Either it's a very simple joke or it's too complicated for me. I can't guess what she means.

Ignacio,
I believe Booklady was using a bit of "tongue in cheek" humour - she was been nicely sarcastic - her statement had absolutely nothing to do with anyone's level of competency in a language but rather was addresing the sometimes rather antagonist comments by the poster ....

Does that make sense?

Cristobal,

Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi. With those people as allies, who would need an enemy? And I don't particularly want Israel as an ally either, but in their own way, I guess they are.

Have you ever read the book "Exodus" by Leon Uris, or do people read books in Spain? I'm only saying this because of your insinuation that all our news is censored here in the U.S. which I find very humorous. If you've read the book, you have a good background on why the Israelis might resort to atrocities. You know, history didn't begin the day you were born?

You are somewhat correct about our media, or more likely all media in general. They all, every last one of them, have their own agenda. Por ejemplo, the Dan Rather forged document story. A very good example. If this story was about a Republican that ginned up a story about his Democratic opponent, there would be 24 hour new coverage condemning this heinous crime. There'd be two page, three page, even four page adds demandin the head of the Republican party and anyone complicit in this act. There'd be eyes rolling, Katie Kouric, or however you spell her name, would be rolling on the carpet and chewing it in a fit of rage.

But, since it was only a Democrat up to their usual dirty tricks, they get a free pass, and the world is safe for Democracy, or at least Democrats so all is right with the world.

Ah, glad to get that off my chest.

Mmmm, Gazpacho, may you elaborate please? What would legitimate Israel to commit such atrocities?

Fernando

Funny that you ask, Gazpacho.
Reading is my favourite pastime, and currently, how funny, I am reading the Old Testament, whis has quite a lot to do with "Exodus". You know, Israel was quite the same today as three thousand years ago. Read Joshua and Judges, and you will see what I mean: the Israelites arrived in Canaan, then slaughtered as many Cananites as they could. When they made covenants with locals instead of slaying them, when they killed the warriors but spared women and children, the prophets of Israel claimed against such a sin: all the Cananites had to be killed in order to keep the people of God pure.
I didn`t read "Exodus", but I read "Holocaust", based upon the TV serie (or the other way round). I guess both books are quite the same: surely they try to justify some atrocities invoking older offences, or to put it bluntly, "the Germans killed Jews so we kill Arabs". Simple, isn`t it? And I guess, too, both books fail to mention the activities of Jewish terrorist groups which prompted the British to leave Palestine in the hands of Zionists: example, the attack against the King David hotel in Jerusalem, in 1946, almost 100 victims. It was carried out by Irgun, leaded as it seems by Mr. Begin.
No, really, I haven`t read "Exodus" and I don`t feel about to do it in the short term, if it somehow tries to "explain" how can it be acceptable to commit any war crime.
Again, I don`t think there is any censorship in the US. I know you don`t have any KGB monitoring your words, written or spoken. But I do believe that the media stress far more vehemently some facts than others, and some explanations than others for the same facts. Censorship is expensive and uneffective: it is much more useful and cheap (indeed, profitable) to shape public opinion through private media companies, then leave it to a negligible handful of "aware citizens" to find out facts through Internet or public documents.

Puna
I guess you are insinuating something about me, but I fail to understand what is it all about. Could you be more specific?

Well Fernando,

The Jews were treated so well when they arrived in Palestine that they were darn near exterminated. I can't explain all. You'll have to read the book. In that area of the world, and perhaps all of the world, not engaging in any means to ensure your survival would have shown a side of weakness the other side would eagerly take advantage of. The early settlers of Israel learned quickly that a show of strength was needed if they were going to survive as a nation, and unfortunately, atrocities provided a show of strength. Sound familiar? And Israel is still there.

The book explains quite well that all Palestinians were not bad and many of them befriended the fledgling nation. But there has always been one or two political leaders who strengthened their position by mounting attacks against the Jews, and through their powers, extorted(or is it extolled?) other to do the same. Just as there is now, nothing changes. Because the events in this book happened before our time, doesn't mean that it didn't happen or that it is no longer pertainent.

Sometimes it amazes me the myth some Americans believe, and it would seem, all Europeans, that the Europeans are so sophisticated and well versed about the world in general and it's history in particular. When I lived in Spain (1977-1980), it was my impression, that a vast majority of Spaniards never left their household much further than their block. Of course now, that was over twenty, almost twenty-five years ago. Lots has changed. But the belief that Americans are not aware of history is amusing, but arrogant. I suppose you could make a case against the younger crowd that have to suffer through the vast wasteland of social programs we call our education system. They are naive. But then I can't imagine the European education system not suffering the same fate.

Well, this is as much of a book report as you're going to get concerning the "Exodus". But as the Booklady will tell you, this is available in any library, here in the U.S. at least, and provides a pretty good background about the origins of the Palestinian vs. Israeli problem.

Cristobo,
I read your posts with great interest, yet the question I have is this: were you motivated to make your posts out of concern for America and the Middle East and believe that you can honestly bring something to the table or was your motivation based on the fear that we unbelievably ignorant Americans are about to re-elect a goofy war-mongering barbeque-pit cowboy over a pompous whitebread richboy "war hero?"
Any "truth" from the media...any media, is based on perception, not reality.

Cogito cogito ergo sum cogito

Really, Pinguino, I am not taking any attitude of "superiority" over you Americans. I enclosed the first article because it is thorough and well-informed, and explains many things that I believe with much more skill and eloquence than I feel able to. The second essay...well, just left me speechless. That is the kind of information that you can get in the web, but NOT in mainstream media. I just wanted to share it.
I don`t think elections really change anything, neither in the US or elsewhere; today they are not much more than a popularity contest. Kerry, in case he wins, will not be neither better nor worse than Bush.

Love your post, Pinguino,and Fellow Floridian:

Your description of our two candidates brought to mind two Looney Tune Characters that truly capture the spirit of these two men in a more concrete way:

Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd !!!

Pingüino -
LOL - thank you for the best laugh of the day - utterly brilliant & comical description - and, after all, at this point in the game we all need a good laugh.
Off the subject - but anyone have any thoughts - especialy the two Floridians on this thread - about Jimmy Carter's comments re the odds of a fair election?