Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Old Bias in "New Jerusalem" Headline

Reuters headlined their story on the terror attack thus:-

New Jeruslem vehicle "attack" as Livni seeks govt

The indeed is an Old City, because it is within the walls which were built in 1520-30, and the so-called "New" city is that which started to be built in 1854.

But since 1967, it is one city. One unified city. Reunited after the Jordanians split it in 1948 for it was to be a corpus separatum.

There may be "new neighborhoods" but no "New Jerusalem".

Jerusalem is 3000 years old!


Anonymous said...

I think "new" refers to the attack, not Yerushalayim.

YMedad said...

I don't think so.

There's this bit:

"after injuring 15 of the soldiers and four others, under the walls of the Old City on a road that marks the dividing "Green Line" between Arab East Jerusalem and the Jewish west".

The city is one and there are some 175,000 Jews living in the "Arab East Jerusalem", btw.

And the article goes into biased history and status of the city further on, like "Those areas, in East Jerusalem and neighboring parts of the West Bank, were annexed by Israel to Jerusalem in a move not recognized internationally, following their occupation by Israeli forces in the Six Day War of 1967."