Raising a Palestinian flag is not the best welcome sign

Joshua Malina wants to shut Jews up by shaming them.

Referring to the negative reaction among some Jews to raising a Palestinian flag at a Jewish summer camp, he writes in the Journal: “I believe this group reaction to what took place is a shame on our community.”

In other words, if you don’t agree with Malina, then shame on you. But since when is the freedom to dissent a mark of shame? Whatever happened to that great Jewish value of debate and looking at both sides of an issue?

The burning issue that Malina is all worked up about is that, about two weeks ago, Camp Solomon Schechter in Washington raised the Palestinian flag to welcome a delegation of Palestinian youth that was visiting under Kids4Peace, an Israeli group dedicated to “ending conflict and inspiring hope in Jerusalem and other divided societies around the world.”

What especially upset Malina is that the camp took down the flag and apologized: “The predictable collective howl of disgust from the Jewish community led to an email of explanation from the camp to parents, followed soon after by an official statement of apology. And with that, an attempt at outreach had been eclipsed by an instinctive negative Jewish response to a controversial symbol.”

I guess Malina forgot how things work in the Jewish community. We have big mouths. When things upset us, we speak up. We hold our leaders accountable. We argue. We don’t hold back.

But when we say “shame on you for disagreeing with me,” that’s when we leave the debate. That’s when we go running into our silos of self-righteousness and wallow in the only view that counts– our own.

Had Malina reached out to some of those who disagree with him — instead of characterizing them as “collective howlers” — he might have heard some smart thinking about symbols and why the Palestinian flag is such a “controversial” one.

He might have heard that the Palestinian flag has been used to represent the annihilation of Israel and the glorifying of terrorism. That’s more than controversy.

The beauty of groups like Kids4Peace is that they can transcend nationalist dogmas and reconnect us to our shared humanity. A flag that is associated with the vanishing of Israel doesn’t reconnect us to our shared humanity.

The flag is just one of many symbols permeating Palestinian society that has instilled this divisiveness. There is also the ubiquitous map of Palestine that conquers all of Israel, the large key to a house from pre-1948 Israel, the posters of martyrs who murdered Israelis, and so on. Such symbols don’t unite, they divide.

When you welcome Palestinian kids at a Jewish summer camp, you don’t need symbols, especially divisive symbols. What you need is real stuff. You make strangers feel welcome with great food, great music, great conversation, great activities and plenty of love. If you insist on raising a flag, then raise a flag of humanity called Peace. That’s called a safe space.

Now, you can disagree with all that, and we can respect our disagreement, but don’t try to shame me for having that view.

Malina bemoans the fact that the flag saga covered up the real story of Palestinian and Israeli kids coming together at a summer camp to make connections. He writes: “Everyone is so caught up in an emotional argument about a piece of cloth that the real story is utterly obscured.”

What he misses is that, sadly, the flag saga is the real story of the Middle East and the failure of peace. Peace has failed not because there aren’t enough groups like Kids4Peace. From the Palestinian side, it has failed, in many ways, precisely because power symbols like flags on mosques and keys in homes and martyr posters on streets and triumphalist maps in schools and anti-Jewish cartoons in the media have dominated Palestinian consciousness and suffocated any real human connection with the other side.

Flags don’t bring connection, people do.

Malina ends his piece by hoping that this story will provide a teachable moment for the Jewish community. I couldn’t agree more.

---

David Suissa is president of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal and can be reached at davids@jewishjournal.com.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Raising a Palestinian flag is not the best welcome sign : http://ift.tt/2ukqbos

Kill the Jews! Oops, I didn’t mean it

Was it a Jew-hating one-off or a Jew-hating pattern?

That was the question on my mind when I heard the imam at the Davis Islamic Center, Immar Shahin, apologize a week after his Jew-hating sermon in which he preached, “Oh Allah, count them [Jews] one by one and annihilate them down to the very last one.”

During a press conference held by religious leaders, a contrite Shahin said: “I understand that speech like this can encourage others to do hateful and violent acts. For this I truly apologize.”

What spurred his apology?

