'Abbas claims Zionists, Nazis linked before WWII'

[shira]

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was quoted on Monday as saying that the Zionist movement had links with the Nazis before World War II.

Abbas was speaking during a lengthy interview with Al-Mayadeen, a Beirutbased TV station that is affiliated with Hezbollah and Iran.

Asked about allegations that he was a Holocaust denier, Abbas said that he had “70 more books that I still haven’t published” about the alleged link between the Zionist movement and the Nazis.

“I challenge anyone to deny the relationship between Zionism and Nazism before World War II,” Abbas said.

more...
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=300397

Also, from the past couple weeks....

Abbas Endorses Nazi Supporter, Where is the Outrage? (VIDEO)
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/15/abbas-endorses-nazi-supporter-where-is-the-outrage-video/

[Scootaloo]

1. "70 books I still haven't published"

Fuck. If he weren't president of the PA, he'd probably introduce himself as a writer at all the parties.

[Ken Burch]

14. You'd think it might occur to him to start a PA publishing house

which would then print ALL his titles(including the cookbooks and the vampire fiction, if he's written any).

[Scootaloo]

16. Hasn't EVERYONE written vampire fiction, though?

[Ken Burch]

21. Well, not St. Paul...

(...that I know of, anyway...)

[zellie]

2. Report: Abbas’ Holocaust-Denial Dissertation Widely-Taught in PA,

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/wap/Item.aspx?type=0&item=143752


Research by the Center for Near East Policy Research Center has found that the doctoral dissertation of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas "stars" throughout the Palestinian Authority educational curriculum, and "is the basis for Holocaust studies in the PA."

The Center"s Director, David Bedein, has asked Education Minister Gideon Saar and the government of Israel to demand that the PA remove the work from its schools and from its curricula.

-
The doctorate was published as a book in 1984, entitled,"The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism." It was completed in 1982 at a university in Communist Russia, and was defended at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It downgrades the number of Holocaust victims to "[possibly] below one million," and accuses Zionist leaders of encouraging the persecution of Jews.
-
Excerpts:

"It is possible that the number of Jewish victims reached six million, but at the same time it is possible that the figure is much smaller--below one million."


"The historian and author, Raoul Hilberg, thinks that the figure does not exceed 890,000." [Holocaust authority Dr. Rafael Medoff says, "This is, of course, utterly false. Professor Hilberg, a distinguished historian and author of the classic study 'The Destruction of the European Jews', has never said or written any such thing."]]

"It seems that the interest of the Zionist movement, however, is to inflate this figure so that their gains will be greater&hellip This led them to emphasize this figure [six million] in order to gain the solidarity of international public opinion with Zionism."


"A partnership was established between Hitler's Nazis and the leadership of the Zionist movement ... [the Zionists gave] permission to every racist in the world, led by Hitler and the Nazis, to treat Jews as they wish, so long as it guarantees immigration to Palestine."

[shira]

4. Stop. We need to keep pretending he's moderate, peace is possible....

..but it's those damned Israelis who are at fault!

[zellie]

11. Abbas a moderate? Laughable.

Israel should negotiate with who ??

Hamas?...don't think so
IJ ? ....nope
Abbas?... A useless holocaust denier

I'm sure there are some moderates to deal with but either they are labeled as collaborators and are therefore dead.... or the ones still living are scared s••tless of getting a motorcycle ride.

Real political diversity there. Agree with us or die.

[shira]

13. Abbas is always portrayed as moderate. Bibi an extreme rightwing hawk....

But on every domestic and foreign issue, Bibi is far to the LEFT of Abbas.

You figure it out.

[Ken Burch]

17. Abbas isn't building illegal settlements in Israel.

Nor is he stealing land from Israel farmers, or destroying Israeli olive groves, or trying to force Israelis to LEAVE Israel and move somewhere else(or only get to vote somewhere else, which would be the same thing).

Besides, you CLAIMED to be an opponent of Netanyahu-so why are you acting like he's some sort of victim and that his party's reactionary policies on territory and self-determination for Palestine(he's written at least two books OPPOSING the very concept of a Palestinian state...it might be three...two is bad enough though).

