"Misinformation about the history of partition reinforces selective narratives. In this case, these narratives are anti-Palestinian. The article portrays Israel as if it was uniquely victimized or given exceptional treatment."
April 28, 2025
Dear Sandra E. Martin and Doug Saunders,
I'm writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME, cjpme.org) to express concern about the article, “The modern Middle East was shaped by Canada. Should we finish the task?,” written by Doug Saunders and published by the Globe and Mail on April 25, 2025.
The article states:
“The partition of the territory into two parallel countries, one majority Arab and one majority Jewish (though it was the Jewish state that was divided into two disconnected strips of land), with Jerusalem as a shared capital.”
This characterization of the UN Partition Plan is inaccurate in three significant ways.
First, both the proposed Jewish and Palestinian state in the 1947 plan were composed of non-contiguous territories. The Jewish state was divided into three main sections: the coastal plain, eastern Galilee, and the Negev desert. Similarly, the Arab state would have included separate zones in central Palestine, the hill country, and parts of the south. Thus, to claim that only the Jewish state was “divided into two disconnected strips of land” is factually incorrect and presents Israel as if it faced a uniquely unfair condition, when in reality both states were subject to the problem of non-contiguous territories. This is plainly evidenced by the UN Partition Plan for Palestine Map:
Second, the claim that these lands were “disconnected” is also somewhat misleading. UN General Assembly Resolution 181 does specify the boundaries of the territories, but not how passage between them would function. However, as you can see in the map above, it appears that there would have been corridors to pass between the territories, as they are all narrowly linked.
Third, the claim that Jerusalem was to be a “shared capital” is incorrect. Under UN Resolution 181, Part III states that, “The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.” To describe this as a “shared capital” is wrong.
Misinformation about the history of partition reinforces selective narratives. In this case, these narratives are anti-Palestinian. The article portrays Israel as if it was uniquely victimized or given exceptional treatment. It also suggests that Israel has a historic legal right to control Jerusalem because of your claim it was supposed to be a “shared capital.” The Globe and Mail has a responsibility to present historical facts accurately. I urge you to publish a correction and ensure future reporting and commentary reflect the full, nuanced truth of Canada's role in the region.
Sincerely,
Jason Toney
Director of Media Advocacy, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East