Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

thescroll_header

Pro-Palestinian Ad in New York Make a Splash

And while it may not be anti-Semitic, it’s pretty dishonest

Print Email

There’s been a simmering to-do over advertisements at various Metro-North train stops in the New York City suburbs featuring the above image. (I mean, et tu, Scarsdale?) Predictably, someone (in this case, The Algemeiner’s Dovid Efune) called it “anti-Semitic,” because, y’know, criticizing Israel means you hate Jews; and, predictably, Mondoweiss has struck back, extrapolating from one source to conclude that the “Jewish community” feels the ad is anti-Semitic.

Look at the ad a bit more closely, though. It’s not anti-Semitic. But it’s more than a little problematic. It attempts to make a political argument—it concerns Palestinian sovereignty—yet completely ignores politics whenever it’s convenient for it to make its anti-Israel point. It tells the story of a zero-sum contest in which the Jews/Israelis—yes: the ad, too, makes that conflation—start with almost no land and end up with nearly all the land, while the Palestinians start with nearly all the land and end up with almost none of it. But while it is true that hundreds of thousands of Arabs lost their homes due to war and expulsion, the story the ad tells is extremely disingenuous, implying that Israel took land from Palestinians when the reality is that the Palestinians, whose history is tragic, were as much sold out by Arab powers as anything else. Israel is not nearly as at fault as the ad claims.

Where to begin? With the first map. In 1946, there was no “Jewish land” and “Palestinian land.” In fact, both Jews and Palestinians (I’m not sure if Arabs living in Palestine in 1946 would have considered themselves members of an exclusive Palestinian nationality, but never mind) lived throughout the land; the suggestion that Jerusalem, for example, was almost purely “Palestinian land” and not “Jewish land” is fantasy. But what’s more important is that politically there was no such thing as Jewish land and Palestinian land: there was Mandatory Palestine, ruled by Great Britain. The first map implies that the Palestinians started with all this land. It wasn’t their land; it was Britain’s.

Map 2 is accurate! No complaints, except that the massive tilt of Map 1 toward the Palestinians makes the partition plan look less fair than it was. Moreover, there is of course no mention that the future Israelis accepted it while the Arab states rejected it. But, quibbles!

Map 3 is the most damagingly dishonest. The white is indeed Israel. But the green is not Palestinian land: it is Jordanian land (in the case of the West Bank and East Jerusalem) and Egyptian land (in the case of Gaza). The map can’t be suggesting that this is an illustration purely of where people lived; after all, Arab Israelis—Palestinians—lived in Israel proper then, as they do today. Rather, it’s an illustration of political sovereignty that then distorts—lies about—who had political sovereignty.

Map 4 is not hugely objectionable, although it is revealing. You could actually make the entire thing white, what with Gaza under blockade and the Palestinian Authority’s sovereignty in even Area A of the West Bank pretty questionable. But the ad-makers know that the Palestinians look more dispossessed if they have a tiny bit of land than none. (Also, it doesn’t include the Golan! But whatever.)

“Note the conflation of the ‘Jewish community’ with Zionism,” Philip Weiss writes. But Efune isn’t the only one inappropriately conflating very different things.

NY Ads Depicting Palestinian Dispossession Are Termed Anti-Semitic By ‘Jewish Community’ [Mondoweiss]

Print Email
CygnusA81 says:

Actually Marc, Map 4 is also completely disingenuous. Just ask Aaron David Miller or Dennis Ross.

Like usual, you are trying to play both sides, but to be fair. you are leading toward the right (Israel’s) side. Anyway, the whole ad is anti-Semitic since it gives a false impression of the story of the creation of Israel. They know showing this ‘ad’ visually and without context, will make bleeding heart libs cry out for ‘JUSTICE!’

The truth about the conflict was the first thing to die.

julis123 says:

Why don’t they also include a map of the lands lost by the one million Jews ethnically cleansed from Arab countries?

Mondoweiss claiming that and anti-Israel add is “not antisemitic” is like David Duke claiming that he is for equal rights.

MondoWeiss is an antisemitic blog which allows neo Nazis to post there.

These folks have no credibility on Jewish issues, none.

CygnusA81 says:

I didn’t even notice that Marc linked MondoWeiss. Wait to go Marc. You might as well be posting directly from HAMAS or Neo-Nazi websites.

perverse says:

None of the maps are, by any means, antisemitic. They also are not, as Marc Tracey states, problematic. But they are deceptive and slanted to a particular political perspective. They are pieces of political propaganda. This would be true of any political statement that is geared to present the POV of one particular side of a conflict.

Marc Tracey is a bit naive to insist that the Palestinian side present a more nuanced and more accurate perspective.To do so would weaken their position and is something that could not be put onto a poster. It, as Marc relates, requires volumes of material and this particular ad is geared to those who develop their opinions from bumper stickers – because that is exactly what this ad is, a bumper sticker.

One sticking point. Map 3 is also inaccurate. Not only was Jerusalem majority Jewish in 1948, it was not assigned to the Arab state by the UN partition resolution. The Arab side has tried, both historically, physically and politically, to erase all Jewish connection to the city.

dansblog says:

Actually, the maps are completely accurate, as long as one understands that the implicit meaning of “Palestinian” in this context is always, “cleansed of Jews”. The green areas in the four maps have nothing in common at all, politically speaking. But they do correctly define the regions in each year in which the Jewish population was (or was effectively planned to be) zero.

dansblog says:

Actually, the maps are completely accurate, as long as one understands that the implicit meaning of “Palestinian” in this context is always, “cleansed of Jews”. The green areas in the four maps have nothing in common at all, politically speaking. But they do correctly define the regions in each year in which the Jewish population was (or was effectively planned to be) zero.

Here’s how the maps should be understood. And, some important details
aside (“Palestinian land” should read “Palestinian Arab” land; Jerusalem
should have a larger white dot pre-1967) they are indeed accurate.

Map One shows the major areas of settlement of Palestinian Jews and
Palestinian Arabs. That is important because, as is well-known,Map Two
– which is the Partition Plan, as the map clearly demarcates, not the
actual area of settlement — shows how outrageous the Partition Plan
was, giving areas to the Jewish State which contained much Arab land —
and 40% of the population of the area allotted to the Jewish State was
Arab. Tracy doesn’t apparently know this; he thinks that the partition
plan was a fair distribution. Somebody ought to buy him a primer on the
Arab/Israeli conflict.

To say that “both Jews and Palestinians…lived throughout the land” is
to gloss over the fact that the overwhelming number of people and of
land owned was Arab. Period. It’s like saying that both Chinese
Americans and Whites live throughout America.

By the way, Jewish ownership of the land was considered by the Zionists
to give them a stronger claim to sovereignty in areas owned — that was
the importance of settlement. But the amount of land purchased for
settlement (and why should ownership determine claims to soveignty
anyway?) was tiny, a fact that Marc Tracy apparently is ignorant of. The
Zionists received more land for settlement through a) UN partition
plan, b) military conquest; c) expropriation and nationalization of Arab
land inside the 49 armistice lines that has lasted from1948 until the
present; d) settlement and expropriation of land in the West Bank.

Map 3. I find it amusing that the same week in which the Levi report
claims that the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was illegal and
unrecognized, Tracy claims that the West Bank was Jordanian and not
Palestinian. Again, let him read a primer.

Or better, maybe indeed the third map should say “Jordan” and then it
will be made clear that in 1948 Israel and Jordan divided Palestine
among them, thwarting the establishment of the Palestinian state
promised to the Palestinians repeatedly throughout the 20th century, and
Palestine was wiped off the map, just as Germany, Russian, and Austria
wiped Poland off the map.

Map Four shows exactly how much land is available now for a Palestinian
state, despite the fact that there are as more Palestinians in the world
than there are Israelis.

