> Recognize the right of the Jewish side of Palestine to exist, but to
> re-integrate Palestinians with Palestine. No more apartheid state
> founded on lies.
Do you mean one state or two? By "re-integrate," do you mean the right of return?
> That's not what's at issue , linguistically speaking. English, too, is
> a literary creole of Danish and Anglo-Saxon, re-lexified with latinate
> vocabulary, from the Norman invasion and from Milton. The issue is the
> non-linguistic lie about Hebrew being an ancient semitic language,
> when modern Hebrew is clearly not, but more clearly a creole of
> Yiddish, re-lexicalized with Hebrew from religious texts.
I don't have any expert knowledge of Hebrew, ancient or modern, but maybe you do. Most reference works I have seen about Hebrew do consider them basically the same language, though. However, I'll leave this controversy to the experts.
> I think Kenneth Pollack and Friedman (of the NYT) are committed to a
> hell of a lot more than that--for example, their pro-war positions
> against Iraq.
Yes, they do seem to be fundamentally pro-war, in the sense that they aren't calling for immediate U.S. withdrawal. In any case, I consider Friedman basically a clown, whereas Pollack seems to be a bit more serious, anyway.
> Better yet, why don't you do a bit of work in this discussion and
> prove me wrong.
Wrong about what? You've made quite a few statements; which one or ones are you specifically referring to?
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax