Is Israel becoming as paranoid as the US?
gimmesometruth27
St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
seriously, are the citizens of Israel really this fearful that iran's leader is going to be about 2 miles from their border, or is it their government that is fearful? as if he is going to do anything....but israelis are calling his visit to lebanon "a provocation"....see some of the rhetoric below... :roll:
it sounds as if their media has people as scared as the american media has some americans...do they have reason to be paranoid? i don't think so..it is interesting that a hardliner is calling for his assasination, while a more moderate cabinet minister dismissed that rhetoric..
Israelis wary ahead of Ahmadinejad border tour
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101014/wl ... macyisrael
METULLA, Israel (AFP) – Israelis were on Thursday warily watching their northern border for a rare opportunity to see up close the arch-enemy of the Jewish state -- Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The Iranian president, who is on a two-day trip to Lebanon, was expected to make a controversial tour of the southern border region during the afternoon which has been slammed by the United States and Israel as "provocative."
"Right now we can see the stage they prepared for him, the giant portrait, where he's going to make his speech on the mountain," Haim Biton, a resident of the Israeli frontier village of Avivim, told army radio.
The border region, a stronghold of the Shiite militant group Hezbollah, is often seen as the frontline in a proxy war between Israel and Iran.
While Israeli leaders slammed the visit as a provocation, for many ordinary people it presents a chance to glimpse the Iranian leader, a man deeply reviled in Israel for his questioning of the Nazi Holocaust and predictions of the Jewish state's demise.
"It is a provocative and destabilising visit," foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told AFP. "It appears his intentions are blatantly hostile and he is coming to play with fire."
Ahmadinejad's visit is "like a landlord visiting his domain," Palmor said, while other officials said the move signified the final transformation of Israel's northern neighbour into an "Iranian client state."
Thursday's tour will see the sharp-tongued Iranian leader coming the closest he has ever been to the Jewish state, standing just four kilometres (little more than two miles) from the border as he tours villages destroyed during the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah.
He is set to stop in Bint Jbeil, a Hezbollah bastion devastated during the war, and in Qana, targeted in 1996 and again in 2006 by deadly Israeli air strikes.
For many, it was the sheer proximity of the Iranian leader that caught their attention. "Ahmadinejad a kilometre away," said the front page of the top-selling Yediot Aharonot newspaper, while its rival Maariv ran with: "Ahmadinejad -- closer than ever."
For some the presence so close by of Israel's arch foe was seen as a rare opportunity not to be missed.
"Human history would have been so different if in 1939 a Jewish soldier could have killed Hitler," said Arye Eldad, a parliamentarian from the ultra-nationalist National Union party as the Iranian leader began his tour on Wednesday.
"If Ahmadinejad is in the IDF's (Israeli Defence Forces) crosshairs for even one second...he can't be allowed to return home alive," he told the Ynet news website.
Senior cabinet minister Silvan Shalom dismissed such talk.
"We don't murder heads of states, even if those states are totalitarian states who seek to harm the state of Israel," he told public radio.
Analysts said it was unlikely Israel would be intimidated by the visit.
"It's clearly a provocation and it's not pleasant for Israel," said Eldad Pardo, an Iran analyst at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. "But there is no panic. They also see the opposition inside Lebanon."
Ahmadinejad's visit is seen as a boost for Iran's Lebanese ally Hezbollah, which fought a devastating 34-day war with Israel in 2006.
During the 2006 war, Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets, many supplied by Iran, into northern Israel in a conflict which killed 1,200 people in Lebanon, most of them civilians, and around 160 Israelis, most of them soldiers.
Iran has been a major donor for the reconstruction of southern Lebanon following the month-long war, and Ahmadinejad is likely to receive a hero's welcome when he visits the area.
it sounds as if their media has people as scared as the american media has some americans...do they have reason to be paranoid? i don't think so..it is interesting that a hardliner is calling for his assasination, while a more moderate cabinet minister dismissed that rhetoric..
Israelis wary ahead of Ahmadinejad border tour
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101014/wl ... macyisrael
METULLA, Israel (AFP) – Israelis were on Thursday warily watching their northern border for a rare opportunity to see up close the arch-enemy of the Jewish state -- Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The Iranian president, who is on a two-day trip to Lebanon, was expected to make a controversial tour of the southern border region during the afternoon which has been slammed by the United States and Israel as "provocative."
"Right now we can see the stage they prepared for him, the giant portrait, where he's going to make his speech on the mountain," Haim Biton, a resident of the Israeli frontier village of Avivim, told army radio.
The border region, a stronghold of the Shiite militant group Hezbollah, is often seen as the frontline in a proxy war between Israel and Iran.
While Israeli leaders slammed the visit as a provocation, for many ordinary people it presents a chance to glimpse the Iranian leader, a man deeply reviled in Israel for his questioning of the Nazi Holocaust and predictions of the Jewish state's demise.
"It is a provocative and destabilising visit," foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told AFP. "It appears his intentions are blatantly hostile and he is coming to play with fire."
Ahmadinejad's visit is "like a landlord visiting his domain," Palmor said, while other officials said the move signified the final transformation of Israel's northern neighbour into an "Iranian client state."
Thursday's tour will see the sharp-tongued Iranian leader coming the closest he has ever been to the Jewish state, standing just four kilometres (little more than two miles) from the border as he tours villages destroyed during the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah.
He is set to stop in Bint Jbeil, a Hezbollah bastion devastated during the war, and in Qana, targeted in 1996 and again in 2006 by deadly Israeli air strikes.
For many, it was the sheer proximity of the Iranian leader that caught their attention. "Ahmadinejad a kilometre away," said the front page of the top-selling Yediot Aharonot newspaper, while its rival Maariv ran with: "Ahmadinejad -- closer than ever."
For some the presence so close by of Israel's arch foe was seen as a rare opportunity not to be missed.
"Human history would have been so different if in 1939 a Jewish soldier could have killed Hitler," said Arye Eldad, a parliamentarian from the ultra-nationalist National Union party as the Iranian leader began his tour on Wednesday.
"If Ahmadinejad is in the IDF's (Israeli Defence Forces) crosshairs for even one second...he can't be allowed to return home alive," he told the Ynet news website.
Senior cabinet minister Silvan Shalom dismissed such talk.
"We don't murder heads of states, even if those states are totalitarian states who seek to harm the state of Israel," he told public radio.
Analysts said it was unlikely Israel would be intimidated by the visit.
"It's clearly a provocation and it's not pleasant for Israel," said Eldad Pardo, an Iran analyst at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. "But there is no panic. They also see the opposition inside Lebanon."
Ahmadinejad's visit is seen as a boost for Iran's Lebanese ally Hezbollah, which fought a devastating 34-day war with Israel in 2006.
During the 2006 war, Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets, many supplied by Iran, into northern Israel in a conflict which killed 1,200 people in Lebanon, most of them civilians, and around 160 Israelis, most of them soldiers.
Iran has been a major donor for the reconstruction of southern Lebanon following the month-long war, and Ahmadinejad is likely to receive a hero's welcome when he visits the area.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Interesting choice of words. It wasn't the conflict that killed 1,200 people in Lebanon, it was Israel that killed 1,200 people in Lebanon.
look in the article where it said that there were over 1200 lebanese killed in 2006 with most of them being civilians, and about 160 israelis who were mostly soldiers...who would you call the warmonger?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Ahmadinejad to visit Lebanon's border with Israel
Hezbollah rallies crowds for Iranian president's trip, which has been criticised by Israel and US
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc ... der-israel
Hezbollah supporters used mosque loudspeakers to rally crowds for a visit by Iran's president to southern Lebanon, near the border with Israel today. The US and Israel have called his trip intentionally provocative.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Lebanon yesterday to a rapturous welcome organised by Hezbollah. Iran is the main patron of the Shia militant group, the most powerful military force in Lebanon.
Ahmadinejad is scheduled to visit Lebanon's Shia heartland in the south and the Israeli border today, which will emphasise Iran's support for Hezbollah's fight with Israel.
Residents of southern Lebanon were heading to Bint Jbeil, a border village that was bombed during the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war, to greet the Iranian president.
