Friday, July 6, 2012

The Higgs Boson and God

It's rare that a discovery in physics is headline news. This week's announcement regarding the Higgs Boson particle was even more sensational due to it also being called "the God particle"; one headline read "Discovery of 'God particle' may explain how world came to exist." And yidden everywhere were scratching their heads, trying to figure out if it was Good For The Jews or Bad For The Jews.

Modern physics is hugely significant to monotheism. As I discuss in detail in The Challenge Of Creation (newly reprinted and available online here), the entire enterprise of modern science emerged from the monotheistic worldview. To quote Loren Eisley:
"The philosophy of experimental science… began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
The more thoughtful physicists wonder at the extraordinary nature of scientific laws. Where did they come from? Why do they have the form that they do? Almost every other possible configuration of the laws of nature would result in a universe near-infinitely less interesting than our own. The Higgs Boson is part of this extraordinary order, being the particle that gives mass to matter and enables a universe with structure instead of a bland sea of energy.

Another theologically significant aspect of modern physics is that the secrets of the universe are able to be unraveled by the human mind. It's a pity that there are Jewish educators who seek to constantly highlight cases of scientists changing their minds, as though this fundamentally undermines the entire enterprise. The scientific enterprise is an amazing testimony not only to the wonder of the universe, but also to the wonder of the human brain. Not only does the universe follow an orderly set of laws; it is a set of laws that can be comprehended by the human mind. As several physicists have noted, it gives the distinct impression that the whole universe was designed for man to be able to grasp. The Higgs Boson was predicted to exist, and was discovered to actually exist fifty years later.

Finally, the Higgs Boson is significant in that it fills a major gap in our knowledge and ties together disparate entities. As such, it plays a crucial role in understanding the overall unity of the universe. Not only did modern science emerge from monotheism, it continues to support monotheism insofar as it discovers the unity present in the universe. As Rav Hirsch writes:
"In light of the foregoing, would Judaism not be justified in viewing this idea of a universal unity, which inquiring minds have already pieced together from the textbook of the universe and which man’s consciousness yearns to express, as nothing less than the long-awaited triumph of the truth of Judaism? This is the truth with which, thousands of years ago, Judaism first appeared in the midst of a chaotic multitude of gods, proclaiming that there is only one, sole God in heaven and on earth, and that all the phenomena of the universe are founded upon His Law. This idea, the concept of the Unity of God, is the truth for which Judaism has endured a course of martyrdom without parallel in world history."
And so, I would firmly conclude that the discovery of the Higgs Boson is Good For The Jews.

Shabbat Shalom! (And happy birthday to me.)


44 comments:

  1. Okay look, this is getting tiresome already.
    It's not the "God particle". A frustrated physicist years ago tried to write a book about the search for the boson and titled it "The Goddamned Particle" to express his feelings. His publisher, thinking this would be offensive, shorted it to "The God Particle".
    No religious issues. No attempt to prove or disprove His existence. Just a marketing thing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Any chance you can explain what Higgs-Boson actually is? I keep reading how important a discovery it is and how it helps explain existence but have been unable to find anyone explain what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Small corrections:

    It is my understanding that the Higgs boson particle does not give mass to matter, as it itself has mass, but rather is a byproduct of the law that gives mass to matter, the Higgs field.

    It's also not "Higgs-Boson", as if it's two names, but Higgs was the predictor, and boson is the name of the particle.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great post!
    I just have one critique:
    "It's a pity that there are Jewish educators who seek to constantly highlight cases of scientists changing their minds, as though this fundamentally undermines the entire enterprise."
    -- That might not be the reason these educators highlight these cases. It could also be that they enjoy knocking scientists, who are sometimes cocksure, off their pedestal. (Hopefully, these educators realize that scientists run the gamut from humble seekers to arrogant know-it-alls.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ironically, this particle was labeled in an accursed manned, not a Divine one -- the history is briefly noted in places such as this Economist article.


    Happy 29th :) Birthday!

    ReplyDelete
  6. While not qualified to discuss quantum electrodynamics (in true blog fashion, I'll put in my 2 cents anyway), I must caution that the news from CERN about the apparent finding of the anticipated Higgs particle is overblown. At this point, what they appear to have discovered is a fleeting particle of an energy consistent with the theorized Higgs boson particle. We'll have to wait until measurements of its properties are made to evaluate th e claimed finding of this long-sought particle and the implications of the discovery.

    Its peculiar name, supposedly derived from the original "goddamn" particle appelation (due to its elusivity) is misleading. What appears to be of primary interest is the Higgs field which would give rise to the particle in question, and which may be related to both the vacuum 'field' and cosmic inflation, i.e., the very beginnings of the universe and 'dark energy'.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Happy birthday!

    In my understanding, if the finding of the Higgs boson is eventually [soon, it appears] confirmed as being a transition point for mass, the consequent value would be for the current understanding of the standard model of physics.The Higgs hypothesis is about "stress-testing" the standard model by making a prediction which, if NOT found to be true, might necessitate a change in the standard model. The results appear to be borne out and, therefore, those parts of the standard model upon which the Higgs is based do not [yet] need to be changed or tweaked.

    If anything, the confirmation of the Higgs hypothesis reinforces Thomas Huxley's insistence on agnosticism...at least within the 4 amos of science. One category that the standard model....and much else in modern science... does NOT bear out is anything having to do with the supernatural [atheistic, monotheistic, or polytheistic].

    Though modern science is mostly the child of monotheisim, it is a child that has not been "good for" its parent. The scientific approach has been iconoclastic to the mysticisms based on the literal veracity of the material world as presented in the Bible.

    The scientific approaches to the authorship and singularity of biblical texts is much more of a challenge to non-mystical observance. This is, perhaps, because mystical observance does not really know [in any functional sense] the state of science regarding the Masoretic text.

    Believable approaches and arguments to text and authorship are not being presented within the observant world [that I know about]. A presentation of these matters would, I think, have a much more profound effect on observant Judaism than the reaffirmation of the present, standard model of physics.

    Just my thoughts, anyways. [I'll be out for a while...so sorry if I can't follow up at this time.]

    Gary Goldwater

    ReplyDelete
  8. Happy Birthday to you!!! May you live healthy and happy to 120!! )))

    PS could not find any Jews in the list of the scientists, too bad

    ReplyDelete
  9. Happy Birthday Rabbi Slifkin!!! May you grow from strength to strength and continue to provide your readers with fascinating gems of Torah and Science.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Happy 29th :) Birthday!"

    LOL. Due to the press coverage of the ban, a lot of people think that I am 29 years old!

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1) Happy Birthday Rabbi Slifkin!

    2) You're quite right that many Rabbis (and the spokesmen of other religions besides) like to point at science's occasional wobbles and take a leap of "well if science can change it's mind about that that, then science can be wrong about anything", relishing any cheap potshot at science no matter how flimsy, acting as though science and Torah must be enemies.
    However, I think you've erred by labeling Rabbi Gottlieb (in both your links) as one of these. He's quite a bit more sophisticated than that ilk, for one.
    My impression is that he's fighting specifically against the following issue:
    The popular understanding of science would have us believe that the general perspective of a completely corporeal existence, including the origins of the universe and life on earth, is not only solidly based, but quite thoroughly proven, and that therefore belief in the supernatural as found in religion is stoooopid.
    This is indeed not the case at all, and Rabbi Gottlieb makes a point of showing this.
    Evolution is the best scientific theory we have to date for the origin of species, but it's not cut and dried at all. It requires some presumptions, and is based on studies and experiments which were sometimes less than fully solid. Why have a crisis of faith about evolution if evolution is not actually proven, or even established so well as popularly believed?
    As another example, people like to presume that all thought can be explained through the physical functions of the human brain, precluding the notion of a soul as being the source of "mind". Yet Rabbi Gottlieb brings an article which points out that science today does not fully comprehend the functioning of even the simple brains of simple nematodes - so clearly nothing has been proven regarding the basis for the human mind at all.
    In other words, science is great, and we can celebrate it's onward march, but we need not accept all of it's current claims as Truth to the exclusion of various beliefs in our tradition.
    As proof of my interpretation of Rabbi Gottleib's attitude regarding science, I can point to at least one article which Rabbi Gottlieb brings up for no apparent reason except finding it neato:
    http://blog.dovidgottlieb.com/2010/11/asexual-reproduction-in-snakes.html
    He's clearly no enemy of science - rather he's fighting against anti-religious attitudes in the scientific and leftist-secular worlds, lest the religious be unduly carried away by their sometimes specious arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is no evidence for your assertion, Rabbi Slifkin, that the entire enterprise of modern science emerged from the monotheistic worldview that the universe is rational. On the contrary, there is evidence that the belief in a rational universe existed before monotheism. Astronomy in the pagan world presupposed regularity and predictability in nature. Geometry, to which the ancients ascribed reality, likewise presupposed regularity. The same is true of Galen’s medicine, the principle of Archimedes, the 4-element theory, and others. All these show that the belief in a predictable, i.e. rational nature is independent of monotheism.

    Further evidence that monotheism and modern science are not related can be adduced from the fact that modern science did not arise in the Moslem world, which was more monotheistic, and at one time more sophisticated, than the Christian. Modern science flourished in Christian Europe because there the Protestant reformation freed the human mind from the authoritarian doctrinaire shackles of the reigning religion. This reformation either helped the rise of modern science by encouraging independent inquiry or perhaps let it flourish by staying out of the way. In either case, the social forces unleashed by the reformation, not monotheism, paved the way for modern science.

    It seems to me, also, that your post obfuscates the obvious, that the Higgs field discovery provides additional evidence for the validity of a theory that obviates the need for a prime mover.

    I remain, wishing you the best,
    A Thoughtless Physicist.

    ReplyDelete
  13. here is no evidence for your assertion, Rabbi Slifkin, that the entire enterprise of modern science emerged from the monotheistic worldview that the universe is rational.

    There are a number of scientists and historians of science who disagree with you. See the sources cited in my book.

    the Higgs field discovery provides additional evidence for the validity of a theory that obviates the need for a prime mover.

    Which theory is that?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jack, have you been introduced to Robert Grosseteste? His life overlapped that of the Ramban. (ie, before the Reformation) He was the Bishop of Lincoln. A.C. Crombie calls him "the real founder of the tradition of scientific thought in medieval Oxford, and in some ways, of the modern English intellectual tradition".

    ReplyDelete
  15. "On the contrary, there is evidence that the belief in a rational universe existed before monotheism. Astronomy in the pagan world presupposed regularity and predictability in nature. Geometry, to which the ancients ascribed reality, likewise presupposed regularity. The same is true of Galen’s medicine, the principle of Archimedes, the 4-element theory, and others. All these show that the belief in a predictable, i.e. rational nature is independent of monotheism. "

    You are confusing issues. The regularity and predictability of the sun and celestial objects, does not mean one believes in the regularity and predictability of the universe. They very clearly did NOT believe in such a predictable and regular universe, and often called the gods calous and unpredictable

    "Further evidence that monotheism and modern science are not related can be adduced from the fact that modern science did not arise in the Moslem world, which was more monotheistic, and at one time more sophisticated, than the Christian. Modern science flourished in Christian Europe because there the Protestant reformation freed the human mind from the authoritarian doctrinaire shackles of the reigning religion. "

    The only reason Christian Europe had access to scientific thinking is because of the Muslims. Roger Bacon started the scientific process in Europe, close to 300 years before the Proestant reformation. Many claim the discovery of the "New World" in 1492 and later Magellen's travels is what lead thinkers to realize that there are valid ideas and information and discoveries out there to be made, that aren't written about in the ancient books. This sparked the new growth in scientific knowledge and discovery. And this is why the scientific process developed so strongly in Europe and not anywhere else in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The link to buy the book doesn't work.

    ReplyDelete
  17. hmmm... not sure why it's not working. OK, you can go to paypal.com and send money ($39.95) to zoorabbi@zootorah.com

    ReplyDelete
  18. The 'buy now' link does't work for me either.

    Which bookseller in Israel stocks this book? I assume Manny's and other Meah Shearim booksellers don't.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Manny's might have it under the counter!

    You can buy it directly from me in Ramat Bet Shemesh.

    ReplyDelete
  20. More posts about science in the future would be great!Better than the stuff about the Charedim.

    ReplyDelete
  21. “There are a number of scientists and historians of science who disagree with you. See the sources cited in my book.”

    I presented you with evidence that a rational view of nature existed in the pagan world. The examples ranged from astronomy to medicine to mathematics to proto physics. And I pointed out that a major, very monotheistic, sophisticated culture failed to produce modern science. Anyone claiming that a rational worldview began with monotheism has to explain these away. (I see that some of your readers tried to do just that. I will respond to them through the day as time permits.)

    I did read your book, by the way, quotes and all. I enjoyed it, even the discussion of this topic, which is dead wrong. ☺

    The theory is the Standard Model.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The Standard Model does not explain why there is a standard model, and why it has the extraordinary form that it has.

    ReplyDelete
  23. To Phil,

    Many individuals contributed to what would eventually become modern science. So, I find the search for the one true founder futile. The fact remains that science as we know it took off after the reformation and in countries in which the reformation was strong.

    Thanks for the tip about Robert Grosseteste. Sounds like an interesting fellow. I will look him up.

    ReplyDelete
  24. What does the standard model say about gravity?

    ReplyDelete
  25. To Ameteur,

    “You are confusing issues. The regularity and predictability of the sun and celestial objects, does not mean one believes in the regularity and predictability of the universe. They very clearly did NOT believe in such a predictable and regular universe, and often called the gods calous and unpredictable.”

    What is necessary for science is the belief that the object of ones studies is predictable and regular. This belief the pagans demonstrably had. The pagans had no concept of a universe. Their world consisted of the earth and the celestial sphere. Its hard to argue, therefore, that they did not believe in a predictable universe when they didn’t know such a universe existed.

    The subject of unpredictable gods in a predictable world is a discussion beyond the scope of this post. Briefly, though, from my reading on the subject I conclude that we monotheists distort pagan commitment to divine order and justice.

    “The only reason Christian Europe had access to scientific thinking is because of the Muslims…..”

    Kol hakavod to the Muslims, Jews, and Christians who preserved ancient knowledge and contributed much new knowledge themselves. Theirs is not the science we have today.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "The fact remains that science as we know it took off after the reformation and in countries in which the reformation was strong."

    You have it backwards. The reformation took off in places where science was strong, not that science took off in places where the reformation was strong. They were both caused by the same desire to look beyond the books and find a new view that match current observations rather than matching current observations to and old view.

    Further, science took off after the discovery of new lands, and places that had strong ports ended up with strong science as well.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ...[W]ould Judaism not be justified in viewing this idea of a universal unity, which inquiring minds have already pieced together from the textbook of the universe and which man’s consciousness yearns to express, as nothing less than the long-awaited triumph of the truth of Judaism? ... This idea, the concept of the Unity of God, is the truth for which Judaism has endured a course of martyrdom without parallel in world history."

    So, according to you, Rav Hirsch is saying that the idea of a single fundamental particle upon which all other particles of the universe are built is evidence of the existence of a single, indivisible G-D, that unites all of nature.

    Or have I misunderstood the quote, and your intent with the quote?

    It is an interesting idea, but one frought with problems.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't think he is saying that any of this is EVIDENCE of God. Rather, he is saying that it contributes towards the GOALS of Judaism.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't think he is saying that any of this is EVIDENCE of God. Rather, he is saying that it contributes towards the GOALS of Judaism.

    Could you elaborate please, because I do not understand the point being made.

    (BTW, this gives a whole new and unintended meaning to the "god particle")

    ReplyDelete
  30. One of the goals of Judaism is to show that there are no disparate powers, rather everything comes from One God.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Funny I would have thought that

    ...[W]ould Judaism not be justified in viewing this idea of a universal unity, which inquiring minds have already pieced together from the textbook of the universe and which man’s consciousness yearns to express, as nothing less than the long-awaited triumph of the truth of Judaism? ...

    is essentially saying that to reduce all of creation to a single mathematical formula is to understand the Mind of God.

    One of the goals of Judaism is to show that there are no disparate powers, rather everything comes from One God.

    That is not to dissimalar to saying that one of the goals of physics (science) is to show that their are no disparate forces, rather that everything comes from one (fundimental) particle.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "The reformation took off in places where science was strong"

    I disagree. Scandinavia was an intellectual backwater and became the most Protestant region of the entire world. Italy led the Christian world in science but the Reformation made little inroads there.

    ReplyDelete
  33. ..pitputim said...What does the standard model say about gravity?

    Answer: Nothing

    ..there is no evidence for your assertion, Rabbi Slifkin, that the entire enterprise of modern science emerged from the monotheistic worldview that the universe is rational.
    There are a number of scientists and historians of science who disagree with you. See the sources cited in my book..

    I too find this thesis dubious, although often asserted. For that matter, some authentic strains of jewish thought – hammichadesh b’khol yom maaseih b’reishis - also reject the notion of a clockwork universe which presumably undergirds scientific anticipation the universe may be governed by “laws”.

    ReplyDelete
  34. ""The reformation took off in places where science was strong"

    I disagree. Scandinavia was an intellectual backwater and became the most Protestant region of the entire world. Italy led the Christian world in science but the Reformation made little inroads there."

    So basically there is no correlation at all between places of reformation and strong science. I was wondering why I never heard the idea before. I was going off the assumption that it was well established that such a correlation existed.

    The discovery of things not found in old books makes much more sense to me regarding why some places developed a culture for science and other places did not.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ameteur said "I was wondering why I never heard this idea before"

    Every text on European history I have read credits the Protestant reformation for the scientific revolution. I do not mean to be rude, but googling Protestant reformation and Scientific Revolution or looking up the subject in an online encyclopedia will bring up discussions on this subject. A course on European History on iTunes U, whose name I unfortunately cannot recall, has a wonderful multi-session discussion of this relationship. Read, enjoy, and, as always, judge for yourself. And, don't let our disagreement detract from the main point I was making, namely, It wasn't monotheism.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Not only did modern science emerge from monotheism, it continues to support monotheism insofar as it discovers the unity present in the universe."

    It would appear that monotheism has proven neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for modern science. One can certainly see acknowledgement of a reasoned, ordered universe in the Psalmist's statement that "chok natan v'lo ya'avor". But the ancient Jews made few contributions to the sciences. Meanwhile, the ancient Greeks - pagans and atheists - made enormous advancements in probing that ordered universe without the benefit of monotheism.

    Moreover, the Islamic world - nominally monotheist, but still contemplating the existence of "jinns" - made fewer original contributions that is typically claimed. Since the high point of Islamic civilization (itself heavily dependent on the works of conquered peoples (Assyrians, Persians, Indians, etc.), the philosophy of "insh'allah" took hold, as did the conviction that Allah's power was "unfettered". He thus became as capricious as the ancient gods, and the notion of an ordered universe was set aside. So what was there to study?

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Every text on European history I have read credits the Protestant reformation for the scientific revolution."

    This is likely true.. but science came along long before Copernicus, but a few hundred years.

    Read a history on the scientific method itself, instead of outdated modernist historical eras that don't stand up to scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I'd like to recommend this link:
    http://www.thelivingtree.org/audio/PDF/FW-03.pdf
    -- Rav Matis Weinberg's essay: "Avraham and the Superconducting Supercollider."

    He writes:
    "Even the Greeks failed to produce any significant
    corpus of scientific and technological knowledge. They
    advanced in logic, philosophy, geometry, astronomy – but
    made no discoveries of the great code of nature's laws." -- paraphrased from John D. Barrow, The World within the World, Oxford
    University Press, (1988), Chapter 2.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Meanwhile, the ancient Greeks - pagans and atheists - made enormous advancements in probing that ordered universe without the benefit of monotheism."

    Really they didn't. We didn't gain any understanding into the working of the world until the 1200s at the earliest, and even then it likely wasn't really until the late 1400s.

    Everything before then was useful stepping stones towards an entirely new way of thinking about the world.

    ReplyDelete
  40. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/books/review/einsteins-jewish-science-by-steven-gimbel.html

    Favorite line: "The Jew wants to create contradictions everywhere and to separate relations, so that preferably, the poor naïve German can no longer make any sense of it whatsoever.” "

    ReplyDelete
  41. My rational Jewish comprehension:

    Graviton’s Energy-Mass Dualism

    Everything in the dictionary and in the universe – nouns and verbs objects and processes – originate and derive from the energy-mass dualism, from the ongoing constant rate conversion of mass to energy, from the ongoing resolution-release of inert gravitons, mass, leaving the clusters of the fractured seed of the universe, singularity, and becoming energy, mass in motion.

    The Graviton’s energy-mass dualism derives from its gravity, self-attraction, and its compactness.
    Gravity: the propensity of the gravitons – the elementary particles of the mass of the universe – to return to their singularity state of zero motion, of compacted zero inter-particle distance.
    Compactness: the default particle’s size and shape that enable zero inter-particle distance at singularity.

    This, commonsensically, is the matrix of the universe.

    Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
    http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/
    Energy-Mass Poles Of The Universe
    http://universe-life.com/2012/11/14/701/
    PS:
    Life is the obvious manifestation of energy-mass dualism. The sun’s energy, i.e. fast-moving mass particles, convert into slow-moving temporary mass formats… DH

    ReplyDelete
  42. THE GREAT science feat in 2013 על מהות ומקור היקום

    The 2013 gravity comprehension/definition is the greatest science feat since the early 1920s.

    Learn what, scientifically, natural gravity is and what evolution is.
    Think of the consequences re classical science of this comprehension of gravity…

    איך נברא היקום יש מאין
    Origin And Nature of the Universe, the greatest science feat since the early 1920s.

    New Science 2013 versus classical science
    Classical Science Is Anticipated/Replaced By The 2013 Gravity Comprehension !!!

    http://universe-life.com/2014/02/24/gravity/

    Attn classical science hierarchy, including Darwin and Einstein…
    “I hope that now you understand what gravity is and why it is the monotheism of the universe…DH”
    =================================
    Gravity is the natural selection of self-attraction by the elementary particles of an evolving system on their cyclic course towards the self-replication of the system. Period
    ( Gravitons are the elementary particles of the universe. RNA nucleotides genes and serotonin are the elementary particles of Earth life)

    כח המשיכה
    כח המשיכה הוא הבחירה הטבעית להיצמדות הדדית של חלקיקי היסוד של מערכת מתפתחת במהלך התפתחותה המחזורית לעבר שיכפולה. נקודה
    ( הגרוויטון הוא חלקיק היסוד של היקום. הגנים, הנוקלאוטידים של חומצה ריבונוקלאית והסרוטונין הם החלקיקים היסודיים של חיי כדור הארץ)

    Dov Henis(comments from 22nd century)

    http://universe-life.com/2013/11/14/subverting-organized-religious-science/
    http://universe-life.com/2013/09/03/the-shortest-grand-unified-theory/
    http://universe-life.com/2013/09/30/science-adjust-vision-concepts-beyond-aaas-trade-union-religion/

    PS: Note, again:

    - Classical Science Is Anticipated/Replaced By The 2013 Gravity Comprehension !!!

    - Think of the consequences re classical science of this comprehension of gravity…
    DH
    נ.ב. הבנת מהות כח המשיכה מספקת בסיס הגיוני מפשט/צפוי/מתקן לכל מגזרי ורכיבי המדע הקלסי
    יש פה אי- ניצול של הזדמנות/אפשרות של ישראל להדיח באלגנטיות מתורבתת את ארה"ב מעמדתה בעולם כמוליכה/המקבעת של עדר ה"מדענים/מדע" באמצעות האיגוד המקצועי האמריקאי הדתי, ולתפוס את עמדת ההולכה/פיתוח/הובלה של המדע 2013 החדש המשתדרג, ולהפוך את המדע האמריקאי לגרורה של המדע הישראלי. אי-ניצול זה הוא מחדל מטומטם /עלוב/מביש של ישראל....

    דה

    ReplyDelete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.