The Use and Misuse of Language

Most of us use language as a natural tool: it's useful for communication purposes. Person A wants person B to understand something. In theory, that understanding will lead to some kind of change desired by person A. Professionals see that paradigm and go - aha! Language is a device for persuasion, manipulation, and mobilization. What's important is not the objective truth, but the impact it has on the listener.

And so, the Holocaust becomes the ‘Shoah,' a Hebrew word, even though Hebrew was not the spoken language of any of the affected communities; it's the language of modern day Israel. In response to the retroactive Zionization of the Holocaust, the Palestinians have successfully introduced the Nakba into the debate. No longer shall we discuss the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in 1948; rather, we shall speak of "The Nakba" in reverent tones.

In both instances, the goal is to take away the objective, carefully stated expression with limited implicit meanings, and replace them with words that mean much more than before. The Nakba isn't just the historical event, it's the canonization of the event as integral to our understanding of reality. Some voices have expressed concern about acceptance of the word Nakba into the media discourse; is this not a victory for anti-Semitic terrorists?

Recently, a friend corrected me when I referred to "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." "It's not a conflict" she said; it's an occupation. Apparently (this was new to me!) the word conflict denotes two potentially well-matched sides engaged in struggle. Say, the Allies and the Axis in WWII. But "occupation" is better suited to a fight in which one side is resting his boot on the other side's neck.

Of course I resisted. Are the Palestinians living inside Israel under "occupation"? What about the refugees outside Palestine - are they occupied? What about the Palestinian success stories in the West or the Gulf States - are they still being occupied? The word "conflict" embraces all of these situations in which Palestinians and Israelis are, um, in conflict with each other. "Occupation" reduces that narrowly to conflict between Israelis in Israel and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Since I didn't mean that - why use that word?

She had her reasons. Look, she said. Use whatever word you like, but in the communities I'm part of, we use the word occupation, and if you decide not to conform to that usage, it will be harder for you to be heard. Things you say are more likely to be misinterpreted, and your messages rejected on that basis. So - do what you will, but get ready to embrace the consequences.

If I use the word Nakba, pro-Israelis might mark me as accepting the Palestinian narrative uncritically. If I used the word conflict, pro-Palestinian might mark me as not belonging to the community that enjoys proper understanding of the issues. And if I refuse to take sides in this linguistic debate, maybe I won't be heard by anyone, as all partisans will see me as not belonging to the crowd that gets it.

So be it.