1. Introduction: Challenging a Revisionist Framework
The article in question presents a seemingly scholarly account of the evolution of Palestinian identity, framing "Palestinianism" as a belated and ambiguous reaction to Zionism and imperial disruption. However, this interpretation reflects a revisionist historical narrative that seeks to delegitimize Palestinian nationalism, sanitize the settler-colonial nature of Zionism, and obscure the violent role of Britain and other Western powers in engineering the Nakba. This response refutes these claims, asserts the legitimacy of Palestinian resistance, and underscores the colonial structures underpinning the Zionist project.
2. Palestinian Identity: Indigenous, Not Invented
The argument that Palestinian identity lacked coherence before the 20th century ignores the historical realities of life in Ottoman Palestine. Palestinian society, though diverse, shared common linguistic, cultural, and social bonds. As historian Rashid Khalidi has documented, newspapers, literature, and civic institutions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries demonstrated a clear and developing Palestinian national consciousness (Khalidi, Palestinian Identity, 1997). To claim that Palestinians had only "local" or "tribal" identities is to impose a colonial lens that has historically denied Indigenous peoples the status of nationhood unless they mimic European state structures.
3. British Imperialism and Zionist Settler-Colonialism
The article fails to meaningfully address the role of the British Empire in enabling the Zionist colonization of Palestine. The 1917 Balfour Declaration promised a "national home for the Jewish people" in a land where Palestinians constituted over 90% of the population. During the Mandate, Britain systematically favoured Zionist institutions while violently suppressing Arab resistance, most notably during the Arab Revolt (1936–1939), in which thousands of Palestinians were killed, exiled, or imprisoned.
Zionism, far from being an Indigenous return, was a European settler-colonial movement that sought to create a state by displacing the native population. As historian Ilan Pappe demonstrates, Zionist military strategy during 1947–1948 was rooted in the systematic expulsion of Palestinians, codified in Plan Dalet (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, 2006).
4. The Nakba: A Deliberate Crime, Not a Byproduct of War
The article downplays the Nakba, the forced displacement of over 700,000 Palestinians in 1948, as the unfortunate outcome of war. This obscures the fact that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was intentional and systematic. Zionist paramilitaries committed dozens of massacres (e.g., Deir Yassin) and razed over 500 Palestinian villages. The refugees were explicitly barred from returning—violating UN Resolution 194 and international law. This was not a byproduct of war; it was a prerequisite for statehood.
5. Nazi Collaboration: Zionist Dealings Also Existed
The article highlights the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini’s alliance with Nazi Germany but omits that Zionist leaders also engaged with the Nazi regime. The 1933 Haavara Agreement between Nazi Germany and the Jewish Agency enabled the transfer of German Jewish assets to Palestine, facilitating Jewish immigration while undermining broader anti-Nazi boycotts. Additionally, members of the Zionist Stern Gang (Lehi) offered to cooperate with Nazi Germany in 1941 in exchange for support for a Jewish state. These facts undermine any attempt to use Nazi collaboration to uniquely stigmatize Palestinian nationalism.
6. Resistance Is a Right Under Occupation
The notion that Palestinian nationalism is defined solely by reaction to Zionism ignores the international legal principle that occupied and colonized peoples have the right to resist. Whether under the banner of Fatah, the PLO, or Hamas, Palestinians have sought to defend their land and lives against invasion, theft, and ethnic cleansing. Armed resistance, while tragic in its human toll, is not illegitimate when peaceful avenues are foreclosed. UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 affirms the right of peoples under colonial and alien domination to struggle by all means, including armed struggle.
7. Edward Said and the Humanist Vision of Palestinianism
Edward Said’s articulation of "Palestinianism" was not a rejection of Jewish identity but a call to recognize the shared humanity of Palestinians and Jews. Said envisioned a future grounded in truth, acknowledgment of the Nakba, and a just peace based on coexistence—not exclusion. As Ilan Pappe has argued, Palestinianism is not a mirror of Zionism, but a moral and anti-colonial discourse seeking recognition, reparations, and reconciliation.
8. Conclusion: The Struggle for Liberation Is Not Hate
To frame Palestinian identity and resistance as antisemitic or irrational is to deny the realities of dispossession and colonization. It is an attempt to delegitimize a people who have endured over a century of violence, occupation, and exile. Palestinianism is not a conspiracy—it is the name for a just struggle against settler-colonial domination, supported by international law, historical truth, and moral clarity.
References:
The article in question presents a seemingly scholarly account of the evolution of Palestinian identity, framing "Palestinianism" as a belated and ambiguous reaction to Zionism and imperial disruption. However, this interpretation reflects a revisionist historical narrative that seeks to delegitimize Palestinian nationalism, sanitize the settler-colonial nature of Zionism, and obscure the violent role of Britain and other Western powers in engineering the Nakba. This response refutes these claims, asserts the legitimacy of Palestinian resistance, and underscores the colonial structures underpinning the Zionist project.
2. Palestinian Identity: Indigenous, Not Invented
The argument that Palestinian identity lacked coherence before the 20th century ignores the historical realities of life in Ottoman Palestine. Palestinian society, though diverse, shared common linguistic, cultural, and social bonds. As historian Rashid Khalidi has documented, newspapers, literature, and civic institutions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries demonstrated a clear and developing Palestinian national consciousness (Khalidi, Palestinian Identity, 1997). To claim that Palestinians had only "local" or "tribal" identities is to impose a colonial lens that has historically denied Indigenous peoples the status of nationhood unless they mimic European state structures.
3. British Imperialism and Zionist Settler-Colonialism
The article fails to meaningfully address the role of the British Empire in enabling the Zionist colonization of Palestine. The 1917 Balfour Declaration promised a "national home for the Jewish people" in a land where Palestinians constituted over 90% of the population. During the Mandate, Britain systematically favoured Zionist institutions while violently suppressing Arab resistance, most notably during the Arab Revolt (1936–1939), in which thousands of Palestinians were killed, exiled, or imprisoned.
Zionism, far from being an Indigenous return, was a European settler-colonial movement that sought to create a state by displacing the native population. As historian Ilan Pappe demonstrates, Zionist military strategy during 1947–1948 was rooted in the systematic expulsion of Palestinians, codified in Plan Dalet (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, 2006).
4. The Nakba: A Deliberate Crime, Not a Byproduct of War
The article downplays the Nakba, the forced displacement of over 700,000 Palestinians in 1948, as the unfortunate outcome of war. This obscures the fact that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was intentional and systematic. Zionist paramilitaries committed dozens of massacres (e.g., Deir Yassin) and razed over 500 Palestinian villages. The refugees were explicitly barred from returning—violating UN Resolution 194 and international law. This was not a byproduct of war; it was a prerequisite for statehood.
5. Nazi Collaboration: Zionist Dealings Also Existed
The article highlights the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini’s alliance with Nazi Germany but omits that Zionist leaders also engaged with the Nazi regime. The 1933 Haavara Agreement between Nazi Germany and the Jewish Agency enabled the transfer of German Jewish assets to Palestine, facilitating Jewish immigration while undermining broader anti-Nazi boycotts. Additionally, members of the Zionist Stern Gang (Lehi) offered to cooperate with Nazi Germany in 1941 in exchange for support for a Jewish state. These facts undermine any attempt to use Nazi collaboration to uniquely stigmatize Palestinian nationalism.
6. Resistance Is a Right Under Occupation
The notion that Palestinian nationalism is defined solely by reaction to Zionism ignores the international legal principle that occupied and colonized peoples have the right to resist. Whether under the banner of Fatah, the PLO, or Hamas, Palestinians have sought to defend their land and lives against invasion, theft, and ethnic cleansing. Armed resistance, while tragic in its human toll, is not illegitimate when peaceful avenues are foreclosed. UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 affirms the right of peoples under colonial and alien domination to struggle by all means, including armed struggle.
