Word Games in Gaza

On May 29, 2022, I found myself in Jerusalem with a group of U.S. tourists, surrounded by thousands of young Israelis marching in the street with their country’s flag draped over their shoulders and flying in the air above the crowd. They were celebrating Jerusalem Day, the annual observance of when, in 1967, during the Six-Day War, Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Participants chanted in Hebrew as they streamed through the Damascus Gate on their way to the Muslim Quarter of the Old City. The face of our tour guide, an Israeli Jew, contorted in discomfort when someone in our group asked what the marchers were chanting.

“They are saying,” he said, “‘Death to Arabs’ and ‘May your villages burn.’” After a pause, he registered his discomfort by admitting, “This isn’t very helpful.”

This isn’t very…helpful.

Word Games

I was reminded of that line earlier this week when I heard audio of Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and a key broker of the peace plan in the Middle East, giving an interview about negotiating the cease-fire and release of hostages. He said implementing the plan required getting past “50 years of stupid word games.”

Kushner was referring explicitly to diplomatic jargon that gums up the prospects of action. But he could have just as easily been talking about the myriad ways we talk about the battle for the land of Israel-Palestine. Furthermore, Kushner’s purported disdain for “stupid word games” seems to be nothing more than an attempt to shield him from any criticism over his own dubious use of language.

To demonstrate this point, look no further than the second point in the cease-fire agreement: “Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza, who have suffered more than enough” (emphasis mine).

They have suffered…more than enough.

Can we have a conversation about “stupid word games?”

The October 7 attacks that killed over 1,200 civilians were violent and have been rightly condemned by human rights organizations as war crimes. But there are two underlying assumptions hidden within this statement about the people of Gaza that must be laid bare for any fruitful, true progress to be made in the region.

One is that the only answer to October 7 was for the people of Gaza to suffer. The other is that there is some arbitrary level of acceptable and legitimate suffering to be inflicted on them.

At least 67,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 7, with almost 90% of Gazans displaced from their homes. How much was “enough?” Was it 66,999 dead and 89.9% displaced?

Points four and five of the 20-point plan offer further exercises in word games. In the fourth point, Hamas was to release all hostages, dead and alive, within three days of the cease-fire. In the fifth, Israel was to release the 1,700 Gazan prisoners detained after October 7.

The choice of words to describe those taken by each respective side in the conflict matters. It both shapes and is shaped by our perception of the humanity of those taken.

It has been widely reported that the Gazans taken prisoner by Israel have not been given any kind of due process. Taking a cue from its U.S. allies in Guantanamo Bay after 9/11, Israel has held them as bargaining chips in the war.

What is the difference between a hostage and a prisoner held without due process and used as a negotiating tool?

Clarifying Terms

No one is innocent when it comes to manipulating a conversation with a well-chosen or well-omitted word. What rhetoricians teach in communications classes are actually strategies we begin to learn as children when we figure out that the things we tell (or don’t tell) our parents have consequences. We begin to master the art as adolescents when we realize ambiguity can be a helpful tool—like when our parents ask where we are going for the night.

But on matters of life and death, war and peace, we must take extra care to be precise in the words we use. We must define our terms. We also must acknowledge, in this particular conversation, that the words we leave out can cause pain.

We would also do well to hold our own position to the same linguistic clarity we demand of others.

Perhaps no other challenge on the world stage is as daunting as talking about Israel-Palestine, because there aren’t “two sides” going back and forth. There are numerous “sides” with a tangled knot of interests and tensions—not to mention entire people groups with a history, some recent, some less so, of being systemically targeted for elimination.

Who’s Got the Power?

This challenge for me was highlighted in the Faith Commons event from last week that I reported on Monday for Good Faith Media. The event featured panelists from the Rossing Center for Education and Dialogue. Panelists highlighted the many different ways worldwide Jews exist and understand their Jewishness, as well as the numerous identities that Palestinians hold.

What surprised me most, however, was learning that across the region’s many factions, there is little agreement on what seems self-evident to much of the world—who holds the power. Jews in the region, according to Hana Bendcowsky of the Rossing Center, cannot fathom that Israel is the dominant force. Arab Muslims and Christians can’t fathom how they don’t see that.

All of them have legitimate historical reasons for their understanding.

I fear that nothing will change in the region until there is some dialogue around this disagreement. Peace is not possible without understanding the dynamics of power and how we talk about it.

An illustration of my point: If Mike Tyson walked up to me in his prime (or even today) and punched me in the face with all his might, it would be an act of violent aggression. If I walked up to Mike Tyson and punched him in the face with all my might, it would also be an act of violent aggression. But is it proper to use the same term for both of our actions?

Through the Damascus Gate

Our tour guide on Jerusalem Day in 2022 was 100% correct. Marching through the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City shouting “Death to Arabs” and “May your villages burn” was not helpful, and I take him at his word that he believed that. But there were so many other words he could have used that would have more accurately painted the picture.

Provocative. Incendiary. Or, one from a more religious lexicon—sinful.

According to The Guardian, as they marched on (out of our sight), many local Palestinians closed down their shops and retreated from public spaces. Others stayed and got into scuffles with the young Israelis, many of whom are West Bank settlers.

There were no deaths on that day, but the incident occurred during a tense time of attacks and counterattacks between Palestinians and the Israeli Defense Forces.

But if there had been, how much retaliatory suffering would have been “enough?”