Palestine Solidarity Society disrupts Law lecture at Queens University, Belfast

From The Gown:

The Palestinian Solidarity Society today disrupted a lecture by Solon Solomon, former member of the Israeli Parliament’s legal department, on Israel’s right to self-defence. Entering the lecture, members of the society heckled the lecturer forcing it to be brought to a close after seven minutes. Members of the panel had to be removed from the room by security in the interests of their own safety to calls of “Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio.” The PSS was apparently videoing the lecture without permission.

Read the rest of the article here.

New Israel Fund: boycott is “inflammatory and counterproductive”

By Kubbeh

The New Israel Fund is a Jewish Israeli not-for-profit-organisation that, in its own words, is “committed to equality and democracy for all Israelis”. In the past year, NIF has found itself in an unusual position – under attack from all sides: from both right wing activists in Israel, as well as international left and  anti-Zionist activists calling for the boycott of Israeli civil society.

In a recent article in Zeek magazine (Don’t Divest; Invest), NIF’s Naomi Pass slammed boycott, sanctions and divestment as a “blunt force” that “penalizes the innocent” and contributes to the rightwards shift among moderate Israelis:

“We see global BDS as a tactic that embodies the message that Israel cannot and will not change itself, and for that reason, we think it is inflammatory and counter-productive. We see proposals that would ban Israeli academics, no matter what their personal and political views may be, from participation in the free exchange of ideas in international conferences. We see artists and musicians, who often come bearing badly-needed messages of peace and tolerance, being urged to take Israel off their tour itineraries…

“And we disagree. The way to change Israel is not to divest, but to invest in Israelis and Palestinians who are struggling every day to change the status quo.”

Read the full article, Don’t Divest; Invest.


Public meeting – no zionists, no undesirables allowed

Further to a JC article describing how senior figures in the Manchester Jewish community were ordered out of a meeting hosting Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, Manchester PSC Chair Linda Clair has had the following letter published in the Jewish Chronicle :

When are you going to start telling the truth and not a completely distorted version of the facts? I was the chair of the Gideon Levy meeting you report (JC August 27). Michael Samuels and his two companions did not actually enter the meeting to start with. They were outside the room when I asked Mr Samuels his name and where he came from. He replied and said he came from Manchester. I told him and his companions that they would not be allowed in – that Zionists were not wanted in that meeting. Mr Levy, who was already in the meeting room, and was standing behind me, asked me to let them in, which I did, only at his request. This was before he spoke to them. Whatever they said to him certainly did not influence my decision to allow them in, I had legal advice that although it was a public meeting, it was on private property and so we were well within our rights to exclude any undesirables. In case you want to label me antisemitic, I am not, I am an anti-Zionist Jew, and I know the difference between the two, even if you choose not to.

Linda Clair

I won’t comment on the letter because it speaks for itself (I should however point out that Manchester JFJFP’s promotion of the meeting was simply to send an email with details of the meeting and they were not involved in organising the meeting itself).


Israeli professors: academic freedom includes freedom to self-boycott

Hundreds of Israeli professors and academics have signed a petition slamming Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar’s stated intention to take action against professors who support an academic boycott of Israel.

Petitioners include Haifa University rector Prof. Yossi Ben Artzi, Israel Prize laureates professors Benjamin Isaac and Yehoshua Kolodny, and former education minister Prof. Yuli Tamir.

Read on in Ha’aretz. As a staunch anti-boycotter I hope they are successful in overturning this attempt to criminalise boycott.

Update – some more on this.

Firstly, I mis-titled this post, I think – an inadvertent provocation.

The petition was initiated by Israel’s Forum for the Protection of Public Education. They don’t translate into English (i.e. they aren’t seeking international attention) but Google sort of does (and the original is here).

This petition needs to be considered in the context of the bill to outlaw Israel’s homegrown boycotters, which does not distinguish between the implicit eliminationism of a whole-Israel boycott and the implicit acceptance of Israel’s and Palestine’s co-existence in the boycott of settlement products. The 552 signatories of the petition are not fighting for the right to boycott – they explicitly do not endorse boycott – but against the intrusion of an unsurprisingly defensive government into what is said and considered on campus, and for the right, when one academic’s expression of freedom begins to interfere with that of their colleagues, of the institution to respond on its own behalf.

Naomi Chazan: “Israel’s democracy is Israel’s soul”

This is a guest post by Kubbeh.

Leading Israeli academic, peace activist and president of the New Israel Fund (NIF), Naomi Chazan, was in the UK earlier this month, talking to the Jewish community about her hopes and fears for Israel’s democracy. We’ve all heard the statement that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It may not be perfect (where is?), but it is true. The citizens of Egypt, Jordan, Gaza, Syria, Iran and elsewhere would all benefit from a good dose of democracy – particularly women, Christians, gay men and women, journalists and political dissidents.

Speaking earlier this month to a capacity crowd at Moishe House, a post-denominational Jewish community in west London, Chazan outlined the challenges to Israel’s democracy and what her organisation is doing about it. These reached a peak earlier this year with a well-funded smear campaign against NIF by right-wing pressure group, Im Tirtzu, which attempted to vilify Chazan and NIF as enemies of the state.

“Is there a problem [with Israel’s democracy]? Absolutely yes. Is there a hope? Equally so, she said.

For Chazan, democracy is fundamental to the existence and success of Israel as a Jewish state:

“Israel’s democracy is Israel’s soul. Without Israel’s democracy, there will be no Israel. That is because Israel’s raison d’etre, as embodied in its Declaration of Independence, will no longer exist. The source of Israel’s strength is its democracy.”

Chazan explained how the NIF has been “thrust to the centre” of guarding Israel’s democracy, a role which she sees as crucial to upholding the Zionist dream embodied by the state’s founding fathers: “Jews have the right to self-determination in two senses,” she said. “Collective self-determination, in terms of the right to create a state for the Jews; and individual self-determination, through creating a society which grants individual liberties and social justice to all of its citizens regardless of race, religion or gender.”

She also took a swipe at anti-Zionists and boycotters, many of whom she regularly meets in academic circles, who want to see Israel relegated to the dustbin of history:“I have nothing in common with people who tell me that I have no right to exist. We need to distinguish between the deniers and deligitimisers – and dissenters.”

At a time when Israel is more politically isolated and vilified than ever before and the Islamist extremists of Hamas and Hezbollah continue to stockpile weapons to use against Israeli civilians, the work of peace and civil rights movements like NIF is more vital than ever. Israelis who want to walk the path of moderation have never had it so tough. In Chazan’s words, they are “stuck between those who don’t want to hear it and those who don’t want them to exist.” If, like me, you feel confused and frustrated about how to respond to recent events in the Middle East, then supporting the New Israel Fund is a good place to start.

Stand up for NIF, stand up for Israeli democracy

A guest post by Progressive Zionist.

A smear campaign was launched last week against leading Israeli social justice organisation, the New Israel Fund. In what Meretz MK Haim Oron, described as a “show trial,” NIF has been blasted for apparently being the “life-force” behind the UN’s Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead and the delegitimisation of Israel in the international court of opinion.

But this campaign to discredit NIF and its grantee organisations amounts to nothing less than an attack on freedom of speech.

So what did NIF do wrong?

On 29 January 2010, Israeli tabloid Ma’ariv published the findings of a report by right-wing student group, Im Tirtzu, claiming that over 90% of allegations against the IDF in the Goldstone report came from 16 NIF-funded Israeli NGOs. The following day Im Tirtzu organised a demonstration outside the Jerusalem home of NIF president, Prof Naomi Hazan (pictured), with dozens of activists dressed as Hamas terrorists, as well as running an advert in the Jerusalem Post depicting a demonic Prof Hazan wearing a horn.

It didn’t take long for Im Tirtzu’s “research” to be debunked and dismembered. Anshel Pfeffer did a good job in Ha’aretz:

What is being said here? Im Tirzu is not claiming that any of the information supplied by these organizations was false. It is simply questioning the very legitimacy of free speech in Israel.

In support of Israeli democracy

NIF is a philanthropic organisation that funds over 300 organisations working to make Israel a better country, in line with the vision of its founding fathers. NIF grantees pursue social justice, civil and human rights, religious pluralism and safeguarding the environment.

