Last night, one image from the Democratic National Convention dominated certain corners of social media: more than a dozen delegates outside on the sidewalk, some holding each other, some in tears.
The image was taken shortly after the DNC told the group of around 30 uncommitted delegates—who are part of a protest vote to demand an arms embargo on Israel and a ceasefire in Gaza—that the party would not allow a Palestinian-American speaker to address the convention today. Delegates said they weren’t told why the national party declined the request.
Very emotional scene here as Uncommitted delegates sit in tears on the sidewalk outside the United Center. pic.twitter.com/YUHsc0Ux17
— Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald) August 22, 2024
Among their suggested speakers was Dr. Tanya Haj-Hassan, a pediatric intensive care doctor who has been working in Gaza. She spoke at a press conference in Chicago earlier this week and described her experiences holding children’s hands as they died, and treating children with no surviving relatives—a situation that’s become so common that an acronym was created in hospitals there: WCNSF, or “Wounded Child, No Surviving Family.”
Yesterday, Israeli-Americans Jon Polin and Rachel Goldberg, the parents of a 23-year-old Israeli-American hostage in Gaza, spoke to the convention. The crowd greeted them with emotional cheers, chanting, “Bring them home.” The couple called for a ceasefire and described the 109 hostages as not a political issue, but rather a humanitarian issue. They described the “agony on all sides” but did not draw attention to the humanitarian crisis for Palestinians in Gaza, where more than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed and half a million people face catastrophic food insecurity.
Since midnight last night, members of the Uncommitted Delegation have staged a sit-in outside Chicago’s United Center. One delegate said that there have consistently been between 10 and 20 people participating in the protest throughout the morning, hoping to maintain pressure on the DNC and show the party that there is strong Democratic support for a ceasefire, and holding out hope that the party could change their mind on the convention’s last day.
“There were 40, maybe 50 delegates [showing] solidarity, all wanting to understand why a Palestinian speaker wouldn’t be approved for five minutes on the DNC floor,” said Yaz Kader, an uncommitted delegate from Washington state. “It just takes five minutes for us to end the sit-in, be welcomed back in, and enjoy the last day of the DNC, rather than feel silent and censured.”
Kader spoke to The Stranger about the delegation’s experiences at the DNC, and his hopes for the event’s final day.
[This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.]
Many people outside of Chicago have seen the emotional image of the uncommitted delegates on the sidewalk outside the DNC. Can you tell us what was happening in that moment?
It was grounded in sadness. The uncommitted movement’s primary ask has been a weapons embargo. [But] in addition, we’ve had some smaller asks. One of those being: we would like a Palestinian speaker, or somebody who can provide a story of the Palestinian cause in Gaza.
[We] had recommended Dr. Tanya Haj-Hassan and some Palestinian elected officials that would have been acceptable for us and, I think, appropriate for the convention. And we have been asking for weeks now to have just a five-minute speaking slot, and have not heard anything concrete until yesterday.
This [especially] hurt because there had been an Israeli family speaking about their hostage situation on the convention floor yesterday. We obviously supported the Israeli family speaking—I think that we were all in solidarity with them, speaking and sharing their story of suffering. All we’ve asked for is some equality in the situation.
Some of what you saw [last night] was some hope lost in that moment, but even now, I will say: I feel optimistic. I know that it’s hours away, but we are ready. We are literally ready with our speakers. We just need the call and we’ll be ready to go.
Many of the issues put forth by the uncommitted movement are demonstrably popular in the Democratic Party as a whole. An overwhelming majority of Democrats support a ceasefire in Gaza, and almost half of likely Democratic voters support a decrease in military aid to Israel. But early signs show that it’s not a high priority for voters in this election. Locally, we saw the issue struggle in our recent primary; and polling has shown that it’s not even in the top ten for voters nationwide. The convention is an opportunity to reach a huge number of voters at once. What do you hope the impact of Uncommitted will be at the DNC?
First, the amount of overwhelming support from the pledged Biden and Harris delegates has been just absolutely unbelievable. Among the 4,500 Democratic delegates, my interactions with almost all of them have just been overwhelmingly positive. I walk around with my kufiya in these halls, and people will come up to me, no prompt, and just say, “I support you. I’m with you. I’m happy that you’re doing what you’re doing.”
We recognize that our goal—an arms embargo or limiting weapons and a ceasefire—is something that couldn’t be accomplished necessarily in four days. But we [came here with] 30 or so uncommitted delegates, and by the end of yesterday, we had almost 300 people signing on to our petition, asking for a ceasefire, asking for an arms embargo, saying [that they should] have the national uncommitted leadership meet with senior campaign staff.
What we have here is an issue where elected officials—in this case, President Biden and Vice President Harris—aren’t clearly stating why they are going against what the Democratic base wants. What we still want [today], is to answer: what is Vice President Harris’s foreign policy going to be? Is she going to be like President Biden, who has overseen the death of 16,000 Palestinian children? Is that going to be her foreign policy as well? Is she going to approve 20 billion in arms sales, as Biden did two weeks ago?
She hasn’t answered these questions for the over 700,000 uncommitted voters.
What do you hope the impact of a Palestinian-American speaker would be at the DNC?
I spent some time thinking about how we got here yesterday. We have sunk months, hours—probably thousands of brain hours among all of us—with the hope that we would get something here, and one of those things is a five-minute speaking slot.
So why does a five-minute speaking slot matter? Every four years we have a Democratic National Convention. Let’s say after every single one of those conventions over the last 50 years, there’s five minutes dedicated to a Palestinian speaking about the struggle for Palestinians. Would we then still have 16,000 children dead? I don’t think so.
It is the absolute bare minimum for the Democratic Party to say, we want a Palestinian voice in this party. There is enough room in this tent, and you are equal. You are equal, just as everybody else. Without it, I can only say that there’s a level of inequality that exists within the party.
How do you think that speaker could impact voters this year?
It’s a starting point. It’s not the end goal.
The uncommitted voters were not only, you know, it was a multi-ethnic, multi-faith, multi-racial, grassroots movement, and so it’s important to recognize that. But it’s also important to recognize that some of the swing states that Vice President Harris needs to win, like Michigan and Minnesota—these states have relatively high Arab and Muslim populations. Michigan in particular has over 100,000 uncommitted voters.
A five-minute speaking slot is a starting point, but I’m not sure it’s enough for the voters who are still uncommitted.
What about voters who are committed—who are Harris voters and believe in a ceasefire, but don’t necessarily consider it their highest priority with their vote. Do you think it could change how they’re approaching this election?
I think from what I have gathered with my time with other delegates, they have a lot of support for us. We are not considering this a one or two situation. This is a one and two situation. You can be a Harris delegate and a ceasefire delegate. You can tell me right now that you’ll vote for Kamala, and you can also tell me that you want an immediate, permanent ceasefire. It’s important to recognize that.
Given the fact that President Biden has for the last 10 months been supplying the Israeli military so that they have killed over 40,000 Palestinians, it would be nice to know that we can turn the page, put a Palestinian [onstage] and have them speak about some of our sufferings–not as a contest, but just out of the humanity.
I regret marking the “uncommitted” box. I did it because I wanted the flexibility to choose a better candidate than Biden. Not to support any side of an unwinnable war. Never again!
“Delegates said they weren’t told why the national party declined the request.”
Why would the Democratic Party not want to let people who have done and will continue to do everything in their power to damage the Democratic Party ticket for President speak at the Democratic Party convention? What a huge mystery! This is going to require some serious detective work to figure out.
“Gaza Isn’t Driving Votes.” So then, why should a political party care about it?
(https://www.thestranger.com/elections-2024/2024/08/07/79637812/seven-takeaways-from-washingtons-2024-august-primary)
Can you even imagine a Convention where every group of “about 30 delegates” in a population of 4,000 attendees got stage time to rant about their pet peeve???
Even if you agreed with everything everyone was saying, it would drive you nuts.
Everyone wants a ceasefire. They just differ on the terms.
The United States is violating United States law AND international law by continuing to arm and fund Israel as they slaughter and starve and slaughter the starving. The Democrats certainly can’t have anyone speaking about it in any way, because it would be an admission of guilt. The cult of personality can’t have any of that. It will come back to bit them on the ass. Hopefully hard AF.