In short, Mr. Tracy claims that the Palestinian people were invented
late in the game and never had this land. Once could say the same about
the Zionists settlers, virtually all of whom were European — all but
one of the signatories of the Israeli Declaration of Independence were
not native to Palestine, but were European citizens. Had there been no
Jewish settlers, a Palestinian state would have arisen in all of
Palestine, just as many of the other Arab states in the Middle East
arose.

What these maps don’t show is how the settlers got a stronghold by
bringing more settlers, often illegally, and not allowing the majority
of Palestine’s population to return to its homes after 1947, against UN
resolution 194, and to this day has revoked the residency of more than
an addition 250,00 Palestinians, according to a recent Haaretz article.

Not only has the land been decimated,but is population has been decimated, despite Arab birth rates.

Finally, what the maps really show is that anybody who argues for a two
state solution should a) insist on a fairer division of the land and b)
allow the Palestinians an armed force to protect its land and its people
from further encroachment. If you don’t agree with either of these, you
really don’t accept the notion of a Palestinian state — even if you
think you do.

Just ask yourself whether David Ben Gurion would have accepted a
demilitarized state for millions of Jews on the lands left the
Palestinians in 2012.

A final comment — the green land in Map 4 in Area C is progressively
being taken from the Palestinians through creative designing of
municipal boundaries, outposts, etc. Just go to the Peace Now Settlement
watch.

Note that the maps do not accuse the Zionists of taking the land; they
simply reflect more or less accurately the land which could be used to
assert claims of sovereignty.

What is misleading about Map 3 is that it does not reflect the thousands
of dunams of Arab-owned land expropriated or seized by the Jewish State
for the purposes of Jewish settlement and developed. Marc Tracy says
nothing about this

Why don’t they also include a map of the lands lost by the one million Jews ethnically cleansed from Arab countries?

Jules,maybe because only a bigot would hold the Palestinians Arabs responsible for the sins of some Arab governments over which they had no control, and whose actions hurt them more than anybody else — because many of the Jews who left Arab lands came, often at the instigation of the Zionists, and were settled themselves on Palestinian lands.

Those Arab governments and the Zionists are responsible for the tragedy of the decimation of the Jewish communities of Arab lands — but what do the Palestinian Arabs have to do with it?

Bradfordian says:

Map 1 isn’t dishonest, more like badly described. It is roughly accurate as far as ownership goes (Jews only privately owned 7% of the land then), though even then you could argue that the ‘Palestinian’ owned land was in fact owned by a minority of landowners, and the majority of Palestinian Arabs were fellahin, or peasants in other words. However, the point is that 56% of the land was given to the minority, a minority that was under-represented with the UN in comparison to the Zionist lobbies.

Map 3 doesn’t show Jordanian land, it shows Jordanian administered land. There is a world of difference, because the Jordanian annexation was not internationally recognised as lawful.

Similarly, Map 4 shows Palestinian administered land. By showing the islands of Palestinian control, it is not simply to make them look dispossessed. The cantons that remain, broken up by Jew-only roads serving illegal settlements, are direct closely related to apartheid South Africa’s bantustans, in design and in purpose.

Also, the Golan Heights have no relevance as far as the 2 state solution goes (it’s titled ‘Palestinian loss of land’ after all), and so the map doesn’t show them.

Binyamin says:

These ads are a devastating rejoinder to any claim that Israel has treated the Palestinians fairly. They also undermine the claim that a genuine Palestinian state is still possible.

The only “problematic” element is that ANY land west of the Jordan River is classified as “Palestinian.” The fact that the Arabs in some pockets of the West Bank can elect their own dog catchers does not mean it is “Palestinian” land.

Israel already is a bi-national state. But only one of the nations has exclusive political power, and claims it has a right to maintain that power forever, even if Jews become a minority.

