourself. It was extremely irrational to think for an instant that Germany was going to live up to the Treaty of Versailles. Could we honestly expect the Germans to act rationally, after everything they did prior to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles? It was also extremely irrational to ignore the warning signs of history. Could we honestly expect the Germans to handle the responsibility of rebuilding under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, after all the nonsense they allowed to happen prior to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles?

If the goal of the Treaty of Versailles was to keep the Allied powers safe, then that goal was not met. The treaty could have been written to ensure the safety of the Allied forces, but instead we wrote a treaty that merely "punished" the Germans... but not enough to allow them to remain in the depraved condition that the Treaty of Versailles mandated without a huge socialist uprising. A similar thought process could be applied to the Israel situation. Are our actions really making us safer? No. Are they protecting individual rights of Americans? No. Are they forcing the taxation of American citizens to pay for Israeli bulldozers, fighter jets, and construction contracts? Yes. Are the US government or the Israeli government rational governments? Not really.

Our policies should be justified by rationally predicting and understanding the consequences of those policies - not simply ignoring the irrationality of the parties involved and hoping for the best. If those consequences are not directly defending individual rights of American citizens, then the American government has no moral backing in its actions. No matter how much you want to it, no Middle Eastern country, including Israel, is going to start acting rationally overnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said we shouldn't support Israel over other states. I said we shouldn't support them as we do now.
Why don't you start by clarifying (and documenting) in what precise way you believe "we" support Israel now. I know that you will face some fine-grained difficulties in explaining your sweeping statement because you actually have no idea what support I give to Israel -- is it just rhetorical, or do I directly contribute monetarily.

If we are talking specifically about the American government, then it has a moral obligation to support Israel politically. Supporting civilization over barbarism is quintessentially in the best interests of the American people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you start by clarifying (and documenting) in what precise way you believe "we" support Israel now. I know that you will face some fine-grained difficulties in explaining your sweeping statement because you actually have no idea what support I give to Israel -- is it just rhetorical, or do I directly contribute monetarily.

If we are talking specifically about the American government, then it has a moral obligation to support Israel politically. Supporting civilization over barbarism is quintessentially in the best interests of the American people.

By "we", I mean the United States. There's no need to be so nit-picky, as you could have easily deduced this fact.

The United States' policies towards Israel are not supporting civilization over barbarism. You made an equally strange claim earlier:

The primary alternative is to either support Israel in its struggle to exist, or else to allow it to be swept from existence and be replaced by barbarism.

Israel doesn't need support from the US to exist. They have a stockpile of nukes, an extremely sophisticated military, and pretty sophisticated/educated citizens. And what the hell kind of civilization is one which needs the support of another to survive? If they could not survive on their own merits, then something would be seriously wrong with the way they ran their country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The United States' policies towards Israel are not supporting civilization over barbarism.
Whether or not they need it is irrelevant. Their need is not a valid claim on our lives. We should support Israel, of any other instance of the concept "civilized nation", for our sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been close on 40 years that I've been watching, studying or involved with Israel in one way or another, and it never stops amazing me :- how polarizing this subject always is; how everyone, expert, or not, has the 'right' to express a viewpoint; and here's the big one, how everyone in the world - supporter, and sworn enemy alike - holds Israel, and the Israeli, to the highest moral values.

If there ever was a double standard it is this. If there ever was a "back-handed" compliment it is also this. That the greatest Israel admirer, and the most loathing detractor, insist on the Nation behaving with decorum, respect, restraint and benevolence to all - enemies especially.

Only the U.S.A. comes a close second to her, in terms of this dirty treatment. It's a case of the most savagely immoral peoples demanding that you live up to your own high values. While they do what they want.

To cut a long story short, anyone who knows their history and continues to believe that the Jew has not been a convenient scapegoat for everything, everybody, and just about forever, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE, -- is dreaming, or evading on a large scale.

As my country increases its own racist practises, I seriously am considering emigrating to Israel, as many S.Africans have done.( So I have the advantage of a Jewish mother, and even as an atheist, I would be accepted there.) I too have reservations about its mixed economy , and its deist foundation - but it does have an extremely high regard for individual rights, and this is becoming a rare value worldwide.

As for conscription in the Forces! Excuse me, how else does anyone think that Israel can keep a standing Army on necessary high alert, otherwise? With its 7 mill population? Get real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether or not they need it is irrelevant. Their need is not a valid claim on our lives. We should support Israel, of any other instance of the concept "civilized nation", for our sake.

I agree that need is not a valid claim on our lives. The point I was making was that the Israelis, as a civilized nation, don't need help - otherwise they wouldn't be a civilized nation. What Israel needs, like any civilized nation, is specialization, trade, and diplomacy. Israel engages in that, but they also are the largest recipient of handouts from the US. Much of that aid isn't even military or defense related. They are fully capable of defending themselves from any enemy, and are one of most educated peoples on this earth. In other words, your argument is not valid. Civilized nations exist on their own, not through the aid of others. A civilized nation unable to survive on its own is an oxymoron. It is only rational to aid another nation if it is in our best interest. And it would only be in our best interest if that nation is legitimately unable to do whatever they wish to do without our help. So which is it - are they uncivilized - unable to live by means of their own virtues, and unable to keep their civilization from crumbling without foreign intervention and aid - or are we giving them charity - unnecessarily providing American resources to a nation that doesn't need them, unnecessarily sacrificing America's resources when they could be spent on things that would directly defend the individual rights of its citizens?

Do the Israelis have anything to offer us? If so, then why aren't we trading with them for our money and resources that we provide them? If not, then why are we sending them anything, and why are they worth defending? If "stability" in the region is the answer, then why not overthrow the Israeli government ourselves, which, according to you, cannot survive without us anyway? Surely we could do a better job running their government than the Israelis?

Of course, we couldn't do that, because that would be an initiation of force, but hopefully that makes the point pretty clear. You can't have it both ways. To defend the United States' current practices and opinions regarding Israel, would be to accept the notions that:

1. a nation can be civilized whilst helplessly depending on another nation for its very survival;

2. the lives of the Israelis are not capable of being run by the Israelis themselves;

3. the Israeli government should not have a monopoly on the initiation of force on behalf of the Israeli people and;

4. the United States' best interests are served by giving away their resources to another nation as opposed to trading for them.

Edited by Andrew Grathwohl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To defend the United States' current practices and opinions regarding Israel, would be to accept the notions that:

1. a nation can be civilized whilst helplessly depending on another nation for its very survival;

2. the lives of the Israelis are not capable of being run by the Israelis themselves;

3. the Israeli government should not have a monopoly on the initiation of force on behalf of the Israeli people and;

4. the United States' best interests are served by giving away their resources to another nation as opposed to trading for them.

No one here defended current US practices regarding Israel. We responded to your opening statement, when you decided to revive this thread:

There isn't much of an objective reason to support Israel.

Here's your objective reason:

If we are talking specifically about the American government, then it has a moral obligation to support Israel politically. Supporting civilization over barbarism is quintessentially in the best interests of the American people.

Argue against that, not against what Obama is doing. Then you'll be having a debate, instead of a diatribe.

Edited by Jake_Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one here defended current US practices regarding Israel. We responded to your opening statement, when you decided to revive this thread:

Here's your objective reason:

Argue against that, not against what Obama is doing. Then you'll be having a debate, instead of a diatribe.

Don't reconstruct my argument by simplifying my words down to fit your distortions. I debated Mr. Odden's assertion plenty.

Lots of people defended current US practices, including Mr. Odden.

Maybe you could discuss the topic at hand more often, and criticize peoples' debating styles less. If you think you're right, why don't you demonstrate it without trying to put other people down without substance?

Edited by Andrew Grathwohl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots of people defended current US practices, including Mr. Odden.
I asked you in this post to say exactly how you believe "we" support Israel. This is now a demand, if you are going to make accusations. To that, I want to see you demonstrate that I have supported current US practices. By "US practices", I assume you mean practices of the citizens and government of the US. Flinging generic accusations against "lots of people" is vile, but you made a specific accusation about me, so now it is time for you to say what objectionable practices I have defended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked you in this post to say exactly how you believe "we" support Israel. This is now a demand, if you are going to make accusations. To that, I want to see you demonstrate that I have supported current US practices. By "US practices", I assume you mean practices of the citizens and government of the US. Flinging generic accusations against "lots of people" is vile, but you made a specific accusation about me, so now it is time for you to say what objectionable practices I have defended.

You said:

So in light of the facts of reality, what are the alternatives regarding Israel? The primary alternative is to either support Israel in its struggle to exist, or else to allow it to be swept from existence and be replaced by barbarism.

You claim, grounded in reality, that either the United States supports Israel, or else it is swept from existence. Since, in reality, Israel still exists, I would imagine, given what you said, that you think we've been engaging in the former, rather than the latter, and that it's been successful because Israel has not been replaced by barbarism.

What may be pretty vile in its own way is the attempt to utilize reason to carry out policies as being irrefutably right or wrong, Odden, when your reasoning is not even close to accurately portraying the scenario. Introducing ridiculously simplified scenarios like the one you did belittles the lives of the people involved in the conflict, and then attempting to use reason as your faculty of understanding the situation just smacks every student of Objectivism across the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grathwohl, you must work on your reading skills first; we can work on your reasoning skills later. Show me where I defended current practices of the citizens and government of the US. Start by identifying specific practices that I defended. But I'll help you to focus. It is a fact that Israel faces the alternative of existence or non-existence; it is a moral fact that the US government should support Israel politically in their struggle to exist. It is also morally proper for an individual (wherever they live) to render material support to Israel when doing so advances a person's goals (such as the preservation of civilization).

If it were factually necessary for the the US to support Israel with money or military supplies in order for Israel to survive against aggressors, then it would be proper for the US government to render material support to Israel. However, my assessment is that it is not necessary.

Now, show me your reasoning that any support for Israel's continued existence is morally reprehensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a strong supporter of Israel, and clearly so is Objectivism - Israel is a civilised (though imperfect) state fighting an uncivilised barbarous enemy.

However, from an Objectivist point of view, was the expulsion of arabs during the war of independence moral, ethical or justifiable? During the war, many individual arabs were kicked off of their land and their property seized - can this be justified? Do they have a right of return? Is there any justification for Israel retaining Judea-Samaria (West Bank)?

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, from an Objectivist point of view, was the expulsion of arabs during the war of independence moral, ethical or justifiable? During the war, many individual arabs were kicked off of their land and their property seized - can this be justified?

Sure. There was a civil war, between the Jews and Arabs, started by the Arab leadership after they rejected the UN's two-state solution. The Jews acted in self defense.

Do they have a right of return?

I'm not sure that's much of an issue, since they're likely all dead. (this happened 65 years ago) But after the war is over, their families might have the right to some kind of compensation, if they're willing to accept the law of the land (Israeli law).

Until then, I'm afraid Palestinians have no rights in Israel, unless first proven harmless. Israel's self defense takes precedence over their enemies' property rights.

Is there any justification for Israel retaining Judea-Samaria (West Bank)?

Absolutely: self defense. As long as the Palestinians are a threat, Israel has every right to occupy the West Bank.

Edited by Jake_Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jake, a very interesting response.

I agree entirely, I just didn't realise that it would be an Objectivist position, given the huge importance that is attached to individual property rights.

However, isn't it collectivist? treating all Palestinians as one entity, suffering collective responsibility for the terrorism of some?

Edited by rebelconservative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the UK allow German citizens to travel to Bletchley Park, in the middle of WW2? It's a war, the enemy is the enemy, they're not presumed innocent. That's not collectivism, it's common sense. Collectivism would be distrust of outsiders simply for being outsiders, not for actual rational reasons, like the fact that they've been indoctrinated with hatred of Israel for the past half century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would the UK allow German citizens to travel to Bletchley Park, in the middle of WW2? It's a war, the enemy is the enemy, they're not presumed innocent. That's not collectivism, it's common sense. Collectivism would be distrust of outsiders simply for being outsiders, not for actual rational reasons, like the fact that they've been indoctrinated with hatred of Israel for the past half century.

again, that conforms to what I have always believed. thanks for clearing that up :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...