5 ms·

Nice work - you've obviously completely demolished the objection to the translation by the user above. In fact one can verify the correct ("invalidate"/"nullif

Nice work - you've obviously completely demolished the objection to the translation by the user above. In fact one can verify the correct ("invalidate"/"nullify") translation directly, by looking at the original arabic word that was used (and its root). While you're at it, perhaps you can also explain this fun passage from the 1988 covenant: The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." Any translation issues with the phrases "killing of the Jews" and "There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him"? There are also two appearances of the phrase "battle with the Jews" -- can you explain those as well, please? The JSTOR article conspicuously avoids analysis of these passages.

loceng 2y ago
I don't know the context is of where what you cited. And once again, we'd need unbiased scholars to give an unbiased translation - as what you're citing could likely be purposefully or poorly mistranslated to change, even slightly, the context or scope - and when doing so could completely change the meaning. So where exactly did you pull this quote from? And does it cite where it's pulling the original quote from, or is it pulling from someone else who may have dishonestly translated it to begin with? You'd have to agree with me that confirmation bias exists - and is a very difficult minefield for any individual to navigate, right? Especially a difficult trap or valley to climb out of if someone may have been deeply indoctrinated into certain a weave of "disgust" producing narrative lines/threads for nearly a century, passed on through multiple generations? There is also biblical-religious verses that Netanyahu has cited that have the same annihilation rhetoric, as far as I remember, so it's okay if one side does it - but not the other? The rabbit hole goes very deep - has many misleading paths - and the problem is is proper conversation is heavily prevented and suppressed, primarily by one side, for example: Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire, while being deceitful - in public attempting to organize a public debate with Candace Owens - behind the scenes in parallel were applying for and got a gag order on her. Do you think preventing people from "either side" from diving into long-form, thorough discussion to hash out as many points as possible - is good or bad? Thankfully people like Piers Morgan are having some of these people on to discuss, and it allows the general population to see for themselves who uses dishonest and disgusting tactics as part of their arguments - and which side aren't deceitful or avoidance, who are clear and articulate, etc. And should I bring up again now that the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" was first used by Israel? How about I mention again the Israeli government (I think it was Netanyahu himself but I don't remember at the moment) showed a map of Israel - that only showed Israel, with no Palestine nor Gaza nor West Bank marked on it. So it's okay when Israeli uses it but demonized and misrepresented as to its meaning when Palestinians use it?
- racional 2y ago
  So where exactly did you pull this quote from? The very same document you were dissecting - the 1988 charter. The phrases are easy to find in any reliable translation you have handy. Just look for keywords like "Judgement", "tree", "Jew", "battle". The other questions you're raising are also interesting, but if you don't mind -- for now I'd be keen to know your interpretation of the phrases cited in the post above this one. The context for each phrase would be the immediately surrounding text, of course. (Yes, is a turgid sprawl, the '88 charter. But give it a shot!)
- dakom 2y ago
  > that only showed Israel, with no Palestine nor Gaza nor West Bank marked on it 1) Look at a map of Palestine in 1947. Now look at the Palestinian flag side by side with the Jordanian flag. I bet you can figure this one out. 2) When did the nation of Palestine ever have their own land and national identity, prior to 1948? Who was their president/leader? 3) On that note, where was Arafat born? The thing is- this whole farce of "Palestine" is, in fact, nonsense, and the obvious real answer to peace if the Arab refugees from 48 want to call themselves after an old Roman slur to the Jews is for Jordan to designate a chunk. There's like, what, two million so-called Palestinians in Jordan already. > There is also biblical-religious verses that Netanyahu has cited that have the same annihilation rhetoric, as far as I remember I call B.S. the Torah not only doesn't encourage murdering Arabs of any kind, it outright prohibits it. The idealized Torah-based government encourages all the nations of the world to come and live and visit in Israel, provided they follow the 7 Noahide laws (which moderate forms of Islam do). Be honest- did you just completely make up this point? What could you possibly be misremembering? Netanyahu has issues, but misquoting the Torah and using that misquote as a basis for an extreme position of genocide is _very_ out of character for him, doesn't ring true at all. (there _is_ an imperative in the Torah to kill Amalekites. They don't exist anymore and it's completely irrelevant.)
  - racional 2y ago
    the obvious real answer to peace ... is for Jordan to designate a chunk. And then what needs to happen, specifically? Tell us more, please.

loceng 2y ago

I don't know the context is of where what you cited. And once again, we'd need unbiased scholars to give an unbiased translation - as what you're citing could likely be purposefully or poorly mistranslated to change, even slightly, the context or scope - and when doing so could completely change the meaning. So where exactly did you pull this quote from? And does it cite where it's pulling the original quote from, or is it pulling from someone else who may have dishonestly translated it to begin with? You'd have to agree with me that confirmation bias exists - and is a very difficult minefield for any individual to navigate, right? Especially a difficult trap or valley to climb out of if someone may have been deeply indoctrinated into certain a weave of "disgust" producing narrative lines/threads for nearly a century, passed on through multiple generations? There is also biblical-religious verses that Netanyahu has cited that have the same annihilation rhetoric, as far as I remember, so it's okay if one side does it - but not the other? The rabbit hole goes very deep - has many misleading paths - and the problem is is proper conversation is heavily prevented and suppressed, primarily by one side, for example: Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire, while being deceitful - in public attempting to organize a public debate with Candace Owens - behind the scenes in parallel were applying for and got a gag order on her. Do you think preventing people from "either side" from diving into long-form, thorough discussion to hash out as many points as possible - is good or bad? Thankfully people like Piers Morgan are having some of these people on to discuss, and it allows the general population to see for themselves who uses dishonest and disgusting tactics as part of their arguments - and which side aren't deceitful or avoidance, who are clear and articulate, etc. And should I bring up again now that the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" was first used by Israel? How about I mention again the Israeli government (I think it was Netanyahu himself but I don't remember at the moment) showed a map of Israel - that only showed Israel, with no Palestine nor Gaza nor West Bank marked on it. So it's okay when Israeli uses it but demonized and misrepresented as to its meaning when Palestinians use it?

racional 2y ago
So where exactly did you pull this quote from? The very same document you were dissecting - the 1988 charter. The phrases are easy to find in any reliable translation you have handy. Just look for keywords like "Judgement", "tree", "Jew", "battle". The other questions you're raising are also interesting, but if you don't mind -- for now I'd be keen to know your interpretation of the phrases cited in the post above this one. The context for each phrase would be the immediately surrounding text, of course. (Yes, is a turgid sprawl, the '88 charter. But give it a shot!)
dakom 2y ago
> that only showed Israel, with no Palestine nor Gaza nor West Bank marked on it 1) Look at a map of Palestine in 1947. Now look at the Palestinian flag side by side with the Jordanian flag. I bet you can figure this one out. 2) When did the nation of Palestine ever have their own land and national identity, prior to 1948? Who was their president/leader? 3) On that note, where was Arafat born? The thing is- this whole farce of "Palestine" is, in fact, nonsense, and the obvious real answer to peace if the Arab refugees from 48 want to call themselves after an old Roman slur to the Jews is for Jordan to designate a chunk. There's like, what, two million so-called Palestinians in Jordan already. > There is also biblical-religious verses that Netanyahu has cited that have the same annihilation rhetoric, as far as I remember I call B.S. the Torah not only doesn't encourage murdering Arabs of any kind, it outright prohibits it. The idealized Torah-based government encourages all the nations of the world to come and live and visit in Israel, provided they follow the 7 Noahide laws (which moderate forms of Islam do). Be honest- did you just completely make up this point? What could you possibly be misremembering? Netanyahu has issues, but misquoting the Torah and using that misquote as a basis for an extreme position of genocide is _very_ out of character for him, doesn't ring true at all. (there _is_ an imperative in the Torah to kill Amalekites. They don't exist anymore and it's completely irrelevant.)
- racional 2y ago
  the obvious real answer to peace ... is for Jordan to designate a chunk. And then what needs to happen, specifically? Tell us more, please.