No shit!

julis123 says:

Actually what is most misleading ids that the map should start from 1918 and show all of the mandate which was promised to the Jews by the British. In 1922 the British split off more than half, declared that no Jews could live there and gave it to the Hashemites to rule (TransJordan). This is Palestinian state #1. Subsequently we have Palestinian state state #2 –Gaza (aka launching pad for launching thousands of missiles at Israeli towns), and Palestinian state #3 in the west bank will come into being as soon as the Pal leadership stops turning down offers of statehood.

if you don’t want Jews to have their own country, you are by definition, an anti-semite.

I find map 1 to be highly inaccurate. In reality, the whole map should have been labeled “British Land,” as they were the country that owned the region in 1946.

Renee Scherer says:

Here

Bradfordian says:

Read article 25 of the Mandate regarding the legality of the creation of Transjordan and the suspension of all articles in the mandate other than 15, 16 and 18) for the territory east of the Jordan river.

Also, please provide evidence that the Mandate promised the land to Jews only, or that Mandate earmarked Palestine for a Jewish state. I’d love to read it. All I see are references to a Jewish national home to be reconstituted in Palestine, much as the Sioux national home is in the USA. That and the White Paper of 1939, in which the only party legally bound by the Mandate (Britain) said categorically that their intention was not to create a Jewish state, or that it was the intention of the Mandate writers to do so.

Of course the map does not refer to the wars that the Arabs promulgated and lost.
That was the main reason the Israelis gained land both in 48 and 67.

You can’t conduct controlled experiments with history, so we can’t know what the Zionists would have done given no opposition whatsoever.

But we know they wanted a Jewish majority in Palestine, and they hadn’t fought any wars against an Arab military yet when promulgating that wish. The basic goal necessitated removing non-Jews from the land.

I know a lot of people believe this, so here’s a question for them: If a djinn told you Israel could exist as a Jewish state forever (With no gentiles in the bargain), but Jews have to give up their stable existence in gentile countries, which means no US citizenship for Jews, for example, would you accept the deal?

The creation of the Jewish state in Palestine removed many people from the country and they lost their citizenship because they weren’t Jewish (The Palestinian refugees), so obviously you’ll have no problem with the same happening to Jews if it means a Jewish state.

This is not true. Nobody lost their citizenship because of the creation of the Israel. There was no sovereign country in Palestine to be a citizen of.

Palestinian citizenship did in fact exist under the British Mandate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestinian_nationality#British_Mandate_period

Israeli legislation has also referred to Palestinian citizenship for the purpose of dispossessing the refugees. See 1b.1(iii) of the Absentee Property Law. Note how the paragraph below refers directly to the British-promulgated citizenship orders.
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E0B719E95E3B494885256F9A005AB90A

“(c) “Palestinian citizen” means a person who, on the 16th
Kislev, 5708 (29th November, 1947) or thereafter, was a Palestinian
citizen according to the provisions of the Palestinian Citizenship
Orders, 1925-1941, Consolidated(3), and includes a Palestinian resident
who, on the said day or thereafter, had no nationality or citizenship or
whose nationality or citizenship was undefined or unclear;”

He linked it because he mentioned it in his article, not because he’s promoting it in any way

Phil ( Hitler should have finished the job ) Weiss is the last person to go to on Jewish issues. Theguy called for the extermination of the Jewish people

Tablet and its young, foolish writers are now taking a great idea and turning it into a rag sheet. Quoting Mondoweiss for support is like quoting Hitler on the Jews. Stupid and ignorant reporting. You wouldn’t see anti-semitism if it hit you in the gut.

zahava zer says:

it makes no difference who controlled the land. martians could have occupied it but it still wouldn’t give them the right to
control it. it’s jewish land. has been since yehoshua led the israelites
into it after the exodus from egyptian slavery. yes, it’s changed hands
over the centuries, but that does not negate the fact the land is G-d’s
and He gave it to avraham’s descendants through yitzchak and ya’akov.
people can choose to think that the torah and its commandments are out
of date, or that the torah is just a nice storybook filled with
fairytales. but if people actually READ the torah, they will see that
it’s our guidebook for life and living in the land. there is no
“palestine”, or “palestinians”, or even a jordan. even syria is an
invention. the saying goes that if a lie is told enough times, it will become truth.

