[According to pro-Israel groups it is unacceptable to refer to
what Israel is doing in Gaza as “genocide” or “terrorism,” as
if there were better terms to use to describe: the indiscriminate
bombing of heavily populated areas.]
[[link removed]]

DEFINITIONS MATTER  
[[link removed]]


 

James J. Zogby
November 27, 2023
Arab American Institute
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ According to pro-Israel groups it is unacceptable to refer to what
Israel is doing in Gaza as “genocide” or “terrorism,” as if
there were better terms to use to describe: the indiscriminate
bombing of heavily populated areas. _

,

 

Almost two months into this monstrous conflict in Gaza and it is clear
that the war is being fought not only on a battlefield but over the
very terms that can be used to speak about it. Pope Francis
discovered this last week when he described what was unfolding in Gaza
as “going beyond war, this is terrorism,” and reportedly
noted that “terrorism should not be used to justify terror.”
According to some Palestinians who met with Pope Francis before he
made his public comments, he spoke about the absence of water, fuel,
and medicine in Gaza, referring to what was taking place as
“genocide.” 

Major Jewish organizations roundly condemned the pope’s words, some
accusing him of a “blood libel” against the Jewish people. They
demanded retraction or clarification, with some questioning the value
of years of Christian-Jewish dialogue. One might reasonably
be inclined to question what criticism of Israel’s behavior in Gaza
has to do with the dialogue between two religious traditions, but
we’re not dealing with reason. This is about power and the use of
power to insist on the definition of words. 

For decades now, major Jewish organizations have sought to define
criticism of Israel as antisemitism. With the conflict in Gaza, that
effort is in full swing. 

Before turning to more recent additions to what are now being insisted
upon as acceptable definitions of terms, let’s look at a few past
examples: 

• “Undivided Jerusalem is the ‘eternal capital of Israel.’”
Fair enough in a theological sense but adding “undivided” into the
mix complicates the matter. In 1968 Israel annexed 28 Palestinian
villages to the north, east, and south of Jerusalem unilaterally
defining it as “Greater Jerusalem” and demanding recognition of
this, in its entirety, as its undivided capital. 

• Israelis insist that the Nakba never occurred. Palestinians were
not expelled. They say that Palestinians willingly complied with Arab
leaders’ demand that they leave to be out of harm’s way when Arab
armies attacked Israel—a complete fabrication. In any case, Israelis
insist that what ultimately occurred was a simple “population
transfer”—with Jews leaving Arab countries to settle in Israel and
Arabs leaving Palestine to settle in Arab states. 

• “Israel has a right to exist.” It does exist, and Palestinian
leadership (Hamas, excepted) have recognized it. What Palestinians
question isn’t Israel’s existence. What they balk at is the
demand that they recognize Israel as it defines itself: as “a state
in which only the Jewish people have the right to
self-determination.” 

• Terms that may not be used: “apartheid,” “ethnic
cleansing,” and even “occupation.” 

The first two are well-defined in international law. “Apartheid”
refers to a system of governance in which the controlling power has
two sets of laws and practice that privilege one group over another.
That Israel has ruled over Palestinians in this manner has been
well-documented by leading internationally respected human rights
organizations as well as Israeli human rights groups. “Ethnic
cleansing” involves the forceable displacement of one subordinate
group to serve the purposes of the dominant group. This is precisely
what Israel did in 1948 and after, when they seized the land and
properties of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, demolished their
villages and turned the land over to new Jewish settlers. That
practice was continued after 1967 resulting in over 750,000 Israeli
settlers in the West Bank. “Occupation” should be the least
controversial term, but it is not. Israel insists either that the
territories occupied in the 1967 are their biblical inheritance or
that no one has any legitimate claim to them and that, therefore, the
areas in question are at best “disputed territories.” It is worth
noting that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties have ever
allowed use of the word “occupation” to appear in their
platforms. 

These are only a few of the examples the meaning of terms that
supporters of Israel have insisted be accepted. The conflict in Gaza
has added more: 

• As Pope Francis has learned, according to pro-Israel groups it is
unacceptable to refer to what Israel is doing in Gaza as
“genocide” or “terrorism,” as if there were better terms to
use to describe: the indiscriminate bombing of heavily populated
areas that so far has taken the lives of over 15,000 and reduced
to rubble over one-half of the structures of northern Gaza; the mass
dislocation of 1.5 million people after ordering the population of
northern Gaza to leave their homes (and now forbidding them to
return); and denying the population water, fuel, power, and medicine
for prolonged periods.  

To add insult to injury, not only do these groups insist on the words
that cannot be used and acceptance of their definition of these words,
but they also now accuse as antisemitic those who insist on using them
as accurate descriptors of what is happening—which brings us back
to where this discussion began. 

As Pope Francis made clear, it is both necessary and correct to
demonstrate compassion and concern for the safety and security
of Israelis and Palestinians who are at risk in this deadly
conflict. And it is equally correct to condemn both what Hamas has
done to target civilians and what Israel is doing to carpet-bomb Gaza.
For both Israelis and Palestinians to find a future in which both live
and prosper, it is imperative to break through the stranglehold of
imposed definitions and demand peace with justice. 

_JAMES ZOGBY CO-FOUNDED THE ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE, A WASHINGTON,
D.C.-BASED ORGANIZATION WHICH SERVES AS THE POLITICAL AND POLICY
RESEARCH ARM OF THE ARAB AMERICAN COMMUNITY, IN 1985 AND CONTINUES TO
SERVE AS ITS PRESIDENT. HE IS DIRECTOR OF ZOGBY RESEARCH SERVICES, A
FIRM THAT HAS CONDUCTED GROUNDBREAKING SURVEYS ACROSS THE MIDDLE
EAST._

_Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are
those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the
Arab American Institute. The Arab American Institute is a non-profit,
nonpartisan national leadership organization that does not endorse
candidates._

_The Arab American Institute Foundation is a national civil rights
advocacy organization that provides strategic analysis to policy
makers and community members to strengthen democracy, protect civil
rights and liberties, and defend international human rights. AAIF
organizes the 3.7 million Arab Americans across the country to ensure
an informed, organized, and effective constituency is represented in
all aspects of civic life. AAIF is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization._

* Israel-Gaza War
[[link removed]]
* Terrorism
[[link removed]]
* Genocide
[[link removed]]
* apartheid
[[link removed]]
* Pope Francis
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]