The Guardian claims that Jews are the real “Palestinians”

A guest post by AKUS

The Guardian has reported on a proposed Christian theme park in Mallorca, similar to one that apparently already exists in Buenos Aires:

Welcome to Holy Land – Europe’s first Christian theme park

Scan to the end of the article and you will find the Guardian making it clear who the real Palestinians are, and refuting the increasingly frequent claim by those who today call themselves “Palestinians” that there never was a Temple in Jerusalem:

“With a cast of extras in the costumes of Romans and early Palestinians, the park advertises itself as ‘a place where everyone can learn about the origins of spirituality’. Visitors include tourists and groups of young Roman Catholics studying for their first communion.

The park planned for Mallorca reportedly intends to build replicas of, among other things, the Wall of Lamentations and a Roman court house.”

It’s pleasing to see that instead of simply saving space by using the word “Jews”, they preferred to make it clear that they, like most Jews, know who lived in Palestine in Roman times.

It looks like the editorial shakeup at the Guardian may be having a positive effect

Categories: Guardian

Tagged as: , ,

10 replies »

  1. Thank you for pointing that out AKUS.

    I think you’re right. The Guardian assumes that their readers have a broader background than that with which I would have credited them. They assume that they know that the Jerusalem Post used to be called the Palestine Post (ie a strongly Jewish-oriented newspaper in English).

    The Palestinian Brigade that served with HM Army in WW2 with such distinction was composed of Palestinian Jews, my aunt-by-marriage among them.

    Very promising indeed.

  2. This is good stuff. I know it’s unintentional–we’re talking about the Guardian [of Marxist orthodoxy], after all. But there’s nothing more important than spreading the truth about Israel=Palestine (equals sign intended):

    That the Jews are the only true Palestinians; they are the indigenous people of Palestine. And that the falsely-called “Palestinians” are nothing but Arab settler-colonist invaders.

  3. Jesus was a proper Jew.

    Mohammed was a crypto-Jew, who cribbed the Jewish teachings.

    So if we’re all Jews, why can’t we get along a bit better?

  4. @ AKUS

    The phrase “early Palestinians” is clearly ridiculous.
    The reference to “Wall of Lamentations” could – possibly – be him translating from Spanish. That said: it is indeed strange that he didn’t at least employ the common designation “Wailing Wall” that he may well (like me) have grown up with. The German part of my brain likewise suggests the translation “Wall of Lament” – although assimilated as I may be, that term would never become a part of my active vocabulary in English.

    But perhaps you should at least invite the man to state his case, i.e. explain his choice of words.

  5. Richard Tebboth

    No mention of Canaanites or Philistines.

    Why would there be? This is about the era of Jesus Christ.

    Don’t tell me you follow the desperate Nazi claim that JC was a Mede?

  6. This is a bit off-topic, but since it has to do with the Guardian’s lies, look at the following joke, from Al-Qaeda’s 2nd in command, Al-Zawahiri, who also mentions The Guardian… :)))

    “…I would also like to advise myself and our people in Pakistan that al-Mawla [the Guardian] –subhaanahu wa ta’ala – is the only one capable of lifting harm from us….”

    Note: “Al-Mawla” (“The Guardian”) is one of the 99 names of Allah.

  7. In Roman times, Britain was mostly populated by the Britons. Things change. I doubt you’d support the armed takeover of East Anglia by the Welsh, to be honest.

  8. Dr Zen,

    “I doubt you’d support the armed takeover of East Anglia by the Welsh, to be honest.”

    Speaking for myself, I’d have no opinion about it. It’d be none of my business.

    I wish present-day Britons, Spaniards etc. had the same stance concerning the conflict in my neck of the woods. It’s really none of their business. Only the Americans could possibly claim to have a dog in this fight, by virtue of involvement in foreign aid, yet they never holler and kick and scream about it so much as do the British, who have no such connection.