26 aug 2016
By Ramzy Baroud
“You deserve to see your loved ones suffer and die. But, maybe, you would be hurt before them,” was part of a threatening message received by a staff member at ‘Al-Mezan’, a Gaza-based human rights group.
The photo attached to the email was of the exterior of the activist’s home. The gist of the message: ‘we are coming for you.’
‘Al-Mezan’, along with three other Palestinian rights groups – ‘Al-Haq’, ‘Al Mezan’, ‘Aldameer’ and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights – are actively pushing a case against Israel in the International Criminal Court (ICC) accusing it of war crimes in Palestine, particularly during the war on Gaza in 2014.
In April 2015, the Palestinian Authority (PA) had officially signed the Rome Statute and, a few months later in November, the groups presented a substantial amount of evidence of Israel’s suspected war crimes and crimes against humanity.
But even before these dates, the war on independent rights groups was already heating up. Restrictions on Israeli NGOs, especially those that challenge the Israeli Occupation of Palestine, are fairly recent.
However, pressure, violence, restriction on movement, raiding of offices and arrests, have been a fixture of Israeli policy against Palestinian rights groups. The most recent episode is only one example.
“Since September 2015, several of the organizations have faced ruthless smear and intimidation campaigns seeking to discredit them and stoke insecurity among their staff,” Amjad Iraqi wrote in Israel’s +972Mag.
“The harassment culminated in death threats made against two individuals: A senior Palestinian advocate with ‘Al-Mezan’ and Nada Kiswanson, a Palestinian-Swedish lawyer who is Al-Haq’s representative in The Hague.”
Israel is, no doubt, feeling embattled. Its carefully carved brand – that it is an oasis of democracy in an arid authoritarian desert – is now full of holes. Its occupation, wars and siege in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, and the dissemination of images and information about such conduct throughout the internet and social media platforms is making it impossible for Israel to sustain its official hasbara. Thus, the angry backlash.
The Israeli Knesset has been busy passing laws and proposing bills aimed at restricting the work of its own rights groups, or any independent civil society organization that seems, in any way, critical of the government and sympathetic towards the Palestinians.
The ‘NGO Law’ is now in effect. It forces NGOs to declare their sources of funding and punishes those who refrain from doing so. It also levies heavy taxes on such funds, even when declared. The European Union, along with the United States Government warned Israel against such laws, but to no avail.
The bill is written in too broad a terminology, thus making it possible for the government to target such organizations without appearing vindictive or politically-motivated. “What is happening in Israel now is fascism,” said David Tartakover, who was quoted in the British Guardian newspaper.
Tartakover, the artist who designed the logo for the Israeli ‘Peace Now’ campaign in the late 1970’s described ‘a slow creep of limitations’ that began in 1995 (following the assassination of Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, at the hands of a Jewish extremist), but one that accelerated in the last year.
One example includes the “Loyalty in Culture Bill”, which sounds like, according to Michael Griffiths, “something out of Nineteen Eighty-Four.” But it is no fiction. This bill targets artists and authors, and withholds funding from organizations that promote any material deemed objectionable by Israel’s political establishment.
This led to the banning of “Borderlife”, an Israeli novel by Dorit Rabinyan, depicting a love story between a Palestinian man and a Jewish woman. Israel’s Minister of Education, the hardliner, Naftali Bannett, banned the novel on the pretext that it promotes ‘assimilation’ between the races.
With the ‘most rightwing government’ in Israeli’s history now in charge, and an equally hawkish parliament, the foray of contentious bills are likely to continue. However, while Israel’s own organizations, rights groups and dissenting artists are targeted by bans, fines and withholding of funds, Palestinians are threatened with much more severe consequences.
To appreciate this more, one ought to look at the language used by a recent conference organized by Israeli newspaper, ‘Yediot Aharonot’. According to investigative journalist, Richard Silverstein, the conference, which mainly attacked the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) “has become a veritable carnival of hate.”
“Everyone from delusional Hollywood celebrities to cabinet ministers, to the leader of the Opposition have pledged fealty to the cause,” he wrote. Top officials included Intelligence Minister, Israel Katz, who called for the “civil targeted killing” of BDS leaders like Omar Barghouti.
