Terminology and Sensitivities

Why Words Matter in This Conflict

Language around the Israel-Palestine conflict is highly charged. Many terms carry not only descriptive meanings but also moral judgments, legal implications, and deep historical memories. Different communities often use different words for the same place or event, and those choices can signal identity, political stance, or emotional experience.

In this course, the goal is not to impose “correct” language, but to make you aware of how terminology is used, what it can imply, and how to navigate it respectfully. You will see that the same reality can be described in quite different ways depending on who is speaking and from what perspective.

Being conscious of terminology will help you read sources critically, avoid unnecessary offense, and better understand why discussions about this conflict so easily become heated.

Names for the Land and Political Entities

A central sensitivity is what the territory itself is called. Different terms can refer to overlapping or different geographic and political ideas. In this course, we will try to be precise about context and also show you alternative usages when they matter for understanding a source.

“Israel” usually refers to the State of Israel founded in 1948, within its internationally recognized borders and additional territories it occupies or controls. For Jewish Israelis and many Jews worldwide, “Israel” also carries religious, historical, and emotional meanings related to an ancient people and homeland.

“Palestine” can refer to several things depending on time and context: a historical-geographic region; the British Mandate territory; or a political project and national aspiration. Some people use it to refer to the present-day occupied Palestinian territories; others use it for the entire area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Because of these different meanings, sources may not agree on what “Palestine” designates.

“Israel-Palestine” and “the Israeli–Palestinian conflict” are often used as relatively neutral umbrella terms to refer to the land and the conflict involving Israelis and Palestinians. This course generally follows that practice, while clarifying more specific terms when needed.

“West Bank” is widely used in international, Israeli, and Palestinian discourse to describe the territory west of the Jordan River that Israel occupied in 1967. It includes major Palestinian cities and Israeli settlements. Some Israelis and their supporters refer to this area as “Judea and Samaria,” biblical names that emphasize Jewish historical and religious ties. Using one term or the other can signal political positions on sovereignty and legitimacy.

“Gaza Strip” or “Gaza” usually refers to the coastal enclave that is densely populated by Palestinians and under varying degrees of Israeli and Egyptian control or blockade. For many Palestinians, “Gaza” symbolizes suffering and resistance; for many Israelis, it is associated with security threats. We will use “Gaza Strip” or “Gaza” descriptively, and explain specific situations in later chapters.

“East Jerusalem” commonly refers to the part of Jerusalem that was under Jordanian rule until 1967 and was then occupied and later annexed by Israel (an annexation most states do not recognize). Some Israelis simply say “Jerusalem” for the entire city, while many Palestinians emphasize “East Jerusalem” as the hoped-for capital of a future Palestinian state. The terminology here is deeply tied to claims of sovereignty and to personal attachments to the city.

People, Identities, and Collective Terms

Terms for people and communities are especially sensitive. They can reflect how groups see themselves, but also how others label them. Knowing preferred self-descriptions and controversial labels is crucial for respectful engagement.

“Jew,” “Jewish,” and “Jews” refer to members of the Jewish people, understood both as a religious community and as a people with shared history, culture, and in many cases nationality. The word “Jew” itself is neutral, but has historically been used in hostile ways. Phrases like “the Jews” as a generalized, collective actor can evoke antisemitic stereotypes, particularly when tied to conspiracies, greed, or global control. In this course, collective references will be used carefully and specifically (for example, “Jewish communities in Europe in the 19th century”) to avoid sweeping generalizations.

“Israeli” refers to citizens of the State of Israel, regardless of ethnicity or religion. Most Israelis are Jewish, but there are also Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, as well as other minorities. Confusing “Jewish” and “Israeli” can erase non-Jewish Israelis and Jews who are not Israeli; it can also fuel prejudice by suggesting all Jews share the same political positions or responsibilities.

“Palestinian” refers to people who identify with the Palestinian people and its national cause. This includes Palestinians living in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, inside Israel as citizens, and in the diaspora. As with “Jew,” references like “the Palestinians” can become problematic if they assume a single mindset or erase internal diversity.

“Arab” is an ethnic and cultural term covering many peoples in the Middle East and North Africa. Within this conflict, “Arab” may refer to Palestinian Arabs, neighboring Arab populations, or Arab states. Historically, terms like “Arab inhabitants” or “Arab refugees” have sometimes been used instead of “Palestinians” in political documents, which can reflect periods before Palestinian nationalism was widely acknowledged or can signal political positions about Palestinian identity.

