The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[Sixties Fan]

In which of the wars did Israel use phosphorus. Has it not stopped doing it? Is that not an acknowledgment by the Israeli government that it was not the right thing to do?

Israel 'to scrap phosphorus shells'

Britain's Observer issues correction: Israel did not use chemical weapons In Gaza - Diplomacy & Politics - Jerusalem Post


Besides the phosphorus, what else do I need to check on?

Whatever I post from Israeli, or other sources who have been on the ground, has been verified

I do state my opinions with the knowledge:
1) How the Israeli government operates to defend the country

2) on reports from many different sources.


One cannot say that facts written or said on television about the events, especially when checked by several sources are nothing but "My opinion" on the matter, on what has happened.

I read very carefully sites like Ma'an, Al Jazeera and others, which so many on these thread post, be it articles or videos, as much as Susha and others do.

If it correct I will say so.

If it is not, I will do the necessary research and debunk it with the evidence I have found.

Will I be believed? Will the material be believed? Will it change any minds who have decided that Israel likes to kill Palestinians and steal Palestinian land?

That is not up to me or any of the others here.

We state the facts about what has led to the conflict between Muslims and Jews. And why there was such a rejection of Jews being sovereign over their own ancient homeland.

And why it continues to this day.

Before Israel, the Jews could not freely express themselves in most countries.

Now, we have our country back, even if only part of it, and we are free to fight for our land and the truth about what is happening in the area and debunk any and all lies attributed to Israel, or any Israeli or Jew.

Are we going to be believed? Maybe.

Sometimes we will win and people will see what is true, and sometimes they will not.


You refer to our side's posts as opinions.

Does not that delegitimize in any one's mind, who does not like Israel, that such an opinion might be true, even if it is not based on facts?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Daniel Patrick Moynihan - Wikiquote

-----------------
Besides the phosphorus, could you let me know what other things Israel did wrong so that I may research it and give you my opinion on it?

Sixties, would you object if I start a new thread and move this post and our discussion to it? I think we'll end up derailing this thread otherwise.

Feel free

What topic title would you like?

What is the bottom line of what we were discussing? LOL

Israel not acknowledging being wrong sometimes or was it more than that? Some people's view that Israel sometimes does not acknowledge or changes things in order not to harm Palestinians?

We were also discussing facts vs opinions.

And also discussing if Israel owed anything to the Arabs, since the Jews were eventually expelled from most Arab countries only two years later. If both were equal and if they should be viewed in the same way.

I am not sure what the title should be.

Can anyone else help with the title for the next thread Coyote will be starting on the subject we were discussing?

Well Israel does acknowledge wrong doing at times, not at other times - my comments were all directed however at what posters HERE say...not what Israel says.

What I say, is based on what I see in the news, on videos, etc.

It is not my "opinion", but I am referring to what reporters who were there, or IDF, etc investigation does bring up about what has happened and I always ad a link to it.

I do not think I understand what we say has to do with what Israel says, or does not.

I for one, do a lot of research around what is alleged that Israel has done or said about any event, as I did about the Phosphorus.

And sorry, I do not think that any country would actually think of utilizing laughing gas or pot to try to stop people who want to invade a country and kill its population.

I just did a research on it and came out with nothing of the kind.

And my opinion, based on how many countries have used it and what the enemy is after, is that it would not be effective at all.

 

[Shusha]

Agree, that is well put and it makes sense.

Thank you. I appreciate your acknowledgement.

It's a horrible thing to drive people out and then create laws to prevent them from returning or even claiming their property.

It is. Just like stealing a loaf of bread is a horrible thing. But if it is necessary for survival the morality becomes a lot more complex.

Remember the purpose of the separation is not to punish a people either individually or collectively -- but to prevent a hostile group from having access to the Jewish people in order to ensure the Jewish people's literal physical survival, as well as the survival of her identity, traditions, culture and religion. The morality becomes a whole lot more complex.

The fact that it was mutual doesn't change that does it?

It wasn't mutual. That is not what I meant. When one people is fighting for survival and the other is not there is nothing mutual about it. Not one of those Arab nations was under threat of survival from the Jewish people. Not one. Yes, it does change that.

Edited to add: my bad, I brought up the word 'mutual'. To be clear, the exchange of population was mutual -- the causes for it were not.

I DO understand what you are saying, but I am very conflicted about it.

Thank you. I appreciate you saying that. And I appreciate you being conflicted about it. That is what good conversation does.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ Coyote, et al,

I think that it has been said by me (and several others) before; but I'll say it again.

⇒ ... If you want me to stop saying that it seems like Israel can do no wrong than acknowledge wrong doing sometimes e instead of automatically defending everything.

(ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)

In the ≈ 100 years of violence, between the 1920 Riots ⇔ right up to the March to Return, several actors have participated at one time or another. But the Jewish/Israelis and all the variations and factions that compose the Arab Palestinian component, have been locked together in conflict → continuously → for the entire time. And they continue to be locked in a form of conflict. The conventional forces have passed through at various times, but most all of the external actors (excluding Iran and the Shia Islamist political party and militant group based in Lebanon) have faded away; just leaving the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians to work it out themselves.

I think I said previously, there are no clean hands in this conflict. Each side has deviated, from what is considered today, Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

(DILEMMA)

Today, we see a stereotypical incitement operation under the cover and concealment that is billed as a non-violent protest. HAMAS has organized daily an estimated 20,000 --- 30,000 people to gather along the Gaza-Israel Border for the launch of the six-week "March of Great Return" (sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller). Several times, it has been asked: IS this is a threat to breach the border. If HAMAS could arrange the protests to simultaneously swamp the border, even an Israeli Infantry Brigade (4000 to 5000 strong) could not turn back such an assault in a "non-lethal" way.

ANSWER: It is a threat to Israel from a physical security and sovereignty standpoint. It is a threat to Israel from an economic, political and diplomatic standpoint. AND it is a threat to the regional peace.

QUESTION: What action do you expect (using the Principle of Sufficient Reason) Israel to take if the Palestinian begin to swarm and swamp the border?

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, I think you are applying an argument to me that I am not making. I have repeatedly said that Israel is in the right to to take action in defending it's sovereignty and protecting it's citizens regarding the swamping of it's border by huge numbers of hostile people, in particular if they are armed. It's the right of every country. Now, as with any other country the caveat is - least amount of force necessary to do the job.

Though honestly, maybe it's time to think outside the box for some of this...

What if they created and utilized chemical weapons made of laughing gas? Since teargas and smoke bombs seem less affective, use laughing gas. It's hard to be a hostile if you are laughing hysterically. In addition, all along the border fences create a ditch, filled with marijuana - and if hostiles start to try and breech it, they have run through a mile of pot smoke, and they are bound to get high. It's hard to be hostile if your high.

Alright, it's silly but it could work and pot could be a cash crop in the process.

I am not objecting to Israel's actions vis a vis it's borders and with Hamas' incitement, though there are instances where those actions need to be examined, such as the shooting of Murtaja.

Perhaps Israel should address why the Palestinians are protesting.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I for one, do a lot of research around what is alleged that Israel has done or said about any event, as I did about the Phosphorus.

Interesting, what is the story about Nabi Saleh?

What would your research say?

 

[Shusha]

Perhaps Israel should address why the Palestinians are protesting.

The Palestinian Arabs, as well as other Arabs in history, are protesting the establishment of Israel and the self-determination of the indigenous Jewish people in their homeland. There is no way for Israel to address that and survive.

 

[Coyote]

Agree, that is well put and it makes sense.

Thank you. I appreciate your acknowledgement.

It's a horrible thing to drive people out and then create laws to prevent them from returning or even claiming their property.

It is. Just like stealing a loaf of bread is a horrible thing. But if it is necessary for survival the morality becomes a lot more complex.

Remember the purpose of the separation is not to punish a people either individually or collectively -- but to prevent a hostile group from having access to the Jewish people in order to ensure the Jewish people's literal physical survival, as well as the survival of her identity, traditions, culture and religion. The morality becomes a whole lot more complex.

The fact that it was mutual doesn't change that does it?

