Throughout his life, the late Edward Said exposed the grave injustice done to Palestinians under Israeli occupation and through his prolific writing showed how the media has used language in a way that conceals the truth about Israel's depredations in the Occupied Territories.
Aside from the rampant use of the words "terrorist," "hardline," "extremist" and "radical" to describe any type of activity which constitutes resistance to an illegal military occupation (and "moderate" for those who have yielded to Israeli pressure), another, more subtle use of language creeps up every now and then, one that is indicative of the acceptance, however unconscious it may be, that Israel, despite all the evidence to the contrary, continues the be the victim in the conflict.
On April 14, The Associated Press filed a report about revelations, based on video footage shot by a human rights activist, that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) has for years used Palestinians -- sometimes mere teenagers -- as human shields while conducting military operations, an act that constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention, which forbids putting civilians in harm's way during military operations.
While the report seems fair and balanced in its portrayal of the human shield incident, it then provides some historical background in an ostensible attempt to explain why the Israeli military may have engaged in such activities.
One passage is especially worth scrutinizing -- it reads as follows (italics added):
"The multiple incidents underscore the dilemma the army faces after 40 years of occupation in the West Bank. While it says its operations are needed to protect Israel against Palestinian militants, it has been forced to use increasingly tough measures during the last six years of fighting."
Rather than being described for what it is -- a powerful, US-backed military illegally occupying a largely undefended people -- Israel is described as facing a "dilemma," as if it were forced to make a choice by an external force when, in reality, pulling out and ending the long occupation would immediately end that so-called dilemma.
More revealing is the next sentence, which claims that Israel "has been forced to use increasingly tough measures" against Palestinians.
Here again, Israel is being "forced" to act inhumanely and in contravention of international standards of conduct in military situations.
The passage implies, without indicating what they might be, actions on the part of the Palestinians that left no choice to the IDF but to break international law and thereby recklessly endanger the lives of innocent civilians.
As with its illegal war against Lebanon last year, Israel is once again portrayed as the victim -- and this despite all the evidence, statistics, body counts, TV footage and testimonies to the contrary.
No matter what it does and even when its illegal actions are exposed, as with the present case or last year when it used banned cluster bombs in Lebanese civilian areas, resulting in numerous civilian deaths after the hostilities had ended, the repercussions on Israel -- domestically as well as at the international level -- are always minimal.
Former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was warred against, hunted down, captured, put on trial and ultimately hanged for his cruelty, which included the alleged use of human shields against US aerial bombardment, for which the US press and war-makers at the Pentagon slammed him to no end.
Former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was also accused of making recourse to similar tactics during the Kosovo war in 1999, which US and NATO generals used to deflect criticism when their guided and not-so-guided missiles went astray and killed civilians.
But when the IDF turns to similar tactics, which on at least one occasion resulted in the death of the Palestinian used as a human shield, the repercussions are next to nil and we can expect the investigation launched by the Israeli army to amount to very little. At most, a commander is suspended, as if this were an isolated event.
The only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire lies in a use of language that truly reflects reality and doesn't turn the tables on the aggressor and the victim.
The IDF was not forced to use Palestinian teenagers as human shields, nor is it forced, despite what its propaganda would have us believe, to occupy and repress entire generations of people, as it has done for almost 60 years now. It chooses to do so, just as it should choose to do the right thing and leave.
J. Michael Cole is a writer based in Taipei.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS