On discussions on this topic it’s important to understand the parameters that each side use.
So whilst Jews make a ‘right of blood’ claim to Israel and view it as a home for the Jewish people. The ‘Palestinians’ in general don’t use right of blood.
One main focus is on land. The idea that land creates a nation. This is why the descendent of someone Moroccan would make the argument that he is Palestinian providing he owned land. Even if he moved there in 1946.
There is a lot of ethnic diversity amongst ‘Palestinians’ and the point is the nationalism isn’t ethnic based.
Palestinian nationalism for the most part in it’s initial stages was all about Zionists trying to dispossess them of their land. Them meaning the Arabs. If you were at risk of being dispossessed by Zionists this is what made you Palestinian.
‘Keep your blessed land. Reinforce its buildings so that they do not fall and its trees so that they do not die, lest your land and the land of your brothers be given to foreigners. The soil is the homeland, and a people that has no soil also has no homeland. Do not sell the land you inherited; it is your pride and the foundation of your glory. Do not cast away that which was entrusted into your hands so that you can improve it during your life and pass it on to its owners at your death. It is their [the heirs’] right and do not deny it to them, because that is a betrayal [khiyana] for which there is no absolution.’ (Filastin 1921)
Foreigners were Jews. Arab immigration was not considered foreign.
What is also crucial is religion. The religious element can be viewed in terms of sovereignty. The belief in the idea that the Zionists wanted control over the Arab people.
This is why ‘land sales’ were the crux of Palestinian nationalism.
The religious leaders in 1935 on essentially what defined someone as a traitor.
‘After study and discussion of the entire matter and support for what was said in these venerable fatawa, we have reached agreement that the seller and speculator and agent in [the sale of] the land of Palestine to Jews and he who abets them
First: acts for and causes the removal of the Muslims from their lands.
Second: prevents the mention of Allah’s name in mosques and works to destroy them.*
Third: accepts the Jews as rulers, since he abets their victory over the Muslims.
Fourth: offends Allah and his messenger and the faithful.
Fifth: betrays [kha’in] Allah and his messenger and believers.
From a study of the irrefutable proofs of rulings in cases such as these that are in the verses of Allah’s book, as the supreme one said: “O believers, do not betray Allah and the prophet. . . .”
And from all the above-said, which includes the reasons, the results, the utterances, and the fatwa, it transpires that one who sells land to Jews in Palestine, whether he did so directly or through an intermediary, as well as the speculator or agent in this sale and those who knowingly facilitate and help them in any way, one may not pray for them [at their deaths] or bury them in Muslim graves and one should abandon them and ban them and despise them and not become friendly with them or get close to them, even if they are parents or children or brothers or spouses.
This is why for instance you will never hear about the Ottoman occupation. But they will label the British mandate and Israel as occupation, because the view of being ruled by non-Muslims is unacceptable. In the same vein Palestinian history to them is essentially Muslim history on that land even though Palestine as an independent entity has never existed. It’s religious reverence of Jerusalem and the issue of Islamic sovereignty. It's why an ardent Palestinian nationalist sees no contradiction between believing in Palestinian self determination and believing that they should be ruled by a Caliphate or annexed by another Arab state.
The Christian clergy issued something very similar to the above also forbidding land sales to the Jews. So the Christians accepted Islamic sovereignty. So they made the cut to be Palestinian.
So in short the Palestinian position:
To be Palestinian you had to fit two criteria.
1 - own land in the area of the British mandate
2 - not be Jewish
That’s how Palestinians were initially defined. Of course now descendents of those who met this criteria are also considered Palestinian in the absence of land ownership due to the belief that their land has been ‘stolen.’
It’s why Hamas can say things like this openly:
‘Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the north, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians; we are Arabs. We are Muslims. We are part of you. Egyptians! Personally, half my family is Egyptian – and the other half are Saudis’
The Canaanite narrative that Abbas and Arafat have used at times is far too easy to debunk.
So this is why when asked if they are different to Jordanians, Lebanese and Syrians they will likely say no. The area is considered the Levant. And even during the initial stages of nationalism there was focus on becoming part of a united Arab country under the Hashemite King Faysal. They would have been part of Southern Syria.
It's important to note that Sykes Picot created new nationalities that didn't exist under the Ottoman state.
So whilst the Canaanite narrative is easy to debunk it's notable that it's never been the major component of Palestinian nationalism in terms of defining what they are.
