‘Disappearing Palestine’ ads in Vancouver provoke vicious and hysterical response

ActivismIsrael/Palestine
on 47 Comments

In October, 2013, ten ads went up in Vancouver transit stations depicting loss of Jewish land in the middle east since 1000 BCE. It turns out that in that time Jewish land had shrunk by a factor of five or so. These advertisements were responding to ads put up in transit stations and on sides of buses over a month before by the Palestine Awareness Coalition.  PAC had the more modest aim of showing Palestinian loss of land only since 1946, which ended in a small continuous patch called Gaza and specks of discontinuous territory in the West Bank.

(Image: StandWithUs)

(Image: StandWithUs)

The response ads were put up by a group called StandWithUs which bills itself as “supporting Israel around the world.” The organization had previously countered pro-Palestinian advertising in Denver, Houston, Helena, Missoula and elsewhere. “A combination of anti-Israel groups pretend to be pro-Palestinian,” StandWithUs CEO Roz Rothstein said. “The bottom line is they don’t want an Israel. They want Israel to be gone.”

Palestinian Wall ad

(Image: Palestine Awareness Coalition)

The original Vancouver ads were designed and paid for by seven actual local pro-Palestinian groups: Boycott Israeli Apartheid Campaign, Building Bridges, Canada Palestine Association, Canada Palestine Support Network, Independent Jewish Voices, Seriously Free Speech and Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights, later joined by a national Canadian organization, Canadian Friends of Sabeel / Near East Cultural & Educational Foundation.

I am a member of IJV-Vancouver, and I believe that our design was as territorially accurate as it could be, given the graphic streamlining of advertising. A professor of political science at the University of British Columbia stated that the ads simply showed “statements of fact,” but his name, Hani Faris,  got him disqualified as an expert by a writer in the Jewish Independent (We wondered if we could work the same magic on Alan Dershowitz sometime ). Our design was pretty straightforward: a graphic illustration of statements like the following:

In over 60 years, around 700 Jewish communities have been established in Israel’s pre-1967 borders–but just seven for Arab citizens (and those were built in the Negev for “concentrating” the Bedouin population). The average Palestinian community inside Israel has lost up to 75% of its land since 1948, while a quarter of all Palestinian citizens are internally displaced, their property confiscated for use by the state and Jewish towns” (Ben White, The New Statesman, February, 2005).

The lands in question were actually not taken over in the name of the state, since this could be construed as illegal confiscation, but handed over in trust to the Jewish National Fund for state and individual Jewish use. We thought this obvious fact might still be a new and alarming piece of information for many in our intended Canadian audience. Similar graphics exist by the hundreds on the Internet and have been the basis of billboard and transit advertising at many US sites. This very graphic is used by Wikipedia to illustrate its article on Palestine.

The response ads were quite unhinged: the first panel shows a sprawling mass of territory identified as the “Ancient Jewish Kingdom” of 1000 BCE, while the second shows a territory easily three times as large as the present state, identified as the “Jewish Homeland” of 1920, i.e. all of British-controlled Mandate Palestine (regardless of the actual minuscule Jewish population). The third panel shows the present State of Israel with Gaza and the West Bank identified as “disputed territories”–a breathtaking act of geopolitical chutzpah.

The nature of a coalition is such that it erases all sharp extremes, so we naively thought that we had advanced a non-controversial statement of fact designed to educate the Canadian public: the land had disappeared, and we didn’t even blame any entity for its disappearance. But the response told us we had done something despicable and devastating. The backlash was vicious, and hysterical–as it so often is–quite out of keeping with the “provocation.” The response came, not from the Jewish community, but only from that bullying sector that always responds fiercely to any criticism of Israeli policy. In a curious way, the ferocity of the pro-Israel response guaranteed the success of our campaign better than anything we could have done ourselves. (The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) even wrote, “Countering these ads in the public domain (on buses, for example) would only raise the profile and lend credibility to these marginal groups,” to solace their supporters.

We couldn’t be called self-hating Jews, since only one of the groups was Jewish, but we were nonetheless accused of wanting to destroy the state of Israel, and we had timed the ads so that they would appear over Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. In fact we had no control over the timing, but as my wife Martha pointed out, the interval between the two holy days is traditionally a time for reflection and repentance.

Mitchell Gropper, chair of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, called the ads a provocative attack on Jewish people that would incite hatred. “This is of grave concern to our community at large, because the ads make the use of the buses unwelcome and unsafe,” Gropper continued, linking it with terrorist attacks in Israel that often target buses. The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center in Toronto agreed that TransLink was running ads “that are provocative and incite hatred and contempt.” Stephen Schachter, the co-chair for CIJA, told us that there were  “members of the Jewish community who say they are not going to use transit and are very concerned about safety issues as a result of this kind of advertising,” a motif that was elaborated on by an op-ed writer in the Vancouver Sun:  “I can’t imagine the anxiety of a Jewish parent, with no other transportation option, sending their child off to school wearing a yarmulke on a bus featuring these ads. I’m worried that these ads could, at any time, provoke an unbalanced or even just ill-informed person to lash out verbally or physically.”

It was just the right emotional context for unconscious betrayals: we were accused of wanting to wipe out the state of Israel when we were claiming that that was almost precisely what Israel had already done to Palestinian territory. It was a trenchant instance of an old Hebrew adage that says “The accuser accuses himself.” And the B’nai Brith Canada hinted at indecent exposure in the typo in the title of their article:  “Exposé: Whose Behind Anti-Israel Ads in Vancouver.”

Liana Shlien of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies told us that Palestinian land could not be disappearing because, “In truth, an official state of Palestine had never existed, while Jewish contiguous presence on the land is a record of fact.” And others lathered on the same stock distortions and misstatements that are regularly used to silence criticism of Israel. To all of which we could only repeat that Palestine is universally understood as the name of a geographical region in southwest Asia on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, inhabited for centuries, and without interruption, by a people known as the Palestinians who are of different faiths: Muslim, Christian and Jewish; and who assumed a predominantly Palestinian Arab culture in the seventh century. All of these elements, Palestinian land ownership, the indigenous people of the land and the indigenous culture, are disappearing, as our four maps show. To say or imply that these things cannot be disappearing because the boundaries of a Palestinian state have not yet been set by an occupying power and a subject population is the sheerest casuistry.

A subsequent donation allowed us to keep the wall mural up for an extra month, and our opponents then changed tactics: tearing down the ads three times, immediately after we had them put up again. We assume it was our opponents (or some small subset of them); we couldn’t imagine ordinary criminals taking such offense at our images.

We are thinking about what to do next, but our efforts will continue.

47 Responses

  1. BillM
    October 16, 2013, 12:34 pm

    Gotta love StandWithUs. I can only say that Israel supporters are extremists been on subjugating as many of Israel’s neighbors as possible. But they can prove it.

  2. pabelmont
    October 16, 2013, 12:43 pm

    They “called the ads a provocative attack on Jewish people that would incite hatred.”
    Well, gee whiz. If these ads are provocative, is it because of the use of buses or the time of year. When and where — in other words — would it be OK to display the loss of Palestinian lands. If nowhere and notime, then I guess friends of Palestine are meant to be stuck. “Keep you arguments to yourselves where they will not be provocative and incite hatred.” (But, what if the ads merely incited quite reflection and not hatred, what then?)

    And if mere Palestinian presence is deemed (by a few excited Jews) not enough to make these lands “Palestinian”, then how did the vastly smaller Jewish presence in the original (and very, very brief) larger Palestine Mandate (which for a year or so included Jordan, before Jordan was removed from the territory earmarked for Jewish settlement) (and how many of those very few Jews in 1920 lived in Jordan, exactly , he asked) make that territory “Jewish”?

    But, hey, you cannot expect logical coherence from excited hasbaristas. (And that raises the linguistic question, whether or not Starbucks has baristas. Joke.)

  3. talknic
    October 16, 2013, 1:02 pm

    Persist!

  4. seafoid
    October 16, 2013, 1:05 pm

    Palestinian state never existed while jewish continuous presence is a matter of record. Total non sequitur.

    Jewish state didn’t exist pre 48 , neither did Jewish majority, neither does jewish majority today.

    • MHughes976
      October 16, 2013, 3:30 pm

      A non-Jewish continuous presence is equally undeniable.

      • seafoid
        October 17, 2013, 1:16 am

        This canard that there was never a Palestinian state therefore the Palestinians are without rights is one of the most odious in the hasbara canon.

        • MHughes976
          October 17, 2013, 1:49 pm

          And completely illogical. The rights of individuals cannot depend on whether their ancestors ruled particular territories. Who could think such a thing?

