After Dubya’s recent performance at the Knesset one would think that the Israelis would finally be satisfied with their ability to dictate what everybody, even the US President, has to think and say. But no, this morning I came across this totally Orwellian news item:
Israel demands UN strike ‘Nakba’ from its lexicon
World body’s spokeswoman says Ki-moon phoned Abbas to stress his support for Palestinians on day marking ‘catastrophe’ of Israel’s inception; Israel demands retraction
WASHINGTON – Israel is demanding that the UN strike the word ‘Nakba’ from its lexicon, this after the world body’s spokeswoman uttered it, apparently by mistake, in a press briefing she held Thursday night.
‘Nakba’, or ‘catastrophe’, refers to the refugee flight of Palestinian Arabs that followed Israel’s inception in 1948.
The spokeswoman told reporters that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon “phoned Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to stress his support for the Palestinian people on Nakba Day”.
An Israeli reporter present at the briefing asked the spokeswoman whether Ki-moon also congratulated Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on the Jewish State’s 60th anniversary. She said the UN chief spoke with Olmert a week ago.
Ki-moon himself was also surprised by the controversy created by his gesture, as he was not aware that the use of the term was unacceptable to Israel and is a part of the Palestinian propaganda against it.
Israel is demanding that the UN issue a statement to rectify the blunder and remove the word ‘Nakba’ from its lexicon.
The UN said the word had not been used by any of the world body’s institutions or officials before, and it is estimated that it was purposely ‘planted’ by someone into the spokeswoman’s text.
Ki-Moon has been supportive of Israel since taking office in 2006, but has recently been pressed by the Arab world to adopt a more balanced approach.
Foreign Affairs Minister Tzipi Livni said Thursday afternoon in her speech at the president’s conference in Jerusalem that “with the establishment of a Palestinian state, we wish to see the end of the conflict. The Palestinians will be able to celebrate their independence if on that same day they also strike the word ‘Nakba’ from their lexicon.”
Amazing isn’t it? Israel not only feels that it has the right to vet which words are used by the UN Secretary General, but it even feels that it can demand that a word be completely stricken from the UN lexicon!
Just imagine the hysterical uproar in Israel, the USA and Europe if, say, Ahmadinejad would have told the UNSG that he cannot use words like “Holocaust” or “Shoah” any more because they are “part of the propaganda against Iran”!
It just makes me wonder what the Zionist will “demand” next?
Elie Wiesel as UN Secretary General maybe?
All this would be utterly laughable if it wasn’t so scary. To be clear: what is scary is not that the self-worshipping racist lunatics occupying Palestine since the Nakba would have the chutzpah to demand that the world adopt their newspeak and thereby also accept their propaganda: that is not scary – that is predictable. What is really scary is that the rest of the world lets them get away with it.
What’s wrong with everybody?! Has everybody just gone crazy?
Angela Merkel should table a UN resolution demanding that the work “Holocaust” be expugned from the official UN lexicon, as it is offensive to Aryans everywhere.
Seriously though, this just proves what I’ve long suspected: That for many Israelis, only Jews can be victims. The fact that Jews might have victimised another people, and that this fact can be recognised by others, is simply inconceivable, and strikes at the very core of modern Zionist self-identity.
From Appendix to 1984 by George Orwell:
The Principles of Newspeak
“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever…….”
Dear Tony,
You are, of course, absolutely correct. The intention here is exactly the same.
Linked you to my article:
http://americangoy.blogspot.com/2008/05/al-nakba-word-myth-struggle.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/5pvpe4
This is… well… I am speechless (or was for a minute).
Cheers saker!