Who are the Israelis?

[José]

Originally posted by RoccoR
There is no way of determining the international reaction to an Arab Palestinian Leadership that deprives the Arab Palestinian people of their national identity and treasure by pursuing a century-long fruitless confrontation resulting in a failed state.

Go to the nearest refugee camp, palestinian urban center in the WB or Gaza or even a palestinian community in America, Europe or Chile and ask them if they want to give up the right of return and create a definitive, not provisory, not temporary palestinian state in the WB and Gaza.

Then you will find out who is depriving whom of their national identity.

 

[José]

Originally posted by fncceo
The most interesting thing about this thread, and the dozens on the same subject, is that a country a population less than the city of New York can generate more posts than any other non-domestic topic on the Internet.

I have another thing that is at least as interesting as the one you pointed out.

The american jewish community was the first one to denounce apartheid in South Africa.

In 1950 when most Americans and Europeans couldn't even find the country on a map of Africa, American Jews were already protesting Apartheid.

From 1948 to 1990, American Jews had literally dozens of african dictatorships to criticize.

Dictatorships that were much more murderous than South Africa.

But the Jews showed a strange obsession with the african country run by whites and pointed their guns at it for 4 decades completely ignoring the dictatorships run by blacks.

Did any white american or european at that time, excluding a microscopic minority, accuse those Jews of being anti-white, of being racists as you are accusing people who oppose Israel of anti-semitism?

No, they applauded the Jews for being the first ones to oppose white supremacism in the african continent and joined the good fight.

 

[fncceo]

Originally posted by fncceo
The most interesting thing about this thread, and the dozens on the same subject, is that a country a population less than the city of New York can generate more posts than any other non-domestic topic on the Internet.

I have another thing that is at least as interesting as the one you pointed out.

The american jewish community was the first one to denounce apartheid in South Africa.

In 1950 when most Americans and Europeans couldn't even find the country on a map of Africa, American Jews were already protesting Apartheid.

From 1948 to 1990, American Jews had literally dozens of african dictatorships to criticize.

Dictatorships that were much more murderous than South Africa.

But the Jews showed a strange obsession with the african country run by whites and pointed their guns at it for 4 decades completely ignoring the dictatorships run by blacks.

Did any white american or european at that time, excluding a microscopic minority, accuse those Jews of being anti-white, of being racists as you are accusing people who oppose Israel of anti-semitism?

No, they applauded the Jews for being the first ones to oppose white supremacism in the african continent and joined the good fight.

A significant difference between South Africa and Israel. South Africa was an African country, with an African population, ruled by a white minority government that excluded non-whites from all but the lowest levels of society.

Israel is the only country in the world with a Jewish majority where Jews have self-rule (the first such country in over 2000 years). But, more than that, Israel is a country with a multicultural population, where more than 25% of the population are non-Jews. There is no apartheid in Israel. Israeli citizens, regardless of ethnic background, enjoy all the rights of citizens. The parliament of Israel represents the ethnic communities of Israel and religious people and places of all faiths are protected and respected.

South African apartheid was reviled by most people of the world, not just the Jews.

 

[José]

Originally posted by fncceo
South Africa was an African country, with an African population, ruled by a white minority government that excluded non-whites from all but the lowest levels of society.

Who said the african population were citizens of South Africa?

They were citizens of the bantu Republics and could only visit, live and work in South Africa as tourists or long term residents, just like an american in Mexico or Canada.

They had to carry passports with a valid visa all the time. If they were caught by the police without a valid visa they were deported back to their home countries.

Nelson Mandela for instance was a citizen of the Republic of Transkei and was tried and convicted as a foreign terrorist who left his country of origin and infiltrated into South Africa to commit violent acts against a sovereign state.

For 4 decades south african prime ministers and presidents bitterly complained that:

"South Africa is the only country in the history of the world to be strongarmed by the international community to give full civil rights to citizens of another country."

This sounds awfully similar to israeli leaders denying civil rights to millions of palestinians on the grounds that they are not "israeli citizens".

It's not a "significant difference", it's a significant similarity.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh for crying out loud!

The so-called mandate was a foreign military occupation.

(COMMENT)

You really mangle the truth here. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)(which transitioned to a Civil Administration) was the way thing were done over a century ago --- and not so much different today.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was a hostile military occupation by any name.

(COMMENT)

That is just an excuse the second and third generation Arab Palestinian Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter.

The new generation of Arab Palestinians has no reason to participate in Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, Guerrillas and Asymmetric activity. They do so because they have somehow romanticized the behaviors, no prospects for the future, a future of poverty and a lack of education. They use response and reaction to political confrontation as the incitement, justification, and reasoning for criminal behavors. They have little or no moral character or fiber to make a nation proud of them, other than to exploit religious martyrism.

It really has nothing to do with foreign military occupation. Much of the territory was jointly liberated in 1918 by Irregular Mounted Arab Calvary (IMAC) and the British Expeditionary Force (BEF).

✧ Were the IMAC also part of the foreign military occupation?​

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you always smear Palestinian liberation?

 

[rylah]

Originally posted by fncceo
South Africa was an African country, with an African population, ruled by a white minority government that excluded non-whites from all but the lowest levels of society.

Who said the african population were citizens of South Africa?

They were citizens of the bantu Republics and could only visit, live and work in South Africa as tourists or long term residents, just like an american in Mexico or Canada.

They had to carry passports with a valid visa all the time. If they were caught by the police without a valid visa they were deported back to their home countries.

Nelson Mandela for instance was a citizen of the Republic of Transkei and was tried and convicted as a foreign terrorist who left his country of origin and infiltrated into South Africa to commit violent acts against a sovereign state.

For 4 decades south african prime ministers and presidents bitterly complained that:

"South Africa is the only country in the history of the world to be strongarmed by the international community to give full civil rights to citizens of another country."

This sounds awfully similar to israeli leaders denying civil rights to millions of palestinians on the grounds that they are not "israeli citizens".

It's not a "significant difference", it's a significant similarity.

You're trying to crate a false analogy, between the status of Canadian and Mexican citizens in the US to that of the Africans who were segregated by skin color in S. Africa.

Sounds like another socialist argument against borders rooted in typical lies.
The same logical fallacy can lead one to call any independent country an apartheid because it doesn't provide their neighbors the same rights as to their citizens.
Neither do Israel or the US define citizenship based on skin color.

For similarities with S.African look no further than the Arab demands for no Jews - as a precondition to self-determination. That terms of skin color and segregation are used now to frame that demand, begs more questions regarding their racism rather than that of Israel or the US.

 

[rylah]

Good day to You too.
You want to talk about honesty and sources?
Yesterday I already wrote a response to what You said about Rabbi Elyahu, it was obvious You read it in some other place other than the original, and You didn't know to tell me his exact so we could be specific. None of Your links as far as I looked mentioned what You wrote. As I said I already wrote a response to that conversation basing on my mere guess of what might have been the specifics of the issue, but deleted it because it was too much discussion on term of Jewish law and how it applies to the practice of common law in western democracies. Believe it or not right after deleting it I found the original source, and it was interesting that, as far as see it I expressed the issue very close to what Rabbi Shmuel Elyahu said regarding the Arab communities in Judea:

"There's a concept of Ger toshav, who is someone that accepts upon himself seven Noahide Laws and the sovereignty of the People of Israel in its Land. In such a situation, it is possible to allow him, under certain conditions, to live here, and of course, he also has rights. The conditions for this are detailed in the Seven Noahide Laws, which means he should accept upon himself to live the normal life of normal person, who does not steal agricultural equipment or land and does not support the phenomenon of theft, does not commit murder for reasons family honor or other reasons, does not attack a bus on the street because it did not allow him to pass. These are normal conditions that are required from anyone who lives here as a visitor in the Jewish state. He cannot live here as sovereign and certainly not as an invader. On the other hand, whoever lives here and undermines the sovereignty or permits himself to do thigs that are forbidden by Noahide Laws should please move to another place"
http://ribonut.co.il/images/ribonut_9_en.pdf

Now what is a "Ger Toshav" and how it applies to both Rabbinic law and common law. As far as influence of Jewish law on common law the Israeli courts recognize the 13 concepts of law interpretation that are used in what the call "Hebrew law" in cases where common law has difficulty to decide, especially if a case deals with specifically issue that need comprehension of Jewish law in order to understand person's motives, or if a person rejects a hearing in Rabbinic court, and such a case is passed to civil court.
First of all as far as I understand there can be a request in special cases to prefer a decision in the "spirit of Hebrew law", second these 13 specific concepts are used as interpretation techniques not only in Israel but in many cases all throughout the western world. It exactly deals with how to interpret cases in common law, the only difference can be is when a person asks to apply Jewish law in addition to these techniques it may be taken in account. So may be requests in recognizing motives dealing with religious nature of other faiths in the civil court.

Sorry for the length, but I have to be specific.
Q. So what is Ger Tohav in Jewish law and how it applies to what is being presented as the plan for sovereignty?