NotPC says:

‘Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the; and

Whereas the Principal allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally mad on November 2nd, 1917, the the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a ntional home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people in Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national hone in that country; and…’

The rest of the preamble outlines the Mandatory Powers (Britain) duties under the LoN, before going onto define the terms in Articles !-28.

Note – Britain could not decide for herself the terms, she was only the overseer making sure the terms of the LoN for the Mandate was fulfilled.

Note – The Jewish people were given all rights in the mandated area, non-Jewish people had their civic and religious rights protected.

If you read all the Articles, you will see that Jewish people are spoken of through out as being established as the developers of the country towards independence of the mandate, no where are Arabs mentioned, only in Article 22 do we see the word, and that is to do with the official languages of the mandate area, which are to be English, Arabic and Hebrew.

Britain messed up on it mandate, restricting Jewish immigrants yet letting Arabs from neighbouring countries come in unrestricted.

Way back then Britain and France did deals between each other for their own benefit. The Golan Heights was in the original mandate for Palestine.

……

Bradfordian says:

What are ‘all rights’? Can you name any extra rights Jews were given over non-Jewish Palestinians?

I have read the Mandate, and it does not speak of Jews as the developers, but as advising the Administration of Palestine in the matters of development. That means nothing, because the other Palestinians had their own committees and agencies that advised the British Administration.

Britain didn’t ‘mess up’. There were moral questions regarding limiting Jewish immigration during WW2, but the Mandate makes clear that allowing the reconstitution of the Jewish national home (not ‘nation’ or ‘state’) was dependant on not prejudicing the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish Palestinians. The British saw that the immigration was prejudicing those rights and causing sectarian tension that fueled the Arab revolts.

The Golan Heights were never part of the Mandate. They were British occupied territory before the Mandate when the land was carved up by Britain and France. During the Boundary Agreement of 1920, they were ceded to France, and became part of the French Mandate for Syria.

Because the Golan Heights are Syrian, Israel is undeniably in violation of international law for settling them. While there may be some ambiguity over the West Bank, the Golan Heights were sovereign territory of another High Contracting Party, and therefore the transfer of Israeli civilians onto that land is illegal.

Eesther says:

you are a moron.

NotPC says:

If the Palestinian Mandate had been for Arabs to control the region and Jewish people to be allowed to settle there, it would have said just that. Instead it only refers to the duties of the Jewish people in regard to the population already there (which included many nationalities and faiths)

The British and the French had already drawn lines to make states for the Arabs in areas that had been part of the Ottoman empire.

You are correct when you say the Golan Heights were included in Syrian territory, but that was only through both B and F wheeling and dealing, trading land parcels for their own benefits. Originally it was on the Palestinian side, then transferred to the Syrian one.

Nowhere do you find the Mandate stipulating anything other than Jewish participation is building infrastructure

Article 11 Paragraph 2 states that the administration may arrange with the Jewish Agency in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration……..

Yes the British did mess up big time, I love Dear Old Winnie..he saw us safely through the war and he had wonderful tenacious qualities, I cried openly at his funeral, but he was a man for all that, human, making mistakes, and so did the whole of the government. They promised too much to too many to enable them to successfully fight the wars they had to fight on behalf of other nations.

I was educated in the British School system long before PC and revisionism set in, in those days a spade was a spade not an implement for disrupting and changing the composition of the ground.

Trans-jordan was given to Husseini clan to appease them so they would not cause havoc with the French in Syria, it was made Judenrein just as later on the new Arab states made their domains virtually Judenrein.

Now if Syria really wanted the Golan back they could have had it several years ago, they only had to say we will have peace with Israel and it would have been theirs. Israel has every right to maintain the land until such time as the ‘enemy’ says ‘peace’. Syria want it back without peace, and will the UN etc condemn and stop them from firing on Israel as they did prior to the war.

No civilian has been transferred to the Golan, they have all gone their of their own accord to build a good life for themselves, transfer of civilian population to a conquered region by the government is what is not allowed (except if you are China in Tibet etc).

When all is said and done, only Jewish people were mentioned in the mandate, logic should tell you why.

I must away from this discussion as I have a life in the real world, where I observe that all governments all over the world promise the earth to get the result they want, and then come up with a ‘good’ reason why they have to renege on their promises.

Bradfordian says:

Article 11 Paragraph 2 states that the administration may arrange with the Jewish Agency in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country

But that doesn’t preclude the fact that other Palestinians were allowed to do the same. That clause doesn’t grant Jews extra rights, it grants the Administration of Palestine the right to allow Jews to develop the country. If the Administration so chose, they did not have to grant the Jewish community the right to develop a specific area of land. You see the difference?

Trans-jordan was given to Husseini clan to appease them so they would not cause havoc with the French in Syria, it was made Judenrein just as later on the new Arab states made their domains virtually Judenrein.

I fail to see how that constitutes ‘messing up’. There are moral issues, surely, but provisions for that land to be separated from the Mandate were stated in article 25, which made it exempt from all articles including article 6, so in reality it only existed as such in the minds of Zionists, and the settlement has no legitimacy as far as international law goes. I could say my ancestors wanted it as my homeland, but that doesn’t give me the right to take it by force.

but that was only through both B and F wheeling and dealing, trading land parcels for their own benefits. Originally it was on the Palestinian side, then transferred to the Syrian one.

You can argue all you like about whether the British had the right in the first place to draw the borders as they did, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Heights are recognised by every nation (including Israel) as Syrian territory.

And as for the Arabs making their land ‘virtually Judenrein’, I seem to remember an exodus of Palestinian Arabs around the same time. It also turns out that the exodus was caused by Direct, hostile Jewish [Haganah/IDF] operations against Arab settlements according the IDF in the 1948 report titled “The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948″. It seems to me that while Arab nations forced their Jewish population to leave, Israel was busy doing the same thing. To imply that the Arabs were the only party to ethnically cleanse their land is disingenuous.

No civilian has been transferred to the Golan

Transfer, in this sense, need not mean forced transfer. Indeed, there is no mention of the word ‘forced’ in the section of article 49 concerning the movement of civilians belonging to the occupying power, in direct contrast to a previous section of the same article that speaks of ‘forcible transfers’:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Nevertheless, the Israeli government has actively aided and encouraged the transfer by providing monetary incentives such as tax breaks, and by subsidising the construction of the settlements. The UN and the ICJ have repeatedly stated that the 4th GC was written to protect the occupied people, not the occupiers, and so allowing the transfer of civilians onto occupied land is a violation of the spirit of the law as well as the letter.

And even then, I doubt you can think of a legitimate security reason for settling the land. Other than a subjective religious entitlement, there is no other reason.

When all is said and done, only Jewish people were mentioned in the mandate

Really, because I’ve read it, and it mentions non-Jewish communities right at the beginning. Nowhere does it say the ‘land belongs to Jews and only Jews’, and when all is said and done, the Mandate became null and void on the 14th of May 1948, including article 6.

And you’ve yet to answer my question: what extra rights the Jews were given over their non-Jewish countrymen?

Funny how ppl say this is anti-semetic when the only Jews who are semetic are the very small minority of arab jews. And funny u call the semetic ppl of Palestine anti semetic. Jews are masters at manipulation and deception. What is the Mossad motto “WAR by Deception.” With a more open media landscape the world is learning how evil khazars are and their ashkenazi kin.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Pro-Palestinian Ad in New York Make a Splash

And while it may not be anti-Semitic, it’s pretty dishonest

More on Tablet:

Becoming an Unaffiliated Jew: Why I Left My Synagogue

By Judy Walters — There were a lot of little reasons I was unhappy. But ultimately, I realized I didn’t need to belong to a temple to feel Jewish.