De voormalige terroristen van de Weather Underground (USA) mochten het Heilige Beloofde Gazaland niet binnen gaan. Hedy Epstein presteerde het voor de derde achtereenvolgende keer om op het laatste moment toch niet naar Gaza te gaan. Ook het Wijblijvenhier-meisje bleef in Cairo achter. Waarschijnlijk moeten zij net als Mozes nog 40 jaar door de woestijn dolen voor zij een hernieuwde poging tot betreden van Gaza mogen wagen.
De protesten van de Free-Gaza-Activisten werden steeds luider, toen de bus met 100 uitgekozen 
Wie mochten er uiteindelijk naar Gaza reizen? Een Israelische journaliste met de Nomen est Omen naam van Amira Hass. Wat vreemd is, want in 2008 moest ze nog halsoverkop naar Israel terugvluchten vanwege de doodbedreigingen van de kant van Hamas. Bovendien drie Amerikaanse rabbies, die tot een anti-Israelische sekte (Naturei Karta) behoren en zich graag door Hamas voor propaganda-doeleinden laten gebruiken. Ook de Deense Jezus-Lookalike Poya Pakzad , van Iraanse kommaf, was van de partij en schildert op zijn Deense weblog ongewild een ontluisterend beeld van de Hamas-propaganda tijdens de reis.
Ondergebracht in een luxe hotel aan de Middellandse zee, verbaast Poya zich over de schrille tegenstelling tussen de gebombardeerde huizen in Gaza en het hotel. Hij realiseert zich dat de reis door Hamas propagandistisch wordt uitgebuit. Amira Hass mag haar vrienden niet bezoeken en de activisten mogen alleen met Hamas bodyguards naar buiten. "Om veiligheidsredenen".
Tijdens de obligate demonstratie lopen alleen mannen mee. De vrouwen worden in een bus achterin 
De rondleiding met de bus, de volgende dag is een complete mislukking. Ze mogen maar één keer uitstappen om foto's te maken. Ze krijgen geen normale mensen te spreken. De begeleiders zijn volkomen onwetend. Zelfs in hun poging de aantallen slachtoffers en daklozen door de oorlog te overdrijven, maken ze nog fouten. Ze spreken van 18.000 daklozen, terwijl het er volgens de Hamas 50.000 moeten zijn.
Na protesten mogen ze toch nog met de bewoners van Gaza spreken. Poya bezoekt een getroffen familie en een weeshuis. Hij is ontroerd door de verhalen en het aanzicht van de ellende die de oorlog heeft veroorzaakt. Maar Hamas roept ze weer terug voor een voetbalwedstrijd. Meisjes mogen vanzelfsprekend niet meespelen. Regeringspropaganda is overal gelijk zegt Poya.
Veel activisten willen in Gaza blijven. Maar Hamas vertelt ze dat het niet mogelijk is. Alleen de rabbis mochten blijven omdat ze vanwege de sabat niet mochten reizen....
Inside Gaza
Sitting next to Amira Hass on our way to Gaza was a great relief for my initial concerns about the trip. She spoke elegantly as always and I felt blessed to be on a convoy with a journalist from whom I learn a great deal on a regular basis in Ha'aretz. Talking to her made me realize why I came in the first place: to break the siege!
On our way to the crossing we stopped at the Egyptian Red Crescent. Young Egyptian volunteers entered our bus with roses and chocolate. It was a gift from the First Lady. The chocolate was bitter and the rose was pure plastic. 
Apparently we were "guests of honor" as we were lodged into the nicest hotel which I have ever stayed in, in my life. The 5 star Commodore hotel in Gaza city with a view of the Mediterranean Sea. Not what you expect to see after having read report after report about the misery inflicted on the civil society. The contradiction between bombed buildings and this hotel made me uneasy. I didn’t come to be a tourist. Our visist had been hijacked. Amira wasn't allowed to visit her friend in Gaza and other delegates too were denied to leave the premises without Hamas bodyguards. The reason was that of security because of "bad elements" inside Gaza.
Day 1
We were instantly told that the march would be led by Hamas. The next day many decided not to participate watching from the sideline. Again a tough decision was on my shoulders. We wanted to march with civil society but we were surprised to see that only somewhere around 200-600 people had showed up. Only men were there – mostly around 15-40 years of age. Without thinking much about it I participated in the march. It was peaceful, no militant slogans were chanted and I was interviewed by several self-declared journalists without press cards (including Press TV in my native Farsi language).
In the very back of the march a bus full of women were following us. The female internationals heatedly negotiated with Hamas to let them join. Finally they were allowed to march with us. We gave them Code Pink banners saying: "Women say Free Gaza." It was beautiful. I tried to convince people on the side line to join. My argument was, that if our very own movement consisted of communists, liberals, conservatives and so on, why should we then be hypocritical about joining Hamas in the very narrow common denominator that had brought us all together: breaking the siege. To me, everything else at this point was extraneous to our mission.
After the march our tightly planned schedule involved a so-called "devastation tour." We went on the bus with Hamas tour-guides who drove us around the city where US-made bombs and shells had been fired including the American School. It was, true to its name, a view of complete devastation. No explanation is really needed even the smell was horrible; dead fish on the shore line and empty shells everywhere. The tour however was a complete farce. We were only allowed to go out and take pictures once and we met no one to speak to at all. The guides were so ignorant about the facts that even though they tried to exaggerate them, they sometimes ended up understating them. For example "18.000" had been left homeless after the massacre contrary to Human Rights reports stating 50.000 and more based on extensive field work.
The day ended with a candle-light vigil in commemoration of the 1400 victims and a small hip hop concert at the "Gallery" to celebrate New Years Eve. I was so tired and disappointed with the handling of our presence and precious 48 hour limit that I went home to the comfortable hotel instead.
Day 2
Complaining vigorously to Hamas about this they finally let some people go out at their own risk. Some went to visit family members and friends and others went on more daring missions to see the tunnels into Egypt. One group went to the Shifa Hospital and on fishing boats to test the Israeli naval ships. Our group went to the refugee camp of the Sammone family which lost 19 members including three babies. This was a sight that will haunt me for the rest of my life. Small beautiful children everywhere approached us in numbers desperate for some contact. I held them, I spoke to them and I played with them never wanting to let them go. Small tents constituted the homes of large families. They had absolutely nothing, yet they smiled at our arrival and invited us to come inside. I couldn't help myself from crying as one father told us about the loss of children and family members in such a strong and collected manner. Not once did they ask for money or desperately needed goods. They wanted us to take pictures and videotape their misery so we could report it. I sensed the insufficiency of our mission to the point that I felt guilty of my privileges in my adopted state of Denmark. Leaving them was devastating.
The joyous mood on our way to see people was replaced by silence on our way to an orphanage. This was our next stop. Here we had lunch with the children, we played basketball with them and shared stories. The staff showed a short video they had made in memory of a child lost during the war. The brother of this child was watching the video with us. It was a horrifying and macabre show. All the bloody images were displayed in front of us and the children were watching this without the flicker of an eyebrow. They had become used to these terrible facts of life that are so hard for us to see. Again, holding back my tears was an impossible task.
All of a sudden after one short hour at the orphanage, Hamas called us to the bus. We had to leave instantly as the Al Jazeera (not the TV Station) football team was awaiting us for a friendly game. We went there and the whole thing was packed with journalists and Hamas officials who wanted to take pictures with us. Government propaganda is equally revolting in all societies – we spent three hours playing soccer with these guys. One hour spent at the orphanage and three hours in a disgusting self serving display of us playing football at the stadium alongside Hamas officials. The girls weren't allow to play.
Day 3
On the last day a great many decided to stay in Gaza even though Egypt had only allowed a 48 hour visit. Hamas didn't let us stay, saying that it was too dangerous. The rabbis were the only ones who were allowed to stay till sunset because it was Sabbath. Some stayed anyway but were forced on buses when they were apprehended.
We broke the siege shortly only to do it again as soon as possible!
Natuurlijk zal Anja Meulenbelt dit keer ook niet reageren. Het boek over Iran is nog niet af(en komt waarschijnlijk ook nooit af).Dat het zo mis ging komt natuurlijk door Israel. U weet wel bezetting bla, bla, bla. En de vrienden van Hamas, bla, bla, bla.
ReplyDeleteIk vraag me af waarom die mensen in tenten leven. Zorgt Hamas niet voor nieuwe huizen? Ze krijgen voor miljoenen, zoniet miljarden steun.
ReplyDelete"Government propaganda is equally revolting in all societies – we spent three hours playing soccer with these guys. One hour spent at the orphanage and three hours in a disgusting self serving display of us playing football at the stadium alongside Hamas officials."
Ik zou hieraan toevoegen, dat het actief meedoen en anderen daartoe oproepen in zo'n propagandastunt nog weerzinwekkender (revolting) is. Je moet wel volkomen verknipt en ideologisch verblind zijn om dit met droge ogen en zonder een spoor van zelfkritiek op te schrijven
I am Poya Pakzad, and I have written a followup, as a rebuttal to the Jerusalem Post article written by Caroline Glick:
ReplyDeletehttp://poyapakzad.blogspot.com/2010/01/oh-shame-of-it-all-rebuttal-to.html
"As an international coalition we are not in a position to advocate a specific political solution to this conflict."
ReplyDeleteYet it seems perfectly clear this specific solution needs come from Israel. Maybe even only can come from Israel. That is how I read this followup to be meant. Instead of arguing a Jerusalem Post columnist in an almost blind reflex you'd be wiser to first think where she may be more right as you will ever be willing to admit. Fighting the (alleged) crimes of Israel is a just cause, but will have a more practical/positive outcome when not done siding up with the extremes wanting to wipe Israel off the map.
Dear PP have enough people here who find pathetic rebuttals driven by their own bruised pedantic egos, instead of spending that energy on the cause they pretend to pertain. So Glick called you an American, and quoted you being silly. Boohoo. Go away
ReplyDeleteDear Poya Pakzad, thanks for your reply. We would like to know if you are disappointed in the Viva Palestina movement, because you are the only one with some critical remarks.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your opinion on the $1 million spend to the Hamas government? Is that the aid you have expectations for?
Is it true that you fled from Iran and what does it mean for you that Iran wants to destroy Israel. Are you still supporting the Iran regime?
Discussions we want to have with you.
@Poya Pakzad;
ReplyDeleteNo. I do not think I read you wrong and your reply 'proofs' it yet again. While we agree Israel and the US should (more) follow the international consensus your reply (again) only mentions Israel as being very wrong, and Hamas as the good guys who tried mighty hard. The little engine that could... I am sure some arguments can be made for both points of view but ones arguing the exact opposite have equally valid claims. The conflict simply is too complicated to so easily divide in what is only 'good', and what is only 'evil'. You seem to be more realistic and open-minded as by far most in your movement. Which truly worries me. I consider you to be neither realistic nor open-minded, I only see someone who at least seems to honestly try.
'Hamas has repeatedly called for negotiations...'
Hamas also repeatedly has called for the destruction of Israel. Switching such statements with the occasional attempts to help in negotiating peace creates an issue with credibility. Since you obviously support Hamas, even if not completely blind to what could be improved (I say it at my most careful) you are part of the problem until you demand Hamas to stop the demonizing and to stop attacking Israel and to stop facilitate such attacks. Do so, combine it with your critisism towards Israel, and only then will I truly believe you are after an honest peace.
'nowhere did she call me "silly".'
By calling you, a danish man, an american woman she did exactly that. And I can see where the qualification stems from. Learn to twirl and you and your movement will make for perfect cheerleaders. Hopefully you can understand how people maybe too easily can get that impression.
'Similarly I couldn't care less about the differences between the atrocities of Labour and Likud.'
Maybe you should care. How will you ever understand the complexity of the issue when ignoring parts of it's roots?
'Its bears crucial notice that it is the US and Israel who are repeatedly threatening Iran with an attack and not vice versa.'
One crazed statement you say... How about many such statements. By an Iranian leader who recently was 'elected' again. Do you really take the US and Israel more serious as Iran, building on nuclear power while it's undemocratic leaders can freely speech about the Holocaust and make specific threats against Israel? All issues we can ignore because, hey, it's Iran and who now takes Iran serious..?
'Iran is a signatory to this resolution as well!'
Which goes to show how much trust one should put in this resolution.
@ PP
ReplyDeleteFirst, if you genuinely believe I did not read what you call an article, why in heaven's name would you believe I would read a reply not unlikely even longer as the article itself? In that given sense, are you sure it is a reply to me or are you writing to 'the world' here?
Now, let's see what your reply consists of:
'PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU PUT ON THE AUTO-PILOT OF SLANDER AND VILIFICATION!'
I do not like shouting much in a whatever discussion. I even less like what you are suggesting. Slander and vilification. Fancy words completely without deeper meaning coming from one with a one track mind.
'I am not going to assign equal blame to both parties, just to make you happy - I will address the facts and the documentary record speaks for itself!'
No one is forcing you to assign equal blame. You are entitled to your opinions, as am I. However, showing such a blatant disregard to the arguments of anyone opposing you, showing us a mind only able to argue against Israel, totally unwilling to see anything serious against Hamas, makes it impossible to view you as a mind capable of helping to create conditions in which peace may once be possible. But then again, that would be against your better interests would it not? After all, what else to throw your goodness at...
Throw as much links, as much quotes at me as you can. No, in this second reply I did not bother to check all. What are you after, a war of links? You will excuse me for not being impressed. Not because I totally disagree with you, fact is on some things we actually do agree. It is your basic attitude creeping me out. And that is why I will not be throwing back links at you. It is utterly useless. Your mind is already 100% made up and you are here only to convert, to preach the 'Truth'. A selective Truth barely backed up by a few fairly random quotes and 'facts'.
'This whole debate is distasteful in light of the fact, that as we speak Israel is annexing territory in the occupied West Bank rendering the two state solution impossible!'
So you started a distasteful discussion on this page? Or was I the one turning it distasteful? Either way it only is your comment which lacks good taste. Yes Israel is annexing territory. Is that not a perfectly good reason for a discussion on things happening right now? Problem is your idea of an honest discussion only can have the one possible outcome. Anything beyond that apparantly is insulting to you. So be it.
'Hamas is an anachronistic, reactionary, ideologically despicable movement, but THAT is not enough to disqualify them from the negotiating table, when the Israeli governments from right to left are the chief rejectionists of Palestinian rights under international law - not just in words, but crucially, in deeds!'
Despicable, not enough... Do you ever read back what you write? Maybe the Palestinian people need consider different representation. Can you really expect ANY gouvernment to negotiate with a despicable, not trustworthy organisation not shy to use children to make a point? In that respect, I guess Denmark will welcome any organisation which claims the desire to destroy Denmark with wide open arms? Because that is how a civilised country would respond?
You are a fool Sir. A harmless enough fool luckily.
@ Painted Bird,
ReplyDeleteYou write,
"if you genuinely believe I did not read what you call an article, why in heaven's name would you believe I would read a reply not unlikely even longer as the article itself?"
- I take that as a backhand admission that you didn't seriously read anything I wrote.
"Can you really expect ANY gouvernment to negotiate with a despicable, not trustworthy organisation not shy to use children to make a point?"
- In fact I expect Hamas to negotiate with Israel, even though Israel suits the assumptions in your questions perfectly. Israel murdered more than 300 children during it's onslaught last year. If Israel's awful record doesn't disqualify it from the negotiating table, why should Hamas be disqualified? No human rights agencies found any evidence that Hamas hid behind civilians during the massacre - not Human Rights Watch, not Btselem, not Amnesty, not the UN Inquiry led by Richard Goldstone! However, they did find evidence to suggest that Israel used "civilian shields." Again, check it and see!
**
You didn't adress anything I wrote, and you adhered loyally to your principle of ad hominem attack to deflect attention i presume, from the rather uncontronversial bottom line; namely that Israel and the US are the chief rejectionists of peace, and not Hamas. Israel can chose to change it's position but none of the "things [that are] happening right now," suggests they will change their course.
@ PP 'I take that as a backhand admission that you didn't seriously read anything I wrote.'
ReplyDeleteI asked you a direct question, which as in your previous replies you prefer to conveniently ignore. Maybe my responses after reading your 'article' are not what you would wish for, but blame that on your own crippled reasoning. Me I was simply wondering why such a long reply to someone who you believe has not even read your article.
'- In fact I expect Hamas to negotiate with Israel...'
Must be an impossible to resist reflex right? Here we go again. This ongoing dispute has a longer history as only the last year(s). We agree Israel has too often taken too strong measures. That is why I earlier called your fight against Israel's alleged crimes a just cause. The same goes for Hamas, which we seem to disagree on, even after you admitting Hamas to be a disgusting organisation. You say you expect Hamas to be willing to negotiate, but do you honestly trust Hamas? You ask why Hamas should be disqualified, my answer would be not even their own people can trust them. They fight and kill amongst theirselves and provide their children with arms. Mind you I am not talking Palestinians here, what I say applies strictly to Hamas. As their current enemy I surely would not be so ignorant to trust whatever may be convenient to say at a whatever given time.
'You didn't adress anything I wrote, and you adhered loyally to your principle of ad hominem attack to deflect attention i presume, from the rather uncontronversial bottom line; namely that Israel and the US are the chief rejectionists of peace, and not Hamas. Israel can chose to change it's position but none of the "things [that are] happening right now," suggests they will change their course.'
You flatter yourself and your arguments too easily Poya. I adressed quite a bit of what you wrote. You on the other hand adressed only one of my arguments or questions so far. I need not deflect attention, you keep doing that by ignoring any possibility that Hamas is wrong in what it stands for. It for sure is much less wrong as Israel right?
As for the ad hominems. Well, pffff, to speak with Natasha: boohoo. Do not bother others with your simplistic views on how Israel represents evil with Hamas being like a naughty kid more without being capable of taking some in return. It is the infinite sadness attached to this conflict, too many on both sides who only want to be right. The solution to this conflict needs people being able to think out of the box. You are not one of them, as matter of fact you are more of a nuisance. With a friend like you who now needs enemies...
The story of Poya Pakzad is interesting for me for three reasons:
ReplyDelete-He has travelled to Gaza and gave us an insite look at the daily life in Hamas governed Palestine
- He is Persian living in Danmark. Still he did not recognize the great advantages of Western society. For instance freedom of speech. In the Jeruzalem Post or Haaretz you can read critical articles on Israel. In Palestinian media you only read one opinion.
-He repeats the Hamas propaganda all though he knows it is a lie.
Still I am happy that he wants to discuss on an zionist website. because he recognizes zionism as an opinion by discussing with us. Welcome!!
@keesjemaduraatje
ReplyDelete"- He is Persian living in Danmark. Still he did not recognize the great advantages of Western society. For instance freedom of speech. In the Jeruzalem Post or Haaretz you can read critical articles on Israel. In Palestinian media you only read one opinion.
-He repeats the Hamas propaganda all though he knows it is a lie."
- I am a Danish person with an Iranian background. The "great advantages of Western society," is a good thing, but independence is a prerequisite! I read Haaretz, The Post, Ynet and Bt'selem frequently. I think the Israeli media is largely serious. The fact that it is better than the media coming from Palestine, is not a credit to Israel. Please explain what my lies about Hamas are.
"Still I am happy that he wants to discuss on an zionist website. because he recognizes zionism as an opinion by discussing with us. Welcome!!"
- The pleasure is mine
@Poya: do you know the Dutch Persian activist Peyman Jafari? He is a member of the International socialists. Strongly against everything Israel does or is. As his parents were communists fled from Iran ist is not quite clear if is anti-Israel point of view is leftist or islamist or Persian. In fact it does not make much difference. All anti-democratic movements if leftist, islamoist or nationalistic, are against Israel.
ReplyDeleteThe lies abot Hamas are:
-That Hamas would accept a two-state solution
-That Hamas wants to negotiate
-That Israel is to be blamed for the conflict.
http://www.iisg.nl/staff/pja.php
This is a pro-Israel website, which does not mean that we agree with everything that Israel does.
ReplyDeleteFor provocative reasons we just say "zionist website". That is clear and helps the discussion.
@ Poya
ReplyDeleteSlowly I am loosing my appetite to continue this discussion...
'In the rest of your rebuttal you return to your slander and vilification. I presume your laziness is your saving grace.'
'Like a rapist demanding his victim to recognize the coercion!'
'So the analogy is false and perverse.'
You dare say anything about my slander and vilification..?
Right now I lack the time for a longer response. Maybe later.
Zonet las ik dit. De schrijver is een Palestijnse journalist:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=167194
@ PP 'Earlier you wrote, that Hamas was the occupier.'
ReplyDeleteAs I said that was to be read in between the lines. It more was a cynical remark about Hamas (and yes, the likes) hardly being better to the average Palestinian as Israel is. Even as donations to Palestinia keep pouring in amazingly little is done to improve quality of life, and equally amazing, though hardly suprising, large amounts are pocketed by Hamas officials throughout the system.
'There are two arguments for the Apartheid accusation.'
1. Partly agreed on. Though I need see first how this decision will be acted on. Will it mean Israel will try maintain a strong jewish identity throughout it's society? That would not bother me much. Should it indeed mean Arab Israeli's are actively turned into second class citizens that would bother me a lot. And given current status quo I fear it indeed may get to be the last option.
2. 'and brings to mind dark regimes of the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa.' True enough. There are some valid comparisons to be made. Which however does not equal Israeli policy to Apartheid. Israel still is a country under attack and rules a whatever democracy should apply to are not always all that realistic in this given situation. But I Israel is not at all trying hard enough. And that is why I believe international punishment is due, to an extend. Both Israel as Hamas should be held responsible for whatever they act on, the more since neither could excist without international support.
'Simple.'
Not all that simple quite obviously. Yes Israel should cooperate in establishing a Palestinian state. On the other hand Israel is fully entitled to first and always mind it's own security most of all. And honestly I believe a Palestinian state run by for example Hamas would be a major threat to Israel.
'If you have a different account, you haven't given it yet!'
Not so much a different account, only mine starts earlier, and well before '57. No more correct as your account but the whole conflict has an almost endless history. In that sense Israels attack on Jordan was the consequence, not so much the start to anything.
'The world doesn't work like that - and if it does it doesn't suffice as a minimal argument to use force or even threaten the use of force.'
Sadly only too often the world works exactly like that. Attack often being the best defence is harsh but part of reality. And throughout history and seen worldwide often enough preemptive attacks have proven to be a wise and justified choice. And often enough not of course but ok then ;)
Beste mensen, we houden er niet van, onze identiteit te verliezen t.o.v. moslims.
ReplyDeleteWaarom gaan we hier dan ineens over op Engels ?
Als die geverfde vogel nederlands kan lezen zie ik niet in waarom we /jullie hem in het Engels gaan bedienen.
@ Louisa.
ReplyDeleteIk geloof niet dat de meeste moslims engels spreken van nature. Of..? Waarom we hier overgaan op engels? Omdat dit zeer waarschijnlijk de enige taal is die Poya, en de meesten van ons. beiden (allen) redelijk spreken. Dus vooral praktisch van aard. Die geverfde vogel, we/jullie? Krijg het heen en weer. Heb je ook maar een woord proberen te volgen? Zo nee, houdt je dan buiten de 'discussie'. Zo ja, mij 'bedienen' kun je in elke taal, en soms heb je er zelfs geen woorden bij nodig...
Geverfde vogel, kijk, dat bedoel ik nu.
ReplyDeleteIk zou zeggen, houd jij je buiten deze discussie.Want...
Heb jij enig idee of de gemiddelde moslim Engels spreekt ?
En voor de rest, zou ik als Rotterdamse zeggen: kook je hart, hang het op je rug, zodat de honden er bij kunnen, niet waar ?
(Vrij naar Jules Deelder )
Ik weet minder van de gemiddelde moslim dan van de gemiddelde nederlander Louisa. De gemiddelde nederlander spreekt prima engels, de gemiddelde moslim die zich in internationale discussies begeeft zal zich waarschijnlijk ook prima redden. Wat begrijp je niet? Een nederlander die geen zweeds spreekt en een zweed die geen nederlands spreekt mogen van jou niet overschakelen op engels? Want, beste mensen, we houden er niet van, onze identiteit te verliezen t.o.v. moslims..?
ReplyDeleteHele aardige mensen... onder lijn 5. Ook ik ken Deelder een beetje.
Jouw gemiddelde Nederlander hoeft mijn gemiddelde Nederlander niet te zijn, net als de gemiddelde moslim.
ReplyDeleteDe gemiddelde Amsterdammer ? De gemiddelde Rotterdammer ?
De gemiddelde kraker ?
De gemiddelde idioot ?De gemiddelde burgemeester,kankerpatient, Katholiek, Christen, Jood ?Ambtenaar ?
Wat is gemiddeld??
Gaan we ff verder, op z'n Rotterdams, je weet misschien wel (of niet, want wat weet je van de gemiddelde Rotterdammer ?Waarschijnlijk evenveel als van de gemiddelde moslim)
ReplyDeleteJe zegt: de gemiddelde Nederlander spreekt prima Engels: forget it !My foot !
Wat de gemiddelde Amsterdammer spreekt weet ik niet, behalve dat afschuwelijke accent dat gelijk is aan het afschuwelijke Haags en Rotterdams (halo, hiero, en kregh de teregh, ik heb ook een flatje in Den Haag en kan die gaste daarh naueluks versthaan..)
Dus jij weet niks van de gemiddelde Nederlander en waarschijnlijk ook niks van de gemiddelde moslim, Gristen en Jood...
Nog een prettige avond, Geverfde Vogel.
'Wat is gemiddeld??'
ReplyDeleteNu, er zijn vele betekenissen te geven van wat gemiddeld is. Heb je helemaal gelijk in. Maar een voorbeeld zou zijn dat je een in dat opzicht gemiddelde nederlander bent wanneer je redelijk goed engels spreekt. Simpel omdat de meeste nederlanders en vooral de jongere generaties zich er uitstekend mee redden. Dat je ook op 1001 andere manieren gemiddeld kunt zijn doet daar niets aan af.
Je geeft duidelijk liever geen antwoord maar ik ben zo brutaal nog eens te informeren, wat hebben het gebruik van engels en het 'verlies van onze identiteit t.o.v. moslims' in hemelsnaam met elkaar te maken?
Ik weet nu wel dat jij aan allen een even grote hekel lijkt te hebben louisa.
ReplyDeleteGeplaatst door: Painted Bird | 10 februari 2010 om 18:17
ReplyDeleteGeplaatst door: Louisa | 10 februari 2010 om 18:18
Without jumping to conclusions. What's up?
Wil je zo beleefd zijn, Geverfde Vogel, het denken van mij en anderen aan mij en anderen over te laten ??!
ReplyDeleteZegt veel over jou !
Ach, Geverfde Vogel, zie mijn reactie en voor de rest...
ReplyDeleteSpreek je moerstaal en doe niet zo interessant.
Mensen zo als jij verhullen vaak het feit dat ze niks te zeggen hebben door zogenaamde interessante kletskoek in een andere taal.
Doehoei !
Engels is niet erg interessant, dat spreekt iedereen al. Kan ik nog beter grunnegs spreken. Nait soez'n Louisa... ;)
ReplyDeleteGeverfd vogeltje, als jij denkt dat iedereen "al Engels spreekt" vergis je je behoorlijk en illustreer je perfect wat ik bedoel.
ReplyDelete