smhwpf: (Handala)
First there was Khader Adnan, then there was Hana Shalabi - Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, held under 'Administrative Detention', indefinite detention without charge or trial or any knowledge of the evidence putting you there, who went on hunger strike in protest, and were eventually released at the 11th hour, as they approached the point of death.

Then there were another 29 Palestinian prisoners joining the hunger strike. And then, since mid-April, close to 2000 Palestinian prisoners have been on hunger strike, demanding an end to the practice of Administrative Detention, and better conditions for Palestinian prisoners in general.

It is an extraordinary act of mass non-violent resistance. (Though apparently, for I could not resist my curiousity on the point, not the biggest mass hunger strike ever; an Oxford historian studying Suffragette and Irish Republican hunger strikes mentions one such strike involving 7800 prisoners, which I presume must have been from the latter group).

Two of the prisoners, who have been on hunger strike for over 70 days, have been moved to hospital and are in imminent danger of death. The Israeli Supreme Court rejected their appeal against Administrative Detention.

This is a potentially game-changing event, but one that is getting very little coverage in the western media. (The BBC is providing some coverage, but generally pretty well buried.)

I guess if a striker dies that will be news.

Various internet actions around, in Britain and the US. Also a petition from Jewish Voice for Peace.
smhwpf: (No power)
Palestinian hunger striker Hana Shalabi, whose case I wrote about last month, has agreed to end her hunger strike after 44 days after a deal that will see her released, but exiled to the Gaza Strip. Her condition had been deteriorating severely when the deal was reached.

According to some reports, there are now 29 other Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike in Israeli jails, most held, like Hana Shalabi, under Administrative Detention - indefinite detention without charge or trial.

So, there's now a way out for Palestinian prisoners - starve yourself to the very brink of death, and the wonderful humanitarians that are the Israeli government might just release you rather than face the bad publicity your death would cause.

smhwpf: (No power)
Some of you might have heard of the extraordinary case of Khader Adnan - a Palestinian member of Islamic Jihad who was placed under Administrative Detention by Israel; a practice whereby Palestinian suspects may be detained for 6 months at a time - extendible indefinitely - without charge or trial, and without knowing the evidence against them. There are currently over 300 Palestinians in administrative detention. Once upon a time one could say that such a practice was otherwise unthinkable in a country that purports to be a democracy, but what with Guantanamo and the National Defense Authorization Act 2012 I guess that's old hat.

Anyway, so Khader Adnan went on hunger strike to protest his treatment, and refused food for 66 days, after which, under heavy international pressure, Israel agreed to release him and he ended his strike.

Now another Palestinian prisoner under administrative detention, Hana Shalabi is on hunger strike, having refused food now for 14 days.

Hana Shalabi had been in administrative detention before, for over two years, before being released last October under the prisoner exchange deal that freed Israeli solder Gilad Shalit. However, she was re-arrested on February 16th, and placed under an administrative detention order on the 23rd. She was allegedly beaten and maltreated on arrest. Her parents have now joined her in hunger strike in solidarity.

List of people to write to here, to urge for Hana Shalabi to be freed (or charged) and for an end to the practice of administrative detention.

The cases of Khader Adnan and Hana Shalabi, and their courage in resisting the violation of their human rights in this manner, stand a chance of shining a light on Israel's unjust practice of administrative detention. Who knows, maybe even ending it? In the case of Khader Adnan, Israel obviously learnt from the British experience that allowing prisoners on hunger strike to die does not do you any favours, however much you may crow at the time about standing up to terrorism.

As Uri Avenery has commented, it is ironic that Adnan, who had been openly and undenialy committed to violent resistance (though clearly not in a way that could provide any evidence for Israel to charge him with any significant crime), finally achieved such a victory through non-violent resistance. Though through an unimaginable sacrifice.

I was looking up, out of curiosity, the details of the 1981 Irish hunger strike. Turns out 66 days was exactly how long Bobby Sands was on hunger strike before his death. Two of the others who died continued for longer, while one, Laurence McKeown, was taken off hunger strike by his family after 70 days, and is apparently still alive now, and is an author, playright and screenwriter.

