The Israel Project’s Global Language Dictionary: The Devious Tactics Behind Propaganda
Frank Luntz has a long history of perverting and weaponizing language.
The Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary manipulates language to obscure truth, justify human rights abuses, and shape global opinion on Israel’s actions against Palestinians.
In recent years, an increasing number of individuals and organizations have called attention to the disturbing proliferation of state-sponsored propaganda that shapes public opinion on critical issues.
One such example, The Israel Project’s Global Language Dictionary, authored by Republican strategist Frank Luntz, serves as a chilling guide on how to frame the conversation around Israel's actions in a way that seeks to sanitize acts of oppression and delegitimize any resistance.
This tactic is not just about semantics—it’s about using language as a tool to delegitimize legitimate struggles for self-determination and justice, transforming them into threats against global security.
Leaked by Newsweek in 2010, this dictionary’s core feature is its manipulation of euphemisms, reframing Israel’s contentious policies and actions in ways that sound benign or even noble.
For example, settlements in the occupied West Bank are suggested to be called “neighborhoods,” a term with an innocent suburban connotation, which completely sidesteps the political and humanitarian implications of displacing Palestinian communities.
Every one of the 112 pages in the booklet is marked "not for distribution or publication" and it is easy to see why. The Luntz report, officially entitled "The Israel project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary, was leaked almost immediately to Newsweek Online, but its true importance has seldom been appreciated.
It should be required reading for everybody, especially journalists, interested in any aspect of Israeli policy because of its "dos and don'ts" for Israeli spokesmen.
— Patrick Cockburn
Luntz’s guide further proposes referring to occupied lands as “disputed territories,” avoiding the loaded terms “occupation” or “colonization,” which could elicit sympathy for Palestinians and draw condemnation of Israeli actions.
This kind of verbal reframing is not unique to Israel but serves as a global method of shaping narratives around state actions, particularly in controversial areas.
By dictating a sanitized vocabulary, the dictionary effectively rewrites the reality of an occupation into a palatable narrative designed to sway public perception, a tactic that not only obscures atrocities but also insidiously normalizes them.
Fearmongering and Playing the Victim
Another revealing aspect of the Global Language Dictionary is its focus on exploiting fear. Luntz’s document encourages Israeli spokespeople to highlight Israel’s “self-defense” against terrorism, positioning Israeli actions as reluctant responses to existential threats.
The handbook instructs spokespeople to evoke images of American struggles with terrorism, a psychological tactic to make American audiences empathize with Israel by projecting their own fears onto Israel’s situation.
By positioning Palestinians as aggressors and suggesting that even mentioning historical grievances would damage Israel’s security, the document invokes the common trope of victimhood while sidestepping discussions about Israel's military dominance in the region.
In reality, this dubious type of framing blurs the line between legitimate defense and military aggression, turning the victim into the oppressor and vice versa.
When people hear the words of the Hamas charter, Israel goes from bully to victim – and sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians dissipates.
— Frank Luntz
Erasure of Palestinian Humanity and Right to Self-Determination
A particularly insidious tactic in the Global Language Dictionary is the near-total erasure of Palestinian voices and perspectives.
In Luntz’s lexicon, Palestinians are consistently reduced to obstacles to peace or, worse, as inherently violent.
The guide recommends that spokespeople stress Israel’s supposed yearning for peace while depicting Palestinians as instigators of violence.
This language is engineered to shift blame, suggesting that Palestinian resistance is unreasonable or aggressive rather than the response to dispossession that it is.
Moreover, the text encourages spokespeople to appeal to the audience’s biases.
For example, the guide advises against discussing the right of return for Palestinian refugees, portraying it as a “demand” rather than a right recognized under international law.
By carefully reframing this issue, the handbook not only sidesteps Israel’s legal and moral obligations but also subtly suggests to its audience that Palestinian aspirations are unreasonable and incompatible with peace.
Weaponizing Compassion: The Irony of Humanitarian Rhetoric
The Global Language Dictionary’s recommendations often verge on dark irony.
Luntz suggests expressing “humility” by acknowledging that “mistakes” were made during military operations while immediately redirecting attention to Palestinian “terrorism.”
This faux-humility frames Israel as regretful but constrained by necessity, a strategy designed to resonate with empathetic audiences while ignoring the scale of Palestinian suffering, especially among civilians and children.
This strategic feigning of concern is bolstered by selective compassion.
Luntz encourages advocates to lament the violence faced by Palestinian children but only in ways that bolster Israel’s image as a compassionate state.
It’s a maneuver that allows spokespeople to claim moral high ground without acknowledging the realities of occupation.
This manipulation of empathy alters narratives by perverting them, exploiting genuine humanitarian concern as another tool for controlling the discourse.
Repercussions and the Long Arm of Propaganda
The impacts of Luntz’s Global Language Dictionary are not confined to Israel’s actions alone; they ripple through media, influencing the vocabulary of journalism and public debate in subtle but powerful ways.
Mainstream media often mirrors the document’s sanitized language, referring to illegal settlements as “disputed territories” and military operations as “defense.”
This infiltration into media discourse showcases how well-constructed propaganda can become embedded in societal consciousness, reshaping truth into an easily digestible but dangerously misleading narrative.
These tactics have real life consequences, including the manufacturing of consent.
Breaking the Chains of Manufactured Reality
The Israel Project’s Global Language Dictionary serves as a manual on manipulating perception, a testament to the audacious lengths some will go to justify human rights abuses.
The document’s very existence is a chilling indictment on the way language is twisted to serve imperialistic agendas, fostering an environment where even the most oppressive actions can be recast as peaceful and justified.
Those interested in seeing the truth prevail must recognize and shout down this manufactured reality, wherever it arises, to give voice to the silenced, and to confront the power that wields words as weapons against a largely well-meaning public.