History of Maps and Cartography - Assignment Example

?Word count: 3044 Envisioning Space: Critical Map Review of A Land Swap Proposal Introduction One of the most contested maps in the modern world is the Israel/Palestinian map. Actually, it is not the map itself as a physical representation of a geographic divide but the political representation that this map brings. Incidentally, boundaries and land areas have been the source of bloody warfare and other catastrophic human problems throughout history. Maps, in the process, have but served as instruments of these situations. They guide the ones with power as maps were traditionally owned by them, while it barely represented those who have not. In fiction, maps were stolen by those who have-nots from those who have power. Maps were a source of pirates to find treasures, or guides where loot may be stashed. Realistically, maps served the same purpose for those who have legal power and the pirates. Politically, the geographic location of Israel and Palestine has caused so much trouble worldwide it continue being a global issue, specifically a concern for the United States, the United Nations, and all developed nations. It remains the most intriguing, highly-politicised map the world ever has. For decades now, the map of Israel/Palestine have not only divided views but also divided sides of wars. It is for this matter that the researcher has found interest on the proposed map of land swap regarding the latest negotiation rounds of Israel and Palestine. The researcher will try to critically review the map‘s functionality considering its historical and political views for its merits and drawbacks if any, and propose its own understanding on the matter. Discussion A. The Map: A Land Swap Proposal The map in consideration is a proposed land-swap between Israel and Palestine from Washington Institute Near East Policy as published in New York Times (2011). The map consists of the basic geographic outlines and with emphasis on strips or areas of lands considered by the proponents to be swapped between the two conflicting countries. The depiction also included bodies of water in light blue, political geographic divisions, and color-coded land areas. Interestingly, the map only acknowledged Israel and did not indicate or provide distinction between Israel and Palestine lands. The map as a schematic presentation provides not only referential images but also an explanation that: Jewish West Bank settlements are a major complication in defining a Palestinian state. A possible solution is to exchange territory between the two sides – land swaps. Now, the Washington Institute for Near East policy, a pro-Israeli research group, claims that Israel could absorb 80 percent of the Jewish settlers by exchanging land presented in this map. This plan is not currently being considered in the negotiation process (Landler, 2011, P1). Map 1: A Land Swap Proposal Source: New York Times, 2011. Prior to indicating an analysis and discussion of the map, it is important to provide a backgrounder about the source of the map. The New York Times claim that the Washington Institute Near East Policy is a pro-Israeli think tank group as it was founded by scholars linked with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (Landler, 2011). The latter is a well-known pro-Israel lobbying group. The proposed map aimed to guide negotiators in coming up with a new Palestinian state in the West Bank but in consideration of the Jewish settlers that live there. The figures say that in the proposed map of land-swap, Israel could absorb up to 80% of its settler population in exchange of 5% of the West Bank to the Palestinians. Previously, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert proposed in 2008 a land area equivalent to only 6.3% of territory seized during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war but Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas want only to return 1.6% of the contested land (Landler, 2011). Representation figures and accuracy of the map provides an immediate bias of swapping as there are more and totally bigger areas to be swapped by the moss-green for the orange areas. As Landler (2011) observed, “Mathematical tradeoffs are sprinkled throughout these maps,” (P 15). Historically, this analysis will refer to previous maps published that provide a narrative of how two nations now claim of a single territory. But before it will dwell to comparisons and analysis, it will reconsider the identity and various aspects of a map. B. A Map: An Overview In order to explore and critic a map for this paper, it is important to fully comprehend the information about maps, their purpose, and peoples’ understanding about them. A map is a product of envisioning with the purpose of introducing geographical significance of a visual object to communicate or impart information in an effective and appropriate manner (Parry and Perkins, 2000). It should be understood that geographical knowledge is based on fieldwork observation, mapmaking, survey, as well illustration and photography. It is about physical and external images dependent on what and how the source of information may view or see it (Parry and Perkins, 2000). In general, a map is a visual product, a piece of information that can be grasped through the visual sense, one that is seen and part of or independent of a whole (Parry, and Perkins, 2000). In James Elkins’ The Domain of Images (1999), he proposed two forms indicating images where maps may be classified: emblemata where there is a combination of text and image such as print and video advertisements, and the schemata which presents text, images, and notations that may include diagrams or maps, and in the electronic information age – software interfaces (Elkins, 1999). There are various mediums or media for visual products, from canvass paintings, books, newspapers, billboards, signages, cinema, television, cartography, and most recently, mobile and multimedia. Media itself means a form of communicating so that maps are themselves a form of media. Certain characteristics may be presented on a map: first is its aesthetic quality that educates people about best practice or professionalism; second is its optics that provides flow or transmission of message; third is genre where classification can be identified; fourth is its politics where emphasis is provided (Perkins, 2010). A map aside from visual representation may also be an abstraction of reality wherein purpose guides the surveyor (Dodge, 2011-lecture). It may encompass visible, solid, fixed and relatively permanent structures instead of moving or changing objects. Certain classifications, groupings, or aggregation is usually provided in a map so that most of the time, “legends” provide explanation on a given map. Examples of these maybe a community map where town centre, recreation, plaza, church, school, municipal or government facilities, roads, bridges, or commercial spaces are defined. On other times, it is the topography that is presented in a map. It is also highly possible to provide political divisions of areas such as countries, states, provinces, cities, towns or municipalities, subdivisions, and even districts. As much as any form of media, a map is therefore flexible in its genre and basically depends on its purpose. Certain characteristics are also present in any map classification including accuracy and precision, objectivity, (Kryger and Wood, 2011) so that cartographers are tasked at choosing the most appropriate way to generalise reality depending on their purpose. The functionality of a map is analysed through its creations, the actual image presented, audience viewing, and the spaces of circulation. It is therefore necessary for the geographer and the cartographer to determine all these functionalities during the planning and drafting stages of map making. It has been suggested that cartographic scholarship have limited their concern and disregarded the audience and space a map may inhabit although many maps today indicate commercial and economic purposes. Historically, maps have evolved and now come digitised, interactive (lecture), and easy to use for many peoples and individuals. From a global view, one may zoom in to a certain location as much as the Google map could handle and find out distances of one location to another. Other innovations include the detection of natural topographic details, buildings, and physical presence where digital technology may capture. This was made possible through information and communication technologies further pushed by mobility innovations. In fact, many programs are now based on maps or use of maps such as digital location of objects and peoples, indication of time and space, among others. Political Description of a Map A map traditionally represented power. It was leaders who ordered the creation of maps for their guide in seeking out new territories, conquering territories, locating their subjects, classifying their stock and resources in a given sovereignty, among others (Harley, 1989). It has been suggested that the Babylonians made the oldest maps of clay tablets circa 2300 BC. It was further developed by the Greeks who were the earliest to be aware of a spherical Earth by the time of Aristotle or ca 350 BC. By the time of Claudius Ptolemy, a world map was produced, the Guide to Geography or Geographike hyphygesis used until the Renaissance. The Medieval period was defined by religious power with Jerusalem already the centre of the of the world and by the 12th century, Viking explorations were integrated to maps illustrated by hand. By the 17th century, the common geographic maps we know today emerged and evolved from then so that modern cartography has become a mix of remote visualisation and ground observation (Aber, 2008). C. Analysis of the Land-Swap Map In releasing the map to various politically-connected individuals or institutions, the source of the map, analyst David Makovsky, suggested it was to stimulate “their” thinking (Landler, 2011, P 18) referring to negotiators and decision-makers about the Palestine-Israel conflict. On its own, the map has been criticised to have neglected other issues when drawing up the map such as security of Israel, the fate of Palestinian refugees, status of Jerusalem, and several others such as the effect of several years of tension after uprooting 9,000 settlers in 2005 (Landler, 2011). In addition, several other considerations shall be taken into account, which are the opposing historical views on the contested lands drawing from two narrative map groups. Reference points are important for the researcher to determine the merits as well as basis for the map being analysed and reviewed considering that functionality, history and political views are used to analyse the map in question. Map 2 Source: Swearengen, 2007. Map 3 The two additional map groups illustrate the conflicting narratives that have led to the drawing up of the map being analysed. In this manner, a sequential opinion becomes apparent. The three maps seem to come from three political or historical views. It was observed that the map under review is the most neutral of the tree. The second map group provided a more recent historical Arab view in consideration of the decades of Ottoman Rule and then the British Mandate and the third map group included Biblical narratives. It depicted a longer narration that dates back to King David’s time ca 970 BC, the movement of the 12 tribes of Israel, and the diaspora on the third illustration of which a yellow majority can be seen on the map. More importantly, the last two map groups provided an overview of movements between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The second and third map groups, however, provide a continuity that validates a sovereignty of Israel over Palestine. What may come to be a question is the history and map of the lands prior to King David’s time. A missing era, however, cannot be missed: that of 142 BC to 1947 of which an outsider will ask where the Israelis are and to give credence to the Palestine state. Historically, there already is a clear bias that has emerged in the formation of the Israel state. It drew on its biblical roots the historical narratives of its neighbours or existing nations, states, vassals, tribes, and others. Taking from the Bible, it could be established that the 12 tribes of Israel (Jacob) assimilated with existing tribes during their time, and these were mainly shepherd tribes such as Canaan, with other established governance such as that of Babylon, one of the earliest mentioned sovereignty in the Bible. Several others were also acknowledged until that time of Herod and Julius Caesar (NIV, 2011). The reference to King David and King Solomon establishes an Israel that was vast and prosperous. But succeeding war with other tribes and the downfall of its leaders led to the staggering fall of the twelve tribes of Israel which the Bible also acknowledged. It also mentioned the scattering of the Jews or Israelis as well as their persecution (NIV, 2011). What Israel determined was that history was centred on their own without the existence of the “others”. This has been the tragedy that the modern world needs to contend with until now. The map being reviewed has eliminated history except Israel’s own. It continues the tradition and arrogance that its powerful leaders depict to disregard the histories of others and focus on an ambition and vision that its leaders want to achieve. Historically and politically, the map provides a lot of other information that has been abstracted and yet obviously detracts from a popular understanding that should encompass objectivity in consideration of possible reaction of other viewers who may have or given an access to it. Incidentally, its widespread circulation on the internet attests to the reality of this need for objectivity. As mentioned earlier, the functionalities of a map consider its space and viewers or users. For the cartographer of this map, it only considered the view of a few, specifically, Israeli leaders. Dangerously, it might influence better-minded Israeli leaders considering the equality of peoples’ rights to lands they occupy or considered as their historic birth right. And its circulation has affirmed that the space it occupies is no longer the originally intended space but a bigger, global one. Apparently, there was no sensitivity on the part of the proponent about this possibility of “leakage” as the would want to present. Returning on the physicality of the map in question, many absent elements are needed to fully understand it when it is to be used by the general public. At first view, the clarity of the intermittent moss-green areas in the map of the institution was very evident. It seemed to have picked up from the first illustration of the 3rd map and the 4th illustration in the second map: the diaspora period. From most neutral accounts, it has been pointed out that the problem have arisen from the Zionist movement at the turn of the 19th century when nationalism swept nations across the globe due to the growing tension under imperialist European rules (Karady, 2004). It was at this time that the Israelis dispersed in many nations have decided to establish an Israeli haven state where they will govern and decide for themselves. This growth is illustrated in Map 2. Subsequently, Israel at the modern times has grown. In a more practical manner, a person without prior background information of the Israeli and Palestine conflict may find the map of analyst David Makovsky as a “specialist” one. It is coded and useful only for certain groups of persons who may be politically and strategically knowledgeable about the area being depicted. In fact, the map, as mentioned earlier, only indicated Israel, and then the legend boxes where the colour guides may be referred to as “Land swapped to Israel” and “Land swapped to Palestine”. The most immediate question a non-expert on the issue would ask will be: Which is Israel and which is Palestine? Drawing from references, the non-initiated will be doubtful about the actual areas in contest – by size or sizes. It seems there remains still a lot that Israel wants it is almost an irony Palestine exists at all or continues willing to exist at all. This irony, of course, is clearly depicted in the David Makovsky’s map. It shouts with the question whether there is even a Palestine if not an afterthought to be provided with land swaps. Lastly, the map is a digression from its intended purpose to draw two states – Palestine and Israel, but to discredit, albeit subtly, the existence of another state on that map except Israel. Conclusion The map of Washington Institute Near East Policy analyst David Makovsky is an attempt at providing a guide for negotiators for the end or halting of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Maps provide information, and on the part of the reviewed map, it provides several messages and impressions. First of the few is its political stance. Obviously, without referring to the criticism of the New York Times, it came from a pro-Israeli camp. It is a map that will guide an Israeli leader. It is a map intended for a powerful if not politically influential pro-Israeli. It is not a map for the public nor for uninformed person. It is important that a person who will view the map be aware of the political transformation the map has gone through as well as define the abstracted territories between Palestine and Israel before he can provide any form of understanding on it. Secondly, the map was made in accordance with a lobbyist’s requirement, eliminating the functionality of its message on the viewer or the public. It did not recognise the reaction of a bigger audience but presented with audacity and probably, even disdain for the rest of the global audience. What it intended to do was far from what its sources pointed out as a starting point or consideration. It established the pitiful condition of the Palestine groups that occupy the map that is called Israel in this map’s context. As mentioned earlier, objectivity, accuracy and precision are certain characteristic expectations from a map. Given that the map is a strategic guide for political decision-makers and negotiators, the sources or owners should have been as discreet about leaking it to the media as possible. Certain nationals as well as better-minded Israelis are insulted in the process: they, too, have rights over lands and they, too, have histories, with or without their gods. Maps should then remain objective, precise, and accurate in case it becomes leaked to the public or a wider audience than what has been originally intended. Otherwise, the modern era of digital technologies will return to the days of the pirates. Reference: Aber, James. (2008). Brief History of Maps and Cartography. Academic Emporia. Accessed from http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/map/h_map/h_map.htm Harley, J.B. (1989) Deconstructing the map, Cartographica 26(2), 1-20 Karady, Viktor (2004) The Jews of Europe in the Modern Era: A Socio-historical Outline Central European University Press, Ch 1 (Diaspora in Europe and the World in Numbers). Landler, Mark (2011). Trying to Break Logjam, Scholar Floats an Idea for a Palestinian Map. New York Times, January 22. Accessed from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/world/middleeast/23boundary.html?_r=1 McLaughlin, Tom (2011). Clueless Commander. May 25. Accessed from http://tommclaughlin.blogspot.com/2011/05/clueless-commander.html New International Version (NIV). (2011). Bible. Biblica. Parry, R.B. and Perkins, C. (2000) World Mapping Today. London, Bowker Saur. Swearengen, Al (2007). What if Israel had turned back? Dead Issue. Accessed from http://www.deadissue.com/archives/2007/06/05/what-if-israel-had-turned-back/#more-1246 Read More