Words ARE Powerful.

When it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, there is one thing that we cannot ignore: the influence of media. Each side utilizes language as a mean to twist and depict the conflict so it advances their ideological propaganda. Not only does this selective reporting exist in media outlets, but it also infects Educational material. In Palestine in Israeli School Books ( Nurit Peled- Elhanan), the author points out, "The school book was republished with minor changes that were apparently very important to this [Israeli] government... one of these things was the replacement of 'ethnic cleansing' regarding the Palestinian exodus in 1948, with 'organized expulsion'". Peled-Elhanan shows how the wording of a historical event has tremendous effect on its perception; in this case, the transition from a heinous crime-sounding description to a more structured mishap convey a less horrific event. In the Palestinian counterpart ( and most Middle Eastern countries), the terms 'Jewish' and 'Israeli' are used both interchangeably and exclusively. Doing so, they turn the conflict into a religious quarrel, thus enabling the harassment of an entire religion. In another instance, Israel refers to the West Bank as "Judea and Samaria" while Palestinians refer to it as the "Occupied West Bank". Just as Pinker points, "The wording is ambiguous. Does it mean 'some of the territories' or 'all of the territories' ?" ;this disparity rose from the vague language in Resolution 242. Likewise, Okrent would agree with the powerful implication of words, " 'targeted implications': the Israel Defense Forces use this term; Palestinians believe it implicitly exonerates Israel for the death of nearby innocents'". Likewise, Palestinian authority might describe Israeli stabbing victims as "violent jewish settlers who should suffer just as much as we [Palestinians] suffer". On the other hand, Kakutani dismisses the importance of acknowledging the power of words. She argues,"Getting upset by phrases... tends to distract from the real problems of prejudice and injustices that exist in society...". What Kakutani fails to address is that language prejudice not only stems from injustice, but it ENCOURAGES the oppression of the minorities it targets. So while the phrasing of the Palestinian exodus as an "organized expulsion" is not the most crucial problem Palestinians face, it prolongs the defamation of their history. No matter what side is operating, both manipulate language to validate violence. As Orwell once said, "Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out to the countryside...the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification". In an effort to justify their crimes, countries resort to euphemisms and innuendos. I will leave you with my favorite Voltaire quote:

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”

The Ultimatum

Freedom versus safety; the ceaseless debate about the priority of either one has transcended into our laws and society expectations. H. L. Mencken's quote, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.”, added to the already fueled conversation. If we wish to trace the verity of this concept on society nowadays, we must first explore the abstract meaning of both being "free" and "safe"- as both of them are subjective. Does "safe" imply physical safety, such as police security, or ,rather, a mere sensation of a united community ? Often so , what we perceive as "safety", is usually just an illusion of safety. Is "freedom" the literal ability to move around or the capacity to be free from society's beliefs and expectations ? No matter what each word symbolizes to an individual, it is very evident which one is being prioritized nowadays. For example, with society's expectations influencing personal decisions more and more, many opt to pursue a "safe" career choice rather than practice what they are truly passionate about. They believe that the prospect of having a decent salary, a roof above their heads, and food on their table will compensate the void that may feel due to the lack of personality they exhibit in their daily life. Perhaps another example that is more relevant to Mencken's quote (as it was published during a time of political turbulence) is the Patriot Act. This act allowed federal agencies to surveil electronic communications; however, it raised civil rights issues as it was used to justify the collection of personal information and calls. Supporters of this act usually validate it by stating how "they have nothing to hide" and how they are willing to give up some of their privacy in order to help prevent terrorism. As a society, we are more comfortable with handing in some of our freedoms so that we are more protected, or at least feel so. We have chosen the freedoms of safety over the risks of freedom.