One need not agree with every position of every organisation that NIF funds, which range from Breaking the Silence and B’tselem to Friends of the Earth Middle East and the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel. But supporters of democracy should stand up for the New Israel Fund – and many already have, including journalists from Ma’ariv itself.

Ori Nir from Americans for Peace Now said it succinctly:

The New Israel Fund is an asset to Israel‘s democracy, as are its grantee organizations. Attempts to silence them should not be tolerated by the Israeli public and by friends of a free and democratic Israel worldwide.“

But this sorry episode has left me with a feeling of déjà vu.

One thing that struck me is how many NIF grantees would find themselves boycotted by anti-Israel activists here in the UK. For instance, Israeli groups that promote cooperation between Jews and Arabs.

There’s an uneasy parallel between the recent McCarthyist attacks on NIF and the British Left-Islamist coalition’s campaign to silence and boycott those who fail to tow their party line of an Israel-free Middle East. It seems that the two sides have more in common that they would like to admit.

See also my Greens Engage post, New Israel Fund needs international solidarity; Jews outside Israel need theirs.

A smear campaign was launched last week against leading Israeli social justice organisation, the New Israel Fund. In what Meretz MK Haim Oron, described as a “show trial,” NIF has been blasted for apparently being the “life-force” behind the UN’s Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead and the delegitimisation of Israel in the international court of opinion.

But this campaign to discredit NIF and its grantee organisations amounts to nothing less than an attack on freedom of speech.

So what did NIF do wrong?

On 29 January 2010, Israeli tabloid Ma’ariv published the findings of a report by right-wing student group, Im Tirtzu, claiming that over 90% of allegations against the IDF in the Goldstone report came from 16 NIF-funded Israeli NGOs. The following day Im Tirtzu organised a demonstration outside the Jerusalem home of NIF president, Prof Naomi Hazan (pictured), with dozens of activists dressed as Hamas terrorists, as well as running an advert in the Jerusalem Post depicting a demonic Prof Hazan wearing a horn.

It didn’t take long for Im Tirtzu’s “research” to be debunked and dismembered. Anshel Pfeffer did a good job in Ha’aretz:

What is being said here? Im Tirzu is not claiming that any of the information supplied by these organizations was false. It is simply questioning the very legitimacy of free speech in Israel.

In support of Israeli democracy

NIF is a philanthropic organisation that funds over 300 organisations working to make Israel a better country, in line with the vision of its founding fathers. NIF grantees pursue social justice, civil and human rights, religious pluralism and safeguarding the environment.

One need not agree with every position of every organisation that NIF funds, which range from Breaking the Silence and B’tselem to Friends of the Earth Middle East and the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel. But supporters of democracy should stand up for the New Israel Fund – and many already have, including journalists from Ma’ariv itself.

Ori Nir from Americans for Peace Now said it succintly:

The New Israel Fund is an asset to Israel‘s democracy, as are its grantee organizations. Attempts to silence them should not be tolerated by the Israeli public and by friends of a free and democratic Israel worldwide.“

But this sorry episode has left me with a feeling of déjà vu.

One thing that struck me is how many NIF grantees would find themselves boycotted by anti-Israel activists here in the UK. For instance, Israeli groups that promote cooperation between Jews and Arabs.

There’s an uneasy parallel between the recent McCarthyist attacks on NIF and the British Left-Islamist coalition’s campaign to silence and boycott those who fail to tow their party line of an Israel-free Middle East. It seems that the two sides have more in common that they would like to admit.

:: New Israel Fund UK on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/#!/newisraelfunduk?ref=ts

:: New Israel Fund (Israel website) http://www.nif.org/

:: coteret.com Hebrew news from the Israel media in English

:: Prof Naomi Hazan sacked by Jerusalem Post. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1147998.html

European Jewish Congress concern over Swiss referendum on minarets

The European Jewish Congress defends equal treatment of Swiss Muslims:

Following the referendum in Switzerland concerning the construction of minarets, the European Jewish Congress reiterates the position of its Swiss affiliate SIG in “speaking out firmly in favour of equal treatment and justice and against laws of any type which are intended to apply specifically to certain religious communities.”

