Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? (long) - Page 4

lord of the mark · May 20, 2003, 16:46

in any case i cant think of a way of conveying in Hebrew what i mean to say with "gott bench America" Adonai yvarech et America (pardon the grammar) just doesnt sound right.

Edan · May 20, 2003, 16:49

How about Lehabreyut America. To America's good health? Not exactly the same, though.

lord of the mark · May 20, 2003, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan
How about Lehabreyut America. To America's good health? Not exactly the same, though.

In english theres a way of intoning "god bless America" that implies an affirmation based on some particular aspect, that implies a mixture of surprise and celebration. Basically by accenting the word bless "hey didja here that after 9/11 most americans reached out to protect their muslim neighbors? - God BLESS America!" You can intone "gott BENCH America" the same way - i dont think you can do the equivalent in Hebrew. The point is to emphasize the pararallelism with the English phrase - a phrase that has iconic meaning in the US these last 21 months.

The foreigners just dont understand

Arrian · May 20, 2003, 17:07

I'm REALLY sick of "God Bless America" by the way. First off, I'm non-religious and suspicious of the whole "God's on our side" thing (which is kinda implied by GBA). Second, I love baseball and I HATE the GBA song that they play during every 7th inning stretch.

-Arrian

Edan · May 20, 2003, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark

In english theres a way of intoning "god bless America" that implies an affirmation based on some particular aspect, that implies a mixture of surprise and celebration. Basically by accenting the word bless "hey didja here that after 9/11 most americans reached out to protect their muslim neighbors? - God BLESS America!" You can intone "gott BENCH America" the same way - i dont think you can do the equivalent in Hebrew. The point is to emphasize the pararallelism with the English phrase - a phrase that has iconic meaning in the US these last 21 months.

The foreigners just dont understand

Ah, ok. Well, as an American, I think the thought matters more than the phrase.

Ned · May 20, 2003, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT

You should try to understand what you write. You are again saying that all French are antisemitic. That is enough. Dont ask me to explain the French leftist behaviour, I am not one of them. Forget that some Frenchs have been instrumental in disclosing the case and publishing it.

And continue to indulge your absolute rightness based on arithmetical certitude. I am sure that you would have been a hero during WWII, protecting the Jews against the Nazis.

You probably dont know that the Jews who are able to chase for 20 years those who deserve their hatred, are as stubborn when they want to show gratitude. They have, till recently, confered to those who have protected their children during the darkest hours the title of Juste.

Surprisingly some are French.

Davout, I am relieved that you are not part of the French left. I thought all French posters here on Apolyton were.

As to what I personally would have done prior to WWII? I probably would have been like JFK, a Roosevelt Democrat strongly against appeasement. But, honestly, we have the benefit of hindsight that appeasement does not work from the events leading up to WWII. I may actually have supported Chamberlain. Who knows?

But, equally as bad as appeasement was the silence by the majority prior to WWII when Hitler increasingly defamed the Jews. Silence in the face of evil is not a virtue. Indifference to injustice is a crime.

Anyone in France who finds that France2's participation in a staged event that lead to the current war should speak out in protest and condemnation. Silence here is not golden.

lord of the mark · May 20, 2003, 17:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
I'm REALLY sick of "God Bless America" by the way. First off, I'm non-religious and suspicious of the whole "God's on our side" thing (which is kinda implied by GBA). Second, I love baseball and I HATE the GBA song that they play during every 7th inning stretch.

-Arrian

i dont think GBA implies G-d is on our side - its a request that he be on our side - when i ask god to bless my child, im not implying god is already on my childs side. And its making a statement that our nation is both worthy of, and in need of gods blessing. After 9/11 we focused on the need - in the usage i refer to above, and which i tried in the yiddish phrase that started it all, the worthiness is emphasized. '

and thats one reason it is particularly compelling in Yiddish. More so than in English, and certainly more so than in Hebrew. Merely to say the words in yiddish is to remember why the sentiment is so compelling to yiddish speakers - it reminds of grandparents who came to these shores, blessing their good fortune, it reminds of lost souls, on the point of death, saved by American GI's, it reminds of Eisenhower who visited the camps personally in order to bear witness, and it reminds of the kind of society this is where the common sentiment can be expressed in different tongues and by different faiths.

Once again - Gott bench America!!!!!!

Ned · May 20, 2003, 17:20

Bravo! Lord of the Mark! That brought tears to my eyes.

Panag · May 20, 2003, 19:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Yiddish is just Hebrew+German isn't it?

hi ,

nope , its a mix of high german , lots of polish and russian with hebrew and a bunch of local words , ...

have a nic eday

Panag · May 20, 2003, 19:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Davout, not all French are anti-Semitic, it is true. But when one sees a consistent pattern from the French left of openly siding with Palestine against Israel, to see that France2 participate in a propaganda event designed to provoke a war against Israel an to not see even one condemnation from a French poster, and to listen to the vile, racist comments coming from the pro-Palestinian left here in the the United States, what conclusions should one draw?

1 + 1 = 2

Give me one other explanation for not one single French leftist condemning the Palestinians for staging the little boy's death. Give me one other explanation for no one on the left condemning France2 for participating in an event designed to start a war against the Jews. The left is, after all, supposed to be anti-war. Or is there an exception if Israel is attacked?

How many leftists in Europe stood silent when the Nazi's defamed the Jews prior to WWII? Everyone? Why?

hi ,

, well it comes to this ; one the enemy of my enemy is my friend , two ; its easy to blame a minority and rally against them in order to forget your own problems , .....

they would care less if we where under attack , we are under attack now , they dont care , .....

have a nice day

gsmoove23 · May 21, 2003, 16:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
gsmoove, as a known leftist, are you or are you not against the goals of Hamas: to overthrow the Jewish state and drive any survivors into the sea?

I missed this post but this comment scared the heebie jeebies out of me. I'm a known leftist? Well I suppose you're right.

Hamas' goals mean as little to me as those of the militant settlers. I recognize there are enemies to peace on both sides of the line.

Az · May 21, 2003, 16:31

Their power is incomprable. Just look at how Hamas forced the slowly moving stabilization process to a grinding halt.

gsmoove23 · May 21, 2003, 16:40

Yeah Azazel, they did it all by their lonesome. No help from anyone. Are you talking currently?

The militant settlers are only one bunch of enemies of peace I would mention on the Israeli side.

Az · May 21, 2003, 16:46

I am waiting.

Oh, and please, I want an explanation to why they're intersted in the non-advancement of the peaceprocess.

gsmoove23 · May 21, 2003, 16:59

Waiting for what? You haven't given me a question.

Whether a group is or is not interested in a particular peace process is irrelevant. Settlers would be interested in a peace process that would suit their needs, ie, leave the settlements untouched. I would suggest that any such process would not result in peace. Therefore they are enemies to peace without even mentioning the harrassment that many militant settlers actively participate in.

Panag · May 21, 2003, 17:00

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Yeah Azazel, they did it all by their lonesome. No help from anyone. Are you talking currently?

The militant settlers are only one bunch of enemies of peace I would mention on the Israeli side.

hi ,

yeah right , ....

anything else , ......

at least they dont blow themselfs up , ......

bye

Az · May 21, 2003, 17:01

waiting for other "enemies of peace", people that don't want to be a peaceful solution to the problem.

gsmoove23 · May 21, 2003, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
waiting for other "enemies of peace", people that don't want to be a peaceful solution to the problem.

If that is your definition of enemies of peace then it is the main problem. Its easy enough to want a peaceful solution, there are many crackpots who believe they know how one can be attained without the slightest grasp of reality. The question is, who is interested in a just peace, not screwing over the other side for the benefit of their own people, that will realistically result in more peaceful relations in the future.

Ned · May 21, 2003, 17:36

gsmoove, you really are in the camp of the radical left, aren't you? You seem to completely ignore the fact that the settlers are under the control of the Israeli government. Their settlements will be disbanded if that is what a peace agreement requires. Their opinions really do not matter because Israel is a democracy and they are not in the majority.

However, Hamas, Hizbollah and Arafat are all beyond the control any Palestinian government. They will continue to wage war regardless of any peace negotiations unless they are stopped by force.

The whole purpose of Oslo was to end terrorism. It did not work because Arafat, Hizbollah and Hamas are not interested merely in the creation of a Palestinian state. They want to destroy Israel and kill every Jew they can lay their hands on.

To equate settlers with such Jew-hating Nazi's is plainly immoral. The stink of anti-Semitism is all over the left.

gsmoove23 · May 21, 2003, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
gsmoove, you really are in the camp of the radical left, aren't you? You seem to completely ignore the fact that the settlers are under the control of the Israeli government. Their settlements will be disbanded if that is what a peace agreement requires. Their opinions really do not matter because Israel is a democracy and they are not in the majority.

For the duration of the occupation settlements have continued to grow and new ones have continued to be established even though they are illegal and their consequences could have easily been foreseen. This despite the fact that Israel is a democracy, which I assume means to you that it will always make the right decisions. Even now, that settlements are unpopular within Israel they still grow. New settlements are established that are illegal according to ISRAELI law and the IDF does little to stop this except close some token settlements which were shams to begin with.

You may have swallowed the myth of Arafat refusing a "generous settlement" whole but everyone seems to forget that the deal had no possibility of being ratified by Israel if Arafat had agreed to it. It was extremely unpopular with the politicians as well as the people of Israel, and this is without even addressing RoR(please don't be foolish enough to believe that because I mentioned this I believe that Israel should take in every Palestinian refugee thereby destroying Israel, yada yada... merely that it was not addressed, debated, as if Pals would ever simply conveniently forget about 1948).

To me this means there is a failure within the Israeli population to come to terms with what the true implications of a just peace deal would be, one that would give Palestinian leadership the ideological ammo it needed to combat terrorism.

Quote:

However, Hamas, Hizbollah and Arafat are all beyond the control any Palestinian government. They will continue to wage war regardless of any peace negotiations unless they are stopped by force.

I am not of the opinion that Arafat is the devil like you seem to be, merely a pragmatic leader trying to maintain his power base during a peace process that seemed doomed from the start. As for extremist organizations, they can very well be controlled by a palestinian state especially since in its present form it doesn't have to worry about civil liberties. Give the state assurances that by fighting terrorism they will be promoting a peace plan that will prove profitable for Palestinians and they can do this without looking like another form of Israeli security.

Quote:

To equate settlers with such Jew-hating Nazi's is plainly immoral. The stink of anti-Semitism is all over the left.

The equation is quite apt considering the beliefs of MILITANT settlers(I wouldn't say the same for normal settlers).

EDIT - and please stop mentioning Hizbullah. Its a Lebanese organization and has little to do with Palestine.

Ned · May 21, 2003, 20:37

gsmoove, to the extent that the settlers would fight their own government, blow up Palestinians who want peace and would continue a war against the Palestinians even after a peace deal for the purpose of driving them out of Palestine, I concede the point.

Ned · May 21, 2003, 20:42

gsmoove, one of us is extremely wrong about Arafat. You make him seem like a statesman.

No doubt, he will never be tried for war crimes so we will never know the truth. However, this man began committing terrorist acts back in the 60s. I tend to believe that he is like an alcoholic. He may occasionally be on the wagon, but the lust for violence is in his blood.

Ned · May 21, 2003, 20:48

As to the PA having incentive to fight the "extremists," I think this is where the Roadmap is really flawed. In the end, Israel will not agree to a state until the hard issues (RoR, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount) are resolved. Oslo blew up and terrorism returned because these issues were not resolved. The Israelies are not stupid.

realpolitic · May 21, 2003, 20:54

I have seen so much viscousness by Sharon, I'm convinced he's a war criminal, and as a Jew he really disgusts me.

gsmoove23 · May 21, 2003, 21:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
gsmoove, to the extent that the settlers would fight their own government, blow up Palestinians who want peace and would continue a war against the Palestinians even after a peace deal for the purpose of driving them out of Palestine, I concede the point.

Since I'm not sure if thats sarcastic and this issue is particularly annoying to me I'll say this. It doesn't take all of that to become an enemy of peace. What they are currently doing is trying to expand their land by taking the little that is left of overpopulated Palestine and harrassing the Palestininian population, all under the protection of the IDF gun. Why blow up Palestinians when they hardly have to. They can simply do more insidious things without having their name splashed over the news, while the IDF does enough blowing up for everyone. I have more respect for the suicide bomber who gives his own life for his cause than these tw*ts who hide behind the strength of the IDF, who are often safer then the guy getting a pizza in Tel Aviv, who cry foul when the government is considering giving concessions on settlements. They are not worth the crap on my shoe.

gsmoove23 · May 21, 2003, 21:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
gsmoove, one of us is extremely wrong about Arafat. You make him seem like a statesman.

No doubt, he will never be tried for war crimes so we will never know the truth. However, this man began committing terrorist acts back in the 60s. I tend to believe that he is like an alcoholic. He may occasionally be on the wagon, but the lust for violence is in his blood.

I wouldn't call him a statesman, I don't think hes all that capable a politician. I also think its a crying shame how much he has let down his people by his selfish authoritarian governing policies considering all the trust they once put in him. However I do not agree with the current demonizing of him. During the Oslo proceedings both Rabin and Arafat were trying to figure out every way they could stick it to the other or what would be their contingency plan if everything fell apart, as any good diplomat trying to broker peace with an opponent would have done. Michael Collins did the same thing making peace with the British in the 20s.

As for violence, I think for a very long time Arafat has been one of the moderating voices in the PLO and among the Palestinian people. Accusations that he wants to push Israel into the sea are completely unbased beyond the fact that I'm sure every Palestinian holds a little place in their heart for that hope as I'm sure every Zionist secretly wishes the Palestinians would mysteriously disappear.

gsmoove23 · May 21, 2003, 21:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
As to the PA having incentive to fight the "extremists," I think this is where the Roadmap is really flawed. In the end, Israel will not agree to a state until the hard issues (RoR, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount) are resolved. Oslo blew up and terrorism returned because these issues were not resolved. The Israelies are not stupid.

Are you saying the road map is flawed because it doesn't address RoR, Jerusalme and the Temple Mount?!?!?!?! Please clarify, because if so we might actually agree on something and I'll have to do a dance of joy!

Ned · May 21, 2003, 21:33

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23

Since I'm not sure if thats sarcastic and this issue is particularly annoying to me I'll say this. It doesn't take all of that to become an enemy of peace. What they are currently doing is trying to expand their land by taking the little that is left of overpopulated Palestine and harrassing the Palestininian population, all under the protection of the IDF gun. Why blow up Palestinians when they hardly have to. They can simply do more insidious things without having their name splashed over the news, while the IDF does enough blowing up for everyone. I have more respect for the suicide bomber who gives his own life for his cause than these tw*ts who hide behind the strength of the IDF, who are often safer then the guy getting a pizza in Tel Aviv, who cry foul when the government is considering giving concessions on settlements. They are not worth the crap on my shoe.

But the settlers are not an obstacle to peace to the extent that the government of Israel is willing to dismantle the settlements and the settlers agree to go. They settle the land now knowing that tomorrow they will be asked to leave. They are assuming the risk of financial loss - that is, unless the Israeli government will compensate them in some fashion.

If, however, they are willing to revolt against their own government, then the do represent a problem. But I hardly think this is the case.

The bottom line is that getting rid of the settlers is not an obstacle to peace, but a benefit of peace. The Palestinians must know this.

Oerdin · May 21, 2003, 21:37

They should certainly not dismantle any settlements which are contigious with the rest of Isreal and the Palestinian borders should absorb as many contigous Arab settlements as possible with all outlaying Arab settlements also being dismantled.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we want population exchanges then let's settle the issue now and forever.

Ned · May 21, 2003, 21:38

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23

Are you saying the road map is flawed because it doesn't address RoR, Jerusalme and the Temple Mount?!?!?!?! Please clarify, because if so we might actually agree on something and I'll have to do a dance of joy!

Yes, that is my position. Oslo failed because they deferred these hard issues 'til later. They should be addressed first. After that, the details on borders, settlers and timetables would be easy.