Speaking of Style Guides

Apropos yesterday's style guide discussion, The New York Observer took a look yesterday at The New York Sun style guide, including such pearls of wisdom as "Avoid the phrase 'Arab East Jerusalem'" and

West Bank and Gaza Strip. Territories under Israeli control from 1967 onward. 'The territories' is acceptable on second reference, as are Judea or Samaria for the Southern and Northern regions of the West Bank. Avoid the phrase 'occupied territories.'

Unfortunately, the Observer didn't excerpt the Sun's rationale for its habit of using the phrase "Palestinian Arabs" instead of "Palestinians."

Comments

More events that couldn't have happened because there's no stifling of criticism of Israel:

http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?p=257

Posted by Kalkin | October 4, 2007 9:00 AM

What do you use in place of "occupied territories"?

Posted by El_Cid | October 4, 2007 9:14 AM

What do you use in place of "occupied territories"?

Hello. The Promised Land.

Posted by Rob Mac | October 4, 2007 10:52 AM

I guess it's not in the Sun's style guide - but the alternate English phrase for "occupied territories" favored by hardliners used to be "disputed territories" - but I think after the unilateral disengagement from Gaza and Olmert's campaign promise (I believe he called it "convergence") of unliteral disengagement from much of the West Bank, I can't see them wanting to use that anymore.

Posted by SoCalJustice | October 4, 2007 10:56 AM

And don't forget the labeling of Midge Decter as "The Cold War heroine," or the elegantly parochial, "Ethnic. Means not Jewish or Christian."

As a commenter there notes, this is basically the Forward style guide from its crazy phase.

Posted by WatchfulBabbler | October 4, 2007 11:05 AM

Judea or Samaria

Might as well call the place "Jesus's landing pad."

Posted by Christmas | October 4, 2007 11:17 AM

Never mind my question. It is the official Israeli government view that the territories are merely disputed, and not occupied, and though not directly related, a Knesset resolution was even passed overwhelmingly in 2003 to this effect. Thus the terminology then is adopted by many major U.S. news producers.

From Israel, the Conflict and Peace: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, via the Consulate General of Israel in San Francisco.

Israel's presence in the territories is often incorrectly referred to as an "occupation." However, under international law, occupation occurs in territories that have been taken from a recognized sovereign. The Jordanian rule over the West Bank and the Egyptian rule over the Gaza Strip during the years 1948-1967 resulted from a war of aggression aimed at destroying the newly established Jewish State. Their attacks plainly violated UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Plan). Accordingly, the Egyptian and Jordanian seizures of the territories were never recognized by the international community. As neither territory had a prior legitimate sovereign, under international law these areas cannot be considered as occupied and their most accurate description would be that of disputed territories.

Posted by El_Cid | October 4, 2007 11:17 AM

Matt,
I realize that you get some perverse thrill out of demonizing Israel, but do you really think there is nothing to criticize the palestinians over?

Posted by Dave | October 4, 2007 11:47 AM

Yeah, Matt, why aren't you calling for more Palestinian suffering? Don't you think those people have it easy enough without you demonizing their tiny weak neighbor? And why, Matt, have you always praised the Palestinian leaders as being perfect and Jeffersonian? I mean, each week you've got comments on how wise & awesome your favorites in Hamas are!

Posted by El_Cid | October 4, 2007 11:52 AM

"calling for more Palestinian suffering"

"always praised the Palestinian leaders as being perfect and Jeffersonian"

"how wise & awesome your favorites in Hamas are"

Those are some pretty laughable straw-man responses.

Posted by Dave | October 4, 2007 12:50 PM

No, no, they weren't "straw man" responses, because straw men are used to distract people from real and worthy arguments.

Since your questions were silly and laughable, I responded with silliness as well.

Posted by El_Cid | October 4, 2007 12:56 PM

I realize that you get some perverse thrill out of demonizing Israel, but do you really think there is nothing to criticize the palestinians over?

There's a great word used in Northern Ireland for Dave's comment: "whataboutery".

