Economist

Economist refers to Jews wanting to pray at the Temple Mount as “militants”


In a great example of the media’s use of language to blur moral differences within the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, The Economist expanded the common understanding of the word “militant” – a word fancied by those fearing “terrorist” is too judgmental a term for those committing violence for political ends – to include Jews wanting to peacefully pray at Judaism’s holiest site.

pic

From left to right per The Economist: Palestinian militants, and Jewish militants

An article published on Nov. 17th titled ‘The trouble at the Mountincluded the following passage:

THE Temple Mount in Jerusalem is one of the world’s most explosive bits of real-estate. It has started to rumble again in recent weeks, with demands by Jewish militants to extend prayer rights, riots by Palestinians and the killing of several Israelis in knife or car-ramming attacks.

So, the term “Jewish militant” includes:

1. A Jew who wishes to extend prayer rights to Jews at the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site.

Further in the article, the term is used again.

On the religious front, Jewish militants have stepped up their visits to the Haram, often to pray surreptitiously (for instance by pretending to speak into mobile phones).

So, now, the term “Jewish militant” includes:

1.  A Jew who wishes to extend prayer rights to Jews at the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site.

2. A Jew who insidiously engages in Jewish prayer at the Judaism’s holiest site while “pretending to speak into mobile phones”.

However, that’s not all. The term is actually used a third time, in the following passage:

Moreover, privately financed militant groups have been buying houses in the heart of Palestinian neighbourhoods, which have in any case largely been cut off from their hinterland in the West Bank by Israel’s security barrier. 

So, now, the term “Jewish militant” includes:

1.  A Jew who wishes to extend prayer rights to Jews at the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site.

2.  A Jew who insidiously engages in Jewish prayer at the Judaism’s holiest site while “pretending to speak into mobile phones”.

3.  A Jew who – as part of a “privately financed” group – buys a home in a previously non-Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem.

Though there are good practical reasons for maintaining the status quo at the Temple Mount (where Jews can visit but not pray), it’s difficult to fathom how the British magazine can justify using a term which refers to those “favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political cause” to characterize Jews peacefully campaigning for the right to pray. 

39 replies »

  1. Some years ago, Bret Stephens, the then editor of The Jerusalem Post (now a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist editor and journalist at The Wall Street Journal), in a famous article accused The Economist quite openly of blatant anti-Semitism. He wasn’t wrong then and absolutely nothing has changed in the interim.

    • Its obvious that it was a terrorist attack – Designed to terrorise (usually towards some aim). The people carrying it out are (or were) ‘terrorists’.

  2. You’ve answered you’re own question: their insistence on praying there is confrontational in itself, a form of militancy designed to elicit a reaction from Palestinians that can then be used as an excuse for further implementing restrictions on Palestinians.

    You may want to pray there, but not recognising this as a form of disobedience, given the rules in place (which you appear to accept as being in place ‘for good reason’) is purely for your own cynical gain.

    Terrorism is a useless word anyway

    • For a terror supporting Antisemite like Tamara terrorismus is a dangerous word, especially as the coming laws of the conservatives close in on supporters.

    • “Terrorism is a useless word anyway”

      Interesting that the self-confessed retard ‘Tamara’ believes, mistakenly, that a word can be useless.
      It is not the word that is useless it is retards such as ‘Tamara’ that use words inappropriately when they clearly do not know or understand the meaning of the word that are useless.

      From your ‘posts’ words that you clearly do not know the meaning of are; facts, history, logic, truth, and human decency. Now toddle off and ask an adult to buy you a dictionary so that you can learn something and achieve something with your useless existence.

  3. Given the extreme sensitivity of the situation at Temple Mount, praying at the site by Jews, (which is forbidden anyway) is an act of provocation in itself. It is not peaceful and all who do it know that they will provoke a reaction. Are they there to pray or to fan the flames?

    People who provoke violence, who fan the flames of animosity and who break laws can be properly called ‘militants’.

    The Economist have called it correctly.

    • which is forbidden anyway
      Well, an Antisemite and his relation to Jews are characterised by feeling provoked ´cause THE JEW does things forbidden to him according to antisemites, f.e. praying at his own holy site.

    • “which is forbidden anyway”- It is not forbidden by law!

      “act of provocation in itself”- So because of despicable Arab intolerance to Jews praying in Judaism’s holy sites you call it a provocation? If someone does something he has a full right to do, how can it be a “provocation”?

      By your logic let’s say i find your comment provocative. It provokes animosity in me. And I respond with violence. This then makes you a militant by the same logic.

      Congratulations, Dinkle, you are now a militant.

        • Dinkle: “I rarely break the law”. Spoken like a true red neck that dutifully upholds the justice of Jim Crow. The Jews, we take it, should know their place, and not ‘provoke’ the bigots and fascists like you who would like to emasculate their inferiors and forbid them from going where they would like to go?

    • Don’t tell us where Jews are allowed to pray, Dinkleberry. You’re not smart enough to understand the real issues, but here’s an attempt. Israel ain’t going anywhere, and rather than agree to co-existence, Hamas, the PA, and the all the others are convinced they can wipe the Jews out from the region that is the Middle East.

      Now fuck the fuck off, Moron.

      • Do you *really* think that Hamas, the PA and ‘all the others’ have any chance of wiping a country with a very impressive army, nuclear weapons, the backing of the USA, and a state of the art air-force ?

        PS its Israel’s own government that forbids Jews to pray at Temple Mount; ergo it is not allowed by the Israeli government. They are telling you where you are allowed to pray, not me. Do keep up.

