‘We need to remove all the posters from the system’ — Boston censors the Palestinian narrative (Updated: The ads are going back up)

Israel/Palestine
on 96 Comments

ads

This just in. Ads in the Boston transit system depicting the loss of Palestinian lands to Israel are being taken down, days after they were put up, because the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority “fielded numerous complaints.”

Here’s the email that Henry Clifford of Connecticut, who arranged the “substantial” ad buy in subway stations and commuter platforms, received from Titan, the outdoor advertising agency that has the Boston metro contract:

Hi Henry – just wanted to give you the heads up, your campaign posted on Monday and within hours the MBTA [Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority] fielded numerous complaints.  They have informed us that we need to remove all of the posters from the system, so I’m letting you know that everything will be down shortly.

Like I said, just giving you a heads up.  We will be reimbursing you in full for the entire campaign in the coming days.

Sorry for any inconvenience this will cause.

Josh

Josh Stevens declined to discuss the matter. Henry Clifford, head of the Committee for Peace in Israel and Palestine, says the ads appeared in the New York and Washington metro transit systems and got many similar complaints but were not taken down.

“You’d think Boston is an intellectual center of the country, with all those universities, and that they’d be broadminded and open-minded enough to see this,” he told me.

Update:

Boston magazine reports the ads are going back up:

Update, 4:30 p.m. Friday:  According to an MBTA spokesman: “The ads are going back up. Their removal was the result of a miscommunication between the MBTA and its contractor, Titan. There was a breakdown in our established procedures for handling complaints about specific ads.”

 

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

96 Responses

  1. John Smithson
    October 25, 2013, 10:04 am

    I think you should consult an attorney and make sure you understand your rights on this one. On what basis are they being taken down, etc. There is a free speech issue and the bar should be pretty high to stop free speech. Look into it. Any lawyers here at Mondoweiss able to review his contract? Henry Clifford and his group have rights – dont’ they?

    • W.Jones
      October 25, 2013, 11:00 am

      John,

      You are completely correct. Public agencies are not allowed to take down information based on viewpoint unless the materials are sexually obscene, etc.

      He should ask the ACLU of Boston or the NLG chapter there to take this up.

      Peace.

      • heartbeatt
        October 28, 2013, 6:32 am

        Rights tend not to apply when huge pressure is exerted each time there is anything critical of Israel illegal activities. The BBC is a perfect example. They are inundated by emails and telephone calls (not to mention private conversations in the halls of power and at the dining room tables of the powerful) each time there is even the slightest depiction of an incident where Palestinians are badly affected. The BBC usually invites an Israeli representative to comment, as did Germany’s media during the Egyptian uprising, often inviting ex-Israeli ambassadors rather than Egyptians, notably absent, to speak about their own country.

    • jenin
      October 25, 2013, 11:56 am

      I am a lawyer but not in this field, so wouldn’t be an appropriate person to really help with this. I do remember from my first amendment course in law school, though, that once a public forum is open for advertisements, the ads cannot be restricted based on viewpoint. If I recall correctly, that’s why the city could not take down Pamela Geller’s loathsome/Islamophobic ads. Clifford should definitely hire a lawyer

      • Kathleen
        October 25, 2013, 2:10 pm

        Just sent in my comment to MBTA. Hope others do the same. Hoping Clifford pushes this and highers an attorney as well as getting the ACLU involved.
        Contact
        link to mbta.com

    • John Smithson
      October 25, 2013, 12:46 pm

      FWIW I called MBTA and at first was asked to say which ad I am complaining about – after I would not say I was referred to the ‘Customer Communications’ line.

      Called back later, spoke to ‘Carlos’ who said in 7yrs of working there he’d never heard of any (well maybe one) ad being taken down. Also he said he had NOT heard of any complaints about any particular advertisement. He was not able to tell me which ad I was calling about because there hadn’t been many complaint – he kept asking – which ad are you talking about?

      Finally he referred me to Dr. Beverly Scott at [email protected] to send my complaint/issue to. Also he recommended I contact Secretary Richard Daveys.

      Let’s get crackin’.

  2. eljay
    October 25, 2013, 10:39 am

    >> … your campaign posted on Monday and within hours the MBTA [Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority] fielded numerous complaints.

    What were people complaining about? That the truth is anti-Semitic? That any amount of the colour green represents an “existential threat” to Jews? That Israel is not clearly labelled “Jewish State”? That the ad fails to “Remember the Holocaust!”™ ?

    • LanceThruster
      October 25, 2013, 12:49 pm

      They were probably complaining that a dose of reality would be a wet blanket on the enjoyment of the World Series underway.

      You gotta think priorities here.

      • mondonut
        October 25, 2013, 3:31 pm

        eljay says: What were people complaining about?
        ===========================================
        Maybe everyone realized they are factually inaccurate.

      • LanceThruster
        October 25, 2013, 4:15 pm

        factually inaccurate.

        “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

      • mondonut
        October 25, 2013, 5:37 pm

        LanceThruster says: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
        =======================================
        You are correct, I should have just called them lies. Which they are.

      • LanceThruster
        October 25, 2013, 6:14 pm

        They’re going back up, mondonut. Now you can bring their glaring ‘factual inaccuracies’ to the forefront (if that’s really what you’re about).

        Can’t wait to see the fireworks!

      • eljay
        October 25, 2013, 6:20 pm

        >> Maybe everyone realized they are factually inaccurate.

        My question was rhetorical. The complainants were likely Zio-supremacists who hate to see their oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” project portrayed – correctly – as an immoral and unjust undertaking.