Ger is what is commonly known as the resident status.
It is conditional upon the Noahide laws and recognition of sovereignty of the Jewish nation. With the reconstitution of of Israel, Rabbi Kook ZTZ"L when establishing the Chief Rabbinate recognized all members of the Arab communities as Ger Toshav because by virtue of being members of the Abrahamic faiths they have all fulfilled all the basic conditions of Noahide laws. If a citizen wants Jewish law to apply to him beyond the 7 laws that provide him full citizenship, he's called "Righteous Ger", if not he/she's defined as "Kind of the Nations of the World".

Q.What regarding political status?
In practice vast majority of those who are described as residents of Israel according to Jewish law are citizens with full rights and access to their own religious authorities and courts, again under the frame of common law.

When Rabbi Kook ZTZ"L ruled that way it was not something new or a precedent, but based on Jewish law. The Jewish philosophers always looked to understand and comprehend the part and purpose other faiths have in the greater good of the world, especially the Abrahamic religions. In spite of all the hostility towards us and seemingly small differences that evolved into big ones, we still agree on much of the same cultural concepts. This is a central concept in Jewish thought, joined Tikun 'Olam and Kidush HaShem that belongs to any person, but in our case without forcing our culture or trying to convert anyone.
With that said and not without the respect for Christianity and Islam, in all that context of similarity and contradiction, we have to recognize that both also have a great complex of hostility towards the Jewish nation and tradition.

Ezrah - translated as citizen in English, in Jewish law means anyone to whom applies Rabbinic law.
Ger Toshav - translated as resident and sometimes as guest, but in practice mean mostly citizens or those who keep other nationality but recognize Israels sovereignty and have a right to permanently live in the country, have rights and protections.
Ger - mostly businessmen and tourists who stay for short period for interests other than permanent living .

Those are the implication for the 3 categories when people discuss those terms , and these terms differ in common law, however specifically defined. I've mentioned key sources to understand the context and parallels.

What I said came from what I linked and not somewhere else.

What I said: According to my understanding of what Rabbi Eliyahu says, there status would seem to be that of a guest...rather than citizen.

That is exactly how page 8 of the source I linked to seems to be saying. I frankly don’t see why you are insisting it came from elsewhere. It exactly like their status would be that of a guest, tolerated as long as they behaved and not a citizen.

Perhaps that is the problem with using theology to define a modern state and govern people who can never be wholly of that state by those definitions. It actually sounds a lot like the Muslim view of the special status of the Abrahamic faiths and of dhimmis.

Regarding the link Yes, my mistake You've posted the same one, I didn't see.
Though it was strange how You couldn't give the name of the Rabbi or the actual quote.

No. It is not strange at all.
I gave the name of the Rabbi as was given in the link. For some reason it would not allow me to cut and paste so I went further and provided the page in the article where both his name and statements were along with context.

Why are you continuing to quibble?

The dhimmi status is of a non-citizen, and not by choice. Under those rules Jews were not allowed to ride horses or camels, own weapons, build synagogues taller than mosques or houses, , could not display religious symbols in public, engrave Arabic in jewelry, sell wine, Jews didn't have the option to be citizens, ware banned from sounding the Shofar on their holiest days or go to the tomb of their patriarchs, had to pay a skull tax and if Jewish girls lost a father they'd be taken by Muslim men.

None of these are suggested, or exist in Jewish law, don't twist it.
What is being discussed are 3 options for the Arab communities in Judea to choose from:
(1) Compensation if can't live with Jews
(2) Residency conditioned on recognition of Israel sovereignty
(3) Citizenship

All should be offered choice of one of the three...otherwise it is little more than a modern version of the ancient dhimmi system. Some of the options did not sound like that at all, dont pretend otherwise.

Because the point of the argument is not the presence of a link, but the correct representation of things being said.

And no, that's a false analogy, residency is nothing like a dhimmi status,
what we're talking here are 3 options Jews were never given under Muslim rule.

Pretense is defending the side that would never give others the same.

I think you are wrong. Anything less than citizenship automatically means fewer rights.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh for crying out loud!

The so-called mandate was a foreign military occupation.

(COMMENT)

You really mangle the truth here. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)(which transitioned to a Civil Administration) was the way thing were done over a century ago --- and not so much different today.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was a hostile military occupation by any name.

(COMMENT)

That is just an excuse the second and third generation Arab Palestinian Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter.

The new generation of Arab Palestinians has no reason to participate in Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, Guerrillas and Asymmetric activity. They do so because they have somehow romanticized the behaviors, no prospects for the future, a future of poverty and a lack of education. They use response and reaction to political confrontation as the incitement, justification, and reasoning for criminal behavors. They have little or no moral character or fiber to make a nation proud of them, other than to exploit religious martyrism.