The European Jewish Congress defends freedom of religion and religious practice as a fundamental human right, including the right to build places of worship.

Protesting the Israeli police’s disruption of PalFest

This illustrates as clearly as anything the dereliction of any restrictive or punitive policy based on who, rather than what.

Daily Kos:

“Palestinians living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza struggle to live a normal life while penned in by checkpoints, surveillance, and violence.    Palestinians in East Jerusalem are isolated from their brothers and sisters in Ramallah.  Bethlehem is cut off from Nablus.  The elaborate system of checkpoints and Jewish-settler only roads in the West Bank have barricaded one Palestinian community from another.  In addition the deep economic, educational and personal grief this swiss-cheese prison has produced, Palestinian cultural life struggles to survive despite all the odds.”

J-Voices:

“The festival began as a call from Edward Said, to “reaffirm the power of culture over the culture of power.” As participants were gathering, the Israeli policeshut down the theater. The French consul who was in attendance, offered the French Cultural Center as a new venue in the moment, in order for the festival to continue.”

Rory McCarthy, The Observer:

“Shortly before the opening event was due to begin, a squad of around a dozen Israeli border police walked into the Palestinian National Theatre, in East Jerusalem, and ordered it to be closed.

Police brought a letter from the Israeli minister of internal security which said the event could not be held because it was a political activity connected to the Palestinian Authority.

Members of the audience and the eight speakers were ordered to leave, but the event was held several minutes later, on a smaller scale, in the garden of the nearby French Cultural Centre.

Israeli police were deployed on the street outside.

“We’re so taken aback. It’s is completely, completely independent,” Egyptian novelist Soueif, who is chairing the Palestine Festival of Literature, said.

“I think it’s very telling,” she told the crowd at the French centre. “Our motto, which is taken from the late Edward Said, is to pit the power of culture against the culture of power.”

“This is the policy being implemented with regard to any events which are either organised or funded by the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem,” he said.

He added that previous Palestinian events in the city, including the press centre for the pope, had been closed under the same policy.

However, Rafiq Husseini, the chief of staff to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who was in last night’s audience, was dismissive of the Israeli actions.

“It shows how the Israelis are not thinking, he said. “This is a cultural event. There is no terrorism, there is nobody shooting. It’s just a cultural event.”

Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive:

“Egyptian novelist Ahdaf Soueif gave this account at palfest.org.

“I saw 10 old friends in the first minute, all the Jerusalem cultural and academic set were there, a lot of Internationals, a lot of press,” she wrote. “We stood in the early evening light, by the tables laden with books and food and flowers, nibbled at kofta and borek and laughed and chatted and introduced new friends to old. . . . Then we started moving towards the auditorium and I heard someone say quietly, ‘They’ve come.’””

Alex Stein, on Harry’s Place:

“…those in the diaspora who campaign long and hard against a boycott of Israeli culture should be raging with anger at this latest disgrace.”

PalFest is ongoing - follow Palfest‘s organiser and author blogs, videos and pictures.

PrawfsBlawg on institutional responses to IAW and boycott campaigning

Paging Stanley Fish – a piece by Paul Horwitz on PrawfsBlawg about incendiary (in both senses) Israeli Apartheid Week posters, academic freedom, normal political discourse, and human rights. He opposes banning the posters:

“The posters, inflammatory as they may be, are clearly standard political speech.  They may not be civil, but they’re certainly well within the norms of “civil discourse in a free and democratic society” – or at least the kinds of free and democratic societies that value robust, uninhibited and wide-open debate.”

The kinds we need, even while we make objections to those norms.

He goes on to note a lightness in the student campaigning around free speech:

“The students apparently shy away from the obvious conclusion that the use of human rights codes in situations involving speech are generally suspect; rather, they argue that the “poster depicts a situation that has a factual basis and its intention is clearly to invite people to a lecture series,” so the poster is neither an incitement nor a violation of civil discourse.  (I hope they will be equally forgiving of similar posters that meet the same conditions, but with the names reversed!)”

Most importantly in its promotion of a debate about academic boycott, concluding:

“The university is a “community” in some important senses, but it isn’t a democracy, and even to the limited extent that it is, there is no universal suffrage … Academic freedom is a substantive value, and that value includes opposing academic boycotts; academic freedom does not, on the other hand, require democratic deliberation by all the stakeholders in a university.”

