Monday, November 19th | 11 Kislev 5779

Subscribe
December 29, 2017 10:38 am

Defining ‘Occupied’ — and the Semantic Battle for Peace

avatar by Jonathan S. Tobin / JNS.org

Email a copy of "Defining ‘Occupied’ — and the Semantic Battle for Peace" to a friend

US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, May 15, 2017. Photo: Rob Ghost / Flash90.

JNS.org – In a demonstration of how completely at odds his views are from those of the foreign policy establishment, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman reportedly asked the State Department to stop using the term “occupied territories” and instead refer to the area as the “West Bank.”

According to accounts that have filtered out of Foggy Bottom, the State Department said no. But we are also told that after pressure “from above” — i.e. President Donald Trump — the issue has yet to be decided.

If this strikes you as a lot of bother about mere words, you’re wrong. These words are part of a high-stakes battle to determine the outcome of the debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

For some observers, Friedman’s request demonstrated anew that he was a bad choice for ambassador — since he has a record of support for the Jewish presence in the West Bank. But Friedman is correct that using the term “occupied” isn’t neutral. It backs up the Palestinian narrative that Israelis are alien colonists in territories where only Arabs should have rights.

Related coverage

November 19, 2018 12:09 pm
0

Kentucky and Other States Take a Stand Against BDS and Discrimination

Discrimination is wrong. That’s why states, including Kentucky, are enforcing measures aimed at pushing back against the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment,...

Israel’s position is that the ultimate disposition of the West Bank — or, to use the biblical as well as geographic term that was applied to the area before 1949, “Judea and Samaria” — is a matter of dispute in which both sides have a legitimate argument. To call the territories Judea and Samaria is also a political statement, just like “occupied territories.”

But the use of words as weapons can lead to a muddle. The term “West Bank” is itself geographic nonsense. It is a relic of the illegal Jordanian occupation of this area, as well as the Old City of Jerusalem from 1949-1967. At that time, the Hashemite kingdom had two “banks,” with an East — the area currently known as Jordan — as well as the West, which was taken by Israel during the Six-Day War.

Although Gaza functions as an independent Palestinian Hamas terror state, and much of that territory, as well as most of the Arab population of the West Bank is governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA), the fact is that the Palestinians do consider themselves “occupied” by Israel. The reason? Because Israel exercises security control over the area. Many Israelis also want to rid themselves of that burden, which brings their troops into contact with Palestinians in a way that further embitters both sides.

Only a minority of Israelis support the settlement movement, which wishes to hold on to all of the West Bank forever. A majority of Israelis would probably embrace a two-state solution that would mean giving up many, but not all of the settlements. But after the last 25 years, during which the Jewish state has repeatedly traded land and gotten more terror instead of peace, a cross-party consensus now exists that deems further withdrawals foolhardy until the Palestinians give up a political culture rooted in hatred and rejectionism.

“Occupation” isn’t the only semantic battle. Critics of President Trump’s statement recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital dismissed it as mere words, since the US embassy isn’t being moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem anytime soon. Trump’s statement didn’t preclude a two-state solution or a redivision of Jerusalem — in order for part of it to serve as the Palestinians’ capital. Far from demonstrating US favoritism to Israel, his was actually a neutral stance that acknowledged that at least some of the city belongs to Israel. It is those who insist on the term “occupied,” and in denying recognition of Jerusalem, who are the ones showing favoritism, though not to Israel.

PA leader Mahmoud Abbas responded to Trump by denying that Jews have rights over any of Jerusalem. Though at times Abbas has spoken in support of peace, his stand reaffirmed the steady stream of PA propaganda that denies the legitimacy of a Jewish state — no matter where its borders might be drawn. When push comes to shove, even Palestinian moderates still think of all of Israel, and not just the West Bank and Jerusalem, as “occupied” territory. That’s not just symbolism or semantics. That’s a prescription for endless conflict.

Seen in that light, what Trump and Friedman have said doesn’t seem quite as outrageous as their detractors assert. Until the Palestinians are ready to concede that their century-old war on Zionism has been lost, the debate over whether the West Bank is disputed or occupied will be moot. As long as they think that all land under Jewish control on either side of the 1967 lines is occupied, peace will remain a purely academic concept, no matter which words are used.

Jonathan S. Tobin is the editor-in-chief of JNS. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

Algemeiner.com