According to Silverstein, the phrase Katz used is “sikul ezrahi memukad” which “derives from the euphemistic Hebrew phrase for the targeted killing of a terrorist, which literally means ‘targeted thwarting’.” Working hand in hand with various western governments, Israel’s official perception of the non-violent BDS movement is reaching the point of treating the civil society movement as if a criminal organization.
BDS merely demands moral and legal accountably from western governments and corporations that contribute in any way to Israel’s violations of human rights and international law.
The recent death threats against rights activists who are pressing for respect of international law and for justice for thousands of Gazan civilians killed during recent wars is a natural progression of Israel’s relentless efforts. While restricting the work of independent rights groups is quite common by Middle Eastern governments, Israel’s campaign is most dangerous for it receives little media coverage and, at times, outright support from the US and other western governments.
The latest of these was the recently passed legislation at the Democratic-led Legislature in the State of New Jersey, which was signed by Governor, Chris Christie. New Jersey is now the latest of US states that outlawed BDS and vowed to punish any company that joins the boycott of Israel campaign. With little or no accountability, Israel will continue with its fight targeting NGOs, threatening activists and restricting the work of anyone that dares to be critical.
“What is happening in Israel now is fascism,” said Tartakover, and he is, of course, right.
Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com.
“You deserve to see your loved ones suffer and die. But, maybe, you would be hurt before them,” was part of a threatening message received by a staff member at ‘Al-Mezan’, a Gaza-based human rights group.
The photo attached to the email was of the exterior of the activist’s home. The gist of the message: ‘we are coming for you.’
‘Al-Mezan’, along with three other Palestinian rights groups – ‘Al-Haq’, ‘Al Mezan’, ‘Aldameer’ and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights – are actively pushing a case against Israel in the International Criminal Court (ICC) accusing it of war crimes in Palestine, particularly during the war on Gaza in 2014.
In April 2015, the Palestinian Authority (PA) had officially signed the Rome Statute and, a few months later in November, the groups presented a substantial amount of evidence of Israel’s suspected war crimes and crimes against humanity.
But even before these dates, the war on independent rights groups was already heating up. Restrictions on Israeli NGOs, especially those that challenge the Israeli Occupation of Palestine, are fairly recent.
However, pressure, violence, restriction on movement, raiding of offices and arrests, have been a fixture of Israeli policy against Palestinian rights groups. The most recent episode is only one example.
“Since September 2015, several of the organizations have faced ruthless smear and intimidation campaigns seeking to discredit them and stoke insecurity among their staff,” Amjad Iraqi wrote in Israel’s +972Mag.
“The harassment culminated in death threats made against two individuals: A senior Palestinian advocate with ‘Al-Mezan’ and Nada Kiswanson, a Palestinian-Swedish lawyer who is Al-Haq’s representative in The Hague.”
Israel is, no doubt, feeling embattled. Its carefully carved brand – that it is an oasis of democracy in an arid authoritarian desert – is now full of holes. Its occupation, wars and siege in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, and the dissemination of images and information about such conduct throughout the internet and social media platforms is making it impossible for Israel to sustain its official hasbara. Thus, the angry backlash.
The Israeli Knesset has been busy passing laws and proposing bills aimed at restricting the work of its own rights groups, or any independent civil society organization that seems, in any way, critical of the government and sympathetic towards the Palestinians.
The ‘NGO Law’ is now in effect. It forces NGOs to declare their sources of funding and punishes those who refrain from doing so. It also levies heavy taxes on such funds, even when declared. The European Union, along with the United States Government warned Israel against such laws, but to no avail.
The bill is written in too broad a terminology, thus making it possible for the government to target such organizations without appearing vindictive or politically-motivated. “What is happening in Israel now is fascism,” said David Tartakover, who was quoted in the British Guardian newspaper.
Tartakover, the artist who designed the logo for the Israeli ‘Peace Now’ campaign in the late 1970’s described ‘a slow creep of limitations’ that began in 1995 (following the assassination of Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, at the hands of a Jewish extremist), but one that accelerated in the last year.
One example includes the “Loyalty in Culture Bill”, which sounds like, according to Michael Griffiths, “something out of Nineteen Eighty-Four.” But it is no fiction. This bill targets artists and authors, and withholds funding from organizations that promote any material deemed objectionable by Israel’s political establishment.
