1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Meanwhile on the International front....

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by DanOregon, Apr 28, 2023.

  1. X-Hack

    X-Hack Well-Known Member

    Tell me you know nothing about what Israelis eat without telling me you know nothing about what Israelis eat.

    Of course, to be fair, if you haven't spent time there, you'd have no reason to know anything about Israeli cuisine and you'd automatically associate it with what you think of as "Jewish food" based on going to a Jewish deli in the U.S. or Canada.

    Anyway, nobody eats kreplach (or shmaltz or matzo brei or whatever else people in the U.S. or Canada think of as "Jewish" food) in Israel. You might find some old family recipes or a niche restaurant here and there (like Eva's in Tel Aviv and the now-extinct Fefferberg's). And some of the Yiddish-speaking ultra-Orthodox may make traditional Eastern European food now that ingredients are more readily available than they were 75 or 100 a years ago, but otherwise that stuff has about as much to do with Israeli food (which is Mediterranean) as Valencian paella has to do with Taco Bell. Oddly, however, schnitzel is the one E. European dish that' s widespread.

    Forebears of today's Israelis of Ashkenazic descent may have eaten that stuff in the shtetls (Jewish villages in E. Europe) but when they arrived in Israel, local ingredients and produce (and influence of Jews from North Africa, the Levant, the Balkans and those who were in the land of Israel the whole time, not to mention the desire to shake off the trappings of ghetto life in Eastern Europe) led to a much different cuisine.
     
  2. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Israeli food is MENA (Middle East North Africa) food. In other words, it's delicious.
     
  3. hickory_smoke

    hickory_smoke Member

    In fairness, this is a still from a Daffy Duck cartoon. Sorry to see Fefferberg’s closed. I remember going there as a kid.
     
    X-Hack likes this.
  4. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    If our schools are so bad that people can’t recognize the Scarlet Pumpernickel, then I am left with no choice but to vote for Donald Trump.
     
    hickory_smoke likes this.
  5. bumpy mcgee

    bumpy mcgee Well-Known Member

    You're despicable
     
    I Should Coco and dixiehack like this.
  6. Hermes

    Hermes Well-Known Member

    An incredible sentence, one I wish I had been able to shoehorn into a response to a strongly-worded letter or email from readers.
     
  7. X-Hack

    X-Hack Well-Known Member

    That's actually fantastic.

    Did you order the calves foot jelly? Shit terrifed me.
     
    hickory_smoke likes this.
  8. hickory_smoke

    hickory_smoke Member

    I just remember wanting actual Israeli food on our visit, but my folks kept misfiring by insisting on upscale places. This was in 1988. Fefferberg’s stood out from the fancy, though underwhelming, hotel restaurants. I remember liking it but recall next to nothing about the food.
     
    X-Hack likes this.
  9. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Lawyers can get together in a room and masturbate over the meaning of genocide all day long. ... and it still doesn't change what the word actually means. ... someone trying to wipe out an ethnic / religious group because of their ethnicity.

    The thing that demonstrates just how corupt and dishonest the current attempt at redefinition of the word is, is if you looked at genocidal intent (not through the lens of pages and pages of curated legalese that cherry picks its targets), "River to the sea" rhetoric is what actually sounds genocidal in its intent. You'll get crickets about that, though. Then, accompany that "river to the sea," rhetoric which quite literally means, "We want Israel wiped off the map," with a brutal attack like the one on October 7 that attacked and killed people because of their religion and ethnicity. And we're in bizarro land on the "genocide" stuff.

    None of the perversion of language ever tries to pervert the word to acknowledge that. Instead, it's the country that is subject to that hatred and aggression that has to deal with this nonsense, even though it was not the aggresor that started this, and it has never demonstrated anything that says, "Our goal is to wipe out a group of people based on their ethnicity and religion." It's actually the opposite, Israel had been establishing relations with Arab countries that were previously hostile toward it, one by one, and it's fair to speculate that one reason October 7 happened was that it was about normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, something Iran, which is behind Hamas, didn't want.

    Even if I am wrong about all the obvious things I am pointing out, this is a war in which about 40,000 people probably have died out of a population of more than 2 million people, and the death toll has slowed down as it has gone on. If that is genocide, Israel is the most feckless purveyor of genocide ever.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2024
    Guy_Incognito and Batman like this.
  11. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    You realize the dictionary and the UN and the Holocaust museum ends the definition before the word because, right?
     
    2muchcoffeeman likes this.
  12. YMCA B-Baller

    YMCA B-Baller Well-Known Member

    Maybe this is a better fit for the journalism page. I get that the possibility is there, perhaps it’s likely, but I'm so tired of news headlines, and similar tone in stories too, that read like this:

    AP:

    Israel and Hezbollah trade heavy fire before pulling back, jolting a region braced for war

    AP isn't alone. Reuters, The Guardian and many others trade in the same kind of words. The headline writers, and very often the journalists too, are walking (and tripping over, in my opinion) a very fine line between idle speculation, or worse, provocative words used to draw attention. You see similar verbiage in ledes, especially. Sometimes contradicted by the facts in the story itself.

    Yes, it's entirely possible that a full-scale war will break out, but it's also possible it will not. Headlines and stories like it with the same tone have been running since the Hamas attack last October. Prior to that, every little thing that happened in the Middle East had a similar tone.

    I get that every war has a fuse that needs to be lit, but not every event is the match to light it. News organizations should always be mindful of that.

    There's a way to write about the worst-case (and best-case) scenario possibilities without doing it the way some news organizations do. I doubt it's intended this way, but some of the sensationalism comes off almost as cheering for the worst-case scenario.

    Just report the news as it is. Save the speculative asides.

    Edit: The AP has since removed that suffix to their headline in their latest version.

     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page