Palestinian Identity
Imshin claims no one ever questions whether the Palestinians exist as a people. Well, actually, they do that all the time, as a common right-wing argument is that the Jews have been a people for millennia and deserve everything from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, while the Palestinians are just like all the other Arabs and should melt into the great undifferentiated Arab mass. To be honest, however, I totally agree with the key point of Imshin's post, if from a slightly different perspective - the situation today is what it is, and trying to argue about what should have been isn't really that productive.
Did the Palestinians have a national identity before Israel? I'm not normally an intellectual snob, but with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I stay glued to the mainstream scholarship as much as possible just because there's so much polemic out there representing the deeply held convictions of one side or another about their own past, often carefully cited with their selected evidence so that to a non-specialist it all looks perfectly irrefutable, until you look at the opposing viewpoint. Anyway, according to page 123 of Malcolm Yapp's The Near East Since the First World War:
"Before 1918 there was very little idea of Palestine among them although they were conscious of a certain common interest in opposing Zionist settlement. Nor was Arabism so prominent in Palestine as it was in Syria. In 1918, Palestinian Arabs faced the same dilemma as other Ottoman Arabs: what political identity and goals should replace their lost Ottoman personality. Those in Nablus looked to Faysal in Damascus and accepted the view of Palestine as southern Syria; those in Jerusalem were less anxious to acknowledge Faysal's rule. Most Palestinians organized themselves as local communities through the Muslim-Christian associations. In July 1920 the southern Syrian option was excluded by the fall of Faysal and Palestinians were obliged to choose again. Under the leadership of the Husaynis they emphasized a Palestinian identity which permitted Muslim-Christian cooperation, was acceptable to Britain and fitted the political arena in which they operated. The Palestinian Arab identity was very much an elite choice, however, and it had little appeal to the masses. When peasants and the lower classes in towns became drawn into the political struggle during the 1930's the most powerful bond proved to be Islam. Also during the 1930's, with the rise of other Arab states, the appeal of pan-Arabism strengthened again. Even in 1948, Palestinian Arabs still thought of themselves primarily as members of families or of local, religious or ethnic communities rather than as Palestinians. Nevertheless, during the mandate Palestinians had acquired Palestinian institutions and the habit of working in and with these institutions had promoted in some measure the growth of a Palestinian identity. For, during the mandate government institutions were Palestinian Arab institutions, the Yishuv having opted out."
This doesn't sound like something that fits neat ideological agendas, which is unsurprising considering that the concept of national identity arose in Europe under specific historical circumstances that were not present in the Arab world, which was following its own path. Even if for many there was not an "imagined community" of Palestinians, there was either one of Arabs that included the spot where they were living, or perhaps just of Jerusalemites, made up of those who were proud to live in the holy city and its hinterland where the Prophets walked and Muhammad went on his Night Journey. Today, none of that matters...just as Israeli Arabs now count themselves members of a Jewish state, so Palestinians too developed a concept of themselves as a people and are now seen by others as one. Everything else is just water under the bridge.
The world of the British mandate is no more, and the actions taken by people 50 years ago - short in the longer scheme of history but an eternity here - cannot be held against those now cast as their heirs in cultural forms of which the leaders of yesteryear might not have conceptualized. Argue the conflict all you want, but to base all your arguments on the past and what might have been is to pay homage to ideologies that don't lead to anything constructive.
Did the Palestinians have a national identity before Israel? I'm not normally an intellectual snob, but with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I stay glued to the mainstream scholarship as much as possible just because there's so much polemic out there representing the deeply held convictions of one side or another about their own past, often carefully cited with their selected evidence so that to a non-specialist it all looks perfectly irrefutable, until you look at the opposing viewpoint. Anyway, according to page 123 of Malcolm Yapp's The Near East Since the First World War:
"Before 1918 there was very little idea of Palestine among them although they were conscious of a certain common interest in opposing Zionist settlement. Nor was Arabism so prominent in Palestine as it was in Syria. In 1918, Palestinian Arabs faced the same dilemma as other Ottoman Arabs: what political identity and goals should replace their lost Ottoman personality. Those in Nablus looked to Faysal in Damascus and accepted the view of Palestine as southern Syria; those in Jerusalem were less anxious to acknowledge Faysal's rule. Most Palestinians organized themselves as local communities through the Muslim-Christian associations. In July 1920 the southern Syrian option was excluded by the fall of Faysal and Palestinians were obliged to choose again. Under the leadership of the Husaynis they emphasized a Palestinian identity which permitted Muslim-Christian cooperation, was acceptable to Britain and fitted the political arena in which they operated. The Palestinian Arab identity was very much an elite choice, however, and it had little appeal to the masses. When peasants and the lower classes in towns became drawn into the political struggle during the 1930's the most powerful bond proved to be Islam. Also during the 1930's, with the rise of other Arab states, the appeal of pan-Arabism strengthened again. Even in 1948, Palestinian Arabs still thought of themselves primarily as members of families or of local, religious or ethnic communities rather than as Palestinians. Nevertheless, during the mandate Palestinians had acquired Palestinian institutions and the habit of working in and with these institutions had promoted in some measure the growth of a Palestinian identity. For, during the mandate government institutions were Palestinian Arab institutions, the Yishuv having opted out."
This doesn't sound like something that fits neat ideological agendas, which is unsurprising considering that the concept of national identity arose in Europe under specific historical circumstances that were not present in the Arab world, which was following its own path. Even if for many there was not an "imagined community" of Palestinians, there was either one of Arabs that included the spot where they were living, or perhaps just of Jerusalemites, made up of those who were proud to live in the holy city and its hinterland where the Prophets walked and Muhammad went on his Night Journey. Today, none of that matters...just as Israeli Arabs now count themselves members of a Jewish state, so Palestinians too developed a concept of themselves as a people and are now seen by others as one. Everything else is just water under the bridge.
The world of the British mandate is no more, and the actions taken by people 50 years ago - short in the longer scheme of history but an eternity here - cannot be held against those now cast as their heirs in cultural forms of which the leaders of yesteryear might not have conceptualized. Argue the conflict all you want, but to base all your arguments on the past and what might have been is to pay homage to ideologies that don't lead to anything constructive.
posted by Brian Ulrich at
11:58 PM
<< Home