STARTING SMALL

The following paragraph is one publisher's (ABC-CLIO) introduction to the text of UN Resolution 181 on the partition of Palestine (1947). It contains 115 words in 4 sentences on 9 lines. How bad could it be? What could go amiss? What could one possibly find offensive in such a brief statement? In a word: plenty.

United Nations: resolution on the partition of Palestine (1947)

 On November 29, 1947, the United Nations (UN) adopted this resolution, number 181, calling for the partition of the former British colony of Palestine into two separate nations: Israel for Jews and Palestine for Arabs. The effort was designed to answer calls for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, particularly after the horrors suffered by the world's Jewish population during the Holocaust. However, Palestinian Arabs adamantly rejected the UN resolution and refused to contemplate such a division of their country. Jews in the region ignored Palestinian protests and declared their portion of Palestine the independent nation of Israel in 1948, sparking the first of many Arab-Israeli wars in the second half of the 20th century. 

"United Nations: resolution on the partition of Palestine (1947)." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2011. Web. 17 June 2011.

The first sentence is a statement of fact. From there, the direction is downhill. There is no context for the phrase “answer calls” – what calls? who called? I have no idea; do you? The second part of that sentence, “particularly after the horrors [of the] Holocaust,” suggests that the impetus to form a Jewish state was a direct result of the Holocaust. Not true. This ignores  (1) the continuous history of Jewish residence in the area, (2) the Dreyfus Affair [1894] and the Kishinev pogrom [1903] which, between them, sparked the development of the Zionist movement, (3) the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and (4) the Mandate for Palestine of 1922.

While it is true that the Arabs rejected the UN resolution, the reference to “their country” is a falsehood of the first magnitude.  The implication is that (1) all Arabs living in Palestine in 1947 were native to the area, and (2) the area was recognized as a political entity under Arab rule. Both inferences are incorrect. Many, and likely a majority, of the Arabs living in Palestine in 1947 had emigrated from other Arab lands as the Jews created infrastructure and employment opportunities. Palestine was never itself an Arab polity; the only direct rule on the land was that of the Jews prior to the fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

In the next sentence we read the following: “the Jews ignored Palestinian protests.” In fact, there were no “Palestinians” in 1947, other than the Jews. The Arabs were not calling themselves “Palestinians” until after the 1967 war. As for the Arab protests, according to historian Barbara W. Tuchman, “All the Arab claims of later years cannot conceal the fact that both the old Sherif Hussein and Feisal, the active leader, were cognizant of and acquiesced in the exclusion of Palestine from the area of their promised independence, whether or not they had any mental reservations. Even after the British intention to make room in Palestine for the Jews was made public they did not take exception.” [Bible and Sword, p. 329].

In the same sentence mentioned in the previous paragraph, the author refers to “their [the Palestinians’] portion of Palestine.” The Arab portion of Palestine, according to the Palestine Mandate, was east of the Jordan River (Transjordan, presently known as Jordan). In fact, the Mandate called for close settlement of Jews on the land west of the Jordan River.

The final portion of the last sentence, “sparking the first of many Arab-Israeli wars,” implies that the wars were the fault of the Jews for declaring the Jewish State of Israel in 1948. The Arabs had been slaughtering Jews in Palestine long before 1948; the year 1929 saw Arab massacres of Jews in Hebron and Safed, two of the four most holy Jewish cities in the region. In fact, the “many Arab-Israeli wars” were initiated by the Arabs, with the Israelis fighting primarily defensive actions (with the exception of preemptive actions in Gaza and Lebanon).

The publishers state that “Unlike other databases that aggregate information without context, Issues, Release 2.0 offers the complete historical background and contemporary status of each issue and also provides supporting facts, figures, and timelines.” I hope that statement reassures you!

A NEW HISTORY FOR A NEW CENTURY

In 2011, Gale Cengage Learning (a Gale product) offered free access to their online resources April 10-24, in celebration of National Library Week. I am a retired librarian, and this notice piqued my interest as many of these resources were not available at my final library assignment.  Further, it had been some years since my assignments involved reviewing reference materials for acquisition. I was familiar with the major titles and the venerable and venerated publishers, but not with the “new history” contained in the “current and updated” articles.

My first venture was into Cengage’s Global Issues in Context, and I started with their Overview article on Israel. The only paragraphs that did not demand revision were those dealing with latitude and longitude and the description of the physical features of the country.

I contacted the Managing Editor and provided a critique of the article. The article was reviewed and, indeed, revised. While the revised article still has some problems, it is much improved from the original.

But, that is one article amongst many, and I found roughly half a dozen additional problem articles in that resource. Cengage also publishes other resources, including Opposing Viewpoints. I found the same problems with articles on Israel and the Middle East in that publication.

In reviewing the article on Israel in World Book Online I found similar misrepresentations of Israel, both in tone and in content. (World Book has reviewed this article and changed one entire word). ABC-CLIO, another publisher of reference materials, produces Issues: Understanding Controversy & Society. Ditto to the problems in Gale and World Book.

The editors with whom I communicated at Gale and World Book were cordial, concerned and responsive. However, they did not appear anxious to have me critique all the “questionable” articles in their publications.

As well, I perceive this as the tip of the iceberg. There are at present roughly half a dozen to a dozen major players in reference publishing, and they appear to be interconnected. Consequently, the flavor of their products is quite similar.

Added to the monotone color of the publishers is the issue of their advisory boards, editors and authors that provide “expertise” acquired from Saudi and Iranian funded Middle East Studies programs in America’s colleges and universities.

Lest you think that my statement is unduly critical, the following are opening sentences from three separate articles from ABC-CLIO’s Issues: Understanding Controversy & Society:

(1)   “The country of Israel, located in the volatile Middle East, has actively engaged in espionage throughout its history.” (article on “Israel”)

(2)   “The state of Israel often strikes specific terror suspects from helicopters and gun ships, and many times innocent people are killed.” (article on “International Terrorism: Outlook”)

(3)   “Palestine is a historical area of the Middle East now largely within the boundaries of the Jewish state of Israel.” (article on “Palestine”)

I will be posting articles from these and other online reference resources and critiquing each article. Stay tuned!