It really has nothing to do with foreign military occupation. Much of the territory was jointly liberated in 1918 by Irregular Mounted Arab Calvary (IMAC) and the British Expeditionary Force (BEF).

✧ Were the IMAC also part of the foreign military occupation?​

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you always smear Palestinian liberation?

Arab-Moslem “liberation” is predicated upon the destruction of Israel.

You have read the Hamas charter, right?

 

[Mindful]

The story of Youth Aliyah is one of adventure, Jewish and world history, and good versus evil, with a few heroes — and even a few miracles — thrown in for good measure.

On January 30, 1933, the very day that Adolph Hitler was named chancellor in Germany, educator and musician Recha Freier anticipated that things were going to get very bad for the Jews. Believing that it was critical to get children out of harm’s way, she founded Youth Aliyah, hoping to convince parents to send their children to relative safety in Palestine.
The Jewish Agency adopted this project and chose as its leader the inestimable Henrietta Szold, the founder of Hadassah. Even though she was already in her 70s, Szold traveled to Nazi-occupied Europe to rescue children, and she made it a point to be on the dock to meet every ship that made it to Palestine. While Szold never married and had children of her own, the thousands of children she saved called her “Ima,” the Hebrew word for mother.

Virtually none of these children ever saw their families again. But because of the care they received, they grew up to become outstanding citizens of the new nation of Israel. Among the prominent Israelis who spent time in youth villages are the late national leader Shimon Peres and the famed artist Mordechai Rosenstein. Actor and author Gila Almagor wrote of her experiences in Youth Aliyah in “Under the Domim Tree,” a novel that was made into a movie of the same name.

History Is Now: Youth Rescue in Israel Continues

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I have not smeared the liberators of the Territory.

Why do you always smear Palestinian liberation?

(COMMENT)

Certainly not the Arab Palestinians. They did not so much as liberate a garden plot.

◈ The British Liberated the Territory.
◈ The Jordanians Liberated parts of the Territory.
◈ The Egyptians Liberated parts of the Territory.
◈ The Israelis Liberated parts of the Territory.​

But as bloodthirsty and barbaric as the contemporary Arab Palestinians are, both from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, I don't believe any of them liberated a single inch of territory. The contemporary Arab Palestinians → if not supporting them → they are actively inciting or participating with irrational Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter.

It is you that actually give the Arab Palestinians a bad name. From where I sit, it is you that are actively working against any progress towards peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

Coyote Shusha RoccoR

1. Compensation
2. Residency
3. Citizenship

Under which conditions would You grant those options?

If annexation were applied, I would give everyone their choice and abide by it.

Unconditionally?
You seem to demand everything from Israel while being convenient with the total opposite on the other side. Demand everything You won't give to others, provide guarantees for nothing.

Let's be more reasonable, I'm not even sure all Israeli Arabs would support such a frivolous demand, they know full well they won't be spared as "traitors" once Hamas and several other warring fractions allowed to get their hands on them.

 

[Hollie]

Originally posted by RoccoR
There is no way of determining the international reaction to an Arab Palestinian Leadership that deprives the Arab Palestinian people of their national identity and treasure by pursuing a century-long fruitless confrontation resulting in a failed state.

Go to the nearest refugee camp, palestinian urban center in the WB or Gaza or even a palestinian community in America, Europe or Chile and ask them if they want to give up the right of return and create a definitive, not provisory, not temporary palestinian state in the WB and Gaza.

Then you will find out who is depriving whom of their national identity.

On the other hand, why don’t you visit the “nearest refugee camp, palestinian urban center in the WB or Gaza or even a palestinian community in America, Europe or Chile” and identify who, exactly, is a “refugee”. The number is exceedingly small notwithstanding the Arab-Moslem claim that “refugee” is an inherited, generational trait.

Who, exactly, is depriving Arabs-Moslems of some national identity you see as their entitlement? A national identity might suggest some elements like soverign territory, a functioning civil government, etc.

If those attributes need to be imposed on Arabs-Moslems, who, exactly will do that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I have not smeared the liberators of the Territory.

Why do you always smear Palestinian liberation?

(COMMENT)

Certainly not the Arab Palestinians. They did not so much as liberate a garden plot.

◈ The British Liberated the Territory.
◈ The Jordanians Liberated parts of the Territory.
◈ The Egyptians Liberated parts of the Territory.
◈ The Israelis Liberated parts of the Territory.​

But as bloodthirsty and barbaric as the contemporary Arab Palestinians are, both from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, I don't believe any of them liberated a single inch of territory. The contemporary Arab Palestinians → if not supporting them → they are actively inciting or participating with irrational Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter.

It is you that actually give the Arab Palestinians a bad name. From where I sit, it is you that are actively working against any progress towards peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

But as bloodthirsty and barbaric as the contemporary Arab Palestinians are, both from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, I don't believe any of them liberated a single inch of territory.

But giving the Palestinians the boot and stealing their land is OK?

 

[Mindful]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I have not smeared the liberators of the Territory.

Why do you always smear Palestinian liberation?

(COMMENT)

Certainly not the Arab Palestinians. They did not so much as liberate a garden plot.

◈ The British Liberated the Territory.
◈ The Jordanians Liberated parts of the Territory.
◈ The Egyptians Liberated parts of the Territory.
◈ The Israelis Liberated parts of the Territory.​

But as bloodthirsty and barbaric as the contemporary Arab Palestinians are, both from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, I don't believe any of them liberated a single inch of territory. The contemporary Arab Palestinians → if not supporting them → they are actively inciting or participating with irrational Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter.

It is you that actually give the Arab Palestinians a bad name. From where I sit, it is you that are actively working against any progress towards peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

But as bloodthirsty and barbaric as the contemporary Arab Palestinians are, both from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, I don't believe any of them liberated a single inch of territory.

But giving the Palestinians the boot and stealing their land is OK?

Stealing what land exactly?

 

[rylah]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I have not smeared the liberators of the Territory.

Why do you always smear Palestinian liberation?

(COMMENT)

Certainly not the Arab Palestinians. They did not so much as liberate a garden plot.

◈ The British Liberated the Territory.
◈ The Jordanians Liberated parts of the Territory.
◈ The Egyptians Liberated parts of the Territory.
◈ The Israelis Liberated parts of the Territory.​

But as bloodthirsty and barbaric as the contemporary Arab Palestinians are, both from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, I don't believe any of them liberated a single inch of territory. The contemporary Arab Palestinians → if not supporting them → they are actively inciting or participating with irrational Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter.

It is you that actually give the Arab Palestinians a bad name. From where I sit, it is you that are actively working against any progress towards peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

But as bloodthirsty and barbaric as the contemporary Arab Palestinians are, both from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, I don't believe any of them liberated a single inch of territory.

But giving the Palestinians the boot and stealing their land is OK?

Not their land, didn't even learn to correctly pronounce its name to this day.
And yes it was totally OK as defense to give them the boot, Arabs should have thought better before expelling Palestinian Jews from all of their holy cities.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You make these vague accusations → without a date → without a context → without any specifics at all.

But as bloodthirsty and barbaric as the contemporary Arab Palestinians are, both from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, I don't believe any of them liberated a single inch of territory.

But giving the Palestinians the boot and stealing their land is OK?

(COMMENT)

Are you talking about vacated real estate?

Area you talking about the UNSCOP Partition Plan?

What?


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Mindful]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You make these vague accusations → without a date → without a context → without any specifics at all.

But as bloodthirsty and barbaric as the contemporary Arab Palestinians are, both from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, I don't believe any of them liberated a single inch of territory.

But giving the Palestinians the boot and stealing their land is OK?

(COMMENT)

Are you talking about vacated real estate?

Area you talking about the UNSCOP Partition Plan?

What?


Most Respectfully,
R

He makes broad brushed statements, with no backups.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You make these vague accusations → without a date → without a context → without any specifics at all.

But as bloodthirsty and barbaric as the contemporary Arab Palestinians are, both from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, I don't believe any of them liberated a single inch of territory.

But giving the Palestinians the boot and stealing their land is OK?

(COMMENT)

Are you talking about vacated real estate?

Area you talking about the UNSCOP Partition Plan?

What?


Most Respectfully,
R

Did this village attack anyone? Israel attacked and occupied this village and expelled the people before the 1948 war. Israel destroyed the village and built the settlement of Sderot on its ruins.

How did Israel acquire that land?

Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia

 

[rylah]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You make these vague accusations → without a date → without a context → without any specifics at all.

But as bloodthirsty and barbaric as the contemporary Arab Palestinians are, both from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, I don't believe any of them liberated a single inch of territory.

But giving the Palestinians the boot and stealing their land is OK?

(COMMENT)

Are you talking about vacated real estate?

Area you talking about the UNSCOP Partition Plan?

What?


Most Respectfully,
R

Did this village attack anyone? Israel attacked and occupied this village and expelled the people before the 1948 war. Israel destroyed the village and built the settlement of Sderot on its ruins.

How did Israel acquire that land?

Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia

How did Arabs acquire 250$ billion worth of Jewish property and lands?
Najd was liberated after Arabs declared an all out war against Israel, it was land belonging to Jewish sovereignty under international law, Sderot was established in 1951.

 

[rylah]