je réalise aujourdh'hui que j'habite dans un territoire qui n'est pas le mien (israel), serieusement dje dois plier bagages et rentrer dans mon
pays d'origine l'europe de l'eszt varsovie la ville natale de mon papa, car en anglais israel c'est a dire is real : c'est vrai, mais tout compte
fait is not real ce n'est pas vrai et je conseille tous mes compatriotes de me suivre et de suivre notre mouvement de NATUR-CARTA, shalom salam, vive
la fraternité entre les peuples et à bas la mafi occidentale.
MAXIME
2006-08-17 12:36:24
je réalise aujourd'hui
-
Guest
Re: je réalise aujourd'hui
salut Maxime,MAXIME wrote:je réalise aujourdh'hui que j'habite dans un territoire qui n'est pas le mien (israel), serieusement dje dois plier bagages et rentrer dans mon
pays d'origine l'europe de l'eszt varsovie la ville natale de mon papa, car en anglais israel c'est a dire is real : c'est vrai, mais tout compte
fait is not real ce n'est pas vrai et je conseille tous mes compatriotes de me suivre et de suivre notre mouvement de NATUR-CARTA, shalom salam, vive
la fraternité entre les peuples et à bas la mafi occidentale.
MAXIME
2006-08-17 12:36:24
j'ai lu ton opinion sur ton pays Israel, je comprends ta déception vis à vis de tout ce qui se passe en Israel et en Palestine et même cette dernière guerre au Liban. je pense que l'Etat d'Israel a tort toujours de toutes les guerres qu'il a confronté depuis plus de 50 ans. la guerre n'est la solution. car la force engendre que la force. Israel doit comprendre une chose, elle était plantée (Israel) dans une région (la Palestine)grâce aux Englais.et ces fils de putes, sont retirés de la région du moyen-orient aprés des langues années d'occupation.et jusqu'à maintenant Israel n'a pas réussit
á établir la paix ni chez elle ni avec ses voisins.
au revoir et courage
maxime????
hé !miloud,je comprends pas pourquoi tu te fais appeller maxime,et je suis sur que tu ne sais meme pas ou se trouve israel sur une carte,nanterre c pas mal non plus,allons!un peu de serieux!!!!!
tu n es pas plus israelien que je ne suis suedois
tu n es pas plus israelien que je ne suis suedois
l'israelien repenti
dire que j'étais contente de trouver un sujet interessant mais vraiment intéressant!!!
dommage que ce ne soit qu'un blague -non justifiée d'ailleurs vues les circonstances politiques actuelles!!- ....
si seulement c'était vrai un israélien repenti!!!!
ils se font si rares!
dommage que ce ne soit qu'un blague -non justifiée d'ailleurs vues les circonstances politiques actuelles!!- ....
si seulement c'était vrai un israélien repenti!!!!
ils se font si rares!
Last edited by hajer on Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
salut hajer
j en connais des israeliens,pas repentis ce n est pas vraiment le mot,mais des justes des grands des tres grands,voici quelque noms:
amos oz ecrivain et philosophe,grand ecrivain parmis les plus grands,engagé dans le combat de la justice pour le peuple palestiniens,sans hypocrisie auccune,car il defend les juifs aussi,il vient de refuser la presidence d israel.
Amira haas,ma preférée,journaliste de terrain,tres détestée dans son pays a cause de ses prises de positions et ses opinions anti apartheid
Gideon levy journaliste ecrivain,tu as du le voir sur aljazeera english peut etre.
enfin mon chouchou,bradley burston,ecrivain plusieurs fois primés,pragmatique logique et homme de coeur,quand tu l entends parler,tu te croirais devant le roi david(la youmethel)
la liste est encore longue,mais ces 4 personnes ont l antisionisme en commun,et le sens de la justice.
amos oz ecrivain et philosophe,grand ecrivain parmis les plus grands,engagé dans le combat de la justice pour le peuple palestiniens,sans hypocrisie auccune,car il defend les juifs aussi,il vient de refuser la presidence d israel.
