What makes an anti-Semite?

[Behind the Aegis]

In January 2005, an international working definition of anti-Semitism was accepted for the first time since the term was coined in the late 19th century. This definition, approved in June 2005 at a conference in Cordoba, Spain, is the result of a joint effort on the part of two institutions - a center established in Vienna by the European Union to monitor racism and xenophobia, and a center set up in Warsaw by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to strengthen the institutions of democracy and human rights among its 55 member countries.

And this is the essence of the international working definition of anti-Semitism: "Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." However, why was a new, international, practical definition needed, and why did non-Jewish organizations invest ongoing efforts in discussions on its formulation? After all, there has been no shortage of different definitions of anti-Semitism ever since the term was first coined 125 years ago in Germany and they can be found in encyclopedia and lexica, reflecting both temporal and geographic circumstances.

A long list of personalities and institutions sought to define the anti-Semite and the Jew he so hates: Jean-Paul Sartre, who sarcastically defined an anti-Semite, blaming the Jews for every tragedy, as a man who fears not Jews, but himself and the need to accept his responsibility; Encyclopedia Britannica, which as early as 1966 defined opposition to Zionism as anti-Semitism, but whose dictionary still features to "Jew Down" as a verb meaning to insist on haggling and deception; the Jewish Encyclopedia, published in the United States about one hundred years ago, includes a description of Jews as being perceived by others as greedy people, who are tribal in nature, devoid of tact and patriotism, and evade hard work; or the definition of Prof. Jacob Toury, of Tel Aviv University, who in the 1970s described anti-Semitism as a manipulation of sentiments directed against an unrealistic figure for political purposes.

However, our focus here is not on the definitions of learned people, but on international bodies and their perception of anti-Semitism as a problem that needs fixing. It is hard to believe, but even the United Nations, for example, did not define anti-Semitism or racism after World War II; no international organization mentioned these two basic terms in the basic conventions that were formulated and signed after that war, even though racism and anti-Semitism were among the primary causes of its outbreak.


more...

[angstlessk]

1. TRULY AMAZING...ONLY a JEW cannot be hated..I can hate a black, I can

hate a white, I can hate hispanics..I can hate asians..I can hate Christians, I can hate Muslim, I can hate atheists...(especially athiests)...but I AM NOT ALLOWED TO HATE A JEW

[Behind the Aegis]

2. ??????

That makes no sense and has NOTHING to do with the OP.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Then you need to re-read the OP.

You are making something out of nothing. It (the OP) only is reporting on one topic. There is nothing to say what other issues were brought to the table. The Holocaust is a "blip" in history? You obviously know nothing about anti-Semitism.

[angstlessk]

6. I know you are 'all things Israel is good'...and if you don't believe that you are anti semetic

Well, when the UN tried to equate zionism to racism..Isreal was all atwit, and so were you..so Anti Semitism to me is no more important than racism...which I abhore...but there are no laws against it or admonitions saying one is evil for haveing those thoughts... SORRY JEWS DO NOT HAVE A SPECIAL PALCE ON EARTH

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. please I don't think this line of comment helps anyone

and I say this as someone who is a stong supporter of the Palestinian cause.

[angstlessk]

9. I am not angry at Jews, I am angry at the laws that seperate Jews from everyone else

I hate laws that the UN now wants regarding holocust deniers...I believe the holocust happened...and I am apalled that our country did not embrace those poor Jews who were trying to escape the holocust. AND I am glad Israel was founded, and I support Israel, but to squelch those idiots who are so blind...I find that worse than allowing them to express their beliefs. And to have a special universal definition of anti semitism is just outrageous! NO ONE IS SPECIAL..we are all subject to people who hate us..no matter WHAT! Maybe I am in a cacoon here in America..where the Jewish comminity is not attacked ???? MAYBE? Maybe there is REAL anti semitism in other countries?

[Behind the Aegis]

8. My opinion on Israel has nothing to do with the OP.

You obviously are not understanding the point of the article. You seem to be very confused because the article is specifically talking about anti-Semitism.