This led to the banning of “Borderlife”, an Israeli novel by Dorit Rabinyan, depicting a love story between a Palestinian man and a Jewish woman. Israel’s Minister of Education, the hardliner, Naftali Bannett, banned the novel on the pretext that it promotes ‘assimilation’ between the races.
With the ‘most rightwing government’ in Israeli’s history now in charge, and an equally hawkish parliament, the foray of contentious bills are likely to continue. However, while Israel’s own organizations, rights groups and dissenting artists are targeted by bans, fines and withholding of funds, Palestinians are threatened with much more severe consequences.
To appreciate this more, one ought to look at the language used by a recent conference organized by Israeli newspaper, ‘Yediot Aharonot’. According to investigative journalist, Richard Silverstein, the conference, which mainly attacked the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) “has become a veritable carnival of hate.”
“Everyone from delusional Hollywood celebrities to cabinet ministers, to the leader of the Opposition have pledged fealty to the cause,” he wrote. Top officials included Intelligence Minister, Israel Katz, who called for the “civil targeted killing” of BDS leaders like Omar Barghouti.
According to Silverstein, the phrase Katz used is “sikul ezrahi memukad” which “derives from the euphemistic Hebrew phrase for the targeted killing of a terrorist, which literally means ‘targeted thwarting’.” Working hand in hand with various western governments, Israel’s official perception of the non-violent BDS movement is reaching the point of treating the civil society movement as if a criminal organization.
BDS merely demands moral and legal accountably from western governments and corporations that contribute in any way to Israel’s violations of human rights and international law.
The recent death threats against rights activists who are pressing for respect of international law and for justice for thousands of Gazan civilians killed during recent wars is a natural progression of Israel’s relentless efforts. While restricting the work of independent rights groups is quite common by Middle Eastern governments, Israel’s campaign is most dangerous for it receives little media coverage and, at times, outright support from the US and other western governments.
The latest of these was the recently passed legislation at the Democratic-led Legislature in the State of New Jersey, which was signed by Governor, Chris Christie. New Jersey is now the latest of US states that outlawed BDS and vowed to punish any company that joins the boycott of Israel campaign. With little or no accountability, Israel will continue with its fight targeting NGOs, threatening activists and restricting the work of anyone that dares to be critical.
“What is happening in Israel now is fascism,” said Tartakover, and he is, of course, right.
Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com.
The Yesha Council is in the final planning stages of an Amazon-like website to sell settlement goods abroad along with tours of the West Bank; 'allows us to reach the customer's house abroad without going through the whole route of delegitimization.'
The Yesha ("Judea, Samaria and Gaza") Council intends to soon launch a shopping website to allow consumers to purchase products made in West Bank settlements, including dates, soaps, textiles and prepared foods. This is in part in response to the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement.
According to the plan, the new website will use the same software that other leading shopping websites, such as Amazon and eBay, use.
The Yesha Council is promoting the new initiative as a "boycott detour," referring to the BDS movement's calls to boycott the very products that they will offer to sell.
Oded Revivi, the mayor of Efrat and the head of the Yesha Council's foreign desk, is behind the initiative. He commented, "We quickly understood that we have to think outside the box…so we developed this model, which allows us to reach the customer's house abroad without going through the whole route of delegitimization that products from Judea and Samaria go through in the world."
In addition to selling products, it will also sell travel packages to the West Bank. Religious tours will also be offered in an attempt to meet a need for groups that want to visit historical sites and incorporate religious themes, which will include faiths beyond Judaism.
The initiative is currently in the final stages of development. They are currently seeking the seed money to begin operating the site. In the coming weeks, the Yesha Council intends to send invitations for business owners to join the site.
The Yesha ("Judea, Samaria and Gaza") Council intends to soon launch a shopping website to allow consumers to purchase products made in West Bank settlements, including dates, soaps, textiles and prepared foods. This is in part in response to the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement.
According to the plan, the new website will use the same software that other leading shopping websites, such as Amazon and eBay, use.
The Yesha Council is promoting the new initiative as a "boycott detour," referring to the BDS movement's calls to boycott the very products that they will offer to sell.
