Friday, February 29, 2008
I thought it worth pulling out the issue of whether or not an Israeli minister threatened a "Holocaust" on the Gaza Arabs that I referred to below. He did not, actually, but that's not going to prevent a firestorm, aided and abetted by non-Hebrew speaking foreign press, and Hebrew speakers who will find the controversy useful.
Let's take The Telegraph's Tim Butcher as an example: Israeli minister vows Palestinian 'holocaust'
A senior Israeli politician provoked controversy today when he warned that Palestinians firing rockets from Gaza would be punished with a "bigger holocaust" from Israeli armed forces.
The use of the Hebrew word for holocaust, "shoah", tends to be used exclusively in Israel to describe the Nazi persecution of Jews.
Palestinian activists routinely claim to be suffering a "shoah" at the hands of Israel, but the Jewish state normally denies any moral equivalence between the suffering of Palestinians today and European jewry under the Nazis.
Matan Vilnai, deputy defence minister, broke that taboo when he used the term "shoah" during interview on Army Radio.
"The more qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they (the Palestinians) will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," he said...
Even after official clarifications, Butcher admits:
...This was not enough to placate Palestinians who sought to exploit the use of the word...
...aided by a foreign press looking for a sensational story and relying on poor translations for it. Butcher's story is based on a lie. Native Hebrew speakers feel free to correct me, but I'm given to understand that what Melanie Phillips says in her post about this is correct (referring to a Reuters version of the story):
...'shoah' merely means disaster. In Hebrew, the word 'shoah' is never used to mean 'holocaust' or 'genocide' because of the acute historical resonance. The word 'Hashoah' alone means 'the Holocaust' and 'retzach am' means 'genocide'. The well-known Hebrew construction used by Vilnai used merely means 'bringing disaster on themselves'...
Note the weasel words in Butcher's piece (bolded above). "Tends". Really? In fact, shoah is a common word such as "Shoah Kalkalit" = "an economic disaster". The record was already clarified, but the author chose to go with the most sensational version. Note that, amazingly enough, the IHT/AP story linked below actually gets it right and, though it has its flaws, manages to report on some of the important happenings, while Butcher (and others) simply get hung up on the created scandal. So much for journalism that informs.
Did I say informs? Let me ask you, would a decent journalist trumpet the sensation even after the record had been corrected and the truth of the matter checked? I speculate he went with this angle because it suited his own purpose. I think he wasn't interested in informing as much as he wanted to manipulate -- because this non-scandal was useful, so he neglected responsibility and took the opportunity to spread a slander and framed his own language carefully to try to cover himself. He framed it juuust right so what he said might be construed as technically correct while misleading at the same time (We'll be generous and assume it was an editor that created the lie in the title of story). He gets to be an actor in the saga while smearing and demonizing the Israelis, making a difficult situation more difficult and stirring up even more hatred. Am I being unfair?
Hamas is already making use of it:
Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas's prime minister in the Gaza Strip, said: "This is a proof of Israel's pre-planned aggressive intentions against our people. They want the world to condemn what they call the Holocaust and now they are threatening our people with a holocaust."
Well done.
The overriding question is, did Vilnai mean to imply genocide or not? Any Hebrew speaker knows he did not. Is it responsible journalism to repeat what's obviously being disorted?
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Mistranslation. . .But They Should Know Better.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/14275
Dave has been liveblogging. The press has been doing its best to show how truly useless they are in helping people to understand the why's and wherefores, as we've seen. There's simply too much bad reporting out there to even... Read More
Of course it isn't responsible journalism.
Which leads to the next question: what are these fools playing at? Are they trying to create a disaster and foment war?
The crowd on the Engage website went into apocalyptic transports as soon as the story was posted. I thought if I contributed from my knowledge as Hebrew-speaker and professional translator to explain the meaning of the word and its common usage, they would calm down, but the response there was the most bizarre yet.
Shoah in Hebrew parlance means disaster. "The Shoah" is the Holocaust, (Ha-Shoah). It usually comes with its own special verb: "Le-hamit shoah", to bring upon someone or something a disaster. Hebrew speakers use it to describe a nuclear disaster (shoah garinit), among other usages. The Holocaust, when brought up to by Hebrew speakers is always, always, always referred to as "Ha-Shoah", THE Shoah, to differentiate from any other shoah.
Recently I ran in this article in which the writer makes a lot of fuss over the meaning of "Kadima", Olmert's party. It means, he says "Eastwards". Well, it's not. It means something else in Modern Hebrew ("onwards"). But how would he know that, if someone who wanted it to be “eastwards” told him differently?
A lot of mischief can be whipped up out of lack of familiarity with a language.
I find disturbing this gleeful pouncing and rush to condemn and express outrage before you make sure you fully understand what the WORDS mean...
Seems to me that some commenters seem determined to give this phrasing at this time a particularly sinister meaning. Why? Is it because you believe that Vilnai blurted out some secret plan, or wish, when all he did was use perfectly idiomatic Hebrew to warn Gazans that they should expect more disasters to befall upon them if they continue with their qassam violence? If so, what could account for such readiness to attribute the worst possible meaning to an Israeli politician's use of such a phrase?
what are these fools playing at?
... seem determined to give this phrasing at this time a particularly sinister meaning. Why?
because they are out to vilify the Jews in any possible manner.
Wake up to the reality.
These media types are viciously anti Israel because it permits them another crack at the Jew,
After the Second World war a lot of them found the situation stifling as they were forced to withhold their feelings from public attention; but now in the PC multiculty and diversity installed censorship of the 21st century Free Speech has been deformed to permit this mess of lies, innuendo, disinformation and hypocrisy entitled News.
That's all well and good, but Vilnai should have known better than to use the term "shoah."
I don't care if, in Hebrew, the proper word for "Holocaust" is "Hashoah" and for "genocide" "retzach am." The rest of humanity, outside of the five million or so people who are Hebrew speaking, doesn't know that! On the other hand, many non-Israelis are familiar with the word "Shoah," and know it as a synonym for "the Holocaust." Note that "Shoah" is the title of that famous film about the Holocaust by Claude Lanzmann. That's where most people learned the word. Hell, that's where *I* learned the word.
That unsympathetic journalists will distort what Israeli politicians say should come as no surprise. That Hamas would exploit any such distortions should come as no surprise. And that the world press would repeat Hamas' answers without scrutiny should come as no surprise. So when an Israeli politician makes a statement about Israeli policies towards the Palestinians, he should be savvier about his use of language.
Sure, "shoah" may be a generic term for any kind of disaster: "shoah garinit" for nuclear disaster, "shoah kalkalit" for economic disaster, etc. But the outside world doesn't know that! The world doesn't pay close attention to the variable uses of the word, or to any nuances in the Hebrew language in politics or in everyday life. I doubt that most foreign journalists based in Jerusalem even bother to learn any Hebrew. The world does pay attention, however, when Israel makes hostile pronouncements about the Palestinians.
Of course, the behavior of the press, as reported and commented on above, is execrable. But I still moan when I see evidence of Israeli cluelessness when it comes to dealing with the world media.
The essence of good translation was transmitting the gist of your subject matter not nit-picking over what each individual word means in isolation.
In this case however, even in isolation this is a clear mistranslation.
I did checked in Even Shohan dictionary which is the most authoritative source on Hebrew. Fifth volume the word Mot (Mem Vav Tet) page 1539 : Humta Shoah (this is in past tense to what the Minister used 'Lehamit Shoah') - meaning according to the dictionary: "a great disaster was caused".
Reuters , Times, Daily Telegarph and the BBC ever considered what the ramifications in this explosive part of the word to propagate a wrong translation and make it "a threat of holocaust " (when clearly it was not) The Palestinian press , al jazira today are not very different from the British press.
The only correct translation in this context: Disaster.
btw, the same verb is used in "lehamit Herpa al atzmo": to bring upon a disgrace upon one self.
Now we are witnessing the "Jenin Massacre" all over again. How many martyrs will be drafted because this manufactored news by the British press ?
Who will suffer: Jews and Arabs. Just like the mess the Brits left in the 1920s-1940s.
Last time I was working in Israel and the Occupied Territories, I used shoah to mean disaster and was caustioned to use ason instead because of the association of shoah with the Holocaust.
I just checked Avraham Zilkha's Modern English-Hebrew dictionary (2002), and it recommends ason in lieu of shoah for both disaster and catastrophe.
Joachim, since you are not a Native American, you are an OCCUPIER.
When will you end YOUR OCCUPATION of North America?
Which country will you return to?
Sorry, Martin, that I haven't posted in a while. My take on this is that it was no accidental misuse of the word. Rather, it was a calculated attempt om the part of Reuters to once again engage in the twisted, perverse act of turning Jews into Nazis. I call it linguistic terrorism........
BHG
Don't argue with martilo. trolls should not be fed.
If he wants he could have used Even Shoshan dictionary which is the best and most comprehensive. Look up the verb and the idiom Vilnai used - they are both covered in the dictionary.
Zilkha focuses on contemporary usage while Even Shoshan is a comprehensive reference.
Zilkha was almost always on the mark with contemporary usage as of 2002-2005. Even Shoshan was not.
As for the theft of land from native Americans, obviously a grave injustice was done to them as most non-native Americans would admit. (Personally, I think we should give native Americans the status of a hereditary aristocracy.)
In contrast to most non-native Americans, bigoted and racist ethnic Ashkenazi Americans and Israeli Zionist thieves and interlopers practically never concede that they are guilty of heinous genocide in murdering Arab Palestine.
Dismantling the Zionist state, removing the criminal Zionist population, and trying the Zionist leadership for their war crimes and crimes against humanity would be a good way for Americans to show atonement for the crimes committed against native Americans.
In any case, Zionism is inherently a terrorist ideology, and American Zionists give material aid to terrorism. American Zionists should be arrested and all their assets and the assets of their organizations seized.
Seizing Zionist assets would be a good start to start repairing the damage that Zionist manipulations have done to the US economy while sending American Zionists to Guantanamo-style camps where they could be water-boarded to gather data on the extent of the Zionist conspiracy against America would be a good way to eliminate the threat which American Zionists represent to the American Constitutional system.
(See Judonia Rising Working Paper Part 1,
Jewish, Zionist War Against Salvation, and the Chris Hedges comment.)
Martilian fantasies:
"Dismantling the Zionist state, removing the criminal Zionist population, and trying the Zionist leadership for their war crimes and crimes against humanity ..."
"Seizing Zionist assets would be a good start ... while sending American Zionists to Guantanamo-style camps where they could be water-boarded to gather data on the extent of the Zionist conspiracy against America would be a good way to eliminate the threat which American Zionists represent to the American Constitutional system."
I remember watching a documentary once about Jeffrey Dahmer, where he confessed to the interviewer that his inner fantasies were practically unshareable with any person. I see Martillo is not assailed by such delicacy of mind...
I also often wonder where he gets these ideas, and I wonder if Martillo represents only himself or does he speak ideas and language of an entire movement ...
Tut, tut, "Joachaim Martillo". YOU as a racist, Islamofascist phillic, non-Native American OCCUPIER, are a HYPOCRITE.
All the benefit you derive from your OPPRESSIVE occupation of Native American land must end. AND I expect YOU to make MONETARY RESTITUTION to Native Americans as you pack up your belongings to leave. Any property you have will be forfeited to Native Americans. Your THEFT MUST END "Joachim Martillo".
I ask you "Joachim Martillo", which country will YOU emigrate to, thus ending YOUR OCCUPATION of Native American land.
You will not find a home in PaleSWINE with a name like "Joachim Martillo".
How about the Turd Reich?
Vilnai certainly could have used ason but did not. He was sending a message with the ambiguity of meaning.
I have certainly read and heard the expressions shoah sheniyah and shoah aheret (second Holocaust, other Holocaust). Ha- is not required for the word to mean Holocaust.
http://library.osu.edu/sites/jdc/0505html.htm provides online examples.
Cohen, Miriam
Me-ahore ha-homot : yaldat Shoah tahat kanfe ha-minzar ha-meayem / sipurah shel Hanah K. kefi she-supar le-Miryam Kohen ; ibud va-arikhah, Shifrah Glik -- Yerushalayim : Feldhaim, 2002.
256 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Gertz, Nurith
Makhelah aheret : nitsole Shoah, zarim ve-aherim ba-kolnoa uva-sifrut ha-Yisreelim / Nurit Gerts -- Tel Aviv : Am oved ; ha-Universitah ha-petuhah, 2004.
213 p. : ill. ; 23 cm. (Sifriyat ofakim ; 242)
Title on title page verso: Holocaust survivors, aliens and others in Israeli cinema and literature.
In these two cases Shoah is being used as a proper name comparable to Yisrael or Yavan (Yawan).
In any case, I do not understand the logic which seems to run,
because GB and the USA committed crimes against Native Americans, the USA must continue to support a racist Zionist state in the ME, and Israel advocates, Israel Lobbying Organizations and Jewish communal organizations should be given immunity from prosecution for the violation of the US civil and criminal code.
Please explain.
While the USA has an ethical obligation to abolish the State of Israel, eradicate Zionism, and try American and Israeli Zionist leaders for international and US crimes, we Americans have to put an end to Zionism because of the damage it does to the USA and not because of the harm to Palestinians and the ME.
And BTW the chain of title for my property goes back to a native American that converted to Christianity and assimilated into colonial culture.
His great-grandchildren sold the property to a non-native American.
Martillo: You are undoing your own mythology by proving you understand nothing about Hebrew grammar:
Yaldat shoah - is the "leaning" structure for: yalda shel ha-shoah. The "leaning" structure in Hebrew intends to provide a shorter and more elegant way of saying the same. The definite article (ha- the)is included and implied in this structure. If it were written "yaldat ha-shoah" it would mean: Ha-yalda shel ha-shoah, the daughter of the Holocaust
Same goes for "nitsole Shoah", nitzolim shel hashoah. Survivors of the Holocaust.
Your examples fail to prove your point.
Joachim Martillo, because the rest of the World has chosen, at this time, to APPEASE Islamofascist thuggery that has brought the 'wonders" of
- Londons 7/7
- Madrids 3/11
- Pan Am 103
- Beslan school massacre (186 CHILDREN were murdered)
- destruction of the 1,500 year old Buddahs of Bamiyan Afghanistan
- 1993 bombing of the WTC
- Bali bombings
- Beheadings of bound innocents, on video, with screams of "allah akhbar"
- Beltway sniper John MOHAMMED
- Poison gas (Saddams WMD) murders of 5,000 Kurds in Halabja Iraq
- 8 year Islamofascist Regime of iran/Iraq War
- the Islamofascist Regime of irans genocidal threats against the "Zionist Entity"
- near nuclear War between Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan (carved out of Hindu India) over land - Kashmir
- Damour Lebanon massacre
- "honor killings"
- Philistinian use of CHILDREN as HUMAN SHIELDS of military sites
- Every airport in the World needs security screening of passengers, thanks to Joachim Martillos "Peaceful islam"
- 9/11 hijacking of 4 commercial airliners by as the Finsbury Park Mosque in London calls them "The Magnificent 19"
Post 9/11 US has taken on the herculean task to crush and dismember the Islamofascist threat that you hold so dear.
Sadly, as in the dark days before WW2, the World sat by as YOUR nazi Germany invaded one country after another.
The price the World paid was too dear, would have been less if good people stood up to EVIL.
YOU Joachim Martillo defend Islamofascist EVIL.
BTW, Joachim Martillo, you are not Native American.
GET OFF OF NATIVE AMERICAN LAND.
END YOUR OCCUPATION OF NATIVE AMERICAN LAND.
YOUR BENEFIT from the OPPRESSION of Native Americans MUST END.
Where will you sail to?
The Cuban dictatorship?
Dear Noga,
Either you are lying or you know much less Hebrew grammar than I.
Yaldat shoah - is the "leaning" structure for: yalda shel ha-shoah. The "leaning" structure in Hebrew intends to provide a shorter and more elegant way of saying the same. The definite article (ha- the)is included and implied in this structure. If it were written "yaldat ha-shoah" it would mean: Ha-yalda shel ha-shoah, the daughter of the Holocaust
Same goes for "nitsole Shoah", nitzolim shel hashoah. Survivors of the Holocaust.
You are using Shoah as an event that takes an article.
Those phrases are using Shoah as a proper name.
In other words there is a conceptual difference among
the Kingdom of the Holocaust -- Malkhut Hashoah
and
the Kingdom of Holocaust -- Malkhut Shoah.
Both are determinate but
the first is like
melekh haaretz -- the king of the land
the second is like the king of Israel
melekh yisrael.
A king of Israel would be melekh shel yisrael or in Classical Hebrew melekh leyisrael.
You did not get my point.
Let's take your example again, "yaldat shoah":
It means: Daughter of the Holocaust.
"hee yaldat shoah"
She is a daughter of the Holocaust.
A daughter, among other daughters.
"hee yaldat ha-shoah"
She is the daugter of the Holocaust. The "ha" in Ha-shoah in this formulation is meant to specifize this particular daughter of the Holocaust.
_______
Because "shoah" is a generic term for disaster, catastrophe, there is a need in Hebrew to make doubly sure when we speak of the Holocaust and not just any disaster, which is why "shoah" is dignified with "Ha".
Israel ("Yisarel") is a name. It's like Noga. Or Martillo. It is specific. The daughter of Martillo (yaldat Martillo)is enough to tell us which person we are talking about. Unless there are a few Martillos present, in which case, we would say: The daughter of THE Martillo (yaldat ha-Martillo. You know, THE Martillo who suffers from pathological antisemitism?
Get it?
Joahcim Martillo, ARROGANT supporter of
- RACIST
- MISOGYNIST
- MURDEROUS
- CHILD HUMAN SHIELD using
- CHILD SOLDIER using
ISLAMOFASCIST DEATH CULT called PaleSWINE
AND an OCCUPIER of NATIVE AMERICAN land to boot.
Joachim Martillo, HYPOCRITE, "progressive" appeaser of nazitional socialism.
Too bad for Joachim that the Israelis are not the unarmed Jews of his WW2 nazi vermin infested Europe.
I would add that the continued existence of Mecca and the Kabba depend on the actions of the IslamoFASCIST Regime ruling tehran.
1.6 billion muslims will never defeat 4.6 billion NON-muslims.
Noga, go get a good Hebrew grammar in either Hebrew or English.
Yaldat Shoah means either a daughter of a disaster, a daughter of a holocaust, or the daughter of Holocaust (used as a proper name in which case the whole phrase is considered definite, the case of the two example book titles I listed.).
I have heard all three usages when I was in Israel, and for this reason I was cautioned to use ason for catastrophe or disaster.
Vilnai knew exactly that his usage was ambiguous, and I have no doubt it was completely purposeful.
Joachim Martillo would not fit in Israel.
I suggest PaleSWINE, near a hamas rocket crew, in the sights of a Hellfire missile equipped Israeli Apache helicopter.
Martillo: I'm not surprised that you can't accept simple, verifiable grammatical rules in Hebrew usage. They are pretty complicated for anyone not brought up in Hebrew to understand. I used to translate novels and articles into Hebrew. You'll need to offer a bit more of a substantial information if you want anyone to take your word seriously.
I have an idea: How about writing to the Jerusalem Academy of the Hebrew Language and asking them? Do let us know what they tell you.
Martilo,
Yaldat Shoah means one and only one thing in Hebrew: Yaldfa shel Ha-Shoah.
Enough with you bull shit.
Thanks Yal,
You just demonstrated that the BBC did not mistranslate when it translated Shoah without a determinate ha- as Holocaust.
I was trying to make that point.
In any case
yaldah shel HaShoah means a girl of the Holocaust
hayaldah shel hashoah would mean the girl of the Holocaust.
In theory
yaldatah shel hashoah would mean either a or the girl of the Holocaust, but to be honest I have never heard it.
yaldat shoah would mean either a girl of a holocaust or the girl of Holocaust if Holocaust is viewed as a name-word that is inherently determined.
yaldat hashoah means the girl of the Holocaust with no ambiguity.
And Noga, you were apparently a lousy translator.
I just checked Haiim B. Rosen's A Textbook of Israeli Hebrew. He seems to agree with me.
You can find his biographical sketch at http://books.google.com/books?id=TKnAWRB8N8EC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22Haiim+Rosen%22&source=web&ots=m0ixhqLXe1&sig=Mn9K-XAO5u2Rop-h4CdRkkbkNEk&hl=en#PPT1,M1 .
Martillo:
You response to Yal shows me that you did not understand my first answer here.
Here it is again:
Yaldat shoah is a "leaning" structure, a construct state, constructed of two nouns: yalda and ha-shoah.
You can say Holocaust child in Hebrew in two ways:
yalda shel ha-shoah
or
yaldat shoah.
If you want to say THE Holocaust child, it is:
Yaldat ha-shoah,
The definite article is joined to the second noun but it is meant for the first, and the whole construct will mean something a little different: hayalda shel ha-shoah = the child of the Holocaust (to diferentiate from the many other children of the Holocaust)
In all your examples, shoah is accompanied by the definite article. In the construct state, the "Ha" is subsumed into the binary and disappears but it is implied.
These examples all show that "shoah" designates a generic disaster. Ha-shoah is specific for the Holocaust. At least that's how it is done in Israel.
Maybe where you were told such and such was not Israel, but some other Hebrew speaking country with different linguistic rules.
Why don't you follow my suggestion? Call or write to, the Academy for the Hebrew Language in Jerusalem. They will clarify the matter for you.
It is the staple of the pygmie mind of antisemites that they cannot debate without lurching into debased language and vulgar gratuitous ad hominems.
We do not normally use Holocaust child in English without an article, I have to ask what you mean.
Do you mean a Holocaust girl or the Holocaust girl?
Let's start with the latter.
the Holocaust girl could mean either
the child of the Holocaust or
the child of a Holocaust.
I would say the former
yaldat hashoah,
the second as
hayaldah shel shoah (actually I would probably say hayaldah bshoah).
If you mean a Holocaust child, you could be referring to
a child of the Holocaust or
a child of a Holocaust.
The former is:
yaldah shel hashoah, the latter
yaldat shoah.
Sometimes shoah is used as a proper noun in which case there is no indefinate construct.
Now I will concede that many modern Israeli Hebrew speakers use the definite article incorrectly.
For example, I have heard:
avodat bait kashah -- House work is hard.
In prescriptive MIH, it should be avodat habait kashah because the generic or abstract concept in Hebrew should be definite.
I remember seeing a bilingual t-shirt that said
Laisat al-harb lughatiy
Milhamah lo lashon sheli.
The Arabic was correct, but really the second sentence should be
Einah hamilhamah leshoniy,
but no one says it that way.
Anyway, I think we can now agree on the basis of your comments that shoah does not need a definite article to mean shoah, and Vilnai knew exactly what he was saying.
It's useless. Trying to explain the hebrew language to a person who knows little or no Hebrew, is like trying to explain the colour red to a colour-blind person. In your case, it's a colour blind person who insists he can see colours.
"Anyway, I think we can now agree on the basis of your comments that shoah does not need a definite article to mean shoah, and Vilnai knew exactly what he was saying"
That's a pretty stupid conclusion since the whole dispute revolved around whether "Shoah" in Hebrew means only, and nothing but, Ha-Shoah (the Holocaust), or whether "Shoah", when used as singular, independent noun "shoah" can mean something else, like a "disaster".
Go check your dictionaries again. Or write to the Academy for the Hebrew Language, in Jerusalem.
BTW, the only reason I'm wasting my time with you is because I know many others read this blog and would be interested in knowing the accurate, and responsible, translation of Vilnai's words.
You've done an excellent job, Noga. I think the record is quite clear at this point. We have native Hebrew speakers and a professional translator arguing with someone armed with a dictionary whose other statements make it quite clear what his motivations are. Point made.
Here is Haaretz on the issue ( http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959532.html ). [Note that Haaretz does not insult its reader's intelligence with a stupid discussion of hashoah versus shoah.]
I have not seen much evidence of a great deal of Hebrew linguistic competence in this forum. (To be fair, I had the impression from working in Israel that only about 1/3 of the population could function at university level in Hebrew.)
Can Noga point me to an online example of her translation and the original Hebrew?
http://contentious-centrist.blogspot.com/2008/01/sharon-was-against-separation-fence.html
http://contentious-centrist.blogspot.com/2006/08/nurith-zur-in-todays-maariv-wonders.html
Martillo, you are forever insulting peoples' intelligence and their moral sense. It's both telling and ripe that you would describe a discussion that illuminates the difference between Ha-Shoah and shoah as "insulting."
You remain, to paraphrase Churchill, a mephitic wrapped in a wastreling excess inside a casuist.
Martilo,
You are such an asshole. I wrote to you that "Yaldat Shoah" means "Yalda Shel Ha-Shoah".
Meaning that Holocaust is "Ha-shoah" (not Shoah alone). So you have thanked me as if I proved your point and only demostrated your own lack of knowledge in Hebrew since when you use "smichut" (surly and Hebrew expert like you knows what "smivhut" is) as in "Yaldat Shoah" the "Ha" in "Hashoah" is dropped...... So in Henrew you either have:
"Yalda Shel Ha-shoah" or "Yaldat Shoah" (for short).
But the main point is not to argue Hebrew gramer with ass holes like you . The main point is what EVERY Hebrew speaker would know when he heard Vilnai words. He was predicting that the Palestinians increase the disaster they already have by increasing the range of their missiles.
You know what the UN , Abu mazen they all agree: gazans are causing a disaster for themselfs.
Israel = "Ha-aretz"
Country = "Aretz"
Abroad in smichot = Hootz Le-aretz . "Ha" is dropped.
Got that ass hole ?
And to top it off, Joachim Martillo is a HYPOCRITE OCCUPIER of Native American land.
Somehow this got lost in tranlation: Mr. Martillo, in addition to ignoring the logical linguistic explanations presented above, thinks it would be acceptable for the US to atone for the sins of our own past, by brutally dispossessing the Jewish people and, I might add, the other citizens of modern Israel.
I guess this would then enable these folks to live in a happy dictatorship like Egypt or Syria, where dissent will land you jail; KSA, where rape victims are jailed and lashed; or maybe a country like Lebanon - on the brink of civil war, menaced by armed "political parties" as well as the dictator next door, where journalists and progressive politicians get blown up by car bombs; or maybe Iraq - in a state of open civil war and beset by terrorism - definitely, I'm sure, this would atone for the dispossession of the Native Americans? - unreal. Just unreal - is this the thinking of the "new left" or just the thinking of a nut?
This is a particularly brutal kind of "logic": "I will pay for the sins of my ancestors/founders of my nation, by creating millions of new victims, who had absolutely nothing to do with the sins of my ancestors/founders of my nation".
Does anybody else see the utter moral bankruptcy of this position?
It's also the very essence of the term "scapegoat." The scapegoat literally bears the sins of the entire community - yet - isn't the goat himself innocent?
Scapegoating the Jewish community has a long and terrible history. Demonizing Israel for the ill-considered choice of word - one word of one Israeli minister - is classic stereotyping and it's bigotry - especially as Sol points out in his "cavalcade of hate" post, when this ONE example is confronted with decades of examples from the rest of the world.
Meanwhile this is bound to create yet more violence, build more walls between people, instead of making it possible to create workable solutions.
Shame indeed.
Ah, Sophia, I don't think you quite realize where Martillo is coming from, ideologically. Making these kind of logical ethical arguments to him is like you were trying to speak reasonably with Julius Streicher.