(This post is also available in audio format at: You Keep Using That Word and on Apple Podcasts and Spotify @ Got Your Six with Brian O’Leary.)
The day I arrived back at Penn State after my first summer of Officer Candidates School, my girlfriend and her roommate briefly indulged my storytelling, and then excitedly notified me that they'd just rented a movie that they were eagerly looking forward to watching that evening. When I asked them what they'd picked out, they told me it was a film called The Princess Bride.
Now, since I was still picking Quantico dirt out of my ears at the time, I wasn't quite sure that I found the title all that appealing. However, as you might’ve guessed, I just went along with their choice and, of course, we all loved it. It's a classic.
As you'll might recall, throughout the film, the antagonist, Vizzini, continually uses the word, "inconceivable," whenever things don't go as he'd planned. And what makes his malapropism all the more amusing is that he says it with a comically heavy lisp — incontheevable.
Finally, as he watches the hero, Westley, successfully ascending a dauntingly massive cliff face, Vizzini, once again remarks, "inconceivable," to which his sidekick, Inigo, responds, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I've been frequently reminded of that line over the past month as hundreds of thousands of uninformed, misinformed, ill-informed, and just plain dumb protesters have mindlessly marched and chanted in anti-Israel demonstrations, calling the Jewish state an apartheid nation, accusing it of genocide, and claiming that it is guilty of some sort of illegal occupation of Palestinian land.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
If it seems that I'm making light of the current situation in the Middle East, I assure you I am not. Rather, I hope to expose the global conspiracy of ignoramuses and their ongoing attempts to alter the definitions of powerfully specific words to suit their twisted agendas and predetermined conclusions.
If you've seen any interviews with the clueless protesters chanting this nonsense and toting banners alleging the same, you've probably realized that many —if not nearly all— of them have little, if any, idea what they're talking about, or even about the objective of the demonstration they're attending. Of course, their demonstrable ignorance clearly hasn't dissuaded them from just showing up.
Let's be honest about the intellectual and ideological demography of these demonstrations. For example, in New York, a good portion of the turnout has been the same band of morons who shut down the City in May, following the death of the mentally unstable Jordan Neely at the hands of Good Samaritan, Daniel Penny. The crowd didn't know the facts about that case, either, and yet they trampled through the streets carrying wanted posters emblazoned with Penny's face, stormed subway stations, blocked trains, and shut down the Brooklyn Bridge. All of that despite what witnesses aboard the F train had reported, that Penny had acted appropriately. Yeah, the mob was simply in no mood to listen to the facts.
I'm willing to bet (a lot, in fact) that if you were to conduct a quick poll of the idiots who shut down Grand Central Station on Friday, you'd find a remarkably high overlap with the willfully oblivious dolts who showed up to rail against the grievance du jour back in the spring.
Anyway, same dopes different day.
So, with respect to the falsehoods they've been slinging since mere hours after Hamas had finished slaughtering 1,400 innocent civilians, I might as well begin with the oldest of the fabrications first, the charge of "occupation." Now, as I mentioned in a recent piece, there has never, ever, in the history of mankind, been any such thing as a Palestinian state. Which begs the question, "Then, just what exactly is Israel occupying?"
I've also pointed to the PLO's 1968 charter which reads, "Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history."
Just to get this out of the way, if you're actually able to convince yourself, in spite of the indisputable, established, and accepted history of the area, that Jews have no historical or religious ties to Palestine, then maybe you should see if you can find the nearest protest to tag along at.
The PLO's claim isn't merely a lie. It's an absurdity that might even qualify as comical were its effects not so tragic. The reality is that Palestine —including Judea and Samaria (the West Bank)— is the very heart of the Jews' ancestral homeland. We've all been taught that from childhood, yeah, even in public schools.
What do they mean by occupation?
Let's begin with what the word actually means and has —until recently— been accepted to mean. Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations states that "a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army."
That language remains the accepted international standard for what constitutes an occupation and was reinforced by the Geneva Conventions in 1949. Keep it in mind as you read on.
Quick historical aside: In 1516 the Ottoman Turks invaded and occupied Palestine, and then stuck around for 402 years, until their defeat in World War I. — Now, that was an occupation.
In 1950, it was Jordan — not Israel— which annexed (i.e., occupied) Judea and Samaria and renamed the area the West Bank. While the annexation was widely rejected by the international community, no one accused Jordan of an illegal occupation.
Unfortunately, the same logic didn't apply 17 years later, when Israel took control of the very same turf in the defensive Six-Day War of 1967. In that case, the Jewish state was immediately condemned for its "occupation" of the West Bank.
Hmm.
In 1948, in clear contravention of the UN's partition plan, Egypt occupied Gaza and would remain in control of the territory until Israel captured it in 1967, also as a result of the Six-Day War. Funny, though it had —by definition— occupied Gaza for 19 years, Egypt was never called out as having done anything illegal in the territory.
Well, that's kinda’ curious, don't you think?
Israel completed its complete withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and handed the reins over to the Palestinian Authority.