Oded Revivi, the mayor of Efrat and the head of the Yesha Council's foreign desk, is behind the initiative. He commented, "We quickly understood that we have to think outside the box…so we developed this model, which allows us to reach the customer's house abroad without going through the whole route of delegitimization that products from Judea and Samaria go through in the world."
In addition to selling products, it will also sell travel packages to the West Bank. Religious tours will also be offered in an attempt to meet a need for groups that want to visit historical sites and incorporate religious themes, which will include faiths beyond Judaism.
The initiative is currently in the final stages of development. They are currently seeking the seed money to begin operating the site. In the coming weeks, the Yesha Council intends to send invitations for business owners to join the site.
24 aug 2016
By Christine Leuenberger
If you do a search for Palestine on Google Maps, you will be taken to a map of Israel. There is no place called "Palestine" displayed. Without a name on the map, in the digital realm, a country or state becomes invisible.
Political “logo” maps - those that give a name to the contours of a nation - have an important function, however: they can encourage a sense of national belonging in its people. For those who live in a “non-place”, without a map or a territory they can call their own, these maps are one way to hold on to a culturally shared past and an imagined national future.
Palestine (including the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) is one such “non-place” with only a tenuous existence. And in a digital age, the struggle over its territorial recognition has increasingly moved online.
For many, there is a lot at stake – digital recognition of Palestine as a territorial entity could precede territorial recognition on the ground.
Indeed, in 2003, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the organisation responsible for overseeing the namespaces on the internet, gave Palestine its own web domain of .ps. In May 2013, after the UN recognised Palestine as a non-member observer state, the name of its landing page changed to Google Palestine from Google Palestinian Territories.
For Palestinian activists, such virtual recognition was a step in the right direction, while Israeli government officials condemned it as an impediment to peace.
Yet while Palestine has made some headway in getting some virtual recognition, it still remains under-recognised on many digital platforms, including unofficial web spaces such as Web 2.0.
Such a lack of standardisation is not surprising – there are, after all, no transnational cartographic standards that are consistently invoked. Instead the contours and content of maps are a mapmaker’s pejorative, subject not only to politics, but also to the resources and data available.
For instance, detailed coordinates of many places in Palestine are still missing, as even the worlds’ largest geographic data source, Google Maps, receives its data - including place names and borders - from a combination of third-party providers and public sources.
With Israeli cartographic companies providing most of the source material on the region and Palestinian cartographic institutions unable to compete in the map market, Palestinian geo-coded data and information is scant.
Palestine remains underrepresented on most web-based mapping platforms, although activist appeals to digital platform administrators to include Palestine and Palestinian data have made some gains towards more virtual recognition.
So when the story unfolded that Google had apparently erased Palestine from its maps and an online petition gained over 320,000 signatures to put it back, it hardly mattered that the rumour of Palestine’s cartographic erasure on 25 July turned out to be no more than just that: a rumour.
Anonymous lines on a map
What does matter, however, is that Palestine was never labelled in Google Maps in the first place. Instead, dotted lines have long delineated the territorial boundaries of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
With these territories mostly unidentified and the legal status of the dotted lines undefined, the lack of visual and textual information “passes the buck" to viewers, as only those with specialised knowledge would know how to interpret the lines.
Maps are therefore always political as they are inevitably selective: they include as much as they exclude. There are many territorial disputes around the globe, ranging from Crimea to contested islands between Korea and Japan, to Palestine.
Google Maps attempts to stay out of such geopolitical disputes by either showing different maps of the contested territories, depending on the locality of the search engine so as to cater to local users (for Russians, for instance, Crimea appears as part of Russia, but not so for Ukrainians), or by eliminating contextual information and putting maps into a “vacuum”.
Maps are therefore always political as they are inevitably selective: they include as much as they exclude. When it comes to mapping contested territories, Google’s market logic can therefore not supersede the logic of politics.
Whether changing the maps for different audiences or by doing simply what mapmakers do – select, include and omit certain cartographic features and data points - maps are politics by other means. This is especially true when it comes to long-simmering territorial disputes.
And that's why Google Maps’ apparent cartographic elimination of Palestine could ignite a “map war” and become a powerful political symbol for those who still have only a very tenuous existence on the worlds’ maps.
Dr Christine Leuenberger, Cornell University (USA), has published widely in various academic journals, books and popular news outlets. She has been the recipient of a National Science Foundation Scholar’s award to investigate the history and sociology of mapping practices in Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
If you do a search for Palestine on Google Maps, you will be taken to a map of Israel. There is no place called "Palestine" displayed. Without a name on the map, in the digital realm, a country or state becomes invisible.
Political “logo” maps - those that give a name to the contours of a nation - have an important function, however: they can encourage a sense of national belonging in its people. For those who live in a “non-place”, without a map or a territory they can call their own, these maps are one way to hold on to a culturally shared past and an imagined national future.
Palestine (including the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) is one such “non-place” with only a tenuous existence. And in a digital age, the struggle over its territorial recognition has increasingly moved online.
For many, there is a lot at stake – digital recognition of Palestine as a territorial entity could precede territorial recognition on the ground.
Indeed, in 2003, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the organisation responsible for overseeing the namespaces on the internet, gave Palestine its own web domain of .ps. In May 2013, after the UN recognised Palestine as a non-member observer state, the name of its landing page changed to Google Palestine from Google Palestinian Territories.
For Palestinian activists, such virtual recognition was a step in the right direction, while Israeli government officials condemned it as an impediment to peace.
Yet while Palestine has made some headway in getting some virtual recognition, it still remains under-recognised on many digital platforms, including unofficial web spaces such as Web 2.0.
Such a lack of standardisation is not surprising – there are, after all, no transnational cartographic standards that are consistently invoked. Instead the contours and content of maps are a mapmaker’s pejorative, subject not only to politics, but also to the resources and data available.
For instance, detailed coordinates of many places in Palestine are still missing, as even the worlds’ largest geographic data source, Google Maps, receives its data - including place names and borders - from a combination of third-party providers and public sources.
With Israeli cartographic companies providing most of the source material on the region and Palestinian cartographic institutions unable to compete in the map market, Palestinian geo-coded data and information is scant.
Palestine remains underrepresented on most web-based mapping platforms, although activist appeals to digital platform administrators to include Palestine and Palestinian data have made some gains towards more virtual recognition.
So when the story unfolded that Google had apparently erased Palestine from its maps and an online petition gained over 320,000 signatures to put it back, it hardly mattered that the rumour of Palestine’s cartographic erasure on 25 July turned out to be no more than just that: a rumour.
Anonymous lines on a map
What does matter, however, is that Palestine was never labelled in Google Maps in the first place. Instead, dotted lines have long delineated the territorial boundaries of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
With these territories mostly unidentified and the legal status of the dotted lines undefined, the lack of visual and textual information “passes the buck" to viewers, as only those with specialised knowledge would know how to interpret the lines.
Maps are therefore always political as they are inevitably selective: they include as much as they exclude. There are many territorial disputes around the globe, ranging from Crimea to contested islands between Korea and Japan, to Palestine.
Google Maps attempts to stay out of such geopolitical disputes by either showing different maps of the contested territories, depending on the locality of the search engine so as to cater to local users (for Russians, for instance, Crimea appears as part of Russia, but not so for Ukrainians), or by eliminating contextual information and putting maps into a “vacuum”.
Maps are therefore always political as they are inevitably selective: they include as much as they exclude. When it comes to mapping contested territories, Google’s market logic can therefore not supersede the logic of politics.
Whether changing the maps for different audiences or by doing simply what mapmakers do – select, include and omit certain cartographic features and data points - maps are politics by other means. This is especially true when it comes to long-simmering territorial disputes.
And that's why Google Maps’ apparent cartographic elimination of Palestine could ignite a “map war” and become a powerful political symbol for those who still have only a very tenuous existence on the worlds’ maps.
Dr Christine Leuenberger, Cornell University (USA), has published widely in various academic journals, books and popular news outlets. She has been the recipient of a National Science Foundation Scholar’s award to investigate the history and sociology of mapping practices in Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
16 aug 2016
By Thomas van Linge
Google sparked an outcry last week after reports emerged that it had allegedly removed Palestine from its maps.
But, as the company responded, Google hadn’t deleted Palestine – it had never actually displayed it as an independent country in the first place.
