To Discuss a Fair Settlement of the Problem, Use a Fair Vocabulary

By George Moses

Regular participants in political debates understand the importance of using exactly the right words to make a point. In "The Last Emperor," the movie depicting the life of China's last hereditary monarch, young Pu Yi's English tutor, Sir Reginald Johnson, drives home the importance of words: "If you cannot say what you mean, you cannot possibly mean what you say."

In writing this column, I have been struck by the degree to which convention has forced me to use words which do not say what I mean, words which do actual harm to the points I am making. Words have the power to convey messages far beyond their literal definition. To the degree that these messages conflict with my intended purpose, these conventional words become significant impediments in discussing Middle East policy with congressmen and senators.

From time to time I have made my own changes in conventional usage, refusing for example to use the term pro-Israel on those occasions when I really mean to say anti-Arab (newly elected Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, newly elected Vermont Representative Bernie Sanders and the late I.F. Stone are pro-Israel; the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, Florida Representative Larry Smith and Israeli Housing Minister Ariel Sharon are anti-Arab). I have gradually-compiled a list of terms, all in popular usage, all of which misrepresent reality in varying degrees.

These terms are listed below, with the conventional term preceding the more accurately descriptive term. If those who are interested in a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with justice for both sides (I wish I had a good term for that mouthful) can seize control of our own vocabulary, we can improve our chances of political success. By spreading accurate terminology into general usage and insisting that it be used whenever possible, we can begin to insist that everyone, especially media and public officials, say what they mean, and mean what they say.

Settlers/Squatters. The term "settlers" implies that those described by it live where they are by some legitimate right. Even more, it evokes images of a small, righteous band persevering in the face of ravening hordes of savages. The term "squatters" more accurately expresses the status of those who, backed by force of arms, illegally occupy land seized from others.

Settlements/Fortifications. If there are not settlers, then there are not settlements. Given the degree of armament used by Israeli squatters on Palestinian land, the term " fortification" is not inappropriate.

Occupied Territories/Occupied Palestine. "Occupied territories, " not further defined, implies that the land in question belongs properly to the occupiers. This is surety a repugnant notion to Americans at a time when we have mobilized our military forces to defend the principle that territory is not legitimately acquired by force. Besides, if you permit the taking away of the name of a country and a people, you have acquiesced in a large step toward eradicating them. This term is applied to those lands within the old mandate of Palestine seized by the Israelis in 1967 to differentiate them from Israel, defined as more or less those territories within the 1967 Green Line.

In the past, objection to the use of "occupied Palestine" has been used to make the point that Palestinians didn't even recognize Israel's right to exist. We are past that now. Palestinians have recognized Israeli existence; it is Israel that now refuses, against all reason except a desire for conquest, to recognize the Palestinian presence. It is time America insists that Israel do so, and that we begin to use words that make that course thinkable.

Curfew/House Arrest. "Curfew" calls up the image of a relatively benign restriction placed in a paternal way on a few high-spirited youths for their own good. What in fact is happening is that whole communities are being placed under house arrest, restricted from leaving their homes to earn a living, go to school, seek medical care, or purchase basic necessities, sometimes with vital utilities cut off as an added measure of privation. There's nothing benign about it, and it doesn't deserve to be called anything that evokes such an image.

Transfer/Mass Deportation. Here the anti-Arab bias is so evident that "transfer" often is set off in quotation marks. Mass deportation is what is meant by the term, and we should not permit the use of such a candy-coated euphemism for such a brutal reality. What its creators hope for is that if the world swallows the term, it will learn to swallow the act.

There is no unanimity about raising the question of vocabulary. The argument against challenging existing convention, advanced by the editor of this magazine among others, is that those seeking the just solution must somehow prove their objectivity or sincerity by using the terms dictated by the other side. In practice this means meekly accepting protests from partisans of Israel's current militancy that the more accurate terminology gives offense, while not claiming the same privilege for those seeking an "evenhanded" approach to the problem. In the interests of justice and fairness, however, it is critically important that those of us who insist on a settlement acceptable to both sides insist on terms of debate which give us a fair chance to make our case.

George Moses, a former president of the National Association of Arab Americans, is of Lebanese descent.