The Head Heeb looks at the language of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here is one definition:
The West Bank and Gaza.
The territories currently in dispute between Israelis and Palestinians have no fewer than four names. The name preferred by the settlers, “Judea and Samaria,” is one, but it has found little use outside the settler community and official documents.
“The West Bank and Gaza” is probably the most politically neutral term; it is purely geographical and does not implicitly endorse the claims of one side or the other. “The occupied territories” is a more political term, but in the past decade, it has also come to have independent geographical significance. Not all the disputed territories are currently occupied by Israel, and the term “occupied territories” serves to distinguish between the parts of the West Bank and Gaza that are occupied by Israeli troops and those that are not.
“Palestine” is another term that is partly geographical and partly political. Use of the term “Palestine” implies endorsement of a Palestinian state, or at least acknowledgment that such a state is inevitable. However, the term “Palestine” is a potential minefield, because its geographical significance varies depending on the speaker. To some, “Palestine” consists of the territories that will eventually form a Palestinian state under a final status agreement; others use it to refer to the entire West Bank and Gaza, and still others use it to refer to the entire Mandate of Palestine, including Israel. “Palestine” is a legitimate term when used to describe the current Palestinian heartland or a future Palestinian state, but it’s best to define the term before using it in order to avoid misunderstanding.
He has more and this is only the first part.
UPDATE: Part 2, analyzing “suicide bombers”, “settlers”, “Tel Aviv”, “civilians”, and “children” is online now.
UPDATE II: Part 3 analyzes “transfer”, “apartheid”, “nakba”, geographic terms, and “militant.”
UPDATE III: The Head Heeb wraps up the series here.