And Abbas, with his flaws, recognized Israel. Netanyahu has yet to recognize Palestine, and it's not likely that he ever will.

[shira]

23. No, he's just pro-terror vs. innocents. That's all...

And pro-sharia, anti-gay, supports Bashir of Sudan and other horrible tyrants. Just told Syrian Palestinians it's best they die than revoke their RoR.

Yeah he's much more to the Left of Netanyahu.

Netanyahu came out for 2 states, recognizing a Palestine in 2009 after his election.

I'm not claiming Bibi's a victim. I'm complaining about the deliberately false propaganda out there in the mainstream press. If Abbas were a western politician, he'd be off-the-charts extreme rightwing.

[Ken Burch]

26. Netanyahu made his "support" of a two-state solution meaningless

by insisting on a "security concept&quot including Israeli troops on EVERY SIDE of a Palestinian state, total Israeli control of water rights and Palestinian airspace, and the preservation of all the major settlement blocs within current Palestinian territory)that would make a Palestinian state impossible. With that "security concept" in place(and I've never heard you denounce it), there'd be virtually nothing LEFT to create Palestine on or with-and any Palestinian leadership that ever agreed to such terms would be doomed to an overthrow, since that leadership would have no chance of giving Palestinians any life at all with those terms, which would then mean that the war would just start up all over again, all of which would achieve...well, WHAT, exactly?

BTW, the people who support Palestinian self-determination can't be assumed to be endorsing Abbas' positions on gays or anything else(there's nothing they could do to change any of THOSE positions of Abbas and the PA anyhow and you know it). They simply recognize that those issues, in this context, are nothing but distractions...excuses meant to give the Israelis a reason to preserve the inherently unjust status quo.

In the I/P issue, the terms "Left" and "Right" are used to refer to the question of whether you support self-determination for the people of Palestine...the question of whether Israel or Palestine have the better stance on LGBT rights is irrelevant, since Israel and Palestine aren't in competition with each other in some kind of Democracy Olympics. The fact that it may be easier to be gay in Haifa than in Ramallah is beside the point...because that has nothing to do with the reasons for continuing the military occupation of Palestine.

What will be forty-six years(in June) of Israeli occupation of the West Bank haven't brought any liberalism, secularism, or humanism to Palestinian life...nor were they intended to. Military occupations are never about making a country or a people liberal(assuming that the Israeli government and military EVER genuinely cared about liberalism or democracy in the Arab world). The sole rationale for that occupation was to break the Palestinian people and get them to accept living at the mercy of the Israeli army as their permanent station in life...unless they're willing to move to another country.

[shira]

28. The point is Abbas is in no way moderate. You can't defend that label.

Any supporter of Bashir in Sudan who says refugees are better off dying than renounce their RoR is someone who is simply not interested in peace.

[Ken Burch]

31. He recognizes Israel's right to exist, and has been willing to negotiate.

While the man is no saint, he's far more moderate than anybody within Hamas.

You can't seriously suggest that the Israeli government shouldn't negotiate with ANYBODY in any of the current Palestinian leadership groups.

They tried that all through the 1980's...in case you've forgotten, refusing to accept the existing Palestinian leadership as a legitimate negotiating partner then had NO POSITIVE RESULTS AT ALL. It gained Israel nothing. It cost not only thousands of Palestinian lives, but many, many Israeli lives as well.

And no alternative leadership EVER emerged that would ever have accepted what Israel was demanding at the time...a complete surrender of the right to self-determination(or settling for Begin's proposal for Tibetan-style autonomy, which was exactly the same thing).

I'd have preferred someone like Hanan Ashrawi to be leading the Palestinian side...but even SHE would have insisted on at least partial RoR, and East Jerusalem, and the end of the settlements. Neither she, nor anyone else who could ever have emerged as a possible Palestinian leader, would ever have accepted Likudnik terms for the end of the conflict.

And even if someone like her had emerged, Israel was STILL going to have to get buy-in from the armed resistance factions within the Palestine for any peace agreement to be worth the price of the paper it was printed on...so the PLO then(and Hamas now, with its horrible flaws)would have to be brought into it in some way. It was never possible to militarily crush them and have that be the end of it.

So, again, what was, or is, the alternative to negotiations involving the groups with the weapons? What else could ever have worked or could ever work in the future?

[shira]

32. He signed a piece of paper. So what? And being more moderate than Hamas....

...is a pretty low bar, don't you think?

Here's how Abbas recognizes Israel....
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=466

IOW, he doesn't.

I'm not saying Israel shouldn't negotiate, but why pretend Abbas is a willing peace partner when he's not? Anyone willing to see 150,000 Palestinians die rather than renounce RoR is someone who CERTAINLY couldn't care less about the welfare of Israel's citizens.

[Ken Burch]

34. The thing is, Abbas is the best possible partner you're going to get...and he has to be part of it.

He's never been my favorite, either...but as Rabin said, you negotiate with your enemies, not your friends.

So, again...what good does it do to demonize the guy, to start yet ANOTHER thread like this casting him as the mustache-twirling villain...when there's no better alternative to negotiating with Fatah and Hams that could possibly emerge?

Why act like it's somehow possible for Israel to negotiate WITHOUT including the Palestinian factions that have the weapons in those negotiations?

It's not like the ones without guns can make the ones with guns go along...it's impossible to end this with an Israeli military victory over the Fatah and Hamas on "unconditional surrender" terms(as its equally impossible to end it with Fatah and Hamas scoring such a victory over the IDF)...and this is the shoal that your position will always run aground on.

If you don't get buy-in from the people fighting the war, you can't actually END the war.

[shira]

35. You're assuming settlements and borders are the main sticking points....

Abbas has in no way said anything like that.

Don't you think that if borders were the main issue, he'd have said that long ago?

Here's the thing. Israel could offer all YOU are demanding, and when Abbas rejects even that you will CONTINUE to blame Israel for the conflict's continuation. You'd never admit the problem is that the Palestinians simply are not willing to live at peace alongside Israel.

[Ken Burch]

36. Those are massively important things to ALL Palestnians...why would they NOT be?

And there's nothing Israel could ever give Palestine that could ever possibly make up for keeping the settlements and truncating Palestine's borders down to nothing(which is what keeping the settlements would mean).

I don't accept your take on Abbas and the PA...or about Palestinians in general...if they were TOTALLY unwilling to accept Israel, they wouldn't have signed the Oslo Accords. They'd have just kept on with the most violent tactics with no interrruption...as opposed to the reality, when they did reduce or even at times largely suspend violence.

Besides, even if you were correct about Abbas, how would keeping the settlement blocs CHANGE any of those attitudes among Palestinians? If they were driven solely by an unwillingness to accept Israel, that couldn't be changed simply by keeping Palestine under military occupation indefinitely. When you keep a people under such an occupation(and no, you can't compare this to the occupations of Japan and Germany in the late 1940's because those were POSTWAR occupations and were administered largely nonviolently), all you can possibly achieve is to harden attitudes among that people...to create more extreme leaderships, more extreme choices. Occupation doesn't moderate anybody.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

37. "Israel could offer all YOU are demanding..."

I believe that what the Palestinians want is for Israel to leave the West bank, without preconditions, security zones, independence issues, restrictions, any settlements left behind. Anything less would make a viable state impossible.

[Ken Burch]

15. What's the ALTERNATIVE to negotiations with the PA?

And what's the alternative to believing peace is possible?

We both know "peace-through-victory" isn't obtainable, shira. We both know that a resolution based on the Israeli side insisting on making the Palestinian leadership swallow poison pills can't lead to real peace. Why hold on to ideas that you KNOW can't ever work?

It's not possible to have an absolute Israeli military victory any more than it is to have an absolute Palestinian military victory.

And it goes without saying that either would be just as brutal to the losing side as the other even if such a victory was possible.

It simply doesn't work for Israel to try to keep the war going UNTIL it gets a Palestinian leadership it likes...because it's never GOING to get one that will accept the terms people like Netanyahu offer. Israeli governmental and military efforts to delegitimize the PLO are the reason Hamas now exists and retains whatever support it has. THAT outcome is what's ALWAYS going to happen if the Israeli leaders keep saying "we won't let anything change until we get leaders WE approve of".

Yitzhak Rabin understood that. Neither Netanyahu, nor Lieberman, nor Bennett, nor Lapid do. Meretz, Tzipi Livni, and(at least I think)Labor do get it, more or less.

Why can't you see the folly in the obsession with putting changing the Palestinian leadership before EVERYTHING else, shira? Why can't you understand that the misery of the status quo is proof of that folly?

[shira]

24. Why pretend Abbas wants a peace deal? n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. Perhaps Abbas and Naftali Bennett can go on a comedy tour together.

Just a thought.

[Mosby]

5. is bennett the leader of Israel?

Typical stupid comparison.

Let me know when the leaders of Israel start saying that Islam is a fake religion and their religious sites are also fake.

Good thing that Jews don't respond to provocations like muslims do.

[shira]

6. Don't you just love all the morally equivalent FAILS we see here all the time?

Anti-Israel rule #17...

Role Reversal:

Whatever crime Palestinians or neighboring Arabs commit, just deflect and make the Zionists guilty of it instead.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. Tell us again how Israel has a right to the West bank, my friend.

"Whatever crime Palestinians or neighboring Arabs commit, just deflect and make the Zionists guilty of it instead."

To be honest, Shira, you are out of your depth with that assessment.

I don't accuse Israel of Palestinian, Syrian, Iranian, Saudi, Lebanese, Iraqi, Yemeni, Emirate or any other Muslim nation...or non Muslim nation for their crimes. What crimes that are committed by other nations are for those nations to answer for.

Israel has its own human rights violations to answer for, but we both know they will ignore them.

The gist of my post was that Abbas and Bennett are both clown/idiots.

Had a defter person actually read what I wrote they would have understood it, but unfortunately you read it so...

[shira]

9. I won't help you derail this thread. Why don't u stick to the topic rather than deflect to Bennett?

You're equating Bennet to Abbas.

Typical moral equivalence deflection rather than sticking to the topic.

[Ken Burch]

19. Bennett is WORSE than Abbas.

Bennett wants to expel all Arabs from Palestine.

Abbas doesn't want to expel the Jews from Israel.

[shira]

25. Really? Abbas just told 150,000 Syrian Palestinians it's better....

...they die in Syria than renounce their RoR and move into the W.Bank.

But Bennett is worse?

[Ken Burch]

38. Yes. Bennett supports making Palestine Arabrein.

It's right there in his party's platform.

In reality, shira, none of the Palestinian leaders would be absolutely rigid on full physical RoR-and RoR isn't related to the settlement blocs issue at all.

If the Palestinians totally renounced RoR, gave on having East Jerusalem as their capital(it's not like there's anywhere else they could realistically have it, you know)AND accepted all the settlement blocs, Netanyahu would still say "not enough"...and then, the next day, he'd greenlight ANOTHER illegal settlement.

And YOU would defend him on that in this group.

[shira]

39. "None of the Palestinian leaders would be absolutely rigig on full physical RoR"

Yeah right.

Tell that to 150,000 Syrian Palestinians who are better off dead than renouncing RoR.

Abbas' words and inaction this week prove, once and for all, nothing less than full RoR will do.

[Ken Burch]

40. The problem is, you're demanding that they give up ANY RoR as a precondition.

Not just give up FULL RoR(which the probably realize, of course, that they aren't ever going to get in the end anyway)but even a compromise of the sort I suggested, a compromise that wouldn't jeopardize Israeli security in the slightest.

What I'm saying is that, were they offered something REAL in return for giving up full RoR, such as the compensation, plus apologies and acknowledgment of harm, you could see a great deal more flexibility on that.

As it is, Netanyahu(with your apparent support)is demanding that the Palestinian side give up everything BEFORE any negotiations even start...give up everything WITHOUT any assurance of getting anything in return.

Real negotiations...the kind you have to have if you're trying to resolve a dispute on any terms other than one side agreeing to terms of unconditional surrender like Japan or Germany in 1945(i.e., the kind of terms no one has accepted since then in any conflict resolution and that no one will ever agree to again)you have to treat both sides with parity.

Netanyahu's demands are about denying the Palestinian side anything even CLOSE to parity-with everything he's demanding they give up at the beginning of talks, BEFORE anything is agreed to, there's nothing at all they'd actually get FOR talking. When you combine the preservation of those blocs with Netanyahu's arrogant demand for permanent IDF control of the Jordan River Valley, it would be impossible to form a viable Palestinian state on the pathetic remnants that are left, especially if that country couldn't even have control of its water supply OR commercial airline service(countries that don't aren't actually countries, shira).

Demanding that a Palestinian leadership accept ALL that, before any negotiations could start(which is still what Netanyahu is demanding and which you still haven't ever even questioned in this group). is the same thing as demanding that the Palestinian leaders who agree to that commit political(and possibly literal)suicide as a gesture of good faith. No leadership anywhere on the planet has ever agreed to anything comparable to that without permanently discrediting itself in the eyes of the people it was negotiating on behalf of. Certainly Ben-Gurion and Co. never agreed to anything remotely as humiliating or debilitating in 1948.

In my view, this is why the Palestinians aren't interested at all in negotiating with the current Israeli government...what that government is proposing isn't really negotiations at all, but surrender talks. Netanyahu doesn't WANT to end the war with a humane, dignified compromise that both sides could save face with(the only type of resolution that has any chance of success)-he just wants to be able to tell his hate-based party that he stuck it to the Pals. And, in a way, he kind of HAS to want that...because if a real peace was made, Likud Beteinyu would have no reason anymore to exist as a party and his political career would be over.

How about...this is just one idea off the top of my head...offering to get rid of the major settlement blocs IN EXCHANGE for the type of compromise on RoR that I suggested above? Is there any reason to not at least CONSIDER that idea?

And also...as a general note...if you REALLY want Palestinians to change their leadership...calling on the Israeli government to make it explicitly clear that a less-violent Palestinian leadership would be assured of getting a BETTER deal for the Palestinian people than Hamas or Fatah could get? Do you not realize that your insistence that, whoever leads them, Palestinians today should get less just because their leaders made bad choices in the past, even if they were to choose different leaders, is the WORST possible way to get those people to choose somebody else to lead them?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

27. "I won't help you derail this thread."

Don't accuse me of derailing threads, my friend. I was simply asking you IMHO, if you believe that Israel has just as much a claim to the West Bank as the Palestinians do. Some have written just that in I/P.

Bennett has com out quite openly for his want for a greater Israel on what is now Palestinian land. In my mind he and Abbas can go on the road and keep on going.

I'm sorry if you have bruised feelings if I have offended such a fine patriotic Israeli like Bennett.

[shira]

29. Abbas just said Syrian Palestinians are better off dead than renouncing RoR....

He's a holocaust denier who just recently lauded Hitler's Mufti of Palestine (relative of Arafat) and he is also a supporter of Omar Bashir (Sudan). He's also made it clear that JEWS are not allowed in a future Palestine.

Say what you want about Bennett, but to equate the 2 is ridiculous.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

33. Shira, I know that it is painfully dificult for you.

You know I don't support Abbas. If you didn't know then either you have not read my replies to you or on this board which is strange since I have posted it a few times.

I also don't support Naftali Bennett. Do you?

What is ridiculous is that some would believe that there has to be parity between two politician/a-holes for me to make an observation.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. He may be someday.

What will the excuse be then?

As far as I am concerned Fibi Netanyahu can join the other two.


"Good thing that Jews don't respond to provocations like muslims do."

Who are the ones provoking the Muslims? Do tell.

[shira]

10. Israelis are provoking Muslims? Do tell...

How were they provoking Muslims in 1929 WRT the Hebron massacre?

How did they provoke the Mufti (Palestinian leader) in the 30's and 40's, thereby pushing him to work alongside Adolph Hitler against the Jews?

[zellie]

12. Answer: They're Jews. nt.

[Ken Burch]

20. trick question..."Israelis" couldn't provoke anybody in 1929...

at that point, there was no such thing as an "Israeli".

There were provocations involving boundaries at the holy sites(the Hebron massacre was wrong, but there were also killings of innocent Arabs in the same time period).

[Shaktimaan]

41. I'm sorry...

(the Hebron massacre was wrong, but there were also killings of innocent Arabs in the same time period).

Where were those killings exactly?

[Ken Burch]

42. In Segev's "One Palestine, Complete"

There are references to the bombing of buses carrying Arabs(since these were public transportation, there would have been no way of knowing if those riding the buses had actually done anything to deserve a violent death).

[oberliner]

43. No there isn't

This is not true.

There was no "bombing of buses carrying Arabs" before the Hebron massacre.

And there is no such reference in that book.

[Ken Burch]

46. I'll reread, but was sure I'd read of that. n/t.

[oberliner]

49. If you find what you mean, tell me the page

I don't mean that to be snark - I have the book.

[Scootaloo]

22. The Mufti was appointed by the British

Specifically because he was an antisemite. It was part of their big plan to keep Jews from emigrating to Palestine. I guess they just didn't count on him ending up despising the British as much as he despised Jews.

Amazing how so much of this shit traces back to London, isn't it?

[Ken Burch]

47. In fact, the Mufti LOST badly in the advisory ballot of Palestinians as to who should get the job

(For the information of those new to the subject, we're talking about Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the one and only "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem"-his predecessors in the position, which was actually the position of chief spiritual leader of the Palestinian Muslim community, had all just been called "the Mufti"-the Brits added the "Grand" when this fellow came along, for some reason).

Haj Amin Al-Husseini finished fourth in the advisory vote, and was appointed by the British largely because his family had traditionally held the post and the winner of the balloting was a member of the Nashabibi family, traditional rivials of the Al-Husseinis, and the Brits felt that it would create a power imbalance if a Nashabibi had the job, since the Nashabibis at this point traditionally held the mayoralty of Jerusalem. It's likely that the Brits also caused or at least increased Al-Husseini's anti-Jewish sentiments by treating him badly on his official visits to London while they treated Ben-Gurion well(even though the Brits wanted out of Palestine as quickly as possible, they wanted to make sure that Jews and Arabs never made common cause against them while they were still running the place-the traditional colonialist "divide and conquer" strategy).

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. Are you answering your own question? If you wish to converse with yourself

then feel free, but if you want to do that please start your own sub thread.

Now I asked who was provoking Muslims to Mosby since s/he wrote this:
"Good thing that Jews don't respond to provocations like muslims do."

"Israelis are provoking Muslims?"
Why you have to overreact and misrepresent with this is curious.

[Ken Burch]

18. Bennett will probably be in the next Cabinet...possibly as foreign minister.

So he isn't exactly irrelevant.

And his proposal for an Arabrein Palestine is just as bigoted as anything Hamas ever advocated.

[oberliner]

44. No he won't

He definitely won't be foreign minister and probably won't be in the cabinet at all.

And what's with the Nazi terminology?

[Ken Burch]

45. He was proposing to force the Arabs out of Palestine.

What other term than "Arabrein" would express how fascist and inhumane such a policy would be?

And how can you be sure Bennett won't be in the Cabinet? Netanyahu needs him to put together a right-wing majority-his only alternative would be to bring large parties to Likud Beitenyu's left that oppose his current policies on most major issues(most likely it would be Lapid's party, since he sees Lapid as the rival he has the most pressing need to neutralize at this juncture).

[oberliner]

48. No he wasn't

And there are lots of non-German/Nazi terms to use to describe fascist policies.

And to your other paragraph:

Coalition negotiations have just become a lot more complicated. After it appeared that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to bring the Jewish Home into his new coalition, following the news about the political alliance agreement between Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, yesterday the Bennett folks were telling the press that the Likud negotiating team is only using them to “bring down the price” of Lapid’s Yesh Atid party, and in reality they have no intention of including Jewish Home in a Likud-led government.

Originally, Likud sources involved in the negotiations claimed that they intended to present Bennett with “an offer he can’t refuse,” and bring him in as the first partner to join the coalition. However, on Wednesday, a senior Jewish Home MK told Maariv: “I don’t know of any tempting offers and right now there is no preferential treatment for us. I haven’t heard any concrete offer from the Likud, certainly not regarding government posts. For now, we don’t even have an understanding, and everyone in the talks is just talking about whatever they please.”

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/jewish-home-netanyahu-wants-us-out-of-government/2013/02/07/