        • seafoid
          October 17, 2013, 3:44 pm

          Exactly. Or the notion that jewish rights are superior to all others- who in their right mind would accept that? It always comes back to pathological narcissism.

        • lysias
          October 17, 2013, 3:58 pm

          There was never an Irish state before Irish independence. What there had been before the English invasion was a bunch of separate kingdoms.

          There was never a state of India before Indian independence. What there had been before the British was a bunch of separate kingdoms.

          There was never an American state before the American Revolution. What there had been previously was a bunch of separate colonies dependent upon Britain.

        • ziusudra
          October 19, 2013, 3:38 am

          @lysias,
          …. there was ne’er an Irish State before Irish Independence……

          & so be it, there was ne’er a State, Territory, Country Israel before
          Statehood of Israel in 1948!
          They also only had three puny Kingdoms. Hebron, Israel, Judea!
          All betw. 1026BC & 586BC! They all paid Tribute to the ruling powers,
          Canaan, Egypt, Hitite, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Persia, with or w/o Kingdoms.
          ziusudra
          PS After the Conquest of Britain in 449AD, there were many AS Kingdoms on the Isle. Kingdoms were a Progress before State/States.

    • thankgodimatheist
      October 17, 2013, 7:04 am

      “jewish continuous presence is a matter of record. ”
      Never above 1% of the population for centuries until the 1920s/30s.

  5. kalithea
    October 16, 2013, 1:58 pm

    First of all, the 1920s image is a LOAD OF CROCK and using 1000 BCE to stake some kind of claim via unrelated Euro-Eastern bloc settler thugs is laughable. But is anyone surprised when Zionism reveals itself to stand for pure G.R.E.E.D i.e. “We want it all; every last inch.”? You will never see a more vitriolic, loathsome, vengeful response than when you try to take power away from Zionists.

    Empower the truth at any cost and expose this monumental swindle called ZIO-NISM. That’s the only way.

    See, the problem is you can’t deal with a bunch of thugs in a civil manner. There’s only one way to deal with BULLIES when they try to push you out with lies and vitriol.: If they’re mean (and that’s an understatement) – put your pants on and GET MEANER!

    Besides the disappearing land; Occupation represents oppression: tractors demolishing homes; people lined up in cattle cages; sniper towers on the Wall; famers attacked by settlers, foreign soldiers arresting children on their own land, ghettoized refugee camps; the proof of ethnic cleansing. Try a montage – there’s certainly plenty of material- with a headline that might read: “THIS is OCCUPATION…” I, however, would prefer: THIS is ZIONISM, which is in fact the greater truth. But people still don’t get how evil Zionism really is (sigh…); they don’t get that it’s an inherent evil that will always exist as long as Zionism exists. The frustrating aspect of this struggle is that, unfortunately, this truth is lacking on ALL sides and totally ignored when in fact it’s plain as day already and unfolding before our eyes. Even the side trying to rectify the injustice ignores this truth.

    In my opinion, until everyone gets on that same page and admits that: Zionism IS inherently evil; Palestinians are doomed to perpetual injustice, and all efforts to rectify this injustice are doomed as well.

    The only route that will be successful will begin with admitting that Zionism is inherently an evil, twisted experiment, ideology or whatever the hell it is; the least but maybe the truest of which is DELUSION.

    • seafoid
      October 17, 2013, 3:46 pm

      Zionism is evil. The jewish state is not valid at any price regardless of the implications. It will be such a mess when it collapses.

      • jon s
        October 20, 2013, 11:12 am

        Zionism originated as an admirable, even heroic, attempt to liberate the Jewish people from centuries of existing as a persecuted minority. It was an authentic national liberation movement.

    • lysias
      October 17, 2013, 4:04 pm

      Another scientific study that discredits Ashkenazi claims that they have a right to Palestine: NYT: Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree:

      Over the last 15 years geneticists have identified links between the world’s Jewish communities that point to a common ancestry as well as a common religion. Still, the origin of one of the most important Jewish populations, the Ashkenazim of Central and Eastern Europe, has remained a mystery.

      A new genetic analysis has now filled in another piece of the origins puzzle, pointing to European women as the principal female founders, and to the Jewish community of the early Roman empire as the possible source of the Ashkenazi ancestors.

