leaked "Israel Porject's 2009 Global Language Dictionary" http://www.newsweek.com/id/206021
Never talk about “giving” the Palestinians something. It reminds people that you’re in the stronger position.
Avoid head-on attacks on your opponents. Use a soft tone. Show regret that the Palestinians have been led so poorly.
Draw direct parallels between Israel and America. Imagine if more than 250 times terrorists had crossed into our land and killed our children while they were riding bikes or eating pizza. What would America do?
Don't talk about religion. Americans who see the Bible as their sourcebook on foreign affairs are already Israel's "Amen Choir." However, some of those who are most likely to believe that Israel is a religious state are the most hostile toward Israel. Even the mention of the word "Jew" is going to elicit a negative reaction.
While Jews make up a bigger percentage of the campus population, the Palestinian students are better informed, more knowledgeable and most important, better able to communicate their beliefs. Worse yet, the pro Israeli tone is often loud and emotional, while the Palestinian reaction is come and rational. If you are faced with an overly aggressive foe, use a rhetorical approach.
"Economic diplomacy" is a more embracing and popular term than "sanctions." It has appeal across the political spectrum: the tough economic approach appeals to Republicans, and the diplomacy component satisfies the Democrats.
Advocate a policy of "prevention." Stay away from anything "preemption"-oriented. That brings up too many bad associations with recent American foreign policy.
although really for anything that isn't related to terrorism or losing an election, you just say "got hurt? blame the victim!"; remember, it's never the fault of conservative america
OK, I have been a member of this community for barely a week, if that, and even I want you to quit it.
Plus, way to assume that all liberals are pro-Hamas, stupid cartoonist. I am very much a Zionist myself, though quite open to criticizing Israel's actions when they merit criticism.
Also, by the way, as someone who's heard your "criticism of Israel makes you an anti-Semite" rhetoric at close range in the past, I just want to say that if you read more articles like this one (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1124928.html?), you'd come across as better informed, with a more-balanced opinion, and less of a shrill, AIPAC-touting hack.
Some have suggested that IDF could have used less harmful munitions, or used the munitions in a less harmful manner, to achieve the same military objective, for example, by using smoke munitions without white phosphorous or by firing the munitions as ground-burst rather than air-burst projectiles. However, neither of these alternatives provides the same military advantages...
Targeting the munitions at the ground rather than exploding them high in the air would fail to achieve the area of dispersal required for military purposes and would actually result in much more severe damage to buildings and persons on the ground.
The IDF took several precautions and other measures that were appropriate with respect to these particular munitions. First, the munitions were used only for the purpose for which they were designed, i.e. to create smoke screens, rather than to attack personnel or destroy buildings, purposes for which IDF has a variety of more effective munitions. Second, the use of felt wedges soaked in white phosphorous tends to further reduce dispersal of the substance and its incendiary side effects as compared to exploding munitions containing white phosphorous. Third, the smoke projectiles were employed using delay fuses which release the felt components of the projectile at a distance of at least 100 metres above the ground. This method (as opposed to the use of contact fuses), is consistent with the use of the projectiles for smoke-screening purposes only. Furthermore, air-bursting the munitions at a considerable distance above ground meant that it was less likely that any person or building would be harmed by the explosions.
... after reports of an incident on 15 January 2009 during combat in Tel al-Hawa in which white phosphorous smoke projectiles set fire to a UNRWA warehouse, an IDF directive was issued, effective through the end of the Gaza Operation, establishing a safety buffer of several hundred metres from sensitive sites when using smoke projectiles.
...In the case of smoke munitions containing white phosphorous, the expected military benefit was that they would protect Israeli forces from attack: a compelling military objective. Against this objective, one must weigh the anticipated risk of harm to civilians and property from the use of smoke munitions, which are designed to be a non-lethal type of munition. The non-lethal nature of smoke screens when compared to the effect of explosive munitions was particularly important, given that Hamas and other terrorist organisations sought to blend in with the civilian population, making it difficult or impossible to use explosive munitions without inflicting substantial civilian casualties.
true, but i for one don't blame jews in general for anything. i do, however, blame the israeli government for a lot. same thing applies to americans and the american government.
Sorry, I have no fucking sympathy for the Israeli "Defense" Force. They have an air force and their enemies have nothing whatsoever that can shoot down a plane. Fuck Israel.
no subject
no subject
http://www.newsweek.com/id/206021
Never talk about “giving” the Palestinians something. It reminds people that you’re in the stronger position.
Avoid head-on attacks on your opponents. Use a soft tone. Show regret that the Palestinians have been led so poorly.
Draw direct parallels between Israel and America. Imagine if more than 250 times terrorists had crossed into our land and killed our children while they were riding bikes or eating pizza. What would America do?
Don't talk about religion. Americans who see the Bible as their sourcebook on foreign affairs are already Israel's "Amen Choir." However, some of those who are most likely to believe that Israel is a religious state are the most hostile toward Israel. Even the mention of the word "Jew" is going to elicit a negative reaction.
While Jews make up a bigger percentage of the campus population, the Palestinian students are better informed, more knowledgeable and most important, better able to communicate their beliefs. Worse yet, the pro Israeli tone is often loud and emotional, while the Palestinian reaction is come and rational. If you are faced with an overly aggressive foe, use a rhetorical approach.
"Economic diplomacy" is a more embracing and popular term than "sanctions." It has appeal across the political spectrum: the tough economic approach appeals to Republicans, and the diplomacy component satisfies the Democrats.
Advocate a policy of "prevention." Stay away from anything "preemption"-oriented. That brings up too many bad associations with recent American foreign policy.
no subject
because newsweek link is hosed
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
got terrorism? blame the arabs!
got outvoted? blame ACORN!
got random acts of violence? blame atheism!
got homeless? blame the poor!
although really for anything that isn't related to terrorism or losing an election, you just say "got hurt? blame the victim!"; remember, it's never the fault of conservative america
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
"Stop <del>whining</del> decelerating our spin. "
Re: "Stop <del>whining</del> decelerating our spin. "
no subject
On the other hand some of the conservative gear has the age old pre-judeochristian connotation of an eye for an eye.
So just pick your own and dress up your conservative Ken driving a '72 Mustang right next to fab Barbie in a Prius.
no subject
Tell me, what color is the sky in your fantasy world?
no subject
still pink with flying elephants in yours?
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Plus, way to assume that all liberals are pro-Hamas, stupid cartoonist. I am very much a Zionist myself, though quite open to criticizing Israel's actions when they merit criticism.
no subject
Some, if not most people in this community don't see a reason or right for Israel as a jewish state to exist in that region in the first place.
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
no subject
Lather:Vick as Merig:??
Spoiler alert... the answer is Palestinians! You're welcome, everyone!
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
From IDF report on WP
Targeting the munitions at the ground rather than exploding them high in the air would fail to achieve the area of dispersal required for military purposes and would actually result in much more severe damage to buildings and persons on the ground.
The IDF took several precautions and other measures that were appropriate with respect to these particular munitions. First, the munitions were used only for the purpose for which they were designed, i.e. to create smoke screens, rather than to attack personnel or destroy buildings, purposes for which IDF has a variety of more effective munitions. Second, the use of felt wedges soaked in white phosphorous tends to further reduce dispersal of the substance and its incendiary side effects as compared to exploding munitions containing white phosphorous. Third, the smoke projectiles were employed using delay fuses which release the felt components of the projectile at a distance of at least 100 metres above the ground. This method (as opposed to the use of contact fuses), is consistent with the use of the projectiles for smoke-screening purposes only. Furthermore, air-bursting the munitions at a considerable distance above ground meant that it was less likely that any person or building would be harmed by the explosions.
... after reports of an incident on 15 January 2009 during combat in Tel al-Hawa in which white phosphorous smoke projectiles set fire to a UNRWA warehouse, an IDF directive was issued, effective through the end of the Gaza Operation, establishing a safety buffer of several hundred metres from sensitive sites when using smoke projectiles.
...In the case of smoke munitions containing white phosphorous, the expected military benefit was that they would protect Israeli forces from attack: a compelling military objective. Against this objective, one must weigh the anticipated risk of harm to civilians and property from the use of smoke munitions, which are designed to be a non-lethal type of munition. The non-lethal nature of smoke screens when compared to the effect of explosive munitions was particularly important, given that Hamas and other terrorist organisations sought to blend in with the civilian population, making it difficult or impossible to use explosive munitions without inflicting substantial civilian casualties.
two words
Re: two words
Re: two words
Re: two words
Re: two words
Re: two words
Re: two words
Re: two words
not just the liberals
Re: not just the liberals
no subject
no subject
noone is asking for sympathy
(no subject)