‘NYT’ says East Jerusalem isn’t occupied, and Israel lobby takes credit

Israel/Palestine
on 108 Comments
New York Times headquarters. (Photo: Wikipedia)

New York Times headquarters. (Photo: Wikipedia)

The New York Times ran a piece in February about Palestinian conditions in the West Bank and referred to Atarot, a neighborhood east of the old city of Jerusalem in this way:

Israel opened its first industrial zone in occupied Palestinian territory shortly after the 1967 war, in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Atarot.

Now the sentence has been stripped of the word “occupied”:

Israel opened an industrial zone in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Atarot, which had been Jewish before 1948, shortly after recapturing it along with the rest of the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 war.

The Times added a correction at the bottom of the article:

An article on Feb. 11 about a debate over whether Israeli companies operating in West Bank settlements do more to help or hurt the Palestinians they employ referred imprecisely to the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Atarot, where Israel opened an industrial zone after the 1967 war. While the Palestinians and most of the world consider it to be occupied Palestinian territory, Atarot was a Jewish village until 1948, and Israel considers all of Jerusalem to be its capital.

So the Times is back to dignifying Israel’s claim that it does not occupy Jerusalem.

The Israel lobbying group Camera is taking credit, “NY Times Corrects: Wrong to Call Atarot ‘Occupied Palestinian’ Territory”:

The New York Times has corrected an article that had described a Jerusalem neighborhood as “occupied Palestinian territory.”

CAMERA had informed The Times that the neighborhood, Atarot, was a Jewish owned farming village before 1948, when Jordan occupied the area and destroyed the village’s homes. Atarot is in sovereign Israeli territory as part of the country’s unified capital, although Palestinians claim it as their own. (See additional details here.)

In a Feb. 11 story, reporter Jodi Rudoren embraced the Palestinian narrative about this territorial dispute, asserting that “Israel opened its first industrial zone in occupied Palestinian territory shortly after the 1967 war, in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Atarot.”

The newspaper published the following correction on Feb. 20…

This is not the first time The Times has seemed to bend to CAMERA’s pressure. Here were two corrections it published, a year back.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

108 Responses

  1. Donald
    February 27, 2014, 2:47 pm

    This should cut both ways then. The NYT editors support a 2SS, but they don’t want to take sides on which land belongs to whom. Fine. Then all the land claimed by Israel is considered part of “Palestine” by those who want a 1SS, and if there is to be a 2ss, then why do the Israelis alone get to determine which land is disputed and which isn’t? I hear there were Palestinian villages, 400 or so, inside the 67 lines.

  2. eGuard
    February 27, 2014, 2:47 pm

    What are they fiddling with Atarot was a Jewish village until 1948, ?

    What does that even say about occupation or not? Are “Arab villages” or “Muslim villages” to be considered the same way? This newspaper explains facts into the muddy fog. NY Headache.

  3. seafoid
    February 27, 2014, 2:50 pm

    I bet the NYT denied smoking caused cancer in 1955

    • ritzl
      February 27, 2014, 3:55 pm

      They would if CAMERA told them to. Heck with 1955.

    • lysias
      February 27, 2014, 4:54 pm

      I’m sure they must have. Tobacco companies were big advertisers back then.

  4. Annie Robbins
    February 27, 2014, 2:57 pm

    lol, ha! we know who the times gets its marching orders from.

  5. seafoid
    February 27, 2014, 3:20 pm

    “Israel considers all of Jerusalem to be its capital”.

    Madonna considers herself to be fruity .
    Goldman Sachs considers itself to be carrying out God’s work.

    One way of looking at the history of the human group is that it has been a continuing struggle against the veneration of “crap” ―Neil Postman

  6. Krauss
    February 27, 2014, 3:21 pm

    Let’s not inflate CAMERA’s influence.

    Would the NYT bend over backwards to appease Christian evangelical groups on articles on abortion? Many of them are much more well-funded and better-staffed than CAMERA.

    CAMERA takes credit because it heightens their influence, their visibility.

    But in reality, the Zionist bias is there from the beginning.

  7. Justpassingby
    February 27, 2014, 4:00 pm

    Check out who wrote the article. Then all makes sense.

  8. David Samel
    February 27, 2014, 4:14 pm

    Whether or not Atarot was a “Jewish village” prior to 1948, it was within the boundaries of the Arab State envisioned in the UN Partition Resolution. Yet Camera claims that Atarot was “occupied” by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. In the 1948 War, that “Arab State” was divided among Israel, which took about half, Jordan and Egypt. If Atarot was occupied by Jordan during those years, then all of the territory captured by Israel in the 1948 War also was and remains “occupied.” Jordan “won” the territory in precisely the same manner that Israel “won” territory. That is almost one-third of Israel’s within-the-Green Line territory. By contesting Palestine’s (as successor to Jordan) right to Atarot, Camera is implicitly contesting Israel’s right to about 30% of its territory that is internationally recognized.
    Put another way, as Donald notes, under Camera’s argument, every “Arab village” prior to 1948 should be considered “occupied” by Israel, even those hundreds of villages that are within the Green Line and considered part of Israel proper.

    • talknic
      February 27, 2014, 4:58 pm

      @ David Samel “Camera claims that Atarot was “occupied” by Jordan from 1948 to 1967″

      The West Bank as it is now known, was was under sovereignty to Jordan, legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950).

      “If Atarot was occupied by Jordan during those years, then all of the territory captured by Israel in the 1948 War also was and remains “occupied.” “

      Confirmed by the Israeli Government itself
      Here: “areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard

      (“international regulations” Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III

      “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” )

      and by the Israeli Govt again here: Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948

      “under Camera’s argument, every “Arab village” prior to 1948 should be considered “occupied” by Israel, even those hundreds of villages that are within the Green Line and considered part of Israel proper”

      Considered “part of Israel proper” by who? No State has give recognition, nor can they under International Law ARTICLE 11

      The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure.

    • Hostage
      February 27, 2014, 7:14 pm

      By contesting Palestine’s (as successor to Jordan) right to Atarot, Camera is implicitly contesting Israel’s right to about 30% of its territory that is internationally recognized.
      Put another way, as Donald notes, under Camera’s argument, every “Arab village” prior to 1948 should be considered “occupied” by Israel, even those hundreds of villages that are within the Green Line and considered part of Israel proper.

      Israel blemished its own title to all of the territory by claiming that resolution 181(II) is null and void.

      “Resolution 242: A Legal Reappraisal Of The Right-Wing Israeli Interpretation Of The Withdrawal Phrase With Reference To The Conflict Between Israel And The Palestinians, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, October 2002, vol 51, pp. 858–9 was cited in the exhibits of the interested parties in the ICJ Wall case. In it, John McHugo explained:

      The Armistice Agreements were without prejudice to territorial sovereignty, and therefore Israel was barred by its own action in signing them from consolidating its title up to the armistice lines so long as those agreements remained in force.78 It is inconceivable that Israel could have perfected that title in the period of less than six months between the Six Days War and the passing of Resolution 242, a period during which armed conflict continued. However, if any validity is to be attributed to the designation of the territories occupied in 1967 as ‘disputed territories’, Israel should be aware that the territory on the Israeli side of the 1949 Armistice Lines must ipso jure be treated as ‘disputed’. Israeli title can only be perfected through the final peace settlement envisaged by Resolution 242 and subsequent resolutions, which alone can establish ‘secure and recognised boundaries’. Failing this, Israel will always be exposed to a risk that claims may be brought for the territories which Israel took in 1948–9.

      link to stanford.edu

      • talknic
        February 27, 2014, 9:35 pm

        Hostage re – John McHugo

        Except UNSC res 242 didn’t call for establishing ‘secure and recognised boundaries’! It called for respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

      • Hostage
        February 27, 2014, 9:43 pm

        Except UNSC res 242 didn’t call for establishing ‘secure and recognised boundaries’!

        @ Talknic, in fairness McHugo didn’t say that it does. He said if there is any validity to the right-wing Israeli arguments, which include “secure and recognised boundaries”, then the territory on Israel’s side of the Green Line must ipso jure be treated as ‘disputed’ too.

      • talknic
        February 27, 2014, 11:59 pm

        OK got it.

      • Sibiriak
        February 28, 2014, 1:03 am

        Hostage:

        the territory on Israel’s side of the Green Line must ipso jure be treated as ‘disputed’ too

        Ipso jure yes, but as a matter of politics , Palestine’s leadership is NOT disputing territory on Israel’s side of the Green Line (is it?), while Israel’s leadership IS disputing territory occupied in 1967.

      • Hostage
        February 28, 2014, 3:12 am

        Ipso jure yes, but as a matter of politics , Palestine’s leadership is NOT disputing territory on Israel’s side of the Green Line (is it?), while Israel’s leadership IS disputing territory occupied in 1967.

        Yes, the PLO certainly has officially disputed the status of the territory Israel captured beyond the lines contained in the UN partition plan and advised both the Security Council (S/1999/334) and General Assembly (A/53/879) about that situation on 25 March 1999. It also said that the PLO accepted the fact that Mandate Palestine had been partitioned into an Arab and a – wait for it – “Jewish state”:

        Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General Yesterday, the Israeli representative to the United Nations made some comments to the media on the issue of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, as well as on a statement previously made by President Arafat on the subject. The Israeli representative repeated what the Israeli Foreign Minister said a few days ago, namely that resolution 181 (II) was “null and void”. These are pathetic statements involving illegal positions with far reaching and serious consequences.

        For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

        Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel’s claim that the resolution is “null and void” is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.

        Prior to its admission to United Nations membership, Israel made clear pledges to the members of the United Nations that it would implement resolution 181 (II) and resolution 194 (III) of 1949, related inter alia to the rights of Palestine refugees. In actuality, resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949, admitting Israel to membership in the United Nations, recalled in its preamble both of those resolutions and took note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee with respect to the implementation of the said resolutions.

        Furthermore, in the “Declaration of the State of Israel”, it is clearly stated that Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of 29 November 1947. In fact, the declaration, at least in part, was made on “the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General
        Assembly”.

        Thus, while we are not sure whether or not the officials of the Israeli Foreign Ministry understand what they are stating and its implications, the
        international community should nevertheless take it seriously. Moreover, we believe that Israel must still explain to the international community the measures it took illegally to extend its laws and regulations to the territory it occupied in the war of 1948, beyond the territory allocated to the Jewish State in resolution 181 (II). Such a situation has not been accepted by the international community.

        I should be grateful if you would arrange to have the text of the present letter distributed as a document of the General Assembly, under agenda items 39, 40 and 84, and of the Security Council.

        (Signed) Nasser AL-KIDWA
        Ambassador
        Permanent Observer of
        Palestine to the United Nations

        link to un.org

        The General Assembly cited resolution 181(II) as a relevant resolution in its request for the Advisory Opinion in the Wall case and asked, among other things, what are the legal consequences for other states according to international law and the relevant UN resolutions? The ICJ didn’t really answer that question.

      • Sibiriak
        February 28, 2014, 4:19 am

        Currently, Palestine’s leadership is not demanding in negotiations or political statements sovereignty over any part of territory inside the Green Line –is it?; Israel, in contrast, IS demanding sovereignty over major chunks of territory occupied in 1967.

  9. ritzl
    February 27, 2014, 4:15 pm

    Looks like they did much more than lose the offending clause. They made up for their “error” by stating that the WB was and is always part of Israel (assuming the quoted bit is correct: “recapturing it along with the rest of the WB”).

    If that was a mistake “as well,” and the NYT is so DAMN sensitive about wording, you’d think that the “corrected” wording would have been a huge red flag in its own right.

    How does CAMERA get this level of secret access to NYT editorial staff? Do other groups, on any issue, get correction-issuing authority? If this event is any indication, one would have to believe that all others do have this access, and the NYT editorial policy is a shifting, perhaps highest-bidder, free for all on all topics and articles. The only rule is there are no rules.

    Hell of a way to run a newspaper.

    Peaked. Over the hill. Lots of inertia, but increasingly irrelevant.

    PS. CAMERA gloating about this is the ultimate in stupidity. A sign of their own fragility and limited utility half-life.

    • LeaNder
      February 28, 2014, 6:55 am

      ritzl, whatever one thinks about Camera, I don’t think that one should ponder about “secret access” if an institution openly boasts about its efforts to rigidly censor media.

      Everyone can subscribe to its alerts. Here is a link for activists.

      Admittedly I once subscribed to their alerts, when one special activity by them puzzled me, but I also subscribed to a lot of other stuff out of pure curiosity in the post 911 world, like Horowitz or Pipes special outlets.

      This subscription was actually interesting since I realized to what extend where at least a part of the many semi-interested in the comment sections may come from, among other things. Like realizing that this network was also pretty helpful in alerting Camera to stories. So the “secret access” may partly be the power the control of these many foot-soldiers brings.

      • ritzl
        March 1, 2014, 5:42 pm

        @LeaNder- Agree.

        You subscribed to the CAMERA activist network? You must have a strong stomach. :) But you’re right, (if I understood you correctly) it is amazing how much it “informs”/uniforms seemingly uniquely-generated comments in comments sections. The waste of such vast human energy of it all… :(

        And “secret” was the wrong word. More like first/ordinal, privileged, insider, or veiled (but those still aren’t quite right…).

        Thanks for the link.

  10. Henry Norr
    February 27, 2014, 4:33 pm

    On Sept. 18, 2012, the “Pictures of the Day” page on the Times website carried a photo from Shuafat, a Palestinian village and refugee camp that’s within East Jerusalem as Israel defines it. The caption said something about Shuafat being in Israel. I posted a comment saying that Shuafat isn’t in Israel. Someone from the Times replied promptly that I was right and they’d fix it. I think they never posted my comment – at least it’s not there now – but indeed they changed the caption, to say just “in Jerusalem” instead of “in Israel.” I just looked up the page and discovered for the first time that three days later they added the following “correction”:

    The headline and text for an earlier version of this post referred imprecisely to the location of the first picture showing Palestinians protesting in the Shuafat refugee camp. While the camp is in an area under Israeli control, the issue of whether it is part of Israel remains a much-disputed point.

    • Philip Weiss
      February 27, 2014, 5:40 pm

      holy smoke henry that is amazing. thanks for posting that.

      • Bumblebye
        February 27, 2014, 8:53 pm

        I just heard the night editor of USAToday on radio, they’re doing a piece on all the political junkets to Israel – over 70 last year apparently. Don’t know if it’s in yet tho’. Since he mentioned AIPAC, wonder if it’s being timed to cause a ripple or two in the complacency?

    • LeaNder
      February 28, 2014, 7:02 am

      Yes, that’s what I meant with my comment to ritzl above. The power they have rests on their power to organize many at least partly. It would be interesting what would happen if there was a “counter” accuracy institution, really an unbiased accuracy on ME reporting.

  11. lysias
    February 27, 2014, 4:52 pm

    If what matters is what the situation was pre-1948, does that mean that Lydda/Lod (with lots of other places) is now Israeli-occupied territory?

    Sorry, David Samel, I see that you already made my point.

  12. Hostage
    February 27, 2014, 4:58 pm

    CAMERA is obfuscating the situation by conflating Jewish private property ownership in a territory with Jewish sovereignty. The Jews were never the sovereign government of Mandate Palestine in any event. Israel signed an armistice agreement with Jordan which said:

    Article IV

    1. The lines described in articles V and VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Lines and are delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948.
    3. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI.

    link to avalon.law.yale.edu

    Those agreements are still supposed to be observed in accordance with UNSC resolution 73, pending a mutually agreed upon final settlement.

    Some of us here have watched video of IDF snipers shooting Palestinian refugees for merely trying to cross the armistice lines between Israel, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria and know perfectly well that Israel claims there is no RoR.

    • LeaNder
      February 28, 2014, 9:51 am

      You would be “my favorite hub” challenging the masters (of the Camera type) “at shaping perception according to their own desires” that’s the essential while not quite verbatim rendering of what a German prof calls the ultimate aim of PR. Always with the aim that the recipients are completely unaware of sources and special interests.

      One of my US favorite institutions comes to mind.Source watch on Camera – Measuring success. An important issue in PR.

      And PR Watch – search term: Israel.

      There are other very good actors fighting for democracy in the US of course, not least MW on a no doubt important “Jewish issue”, but in this context TCFMAD comes to mind, because it is ultimately all about shaping perception,

      Maybe the trick would be a stronger cooperation of MW and the above institution, that does not leave the specific propaganda hubs essentially unchallenged. Cooperations could also be shaped to be a win win for both sides. … But of course PR watch’s scope also alerts us to much larger challenges for democracy at home.

      This is of course simply another attempt to get your responses more often “upstairs” in this context. In other words make them more visual, which considering institutions like Camera could be very, very important.

      Of course I never would become an activist, as essentially unpoiltical before September 911. Since I am too well aware of my basic “nitwit” limitations beyond the purely human scope, were good and evil ultimately resides.

      But since you are a former member of the military, I understand, what is this new continuation of the cold war, at least it feels like it, is all about. Or put another way, why is the weak struggle for democracy in its US expression much more easy to see and understand than on my own ground? Focus?

      • Henry Norr
        February 28, 2014, 11:53 am

        LeaNder (and others), another site that’s recently started monitoring the NY Times’ treatment of Israel/Palestine is TimesWarp.

        It’s done by a friend who’s very active in Northern California Friends of Sabeel. From the About page:

        The seed that grew into TimesWarp was planted the day I read the New York Times coverage of the Israeli assault on Gaza on Nov. 14, 2012. There was a story behind this assault, but the Times didn’t tell it. It told the Israeli excuse for the assault instead, and the entire mainstream media in the United States went along with it.

      • LeaNder
        March 1, 2014, 7:22 am

        Thanks, Henry. Link did not work for me, but here it does.

        In case it does not work for others.

        I hope that Hostage does not feel insulted by being depersonalized into a hub. No harm meant but simply a bloody foreigner occasionally looking for the word she wants, which also happens in my own language. But yes, I think Camera is a central mind-shaping hub.

        Ukraine does not look good. I’ll stop babbling again for a while.

      • Hostage
        March 1, 2014, 6:57 pm

        I hope that Hostage does not feel insulted by being depersonalized into a hub.

        No, I didn’t take any offense at all. I usually do supply links to third party verifiable sources of information so that readers can make up their minds for themselves and won’t have to rely on my analysis.

  13. Talkback
    February 27, 2014, 5:37 pm

    Let me try this revisionist logic, too.

    While the Israelis and most of the world considers Nazareth to be in Israel, Nazareth was a Palestinian city until 1948 and Hamas considers all Arab cities of mandated Palestine to belong to todays State of Palestine.

    Wow, the New York Times creates new inventive ways for deligitimizing Israel.

  14. talknic
    February 27, 2014, 6:06 pm

    Camera lies so frequently it wouldn’t dare have a comments section

  15. James Canning
    February 27, 2014, 7:48 pm

    East Jerusalem obviously is part of occupied Palestine, aka the West Bank.

  16. seafoid
    February 27, 2014, 10:47 pm

    The Times should tell its readers why the Jerusalem airport in Atarot (I can’t remember the Palestinian name of the village) has been shut since 1967.

    • Talkback
      February 28, 2014, 9:34 am

      It hasn’t. It was opened for domestic and charter but not for international flights. It was closed during the second Intifada.
      “Next door is Atarot Airport, which has been closed during the intifada; the thousands of rocks covering the now-idle runway explain why. ”
      link to jewishjournal.com

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2014, 12:42 pm

        It was closed for international flights because the international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem.

  17. seafoid
    February 27, 2014, 11:05 pm

    The situation at the NYT is the most intractable in American reporting. There is no solution. Journalistic principles will continue to be slaughtered…..

    “Mowing the Grass,” the NYT’s strategy in the twenty-first century against hostile non-state groups (a.k.a. readers) , reflects the assumption that the Gray Lady finds itself in a protracted intractable conflict. The use of forceful nonsense in such a conflict is not intended to attain impossible journalistic goals, but a strategy of attrition designed primarily to degrade the enemy capabilities (with the unfortunate side effect of making a laughing stock of the paper). Only after showing much restraint in its editorial responses does the NYT act forcefully to destroy the capabilities of its foes, hoping that occasional large-scale operations have a temporary deterrent effect in order to create periods of quiet amongst its readership . The NYT approach is substantively different from the current Western strategic thinking on dealing with the challenges of falling newspaper circulation and the collapse of newspaper advertising.

    The most realistic scenario the editor could foresee over the coming years in the Times was, “Conflict management: to lower the flames, limit the info content and not inform the American people too much.”

  18. MahaneYehude1
    February 27, 2014, 11:15 pm

    I can’t remember the Palestinian name of the village…

    …Because there is no Palestinian name of the village. The land was purchased by the KKL in 1912 and Atarot was established in 1919. Atarot village was destroyed in 1948 war of independence and the residents were evacuated, or ethnically cleansed as you all like to say.

    • seafoid
      February 28, 2014, 3:02 am

      Christ, Mahanes

      Every field in Palestine has a name, you clown.
      They have been there forever.

      link to youtube.com

      They didn’t make up their language in a room in Jerusalem in the 1890s either

      • puppies
        February 28, 2014, 4:16 am

        The room was perhaps in Jerusalem but the guy doing the designing was a fresh colonial settler from Vitebsk.

      • yonah fredman
        February 28, 2014, 5:19 am

        This is the net effect of preaching to the choir, telling in jokes that only those who agree with you will laugh at. The bible is the most popular book in the world. The majority of the bible was written in Hebrew. Most of the world considers the rebirth of Hebrew to be a major cultural accomplishment of Israel. So go right ahead you two who are illiterate in Hebrew and make fun of the rebirth of Hebrew. Laugh and echo. Echo and laugh. Maybe it is good for rallying the troops who agree with you. But the rest of the world (even those who agree with your overall attitudes towards occupation and even settler colonialism) thinks that you are illiterate idiots when it comes to the question of Hebrew. And for once the rest of the world is right.

      • Ecru
        February 28, 2014, 5:52 am

        I’d say creating a Hebrew 2.0 was quite an academic accomplishment (though to be honest no greater than creating Sindarin was), not too sure about a cultural one given the culture it was designed for is quite an unpleasant one. Unless you think German official art of the mid 20th century was a major cultural achievement that is.

        It was however completely insane and only nutter ethno-nationalists with too much attachment to mythology and not enough to history would have cooked it up. What was wrong with Yiddish? Too contaminated by the goy?

        As for the Bible being the most popular book in the world? Well yeah lots of people have a copy (I have a couple) but how many have actually read it (I have btw)? Or even like what they’ve read, the story of a bunch of genocidal loons with a persecution complex?

      • Cliff
        February 28, 2014, 7:00 am

        Most of the world considers the rebirth of Hebrew to be a major cultural accomplishment of Israel.

        Who is the rest of the world, Wondering Jew? Texas?

        The opposite is true. Most of the world could care less.

        ‘Echo and laugh.’ – What is this supposed to mean to us, WJ?

        Do you think any other part of the internet is different? Every single political website has it’s audience.

        MW has Zionists and anti-Zionists. Of course the latter is the majority – but not a artificial majority like the Jewish majority in Israel, created through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinians.

        No one stops you hasbarats from registering and commenting.

        You are a serial whiner who routinely makes mountains out of molehills. This is your battle. Whining about two commentators, who were in-turn responding to a racist Zionist Jew who is anti-miscegenation.

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2014, 7:41 am

        Why did Hebrew have to be remodeled, yonah ?
        How did they say “you have a fine rack on you ” in Biblical Hebrew ?

      • Shmuel
        February 28, 2014, 8:21 am

        How did they say “you have a fine rack on you ” in Biblical Hebrew ?

        In the Bible itself, it went something like this:
        שני שדיך כשני עפרים, תאומי צביה, הרועים בשושנים

        In the 18th century, J. L. Ben-Ze’ev put it this way (in good biblical Hebrew):
        והנה בנות החשק גבעות התאווה
        כהרים גבנונים ענקתמו גאווה

      • puppies
        February 28, 2014, 8:21 am

        Friedman – That the Bible is the most popular book is a not to be neglected indictment of all humanity, or at least the big chunk of it stupid enough to fall for such gross barbarism. A big brick of nonsense, sometimes oppressively obscurantist, sometimes genocidal, mostly downright delirious. By the way, the illiteracy is not so deep either: not a specialist means just that.

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2014, 8:52 am

        And how did you say “Carry out the neighbor procedure on that Palestinian house over there and use the teenager as the human shield” in biblical Hebrew ?

      • Shmuel
        February 28, 2014, 9:45 am

        And how did you say “Carry out the neighbor procedure on that Palestinian house over there and use the teenager as the human shield” in biblical Hebrew ?

        If you ask David Wilder, I’m sure he’ll come up with something appropriate.

      • yonah fredman
        March 1, 2014, 2:42 am

        Those who dismiss the bible on whatever grounds, because only people in Texas read the bible, for example, will have an animus to the people whose language is the language of the bible. They will of nature oppose those people. Because parts of the bible are grotesque and the ideals of the world oppose those parts of the bible, therefore many are apathetic to the bible and to those who carry on the name of the people of the bible. Jews, yehudim, as a corporate group, carry upon themselves the recent history (post 1948), the abyss history (1933-1945), modern pre abysss history (1789-1933) and onward through the years. they also carry the books: the talmud with its laws, the practices of Shabbat and kosher and the book called Tanach. He who dismisses the Tanach as Texas is an idiot. His idiocy is tolerated because the Tanach includes grotesque sections. The Jews as a corporate group, as a group that desires to continue in its survival, to adjust to the world and reality and global reality, but to somehow hold on to enough of the past so that the survival of the Jews as an entity is somehow (we cannot necessarily know what it will look like in a century) but somehow there is some aspect of continuity involved. And that Jewish corporate body will carry on somehow its many aspects of the history that I spoke about and the tradition that I referred to and also to the Tanach and to the language of the Tanach. And he who is an enemy to the language of the Tanach is opposed to us.

        The development of the Jewish community in Israel over the next 100 years, their adjustment to reality, their accommodation with their neighbors and ability to progress will obviously be crucial to the ability of the Jewish corporate body as a whole to find its way to the future 100 years from now.

        Those hooting, whistling and hollering from the peanut gallery are called enemies. Find some more anodyne accurate term and I will use it. Meanwhile some of you are clearly enemies to my wish to see a future 100 years for now for the Jews.

      • Ecru
        March 1, 2014, 4:54 am

        @ yonah

        Those who dismiss the bible on whatever grounds, because only people in Texas read the bible, for example, will have an animus to the people whose language is the language of the bible.

        Now you’re just pulling things out of your arse. Most of the New Testament was written in Aramaic or Greek are you also saying that (for example) I bear some animus towards modern Greeks?

      • Sibiriak
        March 1, 2014, 5:01 am

        yonah:

        the people whose language is the language of the bible.

        Well, that “people” is certainly not the “Jewish people”, since “the language of the Bible” is not the language of millions of Jews today. Millions of Jews do not speak, read or write in Hebrew.

        As for the past, should you not condemn the Zionists’ all out war on Jewish culture– the hateful assault on the Yiddishist culture of the vast majority of Jews– just as vehemently as you praise the Zionist Hebrew cultural revolution?

        The founders believed that national revolution necessitated an absolute social and emotional break with exile. Immigration to Palestine was supposed to represent a new birth, a rupture with the past whose chief symbol was the obliteration of Yiddish culture…

        [..]The zealotry concerning the Hebrew language, the total war on Yiddish culture, and its progressive elimination from the lives of the pioneers were a necessary stage in nation-building, but they were also a striking, uncompromising expression of the national-revolutionary trend.

        There are many examples of this phenomenon [the founders and pioneers turning against their own Jewish culture]. On 3 January 1951 the censor, at that time attached to the Ministry of the Interior, forbade theatrical troupes, singers, and other entertainers to perform in Yiddish. Only foreign troupes or actors on tour in the country were allowed to use Yiddish. Copies of the letter containing this prohibition were sent to the criminal department of the police in Tel Aviv as well as to the police headquarters (Archives of the Ministry of Culture).

        —-

        Not only was Jewish history in exile deemed to be unimportant, but the value of living Jews, Jews of flesh and blood, depended entirely on their use as raw material for national revival.

        The Jewish communities scattered across Central and Eastern Europe were important to the founders chiefly as a source of pioneers. They were considered to have no value in themselves.

        (Zeev Sternhell, “The Founding Myths of Israel”)

      • seafoid
        March 1, 2014, 5:04 am

        @ Yonah

        “The Jews as a corporate group, as a group that desires to continue in its survival, to adjust to the world and reality and global reality, but to somehow hold on to enough of the past so that the survival of the Jews as an entity is somehow (we cannot necessarily know what it will look like in a century) but somehow there is some aspect of continuity involved. And that Jewish corporate body will carry on somehow its many aspects of the history that I spoke about and the tradition that I referred to and also to the Tanach and to the language of the Tanach. And he who is an enemy to the language of the Tanach is opposed to us.”

        I don’t think you need YESHA to survive. I think the IDF is not the institution to rally around. I think it’s sad that young Israelis have to be brainwashed. It all screams unsustainable.

        There has to be a better way.

      • Sibiriak
        March 1, 2014, 5:19 am

        jonah fredman:

        Jews, yehudim, as a corporate group, carry upon themselves the recent history (post 1948), the abyss history (1933-1945), modern pre abysss history (1789-1933) and onward through the years. they also carry the books: the talmud with its laws, the practices of Shabbat and kosher and the book called Tanach.

        No. Jews are not ” a corporate group” that carries upon itself “the talmud with its laws” etc., since huge number of Jews do not do so.

      • Keith
        March 1, 2014, 4:32 pm

        SIBIRIAK- Sternhell Quote: “On 3 January 1951 the censor, at that time attached to the Ministry of the Interior, forbade theatrical troupes, singers, and other entertainers to perform in Yiddish.”

        From the re-released “Zionism in the Age of Dictators”: “To encourage Zionists, the Nuremberg laws in 1935.….Rabbis were ordered to conduct their sermons in Hebrew- the language Zionism has recreated for Israel- rather than Yiddish.” (p305)

        Birds of a feather?

      • MahaneYehude1
        February 28, 2014, 6:30 am

        Isn’t it nice that a people returned his homeland after a long exile and renew his old language which originated in the same land? Miracle!!!link to youtube.com

      • Sibiriak
        February 28, 2014, 10:16 am

        MahaneYehude1:

        Isn’t it nice that a people returned his homeland after a long exile

        Except there was no people returning to a “homeland”, and there had been no “exile.”

        Miracle!!!

        No. Mythology.

      • Hostage
        February 28, 2014, 11:34 am

        Isn’t it nice that a people returned his homeland after a long exile

        No. One of the members of the Zionist Commission, Sylvain Levy warned it would be a disaster:

        The first difficulty lay in the great disproportion which existed between the area of Palestine and the millions of people who might want to go there from Eastern Europe. In the second place, the actual condition of the country, which was at present able to maintain only a small population owing to the climatic and other causes brought about by the action of men and the misgovernment of the authorities. At the present moment, some 600,000 or 700,000 Arabs only dwelt in that country, but it would be impossible for an equal number of Jews to adapt themselves to the same conditions of life, since they had in Europe, and especially in Western Europe, acquired certain methods of life which would not be satisfied by the conditions which were sufficient for the Arabs. In the third place, the masses of people who might wish to return to Palestine, would largely be drawn from those countries where they had been persecuted and ill-treated, and the mentality which such a regime was likely to engender could be easily realised. Those people would carry with them into Palestine highly explosive passions, conducive to very serious trouble in a country which might be likened to a concentration camp of Jewish refugees. . . . Under the circumstances, it seemed to him shocking that the Jews, as soon as their rights of equality were about to be recognised in all countries of the world, should already seek to obtain exceptional privileges for themselves in Palestine. Privileges so obtained as a rule did not profit either the giver or the receiver.

        Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, page 167-8 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Ahdut Ha’avodah (Unity of Labor) was established in 1919. Its founding Charter demanded the establishment of a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and “the transfer of Palestine’s land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession.” See Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Shabtai Teveth, page 99.

        The Royal Commission tasked with investigating the disturbances in Palestine in May, 1921 cited a number of bigoted and extremest comments and noted with surprise that they were all shared by the Head of the Zionist Commission:

        Dr. Eder, acting Chairman of the Zionist Commission, they were unaware to what extent such expressions of opinion as those we have quoted above were authorised by responsible Zionists. Dr. Eder was a most enlightening witness. He was quite unaggressive in manner and free from any desire to push forward opinions which might be offensive to the Arabs. But when questioned on certain vital matters he was perfectly frank in expressing his view of the Zionist ideal. He gave no quarter to the view of the National Home as put forward by the Secretary of State and the High Commissioner. In his opinion there can only be one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish predominance as soon as the numbers of that race are sufficiently increased. He declined to admit the word “dominion,” but chose “predominance.” As acting Chairman of the Zionist Commission Dr. Eder presumably expresses in all points the official Zionist creed, if such there be, and his statements are, therefore, most important. There is no sophistry about Dr. Eder; he was quite clear that the Jews should, and the Arabs should not, have the right to bear arms, and he stated his belief that this discrimination would tend to improve Arab-Jewish relations. He considered that with regard to the appointment of the High Commissioner for Palestine the Zionist organisation should be allowed either to formulate objections to the selection of the British Government, or to submit a list of its own nominees for consideration.

        — Palestine. Disturbances in May, 1921. Reports of the Commission of Inquiry with correspondence relating thereto .. (1921) page 57 link to archive.org

      • RoHa
        March 1, 2014, 3:28 am

        O.K. You really seem to have lost it now, Yonah.

        “Those who dismiss the bible on whatever grounds, because only people in Texas read the bible, for example, will have an animus to the people whose language is the language of the bible. They will of nature oppose those people.”

        Bollocks. Plenty of us dismiss the NT on the grounds that it is patent fiction, and yet have no animus towards the Greeks.

        “Because parts of the bible are grotesque and the ideals of the world oppose those parts of the bible, therefore many are apathetic to the bible and to those who carry on the name of the people of the bible.”

        The nastiness of parts of the Bible is a good reason for opposing those people who push the Bible as something valuable. Apathy towards “the people of the Bible” is just the same sort of apathy that is felt towards anyone who has no special call upon our attention.

        “He who dismisses the Tanach as Texas is an idiot.”

        I’ve never heard of anyone who can’t tell Texas from the Tanach.

        “And he who is an enemy to the language of the Tanach is opposed to us.”

        Is anyone an “enemy to the language”? I suggest that adding another language to the stock of living languages was just adding to problems of communication. Does that make me an “enemy of the language”?

        “Meanwhile some of you are clearly enemies to my wish to see a future 100 years for now for the Jews.”

        Gee. Too bad.

      • Ecru
        March 1, 2014, 4:36 am

        @ MY1

        Isn’t it nice that a people returned his homeland after a long exile…

        1) People who’ve never set foot in the supposed “homeland” and who’s ancestors for hundreds of years never set foot in the “homeland” cannot be said to have “returned.” Invaded? Oh yeah they did that alright.

        2) Exile implies it was forced at some point and there’s no evidence that ever happened and all the Zionist mythology doesn’t change the fact.

        3) When the “return” is built upon the ethnic cleansing of the native people and massive crimes against humanity – no it’s not nice at all actually.

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2014, 4:43 pm

        Yeah puppies but it was his ancestral home LOL

      • LeaNder
        February 28, 2014, 8:47 am

        seafoid, if you don’t mind. I basically think that challenging a prejudice with a counter prejudice is not a good thing to do. OK, it’s supposed to be a joke, I see. Well its a bad one then.

        Do I base you correctly in Lebanon? Or should I base you in Spain or South America? If you are native Spanish speaking in any case you should be aware of the drifting apart of sound and sign over the ages. At least if you also read older texts.

        I am pretty pleased in fact that the Brits did abstain from enforcing the late 19 century suggestions in this context and left English words untouched as visual icons, so to speak. Concerning the systems offered I saw in this context, they all would have changed our beloved English language beyond recognition.

        But surely the way British scholars handled the issue wasn’t the only way to deal with the general problem.

      • LeaNder
        February 28, 2014, 8:51 am

        Oh, hello Shmuel, by the way. I see I may have used the wrong reply button, since at the moment it looks like I answered to you. ;)

      • seafoid
        March 1, 2014, 8:58 am

        @LeaNder
        They put an awful lot of money into YESHA and denied it to other areas. Ultra Orthodox education is a mess. Many Haredi men are not capable of getting jobs in the market.

        Israel has wasted the last 47 years on a Schnappsidee.
        They are behind on international maths tests. They are behind on how to deal with alcoholism

        link to haaretz.com
        “It is an addictive with the largest gaps there are – 94 percent of those addicted are undiagnosed and untreated,” says Dr. Rakefet Bacharach, a family physician for Clalit Health Services who is in charge of alcoholism treatment for the local association of family physicians. “The attitude in past was that this is an untreatable disease,” Bacharach says, indicating that Israel is playing catch-up with it.
        The World Health Organization has followed the rise in alcoholism with concern over the past decade, declaring it one of the three main causes of illness and death, alongside nicotine addiction and high blood pressure.
        “In Israel and abroad it is getting growing attention,” says Shauli Lev-Ran, director of addiction medicine services at Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer. “Israel trails badly in the field, at times a decade or two compared to more advanced centers in the world,” explains Lev-Ran, who founded the clinic over a year ago. Its founding is one of the medical establishment’s most important steps in recognizing alcoholism as a genuine disease, after years of keeping it in the basement. It indicates impulses toward change in the system’s approach to treatment, which is beginning to internalize the damages of alcohol to society and individuals. ”

        World leaders in security systems- which is more important?

        I just think they are not ready for a future of climate change and multipolarity .

        The Crimea- it doesn’t look logical strategically for Putin to do a repeat of Georgia 2008 on it.

        Some clear heads would seem to be required.

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2014, 10:09 am

        Israel is a colonial operation, Leander.
        They didn’t own the land and they didn’t speak Hebrew. They had to invent their culture in a rush and look at the state of the place now as the memes fail.

        I think it’s fair game

        You can say everywhere is invented – fair enough- but Israel was a rush job and you can’t build something sustainable in 5 years.

        Germany had hundreds of years of shared non Nazi culture to fall back on when they wrote the new constitution in the late 1940s . Israel has nothing for when Zionism collapses.

      • LeaNder
        February 28, 2014, 12:33 pm

        Paul Fourhorns Tenoso, it helps to mentally locate you in space and time, you know. Can’t remember having noticed that name before. Real or distraction? Anyway:

        Israel is a colonial operation, Leander.

        Yes, I agree, but from my own nitwit position not the usual colonial enterprise either. In other words not a colonialism by the usual suspects at the time, which complicates matters somewhat. And you may have noticed I occasionally love to differentiate.

        They had to invent their culture in a rush and look at the state of the place now as the memes fail.

        They no doubt invented a special a specifically Israeli culture, since it simply did not exist before, neither was there a unique Jewish culture at the time. They no doubt also created a national foundation myth, or political theology, since they were some type of second hand political nationalists, but they surely didn’t invent Hebrew from scratch.

        Do I really need to write this: Hebrew was their religious language without which they wouldn’t have been able to even start to consider themselves as “nation” to start with. I am not a fan of the Khazar theory, although I can see what may drive it. Not only: How well did it sell? But partially?

        How about considering “semitic” or “semite” language wise, even if it is too Eurocentric or 19th century now or for your taste. Compare this.

        From the European nationalist perspective “the Jews” were “Semites” .
        Thus the Zionist idea grew out of a complex context of both “self” and “other defined” on the part of its founders; they were both acting and reacting to European circumstances.

        Germany had hundreds of years of shared non Nazi culture to fall back on when they wrote the new constitution in the late 1940s . Israel has nothing for when Zionism collapses.

        Germany is also to no small extend responsible for the success of the Zionist enterprise.

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2014, 3:49 pm

        Paul Fourhorns Tenoso is the guy who said either we are all sacred…

        It’s not easy building a settler colonial enterprise. The Unionists in Northern Ireland are in all sorts of identity crises at the moment and they have been going for 400 years.

        Sure Hebrew was their religious language but it wasn’t a vernacular and it had to be reinvented for modern use.

        The revival of Hebrew is sold as a linguistic miracle but it’s much more nuanced than that. Maybe if they spoke English they wouldn’t have gone so deep into messianism. Now they find that fewer and fewer goys understand them.

        Buber and Arendt warned them about going the way of Jabotinsky but they were so sure. Zionism was originally secular. But that didn’t last.

        The Germans as well. I think it is a very sad story. They built up a lot of risk and they can’t back down. Resource misallocation. They bet the house on YESHA. A lot of them now are uneducated.

      • LeaNder
        March 1, 2014, 7:05 am

        “A Jew is by the nature of his creation a purer being. Similarly with the holiness of the land: The soil of Israel is essentially holier, the stones are holier because the land was destined by God to serve as the place of the Children of Israel” is headed “Either we are all sacred or none of us is” Paul Fourhorns Tenoso

        Ok, yes, seems I took a very superficial look in the hope to be able to better locate you. Éire? Beyond this I would have this to offer: Seafoid or this:Seafoid. Like the music, admittedly. And then there is IT: Seafoid in Karlsruhe, Germany. I am still slightly puzzled by the word, initially I made it Sea=English and then froid=French cold, the foid does not trigger anything else for longer now, I have to admit.

        But back to the above. Yes, I can see that too, but I can also see what counterforces historically may have driven it up to its present expressions. No matter how silly it is. I have argued before somewhere else that blacks at one point embraced “nigger” as an expression of pride, of excepting what they were, embracing what some used as an insult, and that this may still be a part of youth culture. Some tried to paint Trayvon Martin as a racist based on his use of the word. Too me that feels like a comparable psychological mechanism. You can’t insult me with who I am.

        The Jewish version Paul alludes to quite possibly may well be a simplification of Jewish traditions occasionally. Personally I prefer understatement to the opposite. Based on this I do not really have a problem with “the Jews”, but with “the person” using that type of argument.

        The Germans as well. I think it is a very sad story. They built up a lot of risk and they can’t back down. Resource misallocation. They bet the house on YESHA. A lot of them now are uneducated.

        If you mean a lot are uneducated about the “conflict”. Pretty similar as elsewhere? No? People have limited time and have to rely on media to a large extend. What do you think the world at large would say with many voices and in many languages, if we confronted Israel the way you would like us to do?

        During the recent slightly “icy” encounter, as most people read it, of Netanyahu and Merkel, one of the outcome of the consultation was: That Israelis can more easily work in Germany, and that German embassies will be ordered to help them in countries where there are no Israeli embassies. So it is a strategy of “friendship” coupled with criticism. Do you see any other realistic possibility given the government in Israel at the time, not only Netanyahu’s parties but also the ones to the right of him?

        What do you feel about the escalation on the Krim? Are we facing another Cuba crisis? Don’t answer, I guess anything is hypothetical at the moment anyway.

      • puppies
        March 1, 2014, 11:56 pm

        @Leander – this discussion has nothing to do with language evolution but invention.

    • talknic
      February 28, 2014, 3:16 am

      MahaneYehude1 “Because there is no Palestinian name of the village. “

      Strange, all citizens of Palestine at the time were Palestinians. The territory was Palestinian. It was a Palestinian village, even if it was set up and named and populated by Jewish folk.

      ” The land was purchased by the KKL in 1912 and Atarot was established in 1919″

      The KKL in 1912 which was NOT Palestinian, purchased ‘real estate’ in Palestinian ‘territory’. BTW The purchase of real estate by foreigners gives them no territorial rights what so ever.

      • MahaneYehude1
        February 28, 2014, 6:18 am

        @talknic:

        strange, all citizens of Palestine at the time were Palestinians. The territory was Palestinian. It was a Palestinian village, even if it was set up and named and populated by Jewish folk.

        If so, your comment should be addressed to seafoid who said “I can’t remember the Palestinian name of the village”.

        BTW The purchase of real estate by foreigners gives them no territorial rights what so ever

        I agree with you. Foreigners have no territorial rights even they purchased the property.

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2014, 11:36 am

        The Jews were foreigners, Mahane.

        What did KKL stand for ? “Jewish national fund.”
        They needed a fund to buy land because the Jewish nation had NO LAND.
        And Herzl was looking at Patagonia and Uganda at the time.

        They had to make up a modern version of Hebrew because they all spoke different languages, remember . Ben Yehuda used to speak it to his cat. That is how many speakers of your language there were not so long ago.

        They didn’t live in Palestine, the vast majority.

        It was not Jewish land

        Only 40% of Jews in America believe the fairy story about G-d giving the land to the Jews. That is damning.

        link to pewresearch.org

        The Reform Jew % is 35. Appalling.
        They have more or less given up on hasbara. It’s bollocks and they know that. And they are Jewish. Are they all self hating ?
        Or just better informed than Yossi Isghaeli ?

      • MahaneYehude1
        February 28, 2014, 11:53 am

        @seafoid:

        And Herzl was looking at Patagonia and Uganda at the time.

        Why not Uganda? Rich land, fertile, beautiful landscapes, “The diamond of Africa”? Why, to hell, the Zionists chose this land, with no resources, no oil, no water? why, seafoid, why?

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2014, 1:51 pm

        @the Mahanes

        Palestine was not the optimal site. If you read James Howard Kunstler he’s very pessimistic on Israel’s staying power.

        Climate change is here
        God is nowhere to be seen.

        link to haaretz.com

        “This winter is one of the driest Israel has known since meteorologists first began measuring local rainfall, the Israel Meteorological Service announced on Thursday, a day before the end of the season in which Israel gets most of its rainfall.
        The principal months of the local rainy season are December, January and February.
        Despite a major storm in mid-December, since then, the amount of rainfall and the number of rainy days have been unprecedentedly low. In much of the country, this has been the second-driest winter ever, surpassed only by the winter of 1954-55. The north, for instance, has received only one-third to one-half as much rain as the multiyear average for this time of year.
        The situation is a bit better in the south, but the central region has suffered a severe drought. The Judean and Samarian hills of the West Bank, for instance, received only a tenth as much rain as the multiyear average from mid-December through the end of February. “

      • talknic
        February 28, 2014, 12:12 pm

        @ MahaneYehude1 “your comment should be addressed to seafoid”

        It was your illogical nonsense in need of correction spud

        Jewish institutions established to colonize Palestine and based in Vienna were foreign. The Zionist Federation wasn’t from or formed by Jews from or in Palestine

        When you have a valid point get back to me pal

      • MahaneYehude1
        February 28, 2014, 12:37 pm

        @talknic;

        When you have a valid point get back to me pal

        No, spud won’t get back to you if you continue use dirty language.

      • talknic
        February 28, 2014, 8:10 pm

        @ MahaneYehude1 ..won’t get back to you if you continue use dirty language”

        Dirty language, that’d be ‘valid’ I guess

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2014, 7:42 am

        That was one of the very few pieces of land they paid for.
        I don’t believe Lid or Jaffa were ever paid for. Or Ben Gurion airport.

      • MahaneYehude1
        February 28, 2014, 9:05 am

        I don’t believe Lid or Jaffa were ever paid for. Or Ben Gurion airport…

        …or my parents home in Baghdad or Jewish community property in Cairo or…

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2014, 10:15 am

        Operation magic carpet was a Zionist racket, Mahane. Take it up with the Knesset .

      • Hostage
        February 28, 2014, 10:30 am

        …or my parents home in Baghdad or Jewish community property in Cairo or…

        The Government of Israel reserved the right to prevent Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes and claimed their space was needed by Jewish refugees and Zionists from Arab countries who had expressed an interest in coming to Palestine. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        We also know that the Israeli Ambassador admitted his government had triggered the mass exodus from Iraq. See the heading “Ingathering of Exiles” in the Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of Near Eastern Affairs (Jones), Secret [WASHINGTON,] August 2,1951.
        Subject: Israel’s Concern Re Peace With the Arabs and Other Matters.
        Participants: Mr. Theodore Kollek, Embassy of Israel and Mr. G. Lewis Jones, NE, Foreign relations of the United States, 1951. The Near East and Africa, page 815 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        For years the government of Israel shameless tried to claim that there were 800,000 refugees from Arab lands whose claims offset those of Palestinian refugees, despite the fact that those Jews had no claims against Palestinians at all.

        Now it turns out that Israel never collected more than 14,000 claims:

        In 2010, a law was passed stating that compensation for the lost property would be included in any future Arab-Israeli peace agreement. But the report shows that even if peace were to break out tomorrow morning, Israel would be hard-pressed to present a solid claim because the state does not know what property is at issue. The possible reasons for this are many and absurd: Over the years, immigrants from Iran and Arab states were instructed to fill in and submit forms aimed at enabling the coordination of both individual and communal claims. Between 1969-2009, the Justice Ministry collected around 14,000 of these, but they were never processed or entered into a computer database. Some of the records are still in the ministry’s archive, waiting to be scanned digitally, but some have deteriorated so badly as to be worthless. The retirement of a single clerk who was in charge of the material at one point but did not train her successor is thought to have led to the disappearance of still more documents connected to the issue.
        – Comptroller blasts state for neglecting restitution of Jewish property in Arab states link to haaretz.com
        ====
        PLO Executive Committee member Hanan Ashrawi reportedly claimed that “if Israel is their [Arab Jews’] homeland, then they are not ‘refugees’; they are emigrants who return either voluntarily or due to a political decision.”
        Ironically, Ashrawi’s sentiment succinctly captures what was once the prevailing view within the Israeli government and among major Zionist advocacy organizations. “I do not regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees,” asserted Iraqi-Israeli former Knesset Speaker Shlomo Hillel. “They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.” His position was and still is shared by many others. Noteworthy, too, is the Law of Return, which ensures that Jews never arrive in Israel as refugees, but as “olim hadashim” − new immigrants.

        – A dubious campaign on behalf of Arab Jewish refugees link to haaretz.com

      • MahaneYehude1
        February 28, 2014, 9:08 am

        והנה בנות החשק גבעות התאווה
        כהרים גבנונים ענקתמו גאווה

        I think several west Bank’s Palestinians also read L. Ben Ze’ev.

      • MahaneYehude1
        February 28, 2014, 11:15 am

        @Hostage;

        I wrote a lot about this subject in the past and I think my views are well known. But, let me add several new things that I never wrote before:

        “I do not regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees,” asserted Iraqi-Israeli former Knesset Speaker Shlomo Hillel. “They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”

        OK, let assume I agree with Ashrawi and Hillel (I am not), so what? If you decide to leave your country and immigrate to other country, is your government has the right to expropriate your home, business store and other property and let your family take only 20kg of clothes per person?

        The Palestinian refugees have rights on their properties and they should be compensated for it in any future agreement. Until today, there is no official declaration from any Arab government that the Jews should be compensated for their properties (and let me remind you, that the Jewish communities didn’t declare war (or started war, for you, talknic) against any Arab state).

        The number of claims is not important. The property is important. Only the property value in Cairo, Egypt is equal to the property value the Jews left in all Arab states together. You say Israel has only 14, 000* (recorded) claims, OK, good for the Arabs. What ever will be the number, any one should be compensated.

        Hostage, this conflict caused and still causing many sufferings to all of us, Palestinians and Jews.

        (*There is a new campaign in Israel call to Arab-Jews to record and claim their property that was stolen from them by the Arab governments when they returned home).

      • talknic
        February 28, 2014, 8:35 pm

        @ MahaneYehude1

        ” If you decide to leave your country and immigrate to other country, is your government has the right to expropriate your home, business store and other property and let your family take only 20kg of clothes per person?”

        If you immigrate, you are no longer a citizen of the country of origin

        A) Governments can and do freeze assets. Un-claimed they go towards the state’s coffers from which future restitution/compensation might be draw.

        B) A limit on the amount of luggage people can take when transported on ‘Magic Carpets’ is not unusual

        “The Palestinian refugees have rights on their properties and they should be compensated for it in any future agreement”

        On their real estate yes, AND compensation of their territory AND compensation for the suffering caused by the illegal activities of the Jewish State

        “Until today, there is no official declaration from any Arab government that the Jews should be compensated for their properties “

        One must first present a claim..

        “(and let me remind you, that the Jewish communities didn’t declare war (or started war, for you, talknic) against any Arab state)”

        Strange, Jewish forces under plan Dalet had been in territory outside that allotted for the Jewish State long before Israel was proclaimed “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ link to avalon.law.yale.edu The moment Israel’s declaration came into effect at 00:01 May 1948 (ME time), the civil war that had existed before, became a war waged by the State of Israel on what remained of Palestine.

        “You say Israel has only 14, 000* (recorded) claims, OK, good for the Arabs. What ever will be the number, any one should be compensated.”

        The claims have never been put to the Arab States

        “this conflict caused and still causing many sufferings to all of us, Palestinians and Jews”

        Least of all Jews, who have been the victims of the lies and deceptions of the Zionist Movement and its state‘s policies.

      • Hostage
        February 28, 2014, 8:51 pm

        OK, let assume I agree with Ashrawi and Hillel (I am not), so what? If you decide to leave your country and immigrate to other country, is your government has the right to expropriate your home, business store and other property and let your family take only 20kg of clothes per person?

        Since you ask, many governments, including the United States, do have laws that impose tax penalties and currency control measures on emigres who renounce their citizenship.

        Until today, there is no official declaration from any Arab government that the Jews should be compensated for their properties (and let me remind you, that the Jewish communities didn’t declare war (or started war, for you, talknic) against any Arab state).

        I agree that refugees deserve compensation, but not Zionists from Arab Lands who moved to Palestine and in many cases even aided and abetted in the pillaging of the country and the acts of terror committed against Palestinians.

        Zionist historian, Walter Laqueur, noted that “Among the Irgun and the Stern Gang there were many youngsters from the Oriental Jewish community, which was not widely represented in the non-terrorist Hagana.” See A history of terrorism, Transaction Publishers, 1977, page 122

        One area of the Hagana where they were over-represented was in the Palmach’s corps of assassins. Jewish undercover units, called “The Arabists of the Palmach” or Mista’arvim [literally, "Arab-pretenders"], are known to have been in operation in Palestine and neighboring Arab countries as early as 1942. —See Targeting To Kill: Israel’s Undercover Units, Elia Zureik and Anita Vitullo, The Palestine Human Rights Information Center (PHRIC)
        *link to thejerusalemfund.org
        *link to palmach.org.il
        and Zvika Dror, The ’Arabists’ of the Palmach (Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House, 1986)

      • Shmuel
        March 1, 2014, 5:20 am

        I think several west Bank’s Palestinians also read L. Ben Ze’ev.

        Why is that?

      • talknic
        February 28, 2014, 12:20 pm

        seafoid <em"That was one of the very few pieces of land they paid for"

        They paid for real estate, not territory

        “I don’t believe Lid or Jaffa were ever paid for. Or Ben Gurion airp…”

        The territory of the State of Israel was completely gratis. Not one shekel was paid and there was no agreement.

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2014, 3:56 pm

        Is Crown Heights not part of the State of Israel?

      • MahaneYehude1
        March 1, 2014, 12:36 am

        @Hostage:

        There is a big difference between “tax penalties and currency control measures” and between full expropriation of your property. You are too intelligent to know the difference. The Arab Jews were forced to leave all their property and take with them almost nothing.

        If you think that any Arab-Jew that came to Israel and participated in the war and in hostile activities lost his rights, I would add that also Palestinian that did the same doesn’t deserve any compensations. The examples you wrote are rare (and I proud of them) since most of the Arab-Jews left Arab countries after the establishment of the state of Israel and several years after the war of independence 1947-1949. Most of the Iraqi Jews, for instance, left Iraq in 1951 (In “operation Ezra and Nehemia”, not “Magic Carpet” as someone here wrote).

      • MahaneYehude1
        March 1, 2014, 1:00 am

        @talknic:

        I hope that in future this will be the style of your comments to me and I hope you won’t use ad hominem again.

        As Hostage wrote, there are laws imposed on immigrants that leave their country such as tax and penalties, but not full expropriation of property. This act has only one name “Theft”. All the efforts to launder this act (The expropriation of Arab-Jews property) would fall. The US administration supports our claim on this property. Even Kerry proposed that also Arab-Jews will be compensated for their property. If you say that “Governments can and do freeze assets”, it is about the time to “heat” the assets.

        I fully agree with you about the following: “On their (Palestinian refugees) real estate yes, AND compensation of their territory AND compensation for the suffering caused by the illegal activities of the Jewish State” only if the Arab-Jews refugees will have the same rights.

        Least of all Jews, who have been the victims of the lies and deceptions of the Zionist Movement and its state‘s policies.

        Thank you very much that you linked MW to the “Proclamation of Independence of the state of Israel”. You have only one mistake, the list represents several freedom fighters who defended the state of Israel from the aggressors who wanted, and several still want, to destroy it. Don’t forget that the Zionist movement gave shelter to many refugees and helped them to build new life and live in dignity. The Zionist movement didn’t leave even not one refugee as refugee to use him as a future moral weapon against the Arabs.

      • Hostage
        March 1, 2014, 7:51 pm

        There is a big difference between “tax penalties and currency control measures” and between full expropriation of your property

        I specifically said that I think the refugees should be compensated. That naturally includes a right to housing and property restitution. That doesn’t necessarily apply to anyone who came to Israel voluntarily or those who were settled on pillaged Palestinian land. Israelis usually attempt to shift too much burden onto the Arab states by falsely claiming they are responsible for starting the war and the refugee crisis, when in fact they were responding to a situation where hundreds of thousands of refugees had fled to their countries long before 15 May 1948. In cases where we now know that Israel triggered a mass exodus, either in Palestine or Iraq, it should be assigned the lions shared of the burden for paying compensation, while the states in question should restore land and homes.

      • talknic
        March 3, 2014, 4:30 am

        MahaneYehude1 >”I hope that in future this will be the style of your comments to me and I hope you won’t use ad hominem again”

        If it looks like dog sh*t, smells like dog sh*t, schticks like dog sh*t, I’ll call it dog sh*t spud

        “As Hostage wrote, there are laws imposed on immigrants that leave their country such as tax and penalties, but not full expropriation of property. This act has only one name “Theft”. All the efforts to launder this act (The expropriation of Arab-Jews property) would fall. “

        Uh huh. In your expected Ziocaine addled shortsightedness, what Hostage pointed to applies equally to the Jewish state for the ILLEGAL full expropriation of non Israeli territory and property. Meanwhile no claims have been made to the Arab states on behalf of all the now non-existent Jewish Arab refugees

        “The US administration supports our claim on this property.”

        It’s irrelevant to the Palestinian Israeli conflict … see B)

        “I fully agree with you about the following: “On their (Palestinian refugees) real estate yes, AND compensation of their territory AND compensation for the suffering caused by the illegal activities of the Jewish State” only if the Arab-Jews refugees will have the same rights.”

        A) They already have the same rights you silly silly person. They’re universal rights IF they’re refugees, which they’re not, having taken up citizenship in countries other than the countries of return.

        B) It wasn’t the Palestinians responsible. The Palestinians didn’t run the Arab states, didn’t vote for their leaders, didn’t dispossess anyone from Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen etc

        Thank you very much that you linked MW to the “Proclamation of Independence of the state of Israel”. You have only one mistake, the list represents several freedom fighters who defended the state of Israel….

        How was that my mistake spud? BTW link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

        If any mistake has been made, it has been putting any form of trust in the Zionist Federation/Movement. Where’s is the Israeli people’s constitution, under which a legal government can only be elected? Where is the Jewish right to freedom of religion ( Jewish women are not allowed it even today) and where is the equality for all its citizens? Why has every promise made to the UN/UNSC been broken

        “from the aggressors…” There are no UNSC resolutions against any Arab state for going to the protection of what remained of Palestine. They had every right under the UN Charter and International Law to protect and attempt to expel Israel/Jewish forces illegally in non-Israeli territory as of 00:01 may 215th 1948 (ME time) link to trumanlibrary.org

        ” Don’t forget that the Zionist movement gave shelter to many refugees and helped them to build new life and live in dignity.”

        And don’t forget it encouraged them to take up Israeli citizenship thereby forgoing refugee status and rights

        “The Zionist movement didn’t leave even not one refugee as refugee to use him as a future moral weapon against the Arabs”

        You’re using that exact point now and foolishly.

        A) The Zionist movement’s desire for a Jewish state robbed Israel’s Jewish folk of the right to settle anywhere in the historical homeland and;

        B) the Zionist movement encouragement to become Israeli citizens robbed Jewish refugees of their refugee rights,

        C) the Zionist Movements self appointed leaders of the Provisional Government immediately robbed Israelis of their promised constitution. Israel has never had a legally elected govt, under a constitution

        Go bitch to the Zionist movement

      • just
        February 28, 2014, 8:39 pm

        Mahane– what is your beloved country’s etnhic cleansing of indigenous Palestinians then?

        “Fast Times at Hebron High?” Must be narrated by Daniella Weiss, Wilder, Netanyahu, Naftali, etc.

      • MahaneYehude1
        March 1, 2014, 1:02 am

        @Just:

        Mahane– what is your beloved country’s etnhic cleansing of indigenous Palestinians then? …“Fast Times at Hebron High?” Must be narrated by Daniella Weiss, Wilder, Netanyahu, Naftali, etc.

        What?

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2014, 8:51 am

        It was Qalandia

      • Talkback
        February 28, 2014, 9:20 am

        Or “Kalandia”, “Kalandya”.

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2014, 10:21 am

        I think it might be Kalandiya because in the Jerusalem “madani” dialect the q is dropped (eg Al Uds instead of al Quds) and I never heard it called ‘Alandiya.

    • Hostage
      February 28, 2014, 4:02 am

      I can’t remember the Palestinian name of the village… …Because there is no Palestinian name of the village.

      The land was purchased from the neighboring Arab village of Qalandia. The British mandatory authorities expropriated more than half for the Atarot airport. It was renamed Qalandia airport after the territory was allocated to the Arab State and captured by Jordan. link to jerusalemquarterly.org

      • MahaneYehude1
        February 28, 2014, 6:14 am

        @Hostage:

        …the territory was allocated to the Arab State and captured by Jordan

        Congratulation!! I see you decide to use delicate language. I understand that the Arabs know to capture lands and the Israelis know how to occupy it.

      • Hostage
        February 28, 2014, 11:56 am

        Congratulation!! I see you decide to use delicate language. I understand that the Arabs know to capture lands and the Israelis know how to occupy it.

        I don’t know what your problem is. The British expropriated the land for the airport and the article that I cited noted that the Hagana-ordered evacuation of Atarot’s some 200 residents, not the government of Jordan.

        I don’t see any evidence that anybody “occupied” it, since it was not settled by Arabs. It was part of the 30,000 dunams of the land owned by Jews before 1948 and administered by the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property in the West Bank. It was located in territory allocated to the Arab State and Arab Palestine was part of the state of Jordan.

        On the other hand we all know that Israel has not restored land administered by its Custodian of Enemy Property to the owners and that much of it has been occupied by Jews.

      • LeaNder
        March 1, 2014, 9:47 am

        Hostage, you somewhere wrote that one day you’ll give some type of reading list, if I remember correctly. Did you ever? Excuse me if I got that wrong. I would be at a loss to how to search under your name.

        I sure would very much appreciate a list of books you consider important. And now I have to first ponder what article you linked to somewhere by Rashid Khalidi, if I remember correctly.

      • Hostage
        March 1, 2014, 7:56 pm

        Hostage, you somewhere wrote that one day you’ll give some type of reading list, if I remember correctly. Did you ever?

        No I said I would be willing to list the books in my collection and do look-ups if anyone was interested. I haven’t gotten around to it yet.

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2014, 8:53 am

        In the “Atlas of Palestine” the name of the airport is Qalandia airport.
        Atarot is the name of the settlement beside it.

      • LeaNder
        March 2, 2014, 8:23 am

        Thanks Hostage, don’t bother. Strictly I find your many links to original sources even more interesting and my time is limited anyway.

  19. Daniel Rich
    February 28, 2014, 12:46 am

    I cal it ‘The War of Words.’

    A war led by omission/s, half-truths, misdirection and willful distortion, etc. As the NYT is the leading paper in the country, she should live in a glass house and her word be rocks. The initial facade does give that impression, but when we carefully scratch its veneer we find this:

    Article: ‘Fed Misread Crisis in 2008, Records Show

    “The hundreds of pages of transcripts, based on recordings made at the time, reveal the ignorance of Fed officials about economic conditions during the climactic months of the financial crisis. Officials repeatedly fretted about overstimulating the economy, only to realize time and again that they needed to redouble efforts to contain the crisis.”

    +

    “Some Fed officials have argued that the Fed was blind in 2008 because it relied, like everyone else, on a standard set of economic indicators. As late as August 2008, “there were no clear signs that many financial firms were about to fail catastrophically,” Mr. Bullard said in a November presentation in Arkansas that the St. Louis Fed recirculated on Friday. “There was a reasonable case that the U.S. could continue to ‘muddle through.’

    NYT whitewashing their WS buddies. See also The New York Times and the Fed’s Transcripts – The Greatest Propaganda Coup of Our Time?

    So, what are we to conclude about the NYT’s moral fiber when it comes to being truthful [any which way]?

  20. Shuki
    February 28, 2014, 1:04 am

    It’s going to be a long road for you if you’re going to get all worked up every time someone refers to Jerusalem without the using your “occupied” propaganda label. That you’d even expect anyone outside of your anti-Israel clique to even maintain this phrase in their vocabulary suggests that you’ve been drinking a little too much of your own kool-aid.

    • talknic
      February 28, 2014, 12:32 pm

      Shuki “It’s going to be a long road for you if you’re going to get all worked up every time someone refers to Jerusalem without the using your “occupied” propaganda label”

      Look at who’s getting worked up and labeling a legal reality as propaganda.

      “That you’d even expect anyone outside of your anti-Israel clique to even maintain this phrase in their vocabulary suggests that you’ve been drinking a little too much of your own kool-aid”

      It’s also quite typical of serial abusers to attempt to put their own shortcomings and insanity onto other folk.

      The Palestinians have the Law and the UN Charter in their favour Shuki. It’s the Jewish state in breach of its legal obligations and it only has the precious US UNSC veto vote preventing any action being taken.

      Your backing of the criminal activities of a rogue state is nothing to be proud of.

  21. Hostage
    February 28, 2014, 12:09 pm

    That you’d even expect anyone outside of your anti-Israel clique to even maintain this phrase in their vocabulary suggests that you’ve been drinking a little too much of your own kool-aid.

    I don’t know why anyone would NOT insist on using the term. The UN Security Council, the General Assembly, the ICJ, and the Reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions have all declared it occupied territory to which the laws of occupation still apply.

    So far as I know, the US government still considers East Jerusalem occupied territory too. It sure as hell refuses to put Jerusalem, Israel on anyone’s passport as a place of birth.

Leave a Reply