Much of Netanyahu’s career was consolidated in helping to fortify the expansionary policies of Israel by manufacturing and exploiting the public imagery of Islamic terrorism largely through the manipulation of Muslim mercenaries, patsies, and assets. This approach, aimed at bringing about major policy objectives by generating and harnessing the political currency of public fear and loathing, has resulted in many false flag events including those that took place on 9/11.
Netanyahu’s manipulation and protection of the “Hamas terrorists” fit well into his many triumphs as the Napoleon of the Global War on Terror.
But all Netanyahu’s chicanery is backfiring this time around. His mistakes, lies and reckless behaviour in helping to set up the events of October 7 are already coming to light.
Who Is Behind Netanyahu?
While Netanyahu is apparently the one giving the orders to carry out the slaughter of the besieged Palestinians, it is important to consider who is behind him and the possible makeup of the larger agenda at play here.
According to Prof. Michel Chossudovsky and Ben Bartee, the US military establishment is “pulling the strings.” There is already a secret agreement in place reported to cover “the unconditional endorsement of the Israeli genocidal attack against Gaza by President Joe Biden.” The attack is meant to lead “to the annexation of all Palestine territories to the State of Israel.” See this.
This thesis is very much in line with the interpretation of economist Michael Hudson. See this.
Professor Chossudovsky presents an overview emphasizing the role of the United States in the behind-the scenes background of the Gaza assault carried out mostly with US weaponry. The assault involves the presence off the coast of the Eastern Mediterranean of a US naval armada. It involves the presence of US special forces that Chossudovsky indicates have joined IDF actions inside Gaza. Chossudovsky asserts.
“It is the United States government which has ordered this genocide on its behalf. [Its strategists] are essentially using the ideology of Zionism to justify a broader military agenda that would specifically target Iran. That agenda emanates from the military-industrial complex, from powerful financial groups. There is a whole history of war preparations directed against Iran that go back to the Iraq-Iran war which was engineered by the USA…. First Iraq, then Iran. I mean the war in Iran has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board for more than 30 years, going back to the 1990s…. Zionism’s Greater Israel Project coincides geographically with what the USA have called ‘the New Middle East.’”
According to the Chossudovsky, this US project of conquest has been premised on the strategy of marginalizing the indigenous leaderships of the Arab and Persian countries which, “share a common history.” Israel is the hub of the geopolitical control the US seeks to maintain and expand over the energy-rich region.
The geopolitical control of Israel and the United States has been slipping away, however, in large measure because of Iran’s growing importance in regional and world affairs. Iran, the main country that carries into the modern world the heritage of Persia, is home to a highly educated population.
Iranians are well aware that they have long been envisaged as primary targets of Israeli and US military aggression. In response, they have developed high-tech military defences specializing in missile technology which they have exported to Shiite allies in Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq.
A huge exporter especially of natural gas, Iran compensated for the loss of some of its Western energy markets after its Islamic Revolution in 1979. The government sought new markets especially in China. In doing so Iran developed strong ties with China even as it increased its geopolitical cooperation with Russia. These alliances became increasingly important after the flare up of war between Russian and the US-led NATO with Ukraine as NATO’s proxy.
Iran is clearly a regional superpower within Eurasia whose strategic centrality has been pointed out by many, including by Bernard Lewis’ protégé, Zbigniew Brzezinski with his influential book, The Grand Chessboard. Iran’s geostrategic advantages have become integral to China’s foreign policy and especially to its core project of creating a high-tech Road and Belt transportation network connecting Europe with the Far East and the Global South.
The strengthening alliance between Iran, Russia and China has in recent years taken on new strategic meaning in light of US attempts to conduct economic warfare on all three polities. This initiative backfired dramatically as the Russian economy actually expanded as a result of the ill-conceived financial recriminations conceived in Washington.
Russia responded to economic “sanctions” by becoming more self-sufficient and courting alternative trade partners. Russia shifted its strategic orientations from the West to the East, including towards China. Many monumental alterations worldwide have been energized by these alterations.
Beginning with Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, the BRICS alliance is becoming increasingly important with as an emerging locus of global power and influence. Many countries are lining up to join the organization, with Iran and Saudi Arabia at the front of the line.
