Dirty Words

In the 1960’s, comedian George Carlin had a routine called “The Seven Dirty Words,” that derived its humor from the shock people felt when hearing those words out loud perhaps for the first time. Overuse of the “dirty words” in daily conversation has made the routine… routine.

In the 1960’s, comedian George Carlin had a routine called “The Seven Dirty Words,” that derived its humor from the shock people felt when hearing those words out loud perhaps for the first time. Overuse of the “dirty words” in daily conversation has made the routine… routine.

In a serious way, overuse dulls the listener to the meaning of words. “Peace process” and its variations, “no alternative to the peace process” and “taking risks for peace”; “partner,” as in “partner in the peace process”; and “cycle of violence” should all be retired from Middle East diplomatic discourse. They have been rendered meaningless through misuse and overuse.

“Peace” is not the objective in this “process,” although peace might result from one side or the other achieving its objectives. For Israel, the objective is Arab acceptance of the legitimacy of Jewish nationalism behind secure and recognized boundaries. For the Palestinians, it is an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital and the right of return to areas of pre-1948 Israel for refugees and their descendants. It should be noted that if the Palestinians achieved their objectives, Israel would disappear which is to say that the “peace” the Palestinians would achieve would be “the peace of the dead” for Israel. Under the circumstances, any “risks for peace” Israel would take are foolish risks.

Since the Palestinian “peace” is unacceptable to Israel, there must be an “alternative” to the “peace process.” There is one “deterrence.” An underutilized word, deterrence means to convince an adversary that you will make him pay an unacceptably high cost for starting a war. Deterrence was America’s policy toward the Soviet Union until it fell. Deterrence was Israel’s policy until 1993. When it appeared that deterrence might fail in 1981, Israel took a “risk for deterrence” by bombing Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor.

“Cycle of violence” should be retired for sheer offensiveness. The job of the IDF is to defend the land and the people of Israel, and it is quite clear that they exercise enormous restraint against people who have no scruples about violence. Palestinian violence rioting and shooting from behind the cover of their own young children; mob lynching; snipers killing civilians in their cars; blowing the legs off Israeli children on school buses; and putting bombs in market places and commuter buses is unacceptable regardless any possible merits to Palestinian independence. The American government should be able to find words to make itself clear on this point.

Finally, any “partners” in negotiations would have to share at least fundamental principles and norms. Yasser Arafat is anti-Western, anti-democratic and pro-Saddam. He hails violence and trains children to hate, calling for jihad and extolling those who kill. He is corrupt and venal. He has worked ceaselessly to oppress and impoverish his own people and trample his own legislature. Yasser Arafat is not a “partner” to either the U.S. or to Israel.

Words have consequences. For the American government to continue to talk about “partners” and “peace” and “processes” and “cycles” is to continue to debase the language of diplomacy.