2. The Use of Neutral Terms is Essentially a Process of Erasing Arabs, Reality, and Arab History:

Among the Zionist rhetorical tricks is the use of terms that appear innocent and neutral, replacing terms with Arab historical and humanitarian connotations. Perhaps the most prominent of these attempts is referring to Palestine as "a land without a people." This is an extremely neutral phrase—Palestine is not "Palestine" at all but merely "land," and that’s it. The same phenomenon appears in the dispute over UN Security Council Resolution 242, which states in its preamble the principle of "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force" and deals with the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied in 1967, calling for withdrawal from them. Here, the Israelis raised the issue of the territories in question, referring to them as "territories" (in the English text) or "the territories" (in the French text). Naturally, they preferred the English version because it neutralizes the land, stripping it of its boundaries and making it entirely negotiable. The situation deteriorated (or evolved) when the Israelis decided that the "Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza" were "disputed territories" (in English: disputed) and not "occupied" (in English: occupied), and the Americans agreed with them. Zionist propaganda also attempted to refer to the "Intifada" as "riots" or mere "civil disobedience." However, the Intifada succeeded in penetrating the Zionist lexicon and became firmly established (like a shining star) within Hebrew and English vocabulary.

The process of neutralization also appears in Zionist discourse about "progress" in the region, turning deserts into green farms, etc., without specifying for whose benefit and at whose expense this progress occurs. Martin Buber employed a similar trick in a letter he sent to Gandhi, attempting to justify the Zionist invasion by writing that the land belongs to those who cultivate it—as if the Zionist settlers were merely peaceful farmers who found land and patiently tilled and planted it, while the (wicked) Arabs harassed them! This is a complete erasure of the roots of the conflict and the use of neutral terms that cancel out history.

3. The Use of Jewish Religious Terms in Temporal Historical Contexts:

This rhetorical trick is embedded in all the previous ones, but it is of such importance that it may be useful to address it separately. Jewish mystical-immanent discourse does not differentiate between temporal history and sacred history, nor between the absolute and the relative. This is what Zionist discourse does when it refers to Palestine as the "Holy Land," the "Promised Land," or "Israel" (the name given to Jacob after he wrestled with God). The use of religious terms in a temporal context creates a timeless continuity—the Hebrews who left the land of exile in Egypt and ascended to the land of Canaan are not much different from Soviet Jews or Falasha Jews who left their countries (exile) and ascended to the land of Canaan (the state of Israel). Hence, settler migration to Palestine is called aliyah (ascent, rising), while emigration from it is called yeridah (descent, implying apostasy and disbelief). The use of religious terms imposes Jewish sanctity on Palestinian land, which implies that Jews are organically linked to it, while Arabs are marginalized, falling outside the circle of sanctity.

4. Completely Concealing or Erasing a Specific Signifier from the Political and Civilizational Lexicon, or Using Signifiers that Erase Arabs:

Zionists resort to completely erasing certain signifiers from the political and civilizational lexicon to erase the signified and remove it from the cognitive map. This strategy is rooted in Western colonial-settler discourse, which employs biblical preambles. The settler-colonialists are "Hebrews" or the "Chosen People," the lands they conquer (whether in North America, South Africa, or Palestine) are "Zion" or "Israel," and the inhabitants of these lands are referred to as "Canaanites," whose fate is extermination. Later, this trend was secularized, and the settler-colonialists became "bearers of the torch of Western civilization and enlightenment," while the invaded inhabitants became "natives," "primitives," "savages," "backward people," or "Red Indians." Their lands lost their names—Zimbabwe, for example, became "Rhodesia," and the lands of the Apache and Cherokee were no longer called by their names but became "America," named after its "discoverer" (Amerigo Vespucci). A similar process occurred in Zionist discourse: the Zionist settlers are "Hebrews" (or chalutzim—pioneers—in secular lexicon, those who arrived and "discovered" the land). As for the native inhabitants, they became either "Canaanites" or "Ishmaelites" (or, in the secular Balfourian formulation, "non-Jewish communities"). Palestine was renamed "Israel," and the seizure of Palestine was framed as merely the "declaration of Israel's independence." This process continued after 1948: Umm Rashrash became "Eilat," and the West Bank became "Judea and Samaria." This practice has expanded today to the point where the entire Arab world—not just the Palestinians—is being erased. Hence, the talk of a "Middle Eastern market" instead of the "Arab world." The "Middle Eastern market" implies that there are different countries in this "region," and their Arab identity is an illusory or marginal matter, lacking significant explanatory or classificatory value.

These days, there seems to be a trend to erase the word "resistance" from the political lexicon, allowing a single signifier—"terrorism"—to dominate. Acts of resistance, which have historical roots and a clear meaning, are reduced to mere "terrorism" or "suicide attacks" without a clear cause or understandable direction. Thus, the Sharm El-Sheikh conference attempted to define "terrorism" without any mention of the word "resistance." This makes it possible to appreciate the magnitude of the achievement in the ceasefire agreement between Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Israel, which explicitly affirmed the right to self-defense—that is, the right to resist.

5. Deliberate Confusion Between Certain Signifiers and Imposing a False Equivalence Between Them:

Zionists deliberately conflate certain signifiers with well-defined boundaries. One of the most important of these operations is the attempt to blur the distinctions between the terms "Jewish," "Zionist," "Israeli," and sometimes "Hebrew," despite each term having its own clear semantic field. This conflation serves to reinforce the concept of Jewish unity, which is the core of the Zionist vision. Zionist usage has become so ingrained in minds that it is now common to speak of the "Jewish state," the "state of the Jews," and the "Zionist state" as if they were synonymous.

6. Using a Name that Refers to Different Referents Without Clarification:

Terms like "the Jewish people" are used without defining who this Jewish people is, and "Eretz Israel" is mentioned without discussing its borders. Since every Zionist has their own definition, the name here refers to different referents depending on who uses the signifier: is it territorial or settler-oriented? Secular or religious? This ambiguity means that a Zionist can be moderate when it suits them (claiming that the Jewish people are only those who have actually migrated to Israel) or extremist when it doesn’t (claiming that the Jewish people includes every Jew, wherever they are). The borders of Eretz Israel could be those of 1948, 1967, or from the Nile to the Euphrates—always subject to pragmatic considerations. The same applies to the term "Zionist" itself—it is an absolute term referring to anyone who identifies as such, regardless of their subsequent actions. A Jew who considers the United States their homeland, drives an air-conditioned car, and donates a few dollars to a Zionist organization can call themselves a Zionist (if it pleases them), just as someone who moves to the West Bank and takes up arms against its inhabitants is also a Zionist.

Here, we can point to the recurring organic-mystical metaphor in Zionist discourse—a metaphor that assumes that the land and the people are united through a spirit that dwells in both, serving as the source of organic cohesion between them. This spirit is called "God" in religious discourse and "the spirit of the people" in secular discourse. Within this framework, a single signifier (the spirit) can refer to two different signifieds. During the drafting of the document declaring the Zionist state (referred to as the "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel"), a dispute arose between ethnic-religious Zionists and secular Zionists over the phrase "placing our trust in God," with the religious faction insisting on its inclusion in the preamble. The dispute was resolved by adopting the phrase Tzur Yisrael ("Rock of Israel"), which literally means "rock of Israel" but also signifies "God." Thus, a single signifier—"Rock of Israel"—could carry an atheistic meaning for secularists and a religious meaning for the devout. The rock could be God, the spirit of the people, or a solid material foundation for the establishment of the Zionist state.

-------------------------------------------------------------
- Source: "Encyclopedia of the Jews, Judaism, and Zionism" Book

Read This Article in Arabic