Z Reference Shelf

Friday, October 28, 2011

DOING THE TWIST -- WEST BANK: Part 7 of 7

The twisted terminology of Arabists have dominated the media for several decades and disinform children, youth and the general public via reference materials disseminated by highly respected publishers. The terms under discussion are found in online databases of Grolier, World Book, Gale, ABC-CLIO, and Facts on File. There are as well several well-known British publishers (Routledge, Encyclopedia Britannica, and Oxford University Press). Unfortunately, bias in publications from Great Britain can only be surprising in the breach. One leading indicator to a publisher’s dedication to present controversial issues in an unbiased manner is the language that is permitted, or not permitted, to be used in articles on these issues.

Following is a dissection of the term WEST BANK, in standard use by the above-mentioned publishers, that works to delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel.

The area referred to as the West Bank is a region, comprising JUDEA and SAMARIA, that was captured by Jordan following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. This illegal annexation was recognized by only one country: the United Kingdom. Jordanian authorities renamed the area the West Bank, hoping to imply that it was a part of Jordan rather than a part of Israel, in yet another effort to erase the original connection of Judea and Samaria to Jews and Israel.^*

^* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank

DOING THE TWIST -- SETTLERS / SETTLEMENTS: Part 6 of 7

Following is a dissection of the terms SETTLERS and SETTLEMENTS, in standard use by the above-mentioned publishers, that works to delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel.

By dictionary definition, a settler is “a person who settles in a new country or area,” and a settlement is “a small community, village or group of houses in an thinly populated area.” Another definition of a settlement is “the settling of persons in a new country or place.”¹ Although these definitions were obtained from a dictionary published in 1969, they do not differ from the following definitions found on the internet today: “set·tle·ment a new colony, or a place newly colonized; a small or isolated community; village.”²

Only when referring to settlement in Israeli territories are these terms used in a pejorative context. The settlements are perceived as “illegal” by the United Nations (UN) and, thus, by the rest of the world’s Arabists. This despite (1) the fact that the UN has become a corrupt body dominated by politically semi-free and unfree countries antithetical to the Jewish State; and (2) the Mandate for Palestine, which “laid down the Jewish legal right under international law to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law.” The Mandate is still in effect, it has not lapsed, and its prescriptions are still valid and legal.³

¹ The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. (unabridged). New York: Random House, 1969.

² http://www.yourdictionary.com/settlement

³ http://www.mythsandfacts.com/article_print.asp?ArtID=101

DOING THE TWIST -- PALESTINIANS: Part 5 of 7

Following is a dissection of the term PALESTINIANS, in standard use by the above-mentioned publishers, that works to delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel.

Prior to the 1967 Six-Day War Jews were Palestinians and the Palestinians of today were Arabs.^1,2

Nowhere in history does one find an ethnicity known as “Palestinian.” The region historically known as “Palestine” (Syria Palaestina) was so named by the Roman, Hadrian, in 135 CE in an effort to erase the history of the Jewish connection to the land known at that time as “Judaea.”³

Consequently, logic dictates that if there was never an ethnic people known as “Palestinians,” then there is no geographic area that can be identified as a “Palestinian homeland.” And if there is not a “Palestinian homeland” then the concept of a “right of return” to that mythical location is not possible.

The fact of the matter is that there were some indigenous Sephardic Jews and some indigenous Arabs in the area for centuries. However, the preponderance of Arabs arrived from other countries (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia) only after the arrival of European Jews in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. This new Jewish community (yishuv) created an infrastructure and employment opportunities that attracted numerous Arabs from other countries.

It is unfortunate that these terms are so commonly mis-used, inadequately defined by the media, and dutifully repeated by the publishers of reference materials. It is a sad commentary on our editorial watchdogs asleep at their desks.

¹ http://theisraelconnection.blogspot.com/2008/09/origin-of-name-palestine-truth-is.html

² The Six-Day War was a successful preemptive strike by Israel against Egypt, Syria and Jordan, whose armed forces were massing at Israel's borders and posing a threat of war.

³ http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php

DOING THE TWIST -- OCCUPATION / OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: Part 4 of 7

Following is a dissection of the terms OCCUPATION and OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, in standard use by the above-mentioned publishers, that works to delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel.

