What role have maps played in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? 

What role have maps played in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? 

"Boundary, n. In political geography, an imaginary line between two nations, separating the imaginary rights of one from the imaginary rights of another. "

(Ambrose Bierce (2001). “The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary”, p.28, University of Georgia Press )

        A map is a geographic tool and, when properly constructed, is used to understand the complex world around us. According to Jacques Levy and Michel Lussault's Dictionary of Geography and Corporate Space, a Map (Map, Karte) is a representation based on a language, characterized by the construction of an analog image of a space.

The map is the main tool of the geographer / cartographer: he knows the codes and can use it to support these remarks. But it seems that not all maps are cartographic productions created by cartographers but not designers or journalists who do not have all the codes and the right way to build a map. A map is not just a drawing with color, it is information in the form of lines that comments, understands and can be commented. It is a discipline in its own right and it is imperative to learn how to create a representation that must be reflected. Maps and geographic information are used to express and transmit knowledge about the land space and our living environment. They thus help to inform the choices and decisions made daily, both by communities and by individuals. In the example chosen, the cartographic dimension is combined with the geopolitical dimension to create one of the biggest misunderstandings of the 21st century.

So I wanted to address the insoluble Middle East conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, through a testimony of Shari Motro in the magazine "Legalaffairs" and the article of September / October 2005 on "Lessons From the Swiss Cheese" Map "which, from my point of view, perfectly illustrates the drifts of cartography in geopolitical contexts and can explain which role they have the cards in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

        It was more than 100 years ago, a regional conflict quickly became the most complex and discussed the modern world. Two peoples for a territory. That means new places, new trade routes and more important: new frontiers. Historically, the partition of Palestine is due to Great Britain in 1917, A.Balfour then Minister of Foreign Affairs, promises a Jewish home in Palestine against a military support and promises the independence of the liberated territories of the Automans empire by people who rebel: the Arabs. What they do for the Transjordan and Iraq then under a British mandate. When in Palestine, it is designed to welcome Jewish people while the Jewish population of Orignia is only a minority.

The situation of Europe in the interwar period pushes the Jews to migrate and feed these homes in Palestine and the end of the 2nd WW2 migrations continue and increase drastically, stimulating the tensions with the Arabs. The UN is taking control of the conflict after the withdrawal of the British, who are ending their mandate in Palestine, and proposes to divide the region into two separate states leaving the international state in a state of flux. This partition proposal is rejected in large numbers by the Palestinians and generates a civil war. The state of Israel takes advantage of the chaos and declares its independence on the 14th but 1948 and brings about the war israelo-Arab. It then follows civil wars and attacks for the control of territories claim by each of the populations. The UN then tries to deal with the problem by proposing the Oslo Accords in 1993 but the two peoples do not reach an agreement.

[pic 1]

        It was in 1995, two years later, that the United Nations organized the agreements that interested us here, Oslo II, where Shari Motro, professor of law at the University of Richmond and senior at Empax, a think tank that studied the role of graphic design in diplomacy, is sent. She is sent there to, among other things, translate parts of the Oslo II agreement in 1995 from English to Hebrew so that they can be ratified by the state of Israel and Palestine. During these agreements, he is asked to "direct me to trace certain lines and shapes" to create the "Swiss cheese card" that challenges the text of the Oslo agreements. In his testimony, no geographers or cartographers were present to help her create this map and no one paid attention to the international scope of this piece of paper where lines were drawn for the borders and colors for the peoples.

The division into two states of Palestine was not a good idea and probably still not today, no one believes in the idea of separating a country into several parts so that population can take root.

[pic 2]

        In 1995, the Oslo II accords were to be signed by the Palestinians and the Israelis to "redeploy" the Israeli troops and reach an agreement. During these peace talks, a map was unveiled to the Palestinians: the map of "Swiss cheese". Unfortunately, the map was not totally in agreement with the texts that had to be ratified. The agreement was to reveal 3 zones: A, B and C.

Part A would comprise 3% of the area and would be under Palestinian control with most population centers. Part B would house 24% of the population, the majority of whom would be Palestinian. The control for this territory would be joint control (Israeli and Palestinian). Finally for Part C, that is the rest of the West Bank, it would be under Israeli bailout at the beginning and then transferred under Palestinian control little by little. The first estimates show that the Israelis control 73% of the territory (parts B and C) and that part C would become Palestinian.

But the map of "Swiss cheese" did not convey the right information. Zone A is not highlighted, Zone B seems to be a scattered archipelago without real connections and Zone C seems to belong to Israel since there is no difference in colors, labels, borders, figurative or filling that may indicate a separation and a possible transfer to Palestinian control. In addition, this map makes no mention of the Gaza Strip, which remains a major issue in the conflict.

This map is meant to reflect the Oslo II Agreement's discourse as a graphic argument for understanding the overall situation. But a map must also be objective and free of interest for one party or the other since a cartographer, with the graphic means at his disposal, can work a map in different ways to give it different meanings and emphasize a certain point of view.

...