Trending Topics:

‘NYT’ changes ‘Palestinians’ to ‘Arabs’ and removes Israeli responsibility for Gaza shortages

Israel/Palestine
on 53 Comments

Two weeks ago the New York Times ran an enthusiastic review of Gazan songbird Mohammed Assaf’s American tour, by Lindsay Crouse, with Reem Makhoul.

The story included these points (as Yousef Munayyer reports):

And the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, included in a message to Secretary of State John Kerry a YouTube video [above] of Mr. Assaf singing longingly about cities in Israel that were once Palestinian. Mr. Netanyahu wrote, “Incitement and peace cannot coexist.”

And:

Mr. Assaf grew up in the Khan Younis refugee camp in Gaza, an area that often has shortages of water, gas and electricity because of restrictions imposed by Israel.

The Times has now changed the article and appended this long correction.

An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to cities in Israel Mr. Assaf sings about. While they had largely Arab populations before Israel became a state in 1948, they were not “Palestinian” in the sense of being part of a Palestinian political entity. The article also referred incorrectly to shortages of water, gas and electricity in Gaza. While Israel places restrictions on some goods coming into Gaza, and many Palestinians blame Israel for shortages, they were worsened by Egypt’s closure of smuggling tunnels and by a tax dispute between the militant Hamas faction, which governs Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority.

So as for those cities in Israel, the story now reads:

Mr. Assaf singing longingly about cities in Israel that once had largely Arab populations.

And as for the shortages in Gaza– Israel has no hand in ’em.

Mr. Assaf grew up in the Khan Younis refugee camp in Gaza, an area that often has shortages of water, gas and electricity.

This is startling evidence of the role of the Israel lobby: a Palestinian star sings about Palestinians before Israel exists, and intrusive Zionist fact-checkers get the Times to change “Palestinians” to “Arabs.” Because Palestinian identity was not established? Rashid Khalidi says it was established long before that.

Here is the hasbara site that has attacked Assaf for this song. (Annie reported on the incitement claim last summer.) Why not just tell the letter-writers that this was Assaf’s opinion, so no correction is necessary? And as for the removal of Israel’s role in Gazan shortages– what a cave. As the Goldstone Report made clear, the Israeli occupation of Gaza continues inasmuch as it controls almost everything that gets into the place.

Can you imagine what would happen if a reporter tried to mention the Nakba, and the expulsion of Palestinians? But reporters have been warned. And Lindsay Crouse will know better than to write about Palestine any time soon.

Munayyer offers these insights about the Zionist narrative altering the discourse:

Calling cities in Palestine “Palestinian cities” wasn’t a problem for the New York Times 1927 or in 1929 for example. Nor was it odd for the paper that today says those cities were not part of a “Palestinian political entity” to refer regularly to a “Palestine Government.”

It is true that the native population of Palestine during that time did not have self-determination (also, they still don’t today) but does that mean there was no political entity there in Palestine? Yes, Palestine was under a British Mandate then, but does that make Palestine’s cities British? Syria was under French Mandate in the 1920s, does that mean Damascus was a French city? Was it not a Syrian city? Of course these were Syrian cities, and the New York Times reported such at the time.

So why the correction when it comes to Palestinian cities? Its clear here that the editors chose to appease what was likely a disgruntled pro-Israel reader who was displeased at the very notion that the New York Times might mention a historical reality they reported on at the time today when a Zionist narrative has made significant strides in altering the discourse.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

53 Responses

  1. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    Maximus Decimus Meridius
    January 2, 2014, 11:50 am

    The NYT is the Zionist ‘Pravda’. And at least readers of the latter were under no illusions that they were reading ‘all the news that’s fit to report’. They knew it was a propaganda rag.

    This sentence is particularly craven:

    ‘While Israel places restrictions on some goods coming into Gaza, and many Palestinians blame Israel for shortages, they were worsened by Egypt’s closure of smuggling tunnels and by a tax dispute between the militant Hamas faction, which governs Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority.’

    ‘restrictions on some goods’ – yup, like spaghetti and children’s toys.

    ‘many Palestinians blame Israel for shortages’ – the whole world outside of the NYT’s little bubble blames Israel, for the very good reason that Israel is to blame. Which is in no way to excuse the Egyptian junta for its despicable behaviour, but does anyone, even in NYT cloud cuckoo land, believe that the Egyptians would have assisted the siege if the US and Israel hadn’t demanded it of them?

    I wish only the very worst to the NYT in 2014.

    • Shmuel
      Shmuel
      January 2, 2014, 12:15 pm

      ‘restrictions on some goods’ – yup, like spaghetti and children’s toys.

      The NYT summary of the situation in Gaza is indeed a disgrace, but it’s no longer about coriander and crayons (Israel realised that list was a PR disaster). The main hardships of the closure are directly and indirectly related to the availability of construction materials and fuel, the separation between Gaza and the WB (severely affecting exports and travel), and travel restrictions in general (for which Egypt also bears heavy responsibility). The tunnels did take off some of the pressure, but laying blame with the Egyptians for cracking down on the tunnel traffic (costly, dangerous and the direct result of Israeli policies), as disgraceful as the Egyptian actions may be, does not absolve Israel of its responsibility for the collective punishment it continues to impose on all Gazans.

  2. David Doppler
    David Doppler
    January 2, 2014, 12:00 pm

    Major developments in connection with Kerry’s visit being reported over at Antiwar.com:

    Netanyahu offers major land/city/population swaps, http://news.antiwar.com/2014/01/01/israel-offers-to-trade-land-300000-arabs-to-pa-for-settlement-blocs/

    Avigdor Lieberman (Mr. Center of the Road) is saying “hear him out” while Naftali Bennett says he’ll collapse the coalition if Netanyahu is serious, http://news.antiwar.com/2014/01/01/israeli-econ-minister-peace-deal-means-end-to-coalition-govt/

    While the announced plan to announce more settlements to coincide with Kerry’s visit (we’re going to slap him in the face when he gets here), is announced to be delayed until after he leaves (we’ll wait to ridicule him until after his departure), http://news.antiwar.com/2014/01/01/settlements-on-hold-until-kerry-leaves-israel/

    • David Doppler
      David Doppler
      January 2, 2014, 1:11 pm

      Netanyahu needs a plan that advances Israeli security and territorial interests, that halts the erosion of Israel’s credibility in both the US and larger international communities, and that maintains a majority coalition together behind him. The biggest issue are the extremist elements in the Israeli far-right for whom giving up any land is treason inciting a firestorm of political rage, while attempting to remove settlements would throw gasoline on that fire.

      A return of Labor to the coalition may be required to offset far-right departures, the fewer settlements that must be abandoned, the better (at what cost to get a deal acceptable to the Palestinians?), while the desperately preferred outcome is some further distraction that allows the pressure on Israel for a deal to dissipate for reasons that can credibly be assigned to someone other than Israel.

      For Kerry to have a chance, he’s going to need some big aces up his sleeve (both big carrots and big sticks), to change the subject from whatever distractions will inevitably surface, and to build and maintain momentum to close, to defuse the murderous rage that Rabin faced. What could they be?

      It seems to me that the combined power of the whole world needs to state loudly and explicitly to the Israeli far right that this is the way it has to be, or else BDS goes viral. To turn a phrase: so that not agreeing to THIS peace becomes Israel’s biggest existential threat. They will never like it, and won’t accept it unless the consequences of not doing so are shoved into their faces. They are bullies, and need to have their noses bloodied. Now’s the time.

      In thinking of who can deliver such a bloody nose, the personal capability (to effectively deliver the blow without becoming dead like Rabin or an historical Anti-Semitic pariah) rises as you move from Obama, through Kerry and Netanyahu, to Lieberman. As to who symbolically can absorb that bloody nose for the far-right body politic, the capability rises as you move from Lieberman and Netanyahu to Bennett, Lapid, and fringe figures farther to the right. Someone like Bennett and Lapid, who can coalesce the far-right behind them for a last stand, and then fold like a cheap umbrella (or Newt Gingrich) in the face of a unified international, US, and majority coalition onslaught, with some major distractions, such as an Iranian deal, peaceful transition of power in Syria, major moves by China or Russia, to over-trump whatever pitiful distractions are brought up to postpone a deal.

      Mondoweiss has played a key role setting the table, but now the MSM needs to start reporting on the excesses of the Israeli far right and the deplorable plight of the oppressed Palestinians with its full power.

      • amigo
        amigo
        January 2, 2014, 1:51 pm

        ” while the desperately preferred outcome is some further distraction that allows the pressure on Israel for a deal to dissipate for reasons that can credibly be assigned to someone other than Israel.”David Doppler.

        That,s easy.It is called an Intifada.

        Get,s Israel back in the victim,s seat.

        Not sure the world is buying that BS anymore.

  3. German Lefty
    German Lefty
    January 2, 2014, 12:04 pm

    Wow, these changes are terrible. I wonder who exactly is responsible for them. I don’t think it was just because of one “disgruntled pro-Israel reader”.

  4. Justpassingby
    Justpassingby
    January 2, 2014, 12:19 pm

    Nasty!

    Israel lobby strikes again.

  5. yrn
    yrn
    January 2, 2014, 12:25 pm

    Away from the image of war, destruction and siege in the Gaza Strip, which took several years ago, it has Ayesh Gazans during the year 2013 many of the scenes for the first time, entry of modern cars, luxury, and the emergence of artists in the international………….. that’s no zio propaganda its.
    فلسطين اليوم – غزة
    Palestine Today – Gaza

    http://paltoday.ps/ar/post/186490/%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%BA%D8%B2%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85-2013-%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%A7-%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%B1/

    • puppies
      puppies
      January 2, 2014, 12:46 pm

      So the resident robot is at it again bringing unrelated propaganda.
      It’s Phil’s own site to do as he wishes, of course, and to carry the responsibility.

    • thankgodimatheist
      thankgodimatheist
      January 2, 2014, 7:21 pm

      “Ayesh Gazans during the year 2013 many of the scenes”
      This made me laugh, yrn? An absurd Google translation that makes no sense and you don’t even ask yourself what it means before posting it? BTW, if you don’t understand Arabic how come you already know that it’s about Gaza doing well? Who handed you this link as a rebuttal for anything about struggling Gaza? If you could read Arabic you would have understood that what it says is that struggling Gaza has also a positive side to show despite* the restrictions imposed on the territory from both sides, Israeli and Egyptians, but how could you know if you don’t read Arabic?
      Now I have an intimate conviction that you WORK as an automated hasbarist. The above is enough proof ( if needed).

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        January 3, 2014, 11:52 pm

        “This made me laugh, yrn?”
        Ooops! No question mark.

  6. jimby
    jimby
    January 2, 2014, 1:00 pm

    Mohammed Assaf brings tears of joy to my eyes. I imagine he will soon have the stature of Om Kalthoum. HE is changing the world.

  7. NormanF
    NormanF
    January 2, 2014, 1:18 pm

    Palestine up to the 1940s was associated with Zionism and the Jews – the Palestinian nationals in those days were Jews as was the gamut of Palestinian companies, societies, etc. The Arabs for that very reason rejected the term Palestinian. That was true up to the 1960s. Its the Arabs who engage in convenient historical revisionism – not the Jews.

    British Palestine was a Jewish country, period.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      January 2, 2014, 1:48 pm

      “British Palestine was a Jewish country, period.”

      And yet somehow it was made up of a majority of Arab Palestinians…

      • bintbiba
        bintbiba
        January 2, 2014, 7:45 pm

        NormanF ,you lie!!
        I was there,…. a Palestinian child. Born in PALESTINE!!
        My parents were there ,Palestinian parents. My brothers, cousins, friends (among whom were Jewish children at school) ,were all Palestinian.
        Britain ruled, we spoke Arabic, English and French. Ate Arabic food with some variations..I have been Palestinian ALL of my life,although was terrorised into leaving with my parents, never allowed to return. Have carried 3 different passports, feel loyalty to wherever I have lived, yet my Palestinian-ness cannot be yanked away by you, sir.!!

      • just
        just
        January 2, 2014, 9:15 pm

        bintbiba– your post is poignant and beautiful truth. You are exceedingly gracious to call him “sir”.

        He is an inveterate liar.

      • bintbiba
        bintbiba
        January 2, 2014, 10:25 pm

        Oh, just! My bestowing upon NormanF the ‘sir’ was certainly not gracious… I was seething. So very hard to retain composure and dignity when accosted with such drivel!
        Best wishes to you, friend!

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        January 3, 2014, 9:17 pm

        “British Palestine was a Jewish country, period.”

        You have to laugh. Until now, the bots were insisting there was no country called Palestine, now they are saying it was but it was Jewish.

    • eljay
      eljay
      January 2, 2014, 1:56 pm

      >> British Palestine was a Jewish country …

      …except that it was Palestine and it contained a majority of non-Jews. IOW, it wasn’t “a Jewish country”.

      And Jews had no legal or moral right to use terrorism and ethnic cleansing to turn it into an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”, period.

      • just
        just
        January 3, 2014, 12:11 am

        bintbiba– I am honored to have you here and as a friend. I could feel your outrage and more……

        Happy New Year.

      • bintbiba
        bintbiba
        January 3, 2014, 4:43 am

        I thank you, just!

        And a Happy New Year to you too.

    • piotr
      piotr
      January 2, 2014, 3:37 pm

      “The Arabs for that very reason rejected the term Palestinian.”

      When Arabs came to Spain in 8th century they were organized according to countries were they came from into junds, and one of them was Jund Filastin. So at least in 8th century the term “Palestinian” was not rejected.

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 2, 2014, 4:28 pm

        Besides, that lying, crawling creature is only making noises out his wrong end. What “Ayrabs”? The Palestininans have always called themselves just that, Palestinians, especially in the last centuries, no need to go back to Andalus.

      • gamal
        gamal
        January 3, 2014, 7:47 am

        speaking of Jund Filastin, seems Israeli’s trade in such artifacts, yours for less than $500

        http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Antique-Islamic-Jund-Filastin-Bronze-Ring-Palestine-Ca-1500-/370683304247

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        January 3, 2014, 8:11 am

        Good catch Gamal.
        Here’s for the pertinent history:
        “Jund Filastin – “the military district of Palestine” was one of several districts of the Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphate province of Bilad al-Sham (Syria), organized soon after the Muslim conquest of Syria in the mid 7th-century. According to al-Biladhuri, the main towns of the district, following its conquest by the Rashidun Caliphate, were Gaza, Sebastiya, Nablus, Caesarea, Ludd, Yibna, Imwas, Jaffa, Rafah, and Bayt Jibrin. At first, under the early Umayyad caliphs, Ludd served as the district capital. After the caliph Suleiman ibn Abd al-Malik founded the nearby city of Ramla, he designated it the capital, and most of Ludd’s inhabitants were forced to settle there.

        In the 9th-century, during Abbasid rule, Jund Filastin was the most fertile of Syria’s districts, and contained at least twenty mosques, despite its small size.

        The Arab tribes that settled Jund Filastin after the Muslim conquest were the Lakhm, Kindah, Qais, Amilah, Judham and the Kinanah; at the time of the Arab conquest, the region had been inhabited mainly by Aramaic-speaking Monophysite Christian peasants.

        The population of the region did not become predominantly Muslim and Arab in identity until several centuries after the conquest.

        At its greatest extent, Jund Filastin extended from Rafah in the south to Lajjun in the north, and from the Mediterranean coast well to the east of the southern part of the Jordan River. The mountains of Edom, and the town of Zoar at the southeastern end of the Dead Sea were included in the district.

        However, the Galilee was excluded, being part of Jund al-Urdunn in the north.

        After the Fatimids conquered the district from the Abbasids, Jerusalem eventually became the capital, and the principal towns were Ashkelon, Ramla, Gaza, Arsuf, Caesarea, Jaffa, Jericho, Nablus, Bayt Jibrin, and Amman.

        The district persisted in some form until the Seljuk invasions and the Crusades of the late 11th-century.”

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 4, 2014, 6:48 am

        Map of Palestine in the mid-7th Century:
        http://www.mideastweb.org/palcaliph1.htm

    • thankgodimatheist
      thankgodimatheist
      January 2, 2014, 7:53 pm

      “British Palestine was a Jewish country, period.”
      You remind me of the French joke, Norman, ‘if there’s enough for two, there’s enough for me”.
      Look dimwit. Jews were never above 7%- 10% of the population for close to 1900 years until the 1930s when massive Jewish immigration started. How could it have been “a Jewish country, period”? You’re not only an unprincipled, despicable revisionist of history, you’re also hilariously ignorant.

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        January 2, 2014, 8:26 pm

        If such denial of the most basic historical facts doesn’t warrant moderation (let alone a ban) what does?!! How much evidence do you moderators need that this loathsome individual does not argue in good faith, does not express a genuine personal informed POV, but who’s in it as part of a concerted effort to distort, falsify, forge and whitewash every single documented fact about the colonial enterprise called Israel?

      • oneof5
        oneof5
        January 3, 2014, 8:57 am

        I say keep him on a short moderation leash (just enough to be plenty irritating to him) … and leave it as another documented example of the complete mental derangement the Ziobots will willingly adopt to pervert the truth in pursuit of their agenda …

        After all, everyone should have toys to play with … 8-)

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        January 2, 2014, 8:45 pm

        Hard cold facts:
        British Census of Palestinian population in 1922:
        Total: 752, 048
        Jews: 83, 790
        http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/A-Survey-of-Palestine/Story6582.html

    • talknic
      talknic
      January 2, 2014, 11:50 pm

      @ NormanF British Palestine was a Jewish country, period”

      “British Palestine”? Strange. The British held no sovereignty over any of Palestine. The British only had a mandate to administer Palestine under the LoN Mandate for Palestine.

      Article 7 of the LoN Mandate for Palestine tells us that Jewish folk could get PALESTINIAN citizenship http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7/

      Please do keep posting your nonsense…. it’s cute and demonstrates to readers how apologists for Israel are full of bullsh*t

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      January 3, 2014, 12:29 am

      British Palestine was a Jewish country, period”

      That’s not what the League of Nations Mandate said:

      “Palestine, as mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed Palestinians formed a nation, & that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labor the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.”
      Pierre Orts, chairman of Mandate Commission of the League Of Nations

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        January 3, 2014, 8:19 am

        While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of mandate.

        That’s not entirely correct. John Quigley and others have repeatedly noted that the UK concluded treaties with Palestine. The consensus view is that those treaties were compelling evidence that Palestine was already a separate contracting State.

        The US State Department Digest of International Law explains that the fact that treaties are concluded on behalf of a country does not mean it isn’t a State:

        “A state in the international sense is generally described as a recognized member of the family of nations, an international person. Authorities differ in respect to the qualifications for such statehood, but there is general agreement on certain basic requirements. Independence is not essential. The requisite personality, in the international sense, is seen when the entity claiming to be a State has in fact its own distinctive association with the members of the international society, as by treaties, which, howsoever concluded in its behalf, mark the existence of definite relationships between itself and other contracting parties”

        Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 223

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      January 3, 2014, 8:34 am

      NormanF: Palestine up to the 1940s was associated with Zionism and the Jews – the Palestinian nationals in those days were Jews as was the gamut of Palestinian companies, societies, etc. The Arabs for that very reason rejected the term Palestinian. That was true up to the 1960s. Its the Arabs who engage in convenient historical revisionism – not the Jews.

      It is quite terrfying to witness, what Ziocane did your psyche and brain, NormanF. Here’s a letter of the Palestine’s Arab delegation to Britain calling for immediate independence of Palestine in 1922:
      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE#sthash.BepnFjNf.dpuf

      British Palestine was a Jewish country, period.

      ROFL. There was no such thing as “British Palestine”. There was a British MANDATE FOR Palestine. It was a Palestinian state UNDER British MANDATE. To call that country “Jewish” is just your usual gentile hatred.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      January 3, 2014, 9:43 am

      Palestine up to the 1940s was associated with Zionism and the Jews – the Palestinian nationals in those days were Jews . . . The Arabs for that very reason rejected the term Palestinian.

      The claim that the term was associated with Jews is risible, since the majority of the inhabitants were Arab and they became Palestinian nationals by operation of the very same laws as the Jews.

      Neville J. Mandel noted that throughout the 19th century the Ottoman Government employed the term “Arz-i Filistin” (the “Land of Palestine” ) in official correspondence, meaning for all intents and purposes the area to the west of the River Jordan which became “Palestine” under the British in 1922. Mandel wrote that one of the pre-war newspapers, the Filastin, spoke of Palestine as a distinct national entity. He also noted that in 1914, a circular entitled “General Summons to Palestinians – Beware Zionist Danger” was distributed and published in the press. It warned that “Zionists want to settle in our country and expel us from it” and it was signed anonymously by “a Palestinian”. See Neville Mandel, The Arabs and Zionism before World War I, University of California Press, 1980, pages 127 and 220.

      FYI, when Alexander the Great and his Generals subdued the region, and established a center of Greek culture in nearby Egypt, the Greek historians used the term Palestine. The Maccabees hated all things Greek and even slaughtered Hellenized Jews. So it’s very likely that the Romans, who adopted Greek culture, also called the region Palestine and simply employed Judea as a sop to placate their touchy Hasmonean allies. In any event, Zionists perpetuate the myth that the Romans changed the name of the country after they exiled all of the Jews.

      The Israeli MFA article, “Ramla – Arab Capital of the Province of Palestine,” doesn’t mention any special connection to the Jews:

      According to historical sources, Ramla was founded at the beginning of the 8th century by the Umayyad Calif Suleiman ibn Abd el-Malik. It served as the Umayyad and Abbasid capital of the Province of Palestine (Jund Filistin), and the seat of Arab governors of the province in the 8th and 9th centuries.

      link to mfa.gov.il
      Jerusalem eventually became the capital of Jund Filistin, after the Fatimids conquered the district from the Abbasids. Its principal towns were Ashkelon, Ramla, Gaza, Arsuf, Caesarea, Jaffa, Jericho, Nablus, Bayt Jibrin, and Amman. So Filistin had been the name of the province during the Arab Golden Age.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        January 3, 2014, 10:55 am

        To my mind the Hasmoneans were almost as keen to have an honoured place in the Hellenistic world as to assert the primacy of Judaism. Even King John – well I think he called himself king – the great conqueror and hammer of heresy at the second century’s end called himself Philhellene. Judaism and the West were

        reaching out to each other with enduring results: as a Westerner of later

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        January 3, 2014, 11:00 am

        days I’m grateful for that Jewish handshake. Part of the result was an odd status for the name Palestine. Everyone used it but it was downgraded theologically – all but expelled from the Greek bible.

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 5, 2014, 2:49 pm

        @hostage (no reply button) – the fundamentalist minority

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        January 3, 2014, 9:11 pm

        To my mind the Hasmoneans were almost as keen to have an honoured place in the Hellenistic world as to assert the primacy of Judaism.

        I agree, but that doesn’t reflect the attitude or spirit of the founder of the dynasty when Mattathias killed the Hellenistic Jew who had stepped forward to offer the sacrifice to an idol. It didn’t prevent the populace from threatening revolts and wars over the slightest breach of their ancient laws and customs, e.g. the occasion when Pilate setup the shields in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem.

        Josephus portrayed Herod and his sons as being of Maccabean descent. It was Herod’s sons who led the Jewish delegation to ask Pilate to remove the shields. So there was always an uneasy relationship with the Romans and their non-Jewish customs. In the end, it was reportedly the rejection by the Jews of the lambs the Romans provided for the daily sacrifice in the Temple and the ordinances against having any relations with Gentiles that triggered the breakdown in relations which led to the Jewish Wars against the Romans.

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 4, 2014, 1:34 am

        The Hasmonean dynasty is in fact notorious for having originated in the Al Qa’ida movement of its times, i.e. the Macchabees, but swiftly lined up for joining the civilized Hellenistic society within a generation, i.e. already with John Hyrcanos. As for the sacrifice, as you surely well know it was not exactly a matter of accepting an animal for sacrifice but of complying with the only official legal requirement to all subject peoples, i.e. that they all recognize the divinity of Rome. The Romans would have ignored the slight, as they had many other times, if they could have swept it under the rug. Impossible to do in the face of a revolted, religious fundamentalist minority.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        January 4, 2014, 12:34 pm

        The Romans would have ignored the slight, as they had many other times, if they could have swept it under the rug. Impossible to do in the face of a revolted, religious fundamentalist minority.

        What minority? Judaism is still pretty much synonymous with those ordinances that separated the Jews from the Gentiles.

  8. Blownaway
    Blownaway
    January 2, 2014, 1:27 pm

    One can’t count on governments or mainstream media for truth. On the issue of Palestine, most governments and institutional organizations are on the wrong side of history. The Internet has superseded them as sources of accurate information. When the difference between news and editorials can no longer be discerned, they become irrelevant. In reality, the truth has passed these institutions by. People of the world not their governments will solve this problem long before institutions get with it. South Africa is free today not because of but in spite of western governments

  9. Blownaway
    Blownaway
    January 2, 2014, 2:12 pm

    PS amazing about who may have that kind of juice. This was a direct call from someone to someone else. We have outsourced our war powers and now the FED and so why not the editorial board of the NYT

  10. mjordan
    mjordan
    January 2, 2014, 2:27 pm

    It’s sad – but fairly clear by now that Judi Rudoren is not up to the job at the NYT. She is far more comfortable interacting w/Israeli society and reflecting the Washington/Israel consensus on the conflict rather than the int’l consensus, int’l law or the views of any respected human rights organization. She doesn’t give a voice to the voiceless. She’s just pandering to the powerful – a placeholder – and nothing more like most other reporters. Held out some hope initially – but that’s gone now, if anything it’s getting worse over time.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius
      January 2, 2014, 6:03 pm

      ”It’s sad – but fairly clear by now that Judi Rudoren is not up to the job at the NYT.”

      Au contraire.

      Given that the job of any NYT reporter in Israel/Palestine is to present Israel as an essentially moral and humane nation which occasionally does bad things – causing it ‘anguish’ and ‘soul searching’ – only because it was goaded by those evil (not to say weird) Arabs, Rudoren is doing the job very well indeed. Her job is not to inform, but to propagandise.

      • mjordan
        mjordan
        January 2, 2014, 11:17 pm

        At one point she seemed opened to different points of view – but once she started the job it became clear that she’s only there to parrot the Israel/Washington consensus – and not interested in being a real journalist.

  11. Philip Munger
    Philip Munger
    January 2, 2014, 5:25 pm

    I’m writing to Nigel Kennedy today, linking to this article. It might be nice for Kennedy, Mohammed Assaf and the unjailed remainder of the Palestine Strings to play together, perhaps at the Edward Said Conservatory.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2013/12/violist-conscientious-objector.html

  12. Sumud
    Sumud
    January 2, 2014, 7:50 pm

    What a pathetic disgrace.

    The NYT must think people have forgotten it was Israeli forces that entered international waters and attacked the Free Gaza Flotilla – not Egyptian.

  13. Hostage
    Hostage
    January 2, 2014, 10:16 pm

    Zionist fact-checkers

    The term “fact-checkers” is a euphemism for liars when you are talking about CAMERA. International and national courts, including the DC District Court here in the US, consistently ruled that Palestine was a State during the Mandate era in the regular and legal sense of the term. It had a nationality law that governed citizenship and both the Arab and Jewish inhabitants frequently held communal titles to village and farm land. See KLETTER v. DULLES, Secretary of State, United States District Court District Of Columbia (1953)

    The US government devoted an entire subsection of its chapter on States as subjects of international law, in volume 1 of the Whiteman (editor), “Digest of International Law”, GPO, 1963, to explaining the facts regarding the legal status of the Mandated States of Palestine, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, & etc. So, the notion that there was no Palestinian “political entity” is just a shopworn Zionist propaganda talking point. Every time the statehood of Mandate Palestine was challenged in a Court of law, those who denied it ended up on the losing side.

    The position of the Zionists and the Jewish Agency seemed to be that the British Government or the UN could partition Palestine whenever it suited the Jews, but not when it protected the existing rights or position of the non-Jewish communities.

    You can read about unsuccessful Zionist legal challenges to the 1939 White Paper and 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance in the subsection on Mandates in Whiteman’s Digest. The fact is that Great Britain had legally defined the maximum territorial scope of the Jewish national home when it adopted the White Paper and the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance. Land transfers in Zones A and B, except to a “Palestinian Arab”, were prohibited. So at least in those zones, the remaining lands really were reserved and owned by the Palestinian Arabs. Judea, Samaria, and two-thirds of the country between the river and the sea were located in those Zones. Here is a link to the map: link to books.google.com
    The Palestine Supreme Court upheld the validity of the ordinance in Bernard A. Rosenblatt (petitioner) Vs. the Registar Of Lands, Haifa (1947).

    Great Britain’s position on the White Paper and the Land Ordinance was that:

    In organizing illegal immigration into Palestine the Jews have defied the law of Palestine and of other countries from which this traffic has been carried on. It is no answer to this to say that the law is unacceptable or that it is illegal, when it is not.

    — UN Document A/AC.21/W.29, 19 April 1948 http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/29B6E87D9790D10905256602004F5467

    The Principal Allied powers gathered at San Remo had tasked the British Government with the job of drafting the Mandate terms required to implement its own Balfour Declaration. In the end, they granted it “full powers of administration” in order to carry-out the associated tasks. Despite causing years of turmoil, the Zionists and the allied States on the Permanent Mandates Commission never used the provisions of Article 26 of the Mandate to legally challenge the authority of the British administration in the Permanent Court of International Justice over its interpretation of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate, or its power to regulate the immigration of Jews “subject to suitable conditions,” however it saw fit.

    The Mandate Commission could offer advice or recommendations to the Council of the League, but the mandatory powers (UK, France, Japan, and Italy) were permanent members of the Council. Article 5 of the Covenant stipulated that decisions at any meeting of the Assembly or of the Council shall require the agreement of all the Members of the League represented at the meeting. So the chances that the Council would adopt decisions contrary to the wishes of one or more of the mandatory regimes was a moot question.

    Ben Gurion revealed that the members of the Permanent Mandates Commission had privately advised the Jewish Agency Executive in 1937 that the Mandate could not be implemented according to their wishes. See David Ben-Gurion, “Letters to Paula and the Children”, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press Edition, 1971, pages 134-135

    The boffins at the New York Times and CAMERA are simply trying to re-write history (again).

  14. Talkback
    Talkback
    January 3, 2014, 8:25 am

    I change “NYT” to “antigentile Neo-Stuermer”.

  15. ramzijaber
    ramzijaber
    January 3, 2014, 10:18 am

    nyt and most other us media under total zionist control. the internet is the great equalizer. thank you mdw!

    • bintbiba
      bintbiba
      January 4, 2014, 5:46 am

      We can never Thank You enough, Mondoweiss. So well said, Ramzi:
      “The internet is the great equalizer.”

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 4, 2014, 7:10 am

        Not if you live, e.g., in China. Certain congress critters here in USA are always pushing under various sneaky masks to curb internet freedom.

Leave a Reply