« | Home | »

Facts in the Air

Tags: | | | | |

A good way to grasp what’s happening to East Jerusalem and the Occupied Territories is from the air. Google Earth can do that for you, but there’s a history of contention: in 2006, users created tags for Palestinian villages that were destroyed during the war of 1948-49; the following year Fatah’s al-Aqsa Brigades were said to be checking potential Israeli military targets against Google Earth pictures; last year there was a controversy over the Israeli coastal town of Kiryat Yam, when a user called Thameen Darby posted a note claiming it was formerly a Palestinian locality ‘evacuated and destroyed after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war’. Kiryat Yam, its residents protested as they reached for the nearest lawyer, was built in the 1930s.

A common objection to the tagging of villages emptied or razed during the nakba is that living memory, along with other kinds of record, doesn’t always get it right: several villages identified as casualties of the war were already uninhabited before 1948. A bigger gripe, voiced by André Oboler last year in Jerusalem Issue Briefs, was that user contributions, mostly from Palestinians, have been incorporated into Google Earth’s ‘core layout’, meaning that visitors ‘wishing to find directions, explore the cities of Israel, or randomly wander across this small piece of land are immediately taken to a politically motivated narrative unrelated to their quest’. By contrast, the WWF’s material on deforestation and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s information on Darfur are ‘custom’ layers. You really have to want to go there.

Sooner or later, if this were to continue, Google Earth would become a virtual dogfight over every disputed area of the planet, from Western Sahara to the East China Sea – or that’s the Oboler argument. At the same time, the web is one of the few places where Palestinians, losing ground by the day to the realities of occupation and settlement, can make their aspirations plain. (And put the modest query: is there any such thing as a non-‘politically-motivated’ map of Israel and Palestine?) Only not on Google Earth – or not any more. At a glance it looks as though Google have taken Oboler’s objections seriously and changed the core layer.

Palestinians are not forgiven for demonstrating or resorting to violence, and it’s no surprise to find them taken to task when they defend their dwindling lands to the best of their abilities on the internet – especially on Google Earth, which gave them a rare promontory in the war of position from which they could look down at the scale of their dispossession and chart it, for others to grasp.

In the non-virtual space of the West Bank, this kind of viewpoint is seldom available to Palestinians, because Israel has grabbed the high ground and dug into it, changing the skyline and calling the shots. Last week the Palfest contingent set out for the remains of the countryside around Ramallah with Raja Shehadeh, the author of Palestinian Walks: it took a bus ride and a descent on foot between two terraced slopes before we had a glimpse of a landscape without an Israeli settlement shimmering above it. The security towers along the wall bid for height and vantage in the same way. You can’t be in the territories without feeling overawed and observed – some distance, in other words, from Fanon’s sense that the colonised are largely ‘invisible’, ignored and unexamined by the coloniser. To be on the West Bank is to feel like a walking X-ray or a tagged convict, monitored in high places.

This two-tier geography, with the occupiers raised above the occupied, has some startling applications. During the 39-day siege of the Church of the Nativity in 2002, the Israeli army put a remote-controlled sniper rifle at the top of a crane in Manger Square: facts in the air, as the people of Gaza know, can be as vivid as facts on the ground. Nowadays in Hebron, as you walk through the market in the old town, you move under long strips of mesh strung across the street by Palestinians to protect them against the rubbish, stones and bottles thrown by the settlers who live above. You’re encouraged to move quickly even so – the nets are no good against urine or bleach. The market in Hebron is not the bustling place it used to be. The settlers have done for it, just as the occupation has done for so much of Palestine. That’s the idea of staying on top.

Comments on “Facts in the Air”

  1. Joe in Australia says:

    A family up the road from me – a Jewish family – used to live in Hebron. They fled from the Arab massacres of the 1920s and moved to Jerusalem, but were expelled from there when Jordan invaded. They became refugees and one of their kids eventually ended up in Australia.

    Wherever you went in the West Bank you were probably passing areas where Jews once lived. They don’t live there any more. The facts in the air and facts on the ground you described cut both ways but nobody remembers people like my friends up the road. In any final settlement it is probable that Hebron will be part of the Palestinian Authority and that there will be no Jews in Hebron ever again, just as there are presently no Jews in any part of the West Bank that isn’t guarded by Israeli troops.

    I don’t have any solutions for that battered and embittered part of the world, but at least I don’t support a solution that boils down to “We’ll kick the Jews out and everything will be OK.”

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement