| Where Is The Freedom of Speech for Desmond Tutu Against Israel? |
|
|
| Thursday, 04 October 2007 | |
|
Minneapolis/St.Paul's City Pages just reported that members of the St Thomas Justice and Peace Studies program were thrilled when Bishop Tutu agreed to speak at the University" but administrators did a scientific survey of the Jews of Minneapolis, which included querying exactly one spokesperson for Minnesota's Jewish Community Relations Council and several rabbis who taught in a University program" and concluded that Tutu is bad for the Jews and should therefore be barred from campus.
Just to send the message home, Swiler says: "I think there's a consensus in the Jewish community that his words were offensive." To be clear here, Swiler and the other rabbis have the right to say whatever they think, though representing those opinions, as Swiler does, as a Jewish consensus, is laughable. Ultimately, groups like Minnesota's JCRC, the right wing fringe group Zionist Organization of America, and the increasingly embarrassing Anti-Defamation League, who have all attacked Tutu for his criticism of Israeli policies, will face the consequences of smearing Tutu -- a hero to millions and leader of a movement that was known for the massively disproportionate involvement of numerous South African Jews. But it's the craven behavior of the administrators of St. Thomas that will likely be a mark of shame for years to come. While it's understandable, given the Church's history of virulent anti-Semitism, that a Catholic institution would be extra sensitive about relations with Jews, it's not clear here that there was any real pressure to cave in to. Did groups threaten to picket? Who knows what administrators were thinking? Regardless, the backlash has already begun. Marv Davidov, an adjunct professor within the Justice and Peace Studies program said: "As a Jew who experienced real anti-Semitism as a child, I'm deeply disturbed that a man like Tutu could be labeled anti-Semitic and silenced like this," he says. "I deeply resent the Israeli lobby trying to silence any criticism of its policy. It does a great disservice to Israel and to all Jews." To make matters worse, when Cris Toffolo, the chair of the Justice and Peace Studies program told Tutu what happened and warned him of a possible smear campaign, she was immediately demoted.
Davidov again: "This is pure bullshit," says Davidov. "As far as fighting for civil rights, I consider Tutu to be my brother. And I consider Cris Toffolo to be my sister. They're messing with my family here. If Columbia permits a Holocaust denier [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] to speak at their university, why are St. Thomas officials refusing to let Tutu, an apostle of nonviolence, speak at ours?"
Why Tutu? Why now? Are his statements anti-Semitic? Bishop Tutu is closely associated with Sabeel, a Jerusalem based Christian liberation theology organization started by Palestinian Anglican pastor Rev. Naim Ateek. Sabeel is "an international peace movement initiated by Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land who seek a just peace based on two states-Palestine and Israel-as defined by international law and existing United Nations resolutions."The group, and founder Naim Ateek in particular, have come under considerable attack by mainstream Jewish organizations that see their influence on domestic Christian organizations as a threat. Sabeel works with local Christian partners to hold conferences in major cities across the United States. To the consternation of many, Bishop Tutu will be the featured speaker in late October at the Boston Sabeel conference. The conference title? "The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel:Issues of Justice and Equality." Members of my group, Jewish Voice for Peace, have spoken at a handful of Sabeel conferences, and our Boston chapter is sponsoring a peace walk at the Boston conference. As one JVP colleague who participated in several Sabeel conferences told me, she believed that Naim Atteek was guilty, at most, at times of being unaware of Jewish sensitivities around using certain Christian theological language (in fact, she publicly challenged him on this issue), but that he is ultimately advocating for a nonviolent resolution that recognizes the humanity and rights of both Jews and Palestinians. Of that, she has no doubt. (There are, to be sure, plenty of Palestinian sensitivities around language as well, though there is little interest among leaders of a variety of faiths in learning what those might be.) Interestingly, the same can perhaps be said for Bishop Tutu, whose 2002 Sabeel speech seems to be the primary evidence offered for the cancellation of his talk. It's impossible to convey the spirit of his talk by quoting only bits and pieces, so read it. Read the whole thing, especially the part cited by St. Thomas' Doug Hennes where he says Tutu compared Israel to Hitler. The talk is notable for its philo-Semitism and its equally passionate condemnation of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and people. For anyone who has been to the Occupied Territories, let alone lived through it, his words of condemnation are impossible to argue with. His language is challenging in part because it is imbued with the disappointment of a Christian raised to look up to Jews, and the heartache of an anti-apartheid leader who was once buoyed by passionate Jewish support. He struggles to make sense of the checkpoints, the home demolitions, the land confiscations, done by a state that says it represents the very same people. What is clear is that he at times uses language loosely without understanding how it might hurt or offend us Jews. Does that make him an anti-Semite? Of course not. Should he be banned for using a term like "Jewish lobby" that makes many of us uncomfortable? Are you kidding? Tutu never wavers in expressing his love of and hope for peace and security for both peoples. "Peace based on justice," Tutu says, "is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God's dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers. " Action alert: Jewish Voice for Peace is asking people to go here to send a message to university officials asking them to let Tutu speak. Source: AlterNet Readers have left 24 comments.
JWD:
Quote
I wish they had let Tutu speak. He is a real nutter who doesn't realise that many of his statements can be construed as Antisemitic. From the quotes I followed he doesn't understand the word "Antisemitism" because he cites Palestinians as "Semites". True, they are but the word "Antisemitism" ONLY refers to hate against Jews.
If he fails to understand that then he fails to understand Antisemitism. His references to "Israelis" is more often characterised as "Israeli Jews", so ignoring "Israeli Arabs" and characterising ALL Israelis as "Jews". Hence his focus is on "Jews" and NOT "Israel". I find him naive and ill-informed about Israel and the Palestinians. His naivety makes his comments offensive to Jews, I guess. Yet his naivety doesn't allow him to realise that.
(1)
2007-10-04 08:14:11
Rob:
Quote
JWD says palestinians are semites but being anti-semite only applies to jews.
they have stolen their homes and lands,they have killed them at will and have subjugated them to 60 years of oppression. what they are now trying to do is take away their right to feel pain as only the chosen ones can feel pain and all other are goyim. then they say why people call them zionists-racists and facists. a similar anology would be a black person from jamaica saying to a black person from nigeria when a person says N****R only i have a right to be offended you have no right to be offended because they called me that name first.
(2)
2007-10-04 10:28:36
JWD:
Quote
JWD says palestinians are semites but being anti-semite only applies to jews. — Robthey have stolen their homes and lands,they have killed them at will and have subjugated them to 60 years of oppression. what they are now trying to do is take away their right to feel pain as only the chosen ones can feel pain and all other are goyim. then they say why people call them zionists-racists and facists. a similar anology would be a black person from jamaica saying to a black person from nigeria when a person says N****R only i have a right to be offended you have no right to be offended because they called me that name first. You cannot change the dictionary at a whim. "Antisemitism" is a word that was coined in Germany in 1879 by Wilhelm Marr. It was a word created to identify hate for Jews in Europe. It had NO connection with Arabs at all. By stating that the word "Antisemitism" ONLY applies to Jews is NOT stealing anything concerning identity from Palestinians since the useage of the word pre-dates The Palestinians by over 100 years and the word was never used in the context of anti-Arab sentiment. It is useful to do some research before criticising.
(3)
2007-10-04 12:46:05
Rob:
Quote
If that was the case jwd then why was it not called anti-jewish hate for that would be the most common definition.
if someone hates jews i would have thought he would be classed as anti-jewish, how does the word anti-semite come into it. i have done research and you have not got a leg to stand on,the more you give these kind of absurd reasons to keep the word exclsuive to yourself you are demeaning your own position. what you are saying is because the word was used against jews first anyone who is abused for being semitic should not be offended. truly a perverted sense of logic.
(4)
2007-10-04 13:41:30
JWD:
Quote
If that was the case jwd then why was it not called anti-jewish hate for that would be the most common definition. — Robif someone hates jews i would have thought he would be classed as anti-jewish, how does the word anti-semite come into it. i have done research and you have not got a leg to stand on,the more you give these kind of absurd reasons to keep the word exclsuive to yourself you are demeaning your own position. what you are saying is because the word was used against jews first anyone who is abused for being semitic should not be offended. truly a perverted sense of logic. First of all I would 100% refute that you did any research at all because if you had researched the origins of the word "Antisemitism" you would have found the same facts I already conveyed. It was a word that arose in Europe and was formalised in Germany as being exclusively to mean a hate of Jews and no other people. Why are you arguing with established facts? Why aren't they called anti-Jewish? If anyone wants to call them anti-Jewish then do so but someone else will say "You mean Antisemitic". Sorry, Palestinians can't try to steal this one!
(5)
2007-10-04 16:44:04
George:
Quote
JWD
Don't expect the use of dispassionate reason, logic and empirical fact from ROB. He is not capable of it and you will only waist your time to no avail.
(6)
2007-10-04 17:17:38
JWD:
Quote
JWD — GeorgeDon't expect the use of dispassionate reason, logic and empirical fact from ROB. He is not capable of it and you will only waist your time to no avail. There are several pointers that would help Rob understand why he's wrong. Here's one. When Kilroy-Silk made his comments about the modern contributions of Arab States, why did the MCB complain to CRE that it was "Islamaphobic" and NOT "Antisemitic"? Why are there no Arab victims of "Antisemitic attacks" recorded in the UK? Does the word "Islamaphobia" ONLY apply to non-Arab Muslims? I can see that facts are lost on Rob. He'd rather believe the propaganda. As for the absurd claim to have researched the subject and proven me wrong. Well.... Let's read your research Rob.
(7)
2007-10-04 17:29:40
JA:
Quote
The issues that matter are the right of return of refugees and the land from which they were expelled and from which they were dispossessed; the borders of Israel undefined since 948; the freedom of occupied Jerusalem ; the illegal occupation and the brutalisation of the victims and the illegal security/apartheid wall.
Who then is a (anti-)semite pales into insignificance. For those who care about the struggle for the liberation of Palestine do note that Tutu was banned not because he had a slip of the tongue. He was in the occupied lands of Palestine and saw the tragedy there was and remains worse than Apartheid under white South Africa. For one, never did the white racist Afrikaners use fighter jets and armoured tanks against civilians. They were brutal but the Israeli establishment is worse. That is what Tutu saw and said and for that he is to be silenced. Let the debate not be stifled. Let the organisation continue. Let the zionists try to divert the attention and resources of others. Focus, be sincere and give of what you love most and you will win. If every activist brings one cup of water we will drown the zionist project. It requires people to raise the issues of the dates in the stores, M&S pickets etc. The anti-Apartehid movement started when a cashier in Ireland refused to handle goods from Apartheid South Africa. Less than three decades later South Africa was free. People organised in solidarity. The struggle was fought inside and outside the country. Ordinary people contributed £5 per month towrds the struggle. That is what is required. The histry books and dictionaries will be rewritten when the sword of zionism is melted down and the steel used more productively. Please leave these apologists for Israel and its crimes alone. Conscientise, organise and mobilise. Speak truth to ordinary people day in and day out. In twenty years we can meet in a united and free Jerusalem.
(8)
2007-10-04 17:33:16
Rob:
Quote
one zionist tells another zionist do not waste your time.
it seems you are stuck in the chosen ones syndrome, just as you have no sole rights over the word holocaust,you also do not have sole rights of the word anti-semite. the reason why word such as islamophobia are used is because muslims do not come from one race only. the word anti-semite has been so extensivley hijacked that no one seems to know that 90 per cent of semites are arabs. the dictionary is not gods divine law but man made work,referring to the dictionary does not change the fact that 90 per cent of semites are arabs.
(9)
2007-10-04 17:41:23
RSD:
Quote
Archbishop Tutu knows full well that both the oppressor and the oppressed are trapped in a cycle of violence unless they both seek to break out of it. If he is genuinely seeking to engage with both the Israelis and the Palestinians with the object of establishing peace then he needs to tread a very careful and narrow line. He should know that critising one side while remaining silent about the other only leaves the criticised feeling offended and reluctant to engage.
Interestingly Tutu does not mention the fact that an entire arm of the UN exists exclusively for the benefit of the Palestinians and equally he fails to mention that Palestinian refugees have been denied rights that all other refugees enjoy. Tutu uses grandiose language in some of his statements and refers to Hitler, Stalin and others. He cannot be ignorant that Israel certainly has never carried out the genocidal excesses that these leaders were guilty of, and he is also perfectly aware that Hitler and Stalin murdered and victimised millions of Jews and thus his statements are bound to offend Jews. As Tutu supports the continuation of the State of Israel and the creation of a separate State of Palestine it would appear that he opposes the outcome that many here seek.
(10)
2007-10-04 19:10:18
JWD:
Quote
one zionist tells another zionist do not waste your time. — Robit seems you are stuck in the chosen ones syndrome, just as you have no sole rights over the word holocaust,you also do not have sole rights of the word anti-semite. the reason why word such as islamophobia are used is because muslims do not come from one race only. the word anti-semite has been so extensivley hijacked that no one seems to know that 90 per cent of semites are arabs. the dictionary is not gods divine law but man made work,referring to the dictionary does not change the fact that 90 per cent of semites are arabs. It seems you are stuck in the "non-chosen one's syndrome". I realise that logic and your thoughts are strangers, Facts are your enemy because they expose what you prefer to believe. How can Jews 'hijack' the word "Antisemite" when it was exclusively created to descibe hate for Jews. It was NEVER created to express hate for Arabs. The word holocaust is NOT exclusive to Jewish suffering. However there is only ONE event called "The Holocaust". It derives from the Greek root "holokaustum" which means "to burn". There is no exclusivity to describe something "like a holocaust" in lower-case, or indeed "like The Holocaust" as a comparitive with The Holocaust. The word "holocaust" never entered general useage until it was used to describe "The Holocaust". The word "holocaust" is not an exclusive Jewish word. When it comes to the dictionary then God has no say. It is correct that Arabs are semites and that any hate towards Arabs is labelled "Anti-Arab". If people like the MCB want to implement a hijack then they may translate that to "Islamaphobia". I have no care either way.
(11)
2007-10-04 19:46:34
Taz:
Quote
People like the Zionist "JWD" would like the public to believe that Jews are the ONLY ones that suffer discrimination. Citing the Holocaust (yet again) is a non-starter because the Palestinians had nothing to do with it. Yet they are the ones who have been ethnically cleansed and had their land stolen by the Jews. I wonder how Zionist will try to evade that truth?
(12)
2007-10-04 19:57:09
JWD:
Quote
The issues that matter are the right of return of refugees and the land from which they were expelled and from which they were dispossessed; the borders of Israel undefined since 948; the freedom of occupied Jerusalem ; the illegal occupation and the brutalisation of the victims and the illegal security/apartheid wall. — JAWho then is a (anti-)semite pales into insignificance. For those who care about the struggle for the liberation of Palestine do note that Tutu was banned not because he had a slip of the tongue. He was in the occupied lands of Palestine and saw the tragedy there was and remains worse than Apartheid under white South Africa. For one, never did the white racist Afrikaners use fighter jets and armoured tanks against civilians. They were brutal but the Israeli establishment is worse. That is what Tutu saw and said and for that he is to be silenced. Let the debate not be stifled. Let the organisation continue. Let the zionists try to divert the attention and resources of others. Focus, be sincere and give of what you love most and you will win. If every activist brings one cup of water we will drown the zionist project. It requires people to raise the issues of the dates in the stores, M&S pickets etc. The anti-Apartehid movement started when a cashier in Ireland refused to handle goods from Apartheid South Africa. Less than three decades later South Africa was free. People organised in solidarity. The struggle was fought inside and outside the country. Ordinary people contributed £5 per month towrds the struggle. That is what is required. The histry books and dictionaries will be rewritten when the sword of zionism is melted down and the steel used more productively. Please leave these apologists for Israel and its crimes alone. Conscientise, organise and mobilise. Speak truth to ordinary people day in and day out. In twenty years we can meet in a united and free Jerusalem. Why don't people realise that there is no correlation between South Africa apartheid AGAINST THEIR OWN POPULATION - and Israel having a conflict with a set of people who are NOT their citizens. Apartheid was cruel and unjust. A country treating most of its citizens appallingly. But Palestinians aren't citizens of Israel they are aspiring citizens of their own state. Hence Israel cannot be an "Apartheid State". The boycott against South Africa was supported by most people, including governments who had sanctions against South Africa. Any boycott of Israel has no governmental support and would probabably be illegal if the country calling for one were a member of the UN. It couldn't be done unless supported by a Resolution, just as sanctions against Iraq were. I believe it is our freedom to boycott Israel if we wish. Its just a fruitless exercise that is wishful thinking. Boycotts have been running for years and Israel thrives. Boycotts and porotests have been held outside M&S for years, and M&S thrives. Why not support the Palestinians positively rather than try and do so with meaningless gestures against Israel? Its a waste of effort no matter how well-intentioned and noble.
(13)
2007-10-04 19:57:13
JA:
Quote
An Apartehid state has two sets of rules within one national jurisdiction. The UN rapporteur Juhn Dugard, a white South African, has found Israel guilty of Apartheid practices. Betselem, Human Rights Watch and other human rights organisations have accused Israel of the same.
Israelis hate the idea that they are worse than white South Africans. The facts are indisputable. We are not starting from scratch. We will win. Keep your eyes on the prize and hold on. That is the key. The refugees will return. The occupation will end and we will meet in a free and united Jerusalem. There will be place for all except zionists. Children of Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and agnostics will have a shared and united future in a post-Zionist united secular democracy. We are organising and we pay the price for that. We have been prepared for it so its difficult but our eyes are on the prize and we are holding on. For those who wonder you do not have to be very brave, perfectly knowledgeable or have lots of time. Just do what you can. Bring your cup of water and drown the zionsit project. They cannot handle a determined and disciplined opposition that will not collaborate in the oppression of their own people. See you in a united and free Jerusalem.
(14)
2007-10-04 20:14:56
Paul M:
Quote
If anti Semites are anti Arab, then why was Hitler happy to welcome and be photographed with the Palestinian leader Husseini and to host him in Berlin during WW2? Perhaps Hitler was not an anti Semite either, according to the definition of Rob et al. The rather immature way you play with words in enough to make one anti Semantic.
(15)
2007-10-05 00:14:31
JWD:
Quote
People like the Zionist "JWD" would like the public to believe that Jews are the ONLY ones that suffer discrimination. Citing the Holocaust (yet again) is a non-starter because the Palestinians had nothing to do with it. Yet they are the ones who have been ethnically cleansed and had their land stolen by the Jews. I wonder how Zionist will try to evade that truth? — TazTaz, you are quite right, suggesting that the Palestinians suffer BECAUSE of The Holocaust is completely false and I agree with you. The vast majority of Jewish immigration has taken place outside of The Holocaust. The Jewish National Home was established in 1920 not 1948. Perhaps you could justify the phrase "ethnically cleansed". Perhaps you should have a word with the poster who states that all Arabs are semites too and then decide if Jews (as semites) can ethnically cleanse themselves by 'ethnically cleansing' Palestinians (mostly semites). Get your story sorted-out. BTW there is NO ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. If no Jews are allowed in Palestinian territories then aren't the Palestinians guilty of Apartheid?
(16)
2007-10-05 10:23:45
Rob:
Quote
JWD lets use facts and see who has a problem with facts and figures.
90 per cent of arabs are semites yet around 80 per cent if not more of jews in the world are ashkenazi non semitic jews. if use the law of majority then jews can be classed as a non semitic people and since theyt are occupying and oppressing semitic palestinians then they are the real anti-semites,a label they throw around everytime they are losing the argument. the day palestine is independent and they do not allow jews to enter palestine exclusively then you can claim aparthied,at the moment that honour belongs to israel. non semites ethnically cleansed semites from palestine.
(17)
2007-10-05 10:38:52
JWD:
Quote
JWD lets use facts and see who has a problem with facts and figures. — Rob90 per cent of arabs are semites yet around 80 per cent if not more of jews in the world are ashkenazi non semitic jews. if use the law of majority then jews can be classed as a non semitic people and since theyt are occupying and oppressing semitic palestinians then they are the real anti-semites,a label they throw around everytime they are losing the argument. the day palestine is independent and they do not allow jews to enter palestine exclusively then you can claim aparthied,at the moment that honour belongs to israel. non semites ethnically cleansed semites from palestine. Now please assure me that you comments aren't a silly joke! So let me deal with them as if they are serious. Your understanding of who is a Jew is completely at fault. That is the problem you have and the problem with teh argument I hear so many times about Ashkenazi Jews. Let me put you straight. Ashkenazi Jews share the SAME DNA root with all other Jews (with the exception of 0.0001% who are converts to Judaism). Hence ALL Jews are related to the Jews who were the historical Jews of the Old Testament. The reason is that their Jewish identity is conveyed by the mother being Jewish. In this respect you can even say that all Jews are related to Jesus, Abraham, Moses etc. It is also true that Arabs from that region also share DNA markers with Jews and this conveys their semitic common root. Do I tell you this to destroy my onw argument? No! Because the point is about whether Antisemitism can refer to Arabs. The answer is clearly No, based on the history and useage of the word. Now, if you want to assert your argument then the OPPOSITE is true and you can argue that Arabs are Antisemitic when they disparage Jews. Here is why you have a problem with the consistency of your points. ONLY the Truth and Facts have a logic that cannot be shaken. You have tried many ways to shake the Facts and that is why your arguments don't hold any merit. To recap, ALL Jews are semites by their unbroken lineage to Old Testament times.
(18)
2007-10-05 11:45:04
JWD:
Quote
An Apartehid state has two sets of rules within one national jurisdiction. The UN rapporteur Juhn Dugard, a white South African, has found Israel guilty of Apartheid practices. Betselem, Human Rights Watch and other human rights organisations have accused Israel of the same. — JAIsraelis hate the idea that they are worse than white South Africans. The facts are indisputable. We are not starting from scratch. We will win. Keep your eyes on the prize and hold on. That is the key. The refugees will return. The occupation will end and we will meet in a free and united Jerusalem. There will be place for all except zionists. Children of Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and agnostics will have a shared and united future in a post-Zionist united secular democracy. We are organising and we pay the price for that. We have been prepared for it so its difficult but our eyes are on the prize and we are holding on. For those who wonder you do not have to be very brave, perfectly knowledgeable or have lots of time. Just do what you can. Bring your cup of water and drown the zionsit project. They cannot handle a determined and disciplined opposition that will not collaborate in the oppression of their own people. See you in a united and free Jerusalem. How did this this UN rep find Israel "GUILTY"? He held no court case at which any charges or his beliefs were put and there was no verdict delivered. What you mean is that it was his belief/assertion that Israel was practising Apartheid. So what, millions of Muslims say that too. Doesn't make it factually or legally correct. "There will be place for all except zionists." - I see, you propose Ethnic Cleansing of Jews in the region since it is ONLY Jews in that region who would be classed as Zionists.
(19)
2007-10-05 11:55:57
Rob:
Quote
JWD you are scraping the proverbiall barrel,as all humans are the offspring of adam and eve they are bound to have dna markers which show they hail from adam and eve.
ashkenazi jews are not a semitic people they are khazars originally from the caucauses,who converted to judaism due to being in the middle of christian and muslim lands,they did not want to gain the enmity of one or the other by adopting their beleif systems so they chose to convert to judaism. jwd as before the jews do not have sole rights to the word semite,anyone who oppresses semites is anti-semite.
(20)
2007-10-05 11:58:50
Syed:
Quote
Rob, please don't take the bait. Note how debate has been diverted from the issue at hand!
(21)
2007-10-05 12:18:17
you muppet:
Quote
what i do not underdstand it that the American people have let their christian country become a bastian against free speach from a Christian Arch Bishop, because Jews were upset?
I can't work that, I wonder if the american mindset has been intimidated from critising Israel by powerful jewish and Christian Zionists so that is a non Zionist speaks up, they get marginalised and silenced.
(22)
2007-10-05 12:47:42
Rob:
Quote
syed i agree with you but it seems mpac mods are not applying the stick to the topic rule,so i cannot allow zionists to act high and mighty with words.
(23)
2007-10-05 13:09:29
George:
Quote
Rob
So now you believe that we all stem from Adam and Eve? Apart from Ashkenazi Jews, of course, whom you propose deporting to...?
(24)
2007-10-05 14:01:09
|






Rumors have been circulating for some time that Archbishop Desmond Tutu was banned by the University of St Thomas in Minnesota because of statements he made that some consider anti-Semitic. Now it's official: winning the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't protect you from charges of anti-Semitism if you criticize Israeli human rights practices. Neither, apparently, does being one of the most compelling voices for social justice in the world today, or even getting an honorary degree from and giving the 










