Youtube comments of Xavi (@Xavi297).
-
1300
-
548
-
358
-
201
-
112
-
99
-
79
-
77
-
76
-
71
-
65
-
60
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
45
-
42
-
41
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
28
-
27
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Other:
Knesset: Arab citizens of Israel have been elected to every Knesset, and currently hold 17 of its 120 seats. The first female Arab MP was Hussniya Jabara, a Muslim Arab from central Israel, who was elected in 1999.
In 2001, this changed, when Salah Tarif, a Druze Arab citizen of Israel, was appointed a member of Ariel Sharon's cabinet without a portfolio. Tarif was later ejected after being convicted of corruption.[215] The first non-Druze Arab minister in Israel's history was Raleb Majadele, who in 2007 was appointed a minister without portfolio, and a month later appointed minister for Science, Culture and Sport.[66][216] Following this precedent, additional Muslim Arabs served as ministers or deputy ministers, including Issawi Frej, Abd el-Aziz el-Zoubi and Nawaf Massalha
Supreme Court: Abdel Rahman Zuabi, a Muslim from northern Israel, was the first Arab on the Israeli Supreme Court, serving a 9-month term in 1999. In 2004, Salim Joubran, a Christian Arab from Haifa descended from Lebanese Maronites, became the first Arab to hold a permanent appointment on the Court. Joubran's expertise lies in the field of criminal law.[221][better source needed] George Karra, a Christian Arab from Jaffa has served as a Tel Aviv District Court judge since 2000. He was the presiding judge in the trial of Moshe Katsav. In 2011, he was nominated as a candidate for the Israeli Supreme Court
Etc.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaeljcross87
I had the very opposite experience contrary to you and I asked many other Christians who have all confirmed the exact opposite experience of you. In Nazareth, in Israel, Muslims built literally right in front of the Church of the Annunciation, a mosque to despise Christians.
In Jerusalem, I have never ever seen any communities either Jewish, Muslim or Christians with such experience. Contrary to you, I love the middle east, I haven’t travelled once, I have travelled to Jerusalem perhaps +20 times or so in the region. I swear to my experience is true. I have met countless Christians in Israel and never seen what you allegedly saw. What you described is what happened recently last year and was commented ad nauseam in the news (by extremist radicals) as if it is to paint the whole country in a bad light whereas in the entire middle east, Christians are simply persecuted or killed (Irak, Syria, Iran) to the point they are/were forced to exile for so many of them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@philippeagogue7293 idem que pour vous.
Je pense que Mr. Macron est de loin le pire president de la Veme republique, de tres loin. Et comme vous, j ai honte d avoir voté pour lui…
Je m’en mords tellement les doigts tellement ce monsieur est catastrophique. En politique etrangere, c est une decheance fulgurante de la place de notre pays et en politique Interieur, la situation se degrade tres sensiblement… Violence, insecurité, immigration incontrollée, mouvements sociaux gravissimes, maivaises gestions des dossiers strategiques (nucleaire, nouvelle caledonie, industrie de la defense, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Je suis Américain et j’adore la France. Mais il faut comprendre que plus de la moitié des Américains ont voté pour Trump parce qu’ils en avaient marre de payer pour la defense de l’Europe (85,000 de nos soldats sont stationnés pour vous protéger). Trump ne vous a pas pris au dépourvu pourtant. Lors de son premier mandat, il a demandé aux Européens d augmenter leurs dépenses de sécurité précisément pour se protéger d’agressions russes. Vous n’avez pas écouté Trump et vous avez préféré entendre Biden qui vous a ramolli. Biden qui a laissé la Russie envahir l’Ukraine sous son mandat. Est-ce lui l’agent ? ;)
Maintenant, le deuxieme mandat arrive, Trump annonce dans sa campagne, une deuxième fois un grand “ca suffit” à vous - Européens. Mais vous restez encore sourds aux mesures de bon sens qu’on vous demande dans une alliance: se protéger et penser à votre PROPRE sécurité intérieure (menace sur la liberté d expression, menace de l’immigration incontrôlée sur vos cohesions nationales, etc.) mais rien à faire.
Zelenski débarque chez nous et nous redemande de repayer encore. 400 milliards en 3 ans ont deja ete paye.