So whilst Jews make a ‘right of blood’ claim to Israel and view it as a home for the Jewish people. The ‘Palestinians’ in general don’t use right of blood.
One main focus is on land. The idea that land creates a nation. This is why the descendent of someone Moroccan would make the argument that he is Palestinian providing he owned land. Even if he moved there in 1946.
There is a lot of ethnic diversity amongst ‘Palestinians’ and the point is the nationalism isn’t ethnic based.
Palestinian nationalism for the most part in it’s initial stages was all about Zionists trying to dispossess them of their land. Them meaning the Arabs. If you were at risk of being dispossessed by Zionists this is what made you Palestinian.
‘Keep your blessed land. Reinforce its buildings so that they do not fall and its trees so that they do not die, lest your land and the land of your brothers be given to foreigners. The soil is the homeland, and a people that has no soil also has no homeland. Do not sell the land you inherited; it is your pride and the foundation of your glory. Do not cast away that which was entrusted into your hands so that you can improve it during your life and pass it on to its owners at your death. It is their [the heirs’] right and do not deny it to them, because that is a betrayal [khiyana] for which there is no absolution.’ (Filastin 1921)
Foreigners were Jews. Arab immigration was not considered foreign.
What is also crucial is religion. The religious element can be viewed in terms of sovereignty. The belief in the idea that the Zionists wanted control over the Arab people.
This is why ‘land sales’ were the crux of Palestinian nationalism.
The religious leaders in 1935 on essentially what defined someone as a traitor.
‘After study and discussion of the entire matter and support for what was said in these venerable fatawa, we have reached agreement that the seller and speculator and agent in [the sale of] the land of Palestine to Jews and he who abets them
First: acts for and causes the removal of the Muslims from their lands.
Second: prevents the mention of Allah’s name in mosques and works to destroy them.*
Third: accepts the Jews as rulers, since he abets their victory over the Muslims.
Fourth: offends Allah and his messenger and the faithful.
Fifth: betrays [kha’in] Allah and his messenger and believers.
From a study of the irrefutable proofs of rulings in cases such as these that are in the verses of Allah’s book, as the supreme one said: “O believers, do not betray Allah and the prophet. . . .”
And from all the above-said, which includes the reasons, the results, the utterances, and the fatwa, it transpires that one who sells land to Jews in Palestine, whether he did so directly or through an intermediary, as well as the speculator or agent in this sale and those who knowingly facilitate and help them in any way, one may not pray for them [at their deaths] or bury them in Muslim graves and one should abandon them and ban them and despise them and not become friendly with them or get close to them, even if they are parents or children or brothers or spouses.
This is why for instance you will never hear about the Ottoman occupation. But they will label the British mandate and Israel as occupation, because the view of being ruled by non-Muslims is unacceptable. In the same vein Palestinian history to them is essentially Muslim history on that land even though Palestine as an independent entity has never existed. It’s religious reverence of Jerusalem and the issue of Islamic sovereignty. It's why an ardent Palestinian nationalist sees no contradiction between believing in Palestinian self determination and believing that they should be ruled by a Caliphate or annexed by another Arab state.
The Christian clergy issued something very similar to the above also forbidding land sales to the Jews. So the Christians accepted Islamic sovereignty. So they made the cut to be Palestinian.
So in short the Palestinian position:
To be Palestinian you had to fit two criteria.
1 - own land in the area of the British mandate
2 - not be Jewish
That’s how Palestinians were initially defined. Of course now descendents of those who met this criteria are also considered Palestinian in the absence of land ownership due to the belief that their land has been ‘stolen.’
It’s why Hamas can say things like this openly:
‘Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the north, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians; we are Arabs. We are Muslims. We are part of you. Egyptians! Personally, half my family is Egyptian – and the other half are Saudis’
The Canaanite narrative that Abbas and Arafat have used at times is far too easy to debunk.
So this is why when asked if they are different to Jordanians, Lebanese and Syrians they will likely say no. The area is considered the Levant. And even during the initial stages of nationalism there was focus on becoming part of a united Arab country under the Hashemite King Faysal. They would have been part of Southern Syria.
It's important to note that Sykes Picot created new nationalities that didn't exist under the Ottoman state.
So whilst the Canaanite narrative is easy to debunk it's notable that it's never been the major component of Palestinian nationalism in terms of defining what they are.
...It's part of the reason they eventually decided they wanted out...by the war they were vehemently anti-Israel ...