      The finding establishes that the women who founded the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Europe were not from the Near East, as previously supposed, and reinforces the idea that many Jewish communities outside Israel were founded by single men who married and converted local women.

  6. LanceThruster
    October 16, 2013, 2:45 pm

    The histrionics has always been part of the defense mechanism of dismissal and denial.

  7. seafoid
    October 16, 2013, 2:48 pm

    Telling the truth in Galut about the Jewish state is ‘provocative’.

    Am I bugging you?
    I mean to bug you.

  8. Dutch
    October 16, 2013, 5:24 pm

    @ Marty Roth

    Thanks for the very good work and your continued efforts.

  9. Mike_Konrad
    October 16, 2013, 5:40 pm

    The Palestinian drawing has an error.

    Most land in the area in 1948 belonged to no one, but was state land, not owned by Jews nor Palestinians.

    • talknic
      October 17, 2013, 6:41 am

      Mike_Konrad

      “Most land in the area in 1948 belonged to no one, but was state land, not owned by Jews nor Palestinians”

      Try to follow please….

      Jewish or not, ALL the citizens of Palestine were Palestinians from the moment the Palestinian citizenship Law was adopted under the Mandate for Palestine up until Israel was declared independent of Palestine (effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 ME time precisely)

      ‘real estate’ was ‘owned’ by Jewish and non Jewish Palestinians. But ‘real estate’ is not ‘territory’. ‘territory’ includes both ‘real estate’ and state lands

      Prior to Israeli independence, the ‘territory’ of Palestine including state land and real estate ‘belonged’ to all its legal citizens whether Jewish or non-Jewish Palestinians, whether it was state land and whether they owned ‘real estate’ or leased ‘real estate’, whether they were nomadic or homeless bums living under a bridge.

      You say they were state lands. If they were state lands before the State of Israel was declared, a state MUST have existed.

      At 00:01 May 15th 1948 ME Israel was effectively independent of Palestine according to the Israeli 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.”

      At precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948, some Jewish and some non-Jewish Israelis owned ‘real estate’ in Israeli ‘territory’ and; some Jewish and non-Jewish Palestinians owned ‘real estate’ in Palestinian ‘territory’.

      The ‘territory’ of the State of Israel belonged to all the citizens of Israel, including state lands and all real estate. The ‘territory’ of Palestine belonged to all the citizens of Palestine, including state lands and real estate.

      Israeli territory did not belong to Palestine or Palestinians and Palestinian territory did not belong to any Israel or Israelis.

    • Woody Tanaka
      October 17, 2013, 8:51 am

      No, you’re wrong. But did you notice that every one of the isreali drawings is a complete lie?

  10. K Renner
    October 16, 2013, 5:50 pm

    Well, to these people, most everything is “anti semitic” or “hateful”. If you didn’t throw yourself in front of a car that was going to hit a random jewish person jaywalking at an intersection, they would accuse you of “anti Semitism”.

  11. miriam6
    October 16, 2013, 6:05 pm

    About an upcoming debate on Israel in London this October 20th.
    link to battleofideas.org.uk

    • Annie Robbins
      October 16, 2013, 11:36 pm

      left-wingers turn a blind eye of convenience to portrayals of Israelis as blood-sucking Jewish monsters. Has legitimate anti-Zionist protest allowed itself to merge into anti-Semitism? Do the supporters of Israel play into this by calling any challenge to Zion anti-Semitic?
      …….Why is it that what might be considered the normal business of a state protecting itself draws fierce moral condemnation and comparisons with Apartheid when that state is Israel?

      miriam…the occupation and domination of millions of individuals who have NO SAY in the who governs over them (knesset/military rule in the territories) is not “normal business of a state ” unless one is referencing a colonizing state, and could you please link me to an example of this alleged Israelis as blood-sucking Jewish monsters please?

      nothing like setting up a strawman back to back w/nakba-apartheid denial. if you want to set up a debate, why not do it on terms reflecting reality? or does your side need a handicap at the offset?

      • miriam6
        October 17, 2013, 2:47 am

        Annie@;

        nothing like setting up a strawman back to back w/nakba-apartheid denial.

        Many progressives in the West today seem to regard Israel as a problem they wish would just go away. How different from the post-war period, which saw widespread support on the left in Europe and America for Israel’s mission to build a socialist state in the Middle East. Many went to join Kibbutzim and actually take part in the work of creating that promised land. In recent decades, however, Israel’s international image has been dominated by its treatment of the Palestinians, and it is regarded more like a pariah state than a utopia. Zionism is widely imagined to be a type of fascism..
        The PLO-chic keffiyeh is the accessory of choice among student radicals, but more significantly, ‘no platform’ policies and academic and cultural boycotts increasingly target Israel and Israelis. And Pro-Palestinian demonstrations today increasingly see left-wingers turn a blind eye of convenience to portrayals of Israelis as blood-sucking Jewish monsters. Has legitimate anti-Zionist protest allowed itself to merge into anti-Semitism? Do the supporters of Israel play into this by calling any challenge to Zion anti-Semitic?
        Whether the motivation is anti-Semitic or not, Israel does seem to be held to different standards than other states. Why is it that what might be considered the normal business of a state protecting itself draws fierce moral condemnation and comparisons with Apartheid when that state is Israel? What makes Zionism and Israel so uniquely unpopular?

        THAT is what was actually SAID in the blurb for the debate.
        You are being disingenuous when you drop in the allegation of Nakba denial.
        NOWHERE on the blurb for the debate on the link in my earlier comment does it even MENTION the Nakba – never mind ‘denial’ of it..

        YOU are the one setting up a ‘straw man’ argument..

        if you want to set up a debate, why not do it on terms reflecting reality? or does your side need a handicap at the offset?

        What’s the matter Annie? Afraid of a real reality reflecting debate outside the cosy bubble confines of Mondoweiss?
        Afraid of a fair debate where people are not handicapped by censorship or the three paragraph blockquote instructions I was ‘limited’ to recently- despite the fact other commenters were/are clearly allowed 8 paragraphs?
        Y’ know THAT sort of fair debate as conducted on MW?

        You need to get your MW supporters in London ( all five of them! ) out to attend the debate..Perhaps they are afraid of a debate too..

        You asked for proof that pro Palestinian protesters have referred to blood thirsty Israelis – well – here is some photo evidence all from the same website – which also includes one placard claiming 9/11 to be a Jewish conspiracy – plus the banner comparing Israelis to Nazis – absolutely standard slogan practice I have noticed at these anti Israel demonstrations;

        Also these links give an insight into how the fanaticism of anti Israel people is thought of in the real world..

        Left-wing paper’s editor looked genuinely shocked at the suggestion that his paper’s criticism of Israel could, down the line, lead to attacks against Jews, even though the Guardian employs exactly the same sort of chaos theory to silence critics of immigration and multiculturalism.
        (Incidentally, serious critics of immigration and the race relations industry don’t paint immigrants as blood-stained monsters, which is how the Guardian’s Steve Bell has depicted Israelis).

        link to blogs.telegraph.co.uk

        link to theguardian.com

        • talknic
          October 19, 2013, 3:01 am

          @ miriam6 Any state in breach of laws, conventions and the UN Charter which were in part adopted because of way the Nazi’s did to our Jewish fellows IS rather Nazi like. That the Jewish state Governed predominantly by Jews is in breach of those laws is quite bizarre and deserving of denouncement as being naziesque

          Spillers of innocent blood deserve to be painted as bloodstained monsters link to wp.me

        • Annie Robbins
          October 19, 2013, 5:28 pm

          THAT is what was actually SAID in the blurb for the debate.e

          yes, obviously i know that miriam, after all i blockquoted your deranged link myself! and this is a strawman:Pro-Palestinian demonstrations today increasingly see left-wingers turn a blind eye of convenience to portrayals of Israelis as blood-sucking Jewish monsters..

          i hear criticisms of israelis and zionists all the time, and there are no portrayals of Israelis as blood-sucking Jewish monsters. this is the very definition of strawman. setting up an argument that presupposes left-wingers turning a blind eye ..to something that doesn’t exist! (or if it did it is so rare .00000001% of the population has ever witnessed it. why are you dragging this crap in here?