“Palestinian citizens of Israel” (sometimes called “Arab Israelis,” “Palestinian Arabs in Israel,” or “’48 Palestinians”) are Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship. Each label carries political and identity implications: “Arab Israeli” emphasizes citizenship in Israel; “Palestinian citizen of Israel” emphasizes Palestinian national identity; “’48 Palestinians” references the events of 1948. Different individuals and groups actively choose or reject these terms.

Religion, Ethnicity, and Avoiding Conflation

In this conflict, religion, ethnicity, and nationality intersect, but they are not interchangeable. Conflating them can obscure realities and fuel prejudice.

“Judaism” is a religion; “Jewish” can refer to religious, ethnic, or cultural identity. “Zionism,” by contrast, is a political-national movement. Criticizing or supporting Zionism is not identical to criticizing or supporting Judaism or Jewish people in general, even though some people consciously link them and others strongly separate them. Being aware of these distinctions helps you distinguish between political critique and religious or ethnic hostility.

“Islam” is a religion; “Muslim” refers to followers of Islam. Many Palestinians are Muslim, but there are also Palestinian Christians and people of other beliefs or no religion. Describing the conflict as simply “Jewish vs. Muslim” erases important secular, Christian, and other voices on both sides, and oversimplifies what is also a national and political conflict.

“Arab” is neither a religion nor a single nationality. Many Arabs are Muslim, but there are Christian and other Arab communities as well. Within the conflict, “Arab” might refer to Palestinians, citizens of neighboring Arab states, or Arab governments, each of which are distinct.

Keeping these categories separate allows for more precise analysis and reduces the risk of attributing political actions to entire religions or ethnicities.

Loaded Political Labels

Many commonly used political terms in this conflict carry accusations or strong moral judgments. Understanding their variability and context is essential.

“Zionist” originally refers to supporters of the movement that sought and later supported a Jewish homeland in the land historically associated with the Jewish people. Today, some people use “Zionist” in a neutral or positive sense; others use it as a negative label. In some contexts, “Zionist” is used as a proxy for “Jew,” especially in hostile rhetoric. That slippage can cross into antisemitism, particularly when traditional antisemitic themes are recycled using “Zionist” as the subject.

“Antisemitism” denotes hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews as Jews. Disagreement with Israel’s policies is not automatically antisemitic. However, criticism that relies on classic antisemitic stereotypes or that denies Jews as a group the right to exist or to any form of collective self-determination is frequently experienced as antisemitic. Where that line lies is hotly debated. In this course, the term will be used for prejudice or actions directed at Jews as a group, not for all criticism of Israel.

“Anti-Zionism” broadly refers to opposition to Zionism as a political movement or to the existence of Israel as a Jewish nation-state. Some anti-Zionists frame their position in terms of universal opposition to ethno-national states; others come from religious, nationalist, or other standpoints. For many Jews, especially those who see Zionism as central to Jewish safety or identity, anti-Zionism can feel indistinguishable from hostility to Jews themselves. Others, including some Jews, strongly distinguish anti-Zionism from antisemitism. Being aware of this range of understandings is important when you encounter the term.

“Occupation” is widely used in international discussions to describe Israel’s control over certain territories captured in 1967. For many Palestinians and their supporters, “occupation” describes the overarching reality of control and dispossession. Some Israelis accept the term for some areas; others reject it politically or legally. We will use the word descriptively within the framework of international law, while also highlighting how different actors contest or affirm it.

“Settler,” “settlement,” and “colonial” language are particularly sensitive. “Settlement” usually refers to Israeli communities established in territories captured in 1967. For many Palestinians and critics, these are elements of “settler colonialism,” a concept that defines the conflict as one of colonizers displacing an indigenous population. For many Israelis, “settler” can be a neutral or even positive term, emphasizing pioneering and connection to the land. Understanding both the descriptive and ideological layers of this language will help you interpret how different sources frame events.

“Apartheid” is another highly contentious term. Originally associated with the system of racial segregation in South Africa, it has a specific meaning in international law. Some human-rights organizations and Palestinian advocates apply it to Israeli rule over Palestinians; Israeli officials and many of Israel’s supporters strongly reject the comparison. When this term appears in materials, it is important to note who is using it, in what legal or political framework, and what evidence they present.

Violence, Security, and Moral Framing

Words used to describe violence and armed groups often carry implicit moral judgments. The same act may be labeled very differently by opposing sides.

“Militant,” “fighter,” “gunman,” “combatant,” and “resistance” have overlapping but distinct connotations. News outlets may choose “militant” or “gunman” to appear neutral; participants in struggle may prefer “fighter” or “resistance” to emphasize legitimacy; opponents may use “terrorist” to emphasize illegitimacy. Throughout this course, we will identify the variety of terms used by different actors and, where possible, explain why.