Posted by Kevin | October 4, 2007 1:00 PM

Re "Palestinian Arabs": There is a basis for the term. Between the end of WWI and the creation of Israel in 1948, Arabs and Jews lived in what is now Israel. If you were born in that time and place, your birth certificate would say "Palestine," making you a "Palestinian." Thus there is a population of both Arabs and Jews who could use that title.

Posted by Lisa | October 4, 2007 1:04 PM

I wonder if the use of the term "Palestinian Arab" is intended to, ever so conveniently, gloss over the fact that the Palestinians are every bit as much decendants of the original inhabitants of the 'Promised Land' as (most of) their Israeli neighbours, except their ancestors stayed put when the Diaspora was moving out.

But then, those crazy leftist scientists are all anti-semites anyway. Otherwise, why would they ever make such an inconvenient claim?

Posted by Tony | October 4, 2007 1:28 PM

That "disputed territories" definition is amusing. While it could by a stretch be considered technically accurate, it's really just another example of the utter intellectual dishonesty of the Zionist.

It's like saying that the American government didn't take any land away from the Indians because the Indians didn't actually have a "state" that controlled it.

Well, actually, of course, numerous native American tribes had "states" - and even "coalitions" of "states". They just didn't call them that. They certainly had "controlled and occupied territories" that they respected (or didn't, depending on the nature of the tribe.)

Some people think that part of the US Constitution was inspired by the Iroquois Nation's organizing principles.

BTW, the only thing I can think of to criticize the Palestinians over is that they really aren't very competent at waging guerrilla war, resistance, or terrorism. Give me a hundred motivated and trained men and the necessary supplies, and I'll have Israelis begging to give up Palestine and go back to Germany in a year.

These "Intifadas" are little more than the riots you see whenever world leaders meet to discuss world trade agreements. And the Kassem rockets are frickin' worthless. And the blowing up of buses is just stupid.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 4, 2007 9:44 PM

Give me a hundred motivated and trained men and the necessary supplies, and I'll have Israelis begging to give up Palestine and go back to Germany in a year.

Really?

This should be good.

Please share with us and, I'll do you one better - here's the people you just called incompetent and stupid:

You hate Israel with a passion - why not tell them how they can do better. I'm sure they would be open to your help?

Who knows? Even though their incompetent and stupid, they might enjoy hearing your views on "Zionists."

This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

Posted by SoCalJustice | October 4, 2007 9:55 PM

Re: The Sun's "Avoid the phrase 'occupied territories'"
& El_Cid's citation of Consulate General of Israel in San Francisco on use of "disputed."

Interesting, because the U.S. State Dept. uses "occupied" on its website pages on Israel:

Israel is divided into six districts, administration of which is coordinated by the Ministry of Interior. The Ministry of Defense is responsible for the administration of the occupied territories.

Occupied is used elsewhere on that page as well.

Posted by artappraiser | October 4, 2007 11:59 PM

BTW, the only thing I can think of to criticize the Palestinians over is that they really aren't very competent at waging guerrilla war, resistance, or terrorism.

Amazingly enough, some might read allegations that "Palestinians" were no good at terrorism as a positive thing, but that would go against the bipolar demonizations of the two populations of both Arabs and Jews in the area as rigid monsters devoted only to horror and conquest, and we can't have that, now, can we?

Posted by El_Cid | October 5, 2007 1:13 AM

Occupied is used elsewhere on that page as well.

It was all overhauled when Bush came in in 2000. In the Clinton years, West Bank and Gaza were officially "disputed" in U.S. diplomatic usage. GWB reverted back to GHWB's occupied terminology.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 5, 2007 2:26 AM

Actually the most stupidest thing Hack said was "blowing up of buses is just stupid".

Once upon a time in Palestine there was an ethnic nationalist movement that wanted the other to pack up and get the hell out and they way they went about it was...blowing up buses.

Not one every few months or so in a nation of millions of people, February of 1948 saw more busses attacked and bombed than the Palestinians managed in a decade. Not just busses, markets, gatherings of any sort. A maelstrom of violence thick enough that if you were sane you packed up what you could and fled as far you could.

Outside the obvious immorality of the project, you can't fault attempting to follow a successful template.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 5, 2007 2:38 AM