Alors okay, sur la forme, Trump avait tort. Il pouvait dire cela derrière les cameras. Mais comme les Européens sont sourds, je me dis que finalement ca a du bon.
Mais sur le fond, croyez moi que les Américains sont derrière notre president.
Les Américains dépensent plus de 150 milliards de dollars pour protéger l’Europe annuellement pendant que la France dépense des centaines de milliards pour des depenses sociales. Et est incapable de refouler des Algeriens dangereux de son propre territoire. Soyez serieux.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anderskorsback4104
Montevideo convention is okay ?
Territorial disputes have significant meaning in the international society, both by their relation to the fundamental right of states, sovereignty and also because they are important for international peace. International law has significant relations with territorial disputes because territorial disputes tackles the basis of international law; the state territory. International law is based on the persons of international law, which requires a defined territory, as mentioned in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.
Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention declares that "a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other States" [1]
Also, B. T. Sumner's article mentions, "In international law and relations, ownership of territory is significant because sovereignty over land defines what constitutes a state." [2]
Therefore, the breach of a country's borders or territorial disputes pose a threat to a state's very sovereignty and the right as a person of international law. In addition, territorial disputes are sometimes brought to the International Court of Justice, as was the case in Costa Rica and Nicaragua (2005).[3] Territorial disputes cannot be separated from international law, whose basis is on the law of state borders, and their potential settlement also relies on international law and the Court.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anders, the term “disputed territory” does exist in international law.
To paraphrase Galileo: “And yet it exists”.
1) Again, disputed territory IS a legal status. I really urge you to look closely again the texts that I took time to provide you. I believe it is high time you just to look at these texts I sent, or point me indications online proving me otherwise.
A “disputed territory” is a result of disagreements between two or more states after WWII, as the the World Powers tried to mount a world order governed more by law rather than by conflits to resolve these disputes.
2) The West Bank, after the partition plan of the UN in 1947, was to be integrated to a new Arab state. However, the Arab states refused the partition plan. These Arab States invaded both Israel AND, very importantly here, the West Bank, as well. That territory hence never had a state since WWII. The only claims to these territories,recognized by the UN, were those of the Jewish people and the Arabs (who again chose to vote “no” so relinquished their claims by doing so). However, Jordan, which didn’t have any recognized claim in the UN over this territory, occupied Judea and Samaria and renamed it “West Bank”. You can read the UN partition plan that refered that land as “Judea and Samaria” rather than “west bank”.
3) In the case of the West Bank/Judea Samaria, the UN recognized the sovereignty claims of the Jewish people and the Arabs living on these lands. Israel does obviously have territorial claims over the West Bank (it is not true that Israel doesn’t have sovereignty claims as you state!!) but only annexed East Jerusalem (true!). The reason is that Israel prefers to negotiate a peace treaty to get formal recognition from the Arab States in particular. Israel prefers to settle the dispute and that’s why the Oslo agreement were signed between the representatives of Israel and the Palestinian Org.
But again, Israel has deep historical roots and deep religious ties to these lands that are impossible to deny and doesn’t intend on relinquishing them (as far as I know)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anderskorsback4104
Anders:
Here are some examples:
United Nations Charter: The UN Charter, which is the foundational document of the United Nations, contains principles and provisions that are relevant to territorial disputes. Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations, which is crucial in resolving territorial disputes peacefully. Article 2(3) encourages the peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or judicial settlement.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT): The VCLT, adopted in 1969, is a key treaty governing the formation, interpretation, and termination of treaties. It is relevant to territorial disputes as it provides rules for the interpretation and application of treaties that may define or affect territorial boundaries between states.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): UNCLOS, adopted in 1982, establishes the legal framework for the use and conservation of the world's oceans and their resources. It addresses issues such as maritime boundaries, territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, and the rights and obligations of coastal states. UNCLOS provides guidance for resolving maritime territorial disputes between states.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and plays a significant role in settling legal disputes between states. States can submit territorial disputes to the ICJ for adjudication, and its decisions can contribute to the resolution of such disputes. Notable cases related to territorial disputes include the ICJ's judgments on the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Nicaragua v. Colombia), and the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia).
Geneva Conventions: The Geneva Conventions of 1949, along with their Additional Protocols, provide rules and protections for victims of armed conflicts, including those that occur in the context of territorial disputes. These conventions establish obligations for states regarding the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war, and the wounded, as well as the protection of cultural property during armed conflicts that may arise from territorial disputes.
These are just a few examples of international laws and legal instruments that address territorial disputes. The specific laws applicable to a particular territorial dispute will depend on the circumstances, geographic location, and parties involved.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anderskorsback4104
Anders! You make my day 😁
You proved that you purposely knew but ignored the treaties and resolutions that I listed out when you asked !
You finally discussed these treaties, which is a first step! But you have interpreted them in a biased manner (ignoring conveniently words, or dispelled some as “vague”…)
Now let me answer each one of your points.
About the Charter of the mandate of Palestine:
You made several mistakes.
First one: As you say this “allows” for one state to be established. The key word here is “allows”.
This charter was then superseded by the Partition Plan for Palestine which came years later which recommends the creation of two states.
Second error: you say Israel doesn’t get the right to derive rights from laws…but, Israel does get the right to derive, and, anyone else on the planet can derive rights from laws. That’s why we have lawyers that interpret these laws… this charter precisely gave territorial and legal rights and claims over these territories. It shows the jewish inhabitants are no stranger to these lands (even though Jews didn’t need any legal validity though, but hey, they did!)
Third error: Israel “doesn’t abide” by this treaty… Why do you say it doesn’t abide? Again, it allows for one state to be formed. It doesn’t force anyone to have ONE state! And then again, this treaty was superseded a few years later by the clear partition plan that recommended “two states”. Israel complied. This is rather the arab states that did not abide by any resolution, laws or international treaties as they ultimately declared war the next day against Israel!
About the balfour declaration:
First error. It is funny that you dispelled a clear statement which reads “establishing a national home” over the Mandate of Palestine (which clearly includes the West Bank) as “vague”! Very convenient hahaha you have your clear international treaty right in front of your eyes and because it runs against your belief, you say “oh that doesn’t count!”
Second error. Israel has established a state. Israel is actually the only democratic state in the region. It is the only state that grants rights to minorities. The Palestinian Authority clearly does not.
Third error. You say Israel refused non Jews displaced by the war. Check again. Right after the 1948-1949 war of independence of Israel, Israel proposed a peace treaty to all its neighbors which included the return of refugees to Israel. It was flatly rejected. This was even proposed whereas these arab states invaded Israel so that proposition ran even against Israel’s own interest to integrate populations that waged war against itself…
You say that Balfour is damning towards Israel… Balfour declaration is absolutely not damning for Israel. Quite the contrary! It is a clear legal recognition of historical and religious rights of the Jewish people to the region of the old mandate for Palestine which includes present day Israel as well as West Bank / Judea and Samaria.
About UNSC 242:
I didn’t say UNSC does grant Israel legal right, I said that resolution just indicated that Israel has to withdraw from “territories”, not clearly defining which ones precisely with a map. The reason of that resolution is that Israel has, through prior international treaties, legal rights over these territories. I agree that this resolution states that Israel can allow Israel to eventually have sovereignty over some of these “territories” it has legal claims to, after negotiations (and that’s why Israel tried with the representatives of the said-PA authority in the past). I never said also a UNSC resolution is a law. I just pointed out that this resolution implicitly implies that Israel had legitimate claims to these territories but need to negotiate over them, which is what Israel did by proposing multiple peace offers (all rejected by the Palestinians against no counter offers!)
About UN treaties referring to disputed territories:
If these treaties talks about disputed territories, it implies the law doesn’t ignore “disputed territories”.
Back to the Geneva convention, it mentions “occupied territories” which only does apply if a state or a population occupies a region which it has no legal claims towards it. I believe I extensively proved Israel’s legal claims (not even mentioning historical and religious claims) with these past treaties and resolutions, we previously discussed. Here, in the case of the West Bank, there are two people who have legitimate legal claims over that territory.
This territory is about 30% Jews / 70% arabs. These two groups either identify as Israelis or Palestinians. Both have legitimate claims. Hence the Oslo accords to have different administrations which, I remind you, was signed by both parties as a bilateral agreement. To respect these agreements, Israel cannot propose the Israeli nationality to these Palestinians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1