IMAGINE A war breaking out between Israel and Jordan. Within two or three days the Israeli army occupies the entire territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. What will be the first act of the occupation authority?<\/p>\n
Establish a settlement in Petra? Expropriate land near Aqaba?<\/p>\n
No. The very first thing will be to decree that the territory will henceforth be known as \u201cGilead and Moab\u201d.<\/p>\n
All the media will be ordered to use the biblical name. All government and court documents will adopt it. Except for the radical Left, nobody will mention Jordan anymore. All applications by the inhabitants will be addressed to the Military Government of Gilead and Moab.<\/p>\n
WHY? BECAUSE annexation starts with words.<\/p>\n
Words convey ideas. Words implant concepts in the minds of their hearers and speakers. Once they are firmly established, everything else follows.<\/p>\n
The writers of the Bible already knew this. They taught \u201cDeath and life are in the power of the tongue, and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.\u201d (Proverbs 18:21). For how many years now have we been eating the fruit of \u201cJudea and Samaria\u201d?<\/p>\n
When Vladimir Putin last week restored the old name of \u201cNew Russia\u201d to the territory of East Ukraine, it was not just a semantic change. It was a claim for annexation, more powerful than a salvo of cannon shots.<\/p>\n
RECENTLY I listened to a speech by a left-wing politician, and was disturbed when she spoke at length about her struggle for a \u201cpolitical settlement\u201d with the Palestinians.<\/p>\n
When I remonstrated with her, she apologized. It was a slip of the tongue. She had not meant it that way.<\/p>\n
In Israeli politics, the word \u201cpeace\u201d has become poison. \u201cPolitical settlement\u201d is the vogue term. It is meant to say the same. But of course, it doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
\u201cPeace\u201d means much more than the formal end of warfare. It contains elements of reconciliation, of something spiritual. In Hebrew and Arabic, Shalom\/Salaam include wellbeing, safety and serve as greetings. \u201cPolitical settlement\u201d means nothing but a document formulated by lawyers and signed by politicians.<\/p>\n
The \u201cPeace of Westphalia\u201d put an end to 30 years of war and changed the life of Europe. One may wonder whether a \u201cPolitical settlement of Westphalia\u201d would have had the same effect.<\/p>\n
The Bible enjoins us: \u201cSeek peace and pursue it!\u201d (Psalms, 34:14) It does not say \u201cSeek a political settlement and pursue it.\u201d<\/p>\n
When the Israeli Left gives up the term Peace, this is not a tactical retreat. It is a rout. Peace is a vision, a political ideal, a religious commandment, an inspiring idea. Political Settlement is a subject for discussion.<\/p>\n
PEACE IS not the only victim of semantic terrorism. Another is, of course, the West Bank.<\/p>\n
All TV channels have long ago been ordered by the government not to use this term. Most journalists in the written media also march in step. They call it \u201dJudea and Samaria\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cJudea and Samaria\u201d means that the territory belongs to Israel, even if official annexation may be delayed for political reasons. \u201cWest Bank\u201d means that this is occupied territory.<\/p>\n
By itself, there is nothing sacred about the term \u201cWest Bank\u201d, which was adopted by the Jordanian ruler when he illegally incorporated the area in his newly extended kingdom. This was done in secret collusion with David Ben-Gurion, Israel\u2019s first Prime Minister, who wanted to erase the name \u201cPalestine\u201d from the map. The legal basis was a phony conference of Palestinian \u201cnotables\u201d in Jericho.<\/p>\n
King Abdallah of Jordan divided his fief into the East Bank (of the Jordan river) and the West Bank.<\/p>\n
So why do we insist on using this term? Because it means that this is not a part of Israel, but Arab land that will belong \u2013 like the Gaza Strip – to the State of Palestine when peace (sorry, a Political Settlement) is achieved.<\/p>\n
Until now, the semantic battle remains undecided. Most Israelis talk about the \u201cWest Bank\u201d. \u201cJudea and Samaria\u201d has remained, in common parlance, the realm of the settlers.<\/p>\n
THE SETTLERS, of course, are the subject of a similar semantic battle.<\/p>\n
In Hebrew, there are two terms: Mitnahalim and Mityashvim. They essentially mean the same. But in common usage, people use Mitnahalim when they mean the settlers in the occupied territories, and Mityashvim when they speak about settlers in Israel proper.<\/p>\n
The battle between these two words goes on daily. It is a fight for or against the legitimacy of the settlement beyond the Green Line. Up to now, our side seems to have the upper hand. The distinction remains intact. If someone uses the term Mityashvim, they are automatically identified with the political Right.<\/p>\n
The Green Line itself is, of course, the leftist concept. It makes a clear distinction between Israel proper and the occupied territories. The color comes from the fact that this border – actually the 1949 armistice line \u2013 was always marked on the maps in green. Until.<\/p>\n
Until the (left-wing) Minister of Labor, Yigal Alon, decreed that henceforth the Green Line would no longer be marked on any map. Under an old law dating back to the British Mandate, the government owns the copyright for all maps printed in the country, and the Minister of Labor was in charge.<\/p>\n
This remained so until Gush Shalom sued the government in the Supreme Court. Our argument was that since on the two sides of this line different laws apply, the citizens must have a map that shows them what law they have to obey at a given place. The ministry gave in and promised the court that it would print maps with the Green Line marked.<\/p>\n
For lack of an alternative, all Israelis use the term \u201cGreen Line\u201d. Since Rightists do not recognize this line at all, they have not invented an alternative word. For some time they tried the term \u201cSeam-Line\u201d, but this did not catch on.<\/p>\n
A LINE between what? At the beginning of the occupation, the question arose what to call the areas just conquered.<\/p>\n
We of the peace camp called them, of course, \u201coccupied territories\u201d. The Right called them \u201cliberated territories\u201d and floated the slogan \u201cLiberated territories will not be returned\u201d, a catchy rhyme in Hebrew. The government called them \u201cadministered territories\u201d and later \u201cdisputed territories\u201d.<\/p>\n
The general public just settled for \u201cthe territories\u201d \u2013 and that is the term used nowadays by everybody who has no interest in stressing his or her political conviction every time these areas are mentioned.<\/p>\n
THIS RAISES the question about the Wall.<\/p>\n
When the government decided to create a physical obstacle between Israel and the Occupied Territories \u2013 partly for expansion, partly for genuine security reasons \u2013 a name was needed. It is built mainly on occupied land, annexing in practice large areas. It is a fence in open areas, a wall in built-up ones. So we simply called it \u201cthe Wall\u201d or \u201cthe Fence\u201d, and started weekly demonstrations.<\/p>\n
The \u201cWall\/Fence\u201d became odious around the world. So the army looked around for a term that sounded non-ideological and chose \u201cseparation obstacle\u201d. However, this term now appears only in official documents.<\/p>\n
WITH WHOM are we negotiating about the Political Settlement? Ah, there is the rub.<\/p>\n
For generations, the Zionist movement and the State of Israel denied the very existence of a Palestinian people. In the 1993 Oslo Agreement, this idiotic pretense was dropped and we recognized the PLO as the \u201crepresentative of the Palestinian people\u201d. But the Palestinian state was not mentioned, and until this very day our government abhors the terms \u201cPalestinian state\u201d or \u201cState of Palestine\u201d.<\/p>\n
Even today the term \u201cPalestinians\u201d evokes conscious or unconscious rejection. Most commentators speak about a political settlement with \u201cour neighbors\u201d \u2013 by which they do not mean the Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians or Lebanese, but You Know Who.<\/p>\n
In Oslo, the PLO negotiators strenuously insisted that their new state-in-the-making should be called the \u201cPalestinian National Authority\u201d. The Israeli side vehemently objected to the word \u201cNational\u201d. So the agreement (actually a \u201cStatement of Principles\u201d) calls it the \u201cPalestinian Authority\u201d and the Palestinians themselves call it the \u201cPalestinian National Authority\u201d. Palestinians who need urgent medical treatment in Israeli hospitals are turned back if they bring financial documents signed by the \u201cPalestinian National Authority\u201d.<\/p>\n
SO THE fight goes on along the semantic front. For me, the really crucial part is the fight for the word Peace. We must reinstate it as the central word in our vocabulary. Clearly, loudly, proudly.<\/p>\n
As the hymn of the peace movement (written by Yankele Rotblit as an appeal by the fallen soldiers to the living) says:<\/p>\n
\u201cTherefore, sing a song to peace \/ Don\u2019t whisper a prayer \/ Sing a song to peace \/ In a loud shout!\u201d<\/p>\n
______________________________<\/p>\n