Nineteen History Lessons About Palestine and One Missing Word

1. Before Israel there was the British Mandate, not a Palestinian state

Correct.

When David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence on 14 May 1948, an existing Palestinian state did not disappear from the map. The territory was under British rule. The League of Nations document establishing that rule was called the Mandate for Palestine. Palestine existed. An independent Palestinian state did not.

2. Before the British there were the Ottomans, not a Palestinian state

Also correct.

The Ottomans conquered the territory from the Mamluks in 1516–1517 and remained there for roughly four centuries. Their rule ended during the First World War, when the British took control.

There was no Ottoman province of Palestine corresponding to the borders we recognise today; the territory was divided among administrative units that changed over time. Palestine nevertheless remained in use as a geographical designation. Again, a place is not necessarily a state.

3. Before the Ottomans there were the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state

Also correct.

The Mamluks ruled the region from Egypt after defeating the Mongols at Ain Jalut in 1260, until the Ottomans defeated them in 1516. Palestine formed part of a much larger empire governed from Cairo. No independent Palestinian state.

Three out of three. It is almost becoming convincing. Almost.

4. Before the Mamluks there were the Ayyubids, not a Palestinian state

Mostly correct, but the neat chronology begins to wobble.

Saladin defeated the Crusaders at Hattin and captured Jerusalem in 1187, bringing much of the territory under Ayyubid rule. The Crusaders, however, did not disappear. They retained and regained coastal territory, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem survived until 1291.

Ayyubids and Crusaders therefore overlapped for more than a century. Still no Palestinian state.

Four out of four for the main claim; fewer points for the timeline.

5. Before the Ayyubids there was the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state

Yes, with the same problem.

The Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 and established the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Saladin took the city in 1187, but the kingdom continued from its coastal strongholds until Acre fell in 1291.

So the Kingdom of Jerusalem did not simply come ‘before’ the Ayyubids. They coexisted. It was not a Palestinian state.

Five out of five. The timeline is beginning to resemble the Tower of Babel.

6. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem there were the Umayyads and Fatimids, not a Palestinian state

Here the timeline loses several centuries.

Between the Umayyads and Fatimids came the Abbasids, Tulunids, Abbasids again and Ikhshidids. Before the Umayyads, it also skips the Rashidun Caliphate, under which Jerusalem was actually conquered from the Byzantines.

Nobody is imaginary. We have merely misplaced several centuries. None established an independent Palestinian state.

Six out of six.

7. Before the Umayyads and Fatimids there were the Byzantines, not a Palestinian state

Correct, although it was the Rashidun Caliphate, not the Umayyads, that conquered Jerusalem from the Byzantines around 638. The Umayyads only came to power in 661.

So Byzantines before the Islamic empires: yes. Byzantines followed directly by Umayyads and Fatimids: only if we sweep a caliphate and a few centuries under the carpet. Still no Palestinian state.

Seven out of seven.

8. Before the Byzantines there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state

Correct. Do not blink, though.

The Sassanids captured Jerusalem in 614 during their wars with the Byzantines. By around 628, Emperor Heraclius had restored Byzantine rule.

The Sassanids therefore represent a relatively brief interruption in centuries of Byzantine control rather than a tidy new historical era. No Palestinian state.

Eight out of eight. The timeline is missing a few load-bearing walls.

9. Before the Sassanids there were the Byzantines again, not a Palestinian state

Indeed.

We now have Byzantines, a brief Persian interruption, then Byzantines again. Writing those down as three successive entries certainly makes the list look longer.

There was no Palestinian state before the Sassanid interruption either.

Nine out of nine.

The timeline does not become structurally sound simply because the same supporting wall is counted twice.

10. Before the Byzantines there were the Romans, not a Palestinian state

Correct, although the Byzantine Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire. The people we call Byzantines regarded themselves as Romans; ‘Byzantine’ is a later historical convention.

There was certainly a Roman period followed by what historians call the Byzantine period. There was no moment, however, when the Romans left and the Byzantines moved in. No Palestinian state in either period.

Ten out of ten.

11. Before the Romans there was the Jewish Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state

Broadly correct.

The Hasmoneans emerged from the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids and established an independent Jewish kingdom. Pompey captured Jerusalem in 63 BCE, after which Roman influence steadily increased.

The transition was less tidy than the list suggests, involving client rulers, internal struggles and increasing Roman control, but both the Hasmoneans and Romans certainly belong in the story.

There was no Palestinian state.

Eleven out of eleven. The main claim stubbornly refuses to collapse.

12. Before the Hasmoneans there were the Seleucids, not a Palestinian state

Correct, except we have lost someone again.

After Alexander’s death, the territory first came under the Ptolemies of Egypt. The Seleucids only took control around 200 BCE. Their rule later helped provoke the Maccabean revolt from which the Hasmonean state emerged.

Seleucids before Hasmoneans: yes. The Ptolemies have simply been written out of the family history. Still no Palestinian state.

