Rational discussion about the Israeli-Palestine conflict has been overridden by morally loaded language that hinders achieving productive dialogue. The rise of social media and the subsequent spreading of misinformation has exacerbated this problem. Morally loaded language such as “apartheid”, “settler-colonialism”, and “genocide” allows people to virtue signal even though they have scarcely any knowledge about this topic. This vocabulary exploits their ignorance, relying on preconceived notions about other conflicts that are more familiar to a Western audience. Such maximalist rhetoric abuses intersectionality by painting a comprehensive, incorrect narrative involving dissimilar conflicts. These tactics attempt to create solidarity between different groups and ideas by relying on ignorance and buzzwords. Given the West’s history, we are incredibly sensitive to terms such as “apartheid” and “colonialism” and often try to overcompensate for historical mistakes.
When people use this lens as a binary for every world conflict, they are vulnerable to falling for disinformation that preys on guilt and ignorance. Subsequently, this rhetoric pushes people to align with extremist ideas, such as in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Throughout this conflict, many extremist ideologies have become completely normalized, such as people pushing for the complete abolition of the State of Israel or equating Zionism with Nazism. These ideas are not only dangerous but also detrimental to achieving rational discussion. Using rhetoric that relies on completely unrealistic ideas alienates moderates and prevents a discussion about the real issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
For example, people often call the State of Israel an apartheid government that treats Jews and Arabs differently in the same way that South Africa propelled race-based discrimination in the 20th century. Apartheid claims are based wholly around the West Bank, a region which is governed completely differently from the State of Israel. Without full context, it is tempting to interpret facts about the West Bank and mistakenly conclude that the entire State of Israel is founded on apartheid. In reality, 20% of Israel’s population consists of Arab-Israelis who enjoy the same privileges of every other citizen. This ethnic population also has several political parties and representatives in Israel’s legislature, the Knesset. In addition, Arab Israelis serve on the Supreme Court and are well-represented in many professions. Every Israeli citizen, regardless of their ethnicity or religion, is granted essentially the same rights. Notwithstanding these facts, people will throw around the term “apartheid” with no consideration of its meaning other than believing that it simply means “racism”.
Given the guilt Western people feel for historical mistakes, describing the State of Israel as an apartheid regime will catch the attention of many people. An additional problem is that many of these talking points originate from Soviet propaganda dating back to the 1960s. These talking points were built from the Soviet Union’s alliances with some of Israel’s rivals including Egypt and Syria, not from any moral concern the Soviet Union had for the Palestinians. The Soviet Union developed this propaganda to pursue its ambitions in the Middle East, culminating in its promotion of the United Nations resolution stating that “Zionism is Racism” in 1975. Despite this history, these dated pieces of propaganda have re-emerged and tricked Western audiences into believing the ideas without any understanding of the context. Some misinformed people who hear these words feel morally obliged to take a position without careful consideration. Words such as apartheid carry a heavy meaning and should be used carefully. Yet, some radicalized individuals falsely believe that Israel, in its entirety, is founded on apartheid and must be abolished. Signs claiming Israel to be an apartheid or racist regime were plastered all over UCLA’s Palestine encampment. The encampment is a monument to the sins of radicalization.
The West Bank is an inaccurate testament of Israel’s broader policy. As a disputed territory not fully under Israeli law, Israeli citizens who live in West Bank communities are subject to certain Israeli laws pursuant to emergency regulations adopted by Israel. Non-citizens who reside in certain portions of the West Bank are subject to Israeli military law mixed with Palestinian laws. The fact that residents of the West Bank are treated differently from Israeli citizens is based on the fact that they live in disputed territory and not on the fact that they are Arabs. However, the reason for this unique statelessness of the West Bank is not Israel’s fault alone. The West Bank was supposed to have been part of the Palestinian state which was not declared. Jordan annexed the region and considered it their territory from 1948-1967. However, after the Six Day War, Israel offered to return the West Bank and other territories in exchange for peace, but this offer was rejected in the Khartoum Resolution, which stated that the Arab League would refuse any negotiations with Israel. After 1967, Jordan failed to exercise full sovereignty of the West Bank and fully renounced their claims to sovereignty in the West Bank in 1988. As a result, Israel was left in control of this hostile territory. The West Bank did not have a formal government or leader aside from the head of a terrorist organization who similarly rejected negotiations with Israel until 1993. People from these territories continued to launch attacks on Israel, forcing Israel to enact a military occupation. To call Israel’s entire occupation of the West Bank an issue of apartheid ignores the larger situation that led to the statelessness of the territory, and is historically incongruent with the distinct background of South Africa.
These unfounded accusations of apartheid overlook the critical obstacles to peace in the West Bank. For example, Israel’s expanding settlements in the West Bank and the violence and mistreatment Palestinians face are genuine issues that need to be resolved. Israel has developed several settlements in the West Bank that are considered by many to be illegal under international law. Many of these settlements are largely unnecessary for Israel’s defense and reflect the ambitions of the extreme right in Israel who aim to annex the West Bank. Additionally, some settlers in the West Bank have committed numerous acts of unjustified violence against Palestinians. However, violence is a two-way street in the West Bank, with the Palestinian Authority incentivizing violence against Israelis by providing financial support to terrorists and their relatives. If a peaceful solution is to be found between both sides, Israel will need to reexamine their policies in the West Bank and the sovereignty of this territory. There are many legitimate criticisms of Israel’s expansion into the West Bank that are important in order to end the conflict. However, attacking Israel with morally loaded words like apartheid poisons the well for real discussion about how to solve the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
Another morally loaded term people throw around is claiming that Israelis are Nazis and that they put Palestinians in concentration camps. Comparing Israelis to Nazis is a misappropriation of anti-semitism and deliberately disrespectful to the numerous Jews who fled the Holocaust to Israel. For many, the Nazis and the Holocaust have become so trivialized that people will associate anything bad with these concepts. The misuse of references to the Holocaust is similar in some respects to the misuse of Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy to justify actions which harm marginalized people. Some conservatives will use Martin Luther King Jr. to push ideas of civility and peace, oftentimes in contexts that would disagree with his original message. People are right to call out those who twist historical ideas to fit their narrative, but often fail to recognize the injustice of comparing Israel to the Nazis. Calling the principal place Jews were able to flee during the Holocaust a country full of Nazis is a gross misuse of morally loaded vocabulary. In an attempt to use any morally loaded language possible, people try to use a group’s own struggles against them by appropriating these struggles into a political talking point. In the encampment at UCLA, there were signs comparing the IDF or “IOF” to the KKK and other gross comparisons. By ignoring the KKK’s anti-Semitic history and drawing comparisons to Israel, people reveal their intent to equate Israel with any manifestation of pure evil. There is no intellectual thought in comparing Gaza to a concentration camp or the IDF to Nazis. These tactics are done to convince ignorant people who associate these terms with evil into believing whatever propaganda is being argued. Using this language demonizes the other side, making it impossible to seek common ground.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often a cesspool where both sides engage in misstating facts and using language that precludes rational discussion. The combination of misinformation and morally loaded language is counterproductive to constructive dialogue about the situation in the Middle East. In order for peace to be achieved, both sides must overcome the challenges posed by misinformation and offensive language.
