Harriet Sherwood refers to future Israeli cities in the Negev as “Jewish settlements”

Harriet Sherwood’s Guardian report on Dec. 1, ‘Israel’s plan to forcibly resettle Negev Bedouins prompts global protests‘, focuses on objections to the so-called Prawer-Begin plan to resettle some of the Israeli Bedouin population in the Negev from unplanned encampments to planned communities.  


(Under the plan, out of about 210,000 total Israeli Bedouin, roughly 30,000 will move, most only a few kilometers from their current homes, and will be compensated for their land.  Another 60,000 will have their homes legalized and developed under the initiative, per the graphic below.)

MFA graphic

MFA graphic

However, even more interesting than Sherwood’s disproportionate focus on an extremely small number of protesters in Israel (and a few cities abroad), is the extremely telling words she uses to describe the new planned Israeli towns which will replace the existing encampments.  

Sherwood writes the following:

Under the Prawer Plan, the residents of “unrecognised” villages will be moved into seven overcrowded and impoverished towns. Meanwhile, new Jewish settlements are planned for the region.

First, as with all Israeli cities, citizens of all faiths will be permitted to live in all new communities built in the Negev, and it is therefore inaccurate to describe them as “Jewish”.

Even more noteworthy, however, is her use of the word “settlements” to characterize these future towns.  These new cities, such as Hiran (currently a cluster of Bedouin encampments in what’s called Umm al-Hiran, 30 km from Beer Sheva), will be established in the Israeli Negev – that is, within the state’s boundaries as they were envisioned even under the UN Partition Plan of 1947, and as the boundaries were established under the 1949 armistice agreement.

Here’s a map of the area:

hiran map

Black arrow in upper right points to 1949 Armistice Lines – above which is the West Bank/Judea & Samaria. The Green arrow points to approximate location of Hiran.

Previously it seemed that the Guardian’s unofficial policy was to merely refer to Israeli communities in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) as “settlements”.  

However, the term “settlement” seems to have now taken on a more expansive definition: any place within the state (even within its ‘recognized’ 1949 boundaries) previously free of Jews but where Jews are now permitted to live.

h/t Noah

42 replies »

  1. It shouldn’t be long before The Guardian refers to any house inhabited by a Jew on planet Earth as a “settlement.”

    • Don’t be ridiculous.

      A poster called “Michael” once wrote the comment “Arabs lie as a matter of course” on a CiFW thread.
      That wouldn’t happen to be you, would it?

  2. A hit a palpable hit. The Negev is beyond doubt Israeli.

    ” previously free of Jews ”

    This is unnecessary and detracts from the strength of the article.It is an attempt to link the situation to the term Judenfrei . I have said a few times here , sometimes less is more.

  3. I should invite Harriet to my neighborhood. All the original residents (i.e. the Black people) have sold their homes to developers who are tearing down the houses and putting up duplexes and then charging 4 times more than what they paid. Parking is a bitch. The folks who live on my street now are privileged white children going to college. And where did all the Black people go?


    And did I mention that White Privileged people in the US South used to hang Black Poor folks from trees for looking at White Ladies! Those same type of White Privileged Southerners also spent a summer in the ’50s beating the heck out of folks willing to de-segregate the national bus line system. Nothing like that has ever happened in Israel, but we all know the true motivation of BLOWING SHIT UP in the media.

    Staying KKKlassy at the Guardian is a full time job.

  4. “Even more noteworthy, however, is her use of the word “settlements” to characterize these future towns. These new cities, such as Hiran (currently a cluster of Bedouin encampments in what’s called Umm al-Hiran, 30 km from Beer Sheva), will be established in the Israeli Negev – that is, within the state’s boundaries as they were envisioned even under the UN Partition Plan of 1947, and as the boundaries were established under the 1949 armistice agreement.”

    Same can be said about Sderot, but try convincing a “peace loving Palestinian supporter” that.

    Harriet Sherwood and the Guardian: They are reasons why there is no peace on this planet.


  5. Adam you inordinately overestimate the mathematical, geographical and intellectual abilities of Harriett Sherwood publishing numbers and maps as counterarguments.
    The lady through her writings served more than enough proof about her incurable (probably congenital) idiocy. She – as in any other cases of Jew-hating Guardinistas – has the quantity and quality of brain cells as you can find in wheelbarrow full of raspberry syrup.

    • Peter,
      Agreed she’s quite stupid, but also slippery inserting misleading terms into her narrative of “Palestinian Bedouins.” Either way, as I see it, she’s guilty of incitement.
      If ever charged with the crime of accurate news reporting she’d be found innocent.


    What Harriet Sherwood missed while in Gaza: Hamas to demolish 75 ‘illegal’ Palestinian homes
    Feb 14, 2013

    Harriet Sherwood is quite drawn to stories about Arab and Palestinian homes, built without permission, demolished by Israeli authorities, and such Guardian reports are often accompanied by evocative photos of the women and children displaced by such demolitions.

  7. Camera exposes Harriet Sherwood for the Pallywood liar she is.
    Hopes for a two-state solution fade as Palestinian official says ‘If we had nukes we’d use them on Israel tomorrow.
    Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem Monday June 17, 2013.

    The story reflected in the fake headline above is based on a very real report by Palestinian Media Watch, and covered elsewhere in the media:

    A official, Jibril Rajoub…praised the use of violence against Israel. During an interview on a Lebanese TV channel [on May 2], the host referred to “the negotiations game” with Israel, and Rajoub expressed the view that negotiations are held because the Palestinians lack military strength: ”I swear that if we had a nuke, we’d have used it this very morning.”

    The Los Angeles Times, like the Guardian, completely ignored Rajoub’s statement saying he’d use nukes against Israel if he had them. Nevertheless, it found space for a 800-plus word story yesterday about the statements by Bennett, Danon, and Ya’alon. Batsheva Sobelman and Maher Abukhater report that Bennett’s:
    comments are the latest in a series of remarks by members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government against the two-state solution, raising doubts about the prospects of peace talks the United States is trying to renew. . . .
    But Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, accused the Israeli government of intentionally undermining U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s efforts to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

    “These are not isolated statements but a reaffirmation of political platforms and radical beliefs,” Erekat said of the spate of downbeat remarks. “Israel has officially declared the death of the two-state solution.” . . .

    Nabil abu Rudaineh, a spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, described the statements, particularly Bennett’s, as “dangerous.”

    “These statements are not only a message to President Obama’s administration, which is exerting nonstop efforts to revive the peace process, but also a clear rejection of efforts to save what could be saved,” Abu Rudaineh said.

    But Rajoub’s incitement is not dangerous? The Palestinian Authority’s honoring of three terrorists serving 166 life sentences do not raise doubts about the prospects of peace? And none of these incidents, what most Israelis consider “a clear rejection of efforts to save what could be saved” are worthy of Los Angeles Times coverage?
    Whether you say “double standard” with a British or American accent, it means the same thing.

    • Re. nukes:

      A poster BTL here once said “nuke the arab world from space”. Would you by chance be one of the many giving said comment the full thumbs-up?

  8. So let’s get this straight. “World-wide” protests (chuckle, chuckle), because less than 15% of slum dwelling Bedouins are being offered clean, modern housing with amenities, and a stake in ownership. Am I missing something?

    • Exactly. It’s as if Israel had rounded up the Bedouin and dropped them off the edge of the flat-rimmed Earth some of the protesters would likely believe in if proclaimed by the anti-Israel brigade at the UN.

    • and when their spokes person was asked about the Palestinian flags in the protests he shrugged it off with “what’s the relevance”…

  9. This is definitely one to follow up on. Has CiFW asked Sherwood the obvious questions, i.e. a) why the term “settlements” and b) what evidence does she have to back up the clear suggestion that said new towns/villages will be Jewish only?

  10. I am genuinely puzzled. When I was studying geography (a very few decades ago) there was a whole module of my degree entitled “settlements”. It referred to theories and patterns of urban growth – examining the multitude of reasons why towns grow and shrink, their shapes, positions and internal structures.

    In those days, the word “settlement” was not a dirty word. I missed the memo that changed it from a normal word which describes “a group of residential units” to “a dispicable attempt at ethnic engineering”.

  11. It is really sad that only stodgily pro Israeli posts are allowed. Yes Pretzy is there he is the one allowed so long as he occasionally also posts a tiringly servile post as well. No threat to the Guardian here.

    • Whose comments have been deleted? What upsets you is that the leftist mafia can’t kill anyone here.

    • “only stodgily pro Israeli posts are allowed.” You have clearly not been on this site for long, if you think that is the case. You clearly have not read any posts by “Sanity”, “Nat”, “household name”, “real zionist” etc etc…

    • Some my posts are in agreement with the author(s), some are not. “Servile” is hardly the applicable word.

      Plus I don’t recall any of my critical posts ever being deleted.

      How about attempting to post something of substance?

    • If your looking for evidence of deleted comments you need only to go to CiF. They do a beautiful job of censoring free speech hidden behind the euphemism of “community standards.”

  12. Adam, the new villages alloted might be in Israel now but did you check if they are inside the Israeli side after future land exchange takes place (if it will) between the PA and Israel?

  13. Adam:

    “First, as with all Israeli cities, citizens of all faiths will be permitted to live in all new communities built in the Negev, and it is therefore inaccurate to describe them as “Jewish”.”

    This is correct, but is very grey area.
    It is true relating to cities (above 10000) but it is not corre ct regarding smaller villages and towns.

    The case below proves how difficult it is for minorities to move into different areas.,7340,L-4121997,00.html

    Many in Beer Sheva view the Bedouins as a problem.
    They see them as having high contribution to the crime rate.
    Whether this is true or not is not the case because many Bedouins are wonderful citizens and so every effort needed to be done to resolve this 50 years ago.

    Rahat is deemed a bad experiment by the bedouins.
    The main issue Israelis see here is that there were hardly any Arab villages in the northern Negev back in the fifties.

    What we are seeing today is a result of constant negelction from previous Israeli governments from the entire spectrum and the theory that violence from Arab residents causes the governments to change laws.

  14. The Islamic movement in the Negev, which is led by regional Sheikh Mousa Abu Iyada, opposes the sale of land owned by Muslims to Israelis and non-Muslims under restrictions they claim are imposed by Sharia law. The movement also claimed in a December 2011 demonstration that the entire Negev is “Waqf,” or sacred to Islam, and that Muslims are forbidden from “giving it up” to its legal Israeli owners under any circumstances.

  15. Maybe Israel should agree with the new definition, and stop making the distinction between the West Bank and other parts of Israel. After all, there is no essential difference between the areas; Both were given to Israel by their rightful owners, Britain and Jordan, many decades ago.
    Britain has given lands to the Israeli nation in the end of the mandate, and Jordan has given up all claims for the lands occupied from it during the war.

    Indeed, if the towns in the west bank are “settlements” so is Tel Aviv. There should be no difference. If some people think Israel has no right to exist, they’re welcome to clearly declare so without hiding behind the pollitically-correct notion of “settlements”.

  16. People forget there is more involved in selling news headlines than impartially reporting news. Most thing we read should be taken with a grain of salt, no matter the source or story.