I’m new to Stanley Fish on the politics of the university.

Hostility to Israel and Antisemitism in the New South Africa – Alana Pugh-Jones

Alana Pugh-Jones

Alana Pugh-Jones

The conflict in Gaza has seen a definite shift around the globe in the ways that criticism of Israeli policy is expressed. The lines between anti-Zionism and antisemitism have become significantly more blurred. In South Africa this phenomenon has been strikingly brought home in the unfolding events of 2009.

In what has been described as the first instance of public ‘Jew-baiting’ by a government minister since the 1930s, the South African Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Fatima Hajaig informed a mass rally held in solidarity for Gaza in Johannesburg in early January that the fate of the West is in the grip of ‘Jewish money power’. She said:

The control of America, just like the control of most Western countries, is in the hands of Jewish money and if Jewish money controls their country then you cannot expect anything else.’

Hajaig unleashed a media storm in South Africa and a debate on the distinction between criticizing Israel and leveling charges against Jews. Although many lauded her for speaking the ‘truth’ so openly, the vast majority of South Africans, from media news rooms and opposition

Fatima Hajaig

Fatima Hajaig

politicians, to the average Facebook groupies, came out strongly against such a statement of intolerance and aimed at a minority in the world’s ‘Rainbow Nation’.

Even a prominent group of Jewish and Muslim human rights activists, many members of the South African Human Rights Delegation that visited the Occupied Territories last year and returned very critical of Israeli policy, wrote publicly to Hajaig asking for her to confirm what she said and to apologize.

The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD), the communal umbrella organization representing the majority of Jewish South Africans, immediately laid a complaint of antisemitism again the Minister with the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and flatly dismissed Hajaig’s first tardy and veiled apology which she made when she returned from an international visit. After spending an inordinate amount of time adopting the moral high ground, laying out both her ANC credentials and the horrors of the situation in Gaza, Hajaig stated:

At a singular point in my talk, and entirely unrelated to any South African community, I conflated Zionist pressure with Jewish influence. I regret the inference made by some that I am anti-Jewish.’

Hajaig had inverted the words ‘Zionist’ and ‘Jew’, clumsily slipping between the ‘acceptable’ language of anti-Zionism and the terminology of the longest hatred. After she was hauled before Cabinet and forced to apologize unequivocally to the President, the SAJBD and most of the South African public also accepted the apology. Given the fact that the apology was not directed to the Jewish community however, the case is still being reviewed by the SA Human Rights Commission.

Hot on the heels of the Hajaig fiasco, South Africa’s largest trade union, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), which had released several press statements during the Gaza crisis solely condemning Israel and expressing support exclusively for the Palestinian civilian population, cosatuannounced the creation of an Ad Hoc Palestinian Solidarity Coalition. This Coalition, run in conjunction with the leadership of the Palestinian Solidarity Committee (PSC), indicated that it would be holding a ‘Week of Action Against Apartheid Israel’. As well as the familiar rallies and vigils outside Parliament in Cape Town and the Israeli Embassy in Pretoria, COSATU announced their intention to prevent a scheduled Israeli ship from docking on South African shores.

On 6 February COSATU held an unauthorised march outside the Jewish communal leadership offices; the Jewish community held a solidarity event within the complex walls. Salim Vallie of the PSC explained the march in this way:

‘this is because the Zionist Federation and the SA Jewish Board of Deputies have supported the war crimes in Gaza and we are saying as South Africans we have to take sides and we need to choose the side of justice. We are not going to support the canard that says if you are opposed to the policies of Israel you are anti-Semitic, this does not intimidate us.’

The statement of a COSATU official at the march also slipped up on the problematic distinction between ‘Zionists’ versus ‘Jews’. Bongani Masuku, International Relations Secretary for COSATU, said,

“We want to convey a message to the Jews in SA that our 1.9-million workers who are affiliated to COSATU are fully behind the people of Palestine… Any business owned by Israel supporters will be a target of workers in South Africa.’

In this statement, simply being Jewish makes one an ‘Israel supporter’ – and not just someone who believes in the right of Jewish self-determination, but someone who supports what is held to be as an evil apartheid state. The overwhelming majority of Jews in South Africa do support Israel, in one sense or another. An email which is currently widely circulating is listing Jewish owned companies as targets of boycott. Already, certain Jewish owned shops are noticing a significant drop in business.

Jewish opposition to the COSATU/ PSC march was seen by some as an attempt to limit the arena for free political expression and the right to political association. But the nature of where it was held sadly denotes a warning to the Jewish community that it will be targeted if it continues to support Israel. COSATU has every right to march outside the offices of an organization with whose policies it vehemently disagrees. When it does so outside a building which houses the institutions representing the majority of the Jewish community, and in a predominantly Jewish residential area, then many will feel that it has designated the Jewish community of South Africa itself, not Israel, as the enemy.

The following day the ship, owned by an Israeli company, carrying non-Israeli goods, was offloaded ahead of schedule at Durban harbour. The Port of Durban turned to non-union workers, and also unionised workers who were unconcerned with Middle Eastern politics. Despite attempts by the Histradut to appeal to the International Transport Workers Federation, South African trade unions objected to a cooperation agreement signed between the Palestinian and Israeli transport workers union. COSATU promised in their press release, declaring ‘worker victory’ in the face of Zionist ‘subterfuge’, to:

‘ intensify its efforts in support of the struggles of the Palestinian people … Other COSATU unions are currently in discussion about how they might also give effect to COSATU resolutions on boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel, including a refusal to handle Israeli goods, and continuing pressure on our government to sever diplomatic and trade relations with Israel.’

Sadly within the Jewish community, and in broader South African society, such a heightening of tensions between pro- and anti-Israel supporters has had the effect of reducing the space for nuanced discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some moderate voices which supported the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and which advocate an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, have been rendered much more cautious by the extremism and antisemitism of Israel’s most vocal critics. Many Jewish South Africans, even those who opposed the Israeli military action in Gaza, now feel that it is harder to voice vigorous dissent, as Jews in general are now coming under fire. They find themselves under pressure to pull together with the mainstream Zionist community in the face of a blurring of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment.

What Professor Milton Shain has identified as a ‘steady progression of hostility’ within the new generation of South Africans towards Israel has been starkly revealed in the events of 2009 thus far. He identifies the three major factors behind this ratcheting up of the hostility of the rhetoric: South Africa’s third world context; the apartheid resonances regarding Israel and South AfricaPalestine; and the ‘miracle’ of the new South Africa and its transition from apartheid to a democratic rainbow nation. What leads on from this premise is that South Africa’s negotiations in 1994, their outcome of one unified democratic state, may be transplanted to any troubled zone as the key to peace. This view is understandable, taking into consideration the ideological gulf between the two sides in South Africa at the beginning of the 1994 talks and the remarkable nature of the constitution which emerged from that settlement. However, the Israel-apartheid analogy also leads to the inevitable conclusion of that Israelis should be boycotted and the logic of this is to create, as David Hirsh writes,

‘a mass movement for the exclusion of Jews, even if not all Jews, from the academic, cultural, sporting and economic life of humanity, resonates with an altogether different memory from the boycott of white South Africa.’

In short, the lines between criticism of Israel and its demonization, between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, speaking about ‘Zionists’ rather than ‘Jews’, are being distorted.

Speaking out against Israeli policy is not only legitimate but essential – no nation state is perfect, and vigorous and robust debate about Israel is necessary for the future of that democratic state. However, when this critique is expressed through motifs reminiscent of classic anti-Semitic imagery; or when that disapproval holds Israel to higher standards than other states and employs conspiracy theory, the basic standards of political tolerance and antiracism for which South Africa stands are crossed. This kind of language not only jeopardizes the cause of the Palestinian people, overshadowing their legitimate grievances, but it also feeds intolerance and prejudice against a group of people, diminishing space for political discussion and nuanced debate.

Alana Pugh-Jones

UPDATE For more from Bongani Masuku, International relations Secretary for COSATU, see this astonishing post by Ben Cohen on Z Word.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 128 other followers

%d bloggers like this: