The Hajj

Normally I wouldn’t give it a passing thought, mainly because it was a transitory incident that aroused no more than a ripple of curiosity. I came across it in an Associated Press report from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia— “Police in Mecca say they have arrested a Saudi taxi driver who helped an Israeli-Jewish reporter sneak into Islam’s holiest city, defying a rule that only Muslims can enter the area.

Gil Tamari a veteran Israeli reporter was among three Israeli reporters who had been allowed into Saudi Arabia to cover President Biden’s visit. However, Tamari, Israeli TV channel 13 world news editor, came to Saudi Arabia for another purpose. He badly needed a scoop to invigorate his newsmedia image. So, he hired a taxi and without revealing his Israeli identity asked the driver to take him to Mecca.

He filmed a selfie at various sites in and around Mecca. The lightly edited segment was aired on Channel 13, Monday night prime-time. Among the places he visited was Mount Arafat, a key site on the hajj pilgrimage route where Muhammad delivered his final sermon some 1,400 years ago.

There was an immediate backlash on social media, especially from Muslims expressing their anger over his deception and apparent disregard for the sanctity of the site.

The reporter and Channel 13 responded on Twitter after the report aired. The news channel, in both Hebrew and Arabic, said Tamari’s report was driven by “journalistic curiosity” and a desire to witness and see things firsthand. The channel apologised for any offense caused by his visit,

This preamble serves to introduce the main topic, a relatively new study of Britain’s involvement in the Hajj.

Dr. John Slight, from the Faculty of History and a Research Fellow at St John’s College, University of Cambridge has written about the British Empire’s responsibilities regarding the Hajj. “Contrary to its remote, even exotic image, he argues that the pilgrimage, which millions of Muslims undertake at least once in their lives was at one time a matter of major British concern. Leading historical figures, and the general public, became fascinated by the ritual, as the business of running a vast Empire impelled Britain to behave as if it was a Muslim power in its own right.

Queen Victoria, King George V, Lord Kitchener, Lawrence of Arabia and Winston Churchill all took an active interest in the Hajj, debated its management, and pencilled it into their calendars.

Slight’s research covered a period from 1865, when a cholera outbreak forced Britain to manage the Hajj more pro-actively, to 1956, when the Suez Crisis significantly reduced its capacity to do so.

For most of that time, Britain ruled over approximately half of the world’s Muslims, across an area that stretched from West Africa to Southeast Asia. In global terms, the Empire’s first religion was Islam, and the Empire contained more Muslims than any other religious group.

As a result, the Hajj became a British question. Churchill himself observed in a 1920 memo to the British Cabinet: “We are the greatest Mohammedan power in the world. It is our duty to study policies which are in harmony with Mohammedan feeling.”

Slight’s research reveals that Britain’s stewardship of the Hajj started with controls to prevent disease, but soon expanded into a full-blown bureaucracy. By the mid-to-late 19th century, the British authorities were increasingly obliged to manage the pilgrimage so as to be seen as a friend and protector of Islam.

“It was one of the most significant unintended consequences of Britain’s rule over a large part of the Islamic world,” Slight said. “Britain ended up facilitating the pilgrimage in an ultimately futile attempt to gain legitimacy among its Muslim subjects. Inadvertently, it ended up acting like a Muslim power.”

Thomas Cook was called in by the Government in 1886, after a scandal surrounding the near-sinking of a pilgrim ship that made the front page of The Times. The firm was given a contract to arrange tickets, train journeys, ships and other logistics enabling Muslims living in India, as subjects of the British Crown, to perform Hajj.

However, hundreds of thousands of destitute, “pauper” pilgrims barely able to go in the first place, ran out of money by the time they reached Mecca and were stranded at Jeddah. Repatriating them proved an ongoing problem for the British government.

By the First World War, Britain was essentially underwriting the cost of taking these pilgrims home, at great expense.

“We have the idea that the British Empire was run through some sort of top-down imposition of power, but in fact, it was a very haphazard enterprise,” Slight said. “Instead of an image of British officials in their pith helmets dispensing justice to colonial subjects, this is a story where the main actors on both sides were Muslims, who to some extent shaped Imperial policy.”

Gil Tamari’s foolhardy visit to Mecca is not without precedent. Other visitors were more discreet, better informed and well disguised.

Sir Richard Francis Burton, British explorer, writer, scholar, and soldier was one of them. He was famed for his travels and explorations in Asia, Africa, and the Americas, as well as his extraordinary knowledge of languages and cultures. According to one count, he spoke twenty-nine European, Asian, and African languages.

Burton's best-known achievements include: a well-documented journey to Mecca in 1853, when Europeans were forbidden access on pain of death;

Although Burton was certainly not the first non-Muslim European to make the Hajj (Ludovico di Varthema did this in 1503 and Johann Ludwig Burckhardt in 1815), his pilgrimage is the most famous and the best documented of the time. He adopted various disguises including that of a Pashtun to account for any oddities in speech, but he still had to demonstrate an understanding of intricate Islamic traditions, and a familiarity with the minutiae of Eastern manners and etiquette.

I’ll conclude with some good news from Saudi Arabia.

A Saudi family investment vehicle with ties to the world’s largest Islamic bank has become the biggest shareholder in Israeli mobility intelligence company Otonomo Technologies Ltd.

 Mithaq Capital SPC, a family office for the AlRajhi family that is incorporated in the Cayman Islands but headquartered in Riyadh, recently increased its stake in the Israel-based company to 20.41%, according to a July 20 regulatory filing. 

“We like the innovation and the technology culture that Israel has, and we try to find ways to benefit from that,” said Muhammad Asif Seemab, managing director of Mithaq Capital. “As part of our investment process -- other than Shariah compliance -- we are country-agnostic, and sector-agnostic.”

 

Have a good weekend.

 

Beni,                                                               28^th of July, 2022

 

BELOW AND ABOVE THE RADAR

BELOW AND ABOVE THE RADAR

There’s a sequel to the armaments display in the hanger at Ben Gurion Airport I mentioned last week.

President Joe Biden was given a tour of Israel’s multi-tier air defence systems, including the long-range Arrow, medium-range David’s Sling, short-range Iron Dome, and a high-powered laser interception system dubbed Iron Beam. The latter was unveiled at the Singapore Airshow in 2014 by Israeli defence contractor Rafael Advanced Defence Systems.

Israel hopes to partner with the US on the Iron Beam project, including American investment in further development and deployment of the system.

I mentioned the Iron Beam earlier this year. It uses a fibre laser to destroy an airborne target within 4–5 seconds of firing at a range of 7 km. Whether acting as a stand-alone system or with external cueing as part of an air-defence system, a threat is detected by a surveillance system and tracked by vehicle platforms in order to engage the target. The main benefits of using a directed energy weapon over conventional missile interceptors are lower costs per shot, unlimited number of firings, lower operational costs, and less manpower. There is also no interceptor debris to fall on the area protected. The cost of each interception is negligible, unlike expensive missile interceptors—around US$3.50 per shot to cover all costs, against $100,000 to $150,000 per interceptor firing. Other sources Air Force magazine estimated the cost at $20-100,000 per interceptor, whereas an earlier estimate made by the Israeli business daily Calcalist quoted an approximate cost of $50,000 per interceptor.

Even with reduced inceptor costs, the Iron Dome Defence System is expensive, but invaluable. Since it first came into service it has saved hundreds of lives.

Viewing Israel’s multi-tier air defence systems it’s obvious that our defence concept was tailored specifically for our needs. Nonetheless, it’s components can be sold separately as stand-alone units or integrated into existing weapons systems.

 A case in point is an American prototype air defence system based on Israel’s Iron Dome which has successfully completed a set of trials, simulating threats the US Marine Corps is expected to face.

The system — dubbed Marine Corps’ Medium-Range Intercept Capability (MRIC) — combines the Iron Dome’s launcher and Tamir interceptor missiles with a Marines radar and command centre.

In the first trial, MRIC hit several simultaneously-launched targets, which simulated cruise missiles approaching from different directions and on different trajectories.

Whereas the US marines anticipated the successful integration of the Iron Dome system, the US Army reluctantly purchased two Iron Dome systems after acquiescing to pressure from Congress. At the time, the US army’s top generals claimed the Iron Dome was incompatible with the US air-defence array. Maybe now they will change their minds.   

Let’s add a margin note here to consider earlier laser beam systems:

The Tactical High-Energy Laser, or THEL, was a laser developed for military use, also known as the Nautilus laser system. The mobile version is the Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser or MTHEL. In 1996, the United States and Israel entered into an agreement to produce a cooperative THEL called the Demonstrator, which would utilise deuterium fluoride chemical laser technologies. In 2000 and 2001 THEL shot down 28 Katyusha artillery rockets and five artillery shells. On November 4, 2002, THEL shot down an incoming artillery shell. The prototype weapon was roughly the size of six city buses, made up of modules that held a command centre, radar and a telescope for tracking targets, the chemical laser itself, fuel and reagent tanks, and a rotating mirror to reflect its beam toward speeding targets. It was discontinued in 2005.

Returning to the main text and the Iron Beam System: In 2016 laser power levels were reported to be tens of kilowatts. While official information is not available, a 2020 report said that Iron Beam was thought to have a maximum effective range of up to 7 km, and could destroy missiles, UAVs (drones), and mortar shells around four seconds after the twin high-energy fibre-optic lasers make contact with their target. In effect, it complements the Iron Dome System destroying short-range projectiles.

Lockheed Martin is also developing laser weapon systems. The US defence corporation is developing a product “designed to defeat a growing range of threats to military forces and infrastructure.”

“Our beam control technology enables precision equivalent to shooting a beach ball off the top of the Empire State Building from the San Francisco Bay Bridge,”  Lockheed-Martin claims. It’s reasonable to assume that their product, unlike our Iron Beam, isn’t intended for ‘shooting grouse.’

Joking aside, the comparison illustrates different concerns. While we are focused on threats emanating from Iran, the US is facing the possibility of more distant threats.

In a recent Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) publication the authors (Tamir Hayman and Sima Shine) said, “Prior to, during and after President Biden’s ME tour, heightened discussion of a ‘regional air defence alliance’ was met by increased Iranian activity to block any such measure, including explicit threats that in turn prompted rejection of the idea by senior Gulf figures. It appears that at this stage, relations between Israel and the Gulf states that remain below the radar are preferable to grandiose public statements that do match the reality on the ground.”

“Ali Akbar Velayati, Khamenei's political advisor who was Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs for many years, asserted explicitly: "The closer the Gulf states move toward Israel, the further they move away from Iran." An Iranian military spokesman warned the United States and Israel, insisting they were aware of the price of using the word "force" against Iran. Commenting on Biden's visit, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said that as long as Washington's primary objective was strengthening the security and supremacy of the "fake state" called Israel, the peoples and states of the region would not attain stability and peace.”

“Some of the Iranian responses emphasize that reinforcing Israel's military supremacy is also likely to be directed against Arab and Islamic groups other than Iran. Tehran is thereby trying to embarrass regimes in the region by appealing to their respective publics and taking advantage of the fact that many do not necessarily share their governments' views on rapprochement with Israel.”

“Furthermore, the capability and desire of all the involved parties to establish a common defence system connecting interceptors to a transfer of intelligence information from radar and satellites in real-time is questionable, at least at this stage. This challenge is compounded by difference in systems: Israel operates domestically-produced interceptor systems – Iron Dome, David's Sling, and others – while other countries in the region operate an assortment of American systems, as well as Russian and Chinese systems. Furthermore, the Gulf states are under an immediate concrete Iranian threat: their oil infrastructure is exposed to an Iranian threat and their shipping lanes are controlled by Iran, and it is clear they will not take the risk of publicly cooperating with Israel.”

In assessing President Biden's visits to the region, several questions arise in this context. Has Israel's deterrence against Iran been strengthened or weakened? Has the abundance of talk about a regional system that was never likely to materialise on a  large scale, and whose prospects are now receding, proved a help or a hindrance in its promotion? Perhaps it is best to revert to past below-the-radar methods of operation that focus on furthering security interests shared by Israel and other countries in the region.

And on another but no less important level: the discourse in Israel, whereby the Palestinian issue is portrayed as no longer important to countries in the region and therefore no longer delays normalisation between Israel and Arab countries, reinforces the "treason narrative" disseminated by the Palestinian Authority as a criticism of the Abraham Accords countries. This narrative is gaining traction among the public in the region and certainly does not contribute to an atmosphere conducive to bringing relations with Israel to the surface.

