Are people who don't share your fears your people?

You're tell me that many disagree that the question of a Jewish homeland is complicated and long lasting? Maybe many Europeans who have no personal or familial involvement, but ask any Arab or Jew and the timeline becomes in the thousands of years because that's how long there's been a Jewish presence in the area which began with a Kingdom in around 1000 BC. The Muslims built the Dome of the Rock on the ruins of the Second Temple.

Just to be clear, are you applying the apartheid point to the treatment of the Palestinians or the treatment of Israeli Arabs?

Just to be clear, are you applying the apartheid point to the treatment of the Palestinians or the treatment of Israeli Arabs? — BitconnectCarlos

Palestinians and Non-Jewish Israelis.

any Arab or Jew and the timeline becomes in the thousands of years because that's how long there's been a Jewish presence in the area which began with a Kingdom in around 1000 BC. The Muslims built the Dome of the Rock on the ruins of the Second Temple. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, useless religious crap I really don't give a shit about. As if any of that would even remotely justify anything happening now.

Yeah, useless religious crap I really don't give a shit about. As if any of that would even remotely justify anything happening now. — Benkei

I don't expect you to give a shit about it because it's not your people. The issue just begins for you, suddenly, in 1947 or so (or even '67 for some!!). You're like a 5 year old who wanders into a giant toy store wondering how it all came to be and comes across two older children fighting over something (what are they fighting over exactly? many westerners don't know.) I'm not trying to be mean here it was just best analogy I could think of for how many Westerners approach the issue.

Alright, so lets let the "impartial" observers handle it then. And who would those be? Americans? Europeans? Which ones? Do Indians have a say? How about the Chinese? If Israel obeys some in the West and loosens security, who pays the price when blood is spilled? It's all very well and good to say that Israel shouldn't blockade Gaza, but who pays the price when heavy weaponry is imported from Iran? In any case I'm fine with the West stepping in to help with the process and make suggestions, but we'd like a say too. — BitconnectCarlos

Passing judgment on situation X is something different then solving situation X. In a philosophy forum the purpose is to discuss the ethical merits of a given situation or solution, not solving that situation. What I was trying to understand is what the beef was between you and the other posters and now I know, you do not enter into ethical debate at all. Perhaps you want to solve the situation, but than I would advise joining the Israeli or American diplomatic corps.

I have the self-awareness to admit that I'm partial; I just wish that that the West would realize that they approach the issue through their own biased cultural lenses as well. The Middle East geopolitically should not be treated like Europe. It is not analogous to the struggle between the British and the IRA. It is an extremely complicated issue with a very long history, intense hatreds, constantly shifting borders, and religious fundamentalism thrown in the mix. The stakes are extremely high and I don't have the luxury to take a step back from my own people. If your people were being attacked and under constant threat, I would not tell you to take a step back. — BitconnectCarlos

They do and that is why it is so important to find some common ground along the lines of ethical argumentation. I am not here actually to defend or attack Israel. I do recognize the existential threat to Israel, and of course the eternal victimization of Jewish people everywhere should also be factored in when passing judgment (however not on individual acts I daresay) but the question remains whether Israeli actions are right or wrong. That is the purpose of this thread. It is a matter of argumentation about right and wrong, but you seem bent on confusing identity with argument.

If your people were being attacked and under constant threat, I would not tell you to take a step back. — BitconnectCarlos

What you tell us to do is entirely uninteresting because you do not matter one bit. (neither do I). What might be relevant is whether you are right in your advice or not and if so why / why not. You seem to have some odd idea that the truth value of an argument is dependent on who utters it.

Israel's neighbors have used this type of language constantly since Israel's inception. It's luckily simmered down a little now and progress has been made, but historically this was a very big concern. The environment in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s - Israel's formative years - was different from today (but how much have things really changed? Who knows.) — BitconnectCarlos

You are misquoting me. I do not contest that Israels neighbours have such feelings. What I said was this:

"I think you misinterpret the position of your adversaries in this thread. I do not think anyone holds Israel to be 'an evil entity'. What they criticize are the actions and policies of Israel."
I said nothing about other countries. In fact I know anti-semitism among Arab nations runs high. I wonder why you actually misquote, if it is a mistake, it is silly but such things happen, if it is deliberate it is wrong and foul play to say the least.

No, I just don't acknowledge religious claims or ancient ones for that matter. There's also Roman buildings where I live, that doesn't give Italians any rights to land in the Netherlands.

The only reason people bring up these bullshit religious claims, on both sides, is to argue for an absolute claim at the exclusion of others. These have to be rejected for the obvious fact that it denies rights of those currently living there and because it's obvious nothing can be resolved when arguing from within two different paradigms!

Do you think Apartheid in SA ended because people dredged up 1000 of years of bullshit?

No, I just don't acknowledge religious claims or ancient ones for that matter. — Benkei

So when's the cut off year? Maybe year 1500? That sounds like a good number. In any case, I'm not expecting you to care. It's a purely religious-cultural issue and it's a big one in Judaism. If your people were expelled 1000 years ago or so from their homes and were trying to migrate back why should I care? Even if it was more recent like 200 years ago would you expect the rest of the world to care? What would you say if I told you the cut off was 150 years and anything before that was too far back and doesn't matter. I don't know much about Dutch culture, does the land you're on mean anything to you?

Jewish culture and religion is centered around the land of Israel, particularly Jerusalem.

What would you say if I told you the cut off was 150 years and anything before that was too far back and doesn't matter. I don't know much about Dutch culture, does the land you're on mean anything to you? — BitconnectCarlos

What about 1948 for the people of Palestine ? Completely asymmetrical application of principles.

What about 1948 for the people of Palestine ? Completely asymmetrical application of principles. — fdrake

What I was trying to demonstrate with my example was that you can't really draw a proper cut off year for when a claim stops being valid.

What I was trying to demonstrate with my example was that you can't really draw a proper cut off year for when a claim stops being valid. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, it just also has the unintended consequence of justifying Palestinian right to return. If deprivation of your people's historic home is the benchmark for being justified to return there, it applies equally as well to the Palestinians ousted or displaced by the policies of the state of Israel.

If deprivation of your people's historic home is the benchmark for being justified to return there, it applies equally as well to the Palestinians ousted or displaced by the policies of the state of Israel. — fdrake

I think most Palestinians actually fled in '48 and for good reason - they thought the Arab countries were about to make a graveyard out of the place. Some were expelled by Israel, but others were advised or ordered by their leaders to flee.

Maybe Israel can begin a discussion about compensation when Arab countries agree to compensate the 600-800,000 Jews who were expelled and dispossessed of their property between '48-'72 (and lets not forget compensating all the descendants.) Or when the Palestinians apologize for attacking Israel in '47-'48 with militias before their Arab neighbors. They could also compensate Israel.

Jewish culture and religion is centered around the land of Israel, particularly Jerusalem. — BitconnectCarlos

Jerusalem? It was Aelia Capitolina for centuries after Hadrian had a Roman city built on what was left by the legions of Titus after they annihilated most of it and the Second Temple about sixty years before Hadrian's time. I've stood at Titus' arch close to the Forum and gazed on the relief showing men of the legions carrying the spoils of the Temple, including the Menorah, in the joint triumph celebrated in his name and that of Vespasian, his father. The land stopped being called Judea during Hadrian's reign as well. It was merged with the province of Syria and became part of Syria Palaestina. "Judea" wasn't used again until Israel started using it in the 20th century.

My point is simply that, as I noted in a prior post, this region has been occupied and governed by many, many people who weren't Jews over thousands of years. Some of those people lived there for many years indeed. So, while Jews may feel they have a special claim to or association with the region, others may reasonably feel that they don't or that they themselves have a similar claim. For me, as I don't think God conveyed real estate to anyone, it follows from this that the claim it is the Jewish "homeland" isn't persuasive and forms no basis or justification for the existence of Israel. Therefore, it shouldn't be a consideration in any conflict between Israel and anyone else. Do you think it should?

Nothing in that post is in any way shape or form a justification for Israel committing war crimes. Jews were returning well before WWII, and didn't need to kill, oppress or annex land to do it.

Nothing in that post is in any way shape or form a justification for Israel committing war crimes. — Benkei

Which war crime do you want to talk about in particular? I have nothing against condemning war crimes when they actually occurred: Deir Yassin, for instance -- I condemn that fully.

Jews were returning well before WWII, and didn't need to kill, oppress or annex land to do it. — Benkei

The Jews back in the 20s and 30s didn't have the means to kill, oppress, or annex Arab lands. On the contrary, they were the ones being murdered in Arab lands through pogroms during a time (1930s) when many Arabs openly supported and sympathized with the Nazi regime. Look into the 1929 Hebron massacre where Arabs went house-to-house killing Jews with household items and gardening tools.

The main, practical intention of the state of Israel is simply to prevent things like this.

So, while Jews may feel they have a special claim to or association with the region, others may reasonably feel that they don't or that they themselves have a similar claim. For me, as I don't think God conveyed real estate to anyone, it follows from this that the claim it is the Jewish "homeland" isn't persuasive and forms no basis or justification for the existence of Israel. Therefore, it shouldn't be a consideration in any conflict between Israel and anyone else. Do you think it should? — Ciceronianus the White

Well what grounds the justification for other types of states, e.g. non-religious ones? I guess I would say, ultimately, security.

In the case of Israel I've always felt the real reason for the state was security - to protect the Jewish people against various enemies. The religious claim may or may not be true, who knows. Others will have their religious claims too.

Israel's strategy is baffling except as an attempt to maintain the conflict for as long as possible as cover for expansions of settlements, expulsions, and further encroachments. — Baden

That's one good way how to think of it.

And other thing is that they focus their message on two special audiences: the US and the religious zealots. Perhaps just in the same way that the Arab side focuses their rhetoric on the Arab street, not to other countries and officials. And this makes the discourse in the Middle East so bellicose and utterly aggressive. Also do notice that if anywhere else we discuss security policy, we see sides building deterrences, making moves and countermoves while in the Middle East the other side is portrayed as utterly mad crazies capable of doing anything. End of story: trying to even understand the other side is deplorable, it simply can't because it's evil. Hence if in Europe some developments are found "troubling" or "deeply troubling", equivalent developments in the Middle East are "an existential threat" and "give rise to an imminent war".

And then there are all the armed groups and proxies. Having proxies to fight your wars and / or bombing a proxy of your opponent is totally normal.

What is the actual difference between Palestinians and Israeli Arabs than a passport?

Haste try to divide et impera?

What is the actual difference between Palestinians and Israeli Arabs than a passport?

Haste try to divide et impera? — ssu

From a legal standpoint, one is an Israeli citizen entitled to Israeli legal rights and the other is not. The Israeli Arabs were just the ones who stayed in Israel during the Independence war.

Nobody here or in the rest of the world has justified concepts such as property, Countries, Morality and so on.

These kind of discussions are therefore completely redundant. They are just the inflation and propagation of fiction.

Anybody could be invalidated by other peoples false beliefs.

I think that the act of having children makes a demand on land for your child to survive on. But it is completely arbitrary and unjustified. No one can justify having a child based on the idea that they are entitled to some spot of land. Unfortunately humans are deluded and so here we are...

Passing judgment on situation X is something different then solving situation X. In a philosophy forum the purpose is to discuss the ethical merits of a given situation or solution, not solving that situation. — Tobias

Alright fair enough - I think we could do both though.

It can be sometimes difficult to apply a moral lens to this sort of low intensity warfare & actual warfare but we can do our best.

When it comes to matters of national security, e.g. whether Israel was justified in their pre-emptive strike on Egyptian airfields in '67 applying an ethical analysis of the issue seems out of place. If an enemy mobilizes and surrounds your camp are you allowed to strike? Is that "ethical?"

but the question remains whether Israeli actions are right or wrong. — Tobias

There are somethings I can certainly say are wrong - massacres, for instance. Security measures such as house raids or bulldozing suicide bombers homes are not so clear.

You could crucify any group or any country like this. Was the North in the American Civil War squeaky clean morality-wise? Of course not. Sure, we can talk about what they did wrong but to only focus on their wrongs and not the crimes of the South does seem dubious. You'd get a very slanted picture of the Civil War if that's all you were presented with.

Part of the problem is also that philosophers like to conceive of morality as ahistorical and this results in 21st century people sitting on their nice couches or chairs behind computer screens judging individuals in an environment and historical circumstance that they just do not know and will never know. I guess this is a question of responsibility or blame which is different from morality. These issues are obviously closely related though.

And even beyond this - which morality are we to judge them by? Utilitarianism? Ethical Egoism? Whether the country is "being nice?"

What you tell us to do is entirely uninteresting because you do not matter one bit. (neither do I). What might be relevant is whether you are right in your advice or not and if so why / why not. You seem to have some odd idea that the truth value of an argument is dependent on who utters it.
— Tobias

Could you expand on this a little? I know that I've gravitated towards a certain relativism here. I wasn't sure that I went that far but I might have so please let me know.

"I think you misinterpret the position of your adversaries in this thread. I do not think anyone holds Israel to be 'an evil entity'. What they criticize are the actions and policies of Israel." — Tobias

There are posters who have waddled into that territory. In my mind there's no real difference between "constantly does evil" and "is evil." There are plenty of posters who have described Israel as being essentially a constantly evil force. Posters here have accused Israel of genocide constantly which is the epitome of evil in my book. Scroll back a little and you'll see plenty of these Israel-Nazi comparisons.

So, you would be happy for ANTIFA to burn down your house as long as you're given a warning. Off-topic. But, ok, check. — Baden

I am unaware of what I wrote that this is in reference to. I oppose Antifa and regard them as the modern incarnation of Hitler's brownshirts, government-sanctioned thugs who did what the government wasn't able to openly do. And FWIW I attended many Occupy protests (as an observer and amateur photographer, not so much a participant) and toward the end, saw the rallies taken over by Antifa and the "black bloc." Thousands of people would demonstrate peacefully during the day, and after dark the Antifa thugs would smash store windows and set fires in the street. What's changed since then is that back then, the MSM publicized the Antifa violence to discredit the peaceful protests. Now, MSM downplays and even denies the violence. I think that's a very bad sign.

That said, I have no idea what your remark meant or what it pertained to.

Which war crime do you want to talk about in particular? I have nothing against condemning war crimes when they actually occurred: Deir Yassin, for instance -- I condemn that fully. — BitconnectCarlos

Every time they collectively punish Palestinians, every time they annex land. In other words, more or less continuous.

The main, practical intention of the state of Israel is simply to prevent things like this. — BitconnectCarlos

Which I have previously defended but to think this is mutually exclusive with Palestinian security from Israeli violence simply doesn't follow.

Lasting peace is not established under the heel of a boot. Israel could be the saviour of Palestinians too and have true lasting peace and an ally in the region - if it would concern itself with a just solution. Since that will never happen in a country where over 50% think non-Jews are inferior, we'll be stuck with this unless the international community intervenes. My hope is there and the Irish statement is a good beginning.

When it comes to matters of national security, e.g. whether Israel was justified in their pre-emptive strike on Egyptian airfields in '67 applying an ethical analysis of the issue seems out of place. If an enemy mobilizes and surrounds your camp are you allowed to strike? Is that "ethical?" — BitconnectCarlos

Not at all out of place. Quite necessary I would think from the point of view of 'just war' theory. On a smaller scale it is a matter that lawyers and judges need to deal with very frequently.

There are somethings I can certainly say are wrong - massacres, for instance. Security measures such as house raids or bulldozing suicide bombers homes are not so clear. — BitconnectCarlos

Bulldozing houses seems very clear to me. A security measure is not a security measure just because it is worded so. By definition the suicide bomber is dead and the threat has dissipated. What sort of 'security' does bulldozing a family house bring? It is in fact collective punishment, reprisal on a population which runs contrary to established legal principle namely that punishment is a response to a crime. Of course security measures are allowed, but this comes down to punishment.

You could crucify any group or any country like this. Was the North in the American Civil War squeaky clean morality-wise? Of course not. Sure, we can talk about what they did wrong but to only focus on their wrongs and not the crimes of the South does seem dubious. You'd get a very slanted picture of the Civil War if that's all you were presented with. — BitconnectCarlos

Probably not, but if you want to attack Americans for their black pages in history the genocide on the Amerindians (or native Amercans whichever term you prefer) is an easier target. However, two wrongs do not make a right. So Israels actions do not suddenly become moral because those of the Americans in preceding centuries were immoral.

Part of the problem is also that philosophers like to conceive of morality as ahistorical and this results in 21st century people sitting on their nice couches or chairs behind computer screens judging individuals in an environment and historical circumstance that they just do not know and will never know. I guess this is a question of responsibility or blame which is different from morality. These issues are obviously closely related though. — BitconnectCarlos

If that argument flies no one can judge anything. However, it does not fly. If you are mugged in the subway the perpetrator will provided he is caught, be punished irrespective of his intractable historical circumstance. We punish him because we think mugging you is wrong. We recognise each other's pain and are capable of discerning suffering from pleasure. A historical situation makes behaviour understandable, maybe even excusable, but not right or justified.

And even beyond this - which morality are we to judge them by? Utilitarianism? Ethical Egoism? Whether the country is "being nice?" — BitconnectCarlos

Whatever moral theory you might like and presents a cogent argument for your position.

Could you expand on this a little? I know that I've gravitated towards a certain relativism here. I wasn't sure that I went that far but I might have so please let me know. — BitconnectCarlos

I do not think I need to expand much. When you say "well I have family in Israel and so that is why I embrace the position that Israel did not commit war crimes" you do that. You apparently hold the position that whether or not country X committed war crimes is dependent on whether the parties have relatives on country X.

There are posters who have waddled into that territory. In my mind there's no real difference between "constantly does evil" and "is evil." There are plenty of posters who have described Israel as being essentially a constantly evil force. Posters here have accused Israel of genocide constantly which is the epitome of evil in my book. Scroll back a little and you'll see plenty of these Israel-Nazi comparisons. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes of course there is a difference. Being evil is a characteristic of a person or entity and doing evil is judgment passed on an action. Now saying "Israel constantly does evil" is a bit of a silly statement, eveil to whom? Every moment of the day etc. But I do not think anyone said that. Secondly that was not what you said when quoting me, you were implying I overlooked Arab anti-semitism.

Some posters accuse Israel of genocide, and this could be true or not. There are internationally established definitions for when to call a certain action genocidal. It is a heinous war crime but it is something else than calling an entity essentially evil, because that is a metaphysical statement. I do think we are at the heart of the matter though. You feel personally offended an feel like you should defend yourself because you and your loved ones are being called evil by implication. However, I do not think that is what is at stake.

Why am I not surprised? Feels like deja vu all over again.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-un/un-rights-chief-bachelet-says-israeli-strikes-on-gaza-may-be-war-crimes-idUSKCN2D80YQ

From a legal standpoint, one is an Israeli citizen entitled to Israeli legal rights and the other is not. — BitconnectCarlos

And of course the real issue is that these Palestinians, who officially aren't even called Palestinians but Arab israelis, do face discrimination in the country even if being citizens.

Every time they collectively punish Palestinians, every time they annex land. In other words, more or less continuous. — Benkei

You frequently throw dozens of potential issues out there for me to address and it's just not worth it for me. When I address one you just move onto something else.

Lasting peace is not established under the heel of a boot. Israel could be the saviour of Palestinians too and have true lasting peace and an ally in the region - if it would concern itself with a just solution. Since that will never happen in a country where over 50% think non-Jews are inferior, we'll be stuck with this unless the international community intervenes. My hope is there and the Irish statement is a good beginning. — Benkei

Israel could be the savior of the Palestinian people if it packs up and leaves or agrees to subjugate themselves under Arab rule. You don't get it - this isn't about Gaza. This isn't about the West Bank. The majority position of the Palestinians is that they want all of Palestine, from the river to the sea. Why can't you understand that the problem doesn't solely lay with Israel?

Also source on the 50% figure?

And of course the real issue is that these Palestinians, who officially aren't even called Palestinians but Arab israelis, do face discrimination in the country even if citizens. — ssu

What sort of discrimination and who is it coming from? There's a difference institutional racism and racists acts by individuals. I never noticed Arabs being banned from certain places or services when I was in Israel. Arabs have strong representation in government (20%) in Israel and are allowed to vote and I believe should be equal under the law. There are tons of Arabs in high positions in Israeli society. That said I don't know anything about, e.g. the housing industry over there.

You frequently throw dozens of potential issues out there for me to address and it's just not worth it for me. When I address one you just move onto something else. — BitconnectCarlos

If you come to this discussion it's assumed you know the facts. Apparently you don't. I already linked the Amnesty International report. Good moment to educate yourself.

The latest attacks on Gaza was collective punishment, which Israeli does almost every time in an escalation.

Why can't you understand that the problem doesn't solely lay with Israel? — BitconnectCarlos

Jezus, 48 pages and you aren't paying attention are you? This has been explained as nauseum. One group is oppressed the other isn't. Oppressors don't get to play the victim card, your don't get to whine about existential threat when you have a nuclear arsenal. It's just bullshit and an excuse. Also, most Palestinians are willing to compromise as reported in your bloody link!

Also source on the 50% figure? — BitconnectCarlos

https://www.haaretz.com/1.4813183

Our Wikipedia :
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) published reports documenting racism in Israel, and the 2007 report suggested that anti-Arab racism in the country was increasing. One analysis of the report summarized it thus: "Over two-thirds Israeli teens believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together ... The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes."[15] The 2008 report from ACRI says the trend of increasing racism is continuing.[16] An Israeli minister charged the poll as biased and not credible.[17] The Israeli government spokesman responded that the Israeli government was "committed to fighting racism whenever it raises it ugly head and is committed to full equality to all Israeli citizens, irrespective of ethnicity, creed or background, as defined by our declaration of independence".[17] Isi Leibler of the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs argues that Israeli Jews are troubled by "increasingly hostile, even treasonable outbursts by Israeli Arabs against the state" while it is at war with neighboring countries.

And its laws cause institutionalised racism as well, hence my qualification of Israel as an Apartheid state. Passports have different issue dates for Jewish Israelis, number plates for Jewish Israelis are different, land laws apply differently to Jewish Israelis and non - Jewish Israelis. Quite frankly, where it comes to racism, it's one of the shittiest countries in the world.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) published reports documenting racism in Israel — Benkei

The data is a little old and was taken not too long after the second intifata but I'll let it slide. In any case, I can play this game as well -- and you know I can -- simply by citing data on the Palestinians' attitudes on Jews. It goes both ways, agree? I cited earlier that 93% of Palestinians hold anti-Semitic views and trust me I could go further. Does this surprise you? It shouldn't.

I've never denied racism in Israel.

One group is oppressed the other isn't. — Benkei

Israel cannot impose peace. It is not possible. The leadership of both parties must sign on to the agreements. It must come from both sides. The attitude that all of Palestine must be reclaimed for the Palestinians is widespread among Palestinians and serves as a significant obstacle for peace, do you agree? It is not just the Israelis.

[/i]

The latest attacks on Gaza was collective punishment, which Israeli does almost every time in an escalation. — Benkei

The latest attacks on Gaza were in response to Hamas launching thousands of rockets at Israel.

Israel cannot impose peace. It is not possible. The leadership of both parties must sign on to the agreements. It must come from both sides. The attitude that all of Palestine must be reclaimed for the Palestinians is widespread among Palestinians and serves as a significant obstacle for peace, do you agree? It is not just the Israelis. — BitconnectCarlos

No, I don't agree. It's quite clear the 1967 borders are acceptable to a majority of Palestinians, even Hamas hardliners, which already includes plenty of land stolen through conquest. There's a difference between wanting and compromising.

The latest attacks on Gaza were in response to Hamas launching thousands of rockets at Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

That's no justification for a war crime.

No, I don't agree. It's quite clear the 1967 borders are acceptable to a majority of Palestinians, even Hamas hardliners, which already includes plenty of land stolen through conquest. There's a difference between wanting and compromising. — Benkei

Hamas asked for '67 borders + right of return. '67 borders by themselves are a reasonable request, but any mention of right of return is not. RoR = end of Israel plus a logistical nightmare.

The majority of Palestinians are not simply satisfied with '67 borders if there's no RoR.

That's no justification for a war crime. — Benkei

If the Belgians started launching missiles at the Netherlands & killing the Dutch are you not allowed to respond? It's a question of how one responds, not whether response is permissible (which it obviously is.)