Language matters. Aside from its immediate impact on our perception of great political events, including war, language also defines our understanding of these events throughout history, thereby shaping our relationship with the past, the present and the future.

As Arab leaders are mobilising to prevent any attempt to displace the Palestinian population of war-stricken Gaza – and the occupied West Bank for that matter – I couldn’t help but reflect on language: when did we stop referencing the “Arab-Israeli conflict”, and started to use “Palestinian-Israeli conflict” instead?

Aside from the obvious problem that illegal military occupations should not be described as “conflicts” – a neutral term that creates a moral equivalence – the removal of “Arabs” from the “conflict” has greatly worsened matters, not only for Palestinians, but for Arabs themselves.

Before we talk about these repercussions, that of swapping words and altering phrases, it is important to dig deeper: when exactly was the term “Arab” removed? And equally important, why was it added in the first place?

The League of Arab States was established in March 1945, over three years before the establishment of Israel. A main cause of that newly-found Arab unity was Palestine, then under a British colonial “mandate”. Not only did the few independent Arab states understand the centrality of Palestine to their collective security and political identities, but they also perceived Palestine as the single most critical issue for all Arab nations, independent or........

© Middle East Monitor