Language: A Tool of Oppression and Liberation

By Samah Jabr


	A few hours after Israel and Hamas announced a cease-fire, an Israeli soldier at an army outpost near the Kisufim crossing with the Gaza Strip wears a T-shirt reading “We will be back soon,” June 19, 2008 (AFP photo/Marco Longari).

ON MAY 15 of this year, the day Palestinians commemorated the 60th anniversary of their forceful expulsion from their homes, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that Palestinians will be able to celebrate their independence day the day the word “Nakba,” the word referring to their dispossession, is erased from their lexicon. Danny Carmon, Israel’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, asked for clarification after an official communiqué released by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s office made specific reference to the word. Carmon told Israel Radio that the term “Nakba” is a tool of Arab propaganda used to undermine the legitimacy of the establishment of the State of Israel, and that it must not be part of the lexicon of the U.N.

In order to make occupied Palestine more Jewish, a new bill introduced in the Knesset would make Hebrew Israel’s sole official language. Arabic, the official language of the natives of this land, would become a secondary language equivalent to Russian and English, which currently have no status. The bill was drafted by former Likud Education Minister Limor Livnat and seconded by other MKs.

“Particularly in these days—when extremist organizations among Arab Israelis are trying to turn Israel into a binational state, and, consequently, into a bilingual state in which Hebrew and Arabic would become official languages with equal status—it is urgent to ratify by law the unique status of the language of the Bible, the Hebrew language,” Livnat said.

Such efforts seek the suppression and annihilation of the Palestinian people’s past and present by an Other who believes to the core of his being that his culture is superior to, and he thus more worthy of life and its opportunities than, the native inhabitants of the land in which he lives. The occupier wants to eliminate the language through which we relate to the world, understand ourselves and assert our unacknowledged presence; its attack on our language is intended to erase Palestinian memories, culture and history, and instead insidiously install the foreign occupier’s dominance.

Language and culture are inseparable, especially for communities experiencing a political and historical crisis. Palestinians transmit our history and culture, indeed our entire body of values, not only through written literature but through the narratives of our grandmothers. Language is thus inseparable from ourselves as a community of human beings with a specific form and character, a specific history, a specific relationship to the world.

Colonizers typically have imposed their language on the peoples they colonized, forbidding natives to speak their mother tongues. As is well known, the historical narrative is usually presented from the point of view of the conqueror.

Linguistic dominance is particularly powerful because the word can be used, most often through literature, to examine the attitudes and assumptions of two competing cultures. As Franz Fanon has written, oppression often takes the form of a primarily unconscious cultural assimilation, an indoctrination of the dominant culture’s beliefs upon the occupied nation.

In the case of 21st century Israel, such practices tend to be more implicit, veiled and sophisticated, in line with modern political context of globalization and the extinction of the minority native language through stigmatization and marginalization. Since its inception, the occupation has imposed a logic and discourse—with its definitions, categories and terminology—that subjugates Palestinians physically, politically, culturally and economically.

Part of the process of taking possession of the existing culture was that of de- or re-naming events and territories, including Palestinian towns and villages; creating stereotypes; determining what is discussed and what omitted; denying the accuracy of the Palestinian narrative; and implying that attention to the Palestinian discourse indicates a subjective point of view.

A defensive and apologist vocabulary serves to perpetuate the injustices: Israel’s occupation of Palestine is described as an Arab-Jewish “conflict”; Palestinian (never Jewish) violence is attributed to Palestinian (never Jewish) hatred. Israel’s Jewish chauvinist theocracy is called a “democracy,” the occupied territories are “disputed,” illegal settlements are “neighborhoods” and their deliberate illegal expansion on occupied land is “natural growth.” The U.S., which backs Israel with money, weapons and Security Council vetoes, is an “honest broker,” Palestinian throw not stones but “rocks,” the separation wall is a “fence,” Israeli military occupiers are “Defense Forces.” Liberal Zionist activists constitute a “peace camp,” teaching our children Palestinian history is deemed “incitement,” Israeli torture is described as “moderate physical pressure,” adhering to international law is a “concession” or “painful compromise,” and returning insignificant portions of stolen land is a “generous offer.”

The dictionary defines deportation as the banishment of undesirable persons to their native land; but Israel uses the word to describe the expulsion or exile of Palestinians from their native land. Similarly, it describes Jewish immigration from Europe, Russia, Ethiopia, South America—anywhere but Palestine—as a “return.” This terminology not only denies Palestinians their right to their own land, but also implies that Israel is simply following legal procedures.

Meanwhile, the demand that Palestinians surrender and accept defeat is accepted as the sole requirement for peace.

Is it not absurd that, as Palestinians face death and oppression every day, we are obsessed with Israeli fears? Isn’t it scandalous that we Palestinians live in uncertainty, but must be concerned about Israel’s need for security? How can it be that, as our existence, our rights, and our voice go unrecognized, we debate the need to recognize Israel? Thus have we Palestinians learned to speak the “language” of the occupation.

Learning Hebrew

Lately I find myself motivated to learn Hebrew—an emotionally charged project for me. Hebrew, after all, is not merely a foreign language, it is the tongue of the occupation, interlocked to the Zionist project and the disposition of Palestinians.

I want to learn Hebrew in order to better understand and struggle with the newly arrived culture and its imposed beliefs, values, habits and traditions that have now become entangled within our own lives. Learning Hebrew will help me fight the language of occupation by using the occupier’s language to express my opinion, re-forming it into new literary forms to reflect the Palestinian experience, and as a therapeutic act of dialogue and resistance.

Language is both malleable and deceptive. It can be used to convey a moral plight and also to hide horrendous deeds. When I speak Hebrew I hope to make it bear the burden of the Palestinian experience and discourse and lend its words to Palestinian cries for freedom—and to accommodate, appropriate and resist the Hebrew policies that attack our existence and identity.

May there one day be a universal language of liberation so that all oppressed peoples might resist the dominant power that encourages them to internalize and blame themselves for their own oppression by accepting as normal and inevitable the discourse of the tyrants and its frequently oppressive terminology.

Samah Jabr is a psychiatrist practicing in the West Bank and her native Jerusalem.