The words I won’t say
From the grossly misinterpreted “from the river to the sea” to the protest of a Philly-based, Israeli-owned falafel shop, bad faith critics loom over Israel-Palestine, and caution is warranted.
When I was in college, I proudly shouted, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” I thought then, as I do now, that the illegal occupation of Palestine was a matter of plain immorality, and I spoke my heart about it. The treatment of Palestinians by Western-backed Israel was as plainly awful as terrorism was, so I felt unhindered in proclaiming my passion about the need for freedom and liberation for Palestinians. I didn’t assume anyone would mistake me for a terrorist, nor did I think someone would think I was calling for the extermination of Jewish people. I was simply trying to express the viewpoint that Palestinians deserve dignity and equal rights, which they clearly weren’t getting “from the river to the sea.”
Since that young age, I’ve been told by many friends that that phrase is seen as genocidal, and that there are groups of people who intentionally use it that way. While I knew there were nation-states that didn’t think Israel had a right to exist, I didn’t realize that by using that protest slogan, I could be mistaken for someone with that extreme point of view. I was disappointed to learn that some people saw things that way, but I also realized that shouting slogans at rallies is not exactly an invitation to a conversation. I did not then and don’t believe now that Jews should be denied dignity and fair treatment, but I was sometimes misunderstood as believing such things.
I have many friends who continue to use the phrase because they refuse to acquiesce to people who insist on misinterpreting it. They know what they stand for, and they won’t be told that they stand for something else. I understand the urge to use words freely and passionately when justice is at stake. I also am disinclined to soften my rhetoric to appease criticism that I suspect is rooted in anti-Palestinian bigotry.
In the current political landscape, it is convenient to have a dialogue about whether a slogan is theoretically calling for the genocide of Jews while simultaneously ignoring the very real and documented genocide of Palestinians in Gaza by Netanyahu’s government. Instead of debating the issues at hand, we start debating the efficacy and meaning of protest slogans. It is a stimulating and emotionally-charged subject, and I don’t want to deter anyone from fighting for their own dignity and decency in the face of poorly-motivated attacks. But I have come to a place where I no longer want to use that language—not because it is necessarily wrong, but rather, because I don’t want to distract from the bigger issue of Palestinian freedom.
It is my belief in equal rights and treatment for Palestinians that leads me not to use a phrase, even though it literally espouses equal rights and treatment of Palestinians. It puts a target on my back and makes me vulnerable to a cheap shot that, frankly, is too stimulating for me to ignore.
That’s a personal choice. I mistakenly am triggered to engage in debate with the people who foolishly accuse me of things I don’t believe, and I ultimately distract myself. I don’t want to debate whether a phrase I use calls for the genocide of Jews when I’d rather be using that energy to actually protest the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. I’d rather organize an action or call my members of Congress than have a debate with bad-faith actors, like the tone-deaf, lede-burying politicians who grilled the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn as they fecklessly testified before Congress.
I felt similarly when I witnessed the protest of Goldie, a Philly-based and Israeli-owned falafel and hummus shop. Protesters accused the owners of abetting genocide. When I witnessed it, I thought that the protesters had missed the mark. Why protest an Israeli-owned restaurant? Isn’t that prejudicial? I later learned that the restaurant group raised money for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF—for their health care, mind you). It also fired employees for wearing Palestinian flags. This was good and necessary context for me to understand the motives of the protesters, which I admit I did not assume the best of when I witnessed the viral video clip. It isn’t that the protesters were wrong for what they did, but they were easily and quickly misunderstood. There’s a cost to that imprecision, one some people are willing to endure because the critiques themselves are politically-motivated. But it is one that I am cautious to make myself.
I would rather use more precise and personal language and let those who want to criticize me do so on the merit of what I am actually saying rather than obfuscate the words I am using. I admit that my choice to use precise language is, in fact, accommodating people bigoted against me, and that may not be a decision everyone wants to make. Moreover, I defend the right of well-meaning people to use the words that are meaningful to them. In no way is my personal choice a moral imperative. It is my choice: one I make as an Egyptian-American committed to Palestinian freedom.
Frankly, it is not worth it to be misunderstood because of the fuel it adds to the anti-Arab and Islamophobic harassment I have experienced my whole life. For that reason, I choose precision and nuance even when my detractors will not offer me the same in return. That double-standard is infuriating, so I fully appreciate that that not everyone will make the same choice: for many, my posture is a clear accommodation of bigotry and racism.
No one should have to accommodate those things—but the world we live in won’t accommodate us. With that in mind, I want use caution because, of course, my words will be twisted against me. But at the same time, protests and slogans that gain attention tend to keep issues at the center of the dialogue, so there are strategic reasons to use in that language that I honor. Further, there’s no escaping hatred of Arabs in this time, and even the most precisely worded slogans and carefully orchestrated actions will not totally circumvent that.
Believing that the right action, that polite language, is more progressive is a fantasy. For my part, I won’t add fuel to the fire, but for others, it is a sensible and defensible position, so I will continue to honor that against bad faith accusations.