7. Edward Said and the Humanist Vision of Palestinianism
Edward Said’s articulation of "Palestinianism" was not a rejection of Jewish identity but a call to recognize the shared humanity of Palestinians and Jews. Said envisioned a future grounded in truth, acknowledgment of the Nakba, and a just peace based on coexistence—not exclusion. As Ilan Pappe has argued, Palestinianism is not a mirror of Zionism, but a moral and anti-colonial discourse seeking recognition, reparations, and reconciliation.
8. Conclusion: The Struggle for Liberation Is Not Hate
To frame Palestinian identity and resistance as antisemitic or irrational is to deny the realities of dispossession and colonization. It is an attempt to delegitimize a people who have endured over a century of violence, occupation, and exile. Palestinianism is not a conspiracy—it is the name for a just struggle against settler-colonial domination, supported by international law, historical truth, and moral clarity.
References:
- Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness (Columbia University Press, 1997)
- Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oneworld Publications, 2006)
- Edward Said, The Question of Palestine (Vintage, 1992)
- UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948)
- UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 (1982)
- Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882–1948 (Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992)
- Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust (Hill and Wang, 2000)
⏩ Cam Ogie is a Gaelic games enthusiast.
![Share](https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?s=100&p[title]=Rebuttal To The Critique Of "Palestinianism" 🪶 Reasserting Historical Truth And Anti-Colonial Resistance&p[summary]=Cam Ogie ✍ Responds to Barry Gilheany . 1. Introduction: Challenging a Revisionist Framework The article in question presents a seemingly sc...&p[url]=https://www.thepensivequill.com/2025/07/rebuttal-to-critique-of-palestinianism.html&p[images][0]=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvvORO2yskp8R7UmFAN79X9E8ogfvsoP1IcqYTjX3mDnvGcZ5TxwEPprsyB3zR7DRe0lGmS2Ynp4aeQSXeuSvVOfc-4TMS-xGFB0QBeurNbU0MxRaRJfcAQOx8TTnhXULJkSk7_k-u5GycQF_-qdPgJcxu7gkfFThpd7wl3tes4ZZVlqDjCUN-1ul1L3U/s1600/01%20Quill%20Hand.png){kind=link}
Perhaps if Cam had read the article more closely or not too through rigid ideological blinkers, he would have seen that at no point did I portray Palestinian identity as antisemitic or irrational and did acknowledge Khalidi's work on the emergence of Palestinian Arab literary and social consciousness from the 1880s onwards.
ReplyDeleteI made it perfectly clear the impacts of the British Mandate and Jewish immigration on the development of Palestinian national identity. The conspiracism I refer to and elaborate on is that promoted by writers like Melanie Phillips and David Collier which deligitimises Palestinian nation state ambitions as part of an Islamist assault on the West and a version of the new antisemitism. I reject both contentions. Cam, we will never agree on the legitimacy of Palestinian armed struggle or the your take of the Havaara Agreement which most historians reject but my article is supportive of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside a State of Israel for all of and not just it's Jewish citizens.
ReplyDeleteCam comments 1/1
ReplyDeleteI did in fact read the article closely—what I challenged was not the acknowledgment of Khalidi’s work or the impacts of the British Mandate, but how those acknowledgments were ultimately contained within a framework that subtly delegitimizes Palestinian nationalism by portraying it as belated, reactionary, and ultimately derivative of external forces, rather than the organic, anti-colonial movement that it is.
1. Tone and Framing: Subtle Delegitimization
While the article does not explicitly label Palestinian identity as antisemitic or irrational, it frames “Palestinianism” in a way that mirrors the exact narratives used to dismiss Indigenous claims globally —i.e., that they lack coherence, that they are reactive, or that they emerged only in opposition to others. That’s not just an analytical stance; it is a political position that, however unintentionally, reinforces a colonial reading of history.
You cite Khalidi, but then revert to a tone that mirrors the older arguments that say Palestinian nationalism “did not evolve naturally.” That’s an old trope used to justify the denial of Palestinian rights—akin to telling a colonized people that their identity isn’t real because it doesn’t look like a European nation-state. That’s not neutral scholarship; it’s historical framing with political implications.
2. British Role: Acknowledge, but Underplay
Yes, the Mandate’s impact is mentioned—but not in a way that captures the brutality and intentionality of British imperial design. The Balfour Declaration wasn’t a neutral document—it was an imperial promise to facilitate settler-colonialism on land inhabited overwhelmingly by Arabs, without their consent. Britain didn't just oversee competing nationalisms; it engineered and armed one side while violently repressing the other.
The argument would be far stronger if it reckoned more fully with British complicity in the Nakba and the ongoing consequences of colonial policy, rather than framing Palestinians as merely caught in a difficult historical confluence.
3. Conspiracy and “Palestinianism”
I appreciate the clarification that you reject the conspiracism of Phillips and Collier. But here's the issue: by using the term “Palestinianism”—a term largely used by those very figures to delegitimize Palestinian claims—you risk reinforcing their framing even while claiming to distance yourself from them. Language matters.
Even if your intent is different, adopting their terms without clearly and forcefully challenging the structural racism and Islamophobia embedded in them ends up reinforcing their discursive terrain.
Cam comments 1/2
Delete4. On Armed Resistance and the Haavara Agreement
We may not agree on the legitimacy of armed struggle, but international law is quite clear: peoples under occupation have the right to resist, including through armed means, especially when every diplomatic avenue has been foreclosed or manipulated. One cannot preach decolonization globally and then make Palestinians the sole exception.
As for the Havara Agreement, it is not a fringe point. It’s a documented historical fact that Zionist leaders engaged with the Nazi regime to further the goals of Jewish migration to Palestine—even if it came at the expense of broader Jewish anti-Nazi organizing. Whether “most historians” reject its significance is debatable—what matters is that it complicates the simplistic moral binaries that are too often used to frame Palestinian resistance as uniquely suspect or evil.
5. Two-State Solution: A Position with No Path
You write that you support a Palestinian state alongside an Israel “for all of its citizens.” But today, that vision is less a policy than a rhetorical placeholder. Israel is not a state for all its citizens—it is a state that enshrines Jewish supremacy in law, practices apartheid in the occupied territories, and refuses the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees.
A two-state solution without justice for the Nakba, without decolonization, and without full equality under the law—is not a solution, it's an indefinite perpetuation of structural injustice. And any critique of Palestinian struggle must contend with that reality, or risk being complicit in its erasure.
We may disagree, but if the Palestinian cause is to be taken seriously, it must be engaged as a liberation movement grounded in the historical realities of dispossession, colonialism, and resistance—not as a reaction, not as pathology, and not as conspiracy. Anything less reduces justice to mere diplomacy, and liberation to abstraction.
Forensic disambiguation.
ReplyDeleteMáith thú arís, a Cham!
Justice for Palestine requires an immediate end to the colonialist, imperialist, and illegal subjugation of the Palestinian People.
12 million ethnic Germans were expelled from Central and Eastern Europe in the aftermath of World War II, a war started not by them but by Hitler. Do they have a right of return?
ReplyDeleteA good starting point would be mutual renunciation of the Right of Return and automatic right to immigrate to Israel and receive Israeli citizenship for Jews.
ReplyDeleteNot sure I'm reading you right Barry, but are you suggesting that migrating Jews ought have a 'right' over and above, a right that transcends indigenous people?
DeleteI think he is calling for both to be prohibited. No Palestinian right of return - no Jewish right to emigrate solely on the basis of being Jewish.
Delete