For those of us alarmed by the recent civilian death toll in Gaza, our obligation as concerned global citizens has been to promote the end of the war, provide humanitarian aid and press Israel and Hamas to reach a sustainable ceasefire agreement. With these weighty issues surrounding us, it might seem frivolous to harp on the nitty-gritty issue of language as part of this work, but language has the power to exacerbate – or heal – violent conflicts.
This war in particular revealed the power of language. In discussions and protests around the world, it was impossible for concerned citizens to express their dissatisfaction without being labelled "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israeli" – two homogenising, seemingly mutually exclusive terms.
"Pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Israeli" protests held on the streets of several countries left no room for those who were decisively against Hamas rocket attacks and those who were vociferously opposed to the IDF military campaign. No public space remained for the discerning. Demonstrations in Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands did not focus on the achievable and the pragmatic – a negotiated ceasefire – but on the blood and ideological allegiances.
At the demonstration in Trafalgar Square in London, for example, protests against the Israeli government for the mounting Palestinian civilian deaths were not accompanied by calls for peace between Israel and Hamas; and yet, protestors were blaming the latter for the war.
In Paris and Amsterdam, chants condemning one group or the other not only squandered the public potential to influence policy makers, but also fuelled fears of possible domestic terrorism and violence in European communities already grappling with questions of integration.
Demonstrators that focus on the problems and not the solutions only polarise the conflict further and isolate issue-oriented protesters who are committed to peace.
The language issue also filters down to one-on-one conversations. Being raised in a family that straddles religious divides, I am fed up with hearing the question, "So, are you pro-Israeli? Or pro-Palestinian?" and of the scrutiny that follows in the hope of pegging me as one or the other.
Neither term adequately describes or reflects my own positions, nor those of many others who rely more heavily on cross-cultural concepts of justice and humanity like those articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In times of war, however, these concepts entail exhausting non-violent efforts of mediation, avoiding civilian casualties and indiscriminate killing, distributing humanitarian aid regardless of political circumstances and resisting the call for collective punishment.
My criticism of the policies of Israel in each of these areas does not absolve those of Hamas and vice versa. Making it clear that neither criticism nor victimhood is the exclusive domain of one side proves challenging, though.
A new language of public outcry is desperately needed, especially in Europe and North America, where "pro-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian" groups frequently clash with each other on the streets.
I call for an outcry that advocates the use of clear and constructive terminology to express achievable goals. Slogans such as "Death to [insert nation/country/people]" are a far cry from being realistic – or productive. Only a pragmatic kind of public language in public discourse will unite peacemakers in both "pro-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian" camps that share a common vision for peace.
Thus, a more constructive language that bridges both camps might have entailed widespread calls for a ceasefire, a truce, a window to deliver humanitarian aid, an end to the Gaza bombings, an end to Qassam rockets, Israel-Hamas talks, Fatah-Hamas talks, etc. Using simple slogans with simple demands such as "Close tunnels, open borders", "No drones, build homes", and "Justice without borders" can achieve more peaceful results.
Adopting this kind of specific, more inclusive, constructive language is the responsibility of all peacemakers to disseminate prior to protests, through print and electronic circulation. It is also the responsibility of educators to teach it to children. And it is the responsibility of all concerned citizens to practice ways of voicing dissent without resorting to a rhetoric that kills.
This war in particular revealed the power of language. In discussions and protests around the world, it was impossible for concerned citizens to express their dissatisfaction without being labelled "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israeli" – two homogenising, seemingly mutually exclusive terms.
"Pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Israeli" protests held on the streets of several countries left no room for those who were decisively against Hamas rocket attacks and those who were vociferously opposed to the IDF military campaign. No public space remained for the discerning. Demonstrations in Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands did not focus on the achievable and the pragmatic – a negotiated ceasefire – but on the blood and ideological allegiances.
At the demonstration in Trafalgar Square in London, for example, protests against the Israeli government for the mounting Palestinian civilian deaths were not accompanied by calls for peace between Israel and Hamas; and yet, protestors were blaming the latter for the war.
In Paris and Amsterdam, chants condemning one group or the other not only squandered the public potential to influence policy makers, but also fuelled fears of possible domestic terrorism and violence in European communities already grappling with questions of integration.
Demonstrators that focus on the problems and not the solutions only polarise the conflict further and isolate issue-oriented protesters who are committed to peace.
The language issue also filters down to one-on-one conversations. Being raised in a family that straddles religious divides, I am fed up with hearing the question, "So, are you pro-Israeli? Or pro-Palestinian?" and of the scrutiny that follows in the hope of pegging me as one or the other.
Neither term adequately describes or reflects my own positions, nor those of many others who rely more heavily on cross-cultural concepts of justice and humanity like those articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In times of war, however, these concepts entail exhausting non-violent efforts of mediation, avoiding civilian casualties and indiscriminate killing, distributing humanitarian aid regardless of political circumstances and resisting the call for collective punishment.
My criticism of the policies of Israel in each of these areas does not absolve those of Hamas and vice versa. Making it clear that neither criticism nor victimhood is the exclusive domain of one side proves challenging, though.
A new language of public outcry is desperately needed, especially in Europe and North America, where "pro-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian" groups frequently clash with each other on the streets.
I call for an outcry that advocates the use of clear and constructive terminology to express achievable goals. Slogans such as "Death to [insert nation/country/people]" are a far cry from being realistic – or productive. Only a pragmatic kind of public language in public discourse will unite peacemakers in both "pro-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian" camps that share a common vision for peace.
Thus, a more constructive language that bridges both camps might have entailed widespread calls for a ceasefire, a truce, a window to deliver humanitarian aid, an end to the Gaza bombings, an end to Qassam rockets, Israel-Hamas talks, Fatah-Hamas talks, etc. Using simple slogans with simple demands such as "Close tunnels, open borders", "No drones, build homes", and "Justice without borders" can achieve more peaceful results.
Adopting this kind of specific, more inclusive, constructive language is the responsibility of all peacemakers to disseminate prior to protests, through print and electronic circulation. It is also the responsibility of educators to teach it to children. And it is the responsibility of all concerned citizens to practice ways of voicing dissent without resorting to a rhetoric that kills.
By Shayna Zamkanei
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), www.commongroundnews.org