          You are being disingenuous when you drop in the allegation of Nakba denial.
          NOWHERE on the blurb for the debate on the link in my earlier comment does it even MENTION the Nakba

          what is this: Many went to join Kibbutzim and actually take part in the work of creating that promised land.

          we know very well Kibbutzim was actually NOT taking part in the work of creating a ‘promised land’ unless they are denying the nakba! it was facilitating ethnic cleansing whether they know it or not. the entire pretext of the ‘debate’ is a set up. it’s not there to debate what isreal is doing, what’s going on politically. the entire forward leads to:

          “Has legitimate anti-Zionist protest allowed itself to merge into anti-Semitism?”

          i have no fear miriam, this is more of the same ol same ol, pro israel supporters obsessions w/anti semitism. this is as old as old! it’s the numero uno crutch. and you call it real reality reflecting debate outside the cozy bubble confines of Mondoweiss?

          ha! what a joke. and here’s their next ‘question’ is prefaced w/’Israel .. held to different standards than other states? ‘

          no other state supported by the US/UK w/billions of our tax dollars is imprisoning 1/2 the population for decades!

          and what’s this hogwash nakba denying question: Why is it that what might be considered the normal business of a state protecting itself draws fierce moral condemnation and comparisons with Apartheid ???

          this is a set up for every question assumes a position already. why do you beat your children miriam? afraid to discuss why you beat your children? afraid to discuss why you call your children bloodsuckers?

          What makes Zionism and Israel so uniquely unpopular?

          it’s apartheid! what idiotic hasbara!

        • Annie Robbins
          October 19, 2013, 5:35 pm

          talknic pillers of innocent blood deserve to be painted as bloodstained monsters

          they said ‘bloodsucking’. show me one example of ‘bloodsucking’

          and not some alleged unphoto-shopped poster allegedly flying above at a rally either.

          this is supposed to be a ‘serious’ debate on TV and the premise is ‘lefties are turning a blind eye to jews being accused of being bloodsucking monsters’. does anyone take this crap seriously.

          miriam is a professional threadjacking troll.

        • Bumblebye
          October 19, 2013, 6:41 pm

          @miriam666
          “Israel’s mission to build a socialist state in the Middle East”
          Sorry miriam, they left out a word before “socialist” when they wrote that – shoulda reminded everyone about the “nationalist” nature of the zionist dream, only Jews included! No Palestinians please, we’re determined to be ethno-supremacist!

        • miriam6
          October 19, 2013, 7:07 pm

          Bumblebye@;

          The fact is that those Israelis 60+ years ago did fancy they were setting up a Socialist state – albeit one that largely if not entirely excluded Arabs and depended on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs.

          That their claim to have been setting up a socialist Israeli state is now in question does not alter the fact that they THOUGHT they were socialists.

        • just
          October 19, 2013, 7:25 pm

          A “socialist state” bought and paid for by the American taxpayers who still have shills for AIPAC in Congress trying like hellions on earth to defeat ACA.

          Who, exactly, is this Israeli “socialist state” for, miriam?

    • amigo
      October 17, 2013, 7:32 am

      Should be some debate. Not one Palestinian or Palestinian supporter on the Panel.

      Miriam’s idea of balanced debate.Go and lap it up Miriam.I am sure your taste buds are perfectly tuned for this tripe.

      Daniel Ben Ami.

      Expert in Economioc and Finance.

      Impartial ???.

      Ruth Deech.

      She is a patron of the Community Security Trust, and a trustee of the Roth Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at Tel Aviv University. She was a governor of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, and a member of the Commission on the Representation of British Jewry 1998. In 2002 she was Jewish Care Woman of Distinction.

      Impartial, not.

      Paul Bew a member of the Anglo Israel association.

      Impartial, not.

      Ben Dror Yemeni.

      Read one of his articles on the Gaza war to see inside this guys head.Hardly impartial.
      link to docs.google.com

      Impartial, not.

      Alan Miller.

      Could not find out where he sits on the I/P issue.

      He writes on various cultural issues for several publications, including spiked, Culture Wars, the American and the Huffington Post and is a regular contributor to BBC London rounding up the week’s news.

  12. MRW
    October 16, 2013, 8:47 pm

    So how are the response ads being received. It’s unclear to me.

  13. RoHa
    October 16, 2013, 8:49 pm

    “In truth, an official state of Palestine had never existed, while Jewish contiguous presence on the land is a record of fact.”

    Making such statements reveals a level of intellectual corruption matched and reflected in their moral corruption. Moral integrity and intellectual integrity are linked.

  14. K Renner
    October 17, 2013, 10:26 am

    In all seriousness- the rambling and whining (and outright lying offensiveness of the anti-Palestinian hate group “standwithus”) of different Jewish organizations is nothing more then a pathetic attempt to shut down any sort of debate over the illegality and vileness of past and ongoing Israeli actions.

