ty znaesh', ochen' strannoe pis'mo. ja ponimaju, pochemu NYTimes ego opublikovali, no mne ono ne ochen' nravitsja, chestno govorja. iz nego v pervuju ochenred' chitaetsha, chto Israel IS WRONG, a vo vtopruju -- to, chto ty hotel skazat'.
zhalko, esli tak. it does say that israel now is "in the right" and that today it "needs and deserves our support". the many one-sided letters that said only that didn't get printed. zhal'.
p.s. they also printed it under the heading "From Israel, a Voice Against the War (4 Letters)", even though it's not against the war, and omitted the reference to the article to which it was responding. :( oh well.
yes, i've noticed. i think partially that's because how your letter reads. i know what you're trying to say -- that if the bush administration had any credibility, it would be good for israel, but it's too late to build credibility now; but that's not how it reads :((((
nda... i guess it's tied too closely to the article to which it was responding. the article basically says, "it's a problem for the u.s. that u.s. supports israel today so unconditionally". the letter starts "the problem is not that, supporting israel now is fine, the problem is..." out of context it does look like an attack on israel "na rovnom meste".
v obschem, vnimatel'nej nado byt'. too late for this one :((
ja ponimaju, pochemu NYTimes ego opublikovali, no mne ono ne ochen' nravitsja, chestno govorja. iz nego v pervuju ochenred' chitaetsha, chto Israel IS WRONG, a vo vtopruju -- to, chto ty hotel skazat'.
in my (very) humble opinion.
Reply
it does say that israel now is "in the right" and that today it "needs and deserves our support".
the many one-sided letters that said only that didn't get printed.
zhal'.
Reply
and omitted the reference to the article to which it was responding.
:(
oh well.
Reply
i think partially that's because how your letter reads. i know what you're trying to say -- that if the bush administration had any credibility, it would be good for israel, but it's too late to build credibility now; but that's not how it reads :((((
it reads as an anti-settlement statement.
Reply
i guess it's tied too closely to the article to which it was responding. the article basically says, "it's a problem for the u.s. that u.s. supports israel today so unconditionally". the letter starts "the problem is not that, supporting israel now is fine, the problem is..." out of context it does look like an attack on israel "na rovnom meste".
v obschem, vnimatel'nej nado byt'. too late for this one :((
Reply
Leave a comment