Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the dhimmi coverage of the murder of Eliahu Asheri:
I listened to the BBC last night. The announcer could not get enough of that word "settler." The "Palestinians" had executed "an Israeli settler." The "settler" had been kidnapped. And so on. One would have no way of knowing, unless one already knew -- and how many do? -- that this "settler" was a young boy, that he had "settled" on land that was in the original League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, even after all of Eastern Palestine (that is historic Palestine, east of the Jordan), was unilaterally closed by the British to Jewish immigration -- an act that infuriated the members of the League of Nations' Mandates Commission.That land, of course, given by way of instant consolation prize to Abdullah, now grandly promoted to Emir of the Emirate of Transjordan. This young “settler” lived on land that still remained part of the absolute minimum territory that the British, as mandatory authority, were to hold and where they were supposed to promote, were required to promote by the terms of the Mandate, "close Jewish settlement on the land."
It is disturbing that all kinds of people, in all kinds of countries, who know nothing of the Mandate for Palestine or the longer demographic and cadastral history of that area, nonetheless make pronouncements without this knowledge. How many know, for example, that about 90% of the land was state and waste land -- that is, land owned by no one except, possibly, the Ottoman rulers, and that their title passed to the British as mandatory authority, to be held in trust for the intended successor government, that of the Jewish National Home?
It is intolerable that the BBC, an organ of the British government that served as the mandatory authority for Palestine, does not insist that its program speakers, or those who write their copy, demonstrate a clear understanding of, inter alia, the Mandate's provisions (quoting from them), and of the history of the various non-Arab and non-Muslim peoples of that area – that area which too many have been bamboozled into thinking of as the "Arab world" (an Aramco construction that has taken on a life of its own). BBC speakers should have to show also that they know something of the demography and land-ownership patterns.
If they did, they would never use that loaded word "settler" which they, and the European press and other media, have filled with such venomous meaning. If they did, they would never use that loaded word "occupied" (as in "occupied Arab lands" -- a phrase that says the case is closed, and we can all go home), or "occupation," which are terms that evoke goose-stepping Germans marching into Paris in June 1940, and clearly suggest that the "occupier" has no valid title, no claim, to the land he is occupying. But Israel does possess such valid title, a title far superior to that of the local Arabs, many of them descendants of the Egyptians and Iraqis and others who flooded in, in greater numbers than the Jewish "settlers," during the Mandatory period -- even though the place was supposed to be the one small sliver in the entire Middle East, that the Jews would have to reconstruct their commonwealth and not to be treated, as they were everywhere, as dhimmis. And while a few years ago one would not have known what that word means, we all now do -- not least because we can look around the world and see how non-Muslims or even non-Arab Muslims are treated everywhere that Arab Muslims rule.
The Jihad against Israel is relentless and endless. Yet it is still hard for Israelis to face reality. In not facing it, in not identifying what they face as a Jihad, they have done themselves and their own position a terrible disservice, and they have also confused the Europeans as to what it is that Europe faces. One can hardly fault them--it is not Israel's business to save the Europeans from their own folly, even as the E.U. does everything it can to de-legitimize the very idea of Israel. Still, one wishes that the sensible scholars of Islam -- there are some in Israel, though it too has all the problems that one finds in the larger Western world, including apologists, deniers, and the simply obtuse -- would be listened to by their own government, which is under Olmert still hellbent on believing there is a "solution" to be found in giving away territory.
The other thing with the BBC is the selection of comments for "Have your Say" They have published none of mine on this debate. When they do publish my point it is frequently deleted if it gets too many recommendations.
The comments on the current debate here, are largely as one would expect, pro-Palestinian. But even with the well known BBC bias (which is also the subject of some comments) they have not done enough in some peoples eyes. There was one comment yesterday that said the BBC was shamefully biased for changing the translation of the Gazan demand for the release of "children" in prison to "youths".
The Times on line is my first port of call these days for serious issues.
But I fund the BBC through my license and that rankles, and is why I persevere with complaints to them, and about them, to those in authority.
IF Europe, and I mean all the nation-states of Europe combined, not that worthless, despicable construct that calls itself the "EEC", that monster that chews up billions and allows thousands of overpaid beaurocrats ((spelling intended) to commute between Strasbourg & Brussels, if the people of Europe knew, and I mean the people, the farmers, the workers, the businesspeople, the judiciary, in short: >Everyone
Sorry folks, I typed a whole thing and somehow it was chewed up by the computer...
IF Europe, and I mean all the nation-states of Europe combined, not that worthless, despicable construct that calls itself the "EEC", that monster that chews up billions and allows thousands of overpaid beaurocrats ((spelling intended) to commute between Strasbourg & Brussels, if the people of Europe knew, and I mean the people, the farmers, the workers, the businesspeople, the judiciary, in short: >Everyone
Tried again but it just won't print the second part... some bug...
They make "death of a settler" sound like he had a heart attack instead of cold blooded torture and murder.
Their headline should have read" KIDNAPPED TEEN VISCIOUSLY MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD BY MUSLIMS".
This is from the Jerusalem Post. Nice looking boy, his Dad emigrated from Australia in 1991.
I think of the parents of both these two young boys.
I was also struck by the term "settler" when reading the report of Eliahu Asheri.
One never reads that Arafat and most of the 'palestinians' came from other ME nations justifiably identifying them as 'settlers' of the mandate region.
This boy may have been only 17, according to something that I saw on the Internet or TV the other day. The BBC is revolting. If they called this murder an "execution," then they are criminals who perpetrated a severe propaganda crime of Orwellian proportions.
The BBC's 'treason of the clercs' marches on.
Unsettling.
While Israel is on its operations, they should take out BBC posts in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. Similarly, US troops should do the same to the BBC in Iraq, and take out their broadcast infrastructure in the Mid East, since they are these days nothing more than an English edition of al-Jazeera.
How long before they are taking hostages and "executing" them in the US, In the UK or in the EU(SSR)? I wonder when they will wake up? Perhaps only when it is one of the PC brigade's kith and kin.
Why is "settler" a derogatory term that turns the killing of its bearer into something excusable? There isn't a country around that isn't inhabited by "settlers"; and if the state of belonging to a group other than the indigenes of country marks you for death, no Arabic-speaking Muslim in the fertile crescent or northern Africa would be safe, while Bantus as well as Brits and Boers would be at risk in South Africa.
Since the report's from the BBC, maybe we also ought to point out that if "settler" justifies the killing of its bearer, nobody in Britain save the Welsh and Highland Scots would be safe.
The word "settler," like the word "occupied," is clearly meant to minimize, or deny outright, any claim by Israelis to certain territories. Instead of making their listeners aware of the history of this area, including the history of the Jews under Muslim rule (Arab or Ottoman), instead of making people aware of the "ruin and desolation" into which the area known to Wetsern Christendom (but not the Muslims) as Palestine or the Holy Land (and which continued naturally to be called Eretz Israel, the Land of Israel, by Jews), instead of discussing why the League of Nations felt it only just that, after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, to create a mandate system that would lead to the creation of an "Arab state," a "Jewish state, an "Armenain state," and a "Kurdish state," and that the Arabs managed to acquire, in the end, 20 such states and with them the source of the greatest unearned wealth in human history, the Jews managed to acquire, entirely by their own efforts but not soon enough to rescue co-religionists who might have been saved in Europe, and fashioned their state without any help, and significant opposition from , the local British who instead of furthering the goals of the Mandate, did what they could to obstruct them; the Armenian state offered was merely part of the Soviet Empire, until very recently, and never included those regions once inhabited by Armenians murdered by local Muslims in present-day Turkey; the Kurds got nothing, but their moment may at last be coming.
The word "settler" in the obsessive BBC usage (and not only the BBC; The Economist long has favored these pictures of bearded, gun-toting "West Bank" settlers, impliedly religious fanatics, we are meant to think, the lot of them )is meant to suggest that other word, the word the Arabs use directly -- tha tis the word "colonist." And what is a "colonist"? A "colonist" is merely a cog in the machine of "colonialism" and the Jews, you see, including those who served as chattel slaves of Arab tribes in Yemen for a thousand years, or those who came from Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran -- that is, those who remained when others were the descendants of Jews who had been forced to leave their lands by Arab Muslim conquerors, who quickly imposed a system of dhimmitude and persecution, in the Holy Land, with especial severity, are in the BBC version to be depicted as those semi-European "colonialists" who must go back, eventually, to some mother country.
This all takes place through repetition of loaded phrases: "settler" and "occupied" are merely two that stick out. It is the snarl oblique, which supplements the Arab propaganda of all those guests, some Arabs, and some "Middle East experts" who parrot, in one register or another, the same Arab line, often in tones of grave or sweet reason, but if you listen closely to one of those former diplomats (say, all those former American diplomats, sometimes ambassadords, sometimes something more lowly, who have taken positions in some transparent Washington institute devoted to the "Middle East" and supported directly or indirectly, that comes from all those eagerly recycling, by money from that same "Middle East."
of course, as Hugh says, the BBC should ensure that's its anchorpersons, reporters, etc., should have a thorough historical and geographical knowledge [including religious beliefs] of the foreign lands that they are dealing with [instead of the indoctrination in lies that they presently undergo]. But even such info is easily available, it may be overlooked by policymakers. For example, I have a copy of a royal institute of International Affairs handbook for the Middle East from about 1950. This compilation is accurate, it seems to me, in regard to the Sudan, noting the historic enmity between north and south in the sudan, the religious and ethnic and tribal differences, etc. Yet British policymakers still insisted on giving Sudan independence as a unitary state rather than as a federal state [Arab/Muslim north, Black Muslim west, ie, Darfur, and tribal African, Christian and animist south] or as two states divided into north and south. This British failure has led to millions of deaths [not the sole cause of course; Islam's drive against kufar is probably the most important factor].
The "settler" thing is quite disturbing. I was watching a BBC World TV programme about Kosovo recently, and I noticed that the commentator kept talking about the Kosovo Serbs as "settlers". My recollection of the history of the place was that the Serbs got there first.
It seems like the word is just another weapon in the war to deligitimise the very existence of people so that their murder becomes "understandable".
Weasel words points 10 out of 10.
Hugh,
Since we are talking about loaded terms, the following is an important question to ask.
Is not the usage of the reference to Israel as "Holy Land" in itself a loaded term? One wonders how you can use this term while claiming not to have religious affiliation.
When wild dogs attack people the answer is to kill all the wild dogs.
Hugh, thank you once again. This "settler" is one year younger than my eldest. I have cried all day for his parents, for us all.
And kafir nonbeliever is once again playing 'Who Wants To Be A Jihadist?'. Idiot.
"And kafir nonbeliever is once again playing 'Who Wants To Be A Jihadist?'. Idiot."
-above
Aside from the fact that you are insulting and the question was not addressed to you, I cannot even begin to understand what your comment means.
From the Jerusalem Post article cited by Granny Weatherwax:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885879556&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
"Meanwhile, the Zohar Rabbinical Organization published a religious decree on Thursday stating that hitchhiking with an unknown driver is a sin."
They're kidding, right?
Kafir, Israel IS the Holy Land. It's the birthplace of religion.
I do so get aggravated when I hear on the news something about a "holy mosque". That's an oxymoron. A mosque is a war room. It is not holy.
"Kafir, Israel IS the Holy Land. It's the birthplace of religion."
-Above
Israel is hardly the birthplace of religion.
"Is not the usage of the reference[sic] to Israel as "Holy Land" in itself a loaded term? One wonders how you can use this term while claiming not to have religious affiliation."
-- from a posting above
This is an apparent reference to the following comment by me in the second posting above:
"...the area known to Western Christendom (but not the Muslims) as Palestine or the Holy Land (and which continued naturally to be called Eretz Israel, the Land of Israel, by Jews)..."
I take that strangely phrased question -- "Is not the usage of the reference to Israel as "Holy Land" in itself a loaded term?" to imply that I am calling the place known as Israel the "Holy Land." I am not. I am merely making the unremarkable observation that the same land, roughly that of historic "Palestine" -- as that toponym was used in the Western (Christian) world --was known to Jews as Israel or "Eretz Israel," the "Land of Israel." It was known to Christians, but not to Jews, for two millennia, as the Holy Land, "holy" because it was where Jesus was born, lived, and died, and where everything associated with him, and with the beginnings of Christianity, can be found. It is not a "loaded term" but one of religio-historical significance. You can find in many Christian publications today the term "Holy Land." I'm not calling it "the Holy Land." I'm saying that is what it has been called.
Which brings up another pont. Can we call that same area "the Promised Land" without necessarily endorsing the view that 1) there is a God and 2) that God promised a certain land to the Jewish people? Yes, of course we can, because anyone with a modium of historical or civilizational sense understands that if one calls it "the Promised Land" that can be a reference to how it has been seen, been talked or written about, in much of Western history.
Then you ask: "One wonders how you can use this term while claiming not to have religious affiliation." I don't know what to make of such a remark. I am an atheist. I have no religious affiliation. I was raised as a contented atheist. But I am not unaware, as you seem to be, of either the historical terms that have been used, nor as you seem to be, that the use of these terms implies nothing about "religious affiliation."
All educated people know that
1) Christians have for two millennia naturally called the area of present-day Israel as "the Holy Land." That area, at the time the Romans suppressed the Jewish Revolt, had been known as "Judea." In order to deliberately efface the Jewish connection to that land, the Romans deliberately renamed it as "Palestine"("Palestine" is actually an adjectival form, "Palestinian" Syria, which in turn derives from the phrase "Syria palaestinorum" -- "Syria of the Philistines," after an extinct tribe that,in the Bible, are described as having lived in five places near Gaza; think of Samson's Delilah and that place in "Samson Agonistes," which is "dark dark dark unutterably dark/Beneath the blaze of noon."
2) Noting this fact hardly constitutes an endorsement of anything. It merely recognizes a fact of history.
Hugh,
I am aware that the BBC is somewhat biased in its coverage of Israel. I acknowledge that. My question related to other bias, as I am sure you will understand. That question I posed was highly relevant given your statements about the choice of certain words in covering Israel.
I would like to point out that you have used the term "Holy Land" on numerous occasions when discussing Israel. You never once before provided an explanation as to why that was the case. Of course I understand the historical context from which the term comes, but to re-use that pseudo-historical term gives it a gravitas that it does not deserve; it perpetuates myths.
I ask that you kindly not dwell on syntax in future, as it appears like an attack on the intelligence of another (here, the one asking the reasonable question).
You did this again when you stated the following:
All educated people know that.
With that statement, you again question my educational credentials. Is this the tact that we will see on JW/DW when one asks a question that requires great contemplation? It is unfortunate that you chose to take that route, as what you have written appears to be thinly veiled attacks on me, and naturally, an attempt to somehow diminish the importance of the question I posed. And if that is what you wish to do with this particular case, I am not at all embarrassed to hold up my own credentials. Do not assume that I am ignorant of history or that I have no knowledge of Judea. Nearly everything I read falls under the category of historic non-fiction.
Nonetheless, I thank for your lengthy response. It clarifies your usage of those terms for me to a certain extent, although I confess I am still somewhat puzzled by your usage of it. I also wish you had added those footnotes when using that term before.
Hugh, Kaffir, etc. There are many words in our lexicon which have a common accepted understanding, but which I abhor for the reasons pointed out by Kaffir.. their very usage perpetuates and dignifies myths.. such as misuseage of the word Palestinian especially when coupled with the word people.
There are lots of other words which cause, not solve problems, such as "left", "right", "liberal", conservative".. these labels cause divisions, and cause problems and weaken are will and ability to resist by virtue of the internal divisions they cause.
Religion predates Uras Salem and Canaan by thousands of years, it is not the home of religion, and there is nothing holy at all about Jerusalem or Y'srael..in fact there is nothing at all holy in the mind, works, beliefs, or doings of men.. period and religion is the work of men, not a god or gods, but of men. Man creates his god in his own image and then uses him as a ventriloquist dummy, know the god know the man.
And every Jihad/Dhimmi Watcher will agree with that statement if it were stated as Muhammad created Allah in his own image and used it as a ventriloquist dummy,, but can't and won't bite the bullet when it comes to their own smug self righteousness.
Know the god, know the man, know the man, know the god.. All gods today are gods of men, the women are mere camp followers.
"I would like to point out that you have used the term "Holy Land" on numerous occasions when discussing Israel. You never once before provided an explanation as to why that was the case. Of course I understand the historical context from which the term comes, but to re-use that pseudo-historical term gives it a gravitas that it does not deserve; it perpetuates myths"
-- from a posting above by a poster who still doesn't comprehend
The term "Holy Land" is used by all kinds of people to mean that they consider that part of the world (Israel, Judea, historical "Palestine" on both sides of the Jordan as that term was used in Western Christendom), "holy" because it is where Jesus was born and lived and died, where Christianity had its beginnings, its earliest history. In how many thousands of works in Latin does the phrase "Terra Sancta" occur? In every third or fourth book in the Vatican Libary? For someone to be so distant from, uncomprehending of, his own history, his own civilization (I assume you are a citizen of the West), so as not to recognize the religio-historical provenance of the phrase "Holy Land" shows something about the collapse of educational standards, and the absence of both Sprachgefuhl ("language-feeling") and what Jacques Barzun once wittily described, I dimly recall, as "Geschichtengefuhl" -- not mere knowledge of facts, but the "history-feeling" that comes long after the facts have been learned, and sense made of things through the dimension of time.
"You never once provided an explanation as to why" you used the term "Holy Land" when discussing Israel -- that is, in apposition. Well, I assumed that readers knew something. I assumed a minimum amount of historical baggage. In your case, I assumed incorrectly. Obviously when I write "Israel, the Holy Land" I am using first the Jewish, and then the Christian designation -- that's it. If you don't recognize that, what the hell do you make of paintings in museums, of the iconogrpaphy that relies on a knowledge of the Old and New Testaments? Is most of Western painting off-limits to your understanding? And much of Western writing, including all kinds of allusions in Shakespeare, Milton, and a hundred others? I find this state of affairs grim.
Any educated person, I repeat, will use without embarrassment, or hesitation, the phrase "Holy Land" in a context in which it is clear that one is describing how that place is described or thought of by others, and those others may or may not include oneself.
I'm not a Believer. I don't believe there is a God, and so I don't think He promised the Land of Israel to the ancient Hebrews, that famous Terra Promissa. But I know, rather than believe, or not believe, that the ancient Hebrews lived there, that the Jews lived there and created and were created by that Land, and that they alone longed for it for the years of their exile, and I am of the view that if there is a God, given all that has happened, He certainly would have promised that Land to the Jews. It makes poetic, moral, all kinds of sense -- the kinds of sense that matter to those who have any sense left in them.
And here's another point. It is undeniable that in order to believe the Muslims have a claim, any claim at all, to that area as important to them, then you have to agree to believe that a certain Muhammad ascended into Heaven, all the way to the Muslim Seventh Heaven, and came down again the same night, on his fabulous winged steed Buraq. Only Muslims believe that.
But the connection of Jews to that area is not a matter of religious faith which one may or may not share. And the connection of Jesus, and early Christianity, to that area is not a matter of religious faith, which one may or may not share. The Hebrews really did live there, did make their history there, were formed there, and in exile did long for the place as no one else did. Jesus was born and lived and was crucified there. Those are matters of history, not religious belief. Quite different from that story of Muhammad on Buraq, and the careful assignment of that "farthest mosque" (the Qur'anic passage mentions only "al-masjid al-aqsa" without specifying where it is) to the Temple Mount, in an obvious act of religio-geo-political appropriation.
The next time you find me using the phrase "Israel, the Holy Land..." you should understand that this means the same sliver of land that we now call Israel is the same sliver historically called the Holy Land. And if one calls it the Promised Land, that too is a recognition of how it was regarded in the Western world, and does not necessarily mean that the author 1) believes in God and 2) believes that He promised the Land to the Jews.
But anyone endowed with the least bit of moral or historical sense, or with something else, poetic sense, will certainly believe in the idea of the Promised Land. Even if one were utterly devoid of religious faith, and did not believe in a God to Promise Land, what the most persecuted tribe in human history has had to endure, and right now continues to endure at the hands of a vicious enemy conducting an endless Jihad (and has to endure further the cruel miscomprehension of all kinds of outsiders, not least many at the BBC and the U.N. and the E.U. hierarchy), entitles it, has earned it the right, along with the long historical connection of Jews to the Land of Israel, to treat that land as promised to them. And any Non-believer who cannot see the moral, historic, poetic rightness of that, has something wrong with him.
That's my view. It's a Pisgah-sight of Palestine.
"that story of Muhammad on Buraq, and the careful assignment of that "farthest mosque" ...to the Temple Mount, in an obvious act of religio-geo-political appropriation."
More specifically, Mohammed was lucidly appropriating Israel itself -- in all its mythopoetic significance. In his mind, Islam is the true Israel, and the vast majority of Jews throughout its history and up to his own time were a bunch of ragtag betrayers of the Yahweh who was really Allah, as revealed for the first -- and last -- time in history.
Mohammed's absorption of Israel into Islam was perhaps his first act of latrociny, a mythological piracy upon which was built his entire eschatological empire of thievery.
Kafirnon-believer,
About usage of Holy Land. Well, if I call a city in the United States "St. Louis" or "San Francisco," that does not mean that I consider that King Louis of France to be a saint or that I consider Francis to be a saint. Or San Diego, and so on. [no offense intended]. Or if Hugh calls a place Los Angeles it does not mean that he believes in angels. Holy Land has been a mainly Christian term, although it appears once, I believe, in the Jewish Scriptures as Admat Qodesh [soil of holiness, most literally]. It also appears in the Quran in Sura 5:20-22 [in the usual verse numbering system used by Pickthall]. In Arabic, it is al-Ardh al-Muqadassa, if I am not mistaken. However, the Arabs/Muslims have usually seen the Land as an indistinct part of Bilad ash-Sham [usually translated as Syria or Greater Syria]. In the Jewish tradition, as Hugh points out, the Land is called Land of Israel [Erets Yisra'el]. It is interesting that there was a long-standing dispute between the Jews in Israel and the British mandatory govt over how to write the name of the country in Hebrew on official documents, since English, Hebrew and Arabic were official languages. Stamps from the mandatory period show "Palestine" in English, "Filastin" in Arabic [although Filastin was NOT used by Muslim rulers of the country after the Crusades, and when Filastin was used it referred only to the southern part of the country, roughly speaking, what the Romans/Byzantines had called Palaestina Prima [as distinct from Palaestina Secunda and Tertia]. The Jews wanted Erets Yisra'el to show on official mandatory documents, stamps, coins, etc., while "Palestine" and "Filastin" appeared in English and Arabic. But the British insisted on a compromise: Palestina would be written in Hebrew transliteration, while in parentheses, as if an afterthought, the letters alef-yod would appear [ א'י ] which are the initial letters of Erets Yisra'el. Check out mandatory stamps and coins to see how this was done. This shows British official hostility to the Jewish National Home despite their commitment [through the mandate] to foster its development.
On the use of "settler" as a pejorative. This was done as early as the 1930s in the Runciman Report prepared by Lord Runciman about Czechoslovakia and its alleged abuse of the Sudeten Germans. Runciman spoke of "Czech" colonists in the Sudetenland.
The Runciman Report, Cmd. 5847, no. 7; also found in J W Bennet, Munich, Prologue to Tragedy 1964], pp 449-455, Appendix D, Runciman Report
"On the use of 'settler' as a pejorative. This was done as early as the 1930s in the Runciman Report prepared by Lord Runciman about Czechoslovakia and its alleged abuse of the Sudeten Germans. Runciman spoke of 'Czech' colonists in the Sudetenland."
-- from a posting above
Though, through long usage, and because of how we regard the settling of the American West, Amerians endow the word "settler" with a positive rather than a pejorative meaning -- as in the phrase "Swedist settlers, whether in early New Jersey or in what would become Minnesota, continued to..." -- especially when the word "settler" implies hardships endured (those cabins in the harsh climate of the upper Middle West), the word "settler" now, as used for people living on land to which they have at least as great a claim (actually far greater) than, say, the one that Italy has to the Alto Adige (would the BBC have ever called an Italian from Friuli-Venezia-Giulia who now lived in the Alto Adige, formerly the Austrian Sudtirol, 97% ethnic German at the time of its transferral to Italy after World War I, as a "settler"? Would you consider him a "settler"? Why not?
Fascinating that Runciman, in using the term "colonists" for the Czechs on the territory that they had won when Czechoslovakia had acquired its independence (thanks in large part to Tomas Masaryk Sr.), echoed Adolf Hitler, but then, so did many of the most influential papers of the period (see those in London and Paris). In 1938, of course, the term "colonist" did not automatically convey the pejorative meaning it does today, nor were the words "settler" and "colonist" as overlapping or intertwined as they are today, in this "post-colonialist" world where "colonialism" is smuuggled in, as a theme, as a grievance, as an all-purpose excuse, on every conceivable and inconceivable occasion.
Finally, if Munich: Prologue to Tragedy by Bennet, mentioned by Eliyahu in the posting above, is the book that I recall, it has a picture of a smiling Runciman, and under that picture the phrase "What we seek is a comprehensive and lasting settlement." It was apparently a phrase that gave him great satisfaction. Sound familiar?
From the Jerusalem Post article cited by Granny Weatherwax:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885879556&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
"Meanwhile, the Zohar Rabbinical Organization published a religious decree on Thursday stating that hitchhiking with an unknown driver is a sin."
They're kidding, right?
PRCS said:
"Meanwhile, the Zohar Rabbinical Organization published a religious decree on Thursday stating that hitchhiking with an unknown driver is a sin."
They're kidding, right?
Hugh said"But anyone endowed with the least bit of moral or historical sense, or with something else, poetic sense, will certainly believe in the idea of the Promised Land. Even if one were utterly devoid of religious faith, and did not believe in a God to Promise Land, what the most persecuted tribe in human history has had to endure, and right now continues to endure at the hands of a vicious enemy conducting an endless Jihad (and has to endure further the cruel miscomprehension of all kinds of outsiders, not least many at the BBC and the U.N. and the E.U. hierarchy), entitles it, has earned it the right, along with the long historical connection of Jews to the Land of Israel, to treat that land as promised to them. And any Non-believer who cannot see the moral, historic, poetic rightness of that, has something wrong with him."
This pretty well sums up my feelings and without sounding sychophantic I wish I could express it this way to the lefty dhimmis I come into contact with.
I feel I may have to plagiarise a little Hugh if you dont mind?
The question of the BBC has been discussed in a previous thread and I remember posting there urging all U.K. residents to stop paying the licence fee.
There are ways,but it basically criminalises you as a person and to me I find that totalitarian.
It is NOT my duty to pay for a product I dont want or didn't ask for.
I find they use bully boy tactics and on at least two ocassions have been confronted on my doorstep by some "official" demanding to enter to see if I own a T.V.
Thing is i'm 6ft 2 and a lifelong biker so am a bit grisled and can bite back when prodded.
Lets just say he went away without performing his "legal right to enter my property".
If you own a T.V. in the U.K. you are legally obliged to pay £130 per year to own it.
It's pretty weird and so dificult to explain to non U.K. residents.
To me it feels like gangster extortion and I dont go in for that from anyone.
It's a beard tax,window tax,jizya..whatever you'd like to call it but I haven't paid it for 10 years.
Anyone interested in not paying should go here and take a look:
http://www.spiderbomb.com/tv/
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/
Thing is some of there output is superb,documentries,wildlife stuff etc but the news and reporting has ALWAYS been biased.
Even as a spotty youth I could see it.
The problem of their agenda lies in the fact that most of the BBC is staffed by "champagne socialists" who as Hugh has so eruditely pointed out have no historical barometer that goes past about 1962 or thereabouts..please feel free to correct my dates.
regards
Libbysmom,
Dangerous? Yes. To be avoided? Whenever possible.
But a sin?
What ruling will be issued if pedestrians or bicyclists are kidnapped?
For the family and friends of Eliahu Asheri,
May God grant you comfort along with all those who mourn of Zion and Jerusalem."
O God, Full of Mercy, Who dwells on high, grant proper rest on the wings of the Divine Presence for the soul of Eliahu... May his resting place be in the Garden of Eden...
The use of the loaded term settler is nothing more than a dishonour to this innocent victim of viscious murderers. Let's look at who the real "settlers" are.
Sixty years ago, Ramallah, Bethlehem and many other towns in Judea and Samaria were exclusively Christian. Any non-Christian in these towns was more likely to be a Jew than a Muslim. The only Muslims in Ramallah were temporary workers hired by Christians.
In fact, a mere century ago, the very term "Palestinian" usually meant a Christian, Jew, or Samaritan. The words used for Muslims were simply "Arabs" or "Turks". It was the Nazi propagandists advising Faisal Husseini that changed the terminology. It is a real crime that almost everyone today continues the nazi usage.
Perhaps it's time we return to the original usage: Only Jews, Christians and Samaritans have a right to call themselves "Palestinians" because only they have historic roots in the land. The so-called "Palestinian" Muslims are nothing more than Arab invaders and squatters on Jewish and Christian land.
PRCS, I think that 'sin' is not a good translation. If you are interested, here's a link to an article on Arutz Sheva, Israelie National News service:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=106299
The entire ruliing is fairly well explained in this.
Pravo, you and I know that native Christians have been abused in areas ruled by the Palestinian Authority [despite the Christian presence in the PA cabinet and legislative Council]. This means that the Western powers who do a lot of the calling of the shots in the Middle East don't care about their fellow Christians. Otherwise, they would have insisted on PA respect for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, on respect for the persons of Christians in those zones, especially in Bethlehem, Ramallah, Jifna, etc. [especially on respect for the Christian women]. But the West doesn't care.
Eliyahu,
Sadly, you are right. The West doesn't care and unfortunately Israel continues to be dependent on the West. Until Jews and Christians are willing to stand up for our mutual interests with the same determination as our Muslim enemies, this is unlikely to change.
By the way, "the Christian presence in the PA cabinet and legislative Council" i.e. people like Hanan Ashrawi represent the interests of Palestinian Christians about to the same degree as Nuterei Karta or members of the Israeli Communist Party represents the interests of Jews. Actually I fear that Kadima doesn't represent the interests of Israelis any better.