What’s in a Name? How language legitimises Israeli oppression

“You have been assigned to represent the state of Israel.”

I never expected to hear this phrase at all while at high school in Ramallah, Palestine, yet I not only heard it, but found myself as the (horribly ironic) representative of Israel in our Model United Nations (MUN) conference.

My classmates burst into laughter while I remained slightly shocked and embarrassed, surprised that someone would actually take on the role of our collective oppressor. At the very least, I expected to represent my namesake and country of origin, even if Palestine technically doesn’t have “member” status in the UN; rather, it is qualified as a Permanent Observer State.

This was the first of several conferences I would end up participating in, hoping to put something substantial on my upcoming university applications. I was completely naive to the inept nature of this particular international body. I was eager to participate in something that felt meaningful, even on a small scale.

The topic of the conference was the 2021 settler incursions in the neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah, in which Palestinian homes and families were violently attacked, sparking a wave of protests in the West Bank and a barrage of Israeli strikes on the Gaza Strip.

My English teacher had a particular complaint about Israel being represented at all in our MUN, and what he said stuck with me long past the conference. In his view, we shouldn’t even refer to the occupier as “Israel” or “the Israeli state”; rather, it should only be given the label of “the Zionist entity” or “a settler colonial project.”

Acknowledging the statehood of Israel granted legitimacy to our own oppression, and even in a seemingly benign context of a high school extracurricular activity, this word choice made all the difference.

During the actual conference, despite my teacher’s misgivings, I was still referred to as “the delegate of Israel” and was forced to argue for the displacement and settler violence against my own people.

While this was extremely uncomfortable to do, it allowed me to gain further insights into the propaganda machine that Israel utilises to defend itself against criticism, and more importantly, justify its existence as a whole.

I, for the two-day duration of the conference, became well-versed in hasbara, or the narrative falsities that Israel uses as a sort of PR firm.

While directly translated from Hebrew as “an explanation”, hasbara is much more sinister–it seeks to obtain full control over how the Israeli image is communicated on a larger scale, whether that be through news outlets, social media, or even individual conversations about the “Israel-Palestine conflict” that reek of internalised propaganda.

It is well known that those within the Zionist project often validate their slew of criminal actions by exploiting the victimhood card, and constantly reasserting Israel’s right to exist–something no other state feels the need to establish.

International governing bodies such as the UN recognise Israeli brutality, but that recognition never truly turns into practice or any type of concrete condemnatory action. Meanwhile, Palestinians are left to the sidelines as an “observer”, all because of a lack of statehood. Israel itself was established illegally and forcefully, but once the title of state was given, Israel was ushered into the global community and impunity towards Israeli actions became commonplace.

While some so-called progressive figures still put forth the long-dead two-state solution as some sort of redeeming factor in a decades-long history of occupation and ongoing genocide, naming “the Palestinian state” or even fully advocating for a Palestinian state to be established feeds into the maintenance of and comfort with the racial discrimination upheld by Israel and the relentless dehumanisation of the Palestinian people.

Sami Hermez, an anthropologist and Associate Professor at Northwestern University in Qatar, explains that calls for Palestinian statehood within the framework of a two-state solution do more harm than good.

“The idea itself stems from two racist ideas. First, that Jews have a right to a homeland in Palestine above the rights of native peoples, and second, that Jews and Arabs cannot live together and must be separated. These calls for recognition also deny Palestinians their full rights under international law and implicitly treat them as less deserving than other peoples out there.”

Maintaining any type of normalcy with the presence of Israel could lead to a sense of complacency or even hopelessness that the Palestinian situation will never change, and given the current genocide and the wave of pro-Palestinian sentiments that have come with it, it is all the more important to continue to defy Israeli oppression, even on a nominal level.

Referring to Israel as the Zionist entity or an apartheid regime, of course, does not strip it of its statehood on a legal or political basis, but it is a doable step towards the wider dismantling of colonial structures that must take place to achieve true liberation.

Falasteen Mansour is currently a freelance writer and student journalist at Northwestern University in Qatar, pursuing minors in Media and Politics and Middle East Studies. She grew up in the United States, but has lived in the occupied West Bank for the past four years, and is passionate about spreading awareness for the Palestinian cause through her volunteering efforts and writings.

Follow Falasteen on Instagram: @falasteenmansour 

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.