Settlements aren’t really colonies, says the Washington Post

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting on the continuing ability of the US corporate press to evade telling the truth about the Middle East:

The big news out of the Middle East yesterday was the Israeli government’s decision to approve an expansion of the Gilo settlement near Jerusalem. The White House’s muddled position on settlement expansion has been a key part of Israel-Palestine negotiations. Many headlines framed the news as you’d expect (New York Times: “Plan to Expand Jerusalem Settlement Angers U.S.”, for example) .

The Washington Post, though, went with this headline today: “Housing Plan for Jerusalem Neighborhood Spurs Criticism.”

The article by Howard Schneider refers to a “disputed neighborhood of Jerusalem,” the “Jewish neighborhood of Gilo,” a place “annexed to the city in a step not recognized by the international community.”

There is also a reference to White House policy, noting that the Obama administration “has vacillated in its stance on Israeli construction in areas claimed by the Palestinians.”  This is downright bizarre; the entire discussion about “Israeli construction” concerns illegal Israeli settlements–or, perhaps more accurately, colonies–in the West Bank. Why, then, refuse to label Gilo accurately? It’s an old story, actually; as Extra! pointed out in 2002, Gilo was a cause for pro-Israeli media activists, who pressured outlets like CNN to stop referring to Gilo as a settlement and use terms more innocuous like “neighborhood.” It’s still working, it would seem.

  • Yisrael Medad

    P.S.   actually, land on which Gilo has been built was purchased prior to 1948, so is it a "settlement" or a "neighborhood"?  or another darn Jewish ghetto?

  • vaa

    "They knew full well (Zionist leaders) that as late as 1948 ,Jewish-owned land in Palestine amounted to only about 7 percent of the country's total land area ,that the vast bulk of the county's privately owned land and much of it's urban property was in Palestinian hands"
    Most of the 7 percent land ,was purchased through absentee landlords some were fake owners.

    "As influential minority of zionist leaders,led by Ze'v jabotinsky (whose followers included two later prime ministers of Israel,Mebachem Begin and Yitzhaq Shamir),were coldly realistic and much more forthright, Jabotinky eschewed such circumlocution and diplomatic double-talk,and argued explicitly from the beginning that overwhelming force would be necessary to impose the zionist program of making Palestine a Jewish state in the face of what he expected would be fierce and understandable Arab opposition. Jabotinsky wrote:"There is no choice:the Arabs must make room for the Jews in Eretz Israel.If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples,it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs ". "
    Rahid Khalidi the Iron Cage p.185-186.

  • thangodimatheist

    land on which Gilo has been built was purchased prior to 1948
    This of course is a lie! Most claimants'  documents were proven to be forged as in the case of the "disputed" house in Hebron.  But just for the sake of  argument, even if  it were  "Jewish owned", the land is still an integral part of the Palestinian territory which was occupied in 1967.  In regards to International Law and in view of the international community Israel has no right to settle, or rather colonise, the said  territories.

  • thankgodimatheist

    Rahid Khalidi
    It's Rashid…A typo I know,  something to which I'm not immune myself, my pseudo is rather thankgodimatheist..
    A great historian and a great book.