Iran and Saudi Arabia put aside their long standing antagonisms to join together in a reconciliation agreement brokered by the government of China. In bringing about this feat, China demonstrated its diplomatic acumen. The Chinese government thereby gained new standing in the global community.
Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed a BRICs zoom meeting with a message while also addressing the Russian cabinet. President Putin said of what is going on in Gaza,
“the death of thousands of people, the mass displacement of the civilian population and the humanitarian catastrophe that has erupted are cause for the deepest concern… When you watch how children are being operated on with no anesthesia – this of course arouses very special feelings.”
In a prior video conference with his own cabinet Putin emphasized the importance of providing aid for the besieged Palestinian people. He said,
“This is a very important, humanitarian, noble mission. We need to help people suffering as a result of the ongoing events. It is our sacred duty to help.” See this.
All these developments make any US-Israel effort to target Iran much more problematic than was the case even a few years ago. This web of connections, with the bonds between China, Russia and Iran in the forefront, have grave implications for the possibility, or even the likelihood, that Israel’s genocidal incursions in Gaza and the West Bank will expand into a regional conflict. In fact this scenario is already developing in Syria, Lebanon and Yemin.
The outcome of a regional war involving Iran seems to be the objective of Benjamin Netanyahu and his mostly Jewish neoconservative colleagues in the United States. Their clamouring for a war with Iran has long been rambunctious to say the least. In neoconservative and in some Zionist circles, the lust for some kind of World War targeting Russia, China and Iran seems especially zealous.
Palestine, Israel, Global Banking, and Settler Colonialism
Zionism encompasses the primary network of power that has come to dominate the US government almost as much as the Israeli government. No upward mobility in the US government is allowed especially in foreign affairs, intelligence, national security, and the Pentagon without the approval of the Zionist operatives in charge of vetting those seeking to obtain or retain high office.
The Zionist network brings together extremely wealthy Jews and their legions of non-Jewish collaborators sometimes referred to as ShabbasGoys. The agents of this alignment of power have come to infiltrate the upper echelons of decision-making in many polities throughout the world. Such Zionist infiltration forms an essential facet in the globalist assault on many institutions of national sovereignty. The only exception to the imposition of Zionist restrictions on national sovereignty is, of course, when it comes to the Jewish state of Israel.
The Gaza Debacle is drawing increased scrutiny not only to the debased national identities of the invading countries, but also to the diabolical role of global Zionism and the various forms of supremacist subjugation to which it often gives rise. The authority of the Zionist cabal depends in large measure on the international banking regime’s system for apportioning assets and liabilities, proprietorships and debts. This system is founded on the transfer from government to private banks, of the power to create new money. Much of this new money is loaned back to governments with compound interest.
This massively inequitable system, now overextended into the realm of deep lunacy and larceny, has for too long directed almost unimaginable wealth to a tiny minority. The fortunes of this minuscule group are based largely on the theft of life’s goodness from their debt slaves.
This enslaved majority must not only pay back their own loans for housing, education and other necessities. They must also bear the tax burdens imposed by their own heavily indebted governments. Representatives of these governments irresponsibly signed away their peoples’ sovereign authority over monetary policy with the effect of enriching the few at the cost of the many.
This tiny enriched minority, including a vastly disproportionate number of Jews, is currently conspiring to expand their assets and control over their debt slaves through a foreboding banking reset. The financial reset is being driven by many of the same people behind the effort to kill off and finalize the dispossession of the indigenous Palestinians. This genocidal dispossession is happening just as a huge reserve of maritime gas just off the shoreline of the Gaza Strip is about to be exploited, as outlined by Veteran War Correspondent Felicity Arbuthnot and Michel Chossudovsky.
This centralizing combination of globalist and imperialist trajectories is driven in large measure by Zionist networks of top-down control. This power dynamic is fast rubbing up against the priorities of the global majority whose leading lights still seek to realize the promise of decolonization. The formal processes of decolonization was overseen largely by the United Nations and it favoured banking cartels. This supposed decolonization was coopted, deformed and exploited by the leading kleptocrats embedded in the upper echelons of international banking.
