With the rise of social media, memes have become the default mode of communication for many people.
However, in a recent article, the Jerusalem Post published the following: “What do we need to do if we want to make our voices heard?”
It is unclear what the question is really meant to be.
In the article, one of the authors, Zechariah Shalev, asks: “If we are going to be heard, then what do we have to do to be noticed?”
The question does not clearly define what “we” are meant to do, but the fact that this question is asked at all shows that the authors have no intention of making a coherent statement or even clarifying the meaning of the question.
This lack of clarity does not seem to be a deliberate effort to obfuscate the issue, but rather to simply make the question a bit more complex, so that the public can find the answers to it themselves.
While the authors of the article have not clarified the answer to the question, the question itself is not an incorrect question, but an attempt to create a confusion, and the answers they provide do not clarify the question at all.
If one simply wants to know what is being said, one can find out by asking the question and then answering the question directly.
This is not a problem, however, because the author of the piece has not clarified what the “we,” “us” and “our” are, but instead created a vague term to indicate that the question was not intended to be answered.
This confusion may seem clear, but there are more subtle nuances in the question: What does it mean to say “that the IDF will never be the one to use force” or “that Israel is never going to use military force”?
How can one answer “yes” when one is not sure what the correct answer is?
In other words, the ambiguity and confusion of the query is a result of the fact the question does in fact have a specific definition.
The authors have confused the question by suggesting the answer was not clear, and then instead of clarifying it, they have created a confusion.
For example, in the article “Does the IDF have to use violence to achieve peace?”, the author states: “The answer to that question is a complex one, because we are not sure yet what the right answer is.
But I would like to give you the option of taking this option, or not taking it.
We do not want to impose on the Israeli public that we are always going to take action against them.”
The author has also asked: “Is the use of force necessary for the survival of Israel?” and “What is the military advantage of using force?”
It may be tempting to simply say: “I would prefer to take the option ‘yes’ rather than ‘no’ in this case, but we are still not sure of the right answers.
What can we do?”
But the ambiguity of the answer is in the ambiguity, and this ambiguity is the real problem with the article.
What does “yes,” “no” and the ambiguity in the answer really mean?
The ambiguity is due to the fact this question has been created by the authors to be ambiguous.
It is meant to create confusion.
However the ambiguity does not make the answer clear, it only creates a confusing answer.
To be clear, the answer does not contradict itself, but is rather an answer that is not obvious at all, because it does not fully explain the question as the author intended it to be explained.
The ambiguity creates a false sense of security in the public, and makes the public believe that the answer will make them feel better and be more secure.
As such, the author has created a situation where the public is unable to find the answer that they seek, or, at least, to avoid the ambiguity that would help them find the right information.
The author should also be aware that this ambiguity will not solve the problem of the use and misuse of force by the IDF.
While it is true that there are many issues surrounding the use, misuse and abuse of force that need to be addressed by the Israeli military, the problem is not only about the use.
The use of violence is one of them.
The misuse of violence and the abuse of violence are also part of the equation.
To address the misuse and misuse, and to avoid escalation of violence, the Israeli government must work to improve its use of military force.
Unfortunately, the use by the government of violence by the state, the abuse by the armed forces and the corruption and abuse by those in the state are all problems that require the support of the Israeli people.
In this context, the fact is that it is very difficult to answer the question of whether the Israeli state uses violence or not.
It does not have to, because there is no clear definition of the term “use.”
And it does have to be clear that the use does not justify or condone the abuse.
The abuse of soldiers and officers by the