The New York Times Anti-Israel Style Guide Adds a New Phrase

Algemeiner ^ | January 23, 2015

[SJackson]

Buried in a New York Times article today about friction between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu is a phrase that the newspaper has never used before:

Famously, many of those conversations have been deeply uncomfortable. The two leaders have often clashed on Israel’s determination to build new settlements, which Mr. Obama viewed as a way to sabotage peace talks. Mr. Netanyahu was accused of lecturing Mr. Obama in front of the cameras in the Oval Office during an angry conversation in May 2011, after Mr. Obama suggested that the 1967 borders with Palestine should be the starting point for peace negotiations. Later that year, after former President Nicolas Sarkozy of France complained in front of an open microphone that Mr. Netanyahu was “a liar,” Mr. Obama said, “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you.”

“1967 borders with Palestine”?

Amazingly, there are three errors in that four-word phrase. ◾There were never any borders, but armistice lines. ◾The armistice lines were drawn in 1949, not 1967. ◾And the word “Palestine” is nonsensical in any context. The 1949 armistice lines were with Transjordan/Jordan. No one in 1967 or 1949 considered Judea and Samaria to be “Palestine.”

The NYT has used the false phrase “1967 borders” or “pre-1967 borders” many times, referring to the 1949 armistice lines as “borders” even as early as June 1967 itself.

The New York Times used the phrase "1967 borders with Palestine" in a June 10 article. Photo: Elder of Ziyon.

But this is the first time they are implying that the land that had been illegally annexed by Jordan in 1949 was considered a separate “Palestine” in 1967.

This sort of thing is not an accident. The New York Times has a style guide – the current edition is not available to the public, but you can preview the 2002 edition here - where the usage of words and phrases is meticulously defined and refined over the years. When the NYT decides to make up a nonsensical phrase like this one, it means that they are changing their style rules to subtly push the lie that every inch beyond the 1949 armistice lines belongs to an entity, that is at least 47 years old, called “Palestine.”

Which means that the “newspaper of record” is willing to influence common usage of American English itself to push a specifically political agenda. Which just happens to be anti-Israel.

[SJackson]

Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

[colorado tanker]

The UN had a partition plan that roughly divided the Palestine Mandate into a Jewish state and Arab state, each with roughly 50% of the land. The Arabs rejected it entirely and invaded from every direction. The 1949 borders were simply where the armies ceased fire. The Arabs never recognized those borders, either.

But the Arabs refused to allow the organization of the UN envisioned Arab state. Jordon took the West Bank and Egypt took Gaza.

In the Camp David accords, Egypt abandoned its claim to Gaza. Later, Jordon abandoned its claim to the West Bank. Oslo began the interminable "peace process" that was supposed to result in a Pali state, but never has. In 2000, Clinton brokered a deal where Israel offered a Pali state and almost all the land the Pali's demanded. But Arafat decided to go to war and rejected the deal.

There is no border the Arabs have ever recognized.

[faithhopecharity]

my dog won’t even sh*t on the NYT

[holden]

Obviously, the problem is not simply that they buy ink by the barrel, but that they would use their ink to change the language and thereby attempt to define the debate with their mendacity, all-the-while carrying along as flotsam the millions that see their words as more canonical than a bible verse.

HF

[WildHighlander57]

Thanks for the article.

I’m looking for the pic of a 1945 or earlier book with the flags of the various countries of the world.

Its in french, and a freeper posted the pic on one of the middle east discussion threads.

1945 or earlier, because “allemagne” (Germany) has the nazi swastika flag.

[WildHighlander57]

I saved the pic; filename has “Larousse french dictionary” in it.

Here’s the link to it:

http://www.factualisrael.com/1939-palestinian-flag-look-like-surprised/ http://www.factualisrael.com/1939-palestinian-flag-look-like-surprised/

[boop]

I've read that, too. Had the Arabs of the time taken the 1949 deal, they could have a "Palestine" that would be as prosperous and free as Israel today.

Instead they wanted to continue to hate and attack.

Rather than living and building a country themselves.

I guess it's the liberal way.

I'm miserable, so rather than improve my conditions, I'd rather make everyone else miserable, too.

[scooby321]

New York Times is own and controlled by Jews.

They are Jew haters

WW@ they knew about the Holocaust and hide it in the paper, only later they admitted it and printed a apology.

New York Times even owned by Jews hate Jews