It is true that modern Hebrew is not the same as Biblical Hebrew. The later no one actually speaks these days (aside from recital during prayer). It is also true that modern Hebrew has many roots in Polish and German grammar (not so much Russian). It is also true that the vocabulary is affected by cultural neighbours, including Arabic and English. All of those, however, do not mean the language is dead. Quite the contrary.
It is a dead language that does not accept influences from other languages. Chutzpah is a Hebrew word (it arrived to English from Yiddish, but its origin is Hebrew). So is Armageddon, hallelujah, shibboleth, and many others. Far from suggesting this makes English a dead language, this is what live languages do.
Lastly, the Hebrew Language Academy estimates that modern Hebrew has around 75,000 to 80,000 unique expressions worthy of a dictionary entry. About ten times what you estimated.
Yes, but if it's not your only source, then the misleading will be glaringly obvious. At the very least, it will be obvious to you that one of your sources is misleading you, and you'll be able to know which subject matter to delve more deeply into.
A biased source of news may still be professional about it. If a source of news regularly publishes lies, drop it.
Assuming they do keep a minimal journalistic ethics regime, however, you still need to try to watch the bias points. It's best to try and get your news from more than one source, and compare the presentation, headlines, and differences.
The problem with bias is that it is catching. Humans are affected by the things not said more than they are by the things stated explicitly. This means that if you have an unconscious bias, you are more likely to cause others who listen to you to adopt that bias. This stands in the way of informed discussion.
The best way to fight it is to make the bias explicit. Point it out to yourself, so you can make your own opinions and biases (and everybody has those) somewhat related to that myth called "objective reality".
The US Government will, if requested, allow you to hold two separate US passports so that you can visit relatives in Israel with one, and go to some of the middle-eastern nations with the other.
Last time I checked, that was not necessary. When entering Israel, you can tell the customs official that you want your passport not to be stamped. You will get an addendum page instead, and your passport will not show any signs you were in Israel, so you can enter those Arab countries.
It's old information, so don't rely on it without verifying.
Also, when were you in Israel, and why didn't you contact any of the local LUGs? I'm sure we would have loved to hear you talk.
I've got a few reservations about your intelligence organisations after the Dubai death squad with Australian passports and other issues so I'll have to take their promises with a truckload of salt. As I tried to point out to you in an earlier discussion truth has been a very early casualty of war with the current situation and current administration.
Intelligence organizations keeping secrets has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinain conflict. All intelligence agencies anywhere keep their operations secret. This has nothing to do with our previous, for lack of a better word, discussion.
Doesn't the contradiction between those two statements imply that it's business as usual despite some recent pledge?
I think you are mistaken as to when the pledge was made. It was not made when Polard was released. It was made when he was caught. Not recent in any way.
As for the apparent contradiction, the simple answer is that I just don't know. Like others have pointed out, the information might not have come from outright spying.
Like I said in my original message, I do believe that Israel does not employ full scale espionage effort, but I also don't believe it is as non-existent as some might have you believe. I do seem to remember one case of an American stepping into an Israeli embassy offering to spy for Israel, and Israel deferring the matter to the FBI. I don't recall any specifics, though.
I tend to agree. However, these days things seem to be a little more complicated than that.
There is a Hebrew proverb that goes: A cat burned by boiling water will fear lukewarm ones.
Pres. Obama made a promise not to spy on friendly nations. If we take him to his word (ha!), then we can deduct who he considers his friends and not. It seems like Israel and Turkey are in the later categories, which has now turned into a diplomatic matter.
Another thing compounding this particular case was that the eavesdropping started out as having military strategic nature (making sure Israel does not attack Iran without letting the US know about it), but transitioned into purely political aim. That is decidedly not why the NSA has been formed.
Another thing compounding this discussion is the asymmetry of the situation. While it seems like it is okay for the US to spy on Israel, since Polard, Israel has pledged not to spy on the US. I know the Israeli leadership, as well as the security services, take this pledge very seriously. While I doubt that it is being as fanatically adhered to as official speakers claim, I have no doubt it is a very prominent guideline directing decisions.
Then again, Israel did leak internal details from the Iran negotiations, details that it was not officially exposed to. One has to wonder how those were acquired.
You wish me to give you a free pass for denial of an obvious ongoing effort to influence and suppress media reports critical of a the actions the political party currently running Israel? Yes or no?
From your perspective: Yes.
It's called "Freedom of speech". You allow others with opinions you do not agree with, maybe even that makes you angry and offend you, to speak out their minds. What you get in return is a pass from me to hold opinions completely unsubstantiated by facts under the guise of "self evident" (essentially the appeal to authority fallacy, except without specifying any authority).
And the real beauty of it is that I don't actually need your "free pass". Watch this place for my complete lack of any more comments on this thread, whether your pass is given or not.
The two examples I quoted were from reports from the last couple of months.
Why don't we just agree that one of us is pretending not to understand. This way we both get to claim moral victory, and the readers are free to make up their own minds?
First of all, it is not Israel doing the grilling in this case. You brought as proof an instance unrelated to the point you're trying to prove.
Also, just because a media outlet gets grilled does not automatically mean it is unjustified. Unless you're claiming that the following constitutes an acceptable level of reporting:
“When the ABC tells the Australian viewing public ‘just hours ago, Israeli security forces shot two more Palestinians after they tried to board a school bus south of Jerusalem’, we are entitled to be repulsed. What could be more innocent than boarding a school bus? What an outrageous overreaction by the Israeli security forces,” Abetz said.
“In this instance, what the ABC failed to tell us is that this seemingly innocent act and ugly overreaction was in fact a situation where two Hamas operatives/terrorists tried to board the bus and had stabbed a man.
“Similarly, the report of the killing of a ‘friendly, gifted student’ that tried to stab security forces ‘so they shot her dead’. The female student was shot dead by the female security officer she actually stabbed.”
First of all, I'm still waiting to hear where I called you a liar. It's a serious accusation which you have repeated several times, and which I believe to be wrong, so I believe some actual evidence is in order.
It was the equivalent of saying if I have any examples of water being wet please tell you elsewhere - and you know it - deliberate belittling insult pretending reality is not real just to push your agenda.
No, it isn't. Here's the evidence that water is wet. It is easy to produce, because it is both true and actually self evident, unlike your statements.
Your point, however, is a contested one. As such, you shouldn't act hurt or surprised that someone asks you to substantiate it. In essence, you are accusing me of lying, of claiming something different than what I believe in. I reject that accusation. I truly believe that criticism against Israel is not self evident and needs substantiation.
When you are stating that this is self evident and requires no proof, what you are doing is not to show it is true. What you are doing is to show that you are holding it as prejudice. An opinion based on belief rather than facts.
As for the BBC accusation, please do post a link if you want to discuss it. Your abstract makes no sense. You are presenting accusation of misrepresentation as proof that these accusations are wrong. Again, this might align with your prejudice, but is not proof of anything. The BBC could be unfairly misrepresenting the truth, in which case Israel would have a valid cause to complain.
Please send me examples to my private mail (I think this is off topic here).
I did not call you a liar. I just asked you to provide specifics so we can discuss. In fact, I did not voice any opinion at all about the matter, as I'd like to have discussion based on facts, not opinions.
A friend who worked for a company that was sold to Apple told me about an email their HR sent out. It went something like this: Many people use the Apple logo in their email. Please note that people not using an Apple email program are unable to see it properly. For everyone else, this works fine.
This is not passive aggressive. This is me stating my point of view. I'm sorry you somehow find it offensive.
dbIII somehow found me asking him to elaborate on why he claimed a certain claim as offensive. That is not how a civilized discussion takes place. That was my claim. You seem to conflate the discussion about a certain aspect of the conflict with the conflict itself. That is not uncivilized (and I don't think I accused you of that, but if I did, please accept my apology). It is, however, without sense to me.
To the point, however, I can see where the Palestinian depend on the conflict. It keeps money flowing in from supporters. It keeps internal discussion away from the PA's ability to function as a state/autonomy/whatever, as well as their corruption. Above all else, it provides the Palestinian leadership a catch-all scapegoat for everything that goes bad (it's Israel's occupation's fault).
I am more at a loss to see where Israel's interest in keeping the conflict is. Please do elaborate.
Yeah, I don't think anything from the 1950's is comparable to post-communication revolution era.
Some of the incitations are Palestinian Authority sponsored. I guess those can change given enough political pressure (which, if recent years are any indication, no one is inclined to provide). The majority of this wave, however, is fuelled by either grass root, or (more likely) parties like Hammas, which are not as susceptible to such pressure.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that a hidden service sees incoming traffic as originating from itself, as that's where the TOR node is that unwraps this traffic.
On my server, it was turned on despite me not turning it on (but, of course, not open to the outside). I don't know why, BTW.
Shachar
No, not even close.
It is true that modern Hebrew is not the same as Biblical Hebrew. The later no one actually speaks these days (aside from recital during prayer). It is also true that modern Hebrew has many roots in Polish and German grammar (not so much Russian). It is also true that the vocabulary is affected by cultural neighbours, including Arabic and English. All of those, however, do not mean the language is dead. Quite the contrary.
It is a dead language that does not accept influences from other languages. Chutzpah is a Hebrew word (it arrived to English from Yiddish, but its origin is Hebrew). So is Armageddon, hallelujah, shibboleth, and many others. Far from suggesting this makes English a dead language, this is what live languages do.
Lastly, the Hebrew Language Academy estimates that modern Hebrew has around 75,000 to 80,000 unique expressions worthy of a dictionary entry. About ten times what you estimated.
Shachar
Yes, but if it's not your only source, then the misleading will be glaringly obvious. At the very least, it will be obvious to you that one of your sources is misleading you, and you'll be able to know which subject matter to delve more deeply into.
Shachar
Actually, it takes a little more than that.
A biased source of news may still be professional about it. If a source of news regularly publishes lies, drop it.
Assuming they do keep a minimal journalistic ethics regime, however, you still need to try to watch the bias points. It's best to try and get your news from more than one source, and compare the presentation, headlines, and differences.
The problem with bias is that it is catching. Humans are affected by the things not said more than they are by the things stated explicitly. This means that if you have an unconscious bias, you are more likely to cause others who listen to you to adopt that bias. This stands in the way of informed discussion.
The best way to fight it is to make the bias explicit. Point it out to yourself, so you can make your own opinions and biases (and everybody has those) somewhat related to that myth called "objective reality".
Shachar
The US Government will, if requested, allow you to hold two separate US passports so that you can visit relatives in Israel with one, and go to some of the middle-eastern nations with the other.
Last time I checked, that was not necessary. When entering Israel, you can tell the customs official that you want your passport not to be stamped. You will get an addendum page instead, and your passport will not show any signs you were in Israel, so you can enter those Arab countries.
It's old information, so don't rely on it without verifying.
Also, when were you in Israel, and why didn't you contact any of the local LUGs? I'm sure we would have loved to hear you talk.
Shachar
You win this time, Mr. Cone, but mark my word, we shall meet again, and next time, oh never mind, you get the general idea.
Also, he might have been dictating it.
Shachar
Still, at least Edison understood the difference between the contracted "it's" and the possessive "its."
Citation needed
They have a good evolutionary reason for this.
Shachar
Then by all means cite your sources. So far it is a battle of opinions.
I've got a few reservations about your intelligence organisations after the Dubai death squad with Australian passports and other issues so I'll have to take their promises with a truckload of salt. As I tried to point out to you in an earlier discussion truth has been a very early casualty of war with the current situation and current administration.
Intelligence organizations keeping secrets has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinain conflict. All intelligence agencies anywhere keep their operations secret. This has nothing to do with our previous, for lack of a better word, discussion.
Shachar
Doesn't the contradiction between those two statements imply that it's business as usual despite some recent pledge?
I think you are mistaken as to when the pledge was made. It was not made when Polard was released. It was made when he was caught. Not recent in any way.
As for the apparent contradiction, the simple answer is that I just don't know. Like others have pointed out, the information might not have come from outright spying.
Like I said in my original message, I do believe that Israel does not employ full scale espionage effort, but I also don't believe it is as non-existent as some might have you believe. I do seem to remember one case of an American stepping into an Israeli embassy offering to spy for Israel, and Israel deferring the matter to the FBI. I don't recall any specifics, though.
Shachar
I tend to agree. However, these days things seem to be a little more complicated than that.
There is a Hebrew proverb that goes: A cat burned by boiling water will fear lukewarm ones.
Pres. Obama made a promise not to spy on friendly nations. If we take him to his word (ha!), then we can deduct who he considers his friends and not. It seems like Israel and Turkey are in the later categories, which has now turned into a diplomatic matter.
Another thing compounding this particular case was that the eavesdropping started out as having military strategic nature (making sure Israel does not attack Iran without letting the US know about it), but transitioned into purely political aim. That is decidedly not why the NSA has been formed.
Another thing compounding this discussion is the asymmetry of the situation. While it seems like it is okay for the US to spy on Israel, since Polard, Israel has pledged not to spy on the US. I know the Israeli leadership, as well as the security services, take this pledge very seriously. While I doubt that it is being as fanatically adhered to as official speakers claim, I have no doubt it is a very prominent guideline directing decisions.
Then again, Israel did leak internal details from the Iran negotiations, details that it was not officially exposed to. One has to wonder how those were acquired.
Like I said, this is a complicated scenario.
Shachar
Your logical fallacy is: Strawman
You are mocking an opinion not actually voiced by your opponents.
Shachar
Which client is that?
At work we have gmail, and just so I have easy access, I use Thunderbird.
Which circles right back to the original question.
Shachar
You wish me to give you a free pass for denial of an obvious ongoing effort to influence and suppress media reports critical of a the actions the political party currently running Israel?
Yes or no?
From your perspective: Yes.
It's called "Freedom of speech". You allow others with opinions you do not agree with, maybe even that makes you angry and offend you, to speak out their minds. What you get in return is a pass from me to hold opinions completely unsubstantiated by facts under the guise of "self evident" (essentially the appeal to authority fallacy, except without specifying any authority).
And the real beauty of it is that I don't actually need your "free pass". Watch this place for my complete lack of any more comments on this thread, whether your pass is given or not.
Have a great, blissful, life.
Shachar
The two examples I quoted were from reports from the last couple of months.
Why don't we just agree that one of us is pretending not to understand. This way we both get to claim moral victory, and the readers are free to make up their own minds?
Shachar
Fine. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that it is Israel pressuring.
Can you call it unjustified in this particular instance? Would you call the example of reporting of acceptable quality?
Shachar
Did you actually read the link you sent?
First of all, it is not Israel doing the grilling in this case. You brought as proof an instance unrelated to the point you're trying to prove.
Also, just because a media outlet gets grilled does not automatically mean it is unjustified. Unless you're claiming that the following constitutes an acceptable level of reporting:
“When the ABC tells the Australian viewing public ‘just hours ago, Israeli security forces shot two more Palestinians after they tried to board a school bus south of Jerusalem’, we are entitled to be repulsed. What could be more innocent than boarding a school bus? What an outrageous overreaction by the Israeli security forces,” Abetz said.
“In this instance, what the ABC failed to tell us is that this seemingly innocent act and ugly overreaction was in fact a situation where two Hamas operatives/terrorists tried to board the bus and had stabbed a man.
“Similarly, the report of the killing of a ‘friendly, gifted student’ that tried to stab security forces ‘so they shot her dead’. The female student was shot dead by the female security officer she actually stabbed.”
Shachar
First of all, I'm still waiting to hear where I called you a liar. It's a serious accusation which you have repeated several times, and which I believe to be wrong, so I believe some actual evidence is in order.
It was the equivalent of saying if I have any examples of water being wet please tell you elsewhere - and you know it - deliberate belittling insult pretending reality is not real just to push your agenda.
No, it isn't. Here's the evidence that water is wet. It is easy to produce, because it is both true and actually self evident, unlike your statements.
Your point, however, is a contested one. As such, you shouldn't act hurt or surprised that someone asks you to substantiate it. In essence, you are accusing me of lying, of claiming something different than what I believe in. I reject that accusation. I truly believe that criticism against Israel is not self evident and needs substantiation.
When you are stating that this is self evident and requires no proof, what you are doing is not to show it is true. What you are doing is to show that you are holding it as prejudice. An opinion based on belief rather than facts.
As for the BBC accusation, please do post a link if you want to discuss it. Your abstract makes no sense. You are presenting accusation of misrepresentation as proof that these accusations are wrong. Again, this might align with your prejudice, but is not proof of anything. The BBC could be unfairly misrepresenting the truth, in which case Israel would have a valid cause to complain.
Shachar
And silencing the other side's propaganda is sure a good place to start if you want to make your version of the story the official truth.
You just described BDS.
Shachar
My exact words were:
Please send me examples to my private mail (I think this is off topic here).
I did not call you a liar. I just asked you to provide specifics so we can discuss. In fact, I did not voice any opinion at all about the matter, as I'd like to have discussion based on facts, not opinions.
Shachar
A friend who worked for a company that was sold to Apple told me about an email their HR sent out. It went something like this:
Many people use the Apple logo in their email. Please note that people not using an Apple email program are unable to see it properly. For everyone else, this works fine.
Shachar
This is not passive aggressive. This is me stating my point of view. I'm sorry you somehow find it offensive.
dbIII somehow found me asking him to elaborate on why he claimed a certain claim as offensive. That is not how a civilized discussion takes place. That was my claim. You seem to conflate the discussion about a certain aspect of the conflict with the conflict itself. That is not uncivilized (and I don't think I accused you of that, but if I did, please accept my apology). It is, however, without sense to me.
To the point, however, I can see where the Palestinian depend on the conflict. It keeps money flowing in from supporters. It keeps internal discussion away from the PA's ability to function as a state/autonomy/whatever, as well as their corruption. Above all else, it provides the Palestinian leadership a catch-all scapegoat for everything that goes bad (it's Israel's occupation's fault).
I am more at a loss to see where Israel's interest in keeping the conflict is. Please do elaborate.
Shachar
Yeah, I don't think anything from the 1950's is comparable to post-communication revolution era.
Some of the incitations are Palestinian Authority sponsored. I guess those can change given enough political pressure (which, if recent years are any indication, no one is inclined to provide). The majority of this wave, however, is fuelled by either grass root, or (more likely) parties like Hammas, which are not as susceptible to such pressure.
Shachar
I was hoping for civilized discussion in this forum. Obviously, even that is too much to ask.
Regardless, saying "both sides are to blame" is just a generic dismissal. If you do not want to conduct this discussion, by all means stay out of it.
Shachar