The Israel Project- Global language dictionary

[KrustyKidd]

Can you explain what you mean by that, because I am not sure I understand your perspective.

Without getting into an involved discussion of Arab Israeli problems, the manual is not in itself evil just because people don't follow it.

[kuzadd]

Without getting into an involved discussion of Arab Israeli problems, the manual is not in itself evil just because people don't follow it.

There isn't really a need for a discussion on arab/israeli issues beyond the manual which is what this discussion is about.

The manual in itself is not "evil" but it is used for indoctrination and manipulation, and to claim it is not used is foolish, it was created for useage. It was not created for the sake of writing a book.

This is a book done by a PR firm on behalf of an Israeli group, to be used to 'manage' opinions and to appeal to or gain those that can be persuaded and it says that explicitly.

Why would you even say because people don't follow it, when it was bought and paid for to be followed???

[kuzadd]

In all, this is basically saying that we have to lower barriers and talk. Understanding that both have mutual needs in each others future. The spin put on it in the article is telling in that the author applies a blame Israel slant on all of the quotes. Quite the reverse to what the document intended.

...... in this post you quote from the report

QUOTE

“We are prepared to allow them to build…...”

If the Palestinians are to be seen as a trusted partner on the path to peace, they must not be subordinated, in perception or in practice, by the Israelis.

what are you agreeing with that Israel is prepared to allow them (palestinians) to build.

You ask me if I disagree with this?

I am not sure what specifically you are asking me wether I disagree or not??

the "we are prepared to allow them to build"

Or the fact that their should be no perception of subordination?

clarify?

[KrustyKidd]

...... in this post you quote from the report

QUOTE

“We are prepared to allow them to build…...”

If the Palestinians are to be seen as a trusted partner on the path to peace, they must not be subordinated, in perception or in practice, by the Israelis.

what are you agreeing with that Israel is prepared to allow them (palestinians) to build.

You ask me if I disagree with this?

I am not sure what specifically you are asking me wether I disagree or not??

the "we are prepared to allow them to build"

Or the fact that their should be no perception of subordination?

clarify?

Ultimately there should be complete equality Kuzadd. So, in open discussions providing both parties feel the same nobody should be as you say ... 'subordinated' and, allowed to build providing they are are likewise in tune with the goal of complete peace.

If Palestinians are then there is no reason why Israelis cannot as well hence the positive in the document which invokes your ire.

[kuzadd]

this is what you quoted in your post

I already brought it forward once, but here it is again

“We are prepared to allow them to build…...”

If the Palestinians are to be seen as a trusted partner on the path to peace, they must not be subordinated, in perception or in practice, by the Israelis.

the word subordinated came from the global language dictionary

You agree the Palestinians and Israeli's should be equals.

That is what you seem to be saying with this

"Ultimately there should be complete equality Kuzadd."

I agree, but that is not what is in the document.

That section you quoted from is from the "words that don't work" section.

IN that section using words like that is discouraged.

There is also nothing there about legitimate discourse

That is clear, in the words that don't work section, it talks about not using these words because they don't work. Those words fuel the fire to quote again from the global language dictionary, there is nothing, zero, zilch about legitimate building, or legitimate controls being given to Palestinians, there is nothing there about being equals.

It all boils down to saying the right things and nothing more, and this book doesn't pretend otherwise, which still has me wondering how are you drawing the conclusions that you are??

[KrustyKidd]

this is what you quoted in your post

I already brought it forward once, but here it is again

the word subordinated came from the global language dictionary

No it didn't. It came from the idiot who was giving his opinion on the damm thing.

TIP

WORDS THAT DON’T WORK

“We are prepared to allow them to build…...”

Idiot Writing Opinion Piece

If the Palestinians are to be seen as a trusted partner on the path to peace, they must not be subordinated, in perception or in practice, by the Israelis.

Kuzadd

the word subordinated came from the global language dictionary

[kuzadd]

KK: the person writing the opinion piece has quoted sections of the global language dictionary.

The idiot who wrote the opinion piece as you so eloquently mention quoted that section from the global language dictionary

example You attribute this to

"Idiot Writing Opinion Piece"

QUOTE

If the Palestinians are to be seen as a trusted partner on the path to peace, they must not be subordinated, in perception or in practice, by the Israelis.

that is from the dictionary, and I already explained where to find it.

go to page 8 of the dictionary

WORDS THAT DON’T WORK

“We are prepared to allow them to build…...”

Israelis cannot “allow” the Palestinians to move forward. They cannot “permit” or

“control” or “instruct” the Palestinians to establish commerce, transportation, or a

government. If the Palestinians are to be seen as a trusted partner on the path to peace,

they must not be subordinated, in perception or in practice, by the Israelis. There is

anxiety around activity in the Middle East. The way you talk about it should not add fuel

The fellow espousing his opinion may have based his opinion on this from page 8 of the dictionary, but these are not his words. This is where you are confused it seems?