    The idea that the ads that show the facts about Palestine would cause people to “attack” random Jews is particularily laughable in Canada, one of the countries where a massive state of holocaust neuroticism still exists– but only as far as the Jews are concerned.
    Especially disgusting when you consider that these “watchdogs” will go to great lengths to slander and otherwise lie about entire communities of people they don’t like who live in Canada.

    The only posters that are offensive and false are the “standwithus” ones, and the primary offensive, abrasive language (real, not made up) comes from the idiotic, bigoted hypocrites at “standwithus”.

    It is telling that the rest of the mainstream Jewish establishments in the country effectively do stand with that particular hate organization and pretend that the pro-Palestinian movement is illegitimate and that it is the Palestinians (and a lesser extent the Lebanese) who are in the wrong because they refuse to evaporate into thin air to make room for Jews with zero connection to the Levant for well over a thousand years.

    Unprecedented levels of cringe-worthy, slimy hypocrisy. Makes me sick.

  15. mondonut
    October 17, 2013, 3:03 pm

    To all of which we could only repeat that Palestine is universally understood as the name of a geographical region in southwest Asia on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean…

    Why the graphics are lies:

    1) 1946 – It should all be green. Land owned by Jews (yellow) 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 – Umm…. Did they mean Jordan and Egypt? Because if occupying and controlling the land does not change its color, then what’s up with…

    4) 2012 – Areas B and C are not Israel.

    • seafoid
      October 18, 2013, 5:07 pm

      “And to imply the rest was arab owned is another falaehood”
      Israeli legalese regarding present absentees would seem to indicate very little of the land was not owned by Arabs.

    • talknic
      October 19, 2013, 1:53 am

      mondonut

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

      Yes it should all be green ‘real estate’ owned by Jews is not ‘territory. It was all Palestinian ‘territory’, regardless of who owned ‘real estate’

      “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.”

      True the UN plan did not label the proposed partitions as Israel and Palestine. However Palestine WAS partitioned by default of the FACT that Israel became independent of Palestine

      “3) 1949-1967 – Umm…. Did they mean Jordan and Egypt? Because if occupying and controlling the land does not change its color”

      Egypt and Jordan did not claim Gaza or the West Bank for themselves

      “4) 2012 – Areas B and C are not Israel”

      Nor is area A or any of the other territories Israel illegally acquired by war by 1949 link to wp.me NONE of it has ever been legally annexed to Israel.

      • mondonut
        October 19, 2013, 4:22 pm

        @ Talknic

        Non-verbose mode. You agree they are false. Thx.

        • talknic
          October 20, 2013, 8:55 am

          @mondonut Inaccuracies in these maps do not make any difference to the Internationally recognized legal extent of Israeli sovereignty as it asked to be recognized. Anything outside those frontiers are quite simply not Israeli until they are annexed to Israel. Thus far NO territory has been legally annexed to Israel.

        • piotr
          October 20, 2013, 9:44 am

          Thinking about it, neither Assyria nor Egypt nor any other country making archives on non-perishable materials had agreed with the first map. They haven’t even noticed such claims.

      • Talkback
        October 20, 2013, 5:32 am

        Talknic: “… Israel became independent of Palestine …”

        A nice way to describe that the Junta took over. It would have been different, if the people in this territory had been asked.

        • talknic
          October 20, 2013, 8:13 am

          @Talkback “It would have been different, if the people in this territory had been asked”,/em>

          Of course. Even Balfour admitted to the injustice of the Palestinians not being afforded self determination

  16. Talkback
    October 19, 2013, 3:13 am

    From the article:

    “Liana Shlien of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies told us that Palestinian land could not be disappearing because, “In truth, an official state of Palestine had never existed, while Jewish contiguous presence on the land is a record of fact.””

    I guess she or her ancestors were never citizens of the mandated state of Palestine. So not civil rights, but contiguous Jewish presence seems to be more important to her. Even more important than the vast majority of contiguous Nonjewish presence. She’s sems to be just another racist judeocentric Apartheid nutcase.

    • piotr
      October 19, 2013, 5:59 pm

      Liana is a good girl and nicely repeats what the older people told her. But really, now I started to doubt what she wrote about figure skating link to postcity.com

Leave a Reply