The village, less than three miles from the border, is dubbed "the capital of resistance" because it was a centre for Hezbollah guerrilla action during Israel's 18-year occupation of the south, which ended in 2000.
Many students in the south skipped school to await Ahmadinejad.
An Israeli government spokesman, Mark Regev, criticised the trip today. "Iran's domination of Lebanon through its proxy Hezbollah has destroyed any chance for peace, has turned Lebanon into an Iranian satellite and made Lebanon a hub for regional terror and instability," he said.
Ahmadinejad's visit has underscored the eroding position of pro-western factions in Lebanon and suggested that the competition for influence there may be tipping toward Iran and Syria, and away from the US and its Arab allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
then they said "ahmadinejad of course said he wanted to wipe israel off the face of the map...."
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
same old tired bullshit....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Wiki of entire event:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ah ... .22_speech
Here is the original article on the Iranian press site the next day, entitled "Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map":
http://web.archive.org/web/200709272139 ... _id=200247
Here is the article the next day in the NYT where they put quotations around the sentence, clearly quoting the Iranian translation, not providing their own:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world ... -iran.html
Also, the original Khomeini quote was mis-translated for years before Ahamadinejad used it and no one was worried about correcting it back then:
"Ahmad Zeidabadi, a professor of political science in Tehran whose specialty is Iran-Israel relations, explained: "It seems that in the early days of the revolution the word 'map' was used because it appeared to be the best meaningful translation for what he said. The words 'sahneh roozgar' are metaphorical and do not refer to anything specific. Maybe it was interpreted as 'book of countries,' and the closest thing to that was a map. Since then, we have often heard 'Israel bayad az naghshe jographya mahv gardad' — Israel must be wiped off the geographical map. Hard-liners have used it in their speeches."
^ from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weeki ... onner.html
I'm as guarded as anyone against stupid, hot-headed American politicians - like John "Bomb, bomb Iran" McCain, for instance - who spout off about going to war with Iran. Or, did anyone see Palin's "Armageddon" quote a couple days ago, for instance? But that doesn't mean I'm going to be naive about Ahmadinejad. Forget about Israel, even... did you see the video coming out Iran during the election protests?
http://twitter.com/m_Ahmadinejad
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
What I did find googling is that they printed an Iranian-provided full transcript of the speech within a few days of the controversy (was that their apology?) The "context" is just as lovely as the quote itself.
Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks
Jonathan Steele
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 June 2006
My recent comment piece explaining how Iran's president was badly misquoted when he allegedly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" has caused a welcome little storm. The phrase has been seized on by western and Israeli hawks to re-double suspicions of the Iranian government's intentions, so it is important to get the truth of what he really said.
I took my translation - "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" - from the indefatigable Professor Juan Cole's website where it has been for several weeks.
But it seems to be mainly thanks to the Guardian giving it prominence that the New York Times, which was one of the first papers to misquote Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, came out on Sunday with a defensive piece attempting to justify its reporter's original "wiped off the map" translation. (By the way, for Farsi speakers the original version is available here.)
Joining the "off the map" crowd is David Aaronovitch, a columnist on the Times (of London), who attacked my analysis yesterday. I won't waste time on him since his knowledge of Farsi is as minimal as that of his Latin. The poor man thinks the plural of casus belli is casi belli, unaware that casus is fourth declension with the plural casus (long u).
The New York Times's Ethan Bronner and Nazila Fathi, one of the paper's Tehran staff, make a more serious case. They consulted several sources in Tehran. "Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say 'wipe off' or 'wipe away' is more accurate than 'vanish' because the Persian verb is active and transitive," Bronner writes.
The New York Times goes on: "The second translation issue concerns the word 'map'. Khomeini's words were abstract: 'Sahneh roozgar.' Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as 'map', and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not 'Sahneh roozgar' but 'Safheh roozgar', meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word 'map' again."
This, in my view, is the crucial point and I'm glad the NYT accepts that the word "map" was not used by Ahmadinejad. (By the way, the Wikipedia entry on the controversy gets the NYT wrong, claiming falsely that Ethan Bronner "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map".)