[calzone]

10. Hardly a democratic, liberal attitude

If you want to criticize Jews then you're also criticizing Christians. Maybe you're saying religion in general should be open to criticism, that makes some sense...singling out Judaism and it's practitioners makes no sense that I can see. If you regard Jews as some kind of distinct race with a homogeneous culture and hate them based on this mistaken assumption, you might be more comfortable at a site such as Stormfront.
The holocaust wasn't a blip, it was more of an eruption. If Jews have fared well in history compared to blacks & women, it's been despite anti-Jewish prejudice rather than because of any lack of it, IMO.
If you study history you'll find that Jews have served as convenient scapegoats in Europe and the U.S. for a very long time (Along with the offshoot religion known as Christianity, at least until Constantine came along).

[AlienGirl]

13. And what about cancer, and AIDS? What has this conference done to address that?

What has this conference done to address global warming, or peak oil, or corporate personhood, or the drowning polar bears?! Think of the poor POLAR BEARS!!!11!eleventy

Why is it assumed that attention given by an activist to his/her cause reduces the effort of all other activists for all other causes? Seriously, what is with that?

Tucker

[barbtries]

11. come again?

who but you can change or control who you HATE or don't HATE? maybe i'm not catching some sarcasm behind your statement, maybe you perceive that the message coming from "them" is that anti-semitism is the only prejudice that is in fact unacceptable. i dunno

[Journeyman]

4. Well, here's a topic I could comment on. . .

plenty of things to say, lots of insight and personal beliefs, decades of study -- I have a preference for the line of scholarship advanced by Dr. Hannah Arendt -- but I've learned my lesson.

Wonderful weather here in California today, beautiful sunset. I took my cute puppy for a walk.

Thanks for everything you post, BtA. I certainly enjoy reading it.

~ Washington Irving

[barbtries]

12. several years ago,

the actress vanessa redgrave was active on the part of palestinians (like when yasser arafat and the PLO were active?). when she was "accused" of being anti-semitic, she denied it somewhat ingenuously: "the palestinians are semitic people, how can i be an anti-semite?"

i think semantic detours such as this may be the reason that "anti-semitism" needs to be clarified. Most of us understand that it is essentially bigotry toward jews. anyway that is my take on it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. you will run into some very strong objections to that definition of anti-Semitism

It will be pointed out that the standard and long accepted dictionary definition of anti-Semitism relates only to antipathy toward Jewish people.

However, the simple reality is that anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry (whatever word one wishes to use to describe it) is accepted in America -- even in the Democratic Party as if it were some kind of consensus of common sense. The wording of headlines, the rhetoric of even "liberal" politicians and the blatantly racist stereotyping such as one finds in countless hollywood block busters seems to suggest that bigotry against Arab and Muslim people is quite acceptable. Just take a look at some of the best sellers on Amazon or the hate speech of endless radio talk show host and this is stuff straight out of 1930s Nazi Germany.

[sabbat hunter]

36. i was watching this morning

a very interesting show on discovery times. they were following around one israeli boy about 13 or so and a palestinian boy about the same age. both showed signs of hating the other side just because of who they were. however on the palestinian side it appeared to be more indoctrination in school and in protests. they were teaching the kids at school it is ok to stone jews. calling them the 'children of the stone' preaching hatred of jews in the school.

additionally they showed the boy on the streets carrying around a key claimed to belong to his grandfathers house in what is now israel. the key was comical in size. during the protest the young people were repeating after the leader of the protest 'we will shed our blood to get back all of palestine. ' the show snuck the boy and his grandmother over to what they claimed what was once the family estate. there was a well worn jewish star on one of the foundation rocks, the boy kicked it and cursed it. wonder why there was a jewish star on a foundation rock if it was a palestinian home. (there was no signs of homes there, just a few rocks, and partial foundations)

with the jewish boy, he was repeating lines from the torah that god gave the land of israel to abraham, isaac, jacob and their descendents. he also said that if arabs ever took over jerusalem he would fight them and drive them from the city and the mount of olives.



i do have one question though, why are the palestinians the only refugee group where refugee status is passed down from generation to generation.

finally the 'refugee' camp the lived in had better housing than you see in parts of the US. they had three children in one bedroom. but all with seperate beds. the classroom was fairly modern.


peace

[TheBaldyMan]

14. Ignorance is the root of all prejudice.

I find the EB 1966 definition of anti-semite as s/o against Zionism interesting. I'd say I was anti-Zionist, something I'd differentiate from anti-Israeli.

Most people sling these epithets around without thinking and misunderstanding follows as sure as night follows day.

I've been called all kinds of things online, namecalling is usually a sign that somebody has run out of arguments and can't think of anything coherent to say.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. but to be anti-Zionist

is to be against the Jewish homeland in Israel. How do you differentiate between anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli?

[geek tragedy]

17. Well, one can be skeptical towards the notion of any

state being based on a relgious premise.

One could also believe that the creation of the state of Israel has not been beneficial for Jews in general.

[TheBaldyMan]

18. Zionists are looneys that think Israel should run from the Euphrates to the Nile

Israelis live in modern day Israel, by that I mean pre-1967 borders.

I am pro-Israeli, anti-Zionist. I hope you understand what my standpoint is. If you would like more clarification on anything I have left out, please ask.

[pelsar]

19. zionism...

has many shades of it: its basic tenate is that the jews get to live in the historical homeland within the jewish country... get to defend it...the borders are not defined in that basic version of zionism.

[Recursion]

30. It's as pointless as trying to define "feminism"

People who are for it have a definition that is necessarily positive and people who are against it have a definition that is necessarily negative and the discussion doesn't help because both people are actually talking about policies and decisions that lie in between those two definitions but neither can admit their definition doesn't cover the whole sense of the term.

There's a lot to unpack here.

1. One can be Zionist and be against the modern state of Israel on the grounds that the time isn't right, the conditions are bad, the Messiah hasn't come yet, etc. (those Hasidim in Brooklyn come to mind).

2. One can be against the notion of Zionism but support the existence of the current state of Israel, and even its expansion.

3. One can be against the idea of a bunch of European refugees re-creating a millenia-old nation on land where other people are living at the time, but still not be anti-Semitic

4. Finally, one can at the same time agree that Israel is far and away the most progressive and democratic state in the region while also noticing that Israel's behavior in the occupied territories is some of the worst oppression in the region. Such an idea is hardly a paradox; America's colonies suffered similarly.

[Lurking Dem]

20. I don't think you know what Zionism is.

I don't personally know any Zionists who think "Israel should run from the Euphrates to the Nile".

[TheBaldyMan]

22. What's Eretz Israel? n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

23. this...

Present-day usages
In present-day discourse, the exact definition of Greater Israel is open to interpretation. According to Daniel Pipes there are three main usages of the term<2>:

• According to some right-wing Israeli views, the term refers to a state of Israel (Hebrew: Medinat Yisra'el) established on the whole geographical region of Palestine (known in Hebrew as Eretz Yisra'el, distinct from the political entity Medinat Yisra'el), situated between the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, annexing both the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
  
  
• According to some far-right Jewish Mandate (pre-modern State of Israel) groups, such as Betar and Irgun Zvai-Leumi that ceased to exist as political movements, it refers to the pre-1923 mandatory Palestine, i.e. both the historical region of Palestine and what was later Transjordan.
  
  
• According to some anti-Zionist and Islamist rhetoric, Greater Israel refers to an extremist Zionist conspiracy to stretch the borders of the state of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. The term is not used in this sense in Israeli discourse, and no prominent Zionist or Israeli intellectual or political figure advocates pursuing such borders.

However, the term of "Greater Israel" in Israeli politics today refers to parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel#Present-day_usages

[TheBaldyMan]

24. I disagree with you on one point.

you said:

According to some anti-Zionist and Islamist rhetoric, Greater Israel refers to an extremist Zionist conspiracy to stretch the borders of the state of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. The term is not used in this sense in Israeli discourse, and no prominent Zionist or Israeli intellectual or political figure advocates pursuing such borders.

I have seen a TV documentary with an Israeli jew who accused some extreme right wingers who think that Greater Israel should do exactly that, in fact some think that Israel should include every scrap of land in the middle east that has ever been ruled by a Jewish state, from ancient times as defined by the OT up to the present day.