The word subordination is from the global language dictionary.

Go to the page and read the passage yourself.

Now explain to me, how a dictionary of manipulative language useage has come to be interpreted by you as something else??

As I have already asked.

Edited July 18, 2009 by kuzadd

[KrustyKidd]

KK: the person writing the opinion piece has quoted sections of the global language dictionary.

The idiot who wrote the opinion piece as you so eloquently mention quoted that section from the global language dictionary

example You attribute this to

that is from the dictionary, and I already explained where to find it.

go to page 8 of the dictionary

The fellow espousing his opinion may have based his opinion on this from page 8 of the dictionary, but these are not his words. This is where you are confused it seems?

The word subordination is from the global language dictionary.

Go to the page and read the passage yourself.

Now explain to me, how a dictionary of manipulative language useage has come to be interpreted by you as something else??

As I have already asked.

Golly Kuzadd, the dictionary says that saying 'allowing' is a word that doesn't work, you agree, the guy writing the piece agrees and I agree. What the hell more do you want?

[kuzadd]

goodness, if you agree why didn't you say so from the start?

But just because one is not using a negative word, doesn't mean the negative action is not taking place.

Just because the propoganda dictionary says Do not say we will allow the Palestinians to build, doesn't mean Israel really will allow or is allowing them to build anything.

Empty words, don't accomplish goals.

would you agree?

[KrustyKidd]

goodness, if you agree why didn't you say so from the start?

I did.

But just because one is not using a negative word, doesn't mean the negative action is not taking place.

Just because the propoganda dictionary says Do not say we will allow the Palestinians to build, doesn't mean Israel really will allow or is allowing them to build anything.

Empty words, don't accomplish goals.

would you agree?

I do however what you continually fail to understand is that this is a tool to promote open dialogue, not an instruction and directive of government policy. In short, your thread is bullshit.

[kuzadd]

I did.

I do however what you continually fail to understand is that this is a tool to promote open dialogue, not an instruction and directive of government policy. In short, your thread is bullshit.

KK: the global language dictionary tells the reader exactly what it is and I have quoted from it to you, an obvious "persuadable" because somehow without trying you actually believe that a book, done by a pr firm is a tool to promote 'open' dialogue, yet the global language dictionary claims nothing of the sort.,

However, it persuaded you, somehow?

As for my thread being bullshit, while that may be your opinion, I think you demonstrated quite nicely how gullible some persons can be, that they can actually believe something is entirely not what it actually is.

Even when it is spelled out for yah!

This manual will provide you with many specific words and phrases to help you

communicate effectively in support of Israel. But what is the big picture? What are some

general guidelines that can help you in your future efforts? Here are the 25 points that matter

It is not to promote open dialogue, it is to garner support for Israel

"Persuadables won’t care how much you know until they know how much you care."

Apparently you are very, very persuadable??

[KrustyKidd]

It is not to promote open dialogue, it is to garner support for Israel

So if it said "This is designed to give arguments that will help us push the Zionist beasts into the sea" then it would be perfectly alright? If the Palestinians wish to make a dictionary to better explain their position and open dialogue with other nations then heck! I'm all for it. Why do you begrudge the Israelis from having one?

[Bonam]

So if it said "This is designed to give arguments that will help us push the Zionist beasts into the sea" then it would be perfectly alright? If the Palestinians wish to make a dictionary to better explain their position and open dialogue with other nations then heck! I'm all for it. Why do you begrudge the Israelis from having one?

For the same reason that Kuzadd and Dub begrudge Israelis from having anything else...

[kuzadd]

So if it said "This is designed to give arguments that will help us push the Zionist beasts into the sea" then it would be perfectly alright? If the Palestinians wish to make a dictionary to better explain their position and open dialogue with other nations then heck! I'm all for it. Why do you begrudge the Israelis from having one?

I don't.

Let's just be frank about what this book is.

as for the rest of your crap, well crap is what crap is.

[kuzadd]

For the same reason that Kuzadd and Dub begrudge Israelis from having anything else...

where have I or dub said anything remotely like that, could you provide the links please, or are you again putting words in peoples mouths that never have and never would come out of them.

Which wouldn't be the first time.

I do wonder, why is it you have to stoop so low, so often and cannot just discuss the topic???

[dub]

For the same reason that Kuzadd and Dub begrudge Israelis from having anything else...

i only begrudge israelis from having things that are not theirs, like the arab lands that they continue to steal and taking away the rights of both palestinians in the occupied lands and in israel.

if you've seen anything else besides those, quote me on it. otherwise, you'll end up looking like DoP.

[Bonam]

i only begrudge israelis from having things that are not theirs, like the arab lands that they continue to steal and taking away the rights of both palestinians in the occupied lands and in israel.

if you've seen anything else besides those, quote me on it. otherwise, you'll end up looking like DoP.

You begrudge them the land that they live upon and you begrudge them the right to be judged by the same standards as other nations around the world.

[dub]

You begrudge them the land that they live upon and you begrudge them the right to be judged by the same standards as other nations around the world.

we should judge everyone on the same standard set for everyone. a standard we're all a signatory to.

israel is violating international law by having the illegal settlements there and continuing to expand them. not to mention other violations which have already been mentioned.

[dub]

so are you going to find comments made by myself or kuzadd to support your statement:

"For the same reason that Kuzadd and Dub begrudge Israelis from having anything else..."

[Bonam]

so are you going to find comments made by myself or kuzadd to support your statement:

"For the same reason that Kuzadd and Dub begrudge Israelis from having anything else..."

I and most others here know what I am referring to. As do you. My meaning is abundantly clear given the content of my previous post and the context of your (and kuzadd's) various anti-Israel threads over the past few weeks/months. Are you gonna start feigning ignorance again, like you did in this thread?

[dub]

I and most others here know what I am referring to. As do you. My meaning is abundantly clear given the content of my previous post and the context of your (and kuzadd's) various anti-Israel threads over the past few weeks/months. Are you gonna start feigning ignorance again, like you did in this thread?

so you're saying that you can't find comments to support your claim that 'myself and kuzadd begrudge israelis from having anything else'?

[Bonam]

so you're saying that you can't find comments to support your claim that 'myself and kuzadd begrudge israelis from having anything else'?

No I am saying that just about every one of your comments supports precisely that. Your endless focus on Israel clearly shows that you seek to criticize that nation above and beyond any others, clearly demonstrating that you hold them to a different standard. Your opposition to Jews being allowed to live on the land they presently live upon stands in clear contradiction with your supposed concern for other peoples to have the right to live on land they claim is theirs. You point to aid money given to Israel by the US as a mistake, and yet do not oppose aid money given to other nations. And that doesn't even scratch the surface of it.

[dub]

No I am saying that just about every one of your comments supports precisely that.

no it doesn't. you're being dishonest.

my 'endless focus' is on israel's violation of international law. not sure why you have a problem with that or equating that to me, begruding israelis from having anything else.

i haven't talked about anything that does not involve breaking international law, so your statement about me 'begrudging israelis from having anything else' is dishonest.

i made a false comment about krusty and after he showed that i was wrong, i admitted to it and i apologized.

if you are not willing to admit to your false claims, and want to continue to defame me and others, i rather not continue discussions with you.

[kuzadd]

Your opposition to Jews being allowed to live on the land they presently live upon stands in clear contradiction with your supposed concern for other peoples to have the right to live on land they claim is theirs.

tsk, tsk tsk Bonam, when the going get's tough the weak start hurling unsubstantiated accusations and resort to a name calling tactic.

I know this comment was addressed to another poster, but.... I can't help but notice.

Opposition to Jews living on lands they presently live upon, nice and vague, not addressing the fact of the illegal 60 year occupation, not addressing the fact of the illegal settlements and the illlegal land grabs.

But then Bonam doesn't like facts.

Just the facts, Bonam wants to play games with facts, and the intent to mislead with that sentence made it clear.

Like the fact that Israeli kids don't learn about Palestine, like the fact that Israel kids are indoctrinated with hate and militarism, like the fact that the only democracy ,alleged, in the ME has segregation buses.

And that the only alleged democracy in the ME wants to deny Palestinians the right to talk about the Nakba, to commemorate the loss of their country and their homes and their lands. Is that what a true democratic state does?

Does a democratic state suppress free speech, subjugate women etc.,

A theocracy, a dictatorship, maybe, but a democracy, no.

If the suppression of freespeech is to be condemned in Iran, and I agree, then isn't it also to be condemned in Israel.

Or do your double standards apply?

btw: dub is clear international law is the basis of claims for injustice, and it would seem Israel should be held equally accountable, not less.

Then this claim that they are a democratic society, equality and justice, should see them held to a higher standard then some tin pot dictatorship.

Me, I'll expect a volley of slurs, insinuations and name calling from you now....

It seems to really be about all you have going on.

Edited July 26, 2009 by kuzadd

[bush_cheney2004]

btw: dub is clear international law is the basis of claims for injustice, and it would seem Israel should be held equally accountable, not less.

Then this claim that they are a democratic society, equality and justice, should see them held to a higher standard then some tin pot dictatorship....

So when will we see devotion of some righteous international law bandwidth for Palenstinian authority / organization, other democratic states, or even undemocratic states, if adherence to "international law" actually is the purpose of these threads?

Why the unrelenting focus on Israel?