Out of 5,400 words, US President Bush devoted 18 words to the Israeli crisis in his State of the Union address last week. The last word in this isolated sentence stands out ? ?Palestine?.
Anyone fearful of the context has a right to be. Here is the full sentence: ?In the Middle East, we will continue to seek peace between a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine.?
This is how dangerous misleading semantics can get. Even the president ? who has inspired considerable confidence among many supporters of Israel ? has Palestine on his lips; as if an established political unit and would-be sovereign nation by that name is an accepted fact.
Of course, Bush?s speech-writers probably tossed in the line to make some obligatory reference to the White House?s involvement in solving the conflict. Perhaps they intentionally used the word ?Palestine? because of the symbolic importance attached to it by supporters of the Palestinians, which itself is a questionable term.
Words and terms floated by the Arab side have been creeping into our lexicon, and now the most potent word so far has been added to the Oval Office?s vocabulary.
There has never been a place called ?Palestine? in relation to any Arabs who reside in Gaza or on land located east of Israel proper, to the Jordan River. That?s the land generally referred to as the West Bank, which, for that matter, has itself been subject to dispute.
Certainly, the Bush administration needs to reconsider its use of that word. The context of his sentence was vague. At the very least, his lone reference to the Israeli conflict strongly implies an accepted Arab land called ?Palestine?, slated to become a sovereign nation in the near future. That alone is enough to legitimize the word ?Palestine,? and, in turn, legitimize the attitude that the West Bank and Gaza belong to the Arabs.
In principle, I lean to the view that the land belongs to the Jews, on grounds that the Arabs already have 22 countries and a far more vast land mass. Why do they need yet another country? However, I concur with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?s assertion that this is disputed territory.
In reality, it is disputed. Many Israelis, Jews and supporters of Israel fervently believe that it belongs to the Jewish people. Supporters of the Palestinians just as fervently believe it is Arab or Palestinian land. Obviously, they automatically employ the word ?Palestine? to legitimize the West Bank as Palestinian land. I hear the word periodically in discussions with people who sympathize with the Palestinians. They usually slip the word into the first sentence, which signals that their mind is already made up. It is especially disturbing when people who are in political and professional positions, and need to be objective about the conflict, accept the term.
In Thursday?s (Jan. 30) Philadelphia Jewish Exponent, letter-writer Steve Feldman reported that the managing editor of the Philadelphia News, Ellen Foley, uttered the word ?Palestine? during a meeting when Feldman and other representatives of the local Jewish community complained to Foley and another editor about a photo spread depicting Palestinian suffering.
Feldman wrote, ?Foley?s mis-classification of the place where the photos were taken as ?Palestine,? as she mentioned to us at the meeting, demonstrates the mind-set in the Daily News newsroom.?
And now, to paraphrase the book title Israel in the Mind of America, we are faced with ?Palestine on the lips of President Bush?.
Hopefully he will rethink this matter.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bruce S. Ticker is a freelance writer and former journalist living in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He can be reached at Brucetic@aol.com.
Anyone fearful of the context has a right to be. Here is the full sentence: ?In the Middle East, we will continue to seek peace between a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine.?
This is how dangerous misleading semantics can get. Even the president ? who has inspired considerable confidence among many supporters of Israel ? has Palestine on his lips; as if an established political unit and would-be sovereign nation by that name is an accepted fact.
Of course, Bush?s speech-writers probably tossed in the line to make some obligatory reference to the White House?s involvement in solving the conflict. Perhaps they intentionally used the word ?Palestine? because of the symbolic importance attached to it by supporters of the Palestinians, which itself is a questionable term.
Words and terms floated by the Arab side have been creeping into our lexicon, and now the most potent word so far has been added to the Oval Office?s vocabulary.
There has never been a place called ?Palestine? in relation to any Arabs who reside in Gaza or on land located east of Israel proper, to the Jordan River. That?s the land generally referred to as the West Bank, which, for that matter, has itself been subject to dispute.
Certainly, the Bush administration needs to reconsider its use of that word. The context of his sentence was vague. At the very least, his lone reference to the Israeli conflict strongly implies an accepted Arab land called ?Palestine?, slated to become a sovereign nation in the near future. That alone is enough to legitimize the word ?Palestine,? and, in turn, legitimize the attitude that the West Bank and Gaza belong to the Arabs.
In principle, I lean to the view that the land belongs to the Jews, on grounds that the Arabs already have 22 countries and a far more vast land mass. Why do they need yet another country? However, I concur with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?s assertion that this is disputed territory.
In reality, it is disputed. Many Israelis, Jews and supporters of Israel fervently believe that it belongs to the Jewish people. Supporters of the Palestinians just as fervently believe it is Arab or Palestinian land. Obviously, they automatically employ the word ?Palestine? to legitimize the West Bank as Palestinian land. I hear the word periodically in discussions with people who sympathize with the Palestinians. They usually slip the word into the first sentence, which signals that their mind is already made up. It is especially disturbing when people who are in political and professional positions, and need to be objective about the conflict, accept the term.
In Thursday?s (Jan. 30) Philadelphia Jewish Exponent, letter-writer Steve Feldman reported that the managing editor of the Philadelphia News, Ellen Foley, uttered the word ?Palestine? during a meeting when Feldman and other representatives of the local Jewish community complained to Foley and another editor about a photo spread depicting Palestinian suffering.
Feldman wrote, ?Foley?s mis-classification of the place where the photos were taken as ?Palestine,? as she mentioned to us at the meeting, demonstrates the mind-set in the Daily News newsroom.?
And now, to paraphrase the book title Israel in the Mind of America, we are faced with ?Palestine on the lips of President Bush?.
Hopefully he will rethink this matter.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bruce S. Ticker is a freelance writer and former journalist living in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He can be reached at Brucetic@aol.com.