While the Irish Republican prisoners were not granted formal political status, as they had demanded, all their practical demands regarding prison conditions were granted either immediately after the ending of the hunger strike, or within a couple of years. The hunger strike set Sinn Fein on their increasingly successful electoral strategy, and thus played a key role in creating the conditions that eventually led to peace in Northern Ireland, though at the time the deaths of the hunger strikers led to an upsurge in violence.
smhwpf: (Handala)
Liberal defenders of Israel like to claim that, whatever one may say about the occupation, Israel is at least a sstrong democracy within its borders that gives (more or less) equal rights to its Arab citizens.

The treatment of its Bedouin citizens in the Negev desert belies this claim. (There's plenty else belies it, but few things so blatant).

Unless the Knesset does the highly unexpected and goes against the advice of a ministerial committee, the Israeli government will seek to expel 30,000 Bedouins from their homes in the Negev, where they have lived for thousands of years, confiscate their land, and force them into government-designated enclaves.

The Bedouins were there in the Negev, as I say, long before the creation of Israel. But when Israel came to be, they chose not to "recognize" most of the existing Bedouin villages, nor the peoples' claims to land ownership, however long they'd been there. (Not to mention, according to the Guardian article, deporting most of the Bedouin population to Jordan and Gaza.) Now, tens of thousands of Bedouin live in these "unrecognized" villages, and have long faced home demolitions, evictions and dispossession at the hands of the Israeli state.

If this sounds to you a lot like the treatment of Native Americans, well, you're not the only one.

Liberal Zionists might well say they are opposed to such excesses. Haaretz may rail against such things in its editorials. and well, opposition to injustice is always welcome. But it seems to me that such practices spring from the very essence of Zionism: they are features, not bugs.

Zionism elevates the claims of the Jewish people to the land of Israel/Palestine above those of anyone else who might have lived there before Israel was formed. Indeed, its self-justification requires denying or demeaning the presence and the rights of the non-Jewish population of the time. If the existence of a pre-Zionist Arab population is grudgingly acknowledged (for it is pretty much impossible to deny once you actually start looking at the facts), then their identity must be belittled. "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people"; Golda Meier infamously claimed. "There has never been an independent state of Palestine", is a frequent cry of Zionist apologists. Certainly, Zionism cannot admit that the people of Palestine had any sort of right to self-determination, or even any absolute, fundamental right to live where they did, for to do so would be to undermine its very foundations.

Hence, that the Bedouins are not considered to have rights to their homes and land simply by virtue of being there, and of having been there for however long, is part of Israel's ideological DNA: the creation of Israel supercedes any prior claims of non-Jewish peoples there.

There are signs, at least, that the Bedouins are not going to take this lying down, with Arab towns in the region staging strikes in opposition to the plans. A mass non-violent resistance to the dispossession could cause Israel serious embarrassment (if anyone bothers to report on it, I doubt most of the US media will), and could be a spark of something bigger . The Arab Spring is pretty much overdue to reach Palestine.
smhwpf: (Six words)
The 'Blood Libel', as probably most of you know, was the frequently-repeated lie amongst Christians in Europe that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, most often supposedly to put their blood in Passover Matzohs.

According to the Wikipedia article, there are examples of similar anti-Semitic lies going back to antiquity, but it really took off in the Middle Ages where it was frequently the prelude to massacres of Jews by Christian mobs. Blood libel stories could make the approach to Easter, and Good Friday in particular - for it was for many centuries official Catholic teaching to blame Jews in general for the death of Christ - a highly dangerous time to be Jewish.

The Blood Libel, then, was not any old lie, not something told merely to mislead or discredit, but to instigate and justify genocidal slaughter.

Which really makes one speechless with disbelief that Sarah Palin could apply the term to claims that her rhetoric helped create a political climate that may have contributed to the massacre in Arizona. One hardly knows where to begin in pointing out why such claims - whether or not one agrees with them - do not remotely resemble a blood libel, and how utterly crass and offensive is Palin's comparison. It really makes one wonder whether she has the slightest clue what she's blurting out. Is she really trying to say that people who criticize her rhetoric or her infamous "target" map are seeking to instigate anti-Tea Party pogroms?

This naturally leads to asking the Slacktivist's perennial question, "Stupid or evil?" I suspect Palin is, in various ways, both, but I'm inclined to go with "stupid" on this one, because I don't see what she actually stands to gain by using such a phrase. Republicans don't get much of the Jewish vote anyway it's true, but pissing off the entire Jewish community is still probably not good politics. This is a very different case from her "death panels" for example - an accusation which she must have known was false, but which certainly served a political purpose in helping drum up the frenzy of opposition to Obama's health care plan. In contrast, it is rather easy to believe that she was ignorant of the actual meaning of "blood libel".

It is also not hard to see where she might have picked up the term, because it comes straight out of the contemporary pro-Israel playbook. The Evangelical Christian Right, to which Palin belongs, is of course strongly Christian Zionist and a core part of the US pro-Israel (or more accurately, pro-Israeli hardliner, Israel-right-or-wrong) lobby.

As Juan Cole points out, Israeli Premier Netanyahu described the Goldstone Report, detailing Israeli violations of International Humanitarian Law in their attack on Gaza in 2008-09 as a "modern day blood-libel". And, look who's just sprung up to defend Palin's use of the term, but Alan Dershowitz, one of the most prominent US exponents of the "if you criticize Israel you're an anti-Semite" school of thought. Dershowitz himself boasts in the article that he also described the Goldstone report as a blood libel. In other words, this is a term that's in vogue with 'her team' as a means of smearing opponents and she picked up on it, not getting just how much of an ass she was making of herself.

The use of the term "blood libel" by the likes of Netanyahu and Dershowitz, on the other hand, is very deliberately chosen, malicious, and equally false.

The purpose of invoking the spectre of the "blood libel" - and this is what the Israel-lobby usage has in common with Palin's - is to seek to close down debate, to make it unnecesssary to answer an allegation, because anyone who makes the allegation must be a monster. It typifies indeed, in many ways, the way the Right has worked to degrade political debate in the USA and elsewhere, to render indeed any sort of fact or reason-based debate impossible.

In this particular case, with Sarah Palin, it would appear (I hope) to have backfired rather badly, but for the pro-Israel lobby accusations of anti-Semitism in general, and the especially toxic allegation of "blood libels" in particular, remain a favoured and trusted propaganda tool.

I suspect it may be wearing thin though. When people start calling Archbishop Desmond Tutu an anti-Semite, it reflects ill only on the accuser. I am glad to see though, on further Googling, that the South African Zionist Federation has distanced itself from the claims made by some of its members.
smhwpf: (Handala)
As I have already discussed in f-locked posts, I will be joining the Gaza Freedom March organized by a coalition of peace, human rights, faith and other groups that together form the International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza, which seeks to do what it says on the label.

Attendees meet in Cairo for a briefing on the 27th December. We will then travel to Gaza on the 29th through the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt[1]. We will stay in Gaza, meeting with various people and groups, witnessing the situation from 1st hand, and delivering humanitarian aid. On the 1st January there will be a mile-long march to the border with Israel, co-ordinated with a parallel march by Israeli peace activists from the Israeli side. We return to Cairo on the 2nd, and I will return home on the 5th (possibly via a pyramid if I can arrange it).

The bloackade and its effects )

Israel's allies in the US, Europe and elsewhere have, while occasionally making critical noises, remained effectively silent in the face of this inhuman siege, taking no concrete measures to bring about an end to it.

Ending the siege of Gaza is not something that is going to happen quickly or easily, and one event is unlikely to have any dramatic immediate effect. But I consider that events such as the Gaza Freedom March are essential in seeking to keep Gaza in the international eye, challenging the shameful policies of Israel and the west, and showing the isolated people of Gaza that they are not alone.

I aim to do some fundraising to support the work of the Coalition in Gaza and elsewhere. One of my concerns about going was the question of whether, given that I have the money for the air fare, I might not do more good simply donating it to them directly. I don't know the answer to that. But my goal will therefore be, if possible, to raise the equivalent of my air fare to donate. I think I will split money raised between the coalition (which will spend it on things to do with the march itself in Gaza and overseas, lobbying activities in Washington and humanitarian aid to Gaza) and a Palestinian NGO, perhaps the Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights.

I shall post further about this later, and will probably set up some sort of Paypal thing and maybe a Facebook Cause thing or something like that. In the meantime, if you want to donate to the work of the Coalition (through Code Pink), you can do that here. If you do so in response to this, please let me know (email in my user profile).

[1] )
smhwpf: (Walls)
Jewish Voice for Peace sent me an email a few days ago with the question "How wide is the space for Palestinian nonviolent activism?"

The answer they give is two meters by two - the space of the windowless cell in which Mohammad Othman has been held in solitary confinement, without charge, by the Israeli authorities, for 25 days now.

The basic facts of the case: Mohammad Othman is a Palestinian activist from the village of Jayyous, that has been the site of ongoing nonviolent protests against the Israeli wall that has taken a large portion of the village's land. (It was one of the villages I passed through in my 2004 trip). He has been engaged in human rights activism, and campaigning locally and internationally against the wall.

He was arrested on 22 September as he was returning to Palestine across the Allenby Bridge (from Jordan), after visiting a conference in Norway where he was promoting the campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions BDS against Israel.

He has come before a number of military hearings that have extended his detention, the most recent I think until the 26th October, and has been repeatedly interrogated about his activities and contacts, but has not been charged. His activities have always involved non-violent political activism and protest. It would appear that he is being held purely on the grounds of these peaceful political activities - in particular his support for BDS, something which Israel is unsurprisingly keen to put a stop to.

His treatment is just one example of the violence and intimidation to which non-violent Palestinian activists are subjected. The village of Bil'in, the site of over 5 years of non-violent protest against the wall that has taken most of their land, has been subjected for several months to repeated night raids where Israeli soldiers arrive in full riot gear in the middle of the night, ransack houses and beat and detain residents, especially leaders of the protest movement. Measures with no conceivable 'security' justification, but designed solely to terrorise and intimidate.

Jewish Voice for Peace in the US and War on Want in the UK are among the organizations promoting campaigns for his release, and there is an online petition.
smhwpf: (AbbasSharonLove)
"The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians."

President Barack Obama, in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly yesterday.

An admirable sentiment. It would be even more admirable if matched by deeds. If the actual policies of the Obama Administration weren't the excact opposite of Obama's words. For example:

The US is apparently determined to ensure that the report of Justice Richard Goldstone into the Gaza war last December-January, ensuring that it does not go to the Security Council, still less the International Criminal Court - as Goldstone recommends it should, failing meaningful investigations by Israel. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice also denounced the report within days of its publication.

Background on the report )

An "insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians"? How about the right not to be subject to a crippling siege, bombed in hospitals, schools and UN buildings, shot when carrying white flags, subjected to horrific white phosphorous burns, used as 'human shields'? Are those 'legitimate claims and rights'? I guess not.

And now, Obama has essentially abandoned his insistence that Israel halt settlement expansions - settlements built on land stolen from the Palestinians that directly violate international law and that carve the West Bank into isolated enclaves - and instead called for negotiations without preconditions. Negotiations without preconditions are a good thing IMO. Except, what is there to negotiate about, when Obama adds an implicit "If that's all right with you" to every 'demand' placed on Israel?

The long and the short of it is that, as with every previous Administration, the US regards Israel as having a general exemption from international law.

And yes Mr. President, you're dead right, in the long run you do Israel no favours (and the Palestinians of course even less).

Obama certainly talks a good game. Best in town. Enough, sometimes, to make even cynical old me wonder if maybe, just maybe he means it. Maybe, to be charitable, he actually wants to mean it. But it is by now abundantly clear that in all practical terms he doesn't, and that his speech in Cairo will end up as just so much empty hypocricy, words drifting in the wind.
smhwpf: (Buffyanne)
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Nitanyahu has finally uttered the words Obama was waiting to hear - "Palestinian State" - with a few strings attached. Such a state must be completely demilitarized. It must have no control over its airspace. And it must "recognise Israel as a Jewish state".