That being said, mention of the deployment of Israeli strike drones is no longer taboo.

The IDF military censor lifted the ban and allowed publication of its use of strike drones during its military operations.

After extensive examination, the military censor decided that there was no impediment to the publication, the military censor said in a statement adding that there would be no impact on the military's capability or means.

The drones have been used by the air force and artillery units and were part of the IDF's operations to foil terrorist attacks from the Gaza strip, Syria and Lebanon in the past 30 years.

The drones vary in size, and some can strike from a distance of dozens of kilometres away from a target.

Some of the strike drones made in Israel were sold to foreign armies in several continents, with deals worth billions of dollars.

The last time a drone was used was Tuesday, when gunfire from Gaza targeted an Israeli agricultural community near the border. “A drone was used to strike at a Hamas military position in Northern Gaza, in Beit Hanoun.” the IDF said in a statement.

Two weeks ago, the IDF used a drone against a target near Quneitra on the Syrian Golan Heights. Reports in Lebanon and Syria claimed the strike was carried out by a rocket launched from a drone

Hermes 450 Strike drone

 

 

“A Syrian citizen was killed near his home after he was hit by an Israeli guided missile launched from a military base in the Golan Heights,” the Syrian military said. Over the years, international media reported on Israeli use of strike drones, but an official statement was never made until now.

In one of the reports, Fox News said in 2021, that Israel made use of drones to gather intelligence, and hit targets during the May fighting with Hamas.

 

Above and below the radar.

 

Take care.

 

Beni,                                                               21^st of July, 2022.

 THE VISITOR

 As you probably know our visitor arrived and was welcomed with all due pomp and circumstance.

However, what appeared to be a departure from President Biden’s Middle East itinerary, was probably agreed on in advance. I refer to the stopover in the defence exhibit hanger at Ben Gurion Airport. 

Observers noticed that Prime Minister Yair Lapid voluntarily stepped aside for the benefit of Defence Minister Benny Gantz. Obviously, Gantz is better qualified to describe both the Iron Dome air-defence system and the advanced version of the Iron Beam air-defence system, however, the move could have been politically motivated. Maybe it was a gesture intended to conciliate the defence minister, in the light of new political alliances. I prefer to leave it at that, without elaborating further.

I think many Israelis liked the televised ceremony at the airport even if they were inconvenienced by cordoned-off routes to facilitate the president’s motorcade.

Just prior to the president’s ME visit CNN noted that Israeli officials have made no secret of their eagerness to further normalisation with Saudi Arabia and hope that Biden will be able to help them.

Notwithstanding that, Middle East analyst, author, and negotiator Aaron David Miller regards Saudi Arabia as a pariah state (Biden once said something similar).

Likewise, Steven Simon, former United States National Security Council senior director for the Middle East and North Africa, doesn’t like the new initiative.

The two co-authored an op-ed for the Washington Post titled “What to expect from Biden’s big Middle East trip.” Miller and Simon wrote that current levels of U.S. security assistance to both the UAE and Saudi Arabia are already in direct contradiction with a number of U.S. laws.

They emphasised that the U.S. government is prohibited from providing security assistance or guarantees to actors engaged in gross human rights abuses.  

They said the Foreign Assistance Act states that no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights and emphasizes the United States’ duty to promote and encourage increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

When Biden travels to Jeddah on Friday, he will attend a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council plus three -- Egypt, Iraq and Jordan. He will also hold a bilateral meeting with Saudi King Salman and his advisers, including MBS. Some US officials told CNN they are hoping that MBS and Biden have some one-on-one time as part of the meeting, though the choreography will likely be driven by the Saudi hosts.

Biden is likely to bring up Khashoggi's murder, US officials told CNN, and the administration is hoping MBS will acknowledge some responsibility for the crime. While oil production is not expected to be the main topic of the meeting, US officials do expect the topic to arise -- there is hope that the Kingdom will commit to increasing production in the weeks following the meeting.

The Yemen conflict will be a central piece of the conversation as well. US officials are hoping that the Saudis agree to extend the truce between the Saudi-backed Yemeni government and the Houthi rebels, backed by Iran.

Now regarding any qualms of conscience Israel might have about dealing with countries that don’t uphold human rights, I think confronting the Iranian nuclear threat takes precedence over any misgivings we might have.

US President Joe Biden told Israel’s Channel 12 News that he would use force against Iran as a “last resort” to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, but stressed his preference to negotiate with the Iranians instead.

The network’s anchor Yonit Levi interviewed Biden hours before he left Washington for his first visit to Israel as US president. The interview was broadcast Wednesday evening after Biden had arrived at Ben Gurion Airport.

Asked if the US would use force to stop Iran’s nuclear programme, Biden replied “as a last resort, yes.” “Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Levi asked the president if he received any commitments from Prime Minister Yair Lapid or his predecessor Naftali Bennett that Israel would not act alone militarily against Iran’s nuclear sites, as it has threatened, without first notifying the US.

“I’m not going to discuss that,” Biden replied. He also declined to comment about possible Israeli involvement in any potential military action by the US to prevent Iran going nuclear.

What does using force against Iran ‘as a last resort’ mean for the US? Asked Jeremy Bob in the Jerusalem Post. The Times of Israel, Reuters and other news outlets also provided nuanced interpretations of that brief ‘last recourse’ condition.

Israeli intelligence has often taken action based on a partial picture of what was going on in the Islamic Republic.

Jeremy Bob thought former Mossad Director Yossi Cohen, possibly current IDF Chief-of-Staff Aviv Kohavi and current Mossad Director David Barnea, might be in favour of striking even before the "last resort" moment.

No one wants to define this point exactly, but it would likely be once Israeli intelligence had shown that Iran had made the political decision to go for a nuclear bomb and was three months or so away from accomplishing some of the final tasks required to complete the job.

“Then there are former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Benjamin Netanyahu.

They might also go for an attack three months before, but they would almost certainly attack if intelligence reported that Iran was weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb or positioning forces for potential use – meaning close enough that waiting could risk missing the moment to stop it.

What Biden's statement probably means is that if US intelligence was convinced that a nuclear weapon had been developed and was on the way to being potentially deployed (within days or hours), it would then seriously consider attacking that deployment.

These differences in Israeli and US readiness to attack are not just distinct in time but in substance.

Israeli intelligence has often taken action based on a partial picture of what was going on in the Islamic Republic, despite uncertainties that might have meant it was acting prematurely.

It’s also a matter o relative distance from Iran. Understandably, Israel takes Iran’s threats seriously.

If and when Israel decides to attack Iran it will probably do so preemptively on a large scale aiming to discourage the Islamic State from seeking nuclear weapons.

“In the highly unlikely event that the US uses force, it might be much more narrowly tailored against deploying a specific weapon, or one nuclear site where that weapon was waiting to be deployed.” Jeremy Bob reasoned.

“Moreover,” He added, “US intelligence often will reject Israeli intelligence as too uncertain or with too many holes to be relied on for taking action.

Even former US President George W. Bush, known for being much more ready to use force than Biden, was unwilling to order a US strike on Syria's secret nuclear reactor in 2007, whereas Israel was ready to do so, and did.

Former US President Ronald Reagan, also not known as squeamish about using force, blew his top at Israel when it took out Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981.

Biden has occasionally used force to take out global terrorists, especially ISIS, but has not ordered a single major operation that might risk big geopolitical consequences or a broader conflict.”

Considering President Biden’s reservations in his, “As a last resort,” condition, I’m inclined to side with that time-tested adage -“If a job is worth doing do it yourself.”

 

Have a good weekend.

 

Beni,                                                               14^th of July, 2022

 

 

 

 

THE BULLET 

I was hoping against all hope that this was the last of it. The last time I would write about the bullet that killed Shireen Abu Akleh, but I doubt it.

Finally, after a lot of haggling Palestinian Authority officials handed over the bullet.

In a press release, the IDF said the US Security Coordinator (USSC), which intercedes with the Palestinian Authority and Israel on security assistance,

received the bullet that was “alleged” to have killed Ms Akleh from the Palestinian Authority (PA).

 “A ballistic examination was conducted in a forensic laboratory in Israel. Israeli experts examined the bullet in order to determine if there was any connection between it and the weapon from which it was allegedly fired. Namely, the specific markings left by the rifling on the gun barrel. )A local firearms expert told me that rifling is machining helical grooves into the inner surface of a gun's barrel for the purpose of exerting torque and thus imparting a spin to a projectile around its longitudinal axis.(

USSC representatives were present throughout the entire examination. Despite these efforts, the physical condition of the bullet and the quality of the markings on it do not enable a ballistic examination to conclusively determine whether or not the bullet was fired from the weapon they examined.”

“The bullet remained under the control of Lieutenant General Michael R. Fenzel (USSC) until it was returned Sunday following the investigation’s conclusion.” The IDF statement added.

A spokesperson for the US State Department said there was no 'definitive conclusion' on the bullet that killed the Al Jazeera reporter.  Apparently, the State Department doesn’t like vague open-ended statements, because the spokesperson was quick to add, “IDF forces are 'likely responsible' for the reporter's death.”

 I suppose the afterthought was intended to satisfy the Palestinians. However, it had the opposite effect. PA President Mahmoud Abbas called on the US to “maintain its credibility” in a response to the State Department’s conclusion. “We demand that the US hold the Israeli government fully responsible for the crime of killing the martyr Abu Akleh,” said Abbas’s spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeinah.

Other officials in Ramallah were more critical. “We were surprised by these statements. The technical data in our possession indicates that the condition of the bullet is viable for matching with the firearm [that shot it],” PA Public Prosecutor Akram al-Khatib said.

Al-Khatib called the American conclusion “unacceptable” in light of evidence collected by the PA.

Senior Palestinian Authority official Hussein al-Sheikh also criticised the US, saying that “we will not permit attempts to conceal the truth or timid comments in indicting Israel.”

In their own statement, Abu Akleh’s family pronounced themselves “incredulous” and harshly criticised the US conclusion that there was no evidence that the reporter’s killing was intentional.

“There were numerous eyewitnesses to the killing, and we have now had the benefit of reports from multiple local and international media outlets, human rights organisations, and the United Nations, that an Israeli soldier fired the fatal shot,” the family said.

They called the journalist’s death “an extrajudicial killing.”

 At this juncture I simply have to add a brief margin note: I’m amazed that the tinpot Palestinian Authority has the audacity to dictate terms to the greatest power on earth.

Back to the main text:

The criticism voiced by Israeli officials was definitely more toned-down. Nonetheless, there was significant Israeli frustration with the State Department’s publicised findings.

In what appeared to be another attempt to placate the Palestinian’s, US State Department Spokesman Ned Price told reporters in Washington on Tuesday

“We would want to see accountability in any case of wrongful death, especially in the wrongful death of an American citizen, as was Shireen Abu Akleh. Our goal and the collective goal of the parties is to see to it that something akin to this, the killing of a journalist in a conflict zone, must not happen again. The IDF as a professional military outfit is in a position, or soon will be in a position, to consider steps to safeguard non-combatants.”

Price stopped short of holding Israel directly responsible for Shireen Abu Akleh’s death.

I doubt if that satisfied the Palestinians and it certainly didn’t please Israel.

The Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem also criticised the US conclusion, calling it a form of whitewashing.

“All investigations published so far conclude that Israel is responsible for the killing of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. It is not clear on what grounds does the US State Department seek to dismiss her killing,” B’Tselem tweeted. It said the US should treat the killing as a crime and seek justice.

Yesh Din, another Israeli human rights group, said the US announcement “shows once again why there is no trust in the IDF spokesman or the army.

It called for an independent international probe.

With friends like B’Tselem and Yesh Din who needs enemies.

Various news outlets mentioned contradictory reports regarding where the bullet was examined and by whom.

It really doesn’t matter. Neither the PA nor  Shireen Abu Akleh’s family are prepared to accept anything less than their own demands.

If possible, I prefer to conclude on a happy optimistic note. Apparently, Jenin is not a battlefield with bullets flying around all the time. On quieter days our neighbours, Israeli Arabs, often shop in Jenin because it is cheaper. Yesterday they drove there to buy clothes for a wedding they are going to.

 

Have a good weekend.

 

Beni,                                                               7^th of July, 2022.