MSNBC slammed for error-riddled map in segment on Israel's borders

[grossproffit]

[quote]The 24-hour news network used a map commonly used by Palestinian propaganda groups.

MSNBC has faced criticism recently for its coverage of the wave of terror attacks in Israel in the past month and their latest gaffe didn't help.

The news station was most recently slammed following a segment featuring Martin Fletcher, MSNBC’s “Middle East expert,” who showed a map claiming to show the progression of Israeli "occupation," starting with the state's 1946 borders, to the 1967 borders and finally to present-day borders.

<snip>

So what was wrong with the map? It is a piece of inaccurate Palestinian propaganda. It claimed that in 1946, present-day Israel was under Palestinian rule, leaving out the fact that it was under British Mandatory rule until May 14, 1948, when the British Mandate came to an end.

Another mistake came in the 1947 map which the graphic referred to as the "UN plan." This was inaccurate for the fact that the supposed 1947 borders never existed, since the UN's partition plan was rejected by all Arab countries.

In the map showing the 1967 borders, a further mistake was made. Though MSNBC's graphic labeled the green area as "Palestinian land," in 1967, the West Bank belonged to Jordan, while the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian rule. [/quote]

[url]http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/MSNBC-slammed-for-using-Palestinian-propaganda-map-in-news-segment-426315[/url]

[youtube]

[/youtube]

[Israeli]

1. Best maps with regard to settlements grossproffit .......

are to be found at :

http://peacenow.org.il/eng/content/maps-and-flyers

You will learn more there than at MSNBC or at The Jerusalem Post .

[Scootaloo]

2. Alright, step-by-step

So what was wrong with the map? It is a piece of inaccurate Palestinian propaganda. It claimed that in 1946, present-day Israel was under Palestinian rule, leaving out the fact that it was under British Mandatory rule until May 14, 1948, when the British Mandate came to an end.

And? This is a lot like claiming that Iraq wasn't Iraqi territory while Paul Bremer was in charge of the occupation. Palestine did not cease being Palestinian just because of Sykes-Picot.

Another mistake came in the 1947 map which the graphic referred to as the "UN plan." This was inaccurate for the fact that the supposed 1947 borders never existed, since the UN's partition plan was rejected by all Arab countries

However those suggested borders ARE exactly the borders Israel claimed when it declared independence in 1948. I've covered this fact plenty.

In the map showing the 1967 borders, a further mistake was made. Though MSNBC's graphic labeled the green area as "Palestinian land," in 1967, the West Bank belonged to Jordan, while the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian rule.

Much as with the first instance, occupation does not change ownership. At no point has the West bank "belonged to Jordan" - they talked annexation, but under threat of expulsion from the Arab League, backed off from that plan. Egypt has never claimed any ownership over Gaza. Nor, if they had, would either claim by Jordan or Egypt be legally valid because, say it with me, Occupation is not ownership.

[oberliner]

3. "This is a lot like claiming that Iraq wasn't Iraqi territory while Paul Bremer was in charge..."

Can you honestly think this is a valid comparison?

[Scootaloo]

9. Yes, I absolutely can. Because it's the same damn thing.

[oberliner]

10. Iraq was an independent sovereign nation

That seems to be a salient difference.

[Scootaloo]

12. I don't think you know what "sovereign" means

It means self-rule. Iraq under occupation with Paul Bremer as governor was explicitly not sovereign. That's what occupation means, the removal of sovereignty.

But you're right on the other part. Iraq remained independent. Here's the funny thing that I'll bet you didn't know.

Palestine (along with Mesopotamia and Syria) was a "Class A" mandate under the League of Nations.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

That is, the League of Nations considered Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia to be independent nations, to be lightly administered by Mandatory powers in an advisory role until "able to stand alone' (i.e., becoming sovereign.)

If you're curious there were two other mandatory classifications. Class B mandates were more like modern "occupation," with full-on administrative control over the territory and people. Class C mandates were treated as full-on integral territory of the Mandatory power.

Now, we can note that France and Britain greatly overstepped their administrative bounds in the Class A Mandates - they certainly did. But their violations do not change the legal status of the Mandates. And we can note too that the League of Nations was weak enough that these powers got away with it, too - but, if you're presenting an argument based on Palestine's Mandate status, you are already recognizing the authority of the League.

Basically, after The Ottoman empire signed the Treaty of Sèvres, Its middle eastern holdings all became independent but - for the most part - non-sovereign.

[oberliner]

13. Huh?

I was talking about before Paul Bremer. Maybe I didn't understand the comparison you were drawing.

In any case, thanks for providing the additional information. You are obviously very well-informed about the history of the region, particularly during this period of time.

Just so I am understanding correctly, in the first map, would it be accurate to say that all the land labeled "Palestine" was owned by Palestinians at that time?

And the key identifies the yellow areas as "Israel land" but since there was no Israel in 1946, what are the yellow areas in that first map meant to represent?

I am especially curious about the yellow area in the north that appears to quite clearly include the Golan Heights.

[Scootaloo]

14. I figured the reference to occupation was pretty obvious

Just so I am understanding correctly, in the first map, would it be accurate to say that all the land labeled "Palestine" was owned by Palestinians at that time?

Red Herring question. Property and territory are different legal concepts. Many nations allow for foreign ownership of land, but this ownership doesn't change the territorial status of that land.

And the key identifies the yellow areas as "Israel land" but since there was no Israel in 1946, what are the yellow areas in that first map meant to represent?

I am especially curious about the yellow area in the north that appears to quite clearly include the Golan Heights.

If the J-post article were complaints about brevity triumphing over thoroughness, then it'd be a much stronger article.

The speckles on the first map would be most accurately called "areas of highest Jewish population." As you note, it wasn't "Israel" in 1946, and as I note, it wasn't separate territory from Palestine. So it's basically a period demographic map.

Good luck squeezing even that detail into a map that appears on screen for a handful of seconds in a three-minute segment, while leaving room for the other three involved, though. Easier to use "Israel" to cover all four sections of the image, even if it's misleading in both directions for that first image in the series.

And yeah, the Golan's on there, and painted yellow. I think whoever came up with this map started wit hthe territory currently claimed by Israel - including Golan - and worked from there. Since Palestine (obviously) never included Golan, that leaves Golan yellow. Lazy editor syndrome, I would think.

[oberliner]

15. So the green/yellow distinction in the first map is just identifying where Jews lived?

So to identify that one color is "Palestinian land" and the other color is "Israel land" in that first map would be inaccurate - would you agree?

If it is meant to be a demographic map identifying where Jews lived at the time, it definitely paints a misleading picture. Most estimates for 1946 shows the Jewish population as being around 500,000 and the non-Jewish population being around 1.2 million.

So roughly a third of the population at that time was Jewish - but the map creates the impression that the Jewish population is much smaller than that. There were also numerous cities where Jews and non-Jews both lived, such as Tiberias.

And, of course, the southern part was very sparsely populated. This creates a similar phenomenon where it looks like the Republicans dominate the electoral map when they win giant states like Wyoming while small states like Connecticut have almost ten times the population.

My point being that in 1946 - the year the first map purports to represent, there was no "Israel land" - so that identification is simply false - but rather there was a Palestine that was comprised of around 500,000 Jewish Palestinians and 1.2 million non-Jewish Palestinians - all of whom were living under British occupation.

In my view, the first map does not paint an accurate picture of that reality.

[Scootaloo]

17. Yes, the use of "Israel land" is inaccurate with regards to the first in the series

However, it's clearly being used as shorthand. it's abanal little editorial decision to save space, rather than ahem, malfeasance from the dastardly Palestine-controlled media, as the J-post article asserts.

