If only George Orwell could come back from the dead.
In a column today titled “Semantic Minefields,” New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt asks whether “new construction authorized by Israel in East Jerusalem” should be called “Jewish ‘housing’ or ‘settlements’?" I wonder…
Here’s more from Hoyt’s column:
Nathan Dodell of Rockville, Md., said it was “tendentious and arrogant” to use the word “settlements” four times in the article when the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has explicitly rejected it in relation to East Jerusalem. Obama has used the term himself to refer to construction in East Jerusalem, and [Helene] Cooper told me, “I called them settlements because that’s the heart of the dispute between the Israelis and the United States: settlement construction in Arab East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want for an eventual Palestinian state.”
But to Dodell, she was taking sides. He asked why she didn’t use a neutral term like “housing construction.”
Settlement is a charged word in this context, because it suggests something less than permanent on someone else’s land. Israel argues that all of Jerusalem is its undivided capital, a claim not recognized by the United States and most of the world. Articles by Times reporters in Jerusalem do generally use words like “housing” instead of “settlement.” Still, Ethan Bronner, the bureau chief, said it would be unwise to adopt a hard and fast rule, because some areas of the city taken by Israel in 1967 had long been Jewish neighborhoods while others, built more recently, had the feeling of settlements.
I think Cooper should have found a more neutral term. As with Katrina, it is best to use language as precise as possible. But like Bronner, I don’t think a rigid rule is the solution.
Using the term “settlement” is itself a euphemism. “Colonies” is probably the best way to describe the illegal Jewish areas built on Palestinian land. Like other colonial-settler enterprises, these areas privilege Jews over the indigenous Palestinians, decisions are made by Israelis for the benefit of Jews only, and economic exploitation of Palestinian resources takes place routinely, among other hallmarks of colonialism.
Hoyt thinks “settlements” is a charged word because it merely “suggests” that Israelis are living on Palestinian land. It seems like Hoyt is woefully ignorant about the facts in Palestine: the use of the word “settlement” is factually accurate because Israeli Jews who live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are stealing Palestinian land, period. They are living on land that is not theirs, and any agreement within the two-state solution framework will have to mandate that these colonies be dismantled.
International law is clear. But apparently, Hoyt believes that a neutral term like “Jewish housing” should be used, because Israel argues that all of Jerusalem is theirs, while the rest of the world and international law say otherwise.
Using the term “Jewish housing” is complete hasbara. How can you deny Jews the right to live somewhere, a layperson could reasonably ask, if they see the term “Jewish housing” in regards to the row about East Jerusalem?
Sometimes I forget: facts and the truth mean little to the Times when it comes to Israel/Palestine. War is peace, settlements are Jewish housing.
Thank you, New York Times for being there throughout Israel’s 62 years of existence, justifying massacres, whitewashing atrocities and turning a blind eye to ethnic cleansing all in the name of the Jewish people. It’ll be sad to see you go for you are one of the best of Israel’s delegitimizers any peace loving, justice seeking individual can ever ask for. History won’t look kindly back at the New York Times and its fascist CEO and board of directors.
Arthur (Pinch) Sulzberger, Jr., now there’s a fascist. Somehow “Schmuck” would fit in better than “Pinch”.
Putz would work.
Heh. After I read two sentences I had already decided to comment that they should be called colonies, which they clearly are. However, Mr. Kane addressed that later. It is so refreshing to read people who pull no punches and call reality what it really is, rather than what they wish it were.
Also, and why I replied to you, I was going to call Hoyt a putz.
No point in bothering about this all now. I woke up this morning (sorry, folks) and Google News tells me an “Arab-American woman” has won the Ms. USA pageant. So I think it’s pretty obvious the apocalypse is starting. Well, Daniel Pipes thinks so, anyway. It’s a Muslim-affirmative-action-conspiracy!
First a ‘muzlem’ black president, then an arab ‘muzlem’ girl wins the Miss USA beauty pageant: what next? Sharia law on main street?
Oh yeah I bet a lot people ‘out there’ in USA are saying that today.
Don’t it all sound like a ripe rightwingnutjob conspiracy theory is self-fulfilling itself right before our eyes… I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this, Mooser.
You’re right, Taxi. The U.S. of Arabia is unfolding before our very eyes.
If she be the harbinger of apocalypse I say bring it! Cause she is The Geeorgeous!
BTW Debbie Schussel is already having a conniption. I won’t link for your convenience.
she is beautiful, especially while pole dancing. its a bummer the first thing that I saw when googling her name was a story about her (and thankfully a picture also)
Some OKies think Miss OK should have won. Based on the answers each contestant gave, Miss OK’s meshed with the opinions of many down in Dixie. You see, Arizona’s “controversial” immigration law is supposed to be supported; it’s the patriotic thing to do.
Rima Fakih was born in Srifa in Lebanon’s Jnoub about 10 km from the southern border.
Mabrook ya libnan, alf mabrook!
I watched some of this strange show, the contestants were being asked totally political questions, to hopefully get their Perez Hilton/Carrie Prejean moment. Weir did his best to bait one of them unsuccessfully. I wish I could find the Q&A…
Joan Rivers really needs to put down the scalpel. Her backside must be cottage cheese, while her face is tight as a drum head.
Low fat cottage cheese, but cottage cheese just the same.
RE:”I think it’s pretty obvious the apocalypse is starting. Well, Daniel Pipes thinks so, anyway.” – Mooser
“The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.” – George W. Bush (to Chirac), early 2003
SOURCE – link to secularhumanism.org
Using the term “settlement” is itself a euphemism. “Colonies” is probably the best way to describe the illegal Jewish areas built on Palestinian land. Like other colonial-settler enterprises, these areas privilege Jews over the indigenous Palestinians, decisions are made by Israelis for the benefit of Jews only, and economic exploitation of Palestinian resources takes place routinely, among other hallmarks of colonialism.
Precisely, well said Alex.
Why not call it what it is, SEGREGATED HOUSING? People in the US understand what that means. “Settlements” and “colonies” may seem a bit obscure, but we have recent experience with segregated housing so Americans know what it is, even if aren’t familiar with what is going on in Israel/Palestine.
tree,
Segregated housing conveys only one aspect of the settlement/colony issue – ignoring or downplaying the theft of land and resources.
Doesn’t really matter what word they use so long as it ALWAYS follows the word ‘ILLEGAL’.
Hear! Hear! Taxi
You drive right to the point.
Alex,
One key element of colonialism as defined by international law is the physical transfer of the colonizing country’s population to the land that has been occupied and taken from the native inhabitants. It’s a simple legal definition that no one can argue against.
Therefore, as a matter of legal definition, “Colonialism” fits like a glove Israel’s actions in Occupied East Jerusalem.
In the 1990s, NBC received a memo from the Israeli government asking the network, in explicit language, to use the term “Jewish neighborhoods” in describing colonies in and around Jerusalem. It was in a video about the bias in mainstream media. It might have been Peace Propaganda and the Promised Land available on YouTube. I’m not sure.
It was in Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land Avi
Thank you, VR. I really appreciate that.
Available here for anyone who hasn’t seen it:
link to youtube.com
This is not related to this article folks but I thought I’d share this, it seemed very relevant to Israel/Palestine.
I watched a great documentary last night on Compass (ABC Oz), an Australian man of South African descent returns to SA to examine the guilt he’s felt over colluding with apartheid. To quote the Compass host:
“What’s the price of being a bystander?”
The man is jewish so ideas about social justice figured heavily in his thinking. He also came to Australia via Israel though that isn’t explored, a great shame.
Link – it’s up for 2 weeks:
‘The wrong side of the bus’
link to abc.net.au
Typical hand-wringing courtesy of the New York Times. Lest we forget that the NYT isn’t completely on the Hasbara bandwagon, here they remind us that there still some journalists with integrity working for it, exploring balanced ways of reporting. Yes, this is what qualifies as independent thought…thinly veiled praise for NYT’s reporting which transparently endorses Israeli propaganda in the name of objectivity.
This is merely smoke and mirrors for the reality which the NYT still explicitly fails to acknowledges: East Jerusalem is occupied territory. That in itself renders the housing, irrespective of its Jewish inhabitants, to be illegal settlements. And of course, this is something that never figures into the equation for the pondering writer. For the author (and much of the NYT as I have read on this conflict), this is merely the conflict of Jews building “housing” in East Jerusalem, and the Palestinians “wanting it” as “their eventual capital.” (notice how the two-state solution is covertly and repeatedly pushed through such an admission). Thus the NYT frames the conflict simply as two inflexible opponents unwilling to resolve their personal differences. The decisive, clear cut facts never enter the foray of discussion, for they would render the entire settlement enterprise illegal and indefensible, and the Israelis largely at fault. The NYT would have us believe that Israel’s repeated and immunized by the US defiance of int’l law is not even a factor. Neither the inconvenient fact that the annexation of EJ is not recognized by any government in the world except Israel, not even America.
If one needs to see how the US media champions the cause of perpetuating the myths for Israel which sustain the status quo, one need not look any further than the esteemed NYT.
Thank you for that, it seems very interesting.
Using the term “Jewish housing” is complete hasbara. How can you deny Jews the right to live somewhere, a layperson could reasonably ask, if they see the term “Jewish housing” in regards to the row about East Jerusalem?
Kane, the deeper implications of this framing must also be examined, in contrast to the NYT’s other frequent assertion, that the Palestinians “want” EJ as the “capital of their eventual state”. The term “Jewish housing” not only absolves the settlements of its colonial nature, but it also, as you point out, implicitly asserts the Jewish legitimacy to such structures.
On the other hand, the Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem is repeatedly rendered dubious and trivialized, by framing it as something that the Palestinians “want.” So, in effect, the Palestinian claim to EJ is really nothing more than the object of their national aspirations, to be fulfilled in a future prospect. Thus the historical residence and roots of the Palestinians in Jerusalem are entirely removed and framed in terms of their selfishly motivated desires and wants. As an NYT reader who didn’t know any better, I would subsequently assume that the pesky Palestinians, forever intransigent in being a realistic peace partner to the Israelis, are again playing the blame game and denying the poor, persecuted Jews of their “housing.”
Brilliantly summarized, sherbrsi.
great article Alex. The only problem “Israeli Jews who live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are stealing Palestinian land, period. They are living on land that is not theirs”. That describes every square inch of land Israeli Jews live on. So, it is difficult to make this argument. It’s saying “They’re living on stolen Palestinian land, they need to live in their own land that’s not stolen…wait a second! dammit! it’s all stolen!”
Sometimes I try to look at the whole mess that Britain left behind when it waltzed out of the region through the eyes of third party outsiders, the average bystander in Europe or the US. And you know what? I can’t blame most people for avoiding the conflict alltogether. It’s been going on for too long and the information available, credible information, is scant. That doesn’t even begin to address the euphemisms and propaganda that makes the terminology and the reality all too confusing.
Having ranted for a paragraph, here’s what I think is a reasonable benchmark: International Law.
The great Norm Finkelstein once elaborated on that position in an interview he did on Danish TV. Otherwise, it’s like you said, a nonstarter.
If the settlements are the problem, why Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza strip in 2005 didn’t bring some quiet and better relations on the Southern border, since all settlements, their inhabitants and the IDF left for ever and the Gaza strip became “judenfrei”? On the contrary the “democratic” elected Hamas government of Gaza and its consorts stepped up their attacks against the Israeli Southern communities which they, oh what surprise, consider occupied territory the same as “Judea and Samaria” or “the “West Bank” if you like it more.
So now let’s imagine what could and would happen if Israel withdrew from the West Bank, as the (moderate, let alone the extremist) Palestinians and the critics of Israel claim aloud, brandishing the international law as their bible and last truth. Would the Palestinians be satisfied? Would they accept the international Law? Have they ever considered international Law as binding?
Guess it would be the usual mess.
I’ll view your sematic ruminations on the term “settlement” noteworthy and legitimate when you’ll deign to bow at the same time with the same scrupulous on the semantic connotations of terms such as “Palestinian resistance” or “education to resistance” or “non-recognition of the right of existence of the Jewish state”.
Regards.
French doesn’t beat around the bush. A settlement is a ‘colonie’ and settler is a ‘colon’ (colonist). No other words for it.
Settlement infers that it’s built in a no man’s land. A colony infers building on someone else’s. I always refer to them as colonies and colonists as they are built on stolen lands but sometimes I forget and go with the flow..
French doesn’t beat around the bush.
Nor Italian: settlements are “colonie”, settlers are “coloni”, and the West Bank is “Cisgiordania” (not the WB of the Hudson, the Rhine or the Danube).
One of my favourite hasbara euphemisms for colonies in the WB is “Jewish community” – again evoking images of the Seine, the Oder and the Vistula – a brave, innocent minority, alternately successful (against all odds) or persecuted (serving suggestion only: Cossacks not included).
It’s also Cisjordanie in French.
I’m thinking that because French and Italian are Latin languages, cis, meaning same side (of the Jordan) as opposed to the other side, trans, there’sa nothing similar in English or even Arabic , Aldaffah-l-gharbiyyah. This may explain the difference in naming.
there’sa nothing similar in English or even Arabic , Aldaffah-l-gharbiyyah.
Or in Hebrew, which must be why they opted for “Judea and Samaria” ;-)
There’s nothing wrong with the English (or the Arabic). It’s just that “West Bank” sounds so detached, as a geographic designation – like Mountain or Hill or Upstream.
Hi TGIA; like puzzles? Since Cisjordanie is the west bank of the river (Aldaffah-l-gharbiyyah) and cis means on the same side, how is it that it’s not called Cisjourdain since it’s on the side of the river and not the country? From yesterday’s Figaro; at least the French know the difference between the occupied WB and Israel:
Israël interdit la Cisjordanie à Chomsky
AFP
16/05/2010 | L’intellectuel juif américain Noam Chomsky a déclaré aujourd’hui avoir été empêché par les autorités israéliennes de se rendre en Cisjordanie, où il doit intervenir devant une université palestinienne.
“Since Cisjordanie is the west bank of the river (Aldaffah-l-gharbiyyah) and cis means on the same side, how is it that it’s not called Cisjourdain since it’s on the side of the river and not the country?”
Good question. I think that’s because it’s been given a country-like or a region name not just a mere definition/designation of what it is, a side of a river.
I think that’s because it’s been given a country-like or a region name not just a mere definition/designation of what it is, a side of a river.
I agree. It is the same logic that gave the other side of the river the name Transjordanie rather than Transjourdain.
I’m puzzled because unlike in French, in English both the country and the river are called Jordan but in French, the country is called la Jordanie and the river is called le Jourdain. The WB being adjacent to the river would make it Cisjourdain and not Cijordanie.
Memo to Hoyt: It’s not just most of the world, it’s every other country in the world, now that El Salvador and Costa Rica have taken their embassies out of Jerusalem.
What does this have to do with feeling? There are parts of the United States that have the feeling of being in some other country; does it then follow that it would be unwise to adopt a hard and fast rule to say that they are in the United States? The point is that we’re talking about the legal status of bits of land and of the people living on it.
To everyone whom states it as clark does, maybe they should walk through or drive through too in the Palestinian area called west bank & gaza etc as well as to stand and watch the murder for themselves, it is not too hard to get in those areas nor will the people stone you etc….I did not know a sole and went to follow protests that were peaceful till it was at the front gate of Arafat’s old place, and also to have life threatened by the occupation forces (majority of whom are from the usa some I knew too) . Everyone should go there to witness a step back in time in many ways…..a once beautiful place being destroyed, etc…to the step back in time to actually live worst than the camps in germany, (simply because of the duration and administrations that have passed the murderous assult on to the next usa puppet–I meant president.)
AND why has Britain not been held to any responsibility as of yet, maybe they too should visit the camps of Palestine were even usa citizens like rachel cory are murdered with no accountibility, why did she not realize the usa really is israel and just swiping more land with the help of briton and for what…the obvious… the norm….it just comes natural ask the american indians, if I was them, I would get into the international courts regarding what is theirs, but they were dumbed down by drugs and drink compliments of none other……than the usual culprits.
>> Hoyt thinks “settlements” is a charged word because it merely “suggests” that Israelis are living on Palestinian land.
Good thing the issue of the word “exile” didn’t come up – that REALLY would have fucked people up! 8-o
If the settlements are the real problem, why Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza strip in 2005 didn’t bring some quiet and better relations on the Southern border, since all settlements, their inhabitants and the IDF left for ever and the Gaza strip became free of Jews? On the contrary the “democratic” elected Hamas government of Gaza (and its consorts) stepped up their attacks against the Israeli Southern communities which they, oh what surprise, consider occupied territory the same as “Judea and Samaria” or “the “West Bank” if you like it more.
So now let’s imagine what could and would happen if Israel withdrew from the West Bank, as the (moderate, let alone the extremist) Palestinians and the critics of Israel claim aloud, brandishing the international law as their bible and last truth. Will the Palestinians – the radicals among them – be satisfied? Would they accept the international Law then?
I’ll view these sematic thoughts on the term “settlement” noteworthy when you look at the same time and with the same scrupulous on the semantic connotations of terms such as “struggle by all means” or “education to resistance” or “non-recognition of the right of existence of the Jewish state”.
A balanced and equidistant analysis is the best premise for search of the truth.
Regards.
P.S. I hope mondoweiss is democratic enough to let through my post.
Yes its completely Judenfrei, except when the “IDF” makes its usual at will incursions, is completely blockaded by air, sea, and land. There is no freedom of movement for its residents. There is a shoot to kill “buffer-zone” that like all Israeli fences making good neighbors starts far into Gazn Territory. Other than that, yep, you’re right.
No, he’s wrong on all accounts. According to the definition of an “occupation”, Israel’s control over the borders, airspace and territorial waters of Gaza means that its occupation of Gaza continues. Its just done from a distance now, and the illegal settlers are gone, partly to make it easier to control Gaza from a distance.
And Gaza is not Judenfrei, either. Besides the regular incursions of Israeli troops, there are some Jews living there at present. They just aren’t settlers stealing land. See Max Ajl’s posts from Gaza.
link to maxajl.com
He is not only documenting his presence as a Jew in Gaza, but is also documenting the continual violence inflicted by the IDF on the people of Gaza.
What does Bronner mean when he says “some areas of the city taken by Israel in 1967 had long been Jewish neighborhoods”? Were Jews living there between 1948 and 1967? Were Jews living there before 1948 and were expelled but the neighborhoods were “reclaimed” as Jewish after 1967? Were Jews living there in the 18th and 19th century? Anyone know?
He means [I presume, I've heard it said before] there were jews living in certain areas in East Jerusalem pre-1948 – and they are therefore merely returning to reclaim their property. In discussion, that is right time to agree, then ask when the Palestinians will be permitted to do the same?
There’s a problem: they left because they went to war to quash a UN recommendation and lost. They left because they initiated violence. They left because in many instances they were told to do so or figured out that it would be better to get out of the way for a while. But they lost. Sometimes, when you lose, you really do lose.
Not in this conflict ymedad. its much like the definition of the Palestinian refugee, they make up their own rules. There has been no other conflict in history where the perpetual loser keeps asking for more and more.
So Zionists stole thier country and they are supposed to welcome you? Are you crazy? Zionists intiated violence long time before 1948. So you little settler are challenging international laws? and keep denying the Nakba?
and the cycle of lies begins again huh aparisian.
and the cycle of lies begins again huh aparisian.
you mean the lies of ymeda the illegal settler on Palestine?
can you tell us about his lies? I am curious.
everything but to please you, i will give you an example, your illegal settler friend said:
They left because they initiated violence.
This is a lie, Zionists who are the ones who started the lands theft and violence long time before 48. Learn by yourself
link to guardian.150m.com
aparisian: a) I am not little. Doesn’t pay to be nasty. b) in 1851, Arabs struck Avraham Zoref on the head and killed him, the first Jewish victim of Arab political anti-Zionist violence, for the crime of building the Hurva Synagogue on Jerusalem’s Old City. link to en.wikipedia.org
Do you really think you know anything about the conflict?
Not in this conflict ymedad. its much like the definition of the Palestinian refugee, they make up their own rules.
Rights are not accorded by military victories and losses. This is the fundamentally inhumane concept that has been embraced by Zionism and Zionists; that might is right, and might dictates what is right.
On the extent of the Zionist-controlled territory and the number of Palestinian refugees through May 1948, see for example, David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, London: Faber and Faber, 1977, pp. 123-143. An excerpt (pp. 136, 138-139, 142):
Benny Morris, “The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: the Israel Defence Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948,” Middle Eastern Studies (London), January 1986, pp. 5-19. An excerpt (pp. 5, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 18 ):
(From Understanding Power footnotes expanded online) Since Morris’s early publications, he has noted that later declassified documents have strengthened his conclusions. See Benny Morris, “Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948,” in Eugene L. Rogan and Avi Shlaim, eds., The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 37-59. An excerpt (pp. 49, 38 ):
Avi Shlaim’s The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, New York: Norton, 2000. An excerpt (p. 31):
Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, New York: Pantheon, 1987, pp. 81-118. An excerpt (pp. 42, 83-84, 132):
The source you cite, doesn’t mention political or “anti-Zionist” violence, but implies that Zoref was killed for falling behind on his racket payments:
“Zoref, claiming that the Ashkenazim currently in Jerusalem were not related in any way to those who had borrowed the money at the turn of the 18th century, was forced to appear in court requesting a further ruling cancelling the debts. He mentioned that an injunction had already been passed which absolved the Ashkenazim from repaying the debt[24] and maintained that the Turkish Statute of Limitations cancelled out the debts of Judah he-Hasid’s followers.[25] Although the court ruled in the Ashkenazim’s favour,[24] Zoref nevertheless had to appease the Arab instigators with annual bribes in order to allow building to continue. At some point this arrangement ceased and in 1851, he was struck on the head with a sword and died of his wounds three months later.” (Wikipedia)
Rights are not accorded by military victories and losses. This is the fundamentally inhumane concept that has been embraced by Zionism and Zionists; that might is right, and might dictates what is right.
Amazing how they insist both on the moral high ground and on the law of the jungle – shooting and crying.
ymedad = the illegal settler.
a) I m not the thief, you are the one who make homeless children to steal their land, you are the white supermacists not me.
b) So you decided to steal Palestine because a jewish guy was killed by an Arab?
Do you really belong to earth?
“in 1851, Arabs struck Avraham Zoref on the head and killed him, the first Jewish victim of Arab political anti-Zionist violence”
Talk about scraping the barrel!
Is there any evidence that Zoref’s murder was teh result of Arab political anti-Zionist violence?
“There’s a problem: they left because they went to war to quash a UN recommendation and lost.”
No, as Benny Morris has documented, they left beause as Moshe Smilansky wrote in Hapoel Hatzair in the spring edition of 1908:
“Either the Land of Israel of Israel belongs in the national sense to those Arabs who settled there in recent years [before 1908], and then we have no place there and we must say explicitly: The land of our fathers is lost to us. [Or] if the land of Israel belongs to us, the the Jewish people, then our national interests come before all else. . . . it is not possible for one country to serve as the homeland of two peoples.” (Righteous Victims, p. 58) ”
And Israel Zangwill, who stated in 1905 in a speech to a Zionist group in Manchester that:
“Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ….. [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)
a) “Qurvot (Battles)”. The proper pronounciation is Kravot.
b) you seem to have a one-sided bibliography. don’t you read all the books on a given subject?
In my feeling, Israel has stolen ALL of Palestine, and there is no difference (in reality, setting international law to one side) between Israeli control of Tel-Aviv and of E. Jerusalem. It’s all colonialism. The land seizures (not by arms-length purchase) are all theft. Piracy.
That’s feeling, my feeling. Based on that feeling, call the settlements Colonies, call them Stolen Land, whatever.
At law (by very broad agreement), Israel is a state (and that not al illegal robber) in its pre-1967 territory, and the 1967 accretions are [1] held in belligerent occupation by Israel and [2] ownership is unsettled, with some tendency to refer to OPTs as “Palestinian” lands. Usage is such that Israeli “settlement” in OPT has come to mean a building devoted to Jewish residence (but it is illegal for an Israeli to live there!) built upon land taken (stolen) illegally from the residents of the occupied territory.
So, what it IS is a building — built on illegally acquired land and illegally occupied by Israeli citizens.
To emphasize this illegality, it has become insufficient to say “illegal settlement” because this plays into the Israeli game of suggesting (fraudulently) that there are also “legal” settlements. I’d suggest “settlement (illegal at international law)”.
If it makes anyone feel better, how about “Israeli colonial settlement (illegal at international law)”.
Is pre 1967 really Israel or does the broad agreement have no basis in law?
I would think that 1948 does have basis in law – even if it was a complete travesty of justice.
All we need to do is wait long enough and there will be a new consensus on what Israel is.
All we have to do is wait long enough and Israel will be an Arabenrein state from the Med to the Jordan. Then we can wring our hands and deplore this, just as we now deplore the UN cowardice of 1948.
Because then, as now, no one will DO anything to stop it and save the Palestinians from the bulldozers.
Pablemont, the Jews weren’t the only ones. When Israel declared its independence, it became a free-for-all and the rush was on to grab the Palestinians’s land. Israel may have ended up stealing and controlling it all but there were other players out to screw the Palestinians. A little known fact especially among Arabs was the side deal made by Jordan’s Abdullah and Golda Meir on November 17, 1947 in which Jordan had agreed to practically stay out of the coming war with the Jews and which contradicts the Zionist mantra on how ALL the Arabs pounced on poor little helpless Israel in 49; from Wiki:
In 1946–1948, Abdullah actually supported partition in order that the Arab allocated areas of the British Mandate for Palestine could be annexed into Transjordan. Abdullah went so far as to have secret meetings with the Jewish Agency (future Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was among the delegates to these meetings) that came to a mutually agreed upon partition plan independently of the United Nations in November 1937.[8][9] This idea of secret Zionist-Hashemite negotiations in 1947 was expanded upon by New Historian Avi Shlaim in his book Collusion Across The Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine. This partition plan was supported by British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin who preferred to see Abdullah’s territory increased at the expense of the Palestinians rather than risk the creation of a Palestinian state headed by the Mufti of Jerusalem and Nazi propagandist[10] Mohammad Amin al-Husayni.[3
link to en.wikipedia.org
Nothing from Witty? (or his boychik?) Nothing from “wondering Jew” (or his brother?) Nothing from Yonira? Or the rest? Well, I am certainly not going to close my mind on this subject until I hear the reasoned and non-maximalist arguments from the Jewish side. I said “Jewish” cause I didn’t want to use any loaded or provocative terms.
C’mon fellas, we need to hear the Jewish side of this whole “coloniser” thing.
Are you nostalgic already Mooser?
They have been “intellectually cleansed” maybe, or are filling up on Hasberry juice.
But then again if they are going to clamor for a right of return, they have to show that they had the keys to the house, namely, an ability to constructively participate in the conversation!
Hasberry juice! Classic.
you know I am against the settlements and any settling of land outside the ’67 borders.
Just in case this post and the comments will be reviewed in the future, I’d like to make sure that at least one objection appears:
As opposed to the claim that we are “stealing Palestinian land, period. They are living on land that is not theirs”, we are not. They stole our land. They engaged in ethnic cleansing, expelling Jewish residents of Jenin, Shchem, Gaza, Hebron and other cities and locations throughout Judea and Samaria in the 20th century. They killed Jews to kick them out and even after Jews agreed to territorial compromise, the Arabs refused and continued to kill and eject Jews from Jerusalem’s Old City, Atarot, Gush Etzion, Neveh Yaakov, Bet HaAravah in the 1947-49 war the Arabs launched after 30 years of pogroms and riots.
Do you really think that engaging in historical revisionism is going to earn you the trust of readers?
It seems that the mouse wants to play with the cat, so let’s entertain you for a few minutes, try this: Provide a reliable source for your claims. Then, we’ll have something to work with.
As they stand, your claims are false. Not only does the historical record show the opposite of what you claim, but many an Israeli scholar disagree with you.
Al Nakba
This is called reclaiming their land from the colonialist infiltrators.
“As opposed to the claim that we are “stealing Palestinian land, period. They are living on land that is not theirs”, we are not.”
False.
You see, Jews only owned 7% of the land while the Palestinans had lgtitimate ownership of 50%.
As your famous historian Beeny Morris said, ethnic cleansing in built into the very fabric of Zionism and Zionist founders were openly declaring their aims to ethncially cleanse Palestine since Herzl.
Your founding fathers accepted that the land belonged to the Palestinians, but that they would take it regardless.
But do go one ymedad. It’s always good clean fun to debunk you fundies.
Pottie: yes, you’re right. Except that the infiltrators are the Arabs from Arabia who conquered and occupied a land not theirs in the 7th century and set up colonies in the Land of Israel.
Avi: let’s do Neveh Yaakov:
Neve Yaakov also Neve Ya’aqov, (Hebrew: נווה יעקב) (lit. Jacob’s Oasis), is a neighborhood located in northeastern Jerusalem, north of Pisgat Ze’ev and south of al-Ram. Established in 1924 during the period of the British Mandate, it was abandoned during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The area was recaptured by Israel in the Six Day War and a new neighborhood was built there, at which time international opposition to its legitimacy began.
But that was just Wiki.
Hebron, try Hebron Jews, Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel, Jerold Auerbach, Rowman & Littlefield, 2009
Jenin, you’ll need Hebrew:
עין גנים, ההיסטרויה היהדוית בג’נין, אורבך, מרחביה ושרעבי, תשס”ה
Don’t worry, I can go on and on. With documents, deeds, pictures, etc.
“Except that the infiltrators are the Arabs from Arabia who conquered and occupied a land not theirs in the 7th century and set up colonies in the Land of Israel.”
Nor was the land Jewish when myth tells it they conquered it from the Canaanites.
“Don’t worry, I can go on and on. With documents, deeds, pictures, etc. ”
Yes, you could, and they would be largely fraudulent or non existence, but go on you would.
Your response is a joke in and of itself. You actually did NOT provide support for anything you claimed in your original post.
You wrote:
{HTML Tags}
Your response is a joke in and of itself. You actually did NOT provide support for anything you claimed in your original post.
You wrote:
So when I challenged you on your unfounded ethnic cleansing allegation, you responded by writing:
So now you’re claiming that “abandon[ing]” is the same as “ethnic cleansing” and “pogroms”?
And then you go on to write:
The implication is that you are actually providing proof of the aforementioned “ethnic cleansing” when in fact all you’re doing is mentioning cases in which a few Jews, like anyone else in any war fled the fighting. In no way, does that constitute ethnic cleansing. In no way, does it resemble the pre-planned genocide that Ben-Gurion and other Zionist organizations had planned since the 1920s. The massacres of Palestinians between 1947 – 1949 stand as a testament to that, certainly Tochnit Dalet. Where there Jews living in Hebron who didn’t live there after 1948? Yes. Was that the result of a deliberate and orchestrated campaign as you allege? No.
The cut-and-paste job from Wikipedia is nice.
The yummydad fellow above is a well known settler. He’s been advocating theft and ethnic cleansing on his blog and youtube . A loathsome far right revisionist liar..
“The yummydad fellow above is a well known settler. He’s been advocating theft and ethnic cleansing on his blog and youtube . A loathsome far right revisionist liar.”
Yes, we know who he is. He’s on the record as decrying B’tselem as a far leftwing radical group (though never addressing the substance of their findings), and denouncing any Israeli government that does not give the settlers everything they want as illegitimate. He even refuses to recognize the Geneva Convention on human rights.
And a nauseating bible freak..
… AND an old testemental fundie who likes a super tight close-up of his portraiture.
Taxi, lucky it’s only my picture that is close-up.
TGIA (shouldn’t that be “an atheist”, or is that your brother’s tab?
Wrong, dad. Unfortunately for us, we can see right through your close-up, right down to the ugly heart of the matter.
p.s. I don’t get you flaccid attempt at humor – and please don’t try explain it.
Ha, ha or were you not being funny?
a) I’m not your “dad”. And you did have a biological father, yes?
b) do you live on the Internet or occasionally do something else?
Dear Avi,
a) do you read Hebrew? If so, I will provide many more sources than I can in English.
b) a Comments section is no place for loads of material.
c) “abandoned” because of Arab violence – not because of a water shortage or a locust plague.
d) all Arab attacks throughout the 1920s and 1930s were preplanned murder, rape and pillage actions.
e) sorry, can’t comprehend your sentence structure on Hebron. rewrite.
f) go easy on the “joke” card. people will be laughing at you.
Shingo,
I think that an anonymous commenter is the fraudulent one. BTW, seen any Canaanites lately?
dad,
You’re about to get a whipping lesson in history from Avi – heh heh heh heh.
Isn’t that sad? Each of these clowns comes in thinking they’re walking into a nest of neo-Nazis with nary an Jew (let alone people who have lived in Israel) in sight.
oh, you know nothing of history? someone else has to help you?
ymedad, when will you give your stolen house to the indigenous people of Palestine?
How come every single advocate for Israel acts like a total asshole? Like, every single one?
Avigdor Lieberman? PERFECT Israeli Foreign Minister, by all accounts. You get what you pay for, at least.
dad,
You really should be tightening your seatbelt and revising your hasbara history before Avi gets back in here, instead of wasting your smartass time on me.
Good luck, dad! Heh heh heh heh heh.
“I think that an anonymous commenter is the fraudulent one. BTW, seen any Canaanites lately?”
No. Just a I haven’t seen any descendents from Abraham or any evidence of a Kingdom called Israel.
What stolen house?
The one I built with my own money on a hill with no Arab in sight?
What indigenous people?
The ones who called themselves Southern Syrians until they realized it would be easier fooling people like you who seem to hate what Jews stand for no matter what they do if they referred to themselves as “Palestinian” even though “Palestine” is not an Arab word?
What Nakba? What holocaust?
“The one I built with my own money on a hill with no Arab in sight?”
For a grown-up you sure do have a childish understanding of property rights and international law ymedad.
“The one I built with my own money on a hill with no Arab in sight?”
I’ve seen your 2007 interview on Hardtalk ymedad – in the first 15 seconds you’re shown to be a liar:
“And if you look across these hills you can see this settlement is surrounded by Palestinian villages”
link to youtube.com
“if they referred to themselves as “Palestinian” even though “Palestine” is not an Arab word?”
You must think we’re extremely dumb & don’t know Palestine is Filasteen in arabic.
“For a grown-up you sure do have a childish understanding of property rights and international law ymedad.”
Didn’t you see his interview on Youtube? ymedad doesn’t recognize inerntational law, much less the Geneva Conventions.
“The one I built with my own money on a hill with no Arab in sight?”
With your own money? What about the money the Israeli government gave you?
How much you would have appreciated the efforts of the IDF to get rid of them for you?
“What indigenous people?”
How funny!! Wasn’t that you on the interview on youtube, who referred to the Palestinians as indigenous to the land. Is your memory lapsing old man?
“The ones who called themselves Southern Syrians until they realized it would be easier fooling people like you who seem to hate what Jews stand for no matter what they do if they referred to themselves as “Palestinian” even though “Palestine” is not an Arab word?”
Says he who would have called himself American until he migrated to Palestine.
“What indigenous people?
The ones who called themselves Southern Syrians ”
Are you that ignorant? Syria was the generic name of the whole region including Palestine. The name/dominion encompassed far more than what Syria is today. It is after WW1 when the Ottoman Empire was dissolved the League of Nations split the dominion of the former Syria between two countries: the United Kingdom received Transjordan and Palestine, and France received what was to become modern-day Syria and Lebanon. Check it out, you might learn something.
link to en.wikipedia.org
I can’t believe the dishonesty of those swindlers. First they insist on calling the Palestinians Arabs rather than Palestinians implying that they belong into Arabia rather than Palestine. And now the “new” tune is to call them Southern Syrian implying that they come from Syria the country/state we know today, willfully ignoring that the name of the dominion Syria until 1922 was the whole region encompassing Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine! But nice try indeed!
Map of ancient Syria
May the genocidal colonist learn some history!
link to z.about.com
Yes, let’s talk about Hebron Jews :
link to youtube.com
Actually, The Iron Wall (linked above) is a good, short documentary for anyone who hasn’t seen it yet. In it Jeff Halper (ICAHD Coordinator) speaks about how the Netanyahu gov’t depoliticized the colonization and house building and transformed it into an economic issue, luring people in by offering gov’t subsidies. I’m paraphrasing.
Correction, not Netanyahu gov’t, but Ariel Sharon.
For the interested, try The Claim of Dispossession.
It’s up at Google.
link to books.google.co.il
“this volume traces the spread of Jewish settlements over the seventy year period before the establishment of the State of Israel, in order to see how it affected the existing Arab community’s economy and its social and cultural institutions. “
And you had to go all the way to the Israeli version of Google books to give us “truthiness,” huh.
a. I meant “on the hill where I built my house”. I didn’t know you had so much difficulty with English. Sorry.
b. you wrote: “You must think we’re extremely dumb & don’t know Palestine is Filasteen in arabic. ” – Well, then, you are extremely dumb. Sorry. You see “Palestine” comes from the Latin. The Romans decided in 135 CE to change the name of the country from Judea to Palestine. To wipe out the Jewish connection. And the Arabs who conquered and occupied the country in the 7th Century simply altered Palestine to Filastin as they can’t pronounce the “P” easily.
Thanks for the etymological lesson, dad. You look like a nice european man, so WTF you doing living on Arab land without a visa?
Krikee when will the Khazars accept their own history and lineage and stop coveting/stealing and murdering Arab moslem and Arab christians in the holy lands?
Old anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli trickery by Taxi. He must be quite ill-informed.
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to nytimes.com
Shut it jonah with your anti-shmanti ad nausium.
If you’re a european jew then be proud of it – don’t pretend you’re from the middle east – no one is fooled.
I live in Europe, but my origins are undoubtedly in the Middle East. Why deny this for political, religious and/or racist reasons, Taxi?
The Jews have a right to be and live in Middle East as the Arabs have.
talking about living in the Middle East, based on who and who is not semitic, could this set a precident for more Rights of Return?
link to margaretthatcher.org
“I live in Europe, but my origins are undoubtedly in the Middle East. Why deny this for political, religious and/or racist reasons, Taxi?”
Really? How many generations back does your family go?
“The Jews have a right to be and live in Middle East as the Arabs have.”
There is no such thing as “The Jews”, but yes Jewish people have every right to live there. They have no right to be loving on land that they stole and continue to steal.
Palestinian Jews yes but why the others?
The Roma’s (Gypsies) origin is in India. Imagine if they start claiming a piece of India ( or the whole lot of it for that matter) for a homeland. Would that be any different from what the zionists did and are doing.
The Roma are suffering persecution all over the world. The Jews are not. Should the Roma be granted a homeland in India?
Interesting story droog. Margret Tatcher origins 25 % Arab.
“… my origins are undoubtedly in the Middle East.”
Yeah right, jonah. Like I said, no one is fooled.
” You see “Palestine” comes from the Latin. The Romans decided in 135 CE to change the name of the country from Judea to Palestine. To wipe out the Jewish connection”
If you are to believe the fictional accounts of the Bible, then isn’t that what the ancient Judeans did with Canaan? What goes around comes around.
Shingo, use logic. If the Arabs can do to me what I did to the Canaanites, and that is okay, than can I do to the Arabs what they did to me? If so, what are you complaining about? Or is my logic off?
“If the Arabs can do to me what I did to the Canaanites, and that is okay, than can I do to the Arabs what they did to me? If so, what are you complaining about?”
Who’s they? The Arabs did nothing to you. But in any case, that mens you are nothing more than a temporary sqatter until someone wrestles the land you stole from you.
Is that the status quo you want to endorse?
Why Mondo allows antisemitic trash on this blog is beyond me, but go ahead and wallow in your hatred if that’s what gets you through the night.
Don’t sulk. There’s ample opportuity for you Islamophobrs to vent your spleens.
Sulking? Naw.
And I’m no Islamphober.
Some of best friends are Muslims.
“Some of best friends are Muslims. ”
Sure they are. You just don’t believe they have any rights and that you are entuitled to take their land.
Many white South Africans were frinds with black people during partheid.
“Some of best friends are Muslims. ”
Ha ha! A classic!
hey dad, arabs are semites, if you hate arabs, you’re an anti-semite yourself.
why do antisemites have so much trouble spelling (not to mention thinking)?
The same reason that Jewish supremacists realigious extremist, Islamophobic land thieves have so much trouble understanding facts and reality.
There are far more Islamic supremacists and religious extremists than Jewish. You can take that for granted, Shingo.
Since there are ~15 million jews and 1.5 billion muslims in the world such a statement is practically meaningless.
Why don’t you cite some per-capita statistics? Or rather than engaging in a pissing contest, how about you address Shingo’s argument instead – that settlers (jewish extremists) live in a fantasy world where a questionable ancient document supercedes international law, human rights, and property right?
The percentage of supremacists and religious extremists in Israel is greater than any Islamic population.
How’s that for pulling facts out of one’s ass?
Ymedad: So we now have a ‘new’ hasbarista here (even if he is known from other sources to be a virulent Israeli parasite-settler).
All the ‘history’ he quotes can be taken as very selective parts from ancient books, none of which contradicted the more other ancient books that claimed the very opposite.
‘Some of [my] best friends are Muslims.
Well, what can I say about that?
(Except that some of my best friends are Jews). Presumably, he has some local Muslims talking to him, around his hill-top villa, from where he rules, supreme.
Wikipedia (symptoms of old age:) link to en.wikipedia.org
There is often a general physical decline, and people become less active. Old age can cause, amongst other things:
wrinkles and liver spots on the skin
change of hair color to gray or white
hair loss
lessened hearing
diminished eyesight
slower reaction times and agility
reduced ability to think clearly
difficulty recalling memories
lessening or cessation of sex, sometimes because of physical symptoms such as erectile dysfunction in men, but often simply a decline in libido
greater susceptibility to bone diseases such as osteoarthritis.
Let this fellow play out his term, spout his rubbish, and have his time in the very small spotlight here. He’ll be gone soon.