Bolton: ‘Palestine’ is not a state


National Security Advisor John Bolton stated the obvious about the Arabs pretending to be Palestinians; viz., Palestine is not a State.

 

The remarks came at a White House presser announcing the USA is no longer a party to the world body International Court of Justice (ICJ). The move primarily asserts that the United States will not lose its National Sovereignty to a world government body. And secondly the remarks thumb a news at those who interfere in Israel’s National Sovereignty by telling the Jewish State where and where not it can place its Capital City within the (true) Nation’s national borders.

 

JRH 10/5/18 (Hat Tip: Ali H. of G+ Community United We Stand One Nation Under God)

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Bolton: ‘Palestine’ is not a state

 

By Batya Jerenberg

October 4, 2018

World Israel News

 

US National Security Adviser John Bolton speaks during a briefing at the White House in Washington, Oct. 3, 2018. (AP/Susan Walsh)

 

It’s not a state now. It does not meet the customary international law test of statehood,” US National Security Adviser John Bolton stated.

 

US National Security Adviser John Bolton put the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) official status into perspective at a Wednesday press briefing when he announced that the United States would no longer be a signatory party to the United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ).

 

“The president has decided that the United States will withdraw from the optional protocol and dispute resolution to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This is in connection with a case brought by the so-called state of Palestine naming the United States as a defendant [in the ICJ], challenging our move of our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,” Bolton said.

 

White House reporters immediately jumped on the adjective, asking whether calling the Palestinian Authority (PA) a “so-called state” was “productive,” considering that President Donald Trump had said he was working towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

Bolton’s answer was unequivocal.

 

“It’s not a state now. It does not meet the customary international law test of statehood,” he said. “It doesn’t control defined boundaries. It doesn’t fulfill the normal functions of government. There are a whole host of reasons why it’s not a state.”

 

“It could become a state, as the president said, but that requires diplomatic negotiations with Israel and others,” he added. “So calling it the ‘so-called state of Palestine’ defines exactly what it has been. [That’s] the position that the United States government has pursued uniformly since 1988, when the Palestinian Authority declared itself to be the State of Palestine.”

 

VIDEO: At White House presser, National Security Advisor Bolton insists Palestine has no claim to statehood

 

[Posted by Raw Story

Published on Oct 3, 2018]

 

Bolton might have been referring to the fact that 137 countries have recognized the PA as a state since that date. He reiterated the US rejection of this position on a bipartisan level.

 

“We don’t recognize it as a state… We have consistently, across Democratic and Republican administrations, opposed the admission of ‘Palestine’ to the UN as a state because it’s not a state.”

 

Although the PA is only a “non-member observer state” at the UN, it was allowed to formally join the International Criminal Court in 2015. Since the court’s decisions are binding, the US, by leaving the protocol, blocked the Palestinian case.

 

Bolton added that the withdrawal was part of a general effort by the Trump administration to protect US sovereignty from the reach of the international court.

 

“We will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the United States to purported binding jurisdiction dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice,” he said. “The United States will not sit idly by as baseless politicized claims are brought against us.”

________________________

World Israel News 

 

About WIN

 

World Israel News (WIN) is an online news outlet that presents
readers with important news from Israel and around the world.

 

Our audience consists of people who are concerned about Israel and
seek the truth. They want to know what’s really happening in Israel
and how these events can impact the world.

 

The goal of this website is to provide easy access to the latest news from Israel, presented in a truthful, honest way, with a focus on maximizing the user experience.

 

Constructive debate and exchange of ideas about the Jewish State is warmly welcomed.


We encourage our readers to participate openly and honestly.

 

It’s important to constantly improve the World Israel News website. Therefore, feedback and suggestions are greatly encouraged and appreciated!

 

Click here to contact us.

 

Israel is Jewish, That’s My Ultimate Deal


John R. Houk

© September 23, 2018

 

President Trump has long formulated an “Ultimate Deal” between Israel and the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. I am not going to lay out the perceived details of such a deal because so far those details seem to be a bit fluid. Meaning the Trump team hasn’t nailed down an internal agreement. My guess for that is negativity against potential details from Leftist supporters of the fake-Palestinians and some Jew-hating Muslim apologists globally as well some Arab nations.

 

In full disclosure, I’m a Christian Zionist. In case you haven’t realized it, ultimately that means I have little sympathy for the pseudo-Palestinian Arabs that can never pinpoint a historical period in which an Arab speaking nation of people called Palestinian EVER existed. INDEED, the current Arabs calling themselves Palestinians are overwhelmingly descendants of migrating Arabs outside the area who showed up after returning Jews began modernizing the land then managed by Ottoman Turks made employment attractive.

 

Prior to Arab immigration, the longstanding inherent Arabs were exploited peasants at the mercy of rich Muslim tenant owners who mismanaged the Land of the Jews into swamps and unusable agricultural land further impoverishing the shrinking peasant tenant farmers.

 

Thus my stand on Israel is leads toward disenfranchising hostile Arabs deporting them for sedition even if it means a forced depopulation of Arabs that do not accept the existence of the Jewish State of Israel. My Christian Zionist predilection of believing in the Jewish return to their Biblically promised homeland is my primary reasoning. And yes, I realize in the realm of political correctness, my ultimate plan for a One-State Solution is incomprehensible to Leftist Multiculturalists. I don’t care. Whatever hastens the return of Jesus the Messiah is the only realistic solution for world peace. (And yes I realize the Messiah concept produces misgivings among Observant Jews. But remember, I am not calling for any harm to Jews. I believe the Return of Jesus will inspire Jews rather than irritate them. SO, I stand with Jews for the Jewish State of Israel.)

 

The inspiration for these thoughts is some commentary by Martin Sherman on the President Trump initiative for the “Ultimate Deal” for Israel/Arab peace in the Middle. I found it in Ted Belman’s Israpundit.

 

JRH 9/23/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

**************************

INTO THE FRAY The rumored “ultimate deal”: Potential payoffs and possible pitfalls.

 

By Martin Sherman

Intro by Ted Belman

Email Alert Sent: 9/22/2018 3:17 PM

Israpundit

 

T. Belman.Martin’s point is that the “ultimate deal” must include incentivised emigration. I agree. In my article Trump’s Deal of the Century, I made no mention of this as I considered it to be the second stage of the process. First things first, namely end the Oslo Accords, UNRWA and the “peace process”. And finally destroy the Palestinian narrative. I did not want to jeopardize those very significant gains by suggesting that incentivised emigration must be part of the first deal.

Nevertheless the first deal as described by me includes a Jordanian initiative to incentivize emigration of Palestinians by providing free housing and jobs as the incentives. Also there is nothing to prevent Israel or others from providing further incentives.

I made it clear that the first deal, (Deal of the Century), includes Israel sovereignty west of the Jordan River. Pursuant to that sovereignty, Israel would appoint administrators of the former Area A namely a friendly Jordan. It is understood, though not mentioned, that Jordan would amend the text books and cirriculae [sic] for all students under its care to one acceptable to Israel. Jordan would be no more than the agent of Israel while admistering [sic] Area A and in no way autonomous.

 

By Martin Sherman

 

Trump EO to move U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem

 

The potential impermanence of the positive measures already undertaken by the Trump team should not be the only reason for Israeli concern over the brewing “ultimate deal”

 

…we will not put forth a plan or endorse a plan that doesn’t meet all of Israel’s security issues because they are of extreme importance to us—Jason GreenblattAssistant to the President & special representative for international negotiations, JNS, September 12, 2018.

 

…To defend itself Israel must retain control over the Jordan valley…[A]ny future arrangement must include Israeli control of the mountain ridge and a demilitarized Palestinian state…[T]o defend itself Israel must control the airspace over the West Bank—Israel’s Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace, The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, May 25, 2010.

 

…Arab officials say, Mr. Kushner is pushing the idea of a confederation between Jordan and the Palestinian rump of the West Bank. Far from new thinking, this recycles one of the oldest mantras of Israeli irredentism: that the Palestinians already have a state—Jordan.—David Gardner, “Trump’s ‘deal of the century’ offers nothing good to Palestinians”, Financial Times, September 5, 2018.

 

In recent weeks, there has been a spate of media speculation that the White House is soon to release details of the Trump administration’s ultimate peace deal to end the century-long conflict between Jew and Arab over control of the Holy Land.

 

Although almost no details have been revealed by official sources, rumors abound as to some of its more important components—and others have been inferred on the basis of some already implemented elements of Trump’s Mid-East policy.

 

Some transformative measures

 

Opening of US Embassy in Jerusalem: May 14, 2018.

 

Since the start of his presidency, Donald Trump has undertaken some bold, far reaching measures that have, in some significant ways, potentially transformed the discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. These have all been unequivocally favorable to Israel and considerably undermine long-held Palestinians positions.

 

Thus, Trump has largely preempted the question of the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital—albeit not its precise geographical extent. Likewise, he exposed the enduring and egregious anomaly of the Palestinian “refugee” ruse, terminating all US funding to UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency(, the UN body charged with dealing with the Palestinian-Arab refugees and their multi-generational descendants. This burgeoning population has been held in political limbo for decades as stateless refugees until such day as they can exercise their illusionary “Right of Return” and reoccupy their now non-existent homes inside Israel, abandoned in 1948 and 1967.

 

As a direct derivative of the decision to defund UNRWA and to dispute the refugee status of millions of Arabs of Palestinian descent—resident in Arab countries for decades—there has been a flurry of reports suggesting another ground-breaking US initiative. According to these reports, the Trump administration is seriously considering engaging Arab countries over the permanent resettlement of the Palestinian-Arabs living as “refugees” within their borders, and their absorption as citizens of their host nations.

 

If implemented, such an initiative—which this writer has been promoting for almost a decade-and-a-half—would clearly take the “Right of Return” off the table and remove one of the most intractable—arguably the most intractable—issue from the agenda.

 

The question of durability

 

Although these are, of course, greatly welcome developments from Israel’s point of view and were totally inconceivable under earlier administrations—the previous one in particular—a word of caution is called for.

 

After all, just as such measures were unthinkable under the Obama administration, there is no way to ensure their durability under a post-Trump administration. Indeed, given the pathological animus toward the president from his political adversaries on the one hand; and the growing anti-Israel sentiment in the Democratic Party, on the other, there is good reason for concern that if a Democratic president were to be elected, a concerted effort would be made to undo anything perceived as a “Trump’s legacy”—including, perhaps, especially—his Mid-East policy initiatives.

 

Thus, just as a presidential decision precipitated the US’s exit from the Iran nuclear deal, the moving of the American embassy to Jerusalem, the shuttering of the PLO office in Washington, the defunding of UNRWA and emerging rejection of the “Right of Return,” so can any contrary presidential decision reverse them—or at least largely neutralize them.

 

Moreover, the closer Israel is perceived to be to the Trump administration, the harsher and more vindictive the backlash is liable to be, should the Democrats regain the White House?—?particularly with the growing erosion of bipartisanship over Israel.

 

The hazards of hubris

 

Of course, this caveat should not be interpreted as a call for reticence in accepting the GOP’s warm embrace. Indeed, that would be both detrimentally counterproductive and inappropriately ungrateful.

 

It should however, be seen as warning against complacency and as a caution that more inclement times may well be ahead. For, at this stage, little can be more hazardous than hubris.

 

It is essential that Israel now undertake a vigorous initiative to cement these unexpected favorable developments and ensure that they cannot be easily undone by future administrations.

 

This must be accomplished by a comprehensive strategic endeavor, both at the diplomatic level, aimed at changing hearts and minds and at the physical level, aimed at changing facts on the ground.

 

The diplomatic component must be directed at undermining the Palestinian claims to statehood west of the Jordan River—by discrediting and delegitimizing the “Palestinian narrative”. The physical component must be directed at making the Jewish presence in Judea-Samaria irrevocable—by launching a largescale construction drive to increase the Jewish population beyond “the point of no return”.

 

Without such a strategic initiative, any welcome gains that have accrued to Israel because of Trump’s largely unexpected—and certainly unpredicted—electoral victory will remain potentially ephemeral—exposed and vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the bile or the bias of some anti-Trump successor in the White House.

 

Rumors cause for concern?

 

But the potential impermanence of the positive measures already undertaken by the Trump team is not the only reason for Israeli concern over the brewing “ultimate deal”. For the rumors swirling around the ongoing contacts between US officials and various figures in the Arab world could also well be cause for alarm.

 

These rumors relate to the eventual source of authority envisioned for the governance of the territory beyond the 1967 lines in Judea-Samaria and Gaza. Some rumors refer to giving Jordan (whether under the current Hashemite regime or under some yet-to-be determined successor) a range of civilian powers to govern the Arab residents there. Others raise the possibility of likewise empowering a reformed and repentant Palestinian Authority—with or without some affiliation to Jordan. Yet others relate to the possibility of engaging “alternative Palestinians” as a more pliant alternative to the recalcitrant Abbas, to manage the civilian affairs of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria.

 

All these suggested alternatives miss the most crucial point for the future of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

 

This is that they all entail the permanent presence of a large, potentially hostile Arab population, resident in territory vital to Israel’s security-and nurtured on decades of Judeocidal incitement and exposed to irredentist influences from the wider Arab/Muslim world. It therefore makes little difference what/who the envisaged source of formal authority is over this population, since its continued presence in the commanding highlands adjacent to Israel’s most populous area will render any “deal” –ultimate or otherwise?—?inherently unstable and potentially perilous for Israel.

 

Accordingly, if all the steps taken hitherto by the Trump administration do not converge towards synthesis of a single, unequivocal outcome, they will—despite all their positive features—eventually be of little—if any—avail. At least if the goal is for Israel to endure permanently as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

 

The autonomy paradox?

 

As I have been at pains to underscore repeatedly in the past, for Israel to indeed endure as the nation state of the Jews, it must extend its sovereignty over all the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River—including the highlands that protect Israel from invasion/infiltration from the East, and ensure the security of its coastal megalopolis in the West. But Israel’s sovereignty over this territory is incompatible with providing authority to any other party that does not acknowledge the legitimacy of that sovereignty.

 

This is something that the rumored formats of Trump’s “ultimate deal” seem to overlook. After all, the only reason to suggest allowing Arab governance (whether Jordanian or Palestinian) over the Arab population in Judea-Samaria is that they reject the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty.

 

Indeed, this highlights the underlying contradiction in any attempt to confer “autonomy” (i.e. limited authority) on any Arab entity under Israeli sovereignty (i.e. unlimited authority) in the context of the conflict between Jew and Arab. For any “autonomous” arrangement to be inherently stable, it is essential that the autonomous entity acknowledge and accept the legitimacy of the sovereign entity (Israel). But this is precisely the reverse of the underlying rationale of all the proposals to grant some Arab entity limited authority to govern the Arab population in Judea-Samaria.

 

Here, such authority is being granted precisely because the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty is rejected and hence, every limitation imposed on the authority of the Arab entity will be resented, and rejected—creating endless potential for friction.

 

The sovereignty imperative

 

Carcinogenic emission from Palestinian charcoal production

 

This will be particularly acute at the interface between areas under full Jewish sovereignty and those under Arab autonomy and in contending with cross-border issues, such as pollution (particularly the carcinogenic emissions of the wide spread charcoal industry), sewage, pollution from industrial effluents, agricultural run-offs, treatment of transmissible diseases, compulsory inoculation of livestock and rabies and so on Who would be charged with setting standards for dealing with these matters and for enforcing those standards? Israel or the Arab entity? If the Arab entity, how would Israel protect its citizens from the resultant hazards if those standards were not enforced? If Israel, what would remain of the authority of the Arab entity, which would be virtually emptied of all substance?

 

Similar questions could be raised for almost every walk of life. Would Israel impose standards of road safety for vehicles on its roads? If not, what would the consequences be? Would Israel determine the content of education to prevent continued incitement? If so, how would this erode the authority of the Arab entity? If not, how would Israel contain the consequences of such incitement?

 

These questions are thrown into even sharper relief when it comes to matters of law and order and security. If, for example, Jordan were given authority to run civilian affairs in Arab populated areas, what would happen in case of insurrection and Israel were compelled to use force to quell the violence? Could Jordan accept the use of force against those in its charge? How would it justify inaction to the rest of Arab world?

 

Worse, what if an assumedly amicable regime were given administrative status west of the Jordan River and, for reasons beyond Israel’s control, it was replaced by a far less amicable one? Would Israel continue to grant powers of governance to an inimical entity?

 

These are merely a sampling of the myriad of unavoidable and intractable questions with which the architects of the “ultimate deal” will have to contend—and whose significance and severity the Israeli leadership will have to convey to its American counterparts—lest ill-considered and irreversible decisions are made.

 

In the final analysis

 

In the final analysis, there is only one “ultimate deal” that can ensure Israel’s long-term survival as the nation-state of the Jewish people. This requires Israel extending its sovereignty over the entire territory—from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

 

The only way Israel can do this, without being compelled to rule over a recalcitrant non-Jewish population, which rejects the legitimacy of its sovereignty, is to remove that population from the territory over which it must exert sovereign rule.

 

The only way it can do this without engaging in forced expulsion, is by material inducements?—?a.k.a. incentivized emigration.

 

So simple. So logical. So incontrovertible!  The real conundrum is why others don’t embrace it as the “ultimate deal”.

 

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

__________________________

Israel is Jewish, That’s My Ultimate Deal

John R. Houk

© September 23, 2018

______________________

INTO THE FRAY The rumored “ultimate deal”: Potential payoffs and possible pitfalls.

 

Copyright © 2017- Israpundit – All Rights Reserved

 

Palestinian State Means Israel’s Destruction


John R. Houk

© May 23, 2017

 

About a month ago I found an interesting PragerU video at the G+ Community Islam contribution to America about Israel’s constant offers to give up land for an Arab state to be called Palestine and the Palestinian terrorists constant rejection of the Israeli offers. The owner of the community Roland Oliva posted the video on 4/27/17.

 

The enumeration of the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians constant rejection is well presented on the video. David Brog is the video speaker. His conclusion for Israeli/Arab peace is to accept the existence of the Jewish State of Israel in a Two-State Solution format.

I know it is a bit extreme and politically incorrect, but I have no doubt that a Two-State Solution is workable path. Why? The Multiculturalist believing world will continue to expect Israel to supply the infrastructure operations (electricity, water, etc.) while the fake Palestinian people will continue to find ways to destroy Israel. Hamas controlled Gaza (aka Hamastan) is enough evidence of the parameters of a Two-State Solution.

Rather the defensible survival of the Jewish nation is a One-State Solution with Israel annexing most of Judea and Samaria (known as the West Bank to Multiculturalists and Jew-hating Arabs) and Gaza. Push the Jew-hating Arabs out of the annexed areas. Offer Jordan a small portion of Judea and Samaria next to the Jordanian border. Let Jordan deal with the volatile Arabs that call themselves Palestinians in any way the best suits the maintenance of their government. Then let the chips fall where they may.

 

As a side note, the Hashemite Monarchy of Jordan had to expel Arabs that call themselves Palestinians because old Yasser Arafat tried to dethrone the Monarchy and claim Jordan for himself to launch future attacks against Israel. The Jordanians won that civil war and expelled Arafat and his military cadres. Arabs that consider themselves Palestinians still make up a large chunk of the Jordanian population. These pseudo-Palestinians do not have full citizenship benefits in Jordan undoubtedly due to Arafat’s attempt to root out the Hashemite Monarchy.

 

Here’s the PragerU video but there is more to peace than for Arabs to recognize the existence of a Jewish State.

 

VIDEO: Why Isn’t There a Palestinian State?

 

Posted by  PragerU

Published on Mar 27, 2017

 

Why don’t the Palestinians have their own country? Is it the fault of Israel? Of the Palestinians? Of both parties? David Brog, Executive Director of the Maccabee Task Force, shares the surprising answers.
Donate today to PragerU: http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h

Read David Brog’s book, “Reclaiming Israel’s History”. http://l.prageru.com/2nmj8ez

Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content

Have you taken the pledge for school choice? Click here! http://www.schoolchoicenow.com

Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.

iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG

Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e

Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys

Join PragerU’s text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru

Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.

VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com

FOLLOW us!
PragerU is on Snapchat!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/

JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP
Sponsor a Student: http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2ht

JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9

Script:

If Israel just allowed the Palestinians to have a state of their own, there would be peace in the Middle East, right? That’s what you hear from UN ambassadors, European diplomats and most college professors.

But what if I told you that Israel has already offered the Palestinians a state of their own – and not just once, but on five separate occasions?

Don’t believe me?

Let’s review the record.

After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, Britain took control of most of the Middle East, including the area that constitutes modern Israel.

Seventeen years later, in 1936, the Arabs rebelled against the British, and against their Jewish neighbors.

The British formed a task force – the Peel Commission – to study the cause of the rebellion. The commission concluded that the reason for the violence was that two peoples – Jews and Arabs – wanted to govern the same land.

The answer, the Peel Commission concluded, would be to create two independent states – one for the Jews, and one for the Arabs. A two-state solution. The suggested split was heavily in favor of the Arabs. The British offered them 80 percent of the disputed territory; the Jews, the remaining 20 percent. Yet, despite the tiny size of their proposed state, the Jews voted to accept this offer. But the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion. Rejection number one.

Ten years later, in 1947, the British asked the United Nations to find a new solution to the continuing tensions. Like the Peel Commission, the UN decided that the best way to resolve the conflict was to divide the land.

On November 7, 1947, the UN voted to create two states. Again, the Jews accepted the offer. And again, the Arabs rejected it, only this time, they did so by launching an all-out war. Rejection number two.

Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria joined the conflict. But they failed. Israel won the war, and got on with the business of building a new nation. Most of the land set aside by the UN for an Arab state – the West Bank and east Jerusalem – became occupied territory; occupied not by Israel, but by Jordan.

Twenty years later, in 1967, the Arabs, led this time by Egypt and joined by Syria and Jordan, once again sought to destroy the Jewish State.

The 1967 conflict, known as the Six Day War, ended in a stunning victory for Israel. Jerusalem and the West Bank, as well as the area known as the Gaza Strip, fell into Israel’s hands. The government split over what to do with this new territory. Half wanted to return the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt in exchange for peace. The other half wanted to give it to the region’s Arabs, who had begun referring to themselves as the Palestinians, in the hope that they would ultimately build their own state there.

Neither initiative got very far. A few months later, the Arab League met in Sudan and issued its infamous “Three No’s:” No peace with Israel. No recognition of Israel. No negotiations with Israel. Again, a two-state solution was dismissed by the Arabs, making this rejection number three.

 

For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/courses/foreign-affairs/why-isnt-there-palestinian-state

 

JRH 5/23/17

Please Support NCCR