In truth it's inaccurate all over, since a good deal ofthat "Israel land" is actually occupied territory, but eh, see, we all know it's meaning is "territory claimed by Israel"

If it is meant to be a demographic map identifying where Jews lived at the time, it definitely paints a misleading picture. Most estimates for 1946 shows the Jewish population as being around 500,000 and the non-Jewish population being around 1.2 million.

So roughly a third of the population at that time was Jewish - but the map creates the impression that the Jewish population is much smaller than that. There were also numerous cities where Jews and non-Jews both lived, such as Tiberias.

But that population was not well-distributed over the map. Four out of five Jews in Palestine lived in urban areas, and almost all of those urban Jews lived in just three cities - Four, if we count Jaffa as separate from Tel Aviv for this headcount. As a result, when this population is mapped out, it looks like a thin arc of speckles.

You get the same result from demographic maps of US states. 20% of the people living in New York State are black. That's one of the highest percentages outside of the deep south. However when you put the demographic data on a map? that 20% of the population is heavily localized in the New York city metropolitan area. The five boroughs are of course, not even remotely close to 1/5 of the state's land area.

The map itself is accurate, but the choice of descriptors - "israel Land" - is not.

[oberliner]

19. So in the first map "Israel land" is shorthand for "land where a lot of Jews live" ?

That seems odd.

The second map also uses "Israel Land" even though there was no Israel in 1947 either, nor was the term "Israel" used at any point in the Partition Plan.

It would have been more accurate to have "proposed Jewish state" and "proposed Arab state".

I think what is most striking between the first map and the second map is that most of the bottom portion going from green to yellow, but this portion of the land is almost entirely the Negev desert which was largely uninhabited and uncultivable at the time.

It is unclear from the first map that the Jewish population of the land was about 30 percent and that the bottom half of the land was the Negev desert which seems to create an impression similar to looking at a map with giant Red States and wondering how unfair it is that a Republican isn't president when they won such huge areas.

I find the whole sequence to be misleading because the first map distinguishes between Jewish Palestinians and non-Jewish Palestinians referring to the places where Jewish Palestinians live as "Israel land" when Israel was just a name given later on to the state that the Jewish Palestinians established. And the second map really shows how two groups of Palestinians (Jewish and not Jewish) would each get their own independent state as per the Partition Plan not Israel (which didn't exist) taking land from Palestine.

If one really wants to be accurate and honest, one should make it clear that what the maps are talking about is Jewish people.

[TubbersUK]

7. +1

That JPost article irritated the hell out of me.

Thanks.

[grossproffit]

4. MSNBC Apologizes For ‘Factually Wrong’ Israel-Palestine Map, Will Air Correction

[url]http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-apologizes-for-factually-wrong-israel-palestine-map-will-air-correction/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mediaite%2FxXeM+%28Mediaite%29[/url]

[azurnoir]

5. LOl this out to be good because for all of the nit-picking over who owned what 70-48 years ago

the end result as to who is occupying what and setting up colonies/claiming state lands where now, is still exactly the same

[King_David]

6. You're right, what was 70 years ago is not important,

Start with what is today in 2015 and go from there?

[azurnoir]

8. yes do you have a map that shows every bit of land claimed by Israel in the west Bank?

[Israeli]

11. Map of the West Bank Settlements

See our Interactive Map of the settlements and the iphone App.
The map was created by Americans for Peace Now, together with Peace Now Israel.

http://peacenow.org.il/eng/APNmap

[oberliner]

16. That is a much more effective and much less misleading map

Real facts instead of attempting to dupe the uninformed as the other map tries to do.

As I've always said, the actual policies that Israel pursues with respect to the Palestinians are more than worthy of serious criticism - there is no need to make things up or engage in preposterous hyperbole as so many seem wont to do .

[azurnoir]

18. Palestinians only have nominal control over 18% of the West Bank and none of Jerusalem

and that 18% is open to IDF 'invasion' when ever Israel pleases which is quite frequently

[oberliner]

20. Exactly

This is a very effective point.