The Lexical Erasure of Peace

In a country forged in conflict, the most radical silence today is not about war—but the absence of any talk of peace.

Once a central aspiration, peace has all but disappeared from Israeli political discourse. Not debated. Not demanded. Not even mentioned. In press conferences, in parliamentary debates, and in everyday media, the word peace is conspicuously absent—its absence more powerful than its presence ever was. This article explores what happens when a nation no longer speaks the language of peace.

“Lexical erasure” refers to the systemic disappearance of a word or concept from public use. It is not merely forgetting—it is unlearning. It is when a society, consciously or otherwise, eliminates a term because it no longer fits its narrative or goals. In Israel, the term peace—especially in reference to Palestinians—has undergone lexical erasure. Peace has become a foreign word, relegated to history books or buried beneath euphemisms like “security,” “quiet,” or “normalization.”

At his May 21, 2025 press conference, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Iran, Hamas, and hostages. He spoke of victory and deterrence, survival and sovereignty. But not once did he mention peace—not even when addressing potential ceasefires. In Israel today, even tactical pauses in fighting are discussed without reference to long-term resolution. This omission is not accidental. It reflects a broader strategy: peace is no longer on the table, so it is no longer in the lexicon.

Journalists once asked Israeli leaders: What is your vision for peace? Now, they ask: When will Hamas be destroyed? How will deterrence be restored? The media has followed politics in shifting its framework. There is little room for peace in headlines driven by security threats and ideological entrenchment. What we are witnessing is not merely political failure, but a journalistic one as well—a failure to ask the hardest question. Public opinion polls reveal that fewer Israelis than ever believe peace with the Palestinians is possible or even desirable. Many have come to view peace as a naïve or even dangerous idea—one that led to disappointment, terror, and disillusionment.Thus, the public no longer demands peace, because it has been trained to see peace as irrelevant, impossible, or even treasonous.

While Israeli leaders enthusiastically discuss normalization with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, peace with Palestinians is excluded from these visions. “Peace” has been replaced with “economic corridors,” “strategic partnerships,” and “regional alignment.” It is peace without justice—without Palestinians. This contrast reveals the selective application of peace, reinforcing that its erasure is political, not accidental.

The danger of lexical erasure is not just political stagnation—it is spiritual decay. A society that no longer imagines peace can no longer create it. When peace becomes unspeakable, war becomes permanent.

Without a vocabulary for peace, Israel risks losing not just its future—but its soul. To speak of peace today is an act of resistance. It is to challenge a system that has grown comfortable with perpetual conflict. But words have power. And if peace is spoken again—by journalists, citizens, and leaders—it might one day become possible again.

It begins by simply saying the word.