I have a favor to ask.

 

     In articles published starting during the week of May 7th, reports dealing with the possible finding of King Herod's tomb have become news.

 

     The articles speak of the Judean Desert, Judea, the Jews' revolt for freedom, and so forth.

 

     But, don't you know that these are all merely Zionist concoctions?

 

     Indeed, you showed that you are aware of this since you identified Herodium, at the beginning of these articles, as being on the West Bank (as you did likewise for Hebron)...not Judea.

 

     You certainly know how to put those Jews in their place! Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter must be proud...

 

     But, to avoid confusion and misleading your readers, please be more consistent in your opposition to those fabricating Jews.

 

     The other correct designations you should have used therefore would be the West Bank (not Judean) Hills, the West Bank (not Judean) Desert, and so forth...

 

     Don't dare Judaize those places...that's just what those conniving Zionists want!

 

     And, in the future, please refrain from reporting about the Jewish Temple and Temple Mount in Jerusalem as well. You made this mistake in your recent articles.

 

     As the Arabs will tell you, the Jews never had a Temple there. Mere pipedreams...

 

     Abbas and his latter day Arafatians as well as Islamic Jihad and the Hamasniks will be glad to supply you with its real name, Buraq's Mount.

 

     It was named for Muhammad's winged horse, which took him there from the Arabian Peninsula to ascend to Heaven after he learned of the Temple (of Solomon) Mount itself from the Jews, founders of the date palm oasis at Medina. 

 

     The Jews, many of whom fled to Arabia after the Roman wars, gave Muhammad refuge in Medina during his Hijra (flight) from Mecca in the 7th century C.E. He would later repay them with slaughter, rape, and enslavement for not accepting his religio-political leadership.

 

     The Prophet says he spoke to the Angel Gabriel to learn of the Temple and other such things. 

 

     Nice, but he also spent a long time in Medina with Jewish teachers (and met Christians elsewhere whose religion was an offshoot of that of the Jews) who introduced him to G_d, Abraham, ethical monotheism, etc. in the first place (he even had his followers turn towards Jerusalem for a while to win the Jews' support), and it is primarily the Book of the Jews which mentions Gabriel and so forth. Certainly nothing of such matters was to be found in sources of Muhammad's earlier fellow pagan Arabs themselves.  

 

     Gabriel's chat with Muhammad...the latter's Jewish tutors...

 

     What a coincidence!

 

     Moving on...

 

     Don't dare listen to those who will next tell you that the land was known as Judea--land of the Judaeans (Jews)--and Samaria for almost 3,000 years until British imperialism divided the land in the early 20th century after defeating the Turks in World War I (who ruled it for over 4 centuries) into a west bank and an east bank (of the Jordan River). The Brits' Mandate of Palestine was granted to them on 4/20/1920 and covered both banks.

 

     Those same Hebrew story tellers will next claim that in 1922 British imperialism then rewarded its Hashemite Arab allies from Arabia with the entire east bank--so, right from the getgo, Arab nationalism was granted almost 80% of "Palestine." The Brits' East Bank rep back then, Sir Alec Kirkbride, wrote all about this in his book, A Crackle Of Thorns. Later, when Transjordan attacked a nascent Israel in 1948 and seized land on the other (west) side of the Jordan River, the West Bank designation took further hold.

 

     So, on behalf of Roman, British, and Arab imperialism and expansionism, you media folks are obviously correct to agree on renaming Israel, Judea, and Samaria from their prior 3,000 year old designations to the newer ones. Despite what the Christian Gospel of Matthew says (2:1), Jesus was born in Bethlehem of the West Bank...not Judea. But, again, watch out for those extremist Jews and others who will disagree.

 

     They'll also tell you that after the Jews fought for their freedom against their Roman oppressors and Herod--whom your own reports and articles state was seen by most Jews as a Roman stooge--no other people ever had an independent nation there as it was simply conquered by one imperial power after another--including the Arab Caliphates which ruled it for several centuries from either Damascus or Baghdad. Those Jews will tell you that the vast majority of Arabs arrived in the wake of these 7th century Arab imperial conquests when they burst out of the Arabian Peninsula and spread in all directions, conquering millions of native non-Arab peoples and forcibly Arabizing their lands. And they'll say that most Arabs didn't settle themselves in "Palestine" until after the late 19th century. Furthermore, they'll cite the Records Of The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League Of Nations and numerous other sources to make their point. Everyone knows how deceitful those Jews can be...

 

     Remember...this is all Zionist propaganda...as is the Jews' claim that the Emperor Hadrian, after they dared to revolt a second major time against Roman rule in 132-135 C.E., decided to end their hopes once and for all by renaming the land itself after their historic enemies, the Philistines--a non-Semitic sea people from the Aegean or eastern Mediterranean region. Judaea --as Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Flavius Josephus, and other major contemporary Roman and Roman-sponsored historians wrote extensively about--was thus renamed Syria Paleastina.

 

    So Zionists hold that the very name "Palestine" itself represents the imperial conquest of the Jews and the tragic consequences which followed.

 

    If all the above is not enough, there's something else which adds even more to my confusion...

 

    Most of you mainstream media folks supposedly don't like nasty imperialism and the fruits of it. I don't either.

 

    So, I can't understand how you insist on using new names, like the "West Bank," born of imperial conquest and massacres of Jews in their quest for freedom in their own land, in your articles instead of using the names by which those places were known as for thousands of years before.

 

     As I'm sure you've guessed by now, none of the above are really just figments of the Zionist imagination or Zionist propaganda.

 

     My real confusion, thus, is why the the Associated Press and most of the rest of the allegedly "liberal"  mainstream media treat such things as if they were.