Also, it’s NOT A WAR. Palestine is an apartheid state, with Palestinians imprisoned and Israeli soldiers murdering civilians, including babies and children “because they might one day grow up to be part of the resistance fighting the vicious and violent colonization of their country.”
Wars happen between countries that are separate entities, sovereign nations, both with active military. Israel has the money and the weapons of the United States. If the United States gave nothing to Israel, this ethnic cleansing of theirs would end.
The only other kind of war is a civil war and that doesn’t apply here either, because, again, one party is the fish in a barrel being slaughtered and starved so the colonists can take what they believe is theirs (it is not).
Jews are not colonists in their historic homeland. And this most certainly is a war (given Hamas was the elected governing authority of Gaza) – unfortunately a war Hamas had no likelihood of winning.
If Hamas truly cared about the Palestinian people, they would surrender / give up their arms (but we know that won’t happen). And more frustrating is their action is helping a crappy leader hand onto power when prior to 10/7 he was most likely heading for the end of his political career.
Israel is not the historic homeland of Jews. Palestine existed before Britain gave it to the Jews as reparations for the Holocaust. Palestine was populated with Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Learn some history. Educate yourself.
Also educate yourself as to who it was that put Hamas in a position of power in Palestine.
A population under occupation is allowed to resist their oppressor.
Zionism is colonialism and white supremacist terrorism.
If the United States cared about U.S. law and International law they would not arm and fund Israel – a terrorist state slaughtering civilians. Israel says it has the most moral army. Meanwhile they engage in behavior more abhorrent than the Nazis and do it in the name of the Holocaust.
The evil being done will never be undone, will never be forgotten, and will definitely result in more and more violence until someone ends it and the entity most capable of ending it instantly and completely is the United States. Without the hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars given to Israel, Israel would not be able to do what they are doing. Europe does not have the means to keep Israel armed and paid in the manner to which the United States has them accustomed.
Israel would not be trying to start a war with Iran if they weren’t secure in their belief that the United States will make sure they are armed to the teeth and come to their defense.
Israel is making itself a pariah.
The United States already is.
I’m so sick of Israel and Palestine. I think many other Americans feel this way. I don’t think the US should be helping Israel at all but I can also wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets filled up first.
Commenters who claim that uncommitted voters are fringe and not representative of a large number of Democrats are just plain wrong.
“The poll, which was conducted among 1,265 possible voters over the span of a week in April, found that almost four in 10 likely voters, as well as more than half of all Democrats, believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza”
https://www.jpost.com/us-elections/article-800603
New Poll Suggests Gaza Ceasefire and Arms Embargo Would Help Dems with Swing State Voters
The YouGov/IMEU Policy Project poll found over a third of voters in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia are more likely to vote for a Democratic nominee who pledges to withhold weapons to Israel.
https://zeteo.com/p/poll-harris-democrats-gaza-ceasefire-arms-embargo
“Jews are not colonists in their historic homeland.”
Those who have emigrated and displaced people who have occupied that land for generations are colonists by definition. Nobody is going to remake the world the way it was over 2000 years ago without generating conflicts everywhere and nobody is going to correct an unspeakable injustice committed by Europeans (the holocaust) by perpetrating another unspeakable injustice against Palestinian Arabs. Never again always meant never again for anybody.
@12 “another unspeakable injustice against Palestinian Arabs”
and Palestinian Christians
I suspect they asked a hypothetical Palestinian speaker to promise to be unambiguous in not calling for the end of Israel and couldn’t get that
Q. does one need be
an Idiot to equate
anti-Zionism with
anti-Semitism?
b. if Jews are anti-Aparthied/
anti-Genocide are they in
fact self-Hating Jews?
c. why did
Runny Raygun
HATE the Middle Class
and do his best to Destroy it?
why does
Dunning/Kroger
hate stupid people?
so many
Questions. so
little self-Reflection
Right wingers like R&N formerly Raindrop (and probably a couple more sock puppets) have no valid argument so they resort to demonizing: yesterday they accused half the American population of being “far-left” or fringe for thinking that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Today they claim that antisemitism is rampant here because people are not swayed by the argument that Israel should get a blank check to do whatever they want with Palestinian Arabs in order to take their land, presumably because of what was done to Jews during the holocaust. It’s abundantly clear that antisemitism like all form of racism should not be tolerated but giving blank checks to a few Jews to commit injustice is the surest way to entice anti-Jew racism. Needless to say, race baiting Ronald Reagan fetishists certainly shouldn’t pretend to give lessons about racism to anyone.
Xina is just a nutcase.
“Palestine existed before Britain gave it to the Jews.” Holy crap… you realize the history of the Middle East predates the last century? You realize it goes back thousands of years? What am I writing… of course you don’t realize that because you are the most clueless poster on Slog.
Tell us, oh wise Xina – when and who founded Jerusalem? Don’t hurt your brain on that one.
How are those letters to your congresspeople working out for you? Still writing every day?
10,000’s of dead innocents in Gaza (likely over 100k) and he has the gall to talk about moral clarity and “semantics”
I don’t like what’s going on in Gaza. That’s why i will vote for Kamala Harris.
@the formerly-banned
‘dewdrop’ now known
as Nancy Raygun:
“Your
hate can’t hide
behind games of semantics.”
hating
both ignorance
and stupidity (only
One of which can be
Cured) is not a Bad Thing
while
hating
America’s
Middle Class
its Unions and its
Citizenry’s Hope for
an American Dream IS
and supporting Genocide
does Not make one
a Moral human
being. you’ve
Much to
Learn:
beginning
with what is &
what ain’t Obscene.
I read elsewhere that the uncommitted delegates have decided to back Harris just like everyone knew they would from the very beginning.
They didn’t sway Harris one tiny bit.
@22 “return to their homeland”
whenever you call to return New York city to native Americans, I’ll start to take your argument seriously. Until then it’s children fairy tales level talking points to justify land theft
“being slaughtered and persecuted everywhere else in the world.”
In other words, you’d rather persecute and slaughter Palestinian Arabs than make sure Jews are accepted and welcomed everywhere.
@20 Almost all of us will vote for Harris but I am not optimist that it’ll change anything in Gaza
“To even use the word “ceasefire” to describe what the Biden administration is pursuing is itself a form of linguistic violence. The latest draft “ceasefire” proposal announced by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken essentially endorses continued Israeli occupation of Gaza with no permanent cessation of war. But even this was apparently too much of a concession for Netanyahu, which is why he reportedly continues to undermine it. Meanwhile, it was just one week ago that the State Department announced the sale of another $20 billion in U.S. weapons to Israel.”
https://theintercept.com/2024/08/22/biden-harris-israel-ceasefire-gaza/
@24 Doesn’t your argument apply just as much to the fairy tale of “right of return”? That was 80 years ago. Ancient history. Half of America was driven from previous homes someplace else in the world in roughly the same timeline. Yet none of them cling to some belief in the fairy tale of “right of return” to Europe, Asia etc…
@26: averagebob’s position is simple: Palestinian Arabs have the right to the land. Nobody else does. Therefore, Palestinian Arabs have the right to return; nobody else does. Palestinian Arabs have the right to use violence to drive other peoples off the land; nobody else does. Palestinian Arabs can launch as many wars for their land as they want, with their losses never being considered permanent; nobody else does. He’s made that all pretty clear: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2024/08/19/79655571/not-another-bomb-rally-pressures-democrats-to-listen-to-their-base-on-palestine/comments/64
(It’s all based upon his contrafactual view of history, of course; any easy understanding of events there simply must be based on fairy tales, not hard facts.)
Your political advocacy group is not entitled to a platform at the DNC political convention. If anybody in the world is capable of reading public opinion polls and drawing conclusions about what is palatable to swing voters, it is the DNC.
@22 Then you admit that the United States is illegitimate because it exists on land stolen from Native American, and the tribes have a right to use violence to take that land back from the current occupires. Or does your reasoning only apply in the former British Mandate for Palestine?
@30: That’s actually the belief of Students for Justice in Palestine, organizers of the campus protests this past Spring. Just as they referred to “Israel” as “Occupied Palestine,” and celebrated the rapes and murders Hamas committed there on 10/7 as “necessary,” they refer to the “so-called United States and Canada” as “Occupied Turtle Island.” (https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/10/DAY-OF-RESISTANCE-TOOLKIT.pdf)
Given the SJP’s attitude towards rape as a tool of liberation for occupied territory, I can’t see any reason why they would not be in favor of it in “Occupied Turtle Island.”
@26 I haven’t thought of a cutoff when I’d consider it “old history” but given some of the people who underwent the Nakba are still alive and many of their descendants live in refugee camps or in outdoor prisons like Gaza, I’d consider their demand to a right of return (refused by Israel) as legitimate.
As for these other people you talk about, you’d have to be more specific.
@27 are you trying to see how many lies you can fit in one comment? You aren’t even trying anymore now that most of your talking points have fallen apart.
@29 What? It is a strange maneuver to choose being incoherent when you have run out of argument.
@32: I provided the URL to your comment in that thread. Anyone here can read, and decide, for themselves.
@33 Let’s count your lies @27:
1) “Palestinian Arabs have the right to the land. Nobody else does.”
Lie. I said that whichever population occupied the land before the start of massive Zionist immigration had right to the land, which included ~10% Jews.
2)”Palestinian Arabs have the right to return; nobody else does.”
Lie. I said that nobody had a right of return after more than 2 millennia because there were legitimate occupant of the land by then. Doing otherwise would create conflicts everywhere.
3)”Palestinian Arabs have the right to use violence to drive other peoples off the land; nobody else does.”
lie. I newer said that anyone had the right to use violence for anything.
4) “Palestinian Arabs can launch as many wars for their land as they want, with their losses never being considered permanent; nobody else does. “
Lie. I said that annexing land conquered during warfare and committing ethnic cleansing were violation of international law thus applicable to anyone committing such crimes.
4 sentences, 4 lies. Good going, moron.
@34 – “I said that whichever population occupied the land before the start of massive Zionist immigration had right to the land, which included ~10% Jews.”
Always nice to see the “Jews should have stayed in Europe and died in the Holocaust rather than immigrated to Israel and survived” opinion havers reveal themselves.
@35 It’s plain not true, and a pretty lazy argument that isn’t even based in facts. I glorify the resistance who fought the Nazis in Europe, many of whom where left wing Jews who paid with their lives but I guess you don’t have to believe me. Jews belong among us where they have been for millennia and richly contributed to our common culture, but I guess you don’t have to believe me about that either.
My basic point of view is one cannot fix an injustice (very weak word considering the reality of the holocaust) by commuting another injustice (very weak word considering the on going genocide in Gaza and apartheid in occupied territories) toward another people. People were already living in Palestine, nobody had the right to give it away to “fix” the racism within their own societies. Especially since neglecting the interests of the populations under the authority of colonial powers itself smacks of racism.
Interestingly, Zionists leaders were also considering other places like Argentina and Africa (Tanzania?) to settle a colony before the Brits gave them the green light to immigrate to Palestine during the protectorate so there was nothing magical about Palestine and the return to the “historical homeland” to justify immigration was largely concocted after the fact because it neatly fit the ideology of cooky Christian Zionists who played a large part in this affair.
averagebob dear, I’m not naive enough to believe that things in Gaza will get better under a President Harris, but I’m certain that it would get much worse under trump.
What a clusterfuck.
Thought I’d read thoughtful commentary on this issue.
Found a cat fight with the mouse as a weapon. SO glad
you folks have this outlet for your angst and frustration.
Why a Political Party would invite in someone who is
OUTSIDE their heavily scripted standards is a no-brainer.
But, feel free to argue amongst your numbered selves.
Bye.
@36: Nobody “gave” Palestine away. As we’ve been over before, the Ottoman Empire had severely restricted Jews from owning land in Palestine, buying land in Palestine, or even traveling to Palestine. After the British Empire seized Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, the British did not continue those discriminatory policies against the Jews, so Jews became free to visit, immigrate, and buy land there. That’s all. All you’re saying is you are very much in favor of the outsider imperial policies which restricted Jews from Palestine.
You might think of yourself as a good liberal or whatever, but your attempts to address this issue do not support such beliefs.
“Jews belong among us where they have been for millennia and richly contributed to our common culture,”
Until a few years before the founding of the modern state of Israel, yes. That you can make such a statement in the same comment as the word, “Nazi,” shows a truly astounding amount of tone-deafness on this issue, to put it mildly.
Your presentation of history is self-serving: the Ottomans, by opposition to the British, didn’t not support the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
“There is a British proverb about the camel and the tent,” said the British Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann. “At first the camel sticks one leg in the tent, and eventually it slips into it. This must be our policy.”
Under the influence of Christian Zionists like the Rothshilds, the Balfour declaration of 1917 pledged British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine so it went way beyond non-interference but active support
“All you’re saying is you are very much in favor of the outsider imperial policies which restricted Jews from Palestine.”
No, I am only saying that enabling the creation of a Jewish colonial state committed a grave injustice toward the population that owned the land
“tone-deafness”
says the person who denies genocide in Gaza to make up for another genocide (the holocaust)
@40: The Ottoman Empire imposed upon Palestine a series of restrictions upon Jews owning land, buying land, and even traveling to Jerusalem. It did this without the consent of the governed, and with the sole intent of maintaining foreign imperial control over the province. This was the primary reason the number of Jews, and of Jewish landowners, was so small when the British seized Palestine. You’ve tried to depict this small population size as occurring naturally, and thus the influx of Jews under the British should be considered unnatural and unfair, when in reality, it was the prior Ottoman policy which was unfairly discriminatory.
Both empires had policies they imposed upon Palestine for their own reasons. You can’t just arbitrarily say one was perfectly alright and the other intolerable, especially as the British Empire’s policy was less blatantly discriminatory.
“No, I am only saying that enabling the creation of a Jewish colonial state committed a grave injustice toward the population that owned the land.”
The UN’s partition foresaw a peaceful sharing of the land. The Palestinian Arabs, supported by multiple Arab armies which illegally invaded Palestine, violently rejected the UN’s proposal. They chose war, and therefore, they chose to accept the consequences of war. They lost the war, their allies callously and cynically abandoned them, and we see the results today.
(BTW, you don’t actually own the word, “genocide,” and no one has any obligation to agree with your use of it. Screaming that anyone who disagrees with your use of it must therefore support “genocide” doesn’t change any of that, it merely makes you someone who tries to win arguments dishonestly, and then petulantly whines about his failure to do so.)
@41: I’d disagree that they were “cynically abandoned.” Their allies did everything they could to help, but the Palestinians bite every hand outstretched to them – up to, and including the american democratic party, and it always leads to the same result. The allies get sick of it, and Palestine goes all Shocked Pikachu Face crying about how meeeean everyone is to them, and how dare anyone hold them accountable for their actions.
1950: Jordan takes in Palestinians. Palestinians spend 20 years trying to destroy Jordan in favor of starting unending trouble with Israel. By 1970 Palestinians try to overthrow the Jordanian government and try to kill all their royal family – succeeding in killing the prime minister. Jordan finally drives them out.
1970: Lebanon takes them in after Jordan drives them out. They work more quickly this time, plunge the country into civil and external wars, and turn what was the “Switzerland of the Middle East” to the literal exploding poop bomb it is today.
1960s – Kuwait took Palestinians in. 1990s, Palestinians in Kuwait help Saddam Hussian invade Kuwait because they thought Saddam would be more anti-israel.
Palestinian helped the Muslim Brotherhood nearly destroy Egypt’s government in the past decade. Egypt is understandably displeased.
2024: The Palestinians that the USA took in go to the Democratic party – the party that’s actually been trying to help them, and go “We’ll help Trump win if you don’t give us everything we want, exactly when we want it.” Democrats go “well, sorry to hear that, but we won’t give you what you demand, so I guess we go our separate ways.”
Now comes the wailing and the “why can’t you just let us do whatever we want without consequences??? None of this is our fault – if you would just give us whatever we want we wouldn’t have to do things like try and take your election hostage, so really, this is your fault!”
@42: Thanks for the recap, although I was referring just to the end of the 1948-49 war in Palestine, not to anything after. You are correct, Jordan took in Palestinian Arab refugees at that time, and received nothing but grief for it.
The only part after that I recalled was Arafat siding with Sadam Hussein, after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Decades of sympathy for Palestinian Arabs as a stateless people instantly evaporated upon the bald hypocrisy of the PLO accepting the eradication of an Arab state.