While I am not suggesting that these fringe views are taken seriously they are ultra-Zionist. Lesser degrees of lunacy have been observed in Likud's view of what constituted Israel's borders in the 90's, thankfully that particular bout of madness passed. To dismiss the existence of these viewpoints is wilful blindness.

To say that 'the Land of Israel' is a nebulous concept is an excuse not a justification and a poor excuse at that. I'd go as far to state that the first two definitions given by Mr. Pipes are in my opinion classic definitions of modern day Zionism, or correctly pseudo-Zionism. You already have a Jewish state, it's called Israel you don't need to fight for the foundation of one, it has already been established. Zionism in the sense of establishing a homeland is redundant. If this still seems inappropriate use of the word Zionism I could call a spade a spade and start calling it "a feeble excuse for unjustifiable land-grabbing of the most odious and criminal sort".

edited for spelling

[Lurking Dem]

25. My family

and everyone Jewish that I know uses it to mean "Land of Israel". That is, the current nation of Israel.

All of us consider ourselves "Zionists".

None of us think settlers should be in the territories unless it is as citizens of a free Palestine.

When I hear from Israeli friends I ask, "How are things in Eretz Y'Israel?" They tell me how things are where they live.

[TheBaldyMan]

32. I think we have different definitions of Zionism, see my comment #24

I would agree with you almost completely on the right of Israel to exist as well as your view on the West Bank settlers. Unfortunately I don't think a lot of settlers would agree with either of us.

If you read the last paragraph, especially the last sentence, that would make plain the distinction I made with what I called Zionism. I realise that I was oversimplifying and will try to avoid the term in future, the alternative is long-winded but would seem to avoid any confusion.

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. to be honest.....I think you can tell by now my political sympathies

I am indeed somewhat pro-Palestinian.

However, regarding this charge of "the Nile to the Euphrates" I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that any serious Zionist ever supported that idea. And trust me I looked and looked to see if there was any evidence to support that claim. And I just could not find any; none whatsoever. Some years ago this was commonly believed throughout the Arab world. However, it has gone out of fashion and is considered a silly myth these days by the vast majority of Arabs .

There was a school of thought in earlier Zionism that believed that the Land of Israel should include the East Bank in what is now Jordan. And that school of thought did includes some serious characters such as the young Menachem Begin and the young Yitzhak Shamir; long before they became Prime Ministers of course. However, that idea very much went of fashion a long, long time ago.

I think a reasonably and neutral definition of Zionism includes both --Jewish Nationalism -- and the concept of the Jewish diaspora returning to the Biblical Israel. As I understand it the word Zionism refers to a Biblical name for Jerusalem. As the term implies returning to Zion.


.

[TheBaldyMan]

31. I have seen a West Bank settler holding up a 'map' of Greater Israel

it was printed on a rather kitschy tea-towel, the northern borders were near Aleppo (Turkey), the whole of the Sinai Penninsula (with buffer zone west of the Suez Canal) and an Eastern border the ran down the middle of Iraq.

I'm not suggesting that these views are looked on as anything but daft, but the guy holding the towel was genuinely set in his beliefs.

The interviewer asked him about the Sinai penninsula and the guy said any historically occupied territories was Jewish by virtue of conquest. Any territory that was promised in the OT to the jews was theirs as well by divine right.

This meant Israel runs up to the borders of the ancient Kingdoms of the Medes and Hittites as well as large chunks of Pharaonic Egypt. I know this doesn't make sense but how do you argue with someone who cherry picks convenient facts and ssticks to their conclusion in spite of all the counter examples you can give them?

I wonder how the guy would feel if Italy decided that all territory that was once part of the Roman Empire was theirs by right.

[Lithos]

33. That guy is a looney

Most of Israel thinks a lot of the West Bank settlers, particularly those motivated by extreme nationalism, are looney. Just note that while that guy may think of Zionism in that light, he is in the definite minority. It would be like going to a Posse Commitatus meeting and claiming they represented the US general population on things such as immigration.


L-

[Anarcho-Socialist]

35. To use a British comparison

The BNP vehemently believe that the whole of Ireland be forcibly incorporated into the United Kingdom, but it'd be wrong to use that example of an indication of wider British attitudes.

[Shaktimaan]

40. Zionism is a very politically charged word.

I don't know if I'd base my understanding of the term on what the most militant faction of all zionists thinks. Especially if I was going to come out strongly against it among folks who have a more liberal understanding of the movement. I realize you've qualified your statement already. I just think that this is an example of how an honorable movement's goals (and I do think of zionism's goals as honorable) can be easily misrepresented, both by militant proponent's of expansionism as well as anti-jewish/anti-Israel movements. It isn't helpful to the dialog needed for peace whenever people come out as being anti-zionist (or whatever) without realizing how that sounds to any Israeli who holds a common, liberal understanding of what Zionism is. You may be trying to voice your disagreement specifically with the settler movement and not with Israel's right to exist, but to most Jews/Israelis "anti-zionist" means "against the right of Jews to practice self-determination" and "pro the dismantling if Israel."

Personally, I have a practical take on the situation. Israel was founded as a bulwark against anti-semitism and that is what justifies its existence. Its location was chosen because of the historical and cultural/religious significance to the Jewish people, but that is not an argument that justifies the kind of land partition and population reorganization that occurred, despite what many settlers would have you believe. If it meant peace, I am all for abandoning the west bank entirely. Most Israelis are firmly in favor of the land for peace concept.

That said, I am going to play devil's advocate for the settler's position, if only to show that this conflict isn't a simple "land-grab/colonial/God gave us this land, not you, so it is ours, go away" issue. Sure, some of it is that simple, there are plenty of settlers who see things that way. But forget about the religious nutters for a minute and focus on a place that's not so easily deciphered, like Hebron. Hebron is probably the oldest documented place where Jews have consistently lived for thousands of years. It is one of the holy cities to Judaism and is home to the second holiest structure on the planet. The city has only been devoid of Jews since 1929 when the massacre and subsequent evacuation turned it into a 100% Arab city, following which all traces of the city's Jewish history were in the process of being purposefully destroyed. So it is less like the Italians declaring that Palestine belongs to them as it is as if somehow Medina fell under western control 80 years ago and now a movement to re-claim it was occurring. (Bad analogy, but you see what I mean. It isn't just a place, it's an important place that has ALWAYS been connected to Judaism.) My sole point here is that the reality is not so simple as just being an "illegal land-grab."

Most Jews, most Israelis, etc. would be happy to let Hebron go if it meant that there would be peace from now on. But without any kind of assurances of a real, enforceable peace treaty why would we want to abandon the city and the tomb? Especially considering that it will certainly be desecrated as soon as Israel left Hebron. It is a substantial price to pay if Israel gets nothing in return a la Gaza.

[Recursion]

29. Are you equating anti-Israel with anti-Semitic?

I see a difference there.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

34. It depends what you mean

although note I said "anti-Israeli" which I would equate with anti-Semitism.

If your definition of anti-Israel means being for the end of the state of Israel (through destruction of it, or collapse) I would equate that with anti-Semitism.

If one described themselves as "anti-Israel" because they are against the foreign policy of the state, then that is not anti-Semitic although I would find the use of anti-Israel as a self-identifier to be an inappropriate and confusing one in this instance and inadvisable.

[Recursion]

37. Well, you're wrong

I think the creation and existence of the state of Israel has been a disaster and it would have been better if it had never happened. But no matter what you think, I'm not anti-Semitic.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. But it has happened, and that will not change!

[Recursion]

39. I agree 100%

As does every Palestinian I know. On both sides there is a perception that the armed fanatics are in charge, and on both sides the armed fanatics do have too much influence, but neither side is actually going to push the other into the sea. And they both need to realize that.

[Shaktimaan]

41. Better for whom?

There's something that never ceases to interest me about this perception of Israel. Set aside, for a second, whatever your personal thoughts are concerning whether the history of Zionism is ethically defendable when viewed through a modern lens. Whatever anyone's thought on European immigration to Palestine is, it isn't really under dispute as to who really started the actual violence in this conflict.

Had the Zionists begun any of the initial violence it might have been something different. But I have never anywhere else heard anyone condone violence against an indiginous population because they were the same ethnicity as incoming refugees, the politics of which caused friction.

I just think that the contributions of Israel to the violence and instability of the Middle East pale severely in comparison to the surrounding states' contributions, I fail to see how anyone could judge them by the same standard and come to the conclusion that the situation there is primarily the fault of zionism. Even if the zionist, european immigration to Palestine was proven to be completely ethically bankrupt it would still come nowhere close to the wrongs that are presented as being an "understandable reaction" to it. Particularly in light of the fact that zionism occurred during the evils of actual, REAL colonialism, (both turkish and eurpoean) the backlash of which is still felt in third world countries the world over, I think that asking Israel to shoulder the blame for a messed up middle east that is completely a creation of widespread colonialism and then constant western political and military intervention, is ridiculous.

[Recursion]

42. Why is it that whenever I criticize Israel's actions...

...I'm told that their neighbors are worse, as if I didn't know that and as if it mattered.

I've been to Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. I have no illusions about them. Do you think that if there were an Egypt forum here I would be defending Mubarak or the Muslim Brotherhood, or Assad in a Syrian forum? I would not. But in a forum about Israel and Palestine, I won't defend Israel either. Are the neighboring countries worse? In many ways, though all have their good points too. But saying "well at least we're not Syria" is like saying "don't ask me to stop punching you in the face; at least I'm not using a stick".

It's like Iraq. I have moral and ethical and sentimental opposition to the occupation of Iraq, just like I do the occupation of the West Bank. But in neither case do I make that my primary argument: my primary argument is that in both cases, the occupations are making the occupying countries less secure.

Ever wondered why rockets and suicide bombers don't pour from the Golan Heights into Israel like they do from the West Bank and Gaza? It's because the occupation of the Golan Heights doesn't keep the people living there from leading normal lives. There are some Israeli settlements, but not very many and they aren't taking all the best land, all the water, and building impassable barriers that keep people living their from having jobs. Why not run the West Bank that way?

But I have never anywhere else heard anyone condone violence against an indiginous population because they were the same ethnicity as incoming refugees, the politics of which caused friction.

Sure you have, any time you have heard someone defend the IDF's launching a rocket attack against an entire city block, or a group of people coming out of a mosque, or sniping at kids walking to school, or machinegunning women who were trying to keep a tank from knocking down the door to a mosque, or...

This is a war, and it's a particularly bloody one. It's a war in which both sides have adopted terror against the civilian population. Do you think that I for one second "approve" of Al Aqsa convincing a retarded 12-year-old to strap bombs to his body and blow up a bus of civilians? I don't approve of it any more than I approve of the IDF convincing a naive 18-year-old to press the button that shoots a barrage of rockets into an apartment building. But that's the nature of this war, and I want this war to end. But this war won't end until Israel recognizes that the fact that the countries neighboring the Palestinians attacked Israel does not give Israel the right to set up settlements in the land they are occupying. The Palestinians have, time and time again, trusted Israel's word that an end to violence would mean an end to land confiscation but the land confiscation has not stopped, and the settlements keep expanding, and Israel is showing no inclination of leaving a viable land mass on which the Palestinians can live independently.

I just think that the contributions of Israel to the violence and instability of the Middle East pale severely in comparison to the surrounding states' contributions

I don't think Israel really is a destabilizing element in the region, at least not in the past 40 years. Egypt and the Saudi crown are quietly willing to deal with a Jewish presence there if it means a firewall keeping Shi'ites from the Mediterranean. The problem is not regional, and the problem is not Israel proper. The problem is a prolonged and brutal occupation and a system of settlements that look very much like an attempt to take the best land and water, and that continue unabated despite agreements to stop them.

[ShockediSay]

21. I think this is a canard tossed into political message boards

every now and again. I saw it on the Christian Science Monitor's Board years back and I saw it on Yahoo's Board years back. Welcome back.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2289232,00.html

[idontwantaname]

26. antisemitism

antiamericanism too:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x164890

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.