|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 16, 2024 13:17:14 GMT
I think most people hold the view that a two state solution is needed and not a one state solution. Isn’t that what this means? Not doing something only one side has signed off on? Apologies if I have misunderstood. No it means the complete opposite mate. By doing this Starmer is essentially saying that he's walking away from a two state solution. He's given up any leverage with Israel by telling them that he will only support whatever they want as a solution. No-one can expect to achieve anything in ANY negotiation, if you have already told the other party that they will concede their position. That’s odd. He was speaking for a 2 state solution a few weeks ago. Obviously his view is irrelevant anyway as he won’t be part of any negotiation. But I am stunned this isn’t the main headline in every paper. Is there a link to what he said as that X story has no link that I could see?
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Jan 16, 2024 13:18:36 GMT
He's going to lose a lot of the traditional Labour vote (including mine) over this! A lot of people will say that the Tories need to go and that anyone as an alternative is better and I get that. But as you rightly point out there are people that as a point of principal will find it so difficult to vote for Labour on issues such as this one, the transgender issue, the way Muslim and black members have been treated at CLP level etc. Labour will get in iwith a small majority I have no doubt but this man has very few redeeming qualities and is a disingenuous as many a Tory that have been called out on this forum........ I honestly don't see a great deal of difference between Sunak and Starmer on policy - it'll be managed decline with a kinder face.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 16, 2024 13:37:07 GMT
No it means the complete opposite mate. By doing this Starmer is essentially saying that he's walking away from a two state solution. He's given up any leverage with Israel by telling them that he will only support whatever they want as a solution. No-one can expect to achieve anything in ANY negotiation, if you have already told the other party that they will concede their position. That’s odd. He was speaking for a 2 state solution a few weeks ago. Obviously his view is irrelevant anyway as he won’t be part of any negotiation. But I am stunned this isn’t the main headline in every paper. Is there a link to what he said as that X story has no link that I could see? It's from a statement made by Wayne David (shadow Middle East minister) mate. "It's no longer about a Labour government going, right we recogise Palestine, big deal." He suggested that the party's previous position would have "counted for very litle apart from antagonising some people". "We want to see a state of Palestine being established but there is not a state of Palestine now. A Labour government would recognise the State of Palestine in conjunction with other countries. The recognition would give reinforcement to a process". The shadow minister said recognition could only come to "fruition in a way which is acceptable to the State of Israel. That is the way to bring about peace, a mutually agreed two state solution." This was a sharp departure from the party's previous stance, in which Palestinian recognition would have happened irrespective of a peace process.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 16, 2024 13:41:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 16, 2024 13:51:53 GMT
Correct. This was actually the starting point of the so-called antisemitism crisis in the Labour Party we just didn't know it at the time. A Jewish leader of the party criticised by all Jewish newspapers, the Board of Deputies, dropped by Labour's Jewish donors, called out by celebrity Jews such as Maureen Lipman, and his father subjected to awful antisemitic tropes by the written press over his stance. Because it was never about actual antisemitism and it was always about Israel/Palestine..............
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 16, 2024 14:00:11 GMT
Thanks for the link mate. Straw's argument is exactly the one I was making to Oggy earlier ... "The Israeli government, he said, wants the recognition of the Palestinian state only at the successful conclusion of any negotiations. But Straw said “such an approach would give the Israelis a veto over whether a Palestinian state should exist”. A vote for recognition would add to the pressure on the Israeli government, he said. “The only thing that the Israeli government, in my view, in its present demeanour under Bibi Netanyahu understands is pressure.”
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 16, 2024 14:21:55 GMT
That’s odd. He was speaking for a 2 state solution a few weeks ago. Obviously his view is irrelevant anyway as he won’t be part of any negotiation. But I am stunned this isn’t the main headline in every paper. Is there a link to what he said as that X story has no link that I could see? It's from a statement made by Wayne David (shadow Middle East minister) mate. "It's no longer about a Labour government going, right we recogise Palestine, big deal." He suggested that the party's previous position would have "counted for very litle apart from antagonising some people". "We want to see a state of Palestine being established but there is not a state of Palestine now. A Labour government would recognise the State of Palestine in conjunction with other countries. The recognition would give reinforcement to a process". The shadow minister said recognition could only come to "fruition in a way which is acceptable to the State of Israel. That is the way to bring about peace, a mutually agreed two state solution." This was a sharp departure from the party's previous stance, in which Palestinian recognition would have happened irrespective of a peace process. It is a statement of fact that in order for there to be peace there must be a two state solution mutually agreed between them. What would be the point in the British Labour party declaring a nation state not accepted by the nation states closest neighbours? How does that help anyone or help achieve peace? Both sides need to live side by side so any solution must be mutually agreed, as Starmer’s shadow minister rightly says.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 16, 2024 14:36:29 GMT
It's from a statement made by Wayne David (shadow Middle East minister) mate. "It's no longer about a Labour government going, right we recogise Palestine, big deal." He suggested that the party's previous position would have "counted for very litle apart from antagonising some people". "We want to see a state of Palestine being established but there is not a state of Palestine now. A Labour government would recognise the State of Palestine in conjunction with other countries. The recognition would give reinforcement to a process". The shadow minister said recognition could only come to "fruition in a way which is acceptable to the State of Israel. That is the way to bring about peace, a mutually agreed two state solution." This was a sharp departure from the party's previous stance, in which Palestinian recognition would have happened irrespective of a peace process. It is a statement of fact that in order for there to be peace there must be a two state solution mutually agreed between them. What would be the point in the British Labour party declaring a nation state not accepted by the nation states closest neighbours? How does that help anyone or help achieve peace? Both sides need to live side by side so any solution must be mutually agreed, as Starmer’s shadow minister rightly says. I used to believe in the two State solution, but I now believe that ship has sailed. I don't think either would accept living next door to the other. Also access to oil and Jerusalem need to be in the equation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2024 14:39:55 GMT
He's going to lose a lot of the traditional Labour vote (including mine) over this! Haha. The guy really is a penis. He is likely to take a huge majority in the HoC if he just kept his stupid mouth shut (or better yet, canvas what his voters actually want before talking). He’s essentially using the Tory’s own corrupt and useless governance to say “I will do what I want or that’s your alternative”.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Jan 16, 2024 14:49:09 GMT
A lot of people will say that the Tories need to go and that anyone as an alternative is better and I get that. But as you rightly point out there are people that as a point of principal will find it so difficult to vote for Labour on issues such as this one, the transgender issue, the way Muslim and black members have been treated at CLP level etc. Labour will get in iwith a small majority I have no doubt but this man has very few redeeming qualities and is a disingenuous as many a Tory that have been called out on this forum........ I honestly don't see a great deal of difference between Sunak and Starmer on policy - it'll be managed decline with a kinder face. .......and whats more, many on here have advocated a Labour win later this year. Im honestly not so sure....nothing surprises anymore.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jan 16, 2024 15:09:33 GMT
I honestly don't see a great deal of difference between Sunak and Starmer on policy - it'll be managed decline with a kinder face. .......and whats more, many on here have advocated a Labour win later this year. Im honestly not so sure....nothing surprises anymore. Oh I think labour will win a majority but it will be a very slim one
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 16, 2024 17:35:44 GMT
It's from a statement made by Wayne David (shadow Middle East minister) mate. "It's no longer about a Labour government going, right we recogise Palestine, big deal." He suggested that the party's previous position would have "counted for very litle apart from antagonising some people". "We want to see a state of Palestine being established but there is not a state of Palestine now. A Labour government would recognise the State of Palestine in conjunction with other countries. The recognition would give reinforcement to a process". The shadow minister said recognition could only come to "fruition in a way which is acceptable to the State of Israel. That is the way to bring about peace, a mutually agreed two state solution." This was a sharp departure from the party's previous stance, in which Palestinian recognition would have happened irrespective of a peace process. It is a statement of fact that in order for there to be peace there must be a two state solution mutually agreed between them. What would be the point in the British Labour party declaring a nation state not accepted by the nation states closest neighbours? How does that help anyone or help achieve peace? Both sides need to live side by side so any solution must be mutually agreed, as Starmer’s shadow minister rightly says. See my post directly above yours mate.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 16, 2024 18:07:39 GMT
Thanks for the link mate. Straw's argument is exactly the one I was making to Oggy earlier ... "The Israeli government, he said, wants the recognition of the Palestinian state only at the successful conclusion of any negotiations. But Straw said “such an approach would give the Israelis a veto over whether a Palestinian state should exist”. A vote for recognition would add to the pressure on the Israeli government, he said. “The only thing that the Israeli government, in my view, in its present demeanour under Bibi Netanyahu understands is pressure.” If either side doesn’t accept the borders of Palestine then there will be war. Both Palestine and Israel therefore have a veto over the existence and extent of any Palestinian state. And so it can only be by agreement of both sides that this is in any way resolved. I completely agree that Israel has the upper hand in everything. That is unfair. But it takes two to reach an agreement and if Palestine said “the Palestinian state is here, here and here” and Israel disagrees then there will be fighting. Labour’s approval of that approach would be foolish in my opinion because what if Palestine (perhaps via the leader of Hamas) declare all of Jerusalem as theirs? Why should Labour automatically support that? Wouldn’t it be better to say to them both that the only peaceful solution is to reach agreement. The alternative is more conflict, which favours Israel.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 16, 2024 18:08:19 GMT
It is a statement of fact that in order for there to be peace there must be a two state solution mutually agreed between them. What would be the point in the British Labour party declaring a nation state not accepted by the nation states closest neighbours? How does that help anyone or help achieve peace? Both sides need to live side by side so any solution must be mutually agreed, as Starmer’s shadow minister rightly says. I used to believe in the two State solution, but I now believe that ship has sailed. I don't think either would accept living next door to the other. Also access to oil and Jerusalem need to be in the equation. A one state solution is the eradication of Palestine though. Surely you don’t think that is the best solution?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 16, 2024 18:37:20 GMT
I used to believe in the two State solution, but I now believe that ship has sailed. I don't think either would accept living next door to the other. Also access to oil and Jerusalem need to be in the equation. A one state solution is the eradication of Palestine though. Surely you don’t think that is the best solution? Unfortunately Oggy I don't think there is an acceptable solution. Israel should not have been created in the first place...adding to an already difficult history. What should happen, as we have already said, is to stop the aggression now and then sit down and talk and Keep talking. But we can't turn back the clock. The West back Israel, so the reality is that obviously Israel will continue to exist. So what I think will happen....Israel will be allowed to batter, destroy Gaza until it completely loses any autonomy or idea of Nationhood. Then some contrived peace deal will be arranged which basically will give complete power over Gaza to the Israelis, but it will presented as acceptable to a subdued Gaza. The issue will then fade from being newsworthy, will not be in consciousness. Are Libya or Iraq important issues now? It is not at all my preferred solution. Unfortunately I don't think there is an acceptable one. I've said I used to believe in the two State solution...I don't think it would work now, except in name only
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 16, 2024 19:43:36 GMT
Thanks for the link mate. Straw's argument is exactly the one I was making to Oggy earlier ... "The Israeli government, he said, wants the recognition of the Palestinian state only at the successful conclusion of any negotiations. But Straw said “such an approach would give the Israelis a veto over whether a Palestinian state should exist”. A vote for recognition would add to the pressure on the Israeli government, he said. “The only thing that the Israeli government, in my view, in its present demeanour under Bibi Netanyahu understands is pressure.” If either side doesn’t accept the borders of Palestine then there will be war. Both Palestine and Israel therefore have a veto over the existence and extent of any Palestinian state. And so it can only be by agreement of both sides that this is in any way resolved. I completely agree that Israel has the upper hand in everything. That is unfair. But it takes two to reach an agreement and if Palestine said “the Palestinian state is here, here and here” and Israel disagrees then there will be fighting. Labour’s approval of that approach would be foolish in my opinion because what if Palestine (perhaps via the leader of Hamas) declare all of Jerusalem as theirs? Why should Labour automatically support that? Wouldn’t it be better to say to them both that the only peaceful solution is to reach agreement. The alternative is more conflict, which favours Israel. I guess we're probably going to end up agreeing to disagree on this but what you're suggesting, isn't what Jack Straw was talking about. Recognising the State of Palestine is a symbolic gesture, it ISN'T about demanding that specific borders have to be adhered to right now. It is telling Israel that you need to be serious if you want to sit down at the table because WE believe in Palestine's right to exist. Netanyahu isn't going to give any negotiator the time of day, if from the outset, you've already conceeded that he has the upper hand. Severe sanctions must be an option and any negotiations should begin by demonstrating that you're prepared to get tough if necessary. Starmer's (pathetic) reversal, is extremely significant and essentially tells Israel, that we've got your back mate and that ultimately, any hope of a two state solution dies right here.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2024 20:20:22 GMT
A one state solution is the eradication of Palestine though. Surely you don’t think that is the best solution? Unfortunately Oggy I don't think there is an acceptable solution. Israel should not have been created in the first place...adding to an already difficult history. What should happen, as we have already said, is to stop the aggression now and then sit down and talk and Keep talking. But we can't turn back the clock. The West back Israel, so the reality is that obviously Israel will continue to exist. So what I think will happen....Israel will be allowed to batter, destroy Gaza until it completely loses ant autonomy or idea of Nationhood. Then some contrived peace deal will be arranged which basically will give complete power over Gaza to the Israelis, but it will presented as acceptable to a subdued Gaza. The issue will then fade from being newsworthy, will not be in consciousness. Are Libya or Iraq important issues now? It is not at all my preferred solution. Unfortunately I don't think there is an acceptable one. I've said I used to believe in the two State solution...I don't think it would work now, except in name only Then 10 years after, there will be a huge swelling of terrorist activity and politicians will use it to cease more rights of everyday people in the name of “national security”. At which point, everyone wins, unless you are of course, Palestinian. I don’t necessarily disagree with you either. It’s one of the reasons I stopped contributing more to the Israel thread. I don’t see it ending any other way. No one in power wants it to.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 16, 2024 20:37:25 GMT
If either side doesn’t accept the borders of Palestine then there will be war. Both Palestine and Israel therefore have a veto over the existence and extent of any Palestinian state. And so it can only be by agreement of both sides that this is in any way resolved. I completely agree that Israel has the upper hand in everything. That is unfair. But it takes two to reach an agreement and if Palestine said “the Palestinian state is here, here and here” and Israel disagrees then there will be fighting. Labour’s approval of that approach would be foolish in my opinion because what if Palestine (perhaps via the leader of Hamas) declare all of Jerusalem as theirs? Why should Labour automatically support that? Wouldn’t it be better to say to them both that the only peaceful solution is to reach agreement. The alternative is more conflict, which favours Israel. I guess we're probably going to end up agreeing to disagree on this but what you're suggesting, isn't what Jack Straw was talking about. Recognising the State of Palestine is a symbolic gesture, it ISN'T about demanding that specific borders have to be adhered to right now. It is telling Israel that you need to be serious if you want to sit down at the table because WE believe in Palestine's right to exist. Netanyahu isn't going to give any negotiator the time of day, if from the outset, you've already conceeded that he has the upper hand. Severe sanctions must be an option and any negotiations should begin by demonstrating that you're prepared to get tough if necessary. Starmer's (pathetic) reversal, is extremely significant and essentially tells Israel, that we've got your back mate and that ultimately, any hope of a two state solution dies right here. Maybe you are right. But I don’t think Netanyahu loses any sleep whatsoever over what Kier Starmer thinks. Until Israel appoints a moderate, they will continue as they have been.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 16, 2024 21:11:52 GMT
I guess we're probably going to end up agreeing to disagree on this but what you're suggesting, isn't what Jack Straw was talking about. Recognising the State of Palestine is a symbolic gesture, it ISN'T about demanding that specific borders have to be adhered to right now. It is telling Israel that you need to be serious if you want to sit down at the table because WE believe in Palestine's right to exist. Netanyahu isn't going to give any negotiator the time of day, if from the outset, you've already conceeded that he has the upper hand. Severe sanctions must be an option and any negotiations should begin by demonstrating that you're prepared to get tough if necessary. Starmer's (pathetic) reversal, is extremely significant and essentially tells Israel, that we've got your back mate and that ultimately, any hope of a two state solution dies right here. Maybe you are right. But I don’t think Netanyahu loses any sleep whatsoever over what Kier Starmer thinks. Until Israel appoints a moderate, they will continue as they have been. Oh 100% mate. My beef here isn't with Netanyahu but with Starmer.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 16, 2024 21:27:17 GMT
Thanks for the link mate. Straw's argument is exactly the one I was making to Oggy earlier ... "The Israeli government, he said, wants the recognition of the Palestinian state only at the successful conclusion of any negotiations. But Straw said “such an approach would give the Israelis a veto over whether a Palestinian state should exist”. A vote for recognition would add to the pressure on the Israeli government, he said. “The only thing that the Israeli government, in my view, in its present demeanour under Bibi Netanyahu understands is pressure.” If either side doesn’t accept the borders of Palestine then there will be war. Both Palestine and Israel therefore have a veto over the existence and extent of any Palestinian state. And so it can only be by agreement of both sides that this is in any way resolved. I completely agree that Israel has the upper hand in everything. That is unfair. But it takes two to reach an agreement and if Palestine said “the Palestinian state is here, here and here” and Israel disagrees then there will be fighting. Labour’s approval of that approach would be foolish in my opinion because what if Palestine (perhaps via the leader of Hamas) declare all of Jerusalem as theirs? Why should Labour automatically support that? Wouldn’t it be better to say to them both that the only peaceful solution is to reach agreement. The alternative is more conflict, which favours Israel. Starmer is being disengenuous and Politicking It is universally understood that the Two State Solution is based on the 1967 borders as agreed in the Oslo Accord and accepted by US UK and UN still today Israel, specifically Netanyahu, never had the intention of honouring the Agreement Israel signed with the PLO. In fact Huddy and I have both shared a video clip of Netanyahu where he explains how he plotted to get Israel to renage on an International Agreement it signed Of course since the signing of the Oslo Accord almost 1M Israeli Settlers have invaded the Occupied West Bank which is in itself a violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention and Multiple UN Resolutions I agree with your comment that Israel holds the upper hand Militarily and with International Backing but that hardly justifies Starmers Ignorant unhelpful comments nor does it provide Israel with a lasting peaceful solution. Pursuing that policy can only be achieved by the entire Genocide of the Palestinians which some of us believe is Israel's end game all along.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jan 18, 2024 14:03:00 GMT
Literally nothings going to change. It's no wonder the media give Starmer and Labour such an easy ride these days.
Labour wouldn't be getting my vote if they stood in my area.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 18, 2024 15:34:18 GMT
Literally nothings going to change. It's no wonder the media give Starmer and Labour such an easy ride these days. Labour wouldn't be getting my vote if they stood in my area. Except the headline doesn't reflect what she said at all and contained in the Article She said the priority would be to encourage Private Investment to stimulate Growth and when there was headroom her ambition was to cut Taxes but the lower paid would be the priority Contrast what Hunt did in his Autumn Statement. On average the top 20% will benefit by £1,000 and the remainder on average £200. This will cost the Treasury £20Bn which be paid for by cuts to Public Services Budget. Its Political choices of collection and distribution of available resources
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jan 18, 2024 16:09:28 GMT
Literally nothings going to change. It's no wonder the media give Starmer and Labour such an easy ride these days. Labour wouldn't be getting my vote if they stood in my area. Except the headline doesn't reflect what she said at all and contained in the Article She said the priority would be to encourage Private Investment to stimulate Growth and when there was headroom her ambition was to cut Taxes but the lower paid would be the priority Contrast what Hunt did in his Autumn Statement. On average the top 20% will benefit by £1,000 and the remainder on average £200. This will cost the Treasury £20Bn which be paid for by cuts to Public Services Budget. Its Political choices of collection and distribution of available resources She and the rest of Starmers front bench (Raynor aside) are pandering to the rich rather than the Labour base at every twist and turn. Tax in the uk for high earners isn't that high compared to neighbouring countries and our tax bill as a percentage of GDP is much lower too. We need leaders which want to address rising inequality by closing tax evasion loopholes, increasing tax for the richest in society and reinvesting that money into the economy. Prancing around saying you're going to cut tax for the wealthiest isn't what's required and it certainly won't appeal to the Labour base either. Between that and starmer saying britian was right to reject Labour in 2019. It does leave you wandering who this party really represent. How many billions have been siphoned out to tory donors since 2019, how much have waiting lists grown, how has the economy suffered? And this geezer is sauntering around the country telling everyone that voting tory over Labour was the right thing to do? He is one of the key reasons Labour lost that election because like most of his front bench he is for sale to the highest bidder.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 18, 2024 16:39:22 GMT
Except the headline doesn't reflect what she said at all and contained in the Article She said the priority would be to encourage Private Investment to stimulate Growth and when there was headroom her ambition was to cut Taxes but the lower paid would be the priority Contrast what Hunt did in his Autumn Statement. On average the top 20% will benefit by £1,000 and the remainder on average £200. This will cost the Treasury £20Bn which be paid for by cuts to Public Services Budget. Its Political choices of collection and distribution of available resources She and the rest of Starmers front bench (Raynor aside) are pandering to the rich rather than the Labour base at every twist and turn. Tax in the uk for high earners isn't that high compared to neighbouring countries and our tax bill as a percentage of GDP is much lower too. We need leaders which want to address rising inequality by closing tax evasion loopholes, increasing tax for the richest in society and reinvesting that money into the economy. Prancing around saying you're going to cut tax for the wealthiest isn't what's required and it certainly won't appeal to the Labour base either. Between that and starmer saying britian was right to reject Labour in 2019. It does leave you wandering who this party really represent. How many billions have been siphoned out to tory donors since 2019, how much have waiting lists grown, how has the economy suffered? And this geezer is sauntering around the country telling everyone that voting tory over Labour was the right thing to do? He is one of the key reasons Labour lost that election because like most of his front bench he is for sale to the highest bidder. You've answered a whole different number of questions here, some of which I agree with. Reeves and Starmer if Elected need to be judged on what they say (Manifesto) and what they do. That's the package they put before the Electorate and people can choose which they prefer Not some made up Article Headline from the Telegraph
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 19, 2024 17:46:16 GMT
Maybe you are right. But I don’t think Netanyahu loses any sleep whatsoever over what Kier Starmer thinks. Until Israel appoints a moderate, they will continue as they have been. Oh 100% mate. My beef here isn't with Netanyahu but with Starmer. He's one of the most confusing politicians in recent history. I honestly don't think he knows what he's going to come out with one day to the next?
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jan 19, 2024 17:47:45 GMT
Oh 100% mate. My beef here isn't with Netanyahu but with Starmer. He's one of the most confusing politicians in recent history. I honestly don't think he knows what he's going to come out with one day to the next? I would imagine another focus group has just reported in
|
|
|
Post by atillathehoneybee on Jan 19, 2024 17:57:26 GMT
Imagine him and The Don negotiating ..Trump will eat him alive
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 19, 2024 18:43:19 GMT
Imagine him and The Don negotiating ..Trump will eat him alive Trump can hardly speak in sentences.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 19, 2024 18:44:44 GMT
Oh 100% mate. My beef here isn't with Netanyahu but with Starmer. He's one of the most confusing politicians in recent history. I honestly don't think he knows what he's going to come out with one day to the next? Straight from the horse’s mouth. Much more reliable than via a third party.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2024 20:19:17 GMT
Oh 100% mate. My beef here isn't with Netanyahu but with Starmer. He's one of the most confusing politicians in recent history. I honestly don't think he knows what he's going to come out with one day to the next? He’s a classic, modern day politician. The idea is just to throw as many different narratives out there as possible. Who needs positions when you have distractions and deflections?
|
|