In other words, he's offering the Palestinians a vassal state, subject to Israel's every whim, that can be re-occupied at will or have its communications cut off if it so pleases its masters.

Oh, I think a demilitarized Palestinian state would be a good idea. What possible threat could a Palestinian army be to Israel anyway? I also think a demilitarized Israel, Egypt and Syria would be a good idea. But no state has a right to dictate to another what arrangements it makes for its own defence.

And what of "recognising Israel as a Jewish state"? What does that mean? Where does that leave Israel's Palestinian, Bedouin and other non-Jewish citizens? "All citizens are equal, but Jewish citizens are more equal than others?" Or does it just mean "A state with Saturday as its Sabbath and a few bureaucratic-institutional ties to Judaism"? Much like having the Church of England established in England (a bad idea, but causing little concrete harm.) If the latter, then why the heck does this state of affairs need to be "recognized" by any other state? It's up to the Israelis to decide, and no business of anyone else's, as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said.

But of course it really means the former, a state in which Palestinan citizens are barely tolerated, notionally equal before the law, but in practice rigorously and systematically discriminated against. Ineligible for military service, debarred from owning the large swaths of land owned by the Jewish National Fund, receiving massively less funding per person for education than Israel's Jewish majority, effectively never given building permits (making "natural growth" of the Palestinian population rather tricky), their parties never included in any governing coalition. Fundamentally, Israel as a "Jewish state" means that the state is not for them. Demanding recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" means demanding recognition and legitimization of racism, pure and simple.

To say nothing of the fact that any state Netanyahu plans on offering would be a moth-eaten rag split into bits by Israeli settlements, which he shows no sign of agreeing to freeze, let alone ever dismantle.

Let's see whether Obama buys into this pile of shit.

Fuck you, Netanyahu, you vicious racist asshole.
smhwpf: (Buffy fire)
I subscribe to too many Palestine-related lists.

They're all very worthy. But the result is I get flooded with emails containing various news stories, comment articles, and calls to action, far more than I can remotely hope to deal with. With the result that typically I do nothing about any of them. Which is a suboptimal strategy.

(This Yahoo group "Academics for Justice" is particularly bad for my mental health. It advertised itself as a "low traffic" group when I subscribed. Hah! Well, I suppose it's fairly low traffic, maybe 5-10 a day. But there's this one guy who collects EVERY LINK ABOUT PALESTINE HE CAN FIND and posts them all in one huge email.)

So anyway, I thought, well, how about doing something about ONE of the multitude of links you get every day. Which seemed like a good suggestion.

Trawled a bit further back through my inbox today, and picked up:

To Boycott Israel or Not

A debate between Naomi Klein and Rev. Arthur Waskow in In These Times magazine. The debate is about what is the most effective strategy for bringing about a just peace in Israel/Palestine - the two are pretty much on the same page as each other (and as I am) about what's going on there and what needs to happen, it's a debate about campaigning strategy. I have to say I find both rather convincing. Klein has long been one of my favourite people. Rabbi Waskow of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia I'd not encountered before, but is becoming one of my new favourite people.

Gosh, well that only kept me up till 1.47am. *groan* New strategy still has kinks to iron out.
smhwpf: (Handala)
Probably everyone's seen the news about Israeli soldiers, discussing the recent war in Gaza, admitting to deliberate shootings of Palestinian civilians - not just as a frew rogue acts, but under orders, and under a very permissive (to say the least) set of rules of engagement. The story was reported in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and unusually seems to have made even the American press.

(I don't know. I tend to assume everyone's seen these things, but typically this assumption is erroneous.)

To say nothing about the more general, increasingly well-testified accusations of war crimes coming from the UN and others - the intense bombardment of tightly packed civilian areas from which people had no means of escape, the use of white phosphorous and experimental Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME) weapons causing horrific injuries.

A further chilling article in Haaretz a few days ago reports how IDF soldiers are getting T-shirts printed for themselves with pictures of dead Palestinian babies, a pregnant Palestinian woman in crosshairs with the caption "One shoot, 2 kills", and other charming images.

A further disturbing report - another one actually making the New York Times - highlights the increasingly explicit religious dimension to the war from the Israeli side, the idea that they are fighting a 'holy war' to expel non-Jews from the land of Israel, and pamphlets circulated by the chief military rabbi urging soldiers to "show no mercy".

If all that wasn't enough, here's one from the marvellous veteran peace campaigner Uri Avnery of Gush Shalom. (Avnery, an octogenarian former Knesset member who fought in Israel's army in the 1948 war, has always somehow managed to keep an optimistic outlook on the situation, believing that in the end a relatively just 2-state solution is inevitable, despite a very clear-eyed picture of how things are right now. Of late even his unquenchable optimism seems to have faltered, which in itself is scary.)

Anyway, this article reports on a challenge in Israel's Supreme Court to a particularly racist law that was passed a few years ago, banning Israeli citizens who marry Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories or 'hostile' Arab states from bringing their spouses to live in Israel. (A move targeted at Israel's Palestinian minority, many of whom marry within extended clans that may cross the Green Line separating Israel from the West Bank.)

So various Palestinian and Jewish peace groups are attempting to get this law overturned as violating the "Basic Laws" which (theoretically) guarantee equal rights for all citizens.

The Israeli Government's lawyers have presented their counter-argument. And herein lies the rub, for it contains this sentence:

The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective.

Not with the PLO. Not with Hamas.

People. Against People.

In many ways that's not so extraordinary, I mean it's basically just the logical conclusion of Zionism.

But to see it stated so openly, not by some marginal group of fanatics, but by the government's own legal department - that's quite something. And the thing about ideologies and logical conclusions? Often it's really best if they're not taken to them.

Oh, and this is the outgoing government of Ehud Olmert, the 'centrists', who are about to be replaced by an even more right-wing government, which will have the ultra-Nationalist Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister, who wants Israel's Palestinian citizens to have to swear a loyalty oath or be stripped of their citizenship, and who called for Palestinian prisoners to be drowned.
smhwpf: (Walls)
Who Profits is a website dedicated to detailing the companies, Israeli and worldwide, that directly profit from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

It includes companies producing and exporting goods made in illegal settlements (e.g. crops grown on expropriated Palestinian land in the Jordan Valley), companies involved in the construction of settlements, providing infrastructure for them (like Veolia, who are building a light rail link between West Bank settlements and Israel proper, and who recently lost their contract to run Stockholm's public transport - though how much influence the campaign against them had is unknown), companies like Caterpillar providing destruction equipment used to destroy Palestinian homes and land, companies like EDS providing electronic security equipment and services for checkpoints, and many more.

The one area it doesn't cover is companies selling arms to Israel, a topic which is fairly well covered elsewhere. (Although many arms companies are listed as they also provide civil 'security' equipment and services.)
smhwpf: (No power)
Israeli politics are pretty depressing. With the right wing Kadima-led coalition (who, while imposing hunger and disease on the people of Gaza are beginning to vaguely talk about the need to do a sensible deal at some point) looking like they're going to lose the next election to the even more right wing Likud. No more mister nice guy, I guess.

Then you get reminded once in a while that there are still the 7,000 who have not bowed their knees to Baal. Amongst them are the Shministim. The term just means "Twelfth grader" in Hebrew, but in this case it refers to a group of Shministim who have signed a letter refusing to serve in the Israeli Defence Forces, and declaring their opposition to the Occupation and Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories.

Military service is compulsory in Israel, and as a result these very brave young people, upon graduation from high school, have gone on not to work or college, but to prison. The way it works is that when you refuse your call-up you get sentenced for a few weeks in jail, then released, then called up again. If you refuse again you go back to prison. In principle there is no limit to this, though eventually they usually discharge you. Quite a few of the Shministim are in their 3rd term in jail.

What is more, if you refuse to wear your military uniform in jail, you get put in the Isolation Ward. One such is Tamar Katz, who is reportedly being subjected to extra special treatment, forbidden to receive family phone calls, change her clothes or brush her teeth.

Letters of support are being solicited for the Shministim, and will be handed in to the Israeli MoD on December 18th. There's also a Facebook group where one can express support.


smhwpf: (Default)

October 2017

123456 7


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 23rd, 2017 08:54 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios