Israel, Palestine and the semantics war
TERMINOLOGY ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONFLICT HAS CHANGED SHAPE AND DEVELOPED OVER DECADES OF OCCUPATION
Over the past seven decades, the Palestinian conflict has developed its own terminology. The issue has been described in several ways, ranging from ‘Arab-Israeli conflict’ to ‘Palestinian-Israeli conflict’, with each term reflecting a specific political era, and its specific goals, according to researchers.
Seventy years ago—when the crisis erupted with the founding of the Israeli state on Palestinian land—it was dubbed the Arab-Palestinian conflict.
When the June 1967 War erupted, Israel called it the “Middle East crisis” — “implying that Israel’s existence was legitimate, while the Arabs continued to refer to it as the ArabIsraeli conflict,” said Palestinian novelist and English literature professor Ahmad Harb.
By labelling the conflict as Arab, and Palestinians as simply ‘Arabs’, the unique nationality of Palestinians was stripped away, essentially strengthening Israel’s false claim to the land.
Speaking to Gulf News, Harb said it was only after the emergence of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) in 1964 and its demand that it make its own decisions that they were able to change the terminology, with the term ‘Palestinian-Israeli conflict’ entering the lexicon.
International recognition
The PLO wanted the international community to recognise it as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians.
While this helped the Palestinians greatly, there were a number of disadvantages associated, Harb explained.
The PLO wanted the support of the Arabs, but also wanted to stress their independence in making decisions, he said.
“The Arabs then felt like they had no responsibility towards the Palestinians. It was as if the conflict was simply a Palestinian-Israeli matter. This was a big mistake, as the Palestinians did not have the power alone to confront Israel’s occupation,” Harb explained.
Following the Oslo Accords, Israel recognised the PLO as a sole legitimate representative ■ of the Palestinians, and the Palestinians, in turn, recognised Israel. The agreement called for the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority in Jericho and Gaza as a first step, to be followed later with other Palestinian cities occupied by Israel in the 1967 war.
If they [Israelis] had any intention, at any stage, of recognising the West Bank and the Palestinian state within the borders of pre-June 4, 1967, [they wouldn’t have built the wall]. The wall aims to erase the 1967 borders and seize more Palestinian land.”
Ahmad Harb | Palestinian novelist and professor
Elusive final status talks
It was agreed that the most difficult issues, including return of Palestinian refugees, borders, fate of occupied east Jerusalem, and security, would be left for final status talks, which never took place.
In the meantime, Israel introduced new terminology to strengthen its claim to occupied land, referring to them as ‘disputed’ territories.
“There is a huge difference between ‘occupied’ and ‘disputed’,” Harb said, explaining that ‘occupied’ land falls under the jurisdiction of international law, while ‘disputed’ territory can be solved between the two concerned parties.
Then there are terms like ‘martyrdom operations’, or ‘suicide attacks’, and ‘fence’ or ‘apartheid wall’.
Years ago, Israel started building a separation (Al Buraq) wall under the pretext of security. It called it a “fence”, but the Palestinians branded it an “apartheid wall”.
“You are talking about a wall extending from the northern part of Palestine to the southern part. It is four metres high and, above the concrete, there are barbed wires. If they [Israelis] had any intention, at any stage, of recognising the West Bank and the Palestinian state within the borders of pre-June 4, 1967, [they wouldn’t have built the wall],” Harb said.
“The wall aims to erase the 1967 borders and seize more Palestinian land. It is truly an apartheid system … It is worse than the [former] apartheid [regime] in South Africa.”
The terminology of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is also ‘sensitive’ from the point of view of the international media. They cannot take sides.
For example, the BBC’s literature on “key terms” used in the conflict clearly states, “BBC journalists should try to avoid using terminology favoured by one side or another in any dispute”. It uses terms like ‘barrier’, ‘separation barrier’, or ‘West Bank barrier’ as acceptable generic descriptions to avoid political terms like ‘security fence’. The UN also uses the term ‘barrier’.
“The BBC should say east Jerusalem is ‘occupied’ if it is relevant to the context of the story’”, the BBC list, posted online, reads. The Palestinians refer to the West Bank regions that were captured in 1967 as Occupied Territories.
Israel, on the other hand, calls it ‘Judea’ and ‘Samaria’, using the Biblical terms. “Each side uses the term that is suitable for its vision,” Harb said.
Another term associated with the Palestinian cause is ‘fidayeen’. “The word ‘fidayee’ [singular of fidayeen] describes someone who sacrifices himself/herself for the sake of the homeland,” Harb said, pointing to its positive connotation in Arabic. But, with the emergence of various militant groups engaging in suicide terrorism, fidayeen acquired a negative connotation.
As a result, its use is slowly being discontinued in Palestinian nationalist circles.