“Multipolarism”
The regionalist facet of “multipolarism” has been claimed by some of the most aggressive globalists at the WEF and other branches of the worldwide multibillionaires’ club. In the face of this development, the concept of “multipolarism” has concurrently acquired a significant place in the discourse of naysayers opposing the repressive status quo. This informal alliance is sometimes known as “the resistance.”
Multipolarism stands in contradistinction to the bipolarism of the Cold War and the unipolarism of the US superpower that briefly prevailed globally until the American Empire began to come unglued after the 9/11 sabotage.
The invocation of a multipolar world is sometimes attached to the widespread quest for liberation from the constraints the of the bankers’ tyranny that has grown up around the status of the US dollar as the world’s primary currency for international transactions. This liberatory spin on “multipolarism” emerged especially from the analysis of Vladimir Putin, Alexander Dugin and other Russian officials during the course of their country’s war with NATO’s proxy, Ukraine.
As expressed in the creation of BRICS and other agencies, people and peoples especially in the Global South are seeking expanded means of regional and national self-determination. Obviously the prospect of humanity’s liberation from the existing regime of pervasive debt enslavement lies in creating a more enlightened approach to the process of creating and apportioning wealth. This consideration requires a move away from the strangle hold of kleptocratic U.S. dollar denominated banking backed up with the military strength of the US Armed Forces.
Multipolarism has become a code to identify the strengthening alliance between Iran, Russia and China as well as the other BRICS countries, including India. This new alignment of governments and the peoples they represent, forms a major element in the global response to the hideous assault on the Palestinians. Many in the BRICS countries identify easily with the plight of the Palestinians because they draw on the experiences of their ancestors who knew very well what it means to be on the receiving end of European imperialism.
After the Second World War, many of the leaders of decolonization sought independence in the Non-Aligned Movement. This organization was much demonized by the Cold War zealots in the United States. The so-call “neutralists” in the Movement confederated in order to provide some collective protection against the oppressive bipolarism of the Cold War. Those that took part in the Non-Aligned Movement resented being forced to chose between two competing imperial systems. They sought instead to express the independence of their nations by embracing their own indigenous identities.
This Non-Aligned Movement was formed in Bandung Indonesia in 1955. The persistence of imperial rule continues to be very clear to those on the receiving end of the process. One foremost example of this persistence lies in the collaboration between the banking regime centred in the City of London and its Wall Street extensions that jointly direct the military-financial apparatus designed for plunder and coercive control of the world’s debt slaves.
The Leadership of the “Neutralist” Non-Aligned Movement. From left to right, are Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Ghana President Kwame Nkruhma, Egyptian and “United Arab Republic” President, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Indonesia President Sukarno, Yugoslavia President Josip Broz Tito. The Palestinian Struggle Can be Seen as an Extension of the Decolonization Struggle that These Men Endeavoured to Lead in the Face of Much Resistance.
Now more than ever, for much of the global population the current plight of the Palestinians represents the genocidal extremes that emerge from worst facets of settler colonialism. Support for the Palestinian freedom movement is thus an expression of the quest for liberation from the most recent incarnations of imperial oppression.
The Rothschild Family Encourages Christian Zionism. Genesis of the Jewish State since the 1880s
The importance of the disproportionately large Zionist and Jewish role in banking is illustrated by the continuing prominence of the far-flung Rothschild clan. The Rothschild banking dynasty, involving an intertwined complex of related interests, individuals, and families, has a history of exploiting their financial clout derived from usury, to purchase, and then exercise, great political influence.
This process of exerting financial and political leverage in order to achieve pre-conceived geopolitical objectives was well expressed in the role of the French branch of the Rothschild family. Baron Edmond de Rothschild was instrumental in establishing in Palestine the foundations of Jewish settlement and organization. See this.
It is no accident that the Balfour Declaration of 1917, advocating a national home for the Jews in Palestine, was addressed to Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron de Rothschild. Along with Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist point person in the international quest to bring about Jewish statehood, the Baron of Rothschild was the unofficial leader of the Zionist movement in Great Britain.
Some members of the Rothschild dynasty have to this day perceived of the creation, consolidation and expansion of Israel as a key project in their financial and political enterprises. In the Rothschild Archives on the open Internet, an attempt is made to by the family to describe the role of their British friends and colleagues in establishing Israel. It is written
“Surprisingly, the British by and large kept their word, and for at least two decades until the outbreak of the Second World War they allowed the Zionist movement to bring hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants into Palestine. These new arrivals set up hundreds of settlements, including several towns as well as the political, economic, military and cultural infrastructure of the future state of Israel.” See this.
The authors describe the widespread effusion of Zionist enthusiasms in the British ruling class, where “Christian Zionism” was embraced by many
“At this time [circa 1917], there were very strong pro-Zionist feelings by many of the political elite and establishment. Many of Britain’s leaders, including Prime Minister David Lloyd George, and Balfour himself, felt for the Jews and their history. These men were deeply religious Christian Zionists. They had grown up on the Bible; the Holy Land was their spiritual home. They believed that modern Zionism would fulfil a divine promise, and re-settle the Jews in the land of their ancient fathers.”
Lord Balfour expressed his view that the Zionist mission was of such significance that it trumped the interests of the Palestinian Arabs. He wrote in 1919
“The four Great power are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, and future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land…. I do not think that Zionism will hurt the Arabs.”
Memorandum to Lord Curzon, 11 August 1919, cited here.
The evidence is overwhelming that the project of exploiting financial clout to gain control of political processes is a key to the rise of Zionism in the process of creating and expanding the power and territory of Israel. This Zionist quest to achieve Greater Israel forms the essential driving force currently energizing the military campaign to eliminate those who best embody the remaining Palestinian hold on the Occupied Territories. These territories were conquered illegally by the IDF in the Six Day War of 1967. Gaza and the West Bank were part of the zone ear marked for the Arab state called for in the UN’s Resolution 181.
The Al Aqsa Flood and the Religious Politics Behind the Zionist Drive to Raise the Third Temple
One of the most ambitious projects sought by Zionist planners pictures Jerusalem and the raising of a Third Jewish Temple on the present site of the Dome of the Rock. This iconographic Dome is integral to the architecture al-Aqsa mosque.
Some extreme Zionists imagine this Third Temple as a the replacement of the al-Aqsa mosque.
The Third Temple is pictured as the core central point in the plan to make Jerusalem the new imperial capital for the entire world. For those who hold this conception, the Third Temple would be the site of some sort of world high court based on a modern-day adaptation of the Sanhedrin, an association of rabbinical jurists who exercised much power in the era of King Solomon’s Second Temple.
The plan to replace the al-Aqsa mosque, which encompasses the Dome of the Rock, has explosive implications. The Dome of the Rock is the thousand-year-old structure that is the oldest in the Islamic world. The Rock under the Dome is where Prophet Muhammed is said to have communed with the spirits of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus before being transported to heaven. Many Islamic groups, including Hamas, have displayed uncompromising resistance to the assertion of Israeli jurisdiction over the site of the large compound of the al-Aqsa mosque. The mosque itself is built around the Dome of the Rock.
This attempt to assert exclusive Israeli jurisdiction in Jerusalem runs not only against the will of many in the Muslim world. It also violates the UN’s Resolution 181 that in 1947 called for the creation in Palestine of two new states. Resolution 181 also called for the establishment of United Nations jurisdiction over Jerusalem.
Jerusalem was to be a city governed by the UN to protect the harmonious relations between the custodians of the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The disastrous consequences of the failure to enforce this aspect of Resolution 181 are very obvious to those paying attention.
It is no secret that this assertion of Israeli jurisdiction over the al-Aqsa mosque site points ominously towards its malevolent destruction in preparation for the raising of a Third Jewish Temple. The Second Temple was obliterated in 70 AD by Roman soldiers. The most zealous effort yet aimed at dismantling al-Aqsa is led by Netanyahu’s Minister of National Security, the fascistic Jewish Supremacist, Itamar Ben-Gvir.
The importance of the al-Aqsa/Third Temple controversy is marked by the Hamas’ description of its now-legendary prison break from Gaza on October 7 as the al-Aqsa Flood, a product of the al-Aqsa Storm.
Who Had Prior Knowledge of the Events of October 7? What Are the Politics of Hamas Taking Captives?
As in the US Indian wars, the Gaza Massacre is being pushed ahead by the invaders as if their murderous aggressions are absolutely exempt from any legal accountability, let alone ethical responsibility. The protagonists seem to derive forms of especially sadistic pleasure from engaging in terrible atrocities in the clear light of day and realizing that nobody is willing to stop them.
They can look down at the rest of the world from their high place of unaccountable violence. They can think there is no doubt they are truly above the law. Will that hypothesis prove correct? How far can they go before meeting any obstructions or resistance to their unrestrained inhumanity, equipped as they are with some of the most high-tech killing devices on earth.
As for cynically misrepresenting medical centres as military installations, international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, have from their inception made a priority of creating prohibitions on attacking hospitals especially in times of war. See this.
What is it about this ghoulish display of hatred towards the Palestinian captives in Gaza, as if these so-called “human animals” are expendable specimens in a perverse zoo of Israeli depravity?
What is giving the aggressors such an amplified sense of triumphant self-worth by expressing their capacity to wantonly slaughter their targeted population, however and whenever they want. The aggressive warfare pushed against mostly unarmed civilians is based on nothing more than a dubious and still formally un-investigated interpretation of the contested events surrounding the Gaza prison break of October 7.
Beginning on October 7, many Israeli observers, often veterans of the IDF, pointed to the impossibility of a Palestinian group even approaching, let alone breaking through, the Gaza prison walls at many points. The Gaza walls are at the core of an elaborate and closely monitored complex of warning devices. These devices are meant to trigger automatically alarms together with immediate military responses if any unplanned motion around the fences is detected. Any claim that the fiasco was due to “intelligence failures” alone is simply not credible. Indeed any such claim should arouse more suspicion that some kind of cover up is underway, as it almost certainly is.
I discussed these matters in an essay published on Oct. 8. 2023. In it I identified credible voices who already expressed the view that the Gaza prison break of the Hamas fighters, known as the Qassam Brigades, could not have happened without some sort of complicity on the part of Israeli authorities who held back military responses for several hours. One of those authorities would have had to have been Benjamin Netanyahu himself.
The official narrative of October 7 showed more sign of coming apart on November 8 when allegations arose on social media that the Associated Press, CNN, Reuters, New York Times and freelance photographers in Gaza
“knew in advance of the October 7 Palestinian Resistance counter-offensive and even collaborated with Hamas in order to be on location to get their shots during the operation.”
While this interpretation is highly speculative and unproven at this point, it does suggest something is not right. Where there is smoke, there frequently is fire.
Rather than ignoring this story or making light of it, the Israeli government did the opposite. Danny Danon, Israel’s Representative to the United Nations, basically condemned to death those who sought to take advantage of the prior knowledge by being at the right place at the right time to take pictures. If the journalists had prior knowledge, then who else did?
Are factions on the Israeli government covering up the story by murdering, or threatening to murder, those who know too much?
Is Danny Danon promising to murder those that may have exploited prior knowledge of the events of October 7?
Or is his message rather a threat aimed at those who did have prior knowledge?
Is he saying that they will be killed if they even whisper another word about their prior knowledge? If they don’t say anything but did have prior knowledge, aren’t they also implicating the media venues for which they work?
An expert at manipulating the imagery of Islamic terrorism to achieve political objectives that would otherwise be unattainable (as in 9/11), Netanyahu has a history of trying to manipulate Hamas.
Netanyahu has exploited this skill especially in his quest to avoid being forced into any two state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian impasse.
Because of the Israeli response to the events of October 7, the whole concept of revisiting the main unfulfilled facet of UN Resolution 181, namely the failure to establish a new Arab state side by side with Israel, is being brought forward including by China.
The more the Israeli government tries to block this outcome, the more it calls into question its own legitimacy as a violator of the main international instrument on which the Jewish state now stands.
Since October 7, many other whistle blowers and researchers have come forward with substantial evidence that there are all kinds of problems with the Israeli government’s official narrative. There are problems not only in the story of October 7, but in accounts of the genocidal campaign which followed and, it seems now on November 30, will be renewed once the ceasefire is over.
Clearly on October 7 Hamas fighters did kill some Israeli civilians, but not to the extent originally claimed. Many of the most horrific reported atrocities, like brutal rapes or beheading babies and putting one of them in an oven to be cooked, have been shown to be false. The concocted imagery of Palestinians on a wild killing spree for its own sake does not conform with the existing evidence of the Qassam Brigade fighters acting in accord with a well orchestrated military plan.
The fake but widely reported story of the 40 beheaded Israeli babies has become an especially telling example of the many media deceptions concerning the actions of the Qassam Brigades. Presumably not all Palestinians that escaped the Gaza Prison were Hamas soldiers. If some violent acts were done by Palestinian individuals acting in their own private capacity outside the Hamas chain of command, the nature of such crimes need to be interpreted through that lens.
Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal is a calm voice of reason in a maelstrom of overheated rhetoric. In an interview with Chris Hedges, Blumenthal explained that the primary strategy of Hamas was to take captives, but especially IDF soldiers if possible.
The strategic advantage Hamas could only be obtained by keeping Israelis alive so they could be taken back to Gaza and used as objects of negotiation. The possibilities of starting negotiations with an exchange of captives for Palestinian prisoners held in in Israeli jails has already come to pass. Where might this process lead?
Recent events in Gaza and Israel have illustrated for much of the global community the perilous implications for world stability of leaving the Israeli/Palestinian impasse largely unaddressed and certainly unresolved. Hence the Hamas strategy of seizing hostages in the face of many decades of Israeli intransigence has been vindicated by developments on the ground. What alternatives were left to the leadership of the Palestinian people short of utter submission to an uncompromising genre of Zionist supremacism?
Blumenthal goes into detail, explaining that many of the murders attributed to Hamas were in fact committed by the IDF. This phenomenon is apparently connected to what some have identified as the on-again-off-again Hannibal Doctrine. Its purpose is to prevent any Israeli hostages, but especially military personnel, from falling into Palestinian hands. The aim is to avoid giving Palestinian organizations some power to bargain and negotiate with their oppressors.
IDF pilots have given testimony explaining how they blew up homes and military institutions where Hamas fighters were holding captives. The result was the IDF’s killing of many Israelis along with Palestinians. Many of these deaths stemmed from the assault of Apache helicopters, of course supplied to Israel by the US government. These Apaches fired Hellfire missiles. The Apaches also sprayed crowds of people composed of both Israelis and Palestinians, with barrages of bullets.
For instance, the youths attending Nova Electronic Music Party were killed by both Hamas fighters and projectiles from Apache helicopters. IDF Hellfire missiles seem to have caused the burning out of many of the frequently-photographed vehicles around the music festival. According to Blumenthal, public opinion has hardened due to the reception of mixtures of outright lies with true and partially true accounts of violent episodes.
According to Blumenthal, “the propaganda became so extreme and lurid” that the Israeli public has been “whipped up into such a fervour that they would not stand for any negotiations with Hamas.” It turned out that this assessment was an overstatement. Events after he spoke with Chris Hedges have proven this aspect of Blumenthal’s testimony was wrong.
As Blumenthal sees it, “Israeli society is primed for genocide.” A disastrous consensus seems to be emerging that the process of initiating a war on the Palestinians in 1948 should be brought to its conclusion by “finishing the job.”
What the protagonists have done, the researcher argues,
“is to force the essential dynamic of Zionism into an accelerated mode… Zionism has demonstrated its unwillingness to accommodate the native population as it seeks to consolidate its settler-colonial presence. And so it must move towards genocide as all the other settler-colonial movements have done.”
Blumenthal concludes with a reminder that the US government gave all of Israel’s actions against the Palestinians, logistical support as well as the “green light” of consent. The United States, therefore, is equally culpable with the government of Israel for the very clear case of genocide in Gaza.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Looking out at the World from Canada.
Part III. Forthcoming
Dr. Anthony Hall is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Read Part I:
By , December 01, 2023
No comments:
Post a Comment