When Arutz Sheva, Israel national news.com reportedly blew the whistle on the newly released atlas of the Middle East, the London Telegraph and the Washington Post were among the first mainstream media to report what HarperCollins labeled as an "error." A HarperCollins spokesman issued the following statement when the omission hit the front page of several newspapers around the world, and was attacked by Bishop Declan Lang, chairman of the Bishop's Conference's Dept. of International Affairs. "HarperCollins regrets the omission of the name Israel from their Collins Middle East Atlas. This product has now been removed from sale in all terrortories, and all remaining stock will be pulped. HarperCollins sincerely apologizes for this omission and for any offense caused." (Note the bold face, above.). Once the Muslim extremists purchased all of the atlases they needed—produced not by Muslims, but by Rupport Murdoch, the owner of the ultra-conservative Fox News, who could accuse Islamic extremists of claiming that Israel is, and historically was, owned by the Palestinians when a politically conservative American company created the atlas?
First, let's look at the statemernt made by Collins Bartholomew,. which defended the deletion of Israel from the atlas and amending the verbiage to change "Israel" to "Gaza" by admitting "...the decision to do so was based on "local preferences." In other words, it wasn't an error. It was a deliberate decision to sell the Atlas to the anti-Israeli Muslim schools in the Islamic majority nations in the Mideast. And, even more specifically, it was because their customers in the Gulf States (the only place in the world where the maps were sold) would find the inclusion of Israel as 'unacceptable.
The Collins Bartholomew decisuion to delete Israel from the atlases they sell to the Muslim world has sparked what may well become a boycott of all HarperCollins titles






An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.