The debate over how to use the term “Palestine” is not an academic quarrel over geography. It reflects two fundamentally different worldviews. One treats the term as a historical label, no different from countless others that have shifted over millennia. The other deploys it as a political weapon—part of a global campaign to delegitimize, isolate, and ultimately dismantle the State of Israel. These approaches are not merely incompatible; they are mutually exclusive.
Yes, history and politics are intertwined. But there is a profound
difference between serious scholarship and crude propaganda. The former
acknowledges complexity and uncertainty. The latter thrives on
oversimplification, moral grandstanding, and the confident ignorance of pseudo‑intellectuals
who populate the anti‑Israel echo chamber.
The uproar over the British Museum’s decision to replace the modern term
“Palestine” with older, historically accurate labels such as “Pleshet”
is a case in point. Anyone genuinely interested in the ancient world would
immediately recognize the vast gulf between the original meanings of regional
names and the political uses imposed on them today. After all, even the term “Middle
East”—treated as timeless—is barely 120 years old, as it was coined by a US
Navy man.
Consider a simple example. The Hebrew Bible mentions "Zarephath"
and "Sepharad", in Hebrew “France” and “Spain.” Should Jews therefore
claim today Paris and Madrid?
Any decent person, not only scholars, easily understand that these
biblical terms have nothing to do with the modern nations bearing those names.
Yet when it comes to “Palestine,” the same basic logic suddenly evaporates.
The origins of the name are well documented. The Romans applied “Palestina”
to what even the Qur’an names "The Holly Land" of "Banei Israel". The term itself derives from
the Philistines—Aegean migrants from Crete, Sardinia, and other “Sea Peoples”
who settled on the coast in the 12th century BCE. The word Philistine
literally means “invader.” The Canaanites certainly saw them that way. And the
Canaanites themselves? The term is interchangeable with “Phoenicians,” both
referring to the purple dye that powered their coastal economy.
One could go on: Anatolia means “east” in Greek; al‑Sham
means “the left side,” because Syria lies to the left when facing the rising
sun. Ancient geography is a tapestry of shifting meanings. But the critics of
the British Museum are not interested in history. They are interested in
narrative warfare.
Their message is simple: just as Ireland belongs to the Irish and Poland
to the Poles, “Palestine” belongs exclusively to “Palestinians.” From this,
they leap to the conclusion that anyone else living between the river and the
desert is a colonialist, an occupier, a racist. The chant “Long live
Palestine!” is not a celebration of heritage; it is a political cudgel.
And, conveniently, these same activists ignore the awkward fact that the
name “Palestine” itself originates from an invading people. They also avoid the
obvious corollary to their own logic: if Hungarians come from Hungary and
Koreans from Korea, then Arabs, too, have a homeland—and it is not west of the
Jordan River but in Arabia.
Let us be clear. The Jewish people, their national movement, and their
state are not going anywhere. They have survived far worse than historical
revisionism dressed up as liberation politics. Whether the British Museum
stands by scholarly accuracy or capitulates to political pressure will not
determine Israel’s fate, nor will it resolve the deep historical crisis facing
the Palestinian Arabs.