Know Your Vocab: Words We Get Wrong When Talking about Israel and Palestine

The words we use matter. As students on a multilingual campus, I am sure we can agree on that fact; simple turns of phrase or article choices evoke different meanings and change the essence of a sentence, a paragraph, or even an entire narrative. In everyday conversation, we may retain critical elements by inferring or safely assuming intention in communication, but when it comes to political discourse, the stakes are much higher. 

The issue of word choice is particularly significant in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Word association and labels may exacerbate existing divides, cultivating a hostile environment where discussion often quickly escalates or shuts down. How can a path forward emerge if most dialogue automatically sparks intractable positions and potential violence? To brush off semantics, to say that language use is the least of our worries when it comes to geopolitical or humanitarian crises, risks conflating provocative and misappropriated terminology with an already tragic reality. Particularly with facts that are weighty and volatile, the misuse or misapplication of language creates a divide that does everyone a disservice. 

This article will define and contextualize the use of the term “genocide” as only one example as it relates to the breakdown of discourse surrounding Israel and Palestine. This analysis is by no means intended to justify or excuse actions of one “side” or another; rather, it is aimed at fostering a future that includes productive discussion, allows for the recognition of history, of multi-faceted narratives, and provokes meaningful reflection as to how we approach activism.

Genocide: Methodical destruction of a human group.

“genos” (“race”/”tribe”) + “cide” (killing”)

Genocide is a legal term. It was originally coined in 1944 by Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin to describe the atrocities facilitated by Nazi Germany. The intention in legal jargon—and in reference to both foreign policy and humanitarian concerns—was to “denote a crime so terrible that it could not be confused with any other.” Yet, in the 21st century, there seems to be little care taken with its use; the term is acutely pronounced in the conversations relating to Israel and Palestine. 

The United Nations’ 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide document offers the precise, “operating” definition of genocide in Article II:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. 

Israel has enacted clauses (a) and (b) (as any other large scale act of war would entail). However, they have not—and have no stated intent of—committing clauses (c), (d), and (e). 

Furthermore, as it concerns clause (c), there are allegations that certain factions of the Israeli population and/or the Israeli government warrant the particular charge. One can point to Israeli policies that deny Palestinians access to natural resources—a deprivation of water sources, for example—as a means of generating “conditions of life calculated to bring about its [the group's] physical destruction in whole or in part”]. Yet, it remains difficult to defend the application of this clause. The use of the word “deliberately” implies a subjective threshold. To reference the case of water policy, one must look to the lasting impacts of the Oslo Accords (1993)—which allowed Israel “overwhelming control of the occupied West Bank's aquifers”—and to the greater context in the following decades: a climate crisis that has put further stresses on already limited resources combined with a growing Palestinian population in need of more of those same resources. Therefore, this ostensible rendering of poor living conditions speaks more to discriminatory policy exacerbated by rising political extremism rather than an actual doctrine of genocide against Palestinians influencing Israeli action.

The suffering of Palestinians in Gaza due to Israeli missile strikes is appalling and heartbreaking, in every case. Several legitimate arguments may be put forth challenging the Israeli government’s position that they make every effort to minimize senseless loss of civilian life. In relation to the ongoing war spurred by Hamas’ attacks of October 7, one might question the Israeli government’s true intent in shutting off electricity and water in Gaza and its effectiveness as a bargaining chip to pressure Hamas into returning the over 200 Israeli and other foreign citizen hostages. Regardless, these points do not mean that Israel is committing genocide. 

The October 7 horrors signified terrible terrorist attacks by Hamas against Israeli citizens. The attacks were accompanied by videos of the atrocities committed, notes left on murdered persons saying “Death to Jews,” and public declarations by a Hamas leader stating they would do October 7 over again. These actions alone do not necessitate the employment of the term “genocide.” But, they were arguably committed with genocidal intent. 

Hamas as a political and militant entity has a history of concrete, written reference to demonstrated genocidal goals: first, with their 1988 charter—a document made easily accessible to the public through robust translation and publication—calling for the destruction of Jewish people ('The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.' [Article 7]), and then with their rebranding in 2017, more specifically referencing the liberation of Palestinians from the “colonial Zionist project” of Israel (‘Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion.’). By nature of documentation, it is admittedly easier to point to genocidal intent. Paired with ongoing rhetoric by Hamas officials, there is little room for interpretation of the organization’s long term plan: attempting to trigger a disproportionate Israeli military response as to derail normalization with surrounding Arab nations and to “overthrow” the status quo (with a willingness to inflict further suffering and burden on the Palestinian people as a means to an end).

The existence of Hamas should not, by any means, condemn the Palestinians in Gaza to collective punishment, nor should it justify sometimes fatal violence committed by Israel settlers in the West Bank. It should not give reason for dehumanizing language, even in reference to designated terrorists. What it should indicate—specifically for the international community—is a conflict muddied by multiple elements and motivations. It should stimulate awareness and critical thinking. 

Using the term “genocide” in any of the ways described above accomplishes little (or nothing) in building a more stable future. However, it is extremely successful in fueling further political divides within the global community and inciting rage and violence, painting one side as “good” and the other “evil.” It isolates Israelis while simultaneously fueling a seemingly global antisemitism, emboldening the existing far-right extremists and settlers in the occupied West Bank. Additionally, it fragments rule of law and harms minorities who are targets of true genocide.