        • It is not allowed by the government, due to the antisemitism of those who usurped the Temple Mount, but it is not forbidden by any law.
          That´s telling all, instead of sharing a common holy place where the institutions of Islam could demonstrate the tolerance they demand elsewhere pure discrimination. A peaceful religion, when observed in action, that is.

        • Wow Israel this terrible awful militant country trying to wipe out Palestinians and so intolerant has a law that gives the Palestinians sole right to pray there? And I’m sure if it were Palestinian country they’d do the same for the Jews living there, right? But then again there wouldn’t be any Jews living there.

          • It is very commendable that the Israeli government has taken that stance. PS as Fritz W points it is not and actual law, more government current policy.

            • It is more then “commendable”, to use that stiltedly grudging phrase. Any single act or policy (be it commendable or violent) tells us something about those behind it. That’s obvious. From such acts or policies one derives views and opinions on the larger picture. That seems obvious too.

              So one of my points is that: it’s conceivable that any Palestine nation would do the same but on the evidence unlikely. This is obvious. Indeed any smart person I think would be hard pressed to argue the idea that Palestine nation would even have within its borders any Jews at all: without their losing all credibility for any argument they’d make.

              Individual acts and policies as evidence; in the context of analous acts and policies this evidence is strengthened further. This is also obvious. If we are smart we also understand tthe distinction between, for example, casualties of war (knowing there is nothing good about any of these of course) and targeted civilians. We can recognise when something IS policy emanating from a central decision-making place, as opposed to rogue elements. It’s perfectly clear what is Palestinian policy towards not just Israel but towards Jews because it’s in writing. That’s a pretty good indication I’d say and yet constantly this unpalatable fact is skirted as if unimportant. it’s pretty important to know if a government claiming justice aims to annihilate you, don’t you think? Put yourselves in the place of the ones to be annihilated. But then again, anyone arguing in favor of the annihilators have surely done that, and/or have family on the receiving end of such policy. If you haven’t your arguments and opinions are worthless.

              The evidence is also overwhelming that Palestinians target even their own people, cynically exploiting the media war, helped by the press here, as this site shows repeatedly enough for any smart person to derive opinions that are beyond mere assumptions. In my view any smart person would recognise the signs of media manipulation and therefore not hold opinions about a people and a country where they’ve never visited teh reality of which, I often hear from those who live there, is so at odds with how it’s presented in the press. A smart person would think: hmm, media manipulation. I’m going to defer judgement on this so as not to be part of this or a mug.

        • Your entire post is about telling Jews where they should pray. And I’m telling you, you should Fuck the Fuck Off. And your response? “But the Israeli government…..”

          And? So?

          The criticism is about YOU being an ASSHOLE. I know, you can’t be such a belligerent asshole without the Israeli government making you one, is that it?

          Just fucking wow. Get a clue.

  4. The Economist is trash – to use ladylike speech – stopped subscription and reading it over a decade or more ago and never regretted it. Institutionalized Antisemitism and all in the ranks and files! Good job CIF Watch, again and again! Super comments, too… except for the odd demential retard!

  5. I hereby publish what I imagine the style guide for the Economist/Guardian/NYT/C4/BBC must be:

    “Terrorist” shall be reserved for only the very worst bastards who actually slaughter multiple innocents in uncontroversially unprovoked circumstances and for undoubtedly racist or discriminatory reasons. Even then, if these murders take place in the context of a political dispute, the term “terrorist” may be put in quotes.

    In descending order of extremity, the terms to be applied in all contexts other than the Middle East are “militant”, then “extremist” then “moderate” then “peaceful” then something like “surrender-monkey”.

    When relating to Palestinians, “militant” means person who uses violence to achieve their aims – even if directed at civilian targets. Anything short of that (including expressing the view that killing Jews is a good thing), and they may be called “moderate”. The word “extremist” doesn’t apply to Palestinians. A “surrender-monkey” is any Palestinian who calls the Jewish State “Israel” instead of “the brutal, occupying, apartheid Zionist entity”.

    When relating to Jews/Israelis, however, “militant” covers everything from murderous thugs (rare as they are) all the way down to someone who shows external signs of being religious such as wearing a black hat, having a beard etc. “Extremist” means “does not kowtow unconditionally to every demand made by the Palestinians. The words “moderate” and “peaceful” do not apply to Jews.

    Clear?

    • Great post, too much fine time to waste in your life I see.

      Seems like stirring up trouble at the temple Mount is an Israeli pastime….. and low and behold, a UN Resolution against Israel!

      For the same issues….. yawn!

      Resolution 672 (12 Oct 1990): ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for “violence against Palestinians” at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

      • O.M.G. Hold the press. A UN Resolution against Israel!!!
        That must be the 13,256th this year alone!

        0, zero, nada, zilch, efes, none – that’s the number of flying fucks I give for yet another Israel-bashing (and non-binding, therefore legally entirely pointless, by the way) UN Resolution.

        • I think you’ll find , if you knew anything about UN security council resolutions, that it is very much a legally binding one.

          You’re all as thick as pigs muck!

          I thought Jews were smart?!

          Israel does not respect international law: pariah state

          • I guess this Lady Tamara is a troll and too cowardly to use his/her name.The crass reference to Jews in this manner and the name-calling demonstrates cowardice, prejudice and stupidity…..which greatly strengthens immeasurably the contention that anit-semitism flourishes and is an enormous concern.

            Also is demonstrated the paucity of arguments supporting his/her case. That this all goes without saying further reiterates this poster’s stupidity. Remarks like this are an own goal. Obviously. Big Fail.