Adam Horowitz writes:
I've noticed that the Times chooses to refer to the settlement in Hebron as the "House of Peace" while Ha'aretz refers to it as the "House of Contention". Ha'aretz says: "The area surrounding what has been dubbed the House
of Contention, which the settlers are calling the House of Peace, was
declared a closed military zone yesterday." While the Times just goes with the House of Peace: "The contested building, which occupants had dubbed the House of Peace,
is on the road to the Cave of the Patriarchs, where Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob and their wives are said to be buried, a site Muslims and Jews
have coveted and fought over for centuries."
The first reference I could find to the place on the Ha'aretz website went out its way to state that "House of Peace" is just p.r.:
head of the Kedumim council, said on Monday that activists would resist
attempts to evacuate Hebron's House of Contention [emphasis mine] with force much
greater than ever used in the past.
"We will not be like Gush Katif and we will not hug," Weiss told
Army Radio. "We will resist the evacuation of the 'House of Peace' with
great force, much greater than what we did in Amona." Weiss stressed
that those who oppose the evacuation "are not Christians who turn the
other cheek."
Relatively minor, yes. But a revealing choice, for the Times to adopt the settler's language. And I might have let it go until I saw this article today –"From an Israeli Settlement, a Rabbi's Unorthodox Plan for Peace"–which comes less than a month after this–Settlers Who Long to Leave the West Bank
and of course the photo that James North pointed out yesterday. I
wonder how many casual readers of the Times think the settlers are the
vanguard of the peace movement?
[Weiss: Even Jeffrey Goldberg, to his credit, is calling the settlers' activities lately a "pogrom."]