The territories in question are not “occupied,” since the term implies an illegal presence. The area in question is more appropriately a disputed territory. That is to say, the Arabs dispute the terms of the Mandate of Palestine, which calls for the close settlement of Jews upon the land lying between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.¹

In point of fact, the area allotted to Jewish settlement by the Balfour Declaration² (incorporated in the Mandate of Palestine³) included the areas referred to currently as Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), as well as the entire area comprising present-day Jordan.

When countries start a war and then lose, there is no law, international or otherwise, that states that the winning country must hand back to the loser lands lost in battle.⁴ Egypt started a war with Israel and lost the Sinai, but Israel later bartered it in a trade for peace with Egypt. (We’ll see how that plays out with whatever new regime emerges from the ouster of Hosni Mubarak.) Syria started a war with Israel and lost the Golan Heights. Jordan started a war with Israel and lost Judea and Samaria. No other country has ever been expected to either return land won in a defensive war or to settle the refugees of the country that lost the war. Those Arabs whose countries lost wars can either accept the rule of the winning side, or they are free to relocate to any other region or country willing to accept them. It is not Israel’s duty to provide any manner of aid. But, in fact, Israel does aid these refugees, the only perpetual refugees known in recorded history.

¹ http://www.mythsandfacts.com/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm

²http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917#Text_of_the_declaration

³ http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FCA2C68106F11AB05256BCF007BF3CB

⁴ http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=153

DOING THE TWIST -- NAKBA: Part 3 of 7

Following is a dissection of the term NAKBA, in standard use by the above-mentioned publishers, that works to delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel.

Nakba means “catastrophe” in Arabic, and so present-day Arabs mourn the creation of the Jewish State of Israel as their “national catastrophe.” The real catastrophe for the Arabs was not the creation of Israel, but the ignominious failure of the Arab armies to drive the Jews into the sea. By the way, this was not the original “nakba” the Arabs experienced. It is worth citing Steven Plaut’s excellent article “How ‘Nakba’ proves there’s no Palestinian nation,”

“The term was not invented in 1948 but rather in 1920. And it was coined not because of Palestinians suddenly getting nationalistic but because Arabs living in Palestine regarded themselves as Syrians and were enraged at being cut off from their Syrian homeland…. The original “nakba” had nothing to do with Jews, and nothing to do with demands by Palestinian Arabs for self-determination, independence and statehood. To the contrary, it had everything to do with the fact that the Palestinian Arabs saw themselves as Syrians. They rioted at this nakba - at this catastrophe - because they found deeply offensive the very idea that they should be independent from Syria and Syrians.”^*

^*http://www.thejewishpress.com/pageroute.do/31503

DOING THE TWIST -- MILITANTS: Part 2 of 7

Following is a dissection of the term MILITANTS, in standard use by the above-mentioned publishers, that works to delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel.

It is comforting to know that with one “global change” in reference databases, there are no longer terrorists anywhere in the world, unless they are certified members of Al Qaeda. All other terrorists have transmogrified into “militants,” “freedom fighters,” and “activists.” The fellows aboard the Mavi Marmara (attempting to break Israel’s perfectly legal sea blockade) in 2010 were “activists,” the so-called Palestinians are “freedom fighters,” and those masked men firing rockets into Israel from Gaza are “militants.”

Gee! Aren’t we all relieved to know that with one politically correct diktat thousands of terrorists were vaporized and morphed into people with some semblance of legitimacy attached to their acts of murder and mayhem?

DOING THE TWIST -- BORDERS: Part 1 of 7

Following is a dissection of of the term BORDERS, in standard use by the above-mentioned publishers, that works to delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel.

When is an armistice line a border? Only when referring to the 1949 armistice lines agreed upon by Jordan and Israel in their meeting in Rhodes. The Green Line, as it is referred to, is a temporary line indicating the locations of troops at the moment that a truce was claimed by both parties.* Firm boundaries, or borders, were to be negotiated. There has not to date been an agreed upon negotiation that establishes borders. Hence, the term “borders” has been consistently misused, delegitimizing the presence of Jewish settlers in what is, in fact, a disputed territory, and further implying an illegal occupation of legitimate areas of residence and oversight. Military presence is also appropriate, since a not insignificant number of Arab residents continue to plague Israel with suicide bombings, slaughter, and taking of hostages.

* http://www.uc4i.org/news/?p=6737

Search This Blog