Tuesday, March 20th | 4 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

January 25, 2015 1:09 pm

New York Times Silently Changes ‘1967 Borders With Palestine’

avatar by Elder of Ziyon

Email a copy of "New York Times Silently Changes ‘1967 Borders With Palestine’" to a friend
Office of The New York Times, in New York City. Photo: WikiCommons.

Office of The New York Times. Photo: Wiki Commons.

On Friday, I noted that The New York Times sneaked in a new phrase in an article about Obama and Netanyahu, referring to the “1967 borders with Palestine” – a nonsensical phrase that the newspaper had never used before.

On Saturday, they changed it, as NewsDiffs shows:

That was the only substantial difference between those two versions of the article. But there was no acknowledgement of the correction, and of course the print version has the original nonsense phrase.

It is still wrong, of course: they weren’t borders but 1949 armistice lines, never agreed to as border by the international community as UNSC 242 makes clear. But the NYT has erroneously referred to them as “borders” for decades as I showed in my original piece.

Newspapers that subscribe to the New York Times News Service still have the old phrase as well.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Jerome Verlin

    By appending “with Palestine” to the media’s long misportrayal, as Israel’s pre-1967 war “borders,” of what Israel and Jordan in 1949 had expressly defined as being only military ceasefire lines, the New York Times last Friday went beyond the media’s long effort to imbue those 1949 lines with a “borders” permanence transcending that of military ceasefire lines rendered void by renewed fighting between the same sides.

    The “with Palestine” addendum tried to purvey the further misimpression that “Palestine” was an existing state with international borders in 1949.

    That there was no such state of “Palestine” in 1949, or in 1967, was made plain by the June 10, 1967, post-Six-Day-War news article shown in your first posting that said Israel “may try to keep some Jordanian [n.b.] territory west of the Jordan River.”

    Perhaps, your first posting had a hand in stopping this “with Palestine” addendum before it became settled media usage. Thank you.

  • Elliott Sadle

    There is a difference between the 49 & 67 lines. Syria had grabbed some land in the north.

  • al sheeber

    These are not borders, they were cease fire lines. With no agreements, no recognition, nothing- these are not borders.

  • Arthur Toporovsky

    This is a comment I frequently write in response to articles in the NY Times. What is most ironic is that it was the Arab nations that refused to accept the 1949 Armistice lines as borders, in their refusal to recognize any Israeli state. There is also irony in the fact that Jordan chose to attack Israel in 1967, as a result of which Israel was able to recapture the territory that Jordan had seized and ethnically cleansed in 1949. For the Palestinian Arabs to now refer to the 1967 lines as if they were borders is an absolute sham, a claim with no bearing in the history of the region at all.

  • dante

    the nyt has abandoned everything but the pretense of adherence to journalistic ethics; one doubts that its employees even know what those standards actually are. the nyt is now only and openly a conduit for advocacy, not for reportage, not for analysis, not for any engagement with the facts. it is a medium committed to lies. it is a disgrace.

  • Steve Loeb

    Now that Mr Sarkozy’s Paris has experienced what Mr Netanyahu encounters every day and has spent years warning the Europeans about – I wonder if he still feels the same about Bibi. Perhaps that European smug self assuredness has been wiped off their collective faces now that the hordes are beheading and crucifying – including on the European continent itself