Amira haas,ma preférée,journaliste de terrain,tres détestée dans son pays a cause de ses prises de positions et ses opinions anti apartheid
Gideon levy journaliste ecrivain,tu as du le voir sur aljazeera english peut etre.
enfin mon chouchou,bradley burston,ecrivain plusieurs fois primés,pragmatique logique et homme de coeur,quand tu l entends parler,tu te croirais devant le roi david(la youmethel)
la liste est encore longue,mais ces 4 personnes ont l antisionisme en commun,et le sens de la justice.
liste
oui j'ai lu mais je n'ai rien à répliquer puisqu'il se trouve que j'en connais d'autres mais en milieu littéraire...
je te rappelle que la politique n'est pas exactement ce qui me passionne le plus!
j'aimerais tellement que l'on partage mon penchant littéraire.
merci.
mais ils sont tous des litteraires !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Amos oz est incontournable en litterature,bradley burston aussi,mais ne te fache pas c etait qu une info.en tant que spécialiste je dois d'abord lire et mm étudier en profondeur des oeuvres d'auteurs et français (de France!!! 
) pâs seulement francophones!!
les oeuvres traduites ne reflèttent pas la nuance des idées des auteurs d'origine. tu le sais comme moi!!
je te cite Julien Green (pas Graham Greeene !!), qui est l'un de mes écrivains favoris, à qui on a interdit à prime abord d'accéder à l'Académie Française à cause de sa naissance et ses origines américaines pourtant il écrit en français pur et dur!!!
c'est l'élitisme du cercle restreint de l'érudition je cite Platon " n'entre ici que l'érudit" ( pancarte accrochée sur la porte de son académie!!)
pourtant les travaux de j. green sont des plus interessants qui soient sur la recherche du rapport :contenu/forme en langue française
si tu es tenté, tu peux lire Adrienne Mesurat ou aussi Moira oui il ya encore chaque homme dans sa nuit ! enfin toute son oeuvre est à lire.c'est un régal!
il étudie la perversité de l'ame humaine vouée à la débauche et à la perdition dans toutes leurs formes (luxure, corruption, jeu...)qui veut voir dans la religion son ultime chance de salut.mais le dilemne entre le mal et le bien écartelle si bien ses personnages que la plupart finissent par commettre l'irréparable:tuer ou se tuer. le rachat devient impossible.
la peinture psychologique est vraiment époussouflante!!
je te le conseille vivement!!
c'est le genre de lectures qui me passionne, qui m'empeche de du sommeil du juste!!
ok
à toi...
) pâs seulement francophones!!les oeuvres traduites ne reflèttent pas la nuance des idées des auteurs d'origine. tu le sais comme moi!!
je te cite Julien Green (pas Graham Greeene !!), qui est l'un de mes écrivains favoris, à qui on a interdit à prime abord d'accéder à l'Académie Française à cause de sa naissance et ses origines américaines pourtant il écrit en français pur et dur!!!
c'est l'élitisme du cercle restreint de l'érudition je cite Platon " n'entre ici que l'érudit" ( pancarte accrochée sur la porte de son académie!!)
pourtant les travaux de j. green sont des plus interessants qui soient sur la recherche du rapport :contenu/forme en langue française
si tu es tenté, tu peux lire Adrienne Mesurat ou aussi Moira oui il ya encore chaque homme dans sa nuit ! enfin toute son oeuvre est à lire.c'est un régal!
il étudie la perversité de l'ame humaine vouée à la débauche et à la perdition dans toutes leurs formes (luxure, corruption, jeu...)qui veut voir dans la religion son ultime chance de salut.mais le dilemne entre le mal et le bien écartelle si bien ses personnages que la plupart finissent par commettre l'irréparable:tuer ou se tuer. le rachat devient impossible.
la peinture psychologique est vraiment époussouflante!!
je te le conseille vivement!!
c'est le genre de lectures qui me passionne, qui m'empeche de du sommeil du juste!!
ok
à toi...
voilà l'essentie!! les oeuvres doivent etre d'écrivains français.( pas traduites ! )hajer wrote:en tant que spécialiste je dois d'abord lire et mm étudier en profondeur des oeuvres d'auteurs et français (de France!!!
les oeuvres traduites ne reflèttent pas la nuance des idées des auteurs d'origine.
ok
à toi...
Il est parfois interessant de connaitre ce que pensent ceux qui sont de "l autre coté"
Voici un article de Bradley burston paru ce matin dans le journal israelien Haaretz:
Next year in Palestine
By Bradley Burston
A reader recently posed a question which it seems to me is always worth considering, and never worth answering:
"How long will I have to wait before there is an independent Palestinian state?"
Once, when there was an approximation of a peace process, when American presidents actively pressed for a two-state solution, the answers were judicious, considered, reasonable: Five years from Israel's 1994 initial Oslo withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho. Or, for adherents of what the State Department once proudly billed the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - the year 2005.
These days, though, the more credible answer to the question runs along these lines:
How long you got?
I have been a supporter of a Palestinian state for longer than most Palestinians alive today have been alive. I expect that I may be a supporter of a Palestinian state until I am dead.
At this point, I have also come to expect that I will be dead before there is a Palestinian state.
Or, as another supporter of Palestinian statehood, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, said on Monday, "The continuation of Palestinian-Palestinian conflict will have a negative effect on the Palestinian cause, and end Palestinians' hopes for establishing an independent state."
Increasingly, the movement for an independent Palestine has lost its pragmatism and its momentum. What is left is a mumbled mantra, a modern version of Next Year in Jerusalem.
It could just be that he greater the suffering of the Palestinians, and the longer their wait for an independent homeland, the more unlikely it becomes that the fantasy will, in the foreseeable future, be anything but.
The reason is as human as human nature denied. The more you suffer, the longer you wait, the more you feel you deserve in compensation for all that waiting and all that suffering.
No wonder there's no compromise with the demand for the return of six million or so Palestinian refugees to the ancestral homes of which they have heard so much, located within the confines of Israel proper.
No wonder there's no rush to recognize a clearly antagonistic, unsympathetic, and profoundly unhelpful state of Israel, or to stop praying for its demise.
The efforts of Israel to delay, undermine, sabotage or otherwise foil the creation of a Palestinian state have been well-documented, in the pages of this newspaper as nowhere else.
The efforts of Palestinians to hasten statehood, meanwhile, have often backfired with disastrous results, adding years and perhaps decades to the countdown to independence.
The question came to mind anew as I took advantage of illness to attend to a New Year's resolution I made a year ago and which expired last week. From my sickbed, I watched a tape of "Munich," Steven Spielberg's film on the Israeli assassination campaign that followed the murder of 11 members of the nation's Olympic team by PLO Black September gunmen in 1972.
A fever of 103, chills and intermittent flu-modulated nightmares may be just the mental state in which to reappraise Spielberg's most controversial work.
Especially these days. Turning the VCR off for a moment, the screen filled with breaking news footage of masked Hamas and Fatah security men killing each other, as well as their rival's children, as well as chances of Palestinian statehood any lifetime soon.
I approached the film with equal measures of curiosity and trepidation. When "Munich" was released just a year ago, its critics on the Jewish right made it seem as though Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner ["Angels in America"] were about to do in the space of one film what the Palestinians had failed to do in the space of more than a century, convincing the world that the Palestinians were right all along.
At the time, the Zionist Organization of America, denouncing screenwriter Kushner for anti-Israel bias, immediately declared a boycott on the film. "Save yourself $10 and stay home," advised ZOA National President Morton Klein. "This 'second Munich', like Chamberlain's Munich, only promotes appeasement of terrorists and the enemies of civilized democracies."
"We must send a message to Spielberg that we will not support a film that libels Israel and humanizes these haters and killers."
The prominent neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, lumped Spielberg and Kushner together with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinehad, saying that all three had called into question the underpinnings of Israel's existence."It takes a Hollywood ignoramus to give flesh to the argument of a radical anti-Semitic Iranian," Krauthammer wrote.
Improbably, from this remove, what Spielberg's "Munich" actually tells us, is not that the Palestinians should win, but why they do not.
In the scene most vociferously condemned by the Jewish right, a PLO field commander named Ali unwittingly speaks with an israeli agent named Avner, outlining a future in which an independent Palestine supplants a defeated Israel.
Ali: Eventually, the Arab states will rise against Israel. They don't like Palestinians, but they hate the Jews more. It won't be like 1967. The rest of the world will see by then what the Israelis do to us. They won't help when Egypt and Syria attack, even Jordan. Israel will cease to exist.
Avner:This is a dream. You can't take back a country you never had.
Ali: You sound like a Jew.
Avner: F**k you. I'm the voice inside your head telling you what you already know. You people have nothing to bargain with. You'll never get the land back. You'll all die old men in refugee camps, waiting for Palestine.
Ali: We have a lot of children. They have had children. So we can wait forever. And if we need to, we can make the whole planet unsafe for Jews.
Avner: You kill Jews, and the world feels bad for them, and thinks you are animals.
Ali: Yes, but then the world will see how they've made us into animals. That will start to ask questions about the conditions in our cages ...
Avner Do you really miss your father's olive trees? Do you honestly think you have to get back all that? That nothing? That chalky soil and stone houses, it that what you really want for your children?
Ali It absolutely is. It will take 100 years, but we'll win. How long did it take the Jews to get their own country?
It is a curious echo of a statement by the man believed to be the last surviving Munich assailant.
"I'm proud of what I did at Munich because it helped the Palestinian cause enormously," Jamal Al-Gashey said in 1999 in the acclaimed documentary One day in September.
"Before Munich, the world had no idea about our struggle, but on that day, the name of Palestine was repeated all around the world."
Al-Gashey's in no rush. Ali's in no rush. Ahmadinejad's in no rush. They'll tell you - it's all a matter of time. Next year in Palestine, or next century, it's all the same to us.
You have to admire that kind of thinking. In one stroke, it legitimizes self-destructive action, fosters inaction, and explains, enshrines, and celebrates failure.
With that kind of thinking, a hundred years from now, when readers ask how long they'll have to wait for a Palestinian state, we'll know just what to answer.
How long you got?
Voici un article de Bradley burston paru ce matin dans le journal israelien Haaretz:
Next year in Palestine
By Bradley Burston
A reader recently posed a question which it seems to me is always worth considering, and never worth answering:
"How long will I have to wait before there is an independent Palestinian state?"
Once, when there was an approximation of a peace process, when American presidents actively pressed for a two-state solution, the answers were judicious, considered, reasonable: Five years from Israel's 1994 initial Oslo withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho. Or, for adherents of what the State Department once proudly billed the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - the year 2005.
These days, though, the more credible answer to the question runs along these lines:
How long you got?
I have been a supporter of a Palestinian state for longer than most Palestinians alive today have been alive. I expect that I may be a supporter of a Palestinian state until I am dead.
At this point, I have also come to expect that I will be dead before there is a Palestinian state.
Or, as another supporter of Palestinian statehood, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, said on Monday, "The continuation of Palestinian-Palestinian conflict will have a negative effect on the Palestinian cause, and end Palestinians' hopes for establishing an independent state."
Increasingly, the movement for an independent Palestine has lost its pragmatism and its momentum. What is left is a mumbled mantra, a modern version of Next Year in Jerusalem.
It could just be that he greater the suffering of the Palestinians, and the longer their wait for an independent homeland, the more unlikely it becomes that the fantasy will, in the foreseeable future, be anything but.
The reason is as human as human nature denied. The more you suffer, the longer you wait, the more you feel you deserve in compensation for all that waiting and all that suffering.
No wonder there's no compromise with the demand for the return of six million or so Palestinian refugees to the ancestral homes of which they have heard so much, located within the confines of Israel proper.
No wonder there's no rush to recognize a clearly antagonistic, unsympathetic, and profoundly unhelpful state of Israel, or to stop praying for its demise.
The efforts of Israel to delay, undermine, sabotage or otherwise foil the creation of a Palestinian state have been well-documented, in the pages of this newspaper as nowhere else.
The efforts of Palestinians to hasten statehood, meanwhile, have often backfired with disastrous results, adding years and perhaps decades to the countdown to independence.
The question came to mind anew as I took advantage of illness to attend to a New Year's resolution I made a year ago and which expired last week. From my sickbed, I watched a tape of "Munich," Steven Spielberg's film on the Israeli assassination campaign that followed the murder of 11 members of the nation's Olympic team by PLO Black September gunmen in 1972.
A fever of 103, chills and intermittent flu-modulated nightmares may be just the mental state in which to reappraise Spielberg's most controversial work.
Especially these days. Turning the VCR off for a moment, the screen filled with breaking news footage of masked Hamas and Fatah security men killing each other, as well as their rival's children, as well as chances of Palestinian statehood any lifetime soon.
I approached the film with equal measures of curiosity and trepidation. When "Munich" was released just a year ago, its critics on the Jewish right made it seem as though Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner ["Angels in America"] were about to do in the space of one film what the Palestinians had failed to do in the space of more than a century, convincing the world that the Palestinians were right all along.
At the time, the Zionist Organization of America, denouncing screenwriter Kushner for anti-Israel bias, immediately declared a boycott on the film. "Save yourself $10 and stay home," advised ZOA National President Morton Klein. "This 'second Munich', like Chamberlain's Munich, only promotes appeasement of terrorists and the enemies of civilized democracies."
"We must send a message to Spielberg that we will not support a film that libels Israel and humanizes these haters and killers."
The prominent neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, lumped Spielberg and Kushner together with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinehad, saying that all three had called into question the underpinnings of Israel's existence."It takes a Hollywood ignoramus to give flesh to the argument of a radical anti-Semitic Iranian," Krauthammer wrote.
Improbably, from this remove, what Spielberg's "Munich" actually tells us, is not that the Palestinians should win, but why they do not.
In the scene most vociferously condemned by the Jewish right, a PLO field commander named Ali unwittingly speaks with an israeli agent named Avner, outlining a future in which an independent Palestine supplants a defeated Israel.
Ali: Eventually, the Arab states will rise against Israel. They don't like Palestinians, but they hate the Jews more. It won't be like 1967. The rest of the world will see by then what the Israelis do to us. They won't help when Egypt and Syria attack, even Jordan. Israel will cease to exist.
Avner:This is a dream. You can't take back a country you never had.
Ali: You sound like a Jew.
Avner: F**k you. I'm the voice inside your head telling you what you already know. You people have nothing to bargain with. You'll never get the land back. You'll all die old men in refugee camps, waiting for Palestine.
Ali: We have a lot of children. They have had children. So we can wait forever. And if we need to, we can make the whole planet unsafe for Jews.
Avner: You kill Jews, and the world feels bad for them, and thinks you are animals.
Ali: Yes, but then the world will see how they've made us into animals. That will start to ask questions about the conditions in our cages ...
Avner Do you really miss your father's olive trees? Do you honestly think you have to get back all that? That nothing? That chalky soil and stone houses, it that what you really want for your children?
Ali It absolutely is. It will take 100 years, but we'll win. How long did it take the Jews to get their own country?
It is a curious echo of a statement by the man believed to be the last surviving Munich assailant.
"I'm proud of what I did at Munich because it helped the Palestinian cause enormously," Jamal Al-Gashey said in 1999 in the acclaimed documentary One day in September.
"Before Munich, the world had no idea about our struggle, but on that day, the name of Palestine was repeated all around the world."
Al-Gashey's in no rush. Ali's in no rush. Ahmadinejad's in no rush. They'll tell you - it's all a matter of time. Next year in Palestine, or next century, it's all the same to us.
You have to admire that kind of thinking. In one stroke, it legitimizes self-destructive action, fosters inaction, and explains, enshrines, and celebrates failure.
With that kind of thinking, a hundred years from now, when readers ask how long they'll have to wait for a Palestinian state, we'll know just what to answer.
How long you got?
je te remercie ritchie pour cette longue tirade, tu fais preuve de beaucoup de persévérance dans tes lectures ... mais je crains que la langue ne soit un obstacle devant la compréhension de cet article.
p.s: si tu ne peux pas le traduire ( ce que je comprendrais vue la longueur ) je confirme mon inscription en cours d'anglais à Bourguiba school.
je vois d'ici ce que tu vas me répondre!!
p.s: si tu ne peux pas le traduire ( ce que je comprendrais vue la longueur ) je confirme mon inscription en cours d'anglais à Bourguiba school.
je vois d'ici ce que tu vas me répondre!!
bonsoir hajoura,
cette longue tirade n est pas pour toi,si j ai inseré cet article ici, c est justement pour clore la parenthese litteraire qu on a ouvert,et rendre ce forum a son sujet d origine qui est ce conflit dans cette region du monde chere a nos coeurs.
pour revenir a l article de bradley burston,j ai cité la source et pour ceux qui lisent en anglais je vous invite a jetter un oeil sur ce journal,cela vous etonnera enormement,et pour ceux qui ont vu le film de spielberg,qu ils nous font part de leurs impressions et avis.
cette longue tirade n est pas pour toi,si j ai inseré cet article ici, c est justement pour clore la parenthese litteraire qu on a ouvert,et rendre ce forum a son sujet d origine qui est ce conflit dans cette region du monde chere a nos coeurs.
pour revenir a l article de bradley burston,j ai cité la source et pour ceux qui lisent en anglais je vous invite a jetter un oeil sur ce journal,cela vous etonnera enormement,et pour ceux qui ont vu le film de spielberg,qu ils nous font part de leurs impressions et avis.