It wasn't mutual. That is not what I meant. When one people is fighting for survival and the other is not there is nothing mutual about it. Not one of those Arab nations was under threat of survival from the Jewish people. Not one. Yes, it does change that.

Edited to add: my bad, I brought up the word 'mutual'. To be clear, the exchange of population was mutual -- the causes for it were not.

I DO understand what you are saying, but I am very conflicted about it.

Thank you. I appreciate you saying that. And I appreciate you being conflicted about it. That is what good conversation does.

It is mutual in the sense that both sets of people were horribly affected. You think of it in terms of a people, I think of it in terms of people. To those Palestinians, who saw their property taken through unjust laws - it is no less tragic or wrong becuse their existence as a people was not endangered.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Perhaps Israel should address why the Palestinians are protesting.

The Palestinian Arabs, as well as other Arabs in history, are protesting the establishment of Israel and the self-determination of the indigenous Jewish people in their homeland. There is no way for Israel to address that and survive.

Not!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Agree, that is well put and it makes sense.

Thank you. I appreciate your acknowledgement.

It's a horrible thing to drive people out and then create laws to prevent them from returning or even claiming their property.

It is. Just like stealing a loaf of bread is a horrible thing. But if it is necessary for survival the morality becomes a lot more complex.

Remember the purpose of the separation is not to punish a people either individually or collectively -- but to prevent a hostile group from having access to the Jewish people in order to ensure the Jewish people's literal physical survival, as well as the survival of her identity, traditions, culture and religion. The morality becomes a whole lot more complex.

The fact that it was mutual doesn't change that does it?

It wasn't mutual. That is not what I meant. When one people is fighting for survival and the other is not there is nothing mutual about it. Not one of those Arab nations was under threat of survival from the Jewish people. Not one. Yes, it does change that.

Edited to add: my bad, I brought up the word 'mutual'. To be clear, the exchange of population was mutual -- the causes for it were not.

I DO understand what you are saying, but I am very conflicted about it.

Thank you. I appreciate you saying that. And I appreciate you being conflicted about it. That is what good conversation does.

It is mutual in the sense that both sets of people were horribly affected. You think of it in terms of a people, I think of it in terms of people. To those Palestinians, who saw their property taken through unjust laws - it is no less tragic or wrong becuse their existence as a people was not endangered.

Yes it was (is). Israel has consistently denied the existence of Palestinians as a people and Palestine as a country. Wipe them off the map and out of history.

 

[Hollie]

Agree, that is well put and it makes sense.

Thank you. I appreciate your acknowledgement.

It's a horrible thing to drive people out and then create laws to prevent them from returning or even claiming their property.

It is. Just like stealing a loaf of bread is a horrible thing. But if it is necessary for survival the morality becomes a lot more complex.

Remember the purpose of the separation is not to punish a people either individually or collectively -- but to prevent a hostile group from having access to the Jewish people in order to ensure the Jewish people's literal physical survival, as well as the survival of her identity, traditions, culture and religion. The morality becomes a whole lot more complex.

The fact that it was mutual doesn't change that does it?

It wasn't mutual. That is not what I meant. When one people is fighting for survival and the other is not there is nothing mutual about it. Not one of those Arab nations was under threat of survival from the Jewish people. Not one. Yes, it does change that.

Edited to add: my bad, I brought up the word 'mutual'. To be clear, the exchange of population was mutual -- the causes for it were not.

I DO understand what you are saying, but I am very conflicted about it.

Thank you. I appreciate you saying that. And I appreciate you being conflicted about it. That is what good conversation does.

It is mutual in the sense that both sets of people were horribly affected. You think of it in terms of a people, I think of it in terms of people. To those Palestinians, who saw their property taken through unjust laws - it is no less tragic or wrong becuse their existence as a people was not endangered.

Yes it was (is). Israel has consistently denied the existence of Palestinians as a people and Palestine as a country. Wipe them off the map and out of history.

When did your Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally’land become a country?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Agree, that is well put and it makes sense.

Thank you. I appreciate your acknowledgement.

It's a horrible thing to drive people out and then create laws to prevent them from returning or even claiming their property.

It is. Just like stealing a loaf of bread is a horrible thing. But if it is necessary for survival the morality becomes a lot more complex.

Remember the purpose of the separation is not to punish a people either individually or collectively -- but to prevent a hostile group from having access to the Jewish people in order to ensure the Jewish people's literal physical survival, as well as the survival of her identity, traditions, culture and religion. The morality becomes a whole lot more complex.

The fact that it was mutual doesn't change that does it?

It wasn't mutual. That is not what I meant. When one people is fighting for survival and the other is not there is nothing mutual about it. Not one of those Arab nations was under threat of survival from the Jewish people. Not one. Yes, it does change that.

Edited to add: my bad, I brought up the word 'mutual'. To be clear, the exchange of population was mutual -- the causes for it were not.

I DO understand what you are saying, but I am very conflicted about it.

Thank you. I appreciate you saying that. And I appreciate you being conflicted about it. That is what good conversation does.

It is mutual in the sense that both sets of people were horribly affected. You think of it in terms of a people, I think of it in terms of people. To those Palestinians, who saw their property taken through unjust laws - it is no less tragic or wrong becuse their existence as a people was not endangered.

Yes it was (is). Israel has consistently denied the existence of Palestinians as a people and Palestine as a country. Wipe them off the map and out of history.

When did your Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally’land become a country?

More proof that we need a stupid post button.

 

[Hollie]

Agree, that is well put and it makes sense.

Thank you. I appreciate your acknowledgement.

It's a horrible thing to drive people out and then create laws to prevent them from returning or even claiming their property.

It is. Just like stealing a loaf of bread is a horrible thing. But if it is necessary for survival the morality becomes a lot more complex.

Remember the purpose of the separation is not to punish a people either individually or collectively -- but to prevent a hostile group from having access to the Jewish people in order to ensure the Jewish people's literal physical survival, as well as the survival of her identity, traditions, culture and religion. The morality becomes a whole lot more complex.

The fact that it was mutual doesn't change that does it?

It wasn't mutual. That is not what I meant. When one people is fighting for survival and the other is not there is nothing mutual about it. Not one of those Arab nations was under threat of survival from the Jewish people. Not one. Yes, it does change that.

Edited to add: my bad, I brought up the word 'mutual'. To be clear, the exchange of population was mutual -- the causes for it were not.

I DO understand what you are saying, but I am very conflicted about it.

Thank you. I appreciate you saying that. And I appreciate you being conflicted about it. That is what good conversation does.

It is mutual in the sense that both sets of people were horribly affected. You think of it in terms of a people, I think of it in terms of people. To those Palestinians, who saw their property taken through unjust laws - it is no less tragic or wrong becuse their existence as a people was not endangered.

Yes it was (is). Israel has consistently denied the existence of Palestinians as a people and Palestine as a country. Wipe them off the map and out of history.

When did your Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally’land become a country?

More proof that we need a stupid post button.

You’re angry because you were called out on another of your baseless statements.

 

[rylah]

I for one, do a lot of research around what is alleged that Israel has done or said about any event, as I did about the Phosphorus.

Interesting, what is the story about Nabi Saleh?

What would your research say?

Nabi Saleh is an exclusive settlement of the Tamimi tribe originating in Arabia.
The Tamimi tribe is centered mainly in Hebron,

Arab tradition says that the tribe descends from prophet's companion Tamim a-Deraei تميم الداري, who received a land deed from the prophet himself and later settled in the city.

While the Tamimi tribe has concentrated the Arab source of Hebron, there are testimonies of the people of Hebron themselves that half of the city origins are Kurdish.

The reason for this is the wars of Islam against the Crusaders. The war was not done by the Arabs but by the Kurds and the Turks (even before the Ottoman Empire) and the army of Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi was composed of a Kurdish command. After the conquest of the land, he transferred a large part of his army to Hebron in order to preserve the borders of the country from the Arab Bedouin. Within Hebron, the Arabs opposed the leadership of the Tamimi tribe, and what characterized the history of Hebron were the many wars between the Kurds and the Arabs.

If we go further back, the Nabi-Saleh settlement has it's roots in the city of Madaan-Saleh northern Arabia.

 

[Shusha]

Perhaps Israel should address why the Palestinians are protesting.

The Palestinian Arabs, as well as other Arabs in history, are protesting the establishment of Israel and the self-determination of the indigenous Jewish people in their homeland. There is no way for Israel to address that and survive.

Not!

That is not what they are protesting?

 

[Shusha]

I for one, do a lot of research around what is alleged that Israel has done or said about any event, as I did about the Phosphorus.

Interesting, what is the story about Nabi Saleh?

What would your research say?

Nabi Saleh is an exclusive settlement of the Tamimi tribe originating in Arabia.
The Tamimi tribe is centered mainly in Hebron,

Arab tradition says that the tribe descends from prophet's companion Tamim a-Deraei تميم الداري, who received a land deed from the prophet himself and later settled in the city.

While the Tamimi tribe has concentrated the Arab source of Hebron, there are testimonies of the people of Hebron themselves that half of the city origins are Kurdish.

The reason for this is the wars of Islam against the Crusaders. The war was not done by the Arabs but by the Kurds and the Turks (even before the Ottoman Empire) and the army of Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi was composed of a Kurdish command. After the conquest of the land, he transferred a large part of his army to Hebron in order to preserve the borders of the country from the Arab Bedouin. Within Hebron, the Arabs opposed the leadership of the Tamimi tribe, and what characterized the history of Hebron were the many wars between the Kurds and the Arabs.

If we go further back, the Nabi-Saleh settlement has it's roots in the city of Madaan-Saleh northern Arabia.

Simple research also demonstrates clearly that the culture of the people of Nabi Saleh is Arab and not indigenous.

 

[rylah]

I for one, do a lot of research around what is alleged that Israel has done or said about any event, as I did about the Phosphorus.

Interesting, what is the story about Nabi Saleh?

What would your research say?

Nabi Saleh is an exclusive settlement of the Tamimi tribe originating in Arabia.
The Tamimi tribe is centered mainly in Hebron,

Arab tradition says that the tribe descends from prophet's companion Tamim a-Deraei تميم الداري, who received a land deed from the prophet himself and later settled in the city.

While the Tamimi tribe has concentrated the Arab source of Hebron, there are testimonies of the people of Hebron themselves that half of the city origins are Kurdish.

The reason for this is the wars of Islam against the Crusaders. The war was not done by the Arabs but by the Kurds and the Turks (even before the Ottoman Empire) and the army of Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi was composed of a Kurdish command. After the conquest of the land, he transferred a large part of his army to Hebron in order to preserve the borders of the country from the Arab Bedouin. Within Hebron, the Arabs opposed the leadership of the Tamimi tribe, and what characterized the history of Hebron were the many wars between the Kurds and the Arabs.

If we go further back, the Nabi-Saleh settlement has it's roots in the city of Madaan-Saleh northern Arabia.

Simple research also demonstrates clearly that the culture of the people of Nabi Saleh is Arab and not indigenous.

Yep, and showing deep knowledge of ones ancestral homeland is a great example of what it is to be indigenous. Sometimes I get too cocky

 

[Billo_Really]

Indigeneity describes a culture, not individuals. The culture of the Palestinian Arab peoples originated (occurred naturally) in another place. It did not occur naturally in Israel, Judea and Samaria -- it was brought there through invasion and conquest and migration. And it over-took the local, naturally occurring, indigenous culture. (But that indigenous culture survived both inside Israel and outside Israel).

It is the same in the Americas. The descendants of European colonizers to the Americas are NOT indigenous to the Americas. They have a foreign culture which was transplanted from another place (where they ARE indigenous). It doesn't matter how many generations go by -- the European culture did not originate in the Americas. Those who practice the European culture are not indigenous to the Americas. That does not in any way limit or eliminate European rights in America, but it DOES give rights to sovereignty to the First Nations peoples of the Americas.

This is not especially difficult to understand. And it does not in any way limit or eliminate Palestinian Arab rights.

You were not given rights to Palestine, you took them.

 

[Billo_Really]

Actually, most indigenous cultures have a strong spiritual connection to a particular land which is reflected in their religious faith and theology.

Not just the Jewish peoples but nearly every North American First Nations People, the Irish, Korea. Those are just a few examples I am personally familiar with. Its actually so common as to be part of the UN definition of "indigenous".

Are you including muslims?

 

[Billo_Really]

Odd, don't you think, that the Arab Holy Place is built on top of the Jewish Holy Place. What was that about not taking land that wasn't yours to begin with? Odd, don't you think, that Muslims can pray in their third most holy place and yet Jews can't pray in their most holy place. What was that about having more rights than the people already living there?

There you go, making shit up again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I for one, do a lot of research around what is alleged that Israel has done or said about any event, as I did about the Phosphorus.

Interesting, what is the story about Nabi Saleh?

What would your research say?

Nabi Saleh is an exclusive settlement of the Tamimi tribe originating in Arabia.
The Tamimi tribe is centered mainly in Hebron,

Arab tradition says that the tribe descends from prophet's companion Tamim a-Deraei تميم الداري, who received a land deed from the prophet himself and later settled in the city.

While the Tamimi tribe has concentrated the Arab source of Hebron, there are testimonies of the people of Hebron themselves that half of the city origins are Kurdish.

The reason for this is the wars of Islam against the Crusaders. The war was not done by the Arabs but by the Kurds and the Turks (even before the Ottoman Empire) and the army of Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi was composed of a Kurdish command. After the conquest of the land, he transferred a large part of his army to Hebron in order to preserve the borders of the country from the Arab Bedouin. Within Hebron, the Arabs opposed the leadership of the Tamimi tribe, and what characterized the history of Hebron were the many wars between the Kurds and the Arabs.

If we go further back, the Nabi-Saleh settlement has it's roots in the city of Madaan-Saleh northern Arabia.

Interesting. That means they got Palestinian citizenship after WWI.

So, what is their relationship with the Israeli occupation. There have been problems there for years.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is a recommendation that has been made often.

Perhaps Israel should address why the Palestinians are protesting.

(POINTS of REFERENCE)

RAMALLAH, April 5 (Xinhua) --
The Palestinians insist that they will not accept the resumption of unconditioned peace talks with Israel, a senior official stated on Tuesday.


Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian negotiator and Secretary General of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), told "Voice of Palestine" Radio that the Palestinians reject the notion of restarting the peace talks with Israel unconditionally.
Source: Xinhua 2016-04-05
​

• Abbas spokesman denounces TV report in which US officials said PA won't negotiate with Israel as 'outrageous incitement' •
By Khaled Abu Toameh 3 February 2018, 12:40 am

EXCERPT:
Abu Rudaineh said that the PA did not reject any offer to engage in negotiations aimed at implementing the two-state solution. “We have not rejected negotiations in principle,” he added.

“We remain committed to serious negotiations as a course to the establishment of the Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, based on the 1967 borders.”
​

• The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background •
The 1967 border, which is defined as the 1949 Armistice Line along with all legal modification thereto up to June 4th 1967, is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine. A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967. The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the occupied State of Palestine, including East Jerusalem.
​

(COMMENT)

This is the hangup. It is craftily worded, but essentially demands a territorial (do over/ replay) setback to 4 June 1967. The day before the 1967 War. The Peace Treaties for the 1967 War (Israel and Jordan & Egypt) have settled the matter. While I'm certain that, somewhere in history, there is a case where a 'third State' (by Treaty Law means a State not a party to the treaty) can make demands on the what is already settled by treaty between the parties in conflict; I cannot think of one. What the Palestinian Authority is doing, is making negotiations tied to a precondition that Israel recognizes and accept the June 4th 1967 Borders at the outset; thisis wholely outside Customary and International Law and unacceptable.

This is a case of the "third quasi-state" (the Gaza Strip being Autonomous from the West Bank and the Ramallah Government), not liking the outcome of the war, trying to make demands a half Century later. There should be no pre-conditions on the opening of negotiations. It is a sit down and talk affair.

Most Respectfully,
R