 |
Richard L. Benkin is an independent author and activist. He has penned manuscripts on the Temple Mount; East European Jewish Life; and Miriam, the true hero of Exodus. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania and lives with his wife and daughter in suburban Chicago.
|
|
|
|
By Richard L. Benkin
March 26, 2003
I recently read an IDF dispatch about a thwarted terrorist incident in the Gaza District. It referred to an "Israeli community" near Rafiah, on the "Israeli-Egyptian" border. The dispatch gave me pause, not because the incident was surprising, nor because the IDF's terminology seemed audacious, but because virtually all media outlets adopt the politically loaded and historically inaccurate terms foisted on us by the anti-Israeli lobby. Language has the power to form the concepts we use to discuss and understand a situation or series of events. By adopting anti-Israeli terminology, we have allowed Israel's enemies to define the conflict.
For instance, when we say the territories are "occupied," we agree with the assumption that the Israelis are occupiers. Now, we might argue that the occupation is justified by self-defense needs, the Arabs' unwillingness to prevent terror attacks on Israeli citizens, or in some other way. Whatever reason we use, however, we have allowed that the Israeli presence is only justified by specific dangers. Our words declare that once the danger passes, Israel would be engaging in hostile action. In short, we have conceded this important point, which is very much in dispute. This is the logic behind the so-called "road map."
The development of definition was so subtle that we often unknowingly reinforce it in our own utterances. It's about time that we change that. Thus, I thought it worthwhile to identify these terms, so that we might be aware of the writer's active or passive involvement in their politically biased message. More than that, we must avoid using them and create a new dynamic, one that recognizes the legitimacy of Israel's positions. We should also fight the unconscious use and acceptance of these terms in the media with our own letters and articles.
"Occupied Territories." The world has come to accept that all the territory outside of the 1948 Armistice line is "occupied." This is most destructive and factually incorrect. If that land was occupied, its occupiers were in succession Turks, British, Egyptians, and Jordanians. Yet, the world media and pundits never referred to the territory as occupied then. On the other hand, those lands had been considered as much a part of historic Palestine as Tel Aviv and Nazareth. In 1921, the British created Jordan from the lion's share of historic Palestine, barring Jewish settlement there. All the land west of the Jordan remained an undivided area for a Jewish homeland. Parts of that land were only separated from that historic connection by virtue of the Jordanian and Egyptian military occupation of the areas between 1948 and 1967. The Six-Day War re-established the centuries-old unity. The appropriate - and more accurate - terms are "disputed territories," "lands freed from Arab occupation," or "Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza District." And while we're at it, why is the land only called "occupied" when the alleged occupiers are Jews?
"Settlement(s)." The term, settlement, has come to connote something illegal - a collection of buildings whose residents are nothing more than squatters on someone else's property. And much like the term, occupied, this too, is applied only to the Jewish people. It is most ironic that the media refer to Kiryat Arba, outside of Hevron as a settlement. Maps of biblical Israel clearly show Kiryat Arba in its current location. In fact, the Bible is replete with evidence of a strong Israelite presence in the Hevron area. Hevron, for instance, was King David's first capital. Going back even further, Abraham purchased that land in order to have a burial site for his family. Moreover, there was a continuous Jewish presence in Hevron up until 1929 when the Jewish population was attacked by Arab mobs, whipped up by the long discredited anti-Jewish blood libel. Sixty-seven Jews were murdered; the rest of the community was dispersed. Since 1967, Jews have returned to homes that were stolen from them then denied to them. They live in "Israeli communities," "communities in YESHA," but not in settlements.
"The West Bank." The west bank of the Jordan River (note the capitalization) could be said to include all lands between the river and the sea. There never was nor is there now any political or geographical area formally designated as the West Bank. To use that term suggests there is - and that we can segregate that area from legitimate Israeli territory. By doing so, we again open the door wide to call any Israeli presence there illegitimate. A more accurate designation of the area is "Judea and Samaria," "YESHA" (which also includes Gaza), or "territory formerly occupied by Jordan."
"East Jerusalem." Capitalizing East Jerusalem ipso facto declares Jerusalem to be a divided city, in sharp contrast to Israeli policy, and the facts of history. We do not speak of East Paris or North Montreal. It once made sense to talk about East Berlin, for that was a political division. In fact, Jerusalem always was a united city, except for the period of Jordanian occupation between 1948 and 1967. Just as the fall of communism reunited a divided Berlin, the Six Day War reunited Jerusalem. Let us not re-divide it with our words. Terms that are more accurate would be "eastern Jerusalem," "the Old City of Jerusalem," "the section of Jerusalem previously occupied by Jordan."
"Palestinian lands." There is no alternate expression for this term. We simply need to avoid it. What exactly do we mean with this phrase? Are we defining lands that Israel should cede? More importantly, use of the term Palestinian to refer to Arabs with some claim to lands west of the Jordan River is of recent vintage. There is no Palestinian culture or ethnicity distinguishable from that of other Middle Eastern Arabs. Palestine itself was a term imposed by the Romans with the express purpose of eradicating any Jewish vestige in the area. We should use the term carefully and sparingly.
"Gaza-Egyptian Border (or any variant)." Speaking of a border between Gaza and another country (including Israel) or the west bank and another country gives credence to the political position that these areas are formal entities and must be treated as such, and rips them from the rest of Israel. It is historically incorrect as well because the pre-1967 "borders" of Israel never have been recognized as such-not by Israel, not by the Arab world, or by the rest of the world. They are armistice lines, never formalized with a treaty of peace.
This is an important front on which each one of us can be a soldier in Israel's defense. Instead of a gun, our weapon of choice can be a pen.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
