It seems that the idea of two states for two peoples and, at its core, the establishment of a Palestinian state in the territories of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip, which enjoyed considerable support among the Jewish public in Israel and in the Diaspora during the 1990s, has declined greatly since the events of October 2000 and has been finally buried following the barbaric attack on the western Negev on October 7, 2023.
However, in the world, this fundamentally wrong idea is still very popular.
Moreover, in our country, too, the opposition to the idea of a Palestinian state is more intuitive than systematically conceptual, and stems from the deep feeling – which is a function of ongoing and cumulative empirical experience from the 1990s onward – that such a state will not lead to peace and tranquility, but to terror and war. And although this is true, it is appropriate to consider the issue also on the conceptual level, to understand why a Palestinian state can only be a tool for terror and war and is not consistent with the basic existential need of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
The key here is the foundations and characteristics of Palestinian identity.
In the past, there was a debate about whether it is possible to speak of the Palestinians in terms of a “people.”
However, there is no dispute that Palestinianism is an identity. But it is necessary to ask, What kind of identity is it? Is it a national identity? Is it an ideological one?
Nationalism is a concept that organizes human life according to the division of humanity into ethnic-national groups.
What characterizes a national group? It is a matter of several characteristics. The main one is an ethos of a common family origin somewhere at the dawn of history. From this ethos is derived the idea of brotherhood – a special affinity, responsibility, and obligation to the members of the group (a nation).
This ethos is accompanied by a common and unique language; a territory where the nation was formed and which is considered a historical homeland; a unique culture (which sometimes also includes a unique affinity for a particular religion); a unique history; and unique symbolism (which can be considered part of a unique culture).
Most often, members of the nation seek to realize their self-definition through a sovereign space – i.e., a state.
What is the difference between positive and negative nationalism?
Positive nationalism is a positive concept. It stands for – for the people, the unique culture of the people, the language of the people, an affinity with the historical homeland, and so on.
Negative nationalism, on the other hand, is negative. It is against – against others, their language, their culture, and so on; against various characteristics of the others’ collective-national existence. Hence, negative nationalism does not stand on its own merits but is essentially antagonistic.
Ideological identity is an identity whose organizing axis is a political, economic, social, or cultural ideology. Certainly, the identity of every person is multidimensional. The question, however, is what is the central organizing axis? For a person whose central organizing identity axis is the national identity, belonging to the people and its derivatives are the top priority, whereas for a person whose organizing identity axis is ideological, the specific ideology becomes primary, and through this prism, he also examines the real and desired reality.
This is the place to ask whether Palestinian identity is a national identity. Let’s check:
● An ethos of common family origin at the dawn of history – This ethos is not unique to the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza specifically, but to the entire Arab region.
● Unique language – There is no Palestinian language, nor is there a uniform Palestinian dialect, but, rather, dialects of the Arabic language common to the entire region.
● Historical homeland – Until the late 1920s, Palestine was never perceived as a separate territorial unit with any special connection to any Arab subgroup. Even today, the symbols of the Palestinian organizations all feature Palestine within the borders of the British Mandate, which are the borders of the colonial division of the Middle East following World War I.
● Unique culture – The culture of the local Arabs is not fundamentally different nor unique in relation to the other Arab groups in the Middle East. There are certainly local nuances, but these belong to specific places or spaces and not to Palestine as a territorial unit.
● Unique history – There has been a unique history in the last hundred years, and it is entirely focused on resistance to the realization of the Zionist enterprise, and the existence of the State of Israel, usually through wars and terrorism.
It seems that Palestinian identity does not meet the characteristics of positive nationalism.
Negative national expressions
A glance at the core documents of the Palestinian movements, alongside their ongoing propaganda, will reveal that they are full of negative nationalist expressions of the denial of the existence of the Jewish people, denial of the historical connection of the Jews to Palestine, and denial of the realization of the right to self-determination for the Jewish people through a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine.
These are aimed at achieving an ideological goal – the nullification of the achievements of the Zionist enterprise and the cessation of the existence of the State of Israel.
This is a radical concept that is the foundation of Arab resistance to Zionism, and it is what makes the idea of a Palestinian state clearly unfeasible, since such a state would devote all its resources to achieving the purpose of its existence – namely, Israel’s destruction.
It is possible that, through a complex process, Palestinianism will undergo a metamorphosis and transform from a negative ideological identity into something else.
It is also possible that the Arabs will choose instead an Arab national identity that has long historical baggage and cultural depth and, most importantly, does not entail anything that requires confrontation with the Jewish people, the Zionist enterprise, and the State of Israel.
The Abraham Accords, as well as courageous figures acting in the Arab region for Arab-Jewish cooperation and friendship, may serve as excellent proof of the feasibility of this.
The writer, a resident of Shlomi on the Lebanese border, is a historian and educator.