Here, it’s yours. You’re in charge now. No, seriously, we’re leaving. Shalom.
And so they did. No more military presence. No more control. No more occupation. Only years of false accusations to that effect ever since.
The United Nations, EU, African Union, academia, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Red Cross, and the rest of the anti-Israel cabal have spent decades engaging in a game of circular, mutually affirming discourse and redefinition of words, where one of them will attempt to substantiate claims of Israeli occupation by actually citing the research of another, which then often points right back to the source of the "new" assertion.
I'm serious, and it's maddening!
For instance, on October 31, the Atlantic Council's Celeste Kmiotek posted a piece in which she acknowledges that Israel "completely withdrew its military and civilians from the area," saying that, in doing so, "Israel 'believes' it disengaged from Gaza."
Yeah, but.
Kmiotek then points to the self-reinforcing group-think of the closed-minded coterie, which has asserted that, "while…Israel no longer had the traditional marker of effective control —a military presence—it has maintained requisite control in other ways."
So, if we simply tweak the definition just a little…
Just two paragraphs later, Kmiotek cites (or maybe admits to) the language of the Hague Regulations, which reads, "territory is considered 'occupied' when it is placed under the authority of the hostile army." But, clearly, she has a point to make and isn't going to let some rigid definition —set forth, mind you, by the very authority she's citing— get in the way of her mendacious allegation.
"Traditionally," she admits, "effective control requires three main components."
The physical presence of a foreign military without consent.
The inability of a local sovereign to exercise control because of foreign forces' presence.
The imposition of an occupying force's authority.
She goes on to confess that, absent any of those three conditions, "experts have…found that Israel no longer met the traditional effective control requirements in Gaza after 2005."
However, comma.
"However," she points out, "the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (never heard of it) has said, 'the majority of international opinion' holds that Israel maintains effective control, even without armed forces present."
So, even after referencing the accepted definition of "occupation" as stated in the Hague Regulations, enumerating the "traditionally" accepted "three main components" of occupation, and admitting that Israel is "guilty" of none of these, the author just decides to call an audible and cite the vaguely defined "international opinion."
I don't think the "moving the goalposts" analogy is sufficient here. What we’re witnessing is the deliberate redefining of important and consequential words.
Can I be accused of "occupying" an airplane lavatory as I loiter in the galley, chatting with a flight attendant about the person who's actually in the restroom?
What about the Arab occupation of Israel?
Ooh, I bet you never even knew that was a thing.
Well, you might be surprised to learn that following Israel's victory in its 1948 War for Independence, about 150,000 Arab residents chose to remain within the borders of the nascent Jewish state. Today, roughly 21% of the population of the actual nation of Israel (no, not including Gaza and the West Bank) is Arab. That's about two million people, all of whom enjoy full citizenship.
The exception is the few hundred who live in the contested area of East Jerusalem, who are considered permanent residents. And, for the record, following the 1967 War, Israel offered citizenship to them, as well, but most of them declined.
There are regions throughout the State of Israel that are home to majority Arab populations, including in the southern Negev area and the Triangle Region. Arabs also work and reside alongside Jews in "mixed cities" like Lod and Haifa.
Israel's Declaration of Independence recognizes the equality of all residents, including Arabs, and grants all citizens the right to vote and to run for elected office. Arabs have held seats in the Knesset (currently ten), sat on the Israeli Supreme Court, and served as ambassadors, mayors, and lower-court judges. There's also a sizable number of Arab-Israeli doctors and lawyers who, I would assume, had to attend Israeli medical and law schools.
Curiously, if a Palestinian family moved onto your block, would you start protesting the "occupation" of your neighborhood?
Yeah so, I'm trying to figure out who's occupying what. And that brings me to the next popularly abused vocabulary word.
Apartheid? Really?
I'm actually quite pleased by the natural segue from that last section, and I think you'll understand why shortly.
According to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute, "Apartheid refers to the implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights."
Remember that part in the last section where I talked about Arabs serving as mayors and ambassadors and sitting on Israel's Supreme Court?
You see, words used to mean things. Especially words as powerfully specific as "apartheid." That word is so specific, in fact, that it was invented in 1948 so as to be distinguished from the less descriptive term, "segregation."
Furthermore, you have to trace two different languages to find out what it's supposed to mean. It's an Afrikaans word, derived from the Dutch apart (you don't have to speak Dutch to figure that one out), with the suffix heid, which is English for "hood" or "ness." Thus, apart-ness, or separateness. You get the idea.
Now, some of us grew up during the time when this policy was still being enforced by South Africa, and, as international pressure increased against that nation's cruel and unjust laws, the apartheid story was covered on the news almost nightly. Alas, as a significant number of today's anti-Israel protesters are members of the Gen Y and Z cohorts, they have absolutely no idea what the hell they're saying when they use the word.
Here's some of what apartheid actually was:
The Popular Registration Act of 1950 classified all South Africans as either Bantu (all Black Africans), Colored (mixed race), or white. A fourth category—Asian (Indian and Pakistani)—was later added.
The Group Areas Act of 1950 established specific sections of urban residential and business areas for each race, where members of other races were barred from living, owning land, or operating businesses. This led to thousands of Blacks, Colored and Asians being removed from areas classified for white occupation.
The result of these acts, in conjunction with the previously adopted Land Acts, was that more than 80 percent of South Africa’s land was set aside for the sole and exclusive use of its white minority.
The Bantu Education Act of 1953 provided for the creation of state-run schools, which Black children were required to attend, with the aim of training the children for the manual labor and menial jobs that the government deemed "suitable" for members of their race.
Okay, so for those of you who didn't remember what apartheid really was, there's your refresher. There was actually much more and worse to it. But does it sound in any way similar to Israel's policies regarding its Arab citizens?
In February 2022, Amnesty International published a white paper entitled, "Israel's Apartheid Against Palestinians." After a few introductory paragraphs, the paper's authors ask, "WHAT IS APARTHEID?" (Yes, they used all caps.)
Apartheid is a violation of public international law, a grave violation of internationally protected human rights, and a crime against humanity under international criminal law.
The term “apartheid” was originally used to refer to a political system in South Africa which explicitly enforced racial segregation, and the domination and oppression of one racial group by another. It has since been adopted by the international community to condemn and criminalize such systems and practices wherever they occur in the world.
Okay, but we knew most of that already. Where's the part about Israel committing something along the lines of actual apartheid? After all, that's the title of your essay. Those were just two paragraphs, in a hit piece about Israel, that managed to not so much as even mention Israel.
The fact is that Amnesty International's 17-page screed against Israel offers little more than sensationalist headings without any substantiation. Seriously, none. I'm not making this up. I'm sorry I wasted the paper in printing it out. It's really a very childish piece.
In fact, I've been encountering that phenomenon like everywhere.
Genocide /ˈjenəˌsīd/ gen-o-cide
noun: genocide; plural noun: genocides
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. "a campaign of genocide"
I've always (really) hated when someone begins a speech by saying, "Webster defines (whatever) as (whatever). However, as I'm writing about words and their meanings here, I thought it wouldn't hurt to establish what the word genocide actually means. And, pay particular attention to the final clause of the definition, "with the aim of destroying that nation or group."
Unlike the charters of the PLO and Hamas, neither Israel's Declaration of Independence nor its Basic Laws (its constitution) call for "destroying" any "nation or group."
On the other hand, the PLO's 1968 charter asserts that "Israel is a constant source of threat to peace in the Middle East and the whole world."
Given that characterization of a nation, I suppose it might be considered reasonable for another nation to resort to "any means necessary" to neutralize the “threat,” right?
And, if you’ll forgive the quick aside, don't forget what the phrase "from the river to the sea" means. It means the elimination of Israel and its people in order to free up room for the Palestinians. Rep Rashida Talib knows exactly what it means when she repeatedly says it, and her democrat colleagues know, as well. That's why 22 of them, including Brad Schneider of Illinois, voted to censure the Israel-hating house member for her continued use of the blatantly anti-Semitic slogan.
Schneider called the phrase "a rallying cry for the destruction of the State of Israel and genocide of the Jewish people," and said, "Rep. Talib most certainly understands the import and impact of her words and yet still chooses to use them anyway."
Hamas' 1988 charter asserts that "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, killing the Jews."
On October 7, Hamas terrorists dutifully adhered to the language of their organization's founding document, by "killing the Jews," deliberately slaughtering 1,400 innocent Israeli (and other) civilians. It was the largest Jewish death toll since the Holocaust, Hitler's evil, eugenic Final Solution to rid the world of the Jewish race.
Hitler actively waged his extermination effort over more than four years, taking the lives of over 6 million Jews. However, simply because Hamas' most recent atrocity lasted only a day, it was no less an act of genocide, as the motive and intent were identical to those of the Nazis.
And yet, the October 7 massacre was quickly referred to by sociopathic apologists around the world as an act of "resistance." Of course, Israel's existentially driven effort to ensure that it is never again victimized by such barbarity is "genocide."
Of course it is.
Words have become so malleable that they're now meaningless.
Think about this one for a moment. When Hamas fires a rocket into Israel, it's referred to as "an act of war." When Israel fires back, it's a "war crime."
Weird, right?
The adherence to this sort of mindless groupthink is called orthodoxy. It is incredibly dangerous and a very real threat to the collective sanity —and survival— of our civilization. Of course, it was presaged by George Orwell nearly 75 years ago, in his cautionary novel, 1984.
When we read that book in high school, we read it as fiction. However, as we witness life imitating art in the Middle East, we might consider re-shelving Orwell’s work to a different section of the stacks.
"The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking – not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” - George Orwell, 1984
Doesn't that all sound eerily familiar?
Brian O'Leary is a retired Marine Corps colonel, who served for 30 years, including combat deployments to Somalia and Iraq, and command of an infantry battalion in Afghanistan. Additionally, he has spent 25 years in the financial services industry. Brian earned his BA in English from Penn State University and his MA in National Security Studies from the US Army War College.