Poll: 51% of Syrians favor peace with Israel for Golan pullout

Posted by Alex.


By The Associated Press

Fifty-one percent of Syrians said they would favor peace with Israel if it withdraws from the Golan Heights and recognizes Syrian sovereignty there, according to a poll released Wednesday.

Peace negotiations between Israel and Syrian broke down in 2000, without determining the fate of the Golan Heights which Israel captured from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War, and annexed in 1981.

The poll also revealed that three-fourths of Syrians support financial assistance for Iraqi fighters, the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as the militant group Hezbollah which Israel fought in Lebanon last summer.The poll was sponsored by Terror Free Tomorrow, a bipartisan organization that seeks to erode support for international terrorism. Its advisory board includes Senator John McCain of Arizona, a Republican presidential candidate, and former House Speaker Thomas Foley, a Democrat from Washington state.

Earlier this month, the group released a survey of Iranians that found most favored their country developing nuclear weapons.

In the poll that dealt largely with U.S.-Syrian relations, most respondents said they favor working with the United States to seek an end to the Iraq war, yet also support financing Iraqi insurgents and other Middle East groups the U.S. considers terrorists.

The survey also found that an overwhelming number of Syrians consider trade and political relations with Western countries important, but they narrowly oppose closer ties with the U.S.

The United States has largely sought to isolate Syria, which it considers a major destabilizing influence in the Middle East

The U.S. has repeatedly accused Syria of allowing foreign fighters to cross its border into Iraq to join forces with al-Qaida and anti-U.S. insurgent groups, which Syria denies. Syria has also been accused of helping the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, Palestinian radicals and other militant groups.

In the poll, 63 percent of Syrians said they favor their country working with the U.S. to resolve the war in Iraq. By a slight 44 percent to 39 percent margin, most said they oppose fighters crossing from Syria into Iraq.

In addition, seven in 10 said Syria should refuse U.S. investments and trade to create more jobs in Syria, with similar numbers opposing U.S. investments in energy refineries and U.S. humanitarian aid.Even though they do not support the U.S. – in fact that's an understatement, they're very negative about the U.S. – they still want to work with the U.S., said Ken Ballen, president of Terror Free Tomorrow. They still want the war resolved, and they're willing for their government to work with the U.S. to resolve it.The telephone survey of 1,004 adult Syrians was conducted in Arabic for Terror Free Tomorrow by D3 Systems of Vienna, Virginia, from July 11 to 14. An estimated 75 percent to 80 percent of Syrian households have landline telephones.

The calls were made from a country near Syria that Terror Free Tomorrow did not identify, saying it wanted to protect the interviewers' confidentiality.

Telephone interviews were used to speed the research process and because in-person questioners in Syria may face harassment, the group said.

The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. The results were weighted, or adjusted, to ensure that responses reflected the actual number of Syrians living in rural areas, and those over age 55.


Comments (15)

Joshua said:

Alex, this poll seems quite accurate to me. The Syrian public supports the governments broad foreign policy strategy, as a whole. One finds certain sectors of the public who stand against certain policies, but on the whole, Syrians are in agreement with the government on this, even where there seem to be obvious contradictions.

On the question of helping the US resolve the conflict, people will say yes because they feel very badly for the Iraqis. Anything that will stop the bloodshed people will say yes to. At the same time, most Syrians are furious about the US sponsored transfer of power away from Sunnis to Shiites. Many Syrians have an exaggerated fear of Iran and Iraqi Shiites. Consequently, they are in favor of Syrian support for what they would describe as main-stream Sunni resistance organizations, which they see to represent people much like themselves. There is almost no support for al-Qaida groups among the broad Syrian public.

August 1st, 2007, 9:27 am


t_desco said:

Magistrate concludes probe into Ain Alaq twin bus bombings

Investigations have been concluded in the February 13 Ain Alaq twin bus bombings that left three people dead and 21 wounded, a judicial report said on Tuesday. Investigations had earlier determined that the attacks had been plotted by Al-Qaeda-inspired Fatah al-Islam militants, which the Lebanese Army has been battling at the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp in North Lebanon since May 20.

The questioning of suspects, namely Mustafa Ibrahim Siyo, who allegedly planted a bomb in one of the two buses, revealed all those in custody belonged to the “external branch” of Fatah al-Islam headed by an individual known as Abou Yazan.

The fugitive head of Fatah al-Islam, Shaker al-Abssi, had been plotting various attacks from inside the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp and instructed the group’s external wing, which was responsible for executing attacks.

Right before they launched attacks on the two buses, Fatah al-Islam militants were supplied with explosives in the Nahr al-Bared camp and were provided with accommodations in various locations in the Metn region and Beirut, namely Ain Aar, Qornet Shehwan, Dora and Achrafieh, in order to observe the activity of buses there.
(The Daily Star, August 01, 2007)

Abu Yazan died fighting alongside Saddam al-Haj Dib whose brother is reportedly suspected of having ties to al-Qa’ida.

Brammertz said in his latest report that “the choice of the date” for the attack may have been deliberate:

“At this stage, no forensic links between the Ain Alaq bombings and any of the other cases under investigation have been firmly established. Evidence and statements collected by the Commission and by the Lebanese authorities indicate that the choice of the date, on the eve of the second anniversary of the assassination of Rafik Hariri, may however be connected with the motives for the attack.”
(Brammertz VI, §66)

(my emphasis)

Brammertz seems to contradict this earlier report by As-Safir:

“Judicial sources told As Safir that the international committee investigating the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri and related crimes had requested to examine the fingerprints of two Fatah al-Islam militants killed during raids in north Lebanon last month, including that of Abu Yazan.

It said examination results matched the fingerprints found on bullet shells used in the Gemayel murder.”
(“Syria Hands Over Stolen Car in Gemayel’s Assassination to Lebanon”, Naharnet, 09 Jul 07)

However, one should note that the Brammertz report only says that “no forensic links … have been firmly established”.

Some reports indicate that further tests are underway:

One anonymous source told Naharnet that

“further laboratory tests to be conducted abroad will provide the definite answer”.
(“Car Used in Gemayel’s Killing Busted in North Lebanon”, Naharnet, 29 Jun 07)

“Bodies of the gunmen and samples taken from the car were under lab tests to determine identities of all the culprits who gunned down Gemayel”.
(“Jibril’s PFLP-GC Has Hand in Gemayel’s Killing That was Carried Out by Fatah al-Islam”, Naharnet, 06 Jul 07)

August 1st, 2007, 10:21 am


SimoHurtta said:

The mother of Israeli “intelligence” propaganda DEBKAfile tells today that Damascus has deferred its war plans from late summer to November.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the latest intelligence update on Syria’s intentions reached Jerusalem via Washington in the last few days. It indicated that Syria’s political and military leaders had rescheduled the start of hostilities against Israel on the Golan for the second two weeks of November, 2007, postponing their original planning by more than two months.

According to those sources, Syria plans to kick off its offensive with a series of terrorist raids by commando units on civilian villages, military bases and highways, as well as cross-border fire on IDF vehicles and positions guarding the border.

At that stage, the Syrian command will be testing Israel’s military responses before mapping out its next moves accordingly.

Naturally DEBKA doesn’t bother to explain what military and political sense or benefits would that kind of attack have for Syria. Syrian political and military leadership knows without doubt the Israeli military doctrine and response method (= bombing to stone age with the slightest excuse) without testing it.

Certainly Syrian leadership knows the Israeli military capacity and the unlimited military support Israel gets from USA, so how on earth would the Syrians think that get Golan back through a direct war. Simon Peres said in Judith Miller’s interview: And I think that [the Israeli nuclear program at] Dimona helped us achieve peace with Egypt. Sadat said it very openly to Yigal Yadin, who was deputy prime minister at the time. And it saved us from many other catastrophes.

Seems that the Syrian president was not “aware” of Dimona, when Israel made peace with Egypt and Jordan. Or maybe the more probable reason was that Israel did not want peace.

Now there is much discussion about the Arab peace initiative, but has anybody ever heard about an official Israeli peace initiative or a plan to solve the problems during the past 40 years?

August 1st, 2007, 11:45 am


Antoun said:


I agree with your assessment of DEBKAfile.

This propaganda tool even seems to contradict official Israeli comments. Israeli military officials a month ago stated that Syria was deploying its forces in a defensive position, anticipating an Israeli attack. So if the Israelis are making such assessments, I wonder from where DEBKAfile are receiving their information?

As for Israel not wanting peace, again I concur. Such great emphasis from the world has been placed on the behaviour of Arab states that Israel’s behaviour is completely overshadowed. One can only conclude that the idea is to keep the spotlight on Arab misbehaviour to save Israel from scrutiny for not truly desiring peace.

Israel is the power of the region, we’re all aware of it. She could have peace tomorrow if she really wanted it.

But what options are there for Israel?

I believe the right-of-return is the core issue. If the Israelis were to accept these refugees, they know that within 50 years the notion of an exclusive Jewish state will become a memory. Demographics are a serious problem for Israel’s longevity.

If the Israelis succeed in preventing the Palestinians from returning (either by war, or by American pressure on their proxy allies), then instability will remain, and Lebanon will forever be in conflict. If Lebanon doesn’t settle the Palestinians, then the Palestinians will probably revolt. I’m sure anyone can comprehend that after 60 years of living with rats you’d get pretty fed up with it. If the Lebanese do settle the Palestinians, that will tip the fragile sectarian balance to extreme boiling point. And any conflict in Lebanon will evidently involve Israel, so it comes back to them. However, I’m sure Israel won’t be disturbed by Lebanon’s eternal chaos.

If Syria sells the Palestinians out by signing a peace agreement without consideration for Palestine’s future (as Egypt and Jordan did), then instability and chaos will remain. The Palestinian question needs to be resolved for true peace to prevail in this region.

So yes, Israel is avoiding peace, but the price for a just peace is incredibly high for the Israelis. However, a Syrian-Israeli peace agreement will inflict a severe blow to the Palestinians. Why wouldn’t Israel take this opportunity, at least for the short-term benefits?

The Palestinians are making a mess out of themselves. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have all sold them out. Who is the only Arab country left that is defying Israel? Syria. It is in the Palestinians’ interest to jump into the middle of any future Israeli-Syrian dialogue, it’s the last boat left and its still boarding.

Otherwise they’ll be left in the dark.

August 1st, 2007, 12:49 pm


Ziad said:

This poll seems credible if are concerned the educated syrians and the middle class but Dr Joshua ,the problem with this regime is what it does on the ground which is far from the populstic slogan it use,so it’s clear for all syrians that the asads dont believe in arabism nor islam.

August 1st, 2007, 2:25 pm


Alex said:


The only part that I found surprising in that poll was the 51% support for getting the Golan back through negotiations. How else do the others hope to get the Golan back?!

August 1st, 2007, 2:32 pm


Kamal said:


I think the question was “If Israel returns the Golan, would you accept a peace deal?”, not “What method should be used to liberate the Golan?”. The latter question should be asked though. I think a significant chunk of the Syrian public would choose an option other than “negotiations” (masalan: “resistance”) as exemplified by Ausamaa and other tough-talking bloggers.

Maybe something similar was asked in the poll? It would be nice to see the actual wording of the questions. The survey is not up on their website yet. http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/template.php?section=PL

If the question were asked, I’d be interested in breaking down the meaning of a response like “resistance” – does that include “remaining steadfast” (patience, waiting for the international climate to change), “guerrilla action in the Golan”, “conventional war with Israel”, “resistance by proxy in Palestine and Lebanon”, etc. Respondents should be able to check multiple options if they think various methods should be used in tandem.

The poll shows most Syrians support their government’s policy of backing foreign militias but I wonder if those people tie this to the Golan issue, i.e. whether they see it as a the regime using proxies to pressure Israel, or whether they view it idealistically as “Arab solidarity” or something similar.

One way to test whether the Syrian public supports “pragmatic resistance” or “principled resistance” would be to ask whether Syrians would object to the regime making alliances of convenience with groups they ideologically oppose. On Palestine no such pragmatic vs principled conflict exists because Arab (people’s) belief in the justice of the cause is near-unanimous. But what about supporting jihadis in Iraq and Lebanon?

The question could be asked hypothetically, without asking respondents to judge whether Syria is in fact undertaking such a policy: “Would you support the regime if it decided to help al-Qa’ida fight Americans in Iraq and attack anti-Syrian forces in Lebanon?” or “Do you think it would be a good idea for the regime to help jihadist elements for [insert specific tactical objectives]?” If most respondents say no, that means respondents view support for foreign militants as a matter of principle (support for a just Arab cause) not a matter of pragmatism (using any means available to harm enemy interests).

And while we’re at it, the relative cynicism/idealism of the public towards the regime can be tested by asking respondents: “Why do you think Syria supports Hamas/Iraqi resistance/Hizballa?” Options can include: Arab solidarity; regime survival; Syrian national interests (as opposed to regime interests); etc. More than one answer can be selected but they should be ranked from “biggest motivation” on down.

Finally I’d like to see a “hypocrisy poll” that begins by reversing the scenario and asking the Syrian public (once again, asking only hypothetically, to avoid forcing respondents to determine whether these things are actually happening):

What is your stance on: Lebanon supporting the Syrian Opposition? Lebanon arming a Syrian guerrilla movement to liberate the Golan? Jordan funding the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood? Saudi Arabia arming Sunni militias to fight Israel?… I’m guessing Syrians would overwhelmingly reject any such foreign interference.

You can make it more complicated by choosing a cause the public supports, like Palestine, but a method the regime opposes, like using Syria as a launching pad for attacks on Israel without Syrian permission. “Would you support the Palestinian Resistance’s use of Syria as a base from which to attack Israel, without being authorized to do so by the Syrian government?” And further complicate the question by describing the Palestinian resistors as “Saudi-backed” or “Iranian-backed” or “Hariri-backed” and see how that affects the response…

Next, the poll could re-ask the questions on Syrian support for foreign militias. Would the psychological effect of answering the first batch of questions affect responses on the second batch? This tests responders’ tolerance for double-standards. Having just rejected the notion of, say, Jordanian support for the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, would it be more difficult for a respondent to accept Syrian support for the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood? And having rejected Lebanese support for Syrian Opposition, would it be more difficult to accept Syrian support for the Lebanese Opposition? And so on.

OK I’m getting carried away with my polling fantasy. Comments are welcome.

August 1st, 2007, 3:37 pm


Alex said:

Kamal that was very good! : )

Quick notes:

There are many factors that influence the degree to which a majority of Syrians support their country’s roles in conflicts at the borders of Syria. I think there are two significant ones.

First, if they conclude that the characters on the other side are “not good people” … this includes President Bush and his VP and administration in general (but not “America” or the American people) and Jumblatt and Geagea (Not all the Lebanese). This also includes the “Arab Moderate” leaders such as the Jordanian King which no one in Syria respects (they consider him a lightweight US intelligence agent).

Second, I think Syrians, being cautious and risk averse in general, take into consideration the likelihoods that their country’s intervention in neighboring conflicts will lead to a relatively successful outcome, either for Syria or for the people they would like to help … so, Syrians probably believe that the “Iraqi resistance” to US occupation will continue to make Iraq’s occupation too difficult to sustain for ever, and Syrians probably believe that Hammas will continue to be popular among the Palestinian people, and they believe that Aoun and Nasrallah will continue to be popular with over 50% of the Lebanese people…

Think about the mathematical expectations model that I alway s link to … support for an option A or B depends on the desirability of the outcomes associated with each option and it depends also on the probability of success if you took that option.

Finally … you should know that while Syria did not support Jordanian (or Saudi) fundamentalists in orer to overthrow those regimes … both Jordan and Saudi Arabia did support the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood in 1979-1982 as they killed over a thousand Syrians in terrorist attacks all over Syria, and as they tried to assassinate the president of Syria (Hafez Assad)…

August 1st, 2007, 4:31 pm


why-discuss said:


As part of a peace deal, if Israel is ready to pay financial compensations to palestinians for not ‘returning’, the question would be “Where would they settle, if they can’t return?
If the UN takes this problem seriously and get a commitment from foreign countries that they will accept them as permanent resident or citizens (US, canada, Australia, Scandinavia, South america) there is a chance many palestinians would take the compensation and opt for emigration, especially the educated ones. The others will stay where they are and that means continuous problems for Lebanon and all arab countries that are hosting them if they are not accepted as permanent residents and given rights to work etc… I guess most palestinians would be more favorable to emigrate in foreign countries in view of the sufferings and instability they have endured in arab countries over the years (Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq ). In Syria, despite the fact they enjoy a better status, economical considerations may be an important factor to decide to emigrate. Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese are doing just that now and without compensations…

August 1st, 2007, 5:03 pm


Kamal said:

Thanks Alex.

> First, if they conclude that the characters on the other side are
> “not good people”

So you are saying principle matters to Syrians and not just pragmatism. So, what about forming alliances with “not good people” when it suits Syrian interests – would Syrians accept this? Or is any Syrian ally automatically seen as “good” simply by virtue of being an ally? For example, Hariri Sr. and Jumblatt are ex-Syrian puppets – how were they perceived by Syrians back then?

> Second… support for an option A or B depends on the
> desirability of the outcomes associated with each option and it
> depends also on the probability of success if you took that
> option.

Aha – so pragmatism ALSO matters, not just principle. Well, let’s add that to my dream poll. For every tactic Syrians support using to liberate the Golan, respondents should explain why they approve of it: “Because it’s the right thing to do”; “Because it is most likely to effectively achieve Syrian interests”… One can support, in principle, Palestinians’ right to resist, while viewing it as a futile tactic. Conversely one might find supporting Islamists morally distasteful yet effective for harassing US forces and foiling US plans.

> Finally … you should know that while Syria did not support
> Jordanian (or Saudi) fundamentalists in orer to overthrow those
> regimes …

Really? Living in Jordan opened my eyes to Syrian-Jordanian rivalry, and Jordanian public perception is that Syria maliciously supports Jordanian Islamists to destabilize the regime. In Iraq, insurgents are obviously interested in overthrowing the US-propped regime. In Lebanon, the Opposition’s aim is to topple the government (and I believe Syria is using jihadis to achieve this by force). In Gaza, Syria took sides in a civil war and supported a revolt against “the regime”… All these groups must be seen, at least in part, as “civil warriors”, but I believe that when Syrians express support for these groups, they are thinking of them as “The Resistance”. This should be explored. Furthermore, each of the above groups can be broadly characterized as “Islamist”…

It’s tricky to lump the above forces together and label them “The Resistance”. Like other “resistance movements” in history, these militias have another facet, as armed antagonists in domestic power struggles. How these groups are defined – “resistance” or “parties to violent domestic disputes” – will, of course, influence responses. If I define a Sunni insurgent group as “resisting US occupation” it’s easy to support them, but what if I tell you this group also slaughters Shi’a civilians? Do Arabs support Hamas as resistors of Israeli Occupation, or as Fatah-killers?

August 1st, 2007, 5:15 pm


ausamaa said:

Please do not show the results of this Poll to Bush and the neocons -or what is left of them in power-, they may drop their “change the Syrian regime” approach and replace it with an approach like: “change the Syrian people”.

August 1st, 2007, 5:43 pm


ausamaa said:

And “aha”, it seems after all that the Syrian PEOPLE are in step with the REGIME on most things. Contrary to what some “realists” try to tell us. Or tell themselves, rather!

And Kamal,

By saying: “I think the question was “If Israel returns the Golan, would you accept a peace deal?”, not “What method should be used to liberate the Golan?”. The latter question should be asked though”, it seems that you missed the whole point. Because if (Fifty-one percent of Syrians said they would favor peace with Israel if it withdraws from the Golan Heights and recognizes Syrian sovereignty there, according to a poll released Wednesday), then this means to me that the other 49% do not “favor” a peace deal with Israel EVEN if it returns the Golan, meaning that they think Israel should more, which in turn should help answer the question you asked, being: “or whether they view it idealistically as “Arab solidarity” or something similar..”.

Yesssss Sir. I believe it is what you reffered to as the “Arab Soldiarity” or something similar..

P.S. Kamal, I really noted nd liked your term: “or something similar”. The Syrians actually refere to “the something similar” as Duty, Arabisem, and National Arab Dignity, Pride, Resistance to Oppresion, love of their Country and Nation… etc..etc.. and the other “similar things” you must have heard from many Syrians over the years! See, we Syrians are brain-washed from birth! Must be the milk thing! Or “somthing similar”!


August 1st, 2007, 6:05 pm


Alex said:


there is an interaction effect that can heavily affect the degree of support.

What factors affect our decisions?

* Selective Attention: choosing which cues to process and which to filter out; choices generally based on expectancies based on past experience.

* Situational Awareness: the combined operation in perception, working memory, and LTM that enable the decision maker to entertain hypotheses about the current and future state of the world.
o Iterative hypothesis testing
* Risks (perceived)
* Values.
* What is the decision?
o Choice of action
o Simple (go/no-go) vs Complex (which course?).
* Uncertainty (of consequences of decision)
* MetaCognition: our own awareness of our own knowledge, effort, and thought processes. Very important predictor of Situational Awareness and the quality of the decision making process.

In addition to Meta Cognition, the part that you are trying to refer to is stage1 of the process … selective attention is our way of convincing our selves that we are satisfying our conscious (good, caring, consistent, fair …) while in reality we are satisfying the subconscious (Childish, selfish, violent, revengeful, impulsive) .. so Syrians might not pay attention to the points what you are raising (consistency in this case … would we like it if Jordan backs the Syrian Mujahideen?)

Read Herbert Alexander Simon’s “behaviorism” to see how wonderfully complex is our decision making process.

Back to Jordan .. Syria’s alleged and perceived “backing” of Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood did not lead to killing a 1000+ jordanians.

I can tell you from my endless discussions with Syrians that they really care about how good or bad their country is. They are very proud of hosting 1.5 million Iraqis, they are now convinced that the Hariri murder was not ordered from Syria. two years ago when Syrians believed that the opposite is true, they actually mostly sympathized with the M14 group and many were ashamed of their governrment. Same in Iraq .. at the beginning when it was not yet clear that this American administration was NOT really interested in spreading democracy, Syrians were upset when they heard American complaints that Syria is sending Jihadists to Iraq.

That was then … Syrians overwhelmingly changed their evaluation of who is good and who is bad .. you can say that most of them trust that Bashar wants good things for the neighbors too, and not only for Syria.

Joshua? do you agree that two years ago you were getting much different opinions in Syria regarding Syria’s roles in Lebanon and Iraq?

August 1st, 2007, 6:18 pm


Kamal said:


> Back to Jordan .. Syria’s alleged and perceived “backing” of
> Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood did not lead to killing a 1000+
> jordanians.

Sure, but a Jordanian might attribute this to Jordan’s effective repression of domestic Islamists and disruption of Syrian plots. Of course, Syrian support for Islamists in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon HAS led to thousands of deaths. We could also reach further into the past and bring up Syrian support for Palestinian militias in Jordan and Lebanon, which led to the deaths of thousands of Jordanians, Lebanese and Palestinians… (I am not holding Syria single-handedly responsible for these deaths, just like Saudi Arabia cannot be held single-handedly responsible for the war between the regime and the Muslim Brotherhood. Syria is one player among many. But the regime has blood on its hands from its involvement in all these conflicts, and has earned the enmity of millions of Iraqis, Palestinians, Jordanians and Lebanese.)


> And “aha”, it seems after all that the Syrian PEOPLE are in step
> with the REGIME on most things.

> Please do not show the results of this Poll to Bush and the
> neocons -or what is left of them in power-, they may drop their
> “change the Syrian regime” approach and replace it with an
> approach like: “change the Syrian people”.

If the Syrian people are simply brainwashed into supporting the regime or terrorized into acquiescence, there is hope for the future. But if they are fully aware of their regime’s cynical and murderous regional and domestic policies and still support them, then the Syrian people deserve to be “changed”.

August 1st, 2007, 6:44 pm


ausamaa said:


From this Poll’s result it is apparent that most Syrians are both aware and supportive of the regime. Delving into the “definitions” of the “cynical merderous” is a subjective and ifferent matter.

And if you want to change such “Syrian People”, would that be your first priority or do you think that you can start by changing the “Israeli People” first who are also aware and supportive of the Zionist Entity’s “cynical and murderous regional and domestic policies and still support them”?

August 1st, 2007, 7:50 pm


Post a comment

Neoprofit AI Immediate Venture Instant Prosperity