Trying to fit history into a neat little ideological box tends to produce a distorted historical literacy quite detached from reality. This is often the case with Zionist talking points, which not only show an incredibly shallow grasp of some of the most basic aspects of Middle Eastern history, but also end up contradicting each other when looked at as a whole.
One example of this is the inability of Zionists to decide if there was never such a thing as a Palestinian, or if in fact, they were the Palestinians. Perhaps the most infamous example of this can be seen in Golda Meir’s 1970 interview on Thames TV, where she proclaims that she, in fact, is Palestinian.
Not only did this interview spawn a whole genre of Zionists claiming they were Palestinians, but in typical exclusivist Zionist fashion, that they alone were the Palestinians, and the other inhabitants of mandatory Palestine were just Arabs who immigrated thereafter. The talking point that Palestinians moved to Palestine to benefit from Zionist ingenuity and prosperity is not the focus of this article, however, if you are interested [You can read more about this here].
Needless to say, the claim that Zionist settlers were the original Palestinians is quite ridiculous even for a hasbara talking points. Let us take a deeper look at this claim, and see how it has no legs to stand on.
To begin with, The Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925, which created the category of Palestinian citizen, determined the conditions for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship. I will not quote or discuss this in great detail, however, should you wish to learn more, please feel free to read the entirety of the order.
Qafisheh discussed the key provisions introduced by the order that would have lasting effects on the demographic future of Palestine:
“One relates to the automatic change of the inhabitants’ nationality from Ottoman subjects into Palestinian citizens. The second regulated the nationality of Palestine’s natives residing abroad. The third was designed to grant Palestinian nationality to immigrants by naturalization.”
In this detailed discussion there is absolutely nothing legally substantiating the claims that only Zionists were considered Palestinians during the mandate period. It is also not a coincidence that virtually all Zionist settlers were relegated to the third category. Indeed, all it takes is a glance at the Nüfus (Ottoman population registry) or the much later British mandate census data to clearly see a minority settler population growing next to a large native majority. I will not be going into the details of population numbers, but if you are at all interested in the minutiae of census and population information in Palestine, then I would recommend obtaining a copy of Justin McCarthy’s The population of Palestine: Population history and statistics of the late Ottoman period and the Mandate.
But this goes beyond mere legalistic terminology. Another implied aspect of this claim is that while Palestinians might have legally been citizens of the mandate, they did not identify as Palestinians, but rather as Arabs.
While the mandatory period did see a rise of Palestinians identifying with the idea of a greater Arab nation, this did not preclude regional Palestinian identity and sense of belonging. It is not a contradiction to identify both as an Arab and a Palestinian, as was the case for many. The roots of modern Palestinian identity can be traced back to Ottoman times, but it arguably started crystallizing in its modern form during the WW1 period. It is important to keep in mind that nationalism as a whole first touched the region around that period.
There are multiple elements that coalesced to create this proto-Palestinian identity, first of which was the significant religious attachment to Palestine as a holy land by the people living there. Of course, Palestine has been an important religious nexus throughout history, but this feeling of attachment was particularly strong among those living there.
Another element is the distribution of Ottoman administrative boundaries and the special status afforded to Palestine. According to Khalidi:
“from 1874 onwards, the sanjaq of Jerusalem, including the districts of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Beersheeba, Gaza, and Jaffa, was a separate unit administered independently from any other Ottoman province.“
Previously, Jerusalem was the capital of the larger province (Vilayet) of Palestine (Filastin) which includes the vast majority of what is now considered Palestine.
A third element is the fierce local loyalties and attachments, especially in the larger cities. Khalidi dubbed this “Urban Patriotism”. Nabulsis, Gazans, Jerusalemites, etc all took pride in their cities and their local histories. Evidence of this can be seen in Palestinian family names, such as “Al-Nabulsi” (of Nablus) or “Al-Khalili” (of Hebron) and many other cities, towns and villages. With modernization and the spread of transport, communication, education, and notions of nationalism throughout the region, this local attachment evolved to include areas outside of the direct city or town and came to resemble what we understand today as nationalism more closely.
It is important to emphasize that all of this preceded any encounter with Zionism. This is important to understand, because there is a common assertion that Palestinian identity grew as a consequence of Zionist colonialism of Palestine, even though no such claim is made for the neighboring countries which all developed identities and nationalisms of their own. It is worth noting, however, that for Palestinians, the Zionists were yet another imperial or colonial force in a history full of such forces, be it the Ottomans who the Palestinians rebelled against, the British, or any other.
However, this does not mean that Palestinian identity was not influenced at all by its encounters with European or Zionist colonialism. For example, Najib ‘Azuri, and in response to Zionist goals in Palestine, wrote in 1908 that the progress of “the land of Palestine” depends on expanding and raising the status of Jerusalem.
Evidence of early Palestinian identification and attachment to the land is abundant. One need not look only at some of the larger indicators, such as the founding of the Filastin (Palestine) newspaper in Jaffa in 1911, but also at the smaller ones, such as a group of Palestinian immigrants to Chile founding a football club and naming it Deportivo Palestino in 1920.
But let us cut to the chase and stop dancing around the main premise of this talking point:
This talking point is designed to lend legitimacy to the Zionist settlers, and strip it away from the indigenous Palestinians. Ultimately, this aims at whitewashing the crimes committed against Palestinians by implying that they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
But even if you swallow this premise wholly, and come to internalize it. What then? Does the national identification (or lack thereof) of the Palestinians mean that they were legitimate targets for ethnic cleansing? Even if we accept the ridiculous premise that the Palestinians were “just Arabs”, how does this justify the destruction of hundreds of villages and the subjugation of millions?
It doesn’t, and it can’t.
From the onset, this talking point is not only racist, but highly ineffectual if followed to its logical conclusion. Palestinians exist, and no amount of revisionist and ideological twisting of history can erase that. The erasure of the indigenous population is a staple in all settler colonial contexts, Palestine is no exception.
- Qafisheh, Mutaz. “Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel. Palestinian Nationality during the Period 1917-1925.” Journal of the History of International Law/Revue d’histoire du droit international 11.1, 2009: 1-36.
- Khalidi, Rashid. Palestinian identity: The construction of modern national consciousness. Columbia University Press, 2010.
- Khalidi, Rashid, ed. The origins of Arab nationalism. Columbia University Press, 1991.