Israel - Map Censorship
By Lawrence Davidson
March 21, 2016
"Information
Clearing House"
- What
is the difference between a textbook publisher
giving into pressure from Christian fundamentalists
seeking to censor the teaching of evolution, and a
publisher giving in to Zionists seeking to censor
awareness of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?
Neither phenomenon is a matter of opinion or
perspective. One act of censorship denies facts
established by scientific research. The other denies
the documented violation of international law (for
instance, the Fourth Geneva Convention) and multiple
UN resolutions. So the answer to the question just
asked is – there is no difference.
In
early March 2016 executives at McGraw-Hill took the
extreme step of withdrawing from the market a
published text, Global Politics: Engaging a Complex
World, and then proceeded to destroy all the
remaining books held in inventory. (Did they burn
them?) Global Politics, which had been on the market
since 2012, was a text designed by its authors to
“offer students a number of lenses through which to
view the world around them.” Why did McGraw-Hill do
this?
Apparently the book was obliterated (this seems to
be an accurate description of the publisher’s
actions) because, like a biology text that describes
the established facts of evolution, Global Politics
offered a “lens to view the world” that was judged
blasphemous by a powerful, influential and
ideologically driven element of the community. Of
course, that is not how McGraw-Hill rationalized its
action. Instead, the publisher claimed that a
serious inaccuracy in the text was belatedly
discovered. This took the form of a series of four
maps that show “Palestinian loss of land from 1946
to 2000.” The maps are the first set which can be
seen at the following link:
http://www.thetower.org/3027ez-mcgraw-hill-publishes-college-textbook-with-mendacious-anti-israel-maps/
The maps in question are not new or novel. Nor are
they historically inaccurate, despite Zionists’
claims to the contrary. They can be seen
individually and in different forms on websites of
the BBC and Mondoweiss and are published in a number
of history books, such as Mark Tessler’s
well-received A History of the Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict. Perhaps what the Zionists can’t abide is
lining up the maps together in chronological order.
In
truth, the objections reported to have been used by
those who pressured McGraw-Hill are historically
perverse – the sort of grasping at straws that
reflects a biased and strained rewriting of history.
For instance, an objection was made to the labeling
of public land in pre-1948 Palestine as
“Palestinian.” Why? Because the Zionist claim is
that Palestine before 1948 was a British mandate and
so the land was British and not Palestinian. As
their argument goes, “no one called the Arabs [of
this area] Palestinians.” Of course, prior to 1948,
no one called the East European Jews pouring in at
this time “Israelis.” Further, according to those
taking these maps to task, the West Bank at this
time was controlled by Jordan and so it too was not
Palestinian. Obviously, no one brought up the fact
that in September of 1922 the British had divided
Palestine in two in order to artificially create
what is now Jordan. The period after World War I was
one of territorial transition, however, in
Palestine, the one constant was the persistent
presence of the Arab Palestinians.
The Zionists offered many other dubious objections
to the maps, which seem to have sent the publisher
into something of a panic. It would certainly appear
that no one at McGraw-Hill knew enough relevant
history to make an accurate judgment on the
complaints.
Part II – Running Scared
McGraw-Hill’s response was to “immediately initiate
an academic review,” which “determined that the maps
in question “did not meet our academic standards.”
Who carried out the review? Well, McGraw-Hill won’t
say, but insists those who did so were “independent
academics.” Just what are McGraw-Hill’s “academic
standards”? Well, those haven’t been articulated
either. The publisher’s reluctance to elaborate its
claims makes their actions suspicious at best.
As
Rania Khalek noted in an 11 March 2016 article on
the incident in Electronic Intifada, these
particular maps, showing the loss of Palestinian
land over decades of Israeli expansion, “have the
ability to cut through Israeli propaganda that
portrays Palestinian anger and violence as rooted in
religious intolerance and irrational hatred rather
than a natural reaction to Israel’s colonial
expansionism, land theft and ethnic cleansing, all
of which continue today.” This gives insight into
the strenuous efforts made by Zionists to keep the
sequenced maps away from any mass market
distribution. As it is, they seem to have overlooked
this textbook source for some four years. However,
once they spotted it, and began “flooding”
McGraw-Hill with complaints from “multiple sources,”
it took the publisher only about a week to suspend
sales of the book.
The next obvious question is why didn’t McGraw-Hill
move to change the maps or just remove them? Why
destroy the entire inventory? The extreme nature of
the publisher’s response remains unexplained but may
stand as a testimony to the fact that the Zionist
lobby has the same power within the corporate ranks
of this textbook publisher as the anti-evolution
fundamentalists have over most biology textbooks.
Part III – The Zionists’ Maps
The Zionists who made the claim that the Global
Politics maps are “mendacious” do so from a starting
assumption that all the land from the Suez Canal to
Golan Heights and Jordan River has always been
Hebrew-Israeli. On this basis they posit their own
maps to make the claim that modern Israel, at least
since 1967 and “in the pursuit of peace,” has
voluntarily relinquished land rather than illegally
taken it. These maps are the second set seen at http://www.thetower.org/3027ez-mcgraw-hill-publishes-college-textbook-with-mendacious-anti-israel-maps/
It
is significant that the Zionist maps begin in 1967,
a year of major Israeli expansion through conquest.
And, of course, the only land concession of any
consequence since then is the Sinai Desert. The
Zionist cartographical suggestion that Israel has
given up Gaza and West Bank land is just a sleight
of hand, given Israel’s use of Gaza as a prison
colony and continued military control of every inch
of the West Bank.
Finally, it is important to note that Israeli school
maps are often pure propaganda. For instance, the
Israeli newspaper Haaretz recently carried a story
about a map used to teach seventh graders about the
country’s geography. The map omits the “green line,”
which is recognized internationally as Israel’s
eastern border, as well as the majority of the
nation’s Arab-Israeli communities. Maybe the Israeli
Ministry of Education used McGraw-Hill’s “academic
standards” to create this map.
Part IV – Conclusion
Within academia there is the belief that textbooks
are not to be subject to ideological censorship.
This is a rather naive, but important, ideal. If
such texts cannot maintain this level of integrity,
the entire educational exercise becomes open to
propaganda. Unless McGraw-Hill becomes transparent
about its “independent academic review” and offers
an explanation as to why it went to the extreme of
destroying its inventory of Global Politics, one can
only assume that the publisher has no objection to
censoring its products in the face of pressure from
an ideologically driven group. No doubt the
motivation here is fear of controversy and
subsequent market losses. In the absence of
substantiating information, the whole story of an
independent review and academic standards must be
dismissed as a cover-up.
The sad truth is that the suborning of textbooks
addressing culturally sensitive subjects has become
a standard practice. Thus, the process of education
is indeed threatened by incessant propaganda. This
includes the culture war that swirls around American
biology textbooks. It also includes the powerful
Zionist drive to literally wipe the Palestinians off
the map.
Lawrence
Davidson is a retired professor of history from West
Chester University in West Chester PA. His academic
research focused on the history of American foreign
relations with the Middle East. He taught courses in
Middle East history, the history of science and
modern European intellectual history.
Copyright ©
2010 tothepointanalyses. All Rights Reserved. |
Click for
Spanish,
German,
Dutch,
Danish,
French,
translation- Note-
Translation may take a
moment to load.
What's your response?
-
Scroll down to add / read comments
Please
read our
Comment Policy
before posting -
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
|
|
|