“Terrorism” generally refers to violence against civilians intended to sow fear and achieve political aims. However, in practice, who is called a “terrorist” often depends on political and moral perspective: one side’s “terrorist” is sometimes the other side’s “freedom fighter.” International law uses more specific definitions that we will touch on later; for now, note that the term carries strong condemnatory weight and is not applied evenly across contexts.

“Security,” “self-defense,” and “retaliation” are widely used by states, including Israel, to justify actions. “Resistance,” “uprising,” and “defense of the homeland” are used by non-state actors, including Palestinian groups, to frame their actions as legitimate responses to oppression. Simply repeating these words can implicitly endorse the viewpoint of whoever uses them. This course will aim to describe actions concretely and then show how different sides label them.

“Massacre,” “pogrom,” “atrocity,” and “genocide” are emotionally powerful words that invoke historical traumas. Many people invoke these terms to draw attention to extreme violence or to connect present events to past experiences of persecution, whether Jewish, Palestinian, or other. Their legal definitions can be narrower than everyday usage, creating tension between emotional and legal language. Recognizing both levels is important when evaluating claims.

Historical Events and Their Competing Names

Specific historical events in this conflict often have more than one widely-used name. The choice of term often reflects narrative and moral interpretation rather than disagreement about basic chronology.

Some wars are known by different names in different communities. This can highlight whose perspective is being foregrounded. For example, a single conflict might be called a “war of independence” by one side and a “catastrophe” or “defeat” by the other. Each label captures a lived experience and moral reading of the same historical process.

Places and neighborhoods, too, sometimes have multiple names in Hebrew and Arabic, or old names and new ones. Renaming can be experienced either as natural nation-building or as erasing previous presence. Later chapters will explore concrete examples; at this stage, it is enough to be aware that naming is part of the conflict.

Identity Terms and Personal Preference

Even within the same community, people do not always agree on how they wish to be described. Some Palestinians prefer “Palestinian Arab,” others emphasize simply “Palestinian.” Some Jewish Israelis might emphasize “Israeli,” others “Jewish,” others a hyphenated identity. Among diaspora communities, labels can be even more varied.

When possible, it is respectful to adopt the terms groups and individuals use for themselves, provided those terms are not being used to justify harm to others. In academic and journalistic work, writers often explain their choices (for example, “In this article, I use ‘Palestinian citizens of Israel’ rather than ‘Arab Israelis’ to reflect...”); this practice helps readers understand framing and bias.

In this course, terms will be chosen for clarity and consistency, and when there are common alternatives, you will be told what they are and why they might matter to different actors.

Avoiding Dehumanizing and Collective Blame

Conflicts often generate language that dehumanizes the other side or assigns collective blame. This is a major source of harm and a barrier to understanding.

Phrases that depict entire groups as animals, diseases, or inherently violent encourage thinking of people as less than human and are not acceptable in serious analysis. So too are sweeping statements that assign moral guilt or intent to all members of a group (“all Jews,” “all Palestinians,” “all Arabs,” “all Israelis”). These forms of speech may reflect deep pain or anger, but they also reinforce prejudice and make understanding harder.

You will encounter sources in which such language appears. When we discuss them, it will be to understand what that language expresses about fear, trauma, or ideology, not to adopt or normalize it. Being able to recognize dehumanization and collective blame is a key step in learning to read about this conflict critically.

Talking and Writing About the Conflict Responsibly

As you move through this course and encounter conversations about the conflict in your own life, some simple habits can help you navigate terminology and sensitivities more responsibly.

First, strive for specificity. Rather than saying “they always do this,” ask which actors, in what time, under what conditions. Being concrete about governments, organizations, or individuals reduces the temptation to generalize about entire peoples or religions.

Second, notice when a word does extra work. If a term not only describes but also condemns or glorifies, take an extra moment to ask whose perspective it reflects and whether you want to adopt that framing or merely report it.

Third, be open to learning from others about how they prefer to be described, and recognize that reasonable people may disagree about terms such as “Zionist,” “anti-Zionist,” “Arab Israeli,” or “Palestinian citizen of Israel.” Disagreement over words is often really disagreement over history, justice, and identity.

Finally, leave room for complexity. Individuals may not fit neatly into the labels available to them, and communities may be internally diverse. Allowing for that complexity will not only make your understanding more accurate; it can also make discussion more humane.

Throughout this course, you will see how different actors use language to tell their story, assert their rights, and contest those of others. Paying attention to terminology and sensitivities will equip you to follow these narratives more carefully, to question them where necessary, and to engage in your own discussions with greater awareness and respect.