Nicholas Woode-Smith
Patric Tariq Mellet is concerned that South African newspapers would dare publish an opinion contrary to his own (Debunking myths: tracing Palestine’s ancient roots, 14 October 2024).
The nature of Israel’s media should have no bearing on freedom of press in South Africa, and it is inappropriate for Mellet to even imply that a platform should be denied to those who disagree with him – especially when it is clear that he does not really understand what Zionism actually is.
Mellet’s main contention with my letter published on October 10th is that I stated that the Palestinian national identity only emerged in the 20th century.
This fact is not disputed by mainstream historians or even Palestinian leaders themselves. Palestinian nationalism was a reaction to Zionism and Israel’s independence.
The area of Palestine and Israel only became independent polities in the 20th century. Beforehand, they were always territories of vast empires, going back long before national identity was even a concept. The last time there was an independent polity in the area was just before Pompey of Rome conquered the region for his empire. Before that, it was the Jewish Kingdom of Israel.
Mellet claims that between 1250 – 721BCE “Palestinians, Jews, Phoenicians” and others lived side by side in the area. Separating Palestinians from Jews living in this area is a grave error. Prior to the establishment of the modern state of Israel, Jews inhabiting the area called themselves Palestinian, as the region was called Palestine by its imperial powers. This is not disputed.
But Mellet seems to conflate national identity with the name of a place. By that logic, Mesopotamian nationalism should be dominating Iraq.
The presence of the word “Palestine”, or its ancient alternatives, is not an argument for the existence of Palestine as a national identity.
Especially as modern Palestinian nationalism is inseparable from Islam as an identity. A religion that was established only in the 7th century, long after the establishment of Judaism in the region.
Many modern Palestinians are genetically indistinct from their Israeli cousins. The only real difference is religion. For this reason, it makes perfect sense that the Palestinian national identity only became established after the region fell out of the hands of a Muslim power.
Mellet has outlined a long, detailed timeline of the history of the region in his article. But unfortunately, it is largely irrelevant, as his crucial premise is illogical.
The existence of a word doesn’t make a national identity. Only the genuine desire for nationhood amongst a community of people does. And that national identity only began to become established by Palestinians after the fall of the Ottomans, and crucially, after the rise of Jewish Israel.
While irrelevant to the argument, I would also like to clarify that Islamic rule in Palestine was not some multi-faith, multicultural utopia. Jews and Christians were largely oppressed and treated as second class citizens by their Islamic overlords. Pagans were exterminated. Violently.
The Ottomans were slightly better, granting the Jews increased control over Jerusalem. But it was the British who first established true multi-faith equality and freedom in the region. And this was followed by Israel, which exists today as the freest, most equal, and most diverse nation in the Middle East.
* Woode-Smith is a historian, political analyst and author.
Cape Times