What's in a Word: Occupation

Today someone brought to my attention to the fact that many Israelis do not use the word occupation to describe the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza. It is true, even among Israelis that do not agree with Israel's presence there. Perhaps it has something to do with the meaning of the word.

Most people when they speak of occupation in the context of Israel and the Palestinians, speak of the West Bank and Gaza as well as Eastern Jerusalem. However when Israelis think of the word, they think of Hamas' reference to the whole of mandatory Palestine as 'occupied lands' - not just those aforementioned areas. Therefore as long as this dispute concerning the meaning of the words 'occupied lands' exists, many Israelis would not use the word occupation for it means they would be advocating the destruction of Israel. From their point of view it is similar to reading a contract before making sure it does not grant them the short end of the stick.

The point to take from all of this is that the symbolic meaning of words matters in the Middle East; and that before the two sides can seat for an agreement, they must agree on the terminology. Until this difference in meanings is cleared by Hamas, there can be no progress.

Just as Israel's moderate right has forgone the idea of 'a Jewish state over the whole of biblical Israel', it is time for Hamas to abandon the idea of 'a Muslim caliphate over the whole of mandatory Palestine'.