According to the Los Angeles Times, “In the days following his sermon, Shahin said he discussed his statements with a number of people within and outside the Muslim community. That’s when he realized ‘the level of harm it has caused.’”

In other words, until he talked to other people, it didn’t occur to him that calling for the annihilation of every Jew might cause “harm.”

So, was the Jew-hating sermon a one-off or a pattern?

It’s clear the Islamic Center would like us to believe it was an exception. But more than that, it wants to do what all smart lawyers tell you to do when your back is against the wall—change the subject. Here, the Center is trying to change the subject by maligning the messenger.

According to the Times, the Center’s initial reaction was that the imam’s comments had been taken out of context by “Islamophobic news organizations.” How many times have we heard that? This is a well-known reaction to criticism of Islam— attack the accuser as being “Islamophobic.”

The problem, in this case, is that we’re dealing with hard facts. These are real words of hate spoken in real time by a real preacher.

The group that translated and disseminated the sermon, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), is a resource that New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has described as “absolutely invaluable.” It’s hard to put a bigoted stain on a group whose sole focus is to translate.

But that doesn’t stop people from trying. Even a group that criticized Shahin’s sermon, such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), couldn’t resist trying to take down the messenger.

“Groups like MEMRI exacerbate political divisions on the Middle East conflict rather than aim to reconcile differences,” MPAC said in a statement.

According to a report in JTA, MPAC “expressed frustration with MEMRI, an organization that has drawn fire from Islamic groups for what they say is its tendency to cut and paste Muslim pronouncements to cast them in the worst possible light.”

How’s that for a contradiction: Yes, we admit the sermon was vile and we apologize but please don’t trust the messenger.

“We hear this all the time,” MEMRI founder Yigal Carmon told me on the phone. “Whenever we expose another Muslim preacher, they accuse us of cutting and pasting, of taking things out of context. They never mention that we show the whole context, the full sermon, everything, and allow viewers to make up their mind.”

According to Carmon, it is the Islamic Center that is doing the cutting and pasting. He claims the Center took down another embarrassing sermon from its website dated July 14, because “they want us to believe the July 21 sermon was a one-time thing.”

In the July 14 sermon, according to a MEMRI translation, Shahin prayed to Allah to “liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews” and to “destroy them and do not spare their young and their elderly.”

Carmon also says the Center took down a sermon in which Shahin called the November 2016 forest fires near Haifa “good news from Palestine” and another in which he characterized democracy and the U.S. Constitution as a form of “idolatry.”

A few hours after Carmon and I spoke, he called to let me know that the Center had taken down its Youtube account as well as all sermons from its website. When I went to check, I randomly clicked on about twenty sermons over several years and, indeed, they all said “this video is unavailable.”

So, was the Jew-hating July 21 sermon a one-off or a pattern?

You tell me.

---

David Suissa is president of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal and can be reached at davids@jewishjournal.com.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Kill the Jews! Oops, I didn’t mean it : http://ift.tt/2tXnpG0

When a Jewish camp raised a Palestinian flag

Two weeks ago, a Jewish summer camp in Washington state raised the Palestinian flag. The story went viral, and Jews around the world went berserk. Not long afterward, the flag came down and the camp administration apologized. “Jewish Camp Sorry for Raising Palestinian Flag in ‘Friendship,’ ” read a headline July 31 on the Jewish Daily Forward website.

My reaction? Deep disappointment.

According to news reports, Camp Solomon Schechter of Olympia, Wash., had raised the red, white, black and green Palestinian flag to welcome a delegation of Palestinian youth that was visiting under the aegis of Kids4Peace, an Israeli nongovernmental organization (NGO) dedicated to “ending conflict and inspiring hope in Jerusalem and other divided societies around the world.” The predictable collective howl of disgust from the Jewish community led to an email of explanation from the camp to parents, followed soon after by an official statement of apology. And with that, an attempt at outreach had been eclipsed by an instinctive negative Jewish response to a controversial symbol.

If you check out the comments section below the story on any news site, you’ll find a fair amount of blatant anti-Palestinian racism, and some limited support for the camp, but the majority opinion is that camp officials committed an outrageous act by choosing to fly this flag. I believe this group reaction to what took place is a shame on our community.

In candor, I might have reacted in similar fashion a month ago, before I traveled with an organization called Encounter to Bethlehem, East Jerusalem, Ramallah and other areas in the Palestinian territories. Encounter assembled a group of around 30 people dedicated to ahavat Yisrael — the love of Israel that Encounter considers a core value of all its trips. These were rabbis, Jewish educators, NGO executives and other Jewish influencers chosen to go on a “listening trip.” Over an intense four days, we met a multitude of Palestinian speakers who steeped us in narratives that ran counter to those we’d grown up with — their narratives.

When I’m agitated, my shoulders have a tendency to rise. And early on the first day, they were probably up over my ears. I heard words that didn’t sit well with me: “Palestine,” “occupation,” “Nakba.” And I saw symbols that distressed me: graffiti of raised knives, portraits glorifying Yasser Arafat, and yes, the Palestinian flag. But I discovered that as I opened my heart to our speakers, fellow human beings with very different viewpoints and life experiences, my shoulders reached equilibrium, I quickly got past years of knee-jerk reaction, and was able to hear and appreciate some very uncomfortable stories.

These Palestinian kids, walking into a pro-Israel Jewish camp, were reaching out across decades of conflict to make a connection. What an act of courage and hope.

Understand, I didn’t walk away having adopted every position of every speaker I was exposed to, but I got past a lot of automatic negative response, allowing myself to be open to nuance. Because for the first time in four visits to the region, I met and interacted with Palestinians, the people with whom Israelis live side by side, and with whom they will continue to live whatever the future may hold.

My four days with Encounter, which included an overnight stay with a welcoming Palestinian family in Beit Sahour, gave me a far deeper understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the years I’ve spent reading and talking about the topic. It turns out the simple and obvious and crucial element is honest, open interaction. And that happens to be the concept to which Kids4Peace is dedicated.

I personally have no problem at all with what Camp Solomon Schechter did. These Palestinian kids, walking into a pro-Israel Jewish camp, were reaching out across decades of conflict to make a connection. What an act of courage and hope. It seems to me a quintessentially Jewish response on the camp’s part to welcome these citizens of nowhere — neither Israel nor Palestine — with a symbol familiar to them. I understand that some have a more negative gut reaction to the Palestinian flag than I do. And I believe that Camp Solomon Schechter should have anticipated the outcry and sent an email to parents ahead of time, explaining the rationale and putting the act in context.

But nowhere in the internet comment threads did I see anyone evince any interest in the actual visit. Everyone is so caught up in an emotional argument about a piece of cloth that the real story is utterly obscured. What did these Palestinian kids have to say? How did the Solomon Schechter campers respond to them? Were connections made? That’s the story; that should be our focus.

The camp directors explained to parents that their intention in flying the Palestinian flag was to offer campers a “teachable moment” about acceptance. Here’s hoping that we American-Jewish adults can use this story as a teachable moment about our own priorities as a people.

---

Joshua Malina  is an actor best known for his roles in “The West Wing” and “Scandal.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

When a Jewish camp raised a Palestinian flag : http://ift.tt/2wjgNmm

When a Jew reaches out to an Imam

Sheikh Ammar Shahin, or the “Imam from Davis,” as he is now known, is a young Egyptian-born Imam who recently came under fire for delivering a sermon that included remarks that were anti-semitic. I came across this piece of news while scrolling through my Facebook feed. In a post, a friend of mine wrote, “This guy needs to STFU.” This caught my attention and I began to read the article posted, with the headline, “US Islamic preacher calls on Allah to annihilate the Jews.”

As I read the headline I thought, yes, this guy should keep quiet. Judging by the comments, so did many others. Yet something did not feel right and I could not help but wonder if the collective reaction to these hurtful words was unproductive. Yes, the Imam clearly used language that was wrong and inflammatory, yet was our reaction not adding fuel of confirmation bias to the Islamophobic fire that rages in parts of our community? What if instead of assuming the worst intentions, we engaged in dialogue? I sent him an email:

Subject: A Love letter from a Jew (Seriously)

Dear Sheikh Ammar,

Assalam Aleikum.

Given the words that have been published about your recent sermon in the press, I’m going to guess that you’ve received some angry responses. The truth is that I feel angry myself. As a Jew who has found a lot of beauty in the teachings of Islam, it is difficult for me to believe that you’d choose such hateful rhetoric to share with your congregation in your khutbah (friday sermon). Perhaps it is not true?

In these turbulent times, with so much hate in the world, it seems to me that faith leaders ought to be in the firefighting business. We must fight the inflammatory flames of hate with the sweet waters of love. We must fight intolerance in the world by urging our people to be more kind and more tolerant. *

With Respect and Peace,

Tuli

It did not take long for the Imam to respond:

Thank you for your respectful words as they are the first since the accusation of MEMRI, they have cut and pasted only 2 minutes of my 50 minute sermon to use against me and create hate with the Jewish community with whom I have very good relations.

The Imam continued by attaching the initial statement released by the mosque, and telling me they have an open door policy, and that I’d be most welcome any time. I thanked him for his response, but continued to challenge him on the way in which he chose to present his ideas, especially given the anti-Semitism that is all too prevalent in the Muslim world.

Again, his response did not take long:

Thank you for your comments and concerns, I will keep them in mind. As you know, when we speak with emotion, words might not be put in the right places or understood correctly.

My apology to all your community for any harm that my misinterpreted words might have caused.

In a subsequent press conference, the imam further apologized and acknowledged allowing his emotions to get the better of him.

Let me be clear: the Imam was wrong; his words were dangerous and inexcusable. Such words should not be tolerated by his community or any other. At the same time, here is a man that is not full of hate, but who simply got carried away with passion, used words that he shouldn’t have, and had them distributed to the world in a two minute “got you” sound bite.

The truth is that if it weren’t for my experience with the NewGround Fellowship, I don’t know that I would have had the courage and awareness to react this way. At NewGround, Jews and Muslims are given the opportunity to engage with one another in an open and productive way. To learn from each other and tell our stories. To ask questions from a place of curiosity and not from a place of judgement.

I am not exaggerating when I say that the NewGround model of open dialogue can save the world. Imagine what the world would look like if we’d assume the best in each other instead of the absolute worst. Imagine if instead of yelling and screaming about “that anti-semite Imam” we emailed him and asked him what he meant. We can and may disagree, but we will accomplish more and be a lot more productive in building bridges and bringing peace to the world if we engage in respectful dialogue.  I encourage you to try it. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

---

Tuli Skaist is an activist and educator living in Los Angeles.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

When a Jew reaches out to an Imam : http://ift.tt/2u1DRt8

When a Jew Reaches Out to an Imam

Sheikh Ammar Shahin, or the “Imam from Davis,” as he is now known, is a young Egyptian-born Imam who recently came under fire for delivering a sermon that included remarks that were anti-semitic. I came across this piece of news while scrolling through my Facebook feed. In a post, a friend of mine wrote, “This guy needs to STFU.” This caught my attention and I began to read the article posted, with the headline, “US Islamic preacher calls on Allah to annihilate the Jews.”

As I read the headline I thought, yes, this guy should keep quiet. Judging by the comments, so did many others. Yet something did not feel right and I could not help but wonder if the collective reaction to these hurtful words was unproductive. Yes, the Imam clearly used language that was wrong and inflammatory, yet was our reaction not adding fuel of confirmation bias to the Islamophobic fire that rages in parts of our community? What if instead of assuming the worst intentions, we engaged in dialogue? I sent him an email:

Subject: A Love letter from a Jew (Seriously)

Dear Sheikh Ammar,

Assalam Aleikum.

Given the words that have been published about your recent sermon in the press, I’m going to guess that you’ve received some angry responses. The truth is that I feel angry myself. As a Jew who has found a lot of beauty in the teachings of Islam, it is difficult for me to believe that you’d choose such hateful rhetoric to share with your congregation in your khutbah (friday sermon). Perhaps it is not true?

In these turbulent times, with so much hate in the world, it seems to me that faith leaders ought to be in the firefighting business. We must fight the inflammatory flames of hate with the sweet waters of love. We must fight intolerance in the world by urging our people to be more kind and more tolerant. *

With Respect and Peace,

Tuli

It did not take long for the Imam to respond:

Thank you for your respectful words as they are the first since the accusation of MEMRI, they have cut and pasted only 2 minutes of my 50 minute sermon to use against me and create hate with the Jewish community with whom I have very good relations.

The Imam continued by attaching the initial statement released by the mosque, and telling me they have an open door policy, and that I’d be most welcome any time. I thanked him for his response, but continued to challenge him on the way in which he chose to present his ideas, especially given the anti-Semitism that is all too prevalent in the Muslim world.

Again, his response did not take long:

Thank you for your comments and concerns, I will keep them in mind. As you know, when we speak with emotion, words might not be put in the right places or understood correctly.

My apology to all your community for any harm that my misinterpreted words might have caused.

In a subsequent press conference, the imam further apologized and acknowledged allowing his emotions to get the better of him.

Let me be clear: the Imam was wrong; his words were dangerous and inexcusable. Such words should not be tolerated by his community or any other. At the same time, here is a man that is not full of hate, but who simply got carried away with passion, used words that he shouldn’t have, and had them distributed to the world in a two minute “got you” sound bite.

The truth is that if it weren’t for my experience with the NewGround Fellowship, I don’t know that I would have had the courage and awareness to react this way. At NewGround, Jews and Muslims are given the opportunity to engage with one another in an open and productive way. To learn from each other and tell our stories. To ask questions from a place of curiosity and not from a place of judgement.

I am not exaggerating when I say that the NewGround model of open dialogue can save the world. Imagine what the world would look like if we’d assume the best in each other instead of the absolute worst. Imagine if instead of yelling and screaming about “that anti-semite Imam” we emailed him and asked him what he meant. We can and may disagree, but we will accomplish more and be a lot more productive in building bridges and bringing peace to the world if we engage in respectful dialogue.  I encourage you to try it. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

Tuli Skaist is an activist and educator living in Los Angeles.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

When a Jew Reaches Out to an Imam : http://ift.tt/2vqtteD

Will Kelly last longer than Scaramucci?

John F. Kelly’s front-stabbing Donald Trump’s new White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci only hours after Trump named the four-star Marine general his chief of staff was a sublime first move. But unlike Ivanka or Jared Kushner, Trump isn’t Dad to Kelly. How long can it be before Kelly’s service doesn’t pleasure the president anymore?

Kelly is a patriot and an honorable man. Yes, I’ve opposed some of the Trump administration policies Kelly has carried out as homeland security secretary, like the Muslim travel ban and the reranking of deportation priorities to include offenses like DUIs, but I opposed some of Barack Obama’s deportation policies, too. What I fault Kelly’s Cabinet stint for is enforcement rigidity, not xenophobia, demagoguery or constitutional recklessness.

But President Donald Trump is a poster boy for those failings, a hothead who fouls his office, flouts the law and endangers our nation. Duty may have motivated Kelly to say yes to Trump’s West Wing summons, but he’s about to find that deceit, disarray and derangement are daily specials at the White House mess.

Kelly’s patriotism inevitably will come into conflict with Trump’s narcissism. His loyalty to country will be tested by the fools he’ll have to suffer, the lies he’ll have to defend and the monarch he’ll soon discover is mad. Not angry mad, though Trump is that, too, but mad mad, King George mad, “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” mad.

I have to believe that Kelly has a tipping point, and that resignation on principle is an option he’d consider. By principle, I don’t mean what forced Sean Spicer and Reince Priebus off the island: losing a cockfight to Scaramucci. I mean what Trump’s national security adviser, Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, wrote about in “Dereliction of Duty”: the crime of enabling a president to con the country. That book is about the complicity in high places that mired us in war in Vietnam, but it’s equally relevant to our current quagmire. It may be too much to dream that one fine day, McMaster and Kelly, disgusted by their boss, will walk, but it just may take something that big to awaken some more grown-ups in Trump’s party to their responsibility.

“We could use more loyalty, I’ll tell you that,” Trump told the Boy Scout Jamboree on July 24, in between inviting the Scouts to boo Barack Obama, boo Hillary Clinton and imagine the sexual opportunities a multimillionaire’s yacht could provide. You might think Attorney General Jeff Sessions — the first sitting U.S. senator to endorse him — could be called a Trump loyalist, but when Sessions refused Trump’s demand to fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating him, Trump redefined the L word. “He was a senator,” Trump told The Wall Street Journal last week. “He looks at 40,000 people [at campaign rallies] and he probably says, ‘What do I have to lose?’ And he endorsed me. … So it’s not like a great loyal thing about the endorsement.”

When Trump says “loyalty,” he means what he demanded from FBI Director James Comey: not a pledge of allegiance to the rule of law, but an oath of omerta to the Don. When Comey broke that oath — he refused to kill the FBI’s probe of former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s ties to Russia — Trump fired Comey. Kelly has to know it’s only a matter of time until Trump tests him thuggishly, too.

When that happens, another former military man, Sen. John McCain, might inspire Kelly’s next move. I hope Kelly doesn’t mirror the McCain, who endorsed Trump in the Arizona primary to save his own political skin, even after Trump said McCain was “not a war hero. … He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” (Trump didn’t add that McCain — putting loyalty to his fellow POWs ahead of his own freedom — refused early release from the North Vietnamese because his father was an admiral). Instead, I hope Kelly emulates the McCain who, together with Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — no matter how hard Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Vice President Mike Pence and Trump banged the hammer of Republican loyalty — voted a disgraceful health care bill down to defeat.

When Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who replaced Spicer as press secretary, was asked whether Sessions was on his way out, she replied with a common phrase about political appointees: “We all serve at the pleasure of the president.” Sessions, who was traveling to El Salvador while Scaramucci was trashing Steve Bannon in anatomically taxing terms, used the same words Sanders did when an AP reporter asked if he were going to quit: “I serve at the pleasure of the president.”

Two things about that idiom give me the willies. One is its feudal echo of fealty pledges. I am your obedient servant, m’lord. My loyalty is unwavering. Do with me as you wish. Something more like “at-will employee” is better suited to a democracy. It conveys the idea — they don’t need a substantive reason to let me go — but without the crypto-royalist servility.

The other thing about serving at the pleasure of the president, which didn’t give me the creeps until the present president, is its whiff of sadomasochism. Trump gets pleasure from humiliating people. Bullying turns him on. And his victims get off on their bondage. Sure, if you get power, you cling to it. But ambition alone can’t explain Spicer’s appetite for daily mortification, or the pornography of Scaramucci’s Trump-worship.

Trump has made loyalty kinky. That could be cool on Craigslist, and it may fly at Trump Tower, but the last time I looked, there’s no S&M in POTUS.

---

Marty Kaplan is the Norman Lear professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. Reach him at martyk@jewishjournal.com.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Will Kelly last longer than Scaramucci? : http://ift.tt/2uh9xWJ

How will Trump handle the boredom?

The White House reality show continues. After weeks of chaos, backstabbing, leaks and vulgarities, the Mooch is out and the General is in.

The latest craziness is that the brand new Chief of Staff, General John Kelly, just dumped the brand new Communications Director, Anthony “Mooch” Scaramucci, who last week unleashed a nasty tirade against his own colleagues.

It’s tempting to see this as just the latest chaotic act in a dysfunctional White House. This move, though, is markedly different because it is an anti-chaos move.

As the New York Times reported, General Kelly told aides that he “intended to impose a new sense of order and operational discipline that had been absent under his predecessor.”

Order and operational discipline? In a Trump White House? Seriously?

After six months of unrelenting chaos, the prospect of an orderly Trumpian White House is as likely as Steve Bannon pushing for an open border with Mexico.

But it will be a battle to watch. On one side, you have a taskmaster who has been given authority to bring order to the castle, and on the other, you have an impulsive boss who loves drama and whose attention span is measured in tweets.

The more Kelly succeeds, the more boredom he will bring to the White House. This will force our president to concentrate on things like… policy.

A bored President Trump focusing on policy?

Godspeed, General.

---

David Suissa is president of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal and can be reached at davids@jewishjournal.com.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

How will Trump handle the boredom? : http://ift.tt/2tVsVZK