This is topic Passover Hagaddah conclusion "Next Year in Jerusalem" deemed "unhelpful" by Obama in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:Passover Hagaddah conclusion "Next Year in Jerusalem" deemed "unhelpful" by Obama The Associated Press | March 23, 2010 | Shana Habbab (AP White House Correspondent)
(AP) — An unidentified Israeli official has confirmed that private discussions between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu included a strong request from the President that the upcoming Passover holiday not include the familiar refrain of "next year in Jerusalem," citing the passage as being provocative and unhelpful for future peace talks.The Administration suggested replacing it with "next year in peace" or "next year in Israel," but leaving the final wording up to both the Israelis and Palestinians. Netanyahu is said to have balked at the request, indicating that the refrain dates back well before the UN Partition of 1947. The Prime Minister reportedly attempted to diffuse the situation by noting that the declaration lacks any political significance, adding that most people living outside of Israel just "say the words without having a real desire to live anywhere in Jerusalem." He further explained that, "at most, they would like to come for the Passover holiday, but only staying at one of the hotels located in western part of the city."
I know, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if it had happened.
[Edit: to point out that this is satire. I thought the "if it had happened" might have given that away, but apparently some people require a bit more.]
[ March 26, 2010, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So your topic title is a lie.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
20 bucks says I get this in an email forward within two weeks, making a call to get rid of our Muslim president, with a comment at the bottom saying, "even snopes says this is accurate", linking to non-existent page on snopes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lisa, how about we stick to factual criticisms, instead of imaginary ones?
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
One year my Grandpa did the Passover rap. He got real jiggy with it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
SO, is this thread supposed to be a lesson in the art of "lying through poor paraphrase" ...?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I was offended by the OP. Deeply.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Once again, Lisa manages to hurt her cause far more than help it. I really don't get it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I was offended by the OP. Deeply.
Why?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Maybe the part where it was a lie?
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
You shouldn't put things like that on this site. OSC will be repeating it as fact in his next column.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Lisa, For the sake of honesty, please edit this thread title and the OP to include the [SATIRE] you edited out of the quote. By doing so, you demonstrate that you are not intentionally trying to mislead people or claiming this joke was fact.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I was offended by the OP. Deeply.
Why?
most people living outside of Israel just "say the words without having a real desire to live anywhere in Jerusalem."
I felt pretty judged, and misunderstood.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I was offended by the OP. Deeply.
Why?
most people living outside of Israel just "say the words without having a real desire to live anywhere in Jerusalem."
I felt pretty judged, and misunderstood.
Really? That's kind of interesting. Either you consider yourself part of that "most", and say the words without having a real desire to live anywhere in Jerusalem, or you say them for real, and therefore are clearly not part of that "most". The fact that you feel judged suggests the former. Is that what you're trying to say?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Armoth, I think you are missing the fact (because Lisa conveniently left it out of her quote) that the words quoted in the OP are satire. Written as a humor article. Nobody ever actually said them, except the so-called-joke writer.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm not. The joke itself was judgmental toward American Jews. A major component of Orthodox liturgy is the call to return to Israel and Jerusalem. Which seems odd, since American Jews are saying that while living in America.
But I felt judged and misunderstood since that line has religious significance to me. The Jerusalem I want to return to is a Jerusalem that is peaceful, and ruled under religious law - which is entirely not possible in the world's current climate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Armoth, I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you saying that, for you, the Jerusalem referred to in that line is more a state of affairs and less an actual place?
That's make some sense to me of something that I've never really understood. If Jerusalem is taken as a physical place, then, for many of the people saying it, there's not much stopping them from returning there except their unwillingness to do so. But if it is a reference to an idealized state tied to the physical location, that makes a lot more sense.
Would you say that that is a common interpretation of the phrase?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Yes. I mean, it is the place, but to me, only its idealized state.
Orthodox Judaism is still practiced as if we are in a state of exile, even though Jews presently are located in Israel. The reason for this is that Israel is not in its idealized state, and because Israel is still at the whim of the nations of the world. The temple has not been rebuilt, and many of the commandments that apply when Jews are located in Israel are not practiced today, just as they have not been for the last two thousand years.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Lisa, Since you ignored my request the first time, I will make it again. Please edit the thread title and the OP to include the [SATIRE] that is part of the original article.
By omitting the word [SATIRE], you are being highly misleading if not outright dishonest. Since I believe lying was not your intent, I expect you will voluntary honor my request without my needing to whistle papa.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Oh. I didn't realize it was a fake Freeper article until that was called out by other posters. Oy.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Me neither.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Which should say something about the ludicrous policy that's been coming out of the White House lately.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It says more about your lack of commitment to the truth.
Prove me wrong and fix it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That you have to resort to lies to sustain your willfill "outrage" DOES say something about policy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Which should say something about the ludicrous policy that's been coming out of the White House lately.
It says something different entirely. It says that there's people here who took your posting at face value, but should not have, because you made a stupid and misleading thread.
Yup, take that, Obama
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(Or that people might not in general know what a "Passover Hagaddah conclusion" is or care why it might or might not be changed)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Which should say something about the ludicrous policy that's been coming out of the White House lately.
Well no. I was genuinely surprised that Obama would do any such thing and thus assumed that the unnamed informant was lying or misrepresenting something. It hadn't occurred to me that the existence of the article itself, attributed to the AP, was invented.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
In other news, Obama will not be receiving Lisa's vote in 2012.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Got the whistle (got six of them, going back five days, all at once -- don't know why they didn't show up before -- been having computer problems, but didn't know e-mail arrival was part of it). Obviously yet another heated subject being discussed.
Lisa has added the disclaimer in her original post. My personal opinion is that if she were to add a question mark at the end of the topic that it would make it more likely people would question the premise and/or make more note of the edited first post, but not lose the satirical punch it would if "satire" were in the topic. However, chances are that most people have already seen it and if they read the discussion it will be obvious so at this point I'm not entirely sure I see the point. It'd be a kind gesture, though.
I've known people who've read Onion articles and passed along the information not knowing that it was satire. Doesn't mean I think The Onion should have to preface every article. Believing that a fiction can be "truthful" in its essence if not its facts is nothing new, and I don't believe it's evidenced that Lisa was intending to deceive -- just to make a point, with which people may or may not agree.
--PJ
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Does the Onion pretend its articles come from the AP? That threw me. The satire I usually read doesn't purport to be from a reputable news service.
Edited to add a complete tangent: I've noticed lately that most of the Onion articles are completely superfluous next to the headline. "Stouffers To Include Suicide Prevention Tips On Single Serve Microwavable Meals." What more could you add to that?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I too saw the AP tag and actually took time to try and find a corroborating source.
After reading it as satire I still am not sure how that is funny.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I did the same thing as scifibum and BlackBlade. I thought the if it had happened meant that the witnesses making the claim were questionable based on other sources, not that the thing was made up.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: After reading it as satire I still am not sure how that is funny.
The fact that the OP is in any way a nonironic endorsement of freeper humor is funny.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On a roughly 95% tangent, when geographical Norway was occupied by the Germanic powers in my current multiplayer strategy game, I changed my title in the Paradox forums to "Next year in Bergen". When I finally did reconquer Scandinavia, I changed it back to "This year in Bergen."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Did you later change it to "Last year in Bergen?"
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
So, when the president does his Passover Seder (starting before he was president), looks like he includes the words.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Nice link. Thanks!
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Ugh, if there's anything worse than an anti-Semitic President, it's an anti-Semitic President who is so devious as to correctly observe a Jewish holiday.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
lol (literally)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
My Rabbi actually spoke about the article Lisa posted in his Passover sermon. He said that it was a joke and went on to say were that it were funny...
Sigh...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What makes it tough to get the satire part right away is that frankly, it isn't funny. Too easy to read it as simple mean-spirited lies meant for idiots to mistakenly send to all their friends as proof. Try this:
quote:(AP) — An unidentified Israeli official has confirmed that private discussions between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu included a strong request from the President that the upcoming Passover holiday not include the familiar refrain of "next year in Jerusalem," citing the passage as being provocative and unhelpful for future peace talks.
Obama reportedly suggested replacing it with suitably inspirational replacements such as "next year in Jerusalem but not, you know, East Jerusalem" or "next year in the internationally controlled capital of the successfully implemented two-state solution that will provide peace and security to two peoples and will totally get that handsome President Obama elected again."
Netanyahu was said to have balked at the request, indicating that the refrain dates back well before the UN Partition of 1947. According to the source the Prime Minister reportedly attempted to diffuse the situation by noting that the declaration lacks any political significance. He then struck the floor with his walking stick, which turned into a snake, and he demanded that Obama get Paula Abdul back on "American Idol."
While this conversation has not been verified, White House aides refused to comment on why Secret Service agents were dispatched to Los Angeles in Air Force One with a large burlap sack.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That was pretty good, Chris.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
The walking stick turning into a snake was a nice touch lol.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Awesome, Chris.
And yes, I especially liked the snake.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
<Slappy the Squirrel> Now that's comedy. </Slappy>
Much funnier than the original, in my opinion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What makes it tough to get the satire part right away is that frankly, it isn't funny. Too easy to read it as simple mean-spirited lies meant for idiots to mistakenly send to all their friends as proof. Try this:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
What more could you add to that?