Colin Rubenstein of the Australia-Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) recently experienced a rare, 'Not happy, Rupert!' moment when he noticed the Australian referring to occupied Palestinian territory as, well, 'occupied Palestinian territory'.
As he grumbled in a letter to the paper published on 16 August: "the territory on which [Israeli settlements] are situated is disputed, not occupied, land."
Specifically, Rubes was responding to an August 13 AFP report - Israel approves further settlements on eve of peace talks.
Then, on August 15, the Australian ran another AFP report - Prisoners freed but talks hit a hurdle - which referred, yet again, to the "occupied West Bank."
Only time will tell whether Rubes' epistolary intervention will be sufficient to get those subbies at the Australian to pull their fingers out and edit such offending reports.
In the meantime, might I suggest he switch to Fairfax instead? It's way more Zio-friendly.
Just check it out:
Settlement push on eve of peace talks, Isabel Kershner, Sydney Morning Herald/New York Times: "contested area."
Palestine joy as captives released before peace talks, Jonathan Ferziger, SMH/Bloomberg, Los Angeles Times: "land... seized during the 1967 war"
Mediators meet in secret amid rising tensions, Isabel Kershner, SMH/New York Times: "disputed areas."
See what I mean?
Will old Rubes get his way? That's the question. Only future editions of the Australian will tell!
And rest assured, MERC will be there to keep you informed.