WASHINGTON, DC: Words as well as deeds are required to bridge the gap between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. Words matter. They have power. They carry consequences. In the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the words we use are seldom value-neutral. If we speak without awareness of that fact, we will diminish our capacity to be heard.
One type of word power is the power to give offence. If we call Jews Nazis, Jews will be upset. If we speak disrespectfully of Muhammad, Muslims will be upset.
So we take care with our choice of words, especially with names. For decades Arabs spoke of “the Zionist entity but refused to utter the word “Israel . Notice how rare it still is for Jews to use the word “Palestine but commonplace to speak of “Palestinians . The people are acknowledged but not the land.
Some key terms have changed their meaning over time. “Occupied Palestine once was generally used by Arabs to denote pre-’67 Israel. Nowadays, the “Occupied Territories refers to the West Bank and Gaza. “Refugees was the name given to those who fled or were driven from their homes. Today, the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the Palestinian refugees of ’48 are themselves called refugees.
We think in words, and the words we use shape our thinking. The world of words in which we think about the Middle East is constructed of and constricted by specific phrases, slogans and terms of art: the peace process, land for peace, 242 and 338, the right of return, refugee camps, settlements, occupation, terrorism, confidence-building measures, the two-state solution and, of course, two famous slogans long since discredited: A land without a people for a people without a land, and Zionism is racism. Perhaps more than we consciously know, these and other phrases determine how we see the future of Israelis and Palestinians.
Consider the term: “the peace process . Peace is not a process, and the problem with thinking of it as a process and turning it into a process is that it becomes about perpetuating the process. The question is no longer: “What will bring peace? but rather: “What will enhance the peace process? Yet what could be more disruptive of an orderly process than a discontinuous change, such as a breakthrough, which might actually produce peace?
Here’s another well-worn phrase: “You don’t make peace with your friends. You make peace with your enemies. It sounds good, but it’s not true. In World War II, the Allies never made peace with the Nazis. Their demand was unconditional surrender. The truth is that you make peace with those enemies with whom you can make peace. The rest you must deal with in other ways. America did not make peace with the Taliban, nor will it make peace with Al Qaeda. While the Fateh-led Palestinian Authority appears willing to negotiate a final agreement with Israel, it is still unclear at this moment whether Hamas and Israel can ever make peace with each other.
The 242 debate continues to this day over the meaning of a UN Security Council Resolution adopted after the 1967 war. Among other provisions, it calls for Israeli withdrawal from lands seized during that war. The French version of the resolution states that Israel should withdraw from “des territoires (the territories), whereas the English text calls for withdrawal from “territories – without the definite article. Israel asserts that by leaving some of the territory occupied in ’67 it satisfies the requirement of the resolution. The Arab argument is that Israel is obligated to leave all territories occupied in ’67. The resolution allows for both interpretations. Diplomats call that “constructive ambiguity , but when there is no meeting of minds about the definition of a key term in a disputed situation, mischief can ensue.
If we are serious about discovering a way out of recurring violent conflict in the Middle East, then we must examine the language we use to describe that conflict. When we find ourselves repeating over and over again the exact same words that have been pronounced for decades, perhaps the time has come to find new ways of speaking about Palestinians and Israelis. We can either feel imprisoned by language or empowered by it to create new realities.
Michael Lameis the founder of “Re-Think the Middle East , a new organisation whose purpose is to help elevate the quality of public discourse regarding the future of the Middle East and the roles played by the United States and the international community in creating that future. He blogs at www.rethinkme.org. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