If the Iranian president made a mistake and used "safheh" rather than "sahneh", that is of little moment. A native English speaker could equally confuse "stage of history" with "page of history". The significant issue is that both phrases refer to time rather than place. As I wrote in my original post, the Iranian president was expressing a vague wish for the future. He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem.
Two other well-established translation sources confirm that Ahmadinejad was referring to time, not place. The version of the October 26 2005 speech put out by the Middle East Media Research Institute, based on the Farsi text released by the official Iranian Students News Agency, says: "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history." (NB: not "wiped". I accept that "eliminated" is almost the same, indeed some might argue it is more sinister than "wiped", though it is a bit more of a mouthful if you are trying to find four catchy and easily memorable words with which to incite anger against Iran.)
MEMRI (its text of the speech is available here) is headed by a former Isareli military intelligence officer and has sometimes been attacked for alleged distortion of Farsi and Arabic quotations for the benefit of Israeli foreign policy. On this occasion they supported the doveish view of what Ahmadinejad said.
Finally we come to the BBC monitoring service which every day puts out hundreds of highly respected English translations of broadcasts from all round the globe to their subscribers - mainly governments, intelligence services, thinktanks and other specialists. I approached them this week about the controversy and a spokesperson for the monitoring service's marketing unit, who did not want his name used, told me their original version of the Ahmadinejad quote was "eliminated from the map of the world".
As a result of my inquiry and the controversy generated, they had gone back to the native Farsi-speakers who had translated the speech from a voice recording made available by Iranian TV on October 29 2005. Here is what the spokesman told me about the "off the map" section: "The monitor has checked again. It's a difficult expression to translate. They're under time pressure to produce a translation quickly and they were searching for the right phrase. With more time to reflect they would say the translation should be "eliminated from the page of history".
Would the BBC put out a correction, given that the issue had become so controversial, I asked. "It would be a long time after the original version", came the reply. I interpret that as "probably not", but let's see.
Finally, I approached Iradj Bagherzade, the Iranian-born founder and chairman of the renowned publishing house, IB Tauris. He thought hard about the word "roozgar". "History" was not the right word, he said, but he could not decide between several better alternatives "this day and age", "these times", "our times", "time".
So there we have it. Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times' experts through MEMRI to the BBC's monitors, the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps. He was, as I insisted in my original piece, offering a vague wish for the future.
A very last point. The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favour Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out.
The same with regard to Israel. The Iranian president is undeniably an opponent of Zionism or, if you prefer the phrase, the Zionist regime. But so are substantial numbers of Israeli citizens, Jews as well as Arabs. The anti-Zionist and non-Zionist traditions in Israel are not insignificant. So we should not demonise Ahmadinejad on those grounds alone.
Does this quibbling over phrases matter? Yes, of course. Within days of the Ahmadinejad speech the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was calling for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations. Other foreign leaders have quoted the map phrase. The United States is piling pressure on its allies to be tough with Iran.
Let me give the last word to Juan Cole, with whom I began. "I am entirely aware that Ahmadinejad is hostile to Israel. The question is whether his intentions and capabilities would lead to a military attack, and whether therefore pre-emptive warfare is prescribed. I am saying no, and the boring philology is part of the reason for the no."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 14/post155
but didnt you hear?????????? he wants to wipe israel OFF THE MAP!
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
East Jerusalem Community Lives Divided Life
Israel's security barrier in and around the West Bank is about 60 percent complete. It was designed as a barrier against suicide bombers, but Palestinians say it's a land grab.
One east Jerusalem community has been essentially cut off from the rest of the city by a new barrier erected two weeks ago.
It's afternoon in Ras Khamis in east Jerusalem and Palestinian schoolchildren carefully walk through two sets of rotating metal doors between an Israeli checkpoint and watchtower.
Once through, they race — with exuberant shouts and hair flying — toward a bus that will take them to their homes.
Though the community is within the Jerusalem municipal boundaries and the residents pay property tax to the local Israeli authorities, their movements are restricted.
Yehia Tamimi is the bus driver.
"People are separated by a gate from the Jerusalem community. Sometimes they open this gate, sometimes they don't open this gate," Tamimi says.
Walk further inside Ras Khamis and you'll see a ramshackle neighborhood of crowded streets, homes that have been built on top of one another, hemmed in by the barrier.
Israel began constructing the barrier that snakes in and around the West Bank in 2002 during the second Palestinian uprising.
Only about 5 percent of it — much of that in the area around Jerusalem — is an actual concrete wall. In rural areas, it's a fence bolstered by security cameras, watchtowers and patrols by the Israeli army.
Only about 60 percent of it has been completed, and experts say the rest probably won't be finished due to political and budgetary considerations.
But that is scant consolation for the residents of Ras Khamis.
Abu Issa sits in his shop, smoking a water pipe. He heads the local council.
"The last portion of the wall was built two weeks ago. We woke up in the morning and found this checkpoint, with all its structures, surrounding us. We protested, but they did nothing. They are suffocating us completely," Issa says.
Abu Issa points out there haven't been any suicide bombings in Israel in over two years.
He says the barrier is being built here now because Israel wants to wall off the Arab population in Jerusalem to strengthen Jewish claims to the city.
He says Palestinian families evicted from other east Jerusalem neighborhoods are being relocated to Ras Khamis, where they are corralled
About 40,000 people now live in this community — which has no hospitals, clinics or schools, Issa says (sounds like the Nazis are back- :twisted: ).
Just across a small gulch, the reality couldn't be more different in the Jewish settlement of Pisgat Zeev — where there are 17 kindergartens, 10 elementary schools and 5 high schools for 45,000 residents, according to Yeheal Levy, executive director of the Pisgat Zeev community center.
He says Jewish communities like theirs have flourished since security has improved. And he says most people see the barrier as necessary.
The mall in Pisgat Zeev is buzzing.
Limor Marko works there selling jewelry and lives in the community. She says the people there know the barrier causes hardship for Palestinians.
"You want to be a better person; you want them to feel it's their country as well. I want to be nice, but I want to feel safe, so not always it go together," Marko says.
So she says she supports the barrier that has risen in the nearby Arab community.
"We need them as much as they need us, you understand?" she says.
Marko says she does believe that Palestinians and Jews can live together — just not right now.
i bet they walk carefully. how anyone can treat children like this is beyond me. absolutely disgusting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqvLtoWBpTU
it's a video showing settler girls attacking students and teachers at Qurtaba School, blocking their way out of the school as a police officer filmed and soldiers watched. the settlers sing and chant in Hebrew, "there is no Palestine, this is Israel" and "there are no Palestinians." settler boys in the street then blocked the stairs by stoning the students as they tried to come down the stairs. the students scream and run, but are blocked from every direction. though the Israeli police and soldiers were on the scene, they did nothing to prevent injuries despite constant pleading for help from the internationals. documentarian Terje Carlsson filmed this incident. this is NOT an isolated incident.
they used to have a really good website but sadly it is no more :(
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
and as long as the US continues to veto or continues to promise to veto UN resolutions condemning the israeli government's policies nothing will ever change there. :evil:
see, that wall is just another example of paranoia....it was built to "keep out the suicide bombers" but what it is really doing is keeping the palestinians locked in...the settlers are completely wrong, if they really wanted peace they would abandon the settlements, but they are not even interested in suspending the construction of new ones right now...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Funny, but the Israeli leadership have talked of expelling the Palestinians many times but nobody seems to take issue with that.
"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.
"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.
"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.
Yes, it has been seized. From Iran (see the website link or pic posted if you doubt this)
Gimmesometruth had just made a post that it had been used "as if that is exactly what he said..." when according to Iran at the time, it was exactly what he said. The "map" translation had been in use for years in Iran (which they admit) which is probably why they used it in their own press release. People only provided alternate translations when it got worldwide release and started being scrutinized and debated. Maybe the new translations are better, but there seems to still be legitimate debate whether the verb for vanishing is being used passively or actively - although it wasn't my intent to debate that, only to point out the original source for the quote as being accurate at the time.
I guess you didn't read the Iranian press release, either.
BTW, if anyone wants to comment on that link to the Iranian website from the day after the speech, please do. The western media influence must be far-reaching indeed.
I think a lot of people take issue with that, actually.
I'm not saying there weren't forced expulsions, but that quote from Ben-Gurion is debated as being taken out of context:
"After reading Karsh’s book, Morris, who had originally contended that Ben-Gurion unequivocally supported forced expulsions, reconsidered his view and admitted that he should have examined the original letter rather than rely on a secondary source. In an otherwise critical review of Karsh’s book appearing in the Journal of Palestine Studies (Volume XXVII, Number 2, Winter, 1998), Morris wrote:
Had I gone to the original, I would have noticed that the quotation is problematic, as three lines had been crossed out (by Ben-Gurion or someone else, subsequently), vitally changing the meaning of the passage. The text (with the lines crossed out) reads: "We must expel Arabs and take their place..."(which is how Teveth quoted the passage). But if the crossed-out lines are deciphered and reintroduced, then Ben-Gurion’s stance becomes equivocal, rendering the passage: "And then we will have to use force... without hesitation though only when we have no choice. We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place..."
Well, you're quoting hardliners and right-wingers. The equivalent of quoting Cheney and then making assumptions of the intent of all Americans based upon what he says. A lot of Israelis and non-Israeli Jews do take issue with those things, despite your claim.
guess you dont understand sarcasm. ill remember to attach an lol next time.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I speak fluent sarcasm
Last week on a local call-in show on WOSU, Ohio, NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard virtually boasted about NPR’s giving into “pro-Israeli” pressure: “NPR is not as much criticized for its Middle East coverage as it was back in 2002, which it was attacked quite strongly by a pro-Israeli group. And that group was in many ways successful, and as a result NPR went back and re-evaluated the coverage and how things are handled and started doing things a little differently....”
One collapse leads to another. I called in and thanked Shepard for her previous stance of asking that reporters describe Israeli colonies--built on stolen land--as violations of International Law, rather than use the Israeli term “disputed.” I told her, though, that reporters continue to say “disputed.” In a flip-flop, Shepard said, “The reason that it would be ‘disputed’ is that Israelis may feel that this is their land, and they got it fair and square during the war, and then the Palestinians would say, No, this land was stolen from them, --so in that sense, it’s ‘disputed’” (10:26).
The arbiter of ethical reporting violated fairness in her about-face: Donating all of Palestine to Israel—Greater Israel accomplished... .No country can legally win land “fair and square [through] war” ....“Disputed” isn’t a disinterested label, but the Israeli government’s.... Israel’s violation of International Law is crucial context listeners deserve. And Shepard herself had bragged about that “rich” “context” is “NPR’s signature” of “good journalism.”
So Shepard reversed her answer to me from an April 1 call. At that time she said: “The story about Israel intending to build 1600 housing units in East Jerusalem is a big story. Susie, I've brought that up about: ‘Let's not use the term 'disputed.'”
I wanted to probe Shepard’s turnabout last week, but WOSU host Ann Fisher again shielded the ombud by putting me on hold, and Shepard shifted from defense to offense: NPR’s job “isn’t to advocate. Maybe you have more of a vested interest or a personal interest in the story,” she told me, “so you listen to it in a way where you’re picking up on a key word.” Exactly. NPR’s job isn’t to advocate Israel’s interest, which it does when it uses Israeli-government terms like "disputed."
Shepard asserted that “An NPR story may be fair, but it is also in many ways neutral.” Would NPR give equal time to segregationists applauding Bull Connor’s hoses and dogs? Would NPR suppress news of Rev. Martin Luther King and the marches for Civil Rights? Why not? Because to do so would deceive a 1960s audience about liberation from injustice.
Both times I talked with Shepard, she referred to the evaluations made by hired assessor John Felton; but the problem with his reports is precisely that they merely count how many Israeli and Palestinian stories and spokespeople appear. http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideas ... 2_2010.pdf, http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideas ... 4_2009.pdf
Such tallies are easy, and not journalism. Felton neglects the hard work of comparing the assertions to reality: how much land Israelis steal, how many more people they kill and injure than casualties they suffer, how many children's growth they stunt through malnourishment. The coverage is reduced to the dreadful idea of “competing narratives,” with no referee. Shepard can only proclaim, “bias is in the eye of the beholder,” when NPR discards facts like International Law.
George Orwell warned that “Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politic ... sh/e_polit. Orwell’s "The Road to Wigan Pier," say, doesn’t give equal time to the mine owners, but simply depicts miners’ terrible suffering.
NPR functionaries like Alicia Shepard and Ann Fisher are gatekeepers at the U.S. checkpoints: keeping Americans in ignorance.
Later Gabrielle, another caller to the Ann Fisher, showed how NPR responds to some progressive demands (26:10). First, a compliment about what an admirable job Shepard is doing. Then, the suggestion of a “tiny... constructive criticism" that Fisher supports: removing sexist terms like ombudsman from NPR. Hilariously, Shepard at first brushed off the request. The caller responded that language like "fireman" and "firefighter" limits children's aspirations. Fisher chimed in. Gabrielle spoke of the subtlety of saying "one man's x." Shepard agreed it’s an important topic--"This is something that I do care very much about"--and the disparity of male and female voices is an issue she’s studied.
Then she summed up: “How will we ever move on, if we don’t address it?”
How, indeed? posting.php?mode=reply&f=13&t=142170http://mondoweiss.net/2010/09/npr-ombudsperson-says-israel-lobby-was-successful-in-changing-coverage.html
well tbh i dont know what he said.. i didnt hear him say it and besides i dont speak farsi.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yeah, me neither. And apparently it's a tough concept to translate. I had thought it'd be a safe bet to rely on the Iranian government press release, but apparently not...
youd think so wouldnt you??
perhaps the wrong emPHAsis was put on the wrong syLLAble and somthing was lost in translation.
either way israel disappearing into the mediterranean isnt gonna happen. israel need to stop plowing over people, the palestinians need to find their gandhi and the US needs to step back and help uphold international law instead of sucking at the teat of self interest.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.firetown.com/blog/2010/10/13 ... agreement/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3we8Sg9 ... _embedded#!
Benny Morris also said this:
http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html
What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?
"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948]."
Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?
"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."
Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?
"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."
I quoted the current Israeli Prime Minister.
As for Israeli's taking issue with such things, they're in the minority.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ne ... s-1.125899
Survey: Most Jewish Israelis support transfer of Arabs
By Yulie Khromchenko
Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports expelling Arabs, according to a survey of the public's views on political extremism conducted by Haifa University's Center for the Study of National Security.
The survey indicates that 63.7 percent of the Jewish respondents said the government should encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate. Almost half of the Jewish respondents - 48.6 percent - said the treatment that Arabs in Israel receive from the government is too sympathetic.
More than half - 55.3 percent - think Israeli Arabs endanger the state's security and 45.3 percent support depriving Israeli Arabs of the right to vote and to be elected. About one-quarter of the Jewish respondents said they would consider voting for a party like the outlawed Kach, if such a party were contending in the next elections.
The survey, headed by Professor Gavriel Ben David, consisted of telephone interviews with a representative sample of 1,016 Israelis.
Respondents were also asked about another minority - the foreign workers. A large majority of the Jewish respondents - 72.1 percent - favored restricting foreign workers' entrance into Israel and 54.2 percent said the economic situation was getting worse because the foreign workers were taking the jobs.
Dr. Dafna Kanti-Nissim, a partner in the study, said the survey reflects a known phenomenon in the world, in which a threatened public tends to develop hostility toward the minorities living in it.
"There is a prevalent conception in the public that identifies Israeli Arabs with the threat of terror," says Kanti-Nissim. "The foreign workers are seen as an economic threat, although in fact they are not threatening the work places of most of the Israelis."
The survey indicates a worrying increase in the extremism of the respondents' attitudes.
Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9] News sources currently continue to repeat this claim.[10]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.[11]
The translation presented by the official Iranian Government press Islamic Republic News Agency translated the statement as "wiped off the map" this was challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, word for word, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[12] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[13]
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly, as "be eliminated from the pages of history."[14]
According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."