      • braciole
        October 25, 2013, 7:40 pm

        Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how you believe they are factually inaccurate. I quite fancy a good laugh.

      • FreddyV
        October 26, 2013, 9:13 am

        @LanceThruster:

        Actually Mondonut is correct, although the correct maps are in fact far less favourable to Zionism.

        There should only be 2 maps.

        The first map should be all green. In 1946, the territory was Palestine. Just because Zionists acquired land in Palestine, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t Palestine. If a Russian bought a farm in Kansas, it doesn’t make the farm Russia.

        The Partition Plan map is meaningless. Israel accepted and the Palestinians rejected it. The plan never got past a General Assembly resolution. Israel unilaterally declared itself into being, taking 78% of Palestine instead of the 55% offered by foreign nations. Unfortunately the weren’t any laws preventing foreign nations from carving up other people’s countries or acquisition of land by conquest by invading forces.

        The second map should be the 1948-1967 map. That is what International Law demands. The fact that someone is squatting on it makes no difference to ownership.

        I think bringing attention to map 4 in this way is conceding ownership of those occupied territories and should be removed.

        Simply:

        Map 1: This was Palestine

        Map 2: Despite the Palestinians agreeing to settle for 22% of their historic homeland, the greedy Zionists want it all and are stealing it. Help us to stop them.

      • mondonut
        October 26, 2013, 12:01 pm

        @braciole
        ===========================================
        Why the graphics are lies:

        1) 1946 – It should all be green. Land owned by Jews (white) does not make the land not Palestine. And to imply the remainder is Arab owned is another falsehood.

        2) 1947 – This is totally false. The UN plan did not label the proposed partitions as Israel and Palestine. Further, it never happened. This is an imaginary loss of land.

        3) 1949-1967 – The West Bank is occupied by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt, The “Palestinians” have accepted Jordanian citizenship. Someone should make up their minds if occupied land is Palestinian or not. Because if so…

        4) 2012 – So now occupied areas are not Palestinian? There is no obligation to remain consistent between panels?

      • irishmoses
        October 26, 2013, 12:49 pm

        Freddy V said:

        ****”The Partition Plan map is meaningless. Israel accepted and the Palestinians rejected it. The plan never got past a General Assembly resolution. Israel unilaterally declared itself into being, taking 78% of Palestine instead of the 55% offered by foreign nations. Unfortunately the weren’t any laws preventing foreign nations from carving up other people’s countries or acquisition of land by conquest by invading forces.”****
        _________
        This is a interesting and critical legal issue. If Israel declared itself a nation accepting the provisions of UNR 181 and was recognized by many nations, including the US, under those provisions, and if the UN accepted Israel as a member state based on UNR 181, how does Israel get a free ride on taking more of Palestine than UNR 181 originally provided it (55%)?

        Hostage and I had a long exchange yesterday (he spoke, I listened) on the “What Comes Next: The one state/two state debate is irrelevant…” thread (Comment Link: link to mondoweiss.net).

        I haven’t had the time to sort out his response yet, but it seems clear to me from Hostage’s response that UNR 181 still has some important legal effects. (Comment Link: link to mondoweiss.net).

        The fact that the Palestinians rejected UNR 181, in favor of a single democratic state of Palestine in which the rights of people of all races and religions would be protected, certainly didn’t mean they thereby ceded their right to whatever parts of Palestine the then Palestinian Zionist Jews could take by force (and ethnically cleanse by force). The cablegram from the Arab League to the UN of May 15, 1948 is a fascinating document both for the history it cites and for the intent it expresses regarding the future of Palestine:
        link to en.wikisource.org

      • FreddyV
        October 27, 2013, 7:11 am

        Very interesting irishmoses. Thank you for the correction.

        Hostage is a real gem isn’t he? I swear he’s either Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, or Illan Pappe.

        Genius.

      • Kathleen
        October 27, 2013, 12:41 pm

        Just had a very similar discussion with two friends on the Boulder RTD bus headed down to the protest of the Jewish National Fund in Denver.

      • LanceThruster
        October 28, 2013, 5:01 pm

        [crickets chirping]

    • Woody Tanaka
      October 25, 2013, 4:58 pm

      “What were people complaining about?”

      People who are zios tend to become mentally unhinged when their evil project is shown for the truth of what it is.

  3. pabelmont
    October 25, 2013, 11:02 am

    “The people” were complaining because the ads hurt their feelings, made them angry, fearful, uncomfortable, etc., in short made them feel that their long-held model of heaven-on-earth was crumbling before their eyes.

    If MBTA accepts ANY issue-advertising, then a lawsuit for injunction should serve to keep the signs in place. Some places don’t allow issue advertising on public buses, sports stadia, etc. It is a bit hard to understand the CONSTITUTIONAL position of a government agency denying free POLITICAL speech, but maybe MBTA is merely quasi-governmental and can escape the constitution that way.

    Stay tuned.

    • marc b.
      October 25, 2013, 11:50 am

      pabelmont, for what it’s worth, the MBTA is part of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, it issues bonds which are backed by the ‘full faith and credit’ of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, etc. i’m no constitutional scholar, but it looks like a government agency.

      • Citizen
        October 25, 2013, 12:14 pm

        It’s a government agency, funded by both federal and state tax money.
        link to beaconhill.org

      • jenin
        October 25, 2013, 12:24 pm

        In that case, there is absolutely no question that this is unconstitutional. I am surprised the MBTA doesn’t have a better legal team to warn them about this. I truly hope Clifford takes this matter to court.

      • Citizen
        October 25, 2013, 12:53 pm

        However, the federal appeals court in the Ridley case characterized the MBTA as a quasi-governmental agency (based on its extensive transportation network). With a limited government forum for free speech. I don’t know if the MBTA’s current policy guidelines on advertising in this fora has changed since Ridley. link to suffolklawreview.org

        The ACLU is currently involved in a similar case involving advertising on buses.
        Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign v. King County also raises significant First Amendment issues. Throughout the arguments the judges questioned if the King County Metro bus system had effectively declared itself as a “designated public forum” by allowing political ads, which carries additional First Amendment responsibilities. The judges also asked for several specifics from both sides about ads that had been effectively or actually rejected, and if it would be reasonable to expect problems with a transportation agency’s main function, smooth running – See more at: link to law.gonzaga.edu

      • Citizen
        October 25, 2013, 1:05 pm

        Beginning at page 19, here is a good overview of the legal principles and factual issues judges consider when faced with conflict between an RTA’s restrictive ad policy and free speech within that limited forum:

        link to google.com

  4. seafoid
    October 25, 2013, 11:02 am

    I guess all complaints revolve around the theme
    “When I see what the bots have done I don’t feel safe.”

    They are losing.
    The Jewish fairytale has gone over to the dark side.

    Don’t want to be left outside the international community alone

  5. Balfour
    October 25, 2013, 11:15 am

    And here’s to dear old Boston 
    Where liberals kvetch about sod
    And ‘Camera’ defines anti-Semites
    While Adelson kibbitzs on as if God

  6. Linda J
    October 25, 2013, 11:22 am

    So Toronto has done weaseled out of their transit contract too. link to campaign.r20.constantcontact.com

    • Walid
      October 26, 2013, 6:18 am

      “So Toronto has done weaseled out of their transit contract too.”

      Not surprising; money would be better spent elsewhere, like in Montreal, where the majority of the population is already atuned to the Palestinian cause.

  7. Chu
    October 25, 2013, 11:45 am

    Zionists are afraid of the power that picture represents and they’ll always be twisting arms in backrooms to keep the illusion that Israel is not the criminal of international law.

  8. DICKERSON3870
    October 25, 2013, 12:26 pm

    RE: You’d think Boston is an intellectual center of the country, with all those universities, and that they’d be broadminded and open-minded enough to see this,” ~ Henry Clifford

    “A TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE” IN THE BOSTON SUBURBS:
    “J Street is shunned by Reform synagogue in Newton (amid talk of ‘donors’)”, by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, 11/17/10

    Astonishing. A J Street event is cancelled by a Reform Newton synagogue due to fierce opposition by a small group inside the congregation. And they have money. This is why Barney Frank has said that he can’t come out against settlements. In the most “liberal” district in the country. Because neoconservatism is deeply embedded in American Jewish life out of concern for Israel’s security.
    Again this shows how you cannot reform these militant ethnocentric attitudes inside Jewish life. Universalist Jews must make coalitions with Palestinians, realists, non-Jews, anyone who cares about human rights– to take on the intolerant attitudes within Jewish life. Note the Ben-Ami money quote. Lisa Wangsness:
    Rabbi Keith Stern, who has led Temple Beth Avodah for more than 13 years, said a “small, influential group’’ within the congregation voiced strong opposition to hosting the event. Synagogue leaders decided to cancel after “an agonizing process,’’ he said, because they felt the controversy would “threaten the fabric of the congregation.’’
    The understanding was that it was going to be what I considered to be an honest and open conversation with a liberal Jewish organization, but I clearly did not understand how deep the antipathy is among a group within the Jewish community toward J Street and toward Jeremy Ben-Ami,’’ he said….
    [Ben-Ami] “My reaction is really one of sadness that this is the state of the conversation in some parts of the Jewish community,’’ he said. “That a small handful of zealous donors to an institution can prevent a larger community from an open and honest conversation is a real shame.’’

    SOURCE – link to mondoweiss.net

    • seafoid
      October 25, 2013, 3:32 pm

      Stephane Hessel who died this year observed that it was a minority and a small one who took part in and supported the resistance. Most French people were vichyists. Judaism is no different. By the way, bots, Vichy lost.

  9. Mike_Konrad
    October 25, 2013, 12:48 pm

    If you take them to court, they might be able to claim it was deceptive advertising.

    The green areas in 1946 were Mandate (state) land not private property.

    Palestinian private property in 1946 was small. Most of the land was state owned.

    You are comparing state land to private property (Jewish – 1946). This is not an accurate symmetry.

    • Woody Tanaka
      October 25, 2013, 3:11 pm

      “If you take them to court, they might be able to claim it was deceptive advertising.”

      And they’d lose because it’s a stupid argument and irrelevant to the case at issue.

    • Misterioso
      October 25, 2013, 3:23 pm

      Reality: In 1946, by far, most of the land in Mandate Palestine was privately owned by Palestinians.

      By Subdistrict – Acre: 87% Palestinian owned, 3% Jewish owned, 10% state owned; Safed: 68% Palestinian owned, 18% Jewish owned, 14% state owned; Haifa: 42% Palestinian owned, 35% Jewish owned, 23% state owned; Nazareth: 52% Palestinian owned, 28% Jewish owned, 20% state owned; Tiberias: 51% Palestinian owned, 38% Jewish owned, 11% state owned; Jenin: 84% Palestinian owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, 16% state owned; Beisnan: 44% Palestinian owned, 34% Jewish owned, 22% state owned; Tulkarm: 78% PalestinIan owned; 17% Jewish owned, 5% state owned; Nablus: 87% Palestinian owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, 13% state owned; Jaffa: 47% Palestinian owned, 39% Jewish owned, 14% state owned; Ramleh: 77% Palestinian owned, 14% Jewish owned, 9% state owned; Ramallah: 99% Palestinian owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, less than 1% state owned; Jerusalem (West and East): 84% Palestinian owned, 2% Jewish owned, 14% state owned; Gaza: 75% Palestinian owned, 4% Jewish owned, 21% state owned; Hebron: 96% Palestinian owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, 4% state owned; Bersheeba: 15% Palestinian owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, 85% state owned.

      • jenin
        October 25, 2013, 4:27 pm

        awesome job Misterioso! thanks for laying that out. hard to argue with those numbers…but I’m sure the blindly pro-Israel crowd will find a way

    • jenin
      October 25, 2013, 3:24 pm

      Even if the “ads” were “deceptive” (which they are not, but that’s a separate debate) that would not be a strong argument. A judge ruled that the MTA had to allow Pamela Geller’s despicable, Islamophobic and racist ads based on First Amendment concerns. These ads were actually deceptive, since they equated Islam with terrorism and support for Israel with defeating Jihad (whatever that means) yet that did not influence the analysis.

    • Talkback
      October 25, 2013, 5:22 pm

      Mike_Konrad says: “The green areas in 1946 were Mandate (state) land not private property.”

      Nope. They are a mixture of both.

      “Palestinian private property in 1946 was small. Most of the land was state owned.”

      Nope. About 49% was Arab land, while about 6% was Jewish, another 6% public and the rest not yet assigned.

      • lyn117
        October 25, 2013, 6:29 pm

        As someone pointed out, “public” under British terminology included communally owned land, such as that owned by a village or the Islamic Waqf. It was not the same as state-owned land. Another point is that a lot of the so-called “state owned” land, such as the arid regions of the Negev, were in fact used in a traditional manner by “Arabs” for e.g. seasonal grazing or farming, whose rights to use the land had been recognized by previous state entities ruling the area such as the British and the Ottomans.

    • talknic
      October 25, 2013, 11:35 pm

      Mike_Konrad “The green areas in 1946 were Mandate (state) land not private property”

      Incorrect. ‘land’ is ‘real estate’. The WHOLE of Palestine was Palestinian territory in 1946. It belonged to all the legitimate citizens of Palestine, whether they owned ‘real estate’, leased or rented ‘real estate’ , whether they were nomadic or lived under a bridge.

      “Palestinian private property in 1946 was small. Most of the land was state owned.”

      Irrelevant to the status of territory. BTW only a state can have state land. You’re admitting there was a state (there was a State with provisional recognition under the LoN covenant Art 22, reaffirmed in the LoN Mandate for Palestine, first line)

  10. Nevada Ned
    October 25, 2013, 1:28 pm

    Henry Clifford ought to sue. Even is he ultimately loses, he’ll delay the taking-down of the posters, allowing more time for them to be viewed.

    A more aggressive approach would be to leaflet commuters at the transit stops, saying “This is the poster that the Israeli Lobby doesn’t want you to see!” And encouraging people to complain to the transit authority because you want the posters to stay up.

    If the only complaints come from those who hate the posters, the posters will come down.
    But what if the transit authority hears from both sides??

  11. amigo
    October 25, 2013, 1:37 pm

    Screw them. Put them up in Europe

    • talknic
      October 26, 2013, 9:01 am

      @ amigo “Put them up in Europe”

      It’s the US using the Veto Vote in the UNSC that needs changing.

      • just
        October 26, 2013, 9:35 am

        Yep. And that is where President Obama needs to finally make the difference– with Samantha voting for justice (in our name) along with the rest of the “world”.

        (I can dream, can’t I?) It’s the single biggest change that will bring good things and good will to many all over the world. An end to the crippling hypocrisy that plagues us.

      • amigo
        October 26, 2013, 9:44 am

        “It’s the US using the Veto Vote in the UNSC that needs changing.”talknic

        I am aware of that but Europeans are not too well up on the details of this conflict either.Pressure on EU Politicians from grass roots here will prevent Israel from getting out from under the EU plans to curtail/end investment in Israeli firms connected to projects in the OPT.

        It will also give our EU politicians some cahones when being told what to do by Nobama and co.

        Pressure from the USA will never happen if it is not forced on them.
        The truth must be spread more widely.

        It will take a world wide effort to put the zioentity out of business.

  12. Kathleen
    October 25, 2013, 1:53 pm

    Contact MBTA. Let them know what you think about them first allowing this informative and factual ads go up then taking them down because of special interest pressure.

    Contact
    link to mbta.com

    • Ludwig
      October 25, 2013, 2:37 pm

      I just contacted them and complained. These ads are far from factual.

      • Misterioso
        October 25, 2013, 3:26 pm

        Au contraire. They are right on the money.

      • Ludwig
        October 25, 2013, 4:34 pm

        Excuse me Misterioso. CAMERA has made quite accurate refutations of these maps. You have to prove that CAMERA is wrong by turning down each one of their assertions. Just saying Au contraire isn’t enough by far.

      • seafoid
        October 25, 2013, 4:42 pm

        CAMERA has all the intellectual validity of Paris Hilton , Ludwig.

        Pull the other one.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 25, 2013, 4:43 pm

        no ludwig, you prove this is wrong:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        camera is a rightwing partisan zionist nakba denying site that’s been engaged in lies and half truths since it’s inception. no one is obligated to turn down each one of their assertions, or take them seriously in the least.

      • Ludwig
        October 25, 2013, 6:15 pm

        Annie,

        So am I. That doesn’t make those maps any less false. They are intellectually dishonest and that is the reason they are by and large rejected in public transit advertising.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 25, 2013, 6:39 pm

        and that is the reason they are by and large rejected in public transit advertising.

        yada yada yada according to nobody but you. unless you’ve got some supporting link this is just an allegation of an anonymous blogger.

      • Mike_Konrad
        October 25, 2013, 7:27 pm

        CAMERA is certainly biased; but most of the land was not privately owned.

        At lot of the land was unused or held in commons – like common town grazing land.

        This was a collusion of societies where one side (Western Jews) required deeds to claim ownership, while the other (Arabs) used traditional standards of historic use and residence.

        The Ottomans had not allowed private ownership until well into the 19th century.

        The Israelis use this loophole to claim that Arab land was unoccupied and not owned.

        Blood libel: The myth of ‘private Palestinian land’
        link to jpost.com

        I would not go so far as Moshe Dann. He is a bit extreme in making no allowance for any historical connection unless there is paperwork.

        link to jpost.com

        and many maps held by the British Mandatory government were accidentally destroyed.

        The Arabs claim the documents were destroyed on purpose in 1948.

        That being said: Most of the land was NOT owned or even occupied by anybody.

        Had the Arabs been thorough in settlement of the area in the occupation, there would not have been so many empty hills for the Israelis to build communities on.

        Most of the land was empty. I do not have to accept Mr. Dann’s view, but most of the land was NOT owned by anyone.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 25, 2013, 8:09 pm

        “They are intellectually dishonest and that is the reason they are by and large rejected in public transit advertising.”

        No, they’re being rejected because the Congress isn’t the only level of government at which the zios have poisoned our government in the service to this alien state.

      • lyn117
        October 25, 2013, 11:22 pm

        @ludwig
        Camera outright lies about the percentages owned by Palestinians prior to 1948. For example reducing the 28.6% “Arab total” by excluding Bedouin grazing and waste land, to come up with a figure of 6.8% as belonging to Palestinians. However, the 28.6% is in fact the approximate amount of cultivatable area from “A Survey of Palestine,” prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan gives as belonging to “Arabs& others” so where-ever Camera got the 28.6% figure from (they claim its from the above Survey of Palestine, that isn’t a figure the Survey gives), it already excludes grazing and waste land.

        The also largely lies. Please refute the following, point, by point, and please, I don’t regard the bible as an authoritative source. Regarding the StandWithUs maps:
        #1 There was no such thing as “Jewish” land in 1000 BC, because (among other things) the religion didn’t exist yet
        #2 The “Jewish Homeland” given in the Standwithus map is bogus – The map shows both Transjordan and Palestine being the “Jewish Homeland.” Even if one accepts that the British Mandate clause saying Palestine should be a “Jewish Homeland,” Transjordan was never part of Palestine; it was given to Abdullah by the British in April 1921 (although Abdullah had already effectively taken control by March 1921 – source: wikipedia); the British Mandate didn’t take effect until 1923.
        #3 The occupied territories are not part of Israel. Legally, Israel has no claim to them. It’s a distortion to claim they are “disputed” – and, if they’re really disputed, why doesn’t Israel grant all the inhabitants full rights anyway?

      • talknic
        October 25, 2013, 11:38 pm

        Ludwig “They are intellectually dishonest and that is the reason they are by and large rejected in public transit advertising”,/em>

        Uh huh. They’re going back up, your “reason” just egged your face

      • Kathleen
        October 26, 2013, 1:13 am

        Camera even has a CSpan Washington Journal watch. They complain about every factual comment about the conflict, Iran that comes in. So great to see that Cspan is not caving in totally to them. Calls keep coming in about this issue by the boat load. People are becoming far more aware of the facts via the internet

      • K Renner
        October 26, 2013, 4:51 am

        ha ha ha ha you’re absolutely hilarious.

      • talknic
        October 26, 2013, 9:14 am

        @ Ludwig ” You have to prove that CAMERA is wrong by turning down each one of their assertions.”

        link to unispal.un.org

      • talknic
        October 27, 2013, 2:11 pm

        @ Mike_Konrad
        “most of the land was not privately owned”
        In 1945 it was according to the British survey. link to domino.un.org and here for the extremely simple minded link to en.wikipedia.org

        Never the less, who private land was owned by is irrelevant. ‘real estate ‘ is not ‘territory’. Territory belongs to all the legal citizens in the territory. All the territory was Palestinian with Arab majority ownership of ‘real estate’

        “At lot of the land was unused or held in commons – like common town grazing land.”

        All part of the ‘territory’. Territory belongs to all the legal citizens in the territory. All the territory was Palestinian with Arab majority ownership of ‘real estate’

        “The Ottomans had not allowed private ownership until well into the 19th century.

        The Israelis use this loophole to claim that Arab land was unoccupied and not owned”

        unoccupied and not owned, still part of ‘territory’. Until May 15th 1948 00:01 (ME time) the territory was all Palestinian with Arab majority ownership of ‘real estate’.

