The Zionist/Jewish and Palestinian/Arab National Movements: The Question of Legitimacy—a Comparative Observation

Introduction

The issue of legitimacy in the Zionist-Palestinian dispute consists of three interwoven aspects: 1) self-legitimacy, which obviously has characterized both national movements; 2) the legitimate rights of the other—which were mutually denied for long periods of time; and 3) international legitimacy, which was roughly divided for a long time between the Western-Christian world that backed the Zionist claim, and the Arab and Muslim countries that identified with the Palestinian cause.

While a full symmetry has been maintained between the two national movements regarding their own legitimate rights, changes have taken place regarding mutual recognition and the position of the international community.

Early Years

The two national movements emerged around the late 19th century (the Zionist) and early 20th century (the Palestinian). Each movement was inspired by European nationalism, particularly Zionism, which started in Europe; and by their religious traditions, notably Palestinian nationalism—with its strong adherence to Islam. Both movements have claimed full legitimate rights over the entire land: Eretz Israel or Falastin. The Zionists, by recounting historical rights and divine promises derived from the Bible, and the Palestinians, by citing historical continuity and religious bonds, as well as their demographic majority cum the right of self-determination. Consequently the major streams of these two movements denied for decades the legitimate rights of the other for national self-determination in this land, or part of it. Both offered only individual civil rights to the rival population. Many Palestinians have argued that Judaism is a religion, not a nation, and that Jews can therefore live in a Palestinian state as equal citizens. They have also alleged that Zionism was a foreign colonialist movement that illegitimately occupied parts of Arab (and Islamic) Palestine.

In comparison, many Zionists have not considered the Palestinians as a genuine nation, linked to Eretz Israel, but, rather, as a part of the Arab nation and region. David Ben-Gurion, leader of the Yishuv (Zionist community in Palestine) and later the Prime Minister of Israel for many years, used a strange argument to deny the right of the Palestinian Arab for national self-determination: He alleged in 1916 that most Arabs in Palestine were in fact descendants of the ancient Jewish peasants who lived on the land until the Muslim conquest in the 7th century, and who were subsequently Islamized and Arabized.

Palestinian Arab ideologues, for their part, asserted that the Palestinian Arab population was composed of the descendants of the ancient, original peoples of Palestine—Canaanites, Emorites, Hittites, Phoenicians, and Philistines, who had preceded the Jews. They thus attempted to trump the Jewish narrative on its main point, namely antiquity in the land. These groups, according to this argument, continued to inhabit the land after the 7th century when the country (and the region) was Islamized. It has since become a sacred Islamic land, part of the Muslim world, with its holy places in Jerusalem and Hebron.

To illustrate the major positions of the two rival nationalist movements, it would be useful to cite several excerpts from their official documents. Thus, “The Palestinian National Charter” of 1964 (revised in 1968) that articulates the Palestinian tenets since the inception of the nationalist movement in the 1920s points out inter alia

Article 1: “Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland . . .”

Article 7: “The Palestinian belonging and the ties to Palestine— material, spiritual and historical—are permanent facts.”

Article 20: “. . . claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history . . . Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own . . .”

Article 22: “Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism . . . It is racist and fanatic in its nature . . .”¹

In comparison, Israel’s “Proclamation of Independence” of May 1948 states:

The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and national identity was formed. Here they achieved independence and created...