Words Matter About Israel and Palestinians
Words Matter: The Danger of Turning Complex Issues Into Political Labels
Why Precision, Fairness, and Honest Debate Matter in Discussions About Israel and Palestinians
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has produced some of the most passionate, painful, and divisive debates of our time. Those debates are necessary in a democracy. But increasingly, public discussion has become dominated by words that carry enormous emotional, legal, and historical weight: genocide, apartheid, colonialism, Zionism, anti-Zionism, antisemitism, and political labels applied to candidates because of their associations with organizations such as AIPAC. Recent actions by candidates and office holders and normalization of uninformed use of such terms in public discourse gives rise to the need for a thoughtful discussion.
These words matter.
They are not merely slogans. They describe legal concepts, historical movements, and deeply held identities. When used carelessly, they can become weapons that shut down discussion rather than encourage understanding.
A healthy democracy requires both moral clarity and intellectual honesty. We should condemn wrongdoing wherever it occurs, defend human rights wherever they are threatened, and hold governments accountable for their actions. But we should also insist that serious accusations should not ignore facts on the ground and should not be used to inflame.
Genocide and Apartheid: Why Precision Matters
The word genocide represents one of the most serious accusations that can be made against a nation or group. Under international law, genocide is not simply a war that produces horrific civilian casualties, widespread destruction, or humanitarian suffering. It requires proof of a specific intent to destroy, a protected national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
The suffering of Palestinian civilians in Gaza deserves compassion and attention. Questions regarding civilian protection, proportionality, humanitarian access, and military strategy are legitimate and necessary. They however must be examined in the context of a complex war lodged by a terrorist group and their tactics.
However, declaring genocide as an established fact risks transforming one of international law’s gravest terms into a political slogan without ignoring the facts.
The seriousness of the accusation requires seriousness in its application.
Intent Matters
One reason the word genocide carries such extraordinary weight is that international law focuses not only on the scale of death and destruction but also on intent.
History provides tragic examples. Nazi Germany’s “Final Solution” was an explicit, systematic policy to annihilate the Jewish people. Government documents, speeches, laws, and the machinery of the state were all directed toward that objective. The Holocaust stands as one of history’s clearest examples of genocide because there was overwhelming evidence of a deliberate intent to destroy an entire people.
Similarly, Hamas has repeatedly declared its objective of eliminating Israel. Its original 1988 charter called for Israel’s destruction and contained openly antisemitic language. Although Hamas issued a revised political document in 2017, it continued to reject Israel’s legitimacy, and its leaders have continued to advocate Israel’s total destruction. The October 7, 2023, attacks—in which Hamas deliberately murdered civilians, took hostages, and targeted Israeli communities—reinforced for many Israelis and others the belief that Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction.
These examples illustrate why intent is central to the legal definition of genocide.
The debate over Israel’s conduct in Gaza is different. The loss of civilian life has been significant even if the Hamas authority figures may be inflated, and many actions taken during the war have been the subject of legitimate criticism. It often however ignores context and the complexity of dealing with a terrorist group like Hamas which is committed to wiping Israel off the map. However, the available evidence does not establish that Israel has adopted a state policy or intent to destroy the Palestinian people as such. Israeli officials have repeatedly stated that their objective is the destruction of Hamas as a military and governing organization, not the destruction of the Palestinian people.
Israel actions are also inconsistent with an intent to commit genocide, including repeated warnings to civilians before military operations through leaflets, text messages, telephone calls, and evacuation notices; the facilitation—despite significant controversy and interruption at times—of humanitarian aid entering Gaza since it was sometimes being stolen by Hamas and sold to support their war effort.
Significantly, Hamas embedded military infrastructure within densely populated civilian areas, including near homes, schools, hospitals, and other civilian facilities, and has continually used civilians as human shields, those tactics increase the risk of tragic civilian casualties and complicate military operations.
In light of the foregoing, the use of the term genocide by many politicians and others is not warranted and merely inflames discussions to try to wrongfully manipulate public opinion and voters.
Apartheid and misuse of the term.
The same caution should apply to the word apartheid. Apartheid is not simply another word for discrimination, inequality, occupation, or disagreement with government policy. It is a specific legal concept involving institutionalized domination and oppression by one racial group over another. The word apartheid evokes one of the darkest chapters of the twentieth century. It describes South Africa’s former system of legally mandated racial domination, under which people were assigned rights, opportunities, and political participation based solely on race.
For that reason, applying the term to Israel carries extraordinary significance and should rejected and cease since it overlooks important characteristics of Israel itself.
Within Israel, Arab citizens vote in national elections, elect representatives to the Knesset, serve as cabinet ministers, sit on the Israeli Supreme Court, practice law, teach in universities, own businesses, serve as physicians, nurses, professors, journalists, diplomats, and participate throughout Israeli civil society. Arab political parties have served in governing coalitions and have influenced national policy. The realities in Israel differ in important respects from the legally enforced racial exclusion that defined apartheid South Africa.
The issue is better understood through the lens of a prolonged national conflict, unresolved questions of sovereignty and security, and the continuing Israeli occupation of the West Bank, rather than through the framework of apartheid. Restrictions imposed in the West Bank arise primarily from a decade-long security conflict. On the other hand, Settler violence against Palestinians is wrong and the Government should take appropriate actions against those settlors, and expansion of settlement is problematic in working toward a long-term solution, as is annexation as promoted by some members of the existing right wing government coalition
But because apartheid is both a legal term and a historical reference to a uniquely oppressive system, it should be not applied simply as a political slogan or shorthand for opposition to Israeli government policies.
If our objective is honest debate rather than political point-scoring, we should be willing to acknowledge both the rights enjoyed by Arab citizens within Israel and the hardships experienced by many Palestinians. Recognizing one reality does not require denying the other…
One can strongly criticize Israeli policies without automatically applying the most severe legal labels when they are not justified.
Zionism and the Problem of Simplification
Few terms have been more misunderstood than Zionism.
Historically, Zionism emerged as a movement supporting Jewish national self-determination in the Jewish people’s historic homeland. It developed in response to centuries of persecution, discrimination, and ultimately the Holocaust, when many Jews concluded that survival required political independence and security.
For most Jews today, Zionism simply means the belief that Israel has the right to exist as the national home of the Jewish people.
Those who use the term as a reflection of Isreal polices, they might disagree with is a distortion and wrong.
Likewise saying Zionism itself as racism transforms a complex national movement into an accusation of racial supremacy and ignores the historical circumstances that produced Zionism. It also dismisses the beliefs of millions of Jews who see Zionism as an expression of collective survival, identity, and self-determination.
One can criticize Israeli governments, oppose specific policies, support Palestinian statehood, and advocate for human rights while still recognizing the Jewish people’s right to national self-determination.
Those positions are not contradictory.
Anti-Isreal policies and Antisemitism: Why Distinctions Matter
These are different positions and should not automatically be treated as identical and should guide discussions about antisemitism.
Too often, public debate focuses only on whether a person “is” or “is not” antisemitic. That can distract from the more important question:
Are particular words, symbols, or actions antisemitic or contributing to antisemitism?
Language and actions should be judged on their substance.
Using classic antisemitic stereotypes about Jewish power, money, conspiracy, or dual loyalty should be rejected.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government should be rejected.
Harassing Jewish students because of events in the Middle East should be rejected.
Vandalizing synagogues, threatening Jewish institutions, celebrating attacks against civilians, or denying Jews the same right of national self-determination recognized for other peoples should be rejected.
None of this requires us to conclude that every person who engages in such conduct is irredeemably antisemitic. People can act carelessly, repeat slogans whose history they do not understand, or adopt rhetoric without appreciating its consequences. They can also learn, reflect, and change.
But recognizing the possibility of ignorance or growth does not lessen our responsibility to identify harmful words and conduct when they occur. We can condemn actions without permanently condemning people. Indeed, democratic societies are healthiest when they distinguish between criticizing behavior and assigning permanent labels to individuals.
The goal should not be to expand the number of people labeled as antisemites. The goal should be to reduce antisemitism.
The same standard should apply to all forms of prejudice. Anti-Muslim hatred, anti-Arab racism, and all forms of bigotry should be confronted with the same seriousness.
Israel and the Colonialism Debate: Why History Requires Careful Language
Another increasingly common description of Israel and Zionism is that they represent a colonial or settler-colonial project. Because the word colonialism carries powerful moral meaning, its use requires careful historical examination.
The Colonialism label does not accurately describe the origins of Zionism.
Jews are an ancient people with thousands of years of historical, cultural, and religious ties to the Land of Israel, and many Jewish immigrants were refugees fleeing persecution rather than representatives of an empire seeking resources; and that Zionism developed primarily as a movement for Jewish survival and national self-determination.
Traditional European colonialism generally involved imperial powers controlling distant territories for economic exploitation or strategic advantage. Zionism emerged from a different historical circumstance: persecuted people seeking a national homeland.
At the same time, rejecting the colonialism label should not mean ignoring Palestinian aspirations for a homeland.
The creation of Israel involved both the fulfillment of Jewish national aspirations and frustration for many Palestinians.
Both realities can be true.
The danger of applying the word “colonialism” too broadly is that it can sometimes move from criticizing specific policies—such as, settlement expansion, or treatment of Palestinians—to denying the legitimacy of Jewish history and national identity altogether.
A more productive approach recognizes that two people have deep connections to the area. Both Israelis and Palestinians have experienced historical trauma. Both have legitimate aspirations for security, dignity, and self-determination.
The challenge is finding a political future in which both people can live with freedom, security, and national expression.
That requires language that acknowledges complexity rather than reducing a tragic and contested history to a single label.
AIPAC and the Problem of Political Labels
The importance of precision also applies to discussions about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
AIPAC is one of many advocacy organizations that participate in American democracy. Like labor unions, business groups, environmental organizations, gun-rights groups, civil rights organizations, and many others, it seeks to influence public policy and elections.
Americans have every right to agree or disagree with AIPAC’s positions. It is a legitimate subject for political debate. However, criticism becomes problematic when support from AIPAC is treated as a unique moral disqualification for candidates.
In recent years, some candidates have been portrayed primarily as “AIPAC candidates,” as though receiving support from that organization defines their entire political identity. That standard is rarely applied in the same way to candidates supported by other powerful advocacy groups, even when voters strongly disagree with those organizations’ views.
Candidates routinely receive support from groups because they agree on some issues while disagreeing with others. Voters should evaluate candidates based on their entire record, their judgment, and their positions—not reduce them to a single endorsement or donor.
This does not mean AIPAC is beyond criticism. It is not.
Many supporters of Israel have criticized AIPAC when they believe it has supported candidates whose views on domestic issues—such as abortion, immigration, elections, or economic policy—conflict with their own values.
Those are legitimate democratic debates.
The same principle should apply to AIPAC as to every other advocacy organization: criticize specific positions, strategies, and actions, but avoid the assumption that association alone proves bad faith.
Israel’s Government, Netanyahu, and Democracy
Rejecting the misuse of terms such as genocide, apartheid, and colonialism does not mean defending every action of Israel’s current government.
Like all democracies, Israel should be judged by the decisions of its leaders.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his governing coalition have faced significant criticism from many Israelis, including concerns about judicial reforms, settlement policy, the conduct of the war in Gaza, humanitarian conditions, and the absence of a long-term political strategy.
These criticisms come from within Israeli society itself. Israel has a vibrant democracy with elections, a free press, independent courts, and citizens who challenge their own leaders.
That democratic debate is a strength.
A friend of Israel can believe all of the following at the same time:
- Israel has the right to exist as the homeland of the Jewish people.
- Palestinian civilians deserve dignity, security, and political rights.
- Hamas’s terrorism must be condemned.
- Israel’s government should be held accountable.
- A new political direction may be necessary.
Supporting Israel does not require supporting every Israeli government.
As Israel approaches future elections, there is hope that Israeli voters will choose a new path that strengthens both the country’s security and its democratic character. The future of Israel should be determined by Israelis themselves, through the democratic process that has long been one of the country’s defining achievements.
Friends of Israel should be able to offer both support and honest criticism. That is not abandonment. That is what friendship requires.
U.S. Policy and the Importance of Strategic Trust
The same balance should guide American policy.
Criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government, however, should not automatically translate into weakening the long-standing strategic partnership between the United States and Israel. I have been troubled by efforts from some Democratic elected officials to support measures that would suspend or substantially restrict American military assistance to Israel primarily as a means of sending a political message to Prime Minister Netanyahu and his coalition.
Those advocating such measures are often motivated by genuine concern over civilian suffering in Gaza and by deep disagreement with the policies of Israel’s current government. Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously. However, using America’s long-standing security relationship with Israel primarily as a political message carries risks and is problematic and of serious concern and I believe, a mistake and the wrong approach. Using America’s security commitment to Israel principally as leverage against one elected government risks consequences that extend well beyond the tenure of any single prime minister.
The U.S.-Israel relationship has been built over decades on the understanding that strategic commitments should be stable even when governments disagree. Allies must believe that American commitments are reliable
If allies believe American security commitments depend on the political preferences of the moment, that could affect confidence not only in Israel but among U.S. partners around the world.
There is a difference between using diplomatic influence to encourage better policies and creating uncertainty about America’s reliability as an ally.
The United States should continue to use its influence to promote civilian protection, humanitarian access, regional stability, and a realistic path toward peace. At the same time, it should preserve the credibility of long-term alliances that serve American interests.
The challenge is to do both: encourage responsible leadership while maintaining strategic trust.
The Long-Term Goal: Two States for Two Peoples
Any honest discussion must recognize that after the attacks of October 7, 2023, many Israelis understandably view Palestinian statehood with deep fear and skepticism.
The massacre of Israeli civilians, the taking of hostages, and the continuing threat posed by Hamas profoundly changed Israeli perceptions of security.
Those concerns cannot simply be dismissed.
Those who have prematurely recognized a Palestinian state have done a disservice to all due to the need for a negotiation that clearly defines its geographic boundaries, who will provide responsible leadership and the security parameters.
Any future agreement must guarantee Israel’s security and prevent terrorism.
But abandoning Palestinian self-determination also carries risks.. A future based indefinitely on conflict and the absence of political rights is unlikely to provide lasting security for Israel or dignity for Palestinians.
That is why a two-state solution, despite enormous challenges and the fact that it may not be politically acceptable to many Israelis or Palestinians today, remains the most realistic long-term framework. That is why actions which may inhibit such an aspiration must be avoided like further expansion of settlements or moving toward annexation of the West Bank and not dealing with settlor violence against Palestinians.
A two-state solution does not mean rewarding terrorism. It does not mean ignoring Israel’s security needs. It does not mean accepting leaders who reject Israel’s existence.
It means creating conditions in which Israelis and Palestinians can both live with security, freedom, and dignity.
The path will be difficult. Trust has been shattered. But abandoning the goal without a better alternative risk accepting permanent conflict as the only future.
Conclusion
The Israeli Palestinian conflict will not be resolved through slogans.
It will not be resolved by denying Palestinian suffering or ignoring Jewish history.
It requires honesty.
Honesty means recognizing Palestinian humanity while recognizing Jewish history.
It means criticizing Israeli governments without questioning Israel’s legitimacy.
It means standing behind continuing long term allies like Israel
It means respecting the Israel people and the needs of a Jewish Homeland.
It means respecting Israel as a democracy who has it within its own hands to elect leaders to take the country in a positive direction
It means opposing antisemitism without silencing legitimate criticism.
It means rejecting anti-Muslim hatred while defending Jewish security.
It means avoiding wrongfully using words like genocide, apartheid, colonialism, and racism and anti Zionism as political weapons which inflame and detract from thoughtful dialogue.
Democracy depends on disagreement. But disagreement is most valuable when it is based on facts, consistency, and respect.
Words matter because they shape how we see one another.
When words become weapons, understanding becomes impossible.
When words are used with care, and not carelessly they can become the foundation for a more honest conversation—and perhaps, someday, a more peaceful future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Elliott Hartstein
Northbrook Illinois