Nevertheless, a debate had started on whether Google should have put Palestine, which holds non-member UN observer state status, as a separate country on maps as it does with all 193 UN member states.
While some involved in the debate say Palestine should be shown separately from Israel as it is not considered to be part of Israel by a majority of the world's nations, others argue that this would ignore Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.
While Palestine - as a majority of countries acknowledged in the 2012 UN observer status vote - does exist, it does not exist as a fully fledged independent state, with clear-cut borders.
In reality, Palestine only exists in the dozens of enclaves in the West Bank, which Palestinians were given as a result of the 1993 Oslo Accords, and the Gaza strip.
The major roads in the West Bank, the Jordan Valley and East Jerusalem, while internationally considered to be part of Palestine, are under full Israeli control.
Showing these areas as part of Palestine would be politically correct, but not an accurate display of the situation on the ground.
Facts on the ground
The same argument could be made for Crimea: while it is still considered Ukranian territory by the international community, Russian authorities call the shots on the peninsula and have done so since its annexation in 2014.
It would be misleading to show Crimea on the map as Ukrainian when it's Moscow that rules the region, not Kiev.
The problem is that in modern times maps are political, but should be realistic This is the issue with maps nowadays: should mapmakers get involved in politics, and show disputed areas around the globe in the manner in which they're generally recognised by the international community?
Or should they stay away from politics altogether and show the situation as it is?
The problem is that in modern times maps are political, but should be realistic. Maps are political in the sense that, by displaying the territory of a separatist state, a terrorist group or a rebel organisation, they are basically giving these parties recognition, taking away the territory from the state which holds claim over it.
But maps are expected to show the reality of today's world and showing separatist areas like, for example, Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of Georgia, would ignore the reality on the ground.
Besides, it would also be a denial of the ongoing conflict - as was the main argument of those who disagreed with Palestine being put on maps.
Enclaves and territories
Take Syria and Iraq for example: both are shown on the map in the way that they are generally recognised by the world - as two countries.
But in reality, Iraq is now split into three territories: the Kurdistan region, lands held by the Islamic State (IS) group and the remainder of Iraq.
Syria is even more complicated. One could say the country has disappeared into dozens of small states and enclaves with Syrian rebels, IS, Kurds, the Assad regime, al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadists and Hezbollah all controlling parts of what was once a single country.
Like the walkman and the pager, the old maps that used to hang in the classroom are outdated Showing IS on the map as a separate state would be very controversial as it would (in a way) legitimise their rule over the areas they occupy and give them recognition as a state.
But the fact remains that they do control cities like Raqqa and Mosul and have done so for more than two years now. The same goes for the Kurds who have been dreaming of seeing the name "Kurdistan" on a map for decades.
The Iraqi Kurdish region, with Erbil as its capital, functions as an independent nation in a lot of ways, but no world map shows it as such. Doing so would make a lot of Kurds happy, but would definitely anger Baghdad.
What a reality-based map of the Middle East might look like (Thomas van Linge) And then you have the Western Sahara.
Internationally, it is considered a separate nation, but here even some maps are confused with what to show. Some choose to show it as separate, and others show it as part of Morocco, which has occupied most of it for decades.
Hardly any map shows it as the two separate states it now basically is - with the coastal part under Moroccan occupation, while the eastern desert area is ruled by the "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic".
Like the walkman and the pager, the old maps that used to hang in the classroom are outdated. Such maps could still reflect reality in the US or UK, but definitely not for most of the world anymore.
A map of the Middle East, showing all countries organised as they are internationally recognised, would be inaccurate and useless for those who want to understand what is happening on the ground.
As the world is changing so too should the maps that show it. Since the collapse of the USSR, the world has changed a lot, but world maps hardly have.
The old maps where every country has one colour, one capital, and one name aren't relevant anymore. Just like the way we have revolutionised cars, medical care and engineering, so we need to change the maps that show the beautiful world we live in with all of its imperfections.
- Thomas van Linge is a political science student and activist based in Amsterdam. He is mostly known for his maps of war zones in the Middle East. His article was published in the Middle East Eye website.
Google sparked an outcry last week after reports emerged that it had allegedly removed Palestine from its maps.
But, as the company responded, Google hadn’t deleted Palestine – it had never actually displayed it as an independent country in the first place.
Nevertheless, a debate had started on whether Google should have put Palestine, which holds non-member UN observer state status, as a separate country on maps as it does with all 193 UN member states.
While some involved in the debate say Palestine should be shown separately from Israel as it is not considered to be part of Israel by a majority of the world's nations, others argue that this would ignore Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.
While Palestine - as a majority of countries acknowledged in the 2012 UN observer status vote - does exist, it does not exist as a fully fledged independent state, with clear-cut borders.
In reality, Palestine only exists in the dozens of enclaves in the West Bank, which Palestinians were given as a result of the 1993 Oslo Accords, and the Gaza strip.
The major roads in the West Bank, the Jordan Valley and East Jerusalem, while internationally considered to be part of Palestine, are under full Israeli control.
Showing these areas as part of Palestine would be politically correct, but not an accurate display of the situation on the ground.
Facts on the ground
The same argument could be made for Crimea: while it is still considered Ukranian territory by the international community, Russian authorities call the shots on the peninsula and have done so since its annexation in 2014.
It would be misleading to show Crimea on the map as Ukrainian when it's Moscow that rules the region, not Kiev.
The problem is that in modern times maps are political, but should be realistic This is the issue with maps nowadays: should mapmakers get involved in politics, and show disputed areas around the globe in the manner in which they're generally recognised by the international community?
Or should they stay away from politics altogether and show the situation as it is?
The problem is that in modern times maps are political, but should be realistic. Maps are political in the sense that, by displaying the territory of a separatist state, a terrorist group or a rebel organisation, they are basically giving these parties recognition, taking away the territory from the state which holds claim over it.
But maps are expected to show the reality of today's world and showing separatist areas like, for example, Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of Georgia, would ignore the reality on the ground.
Besides, it would also be a denial of the ongoing conflict - as was the main argument of those who disagreed with Palestine being put on maps.
Enclaves and territories
Take Syria and Iraq for example: both are shown on the map in the way that they are generally recognised by the world - as two countries.
But in reality, Iraq is now split into three territories: the Kurdistan region, lands held by the Islamic State (IS) group and the remainder of Iraq.
Syria is even more complicated. One could say the country has disappeared into dozens of small states and enclaves with Syrian rebels, IS, Kurds, the Assad regime, al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadists and Hezbollah all controlling parts of what was once a single country.
Like the walkman and the pager, the old maps that used to hang in the classroom are outdated Showing IS on the map as a separate state would be very controversial as it would (in a way) legitimise their rule over the areas they occupy and give them recognition as a state.
But the fact remains that they do control cities like Raqqa and Mosul and have done so for more than two years now. The same goes for the Kurds who have been dreaming of seeing the name "Kurdistan" on a map for decades.
The Iraqi Kurdish region, with Erbil as its capital, functions as an independent nation in a lot of ways, but no world map shows it as such. Doing so would make a lot of Kurds happy, but would definitely anger Baghdad.
What a reality-based map of the Middle East might look like (Thomas van Linge) And then you have the Western Sahara.
Internationally, it is considered a separate nation, but here even some maps are confused with what to show. Some choose to show it as separate, and others show it as part of Morocco, which has occupied most of it for decades.
Hardly any map shows it as the two separate states it now basically is - with the coastal part under Moroccan occupation, while the eastern desert area is ruled by the "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic".
Like the walkman and the pager, the old maps that used to hang in the classroom are outdated. Such maps could still reflect reality in the US or UK, but definitely not for most of the world anymore.
A map of the Middle East, showing all countries organised as they are internationally recognised, would be inaccurate and useless for those who want to understand what is happening on the ground.
As the world is changing so too should the maps that show it. Since the collapse of the USSR, the world has changed a lot, but world maps hardly have.
The old maps where every country has one colour, one capital, and one name aren't relevant anymore. Just like the way we have revolutionised cars, medical care and engineering, so we need to change the maps that show the beautiful world we live in with all of its imperfections.
- Thomas van Linge is a political science student and activist based in Amsterdam. He is mostly known for his maps of war zones in the Middle East. His article was published in the Middle East Eye website.