        Israel was proclaimed and recognized almost immediately as it asked to be recognized ” as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ link to trumanlibrary.org

        “Blood libel: The myth of ‘private Palestinian land’
        link to jpost.com”

        ‘real estate; is not ‘territory’. Territory belongs to all the legal citizens in the territory. All the territory was Palestinian with Arab majority ownership of ‘real estate’

        “That being said: Most of the land was NOT owned or even occupied by anybody”

        ‘real estate ‘ owned or occupied or not, is not ‘territory’. Territory belongs to all the legal citizens in the territory

      • RoHa
        October 27, 2013, 10:12 pm

        Just another Zionist attempt to use legal obfuscation to avoid morality.

        “They didn’t have legal private ownership of the land so legally they weren’t there, so they can justifiably be driven from their homes and farms.”

      • marc b.
        October 25, 2013, 4:01 pm

        is that what you said, ‘these ads are far from factual’? I got news for you Einstein, most ads ‘are far from factual’. that’s the definition of advertising. did you also call to complain that the advertised toothpaste didn’t make you any more popular, or the vodka didn’t make you any more attractive?

      • Kathleen
        October 25, 2013, 4:49 pm

        But this ad proves to be more factual than those toothpaste or vodka ads. Did the MBTA really allow Pam Geller’s ads to be put up. If so this could be a great court battle. Would that be right lawyer folk?

      • jenin
        October 25, 2013, 5:01 pm

        a judge ordered the MTA to put up Geller’s ads. the problem is that lower courts are all over the map on this issue, so it could turn out differently in MA than NY. It really needs to be addressed by the Supreme Court. All the same, Henry Clifford should definitely take this to court. At the very least, the publicity would be great.

      • irishmoses
        October 25, 2013, 10:35 pm

        Hilarious marc b.

        Unfortunately, your Einstein reference ignores an important comment earlier this week by a well known and authoritative hasbarite (or should it be trollbarite, or maybe hasbarool?) who informed us that Einstein, despite his credentials, was really just another fool. The evidence offered in support of said harbarool’s conclusion was a posted quote by Einstein from 1948 in which he foolishly expressed his negative thoughts about Jewish terrorism.

        Ludwig may well feel insulted by your reference to him as Einstein since Einstein was naught but a mere fool.

        Also, I thought vodka made me more popular and toothpaste made me attractive. But what do I know.

      • Kathleen
        October 25, 2013, 4:45 pm

        Facts just get in the way hey Ludwig. Illegal confiscation of Palestinian land over decades. Building of an illegal wall confiscating more Palestinian land…facts get in your way
        link to foreignpolicyjournal.com

        link to icj-cij.org
        Press Release 2004/28

        9 July 2004
        Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall
        in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

        Advisory Opinion
        The Court finds that the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian
        Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law; it states
        the legal consequences arising from that illegality

        THE HAGUE, 9 July 2004. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today rendered its Advisory Opinion in the case concerning the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (request for advisory opinion).

        In its Opinion, the Court finds unanimously that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the United Nations General Assembly and decides by fourteen votes to one to comply with that request.

        The Court responds to the question as follows:

        – “A. By fourteen votes to one,

        The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law”;

        – “B. By fourteen votes to one,

        Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion”;

        – “C. By fourteen votes to one,

        Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”;

        – “D. By thirteen votes to two,

        All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”;

        – “E. By fourteen votes to one,

        The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”

        Reasoning of the Court

        The Advisory Opinion is divided into three parts: jurisdiction and judicial propriety; legality of the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; legal consequences of the breaches found.

      • Talkback
        October 25, 2013, 5:17 pm

        Ludwig: “I just contacted them and complained. These ads are far from factual.”

        Hahaha, you’re such a troll.

      • eljay
        October 25, 2013, 6:17 pm

        >> I just contacted them and complained. These ads are far from factual.

        More correctly: The ads are insufficiently factual. They don’t explain that Israel:
        – was born of Jewish terrorism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands;
        – is an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”;
        – remains engaged in a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction, torture and murder;
        – refuses to honour its obligations under international law;
        – refuses to be held accountable for its past and ON-GOING (war) crimes; and
        – refuses to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

      • talknic
        October 25, 2013, 7:37 pm

        @Ludwig The pro bullsh*t of the Israeli maps were also inaccurate. Complain about those too?

      • Ludwig
        October 25, 2013, 7:44 pm

        Talknic,

        No, I would never complain about a pro-Israeli map, unless it was not pro-Israeli enough.

      • Talkback
        October 27, 2013, 10:06 am

        Ludwig says: “No, I would never complain about a pro-Israeli map, unless it was not pro-Israeli enough.”

        Off couse Ludwig. You’re parodying someone who’s interested in Hasbara and not in truth. You’re the pro-Israeli version of Stephen Colbert.

      • MichaelRivero
        October 27, 2013, 12:00 pm

        Everyone watching while Ludwig stands there with his hair on fire insisting he does not smell smoke needs to remember that the government of Israel does indeed pay people to come these discussions and promote the Israeli bovine excrement.

        Here is just one report, from BBC.

        tinyurl (dot) com/mw4f7wo

      • talknic
        October 27, 2013, 2:16 pm

        @ Ludwig ” I would never complain about a pro-Israeli map, unless it was not pro-Israeli enough.”

        LOL you support maps that are completely irrelevant to the actual legal status of Israeli sovereignty, recognized as the Israeli Government asked to be recognized May 15th 1948 link to trumanlibrary.org

      • MichaelRivero
        October 27, 2013, 2:22 pm

        Just because Israel asks for something does not mean it should be granted. As one example, Harry Truman changed his recognition of Israel deleting the phrase “Jewish State” and substitution “State of Israel.”

        The biggest problem with Israel’s demand to be recognized is that they have never officially declared where their borders are. Where does Israel end? That must be known before anyone can agree to it.

      • heartbeatt
        October 28, 2013, 5:46 am

        The Truman-Israel story is a wretched one and was declared by his daughter as the “worst mess of his presidency”. His government was harassed, lied to, browbeaten and even threatened (others were bribed) by Zionist groups and members of his own party in favor of Zionism warned that he would lose the next elections if he did not vote for partition and removing restrictions on weapon sales to Jews in Palestine. Partition never would have taken place without huge Zionist lobbying. The vote itself was delayed several times because there not enough countries in favor and they had to be whipped into shape. All attempts of Arabs to be heard and by Jews to prevent partition were quashed by the Zionists. Now, how can any of that be considered legal?
        Besides, the UN vote is always mentioned by Zionists for validity, yet they consider the UN a quasi-irrelevant body when it comes to votes they do not like. All international votes against the construction of the wall and the occupation and the brutal treatment of children and and and are blocked by Israel and the USA. Israel wants it all their way.
        As for all the discussion of Palestine ever existing legally. It was recognized as a part of the Middle East by all in the early 20th century. My father was a British officer who was sent to PALESTINE, where his life was endangered by the actions of Jewish terror groups. – one of many decent British men who was horrified by the expulsion of Palestinians from their land and their homes.
        The Middle East was the HOME of different peoples for generations until Britain, France, and Russia (later the US) began vying for power and creating new borders as the Ottoman empire faded. It was referred to as Palestine (even by Zionists) and all the subsequent “it never existed” are simply attempts to erase truth. I highly recommend reading “Might Over Right: How the Zionists Took Over Palestine” by Adel Safty.
        The fact that a small group of Zionists could manoeuvre their way in tells us a lot about the power that lobbying and deceit can have if you are audacious and ruthless enough. Did corporations learn from Zionists, I wonder?

      • talknic
        October 29, 2013, 10:27 pm

        MichaelRivero

        “Harry Truman changed his recognition of Israel deleting the phrase “Jewish State” and substitution “State of Israel.””

        A) According to these sources it was only a draft that Truman had been sent link to google.com.au“Jewish+state”+on+the+draft+cabled+him

        link to i280.photobucket.com

        Note carefully how the the word “of” is written. I’ve never found another handwritten document where Truman wrote “of” like this

        Examples of Truman’s “of” link to trumanlibrary.org and link to trumanlibrary.org and link to trumanlibrary.org and link to trumanlibrary.org

        B) Here’s another version of events

        Two blocks from the White House, Zinder, sitting in the car Epstein had provided, crossed out with a pen the words “Jewish State” link to google.com

        C) Here is the final draft

        IMMEDIATE RELEASE MAY 14, 1948
        STATMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
        This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof.

        The United States recognizes the provisional government
        as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel. link to trumanlibrary.org

        “The biggest problem with Israel’s demand to be recognized is that they have never officially declared where their borders are”

        They did in the plea for recognition

        “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” link to trumanlibrary.org

        ——–

        And here’s another version of events with some typical Zionist deceit by omission. Notice how they omit reference to Israel’s frontiers

        “My dear Mr. President,” it began, “I have the honor to notify you that the state of …. ” Here Epstein and I had a problem – we did not know the name of the new state. After some discussion, Epstein simply typed in “the Jewish State” and finished the letter. I asked Epstein to be sure the letter explicitly referred to the November 29 UN resolu­tion. The document ended with a minor rhetorical flourish that we worked out over the telephone together:

        With full knowledge of the deep bond of sympathy which has existed and has been strengthened over the past thirty years between the Government of the United States and the Jewish people of Palestine, I have been authorized by the provisional government of the new state to tender this message and to express the hope that your govern­ment will recognize and will welcome [the new state] into the com­munity of nations.

        Epstein handed the letter to his press aide, Harry Zinder, and told him to take it to my office immediately. As I waited anxiously for it, Epstein got word on his shortwave radio that the new state would be called “Israel.” He immediately sent a second aide after Zinder to change the letter. Two blocks from the White House, Zinder, sitting in the car Epstein had provided, crossed out with a pen the words “Jewish State” and inserted the word “Israel.” Zinder then proceeded to my office. It was the first time I had heard the name of the new state.
        link to jcpa.org

        However the latter is not even the same document as the 1st I mentioned here.

        It is typical of Israeli propaganda … make as much confusion as possible for as long as possible

  13. Mivasair
    October 25, 2013, 3:22 pm

    Doing good media work on this can be as effect or even more so than having the ads run.

    It’s actually a great opportunity to draw attention to the issue of “Disappearing Palestine” as well as the issue of the suppression of information and public discourse.

    I hope the folks in Boston who put the ads up are going to do all they can to get this story into the mainstream media where it can do as much or more good than the ads themselves.

  14. Mayhem
    October 26, 2013, 12:46 am

    4.7 million Palestinians are classified by the U.N as refugees

    Very devious wording. According to standard definitions of what is a refugee according to the UNHCR the true number of Palestinian refugees today would be about 30,000. However UNRWA has established its own unique definitions to ensure the issue of Palestinian refugees never goes away. Further evidence that the UN is a total joke – refer link to blogs.timesofisrael.com

    • talknic
      October 27, 2013, 2:31 pm

      Mayhem “Very devious wording. According to standard definitions of what is a refugee according to the UNHCR the true number of Palestinian refugees today would be about 30,000. “

      Oh? What is your source? Refugees or 1st generation refugees with RoR to a specific area at the time UNGA res 194 was adopted in 1948?

      “However UNRWA has established its own unique definitions to ensure the issue of Palestinian refugees never goes away. “

      The UNRWA definition is specifically to determine who qualifies for relief while they are a refugee.

      UNRWA’s limited mandate link to unrwa.org

      (Q2) “Is UNRWA involved in the Middle East peace negotiations and in the discussions on a solution to the refugee issue?”
      (A2) “No. UNRWA is a humanitarian UN agency and its mandate from the UN General Assembly defines its role as one of providing services to the refugees. As such, the Agency is not involved in the political discussions on the future of the refugees.“

      “Further evidence that the UN is a total joke”

      A moronic argument. The UNRWA definition included Jewish refugees and UNRWA cared for in Israel until the Israeli Government took over responsibility in 1952

      ” blogs.timesofisrael.com “

      Elder of Ziyon? What a joke.

    • tree
      October 27, 2013, 3:09 pm

      According to standard definitions of what is a refugee according to the UNHCR the true number of Palestinian refugees today would be about 30,000. However UNRWA has established its own unique definitions to ensure the issue of Palestinian refugees never goes away.

      I’ve already showed that this is totally false here:

      link to mondoweiss.net

      UNRWA’s definition of refugee is in line with the UNHCR definition.

      In case you need to be lead by the hand to the source, here it is, in the UNCHR’s Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, section 5: Processing Claims Based on the Right to Family Unity:

      5.1 Derivative Refugee Status

      5.1.1 General Principles

      Family members/dependants of a recognized refugee may apply for derivative refugee status in accordance with their right to family unity.

      Family members/dependants who are determined to fall within the criteria for refugee status in their own right should be granted refugee status rather than derivative refugee status.

      Individuals who obtain derivative status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognized refugees, and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that a child reaches the age of majority. Procedures relating to cancellation and cessation of refugee status will also apply to persons who have received derivative refugee status.

      link to unhcr.org

    • RoHa
      October 27, 2013, 10:23 pm

      “According to standard definitions of what is a refugee according to the UNHCR the true number of Palestinian refugees today would be about 30,000. ”

      And Israel cannot even take back so small a number?

      “However UNRWA has established its own unique definitions to ensure the issue of Palestinian refugees never goes away.”

      And nor should it until Israel takes responsibility for the issue. To allow it to go away would be legitimise ethnic cleansing.

  15. PeaceThroughJustice
    October 26, 2013, 2:30 am

    “Their removal was the result of a miscommunication between the MBTA and its contractor, Titan. “

    Politically sensitive ads are too common these days for this to have caught the MBTA without all kinds of procedures in place. They lose out if they appear to cave in to pressure groups (to say nothing of the legal liabilities). Could Titan have wanted to misinterpret the situation? My first instinct in stories like this is to look for Jewish positions of power.

    link to investing.businessweek.com

    • Ellen
      October 27, 2013, 10:46 am

      PTJ, yes. This has the appearance of a contrived “miscommunication” originating with Titan. The unprofessional language of the email is suspect and is also not how sponsors are informed that their ads are to be withdrawn, if only a “heads up.”

      It is most very likely that Titan, a private company, wanted the ad campaign killed off.

      • ritzl
        October 27, 2013, 11:30 am

        Yep. The pro-Israel machine is so used to doing things because it can get away with it as the last word. No push-back. Not so much anymore.

        See Eric Alterman.

        Yay!

      • MHughes976
        October 27, 2013, 12:21 pm

        It does seem as if the pro-Palestinian side has at last, in the form of that map, found a form of rhetoric that has some effect in the public arena and alarms the other side somewhat.

  16. MichaelRivero
    October 26, 2013, 11:45 am

    Don’t you ever get sick of all the Israeli whining?

    “We don’t care if there is a first Amendment; our feelings are hurt! You don’t love us when you allow the truth to be put on public display! You must be anti-Semites!(whine whine whimper whimper)”

    • just
      October 27, 2013, 9:59 am

      It’s more than “whining”. It’s furious desperation because the mask has fallen, and Zionism is increasingly laid bare in all of its ugliness.

      Speaking of masks that have fallen:

      link to youtube.com

      (RIP Mahmoud Darwish)

  17. Kathleen
    October 27, 2013, 12:47 pm

    Great that they went back up. Although where ever that communication broke down should be looked into in a very serious way. “Breakdown” who and why would be a few of the questions I would be asking. Who was part of that so called “breakdown”

  18. Ludwig
    October 27, 2013, 1:13 pm

    And how come you think you have the right to deface pro Israeli ads? I think it is yours that should be defaced. If I lived there I would completely destroy those ads.

    • talknic
      October 29, 2013, 10:41 pm

      @ Ludwig “And how come you think you have the right to deface pro Israeli ads?”

      Good question… but then

      ” I think it is yours that should be defaced. If I lived there I would completely destroy those ads

      Say Ludwig… how come you think you have the right to deface pro Palestine ads?

    • Woody Tanaka
      October 30, 2013, 7:58 am

      “And how come you think you have the right to deface pro Israeli ads?”

      Because defacing the lies, put out to support one of the greatest evils in the world today, has a positive social value.

  19. amigo
    October 29, 2013, 5:26 pm

    “If I lived there I would completely destroy those ads.” earwig

    And then you would promptly arrested and put in administrative detention.

    You would be in a juvenile center in keeping with your mental stature.

    Oh, no visitors and no Lawyer .All done Israeli style.

    enjoy and watch out for the creepy crawlies earwig.

Leave a Reply