Twelve out of twelve.

13. Before the Seleucids there was Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state

Correct.

Alexander conquered the Levant from the Achaemenid Persian Empire around 332 BCE and died in 323 BCE. His successors then fought over his enormous inheritance, eventually producing several Hellenistic kingdoms.

The Ptolemies controlled this territory first. The Seleucids came roughly a century later. Alexander before the Seleucids is therefore correct, provided we hide the Ptolemies behind the curtain again.

No Palestinian state.

Thirteen out of thirteen.

14. Before Alexander the Great there were the Achaemenids, not a Palestinian state

Correct.

The territory had formed part of the Achaemenid Persian Empire since Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. Judah, known as Yehud under Persian rule, had its own administration but was not independent.

Alexander ended Persian rule in the region in 332 BCE.

No Palestinian state.

Fourteen out of fourteen. It is becoming almost irritatingly consistent.

15. Before the Achaemenids there were the Babylonians, not a Palestinian state

Also correct.

The Neo-Babylonian Empire conquered Judah in the sixth century BCE. Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 or 586 BCE and part of the population was deported to Babylonia.

Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE, after which its territories passed into Achaemenid hands. No Palestinian state.

Fifteen out of fifteen for the main claim. And, remarkably, a point for which we require neither a missing empire nor a misplaced dynasty.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

16. Before the Babylonians there were the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state

Yes, except someone has misplaced the Assyrians.

The northern Kingdom of Israel had already disappeared more than a century before the Babylonians conquered Judah. The Assyrians captured Samaria around 722 BCE and ended the Kingdom of Israel. Judah survived until Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians in 587 or 586 BCE.

Moving directly from Israel and Judah to Babylon therefore skips one of the most powerful empires of the ancient Near East. That is no longer a missing doorway. It is an entire wing of the building.

Still no Palestinian state.

Sixteen out of sixteen.

17. Before the kingdoms of Israel and Judah there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state

And now things become more complicated.

This presumably refers to the united monarchy of Saul, David and Solomon described in the Hebrew Bible. That later kingdoms of Israel and Judah existed is not particularly controversial. How large, powerful and united the earlier kingdom actually was remains debated.

The Tel Dan Stele probably refers to the ‘House of David’, evidence for a Davidic dynasty but, sadly, not a Land Registry entry for his kingdom.

Presenting a neatly defined united Kingdom of Israel as settled history therefore turns a debate into a conclusion. There was no Palestinian state.

Seventeen out of seventeen, although the list is becoming generous with the distinction between ‘probably’, ‘possibly’ and ‘the Bible says so’.

18. Before the Kingdom of Israel there was the theocracy of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state

Here the list becomes adventurous.

The Twelve Tribes come from the Hebrew Bible, which portrays them as a community without a king and with God as the highest authority. One can retrospectively describe that as theocratic.

What we do not have is an archaeologically established state called ‘the Theocracy of the Twelve Tribes of Israel’, complete with borders and a Ministry of Divine Affairs.

Early Israelite communities certainly emerged. Their precise organisation and the historical reality behind the Biblical twelve-tribe model are much less certain.

No Palestinian state, but no demonstrable twelve-tribe theocratic state either.

Eighteen out of eighteen for the main claim. The timeline has quietly wandered into Biblical constitutional law.

19. Before the Twelve Tribes there were independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state

And we have arrived in Canaan.

Canaanite city-states certainly existed during the Bronze Age. Cities including Jerusalem, Megiddo, Hazor and Lachish had local rulers.

‘Independent’, however, is rather enthusiastic.

During the Late Bronze Age, much of Canaan was under strong Egyptian influence and at times direct Egyptian control. The Amarna Letters show local Canaanite rulers writing to the pharaoh as their superior and requesting military assistance.

City-kingdoms, certainly. Independently sovereign ones as a general description, not really.

And so, after travelling thousands of years backwards, we have established that there was no Palestinian nation-state in Bronze Age Canaan.

Correct.

The only question is whether those nineteen points prove the conclusion that follows.

And then comes the conclusion

Nineteen points later, the main claim is still standing. There was no independent Palestinian state before 1948. There was not one after 1948 either. The timeline may have misplaced a few caliphates, several dynasties and the Assyrians, but never mind: nineteen out of nineteen.

You would think that was enough.

Then comes the conclusion:

“There have been many governments there, but never a Palestine.

And that is precisely where it goes wrong.

Nineteen times we were told not a Palestinian state. In the conclusion, that has suddenly become never a Palestine. One word has disappeared: state.

Admittedly, this timeline has misplaced things before, but this particular item is fairly essential.

Palestine certainly existed as a geographical and administrative designation. The Romans used Syria Palaestina, the Byzantines had provinces including Palaestina Prima, and under Islamic rule there was Jund Filastin. Much later, the British administered the Mandate for Palestine.

None of these was an independent Palestinian state. That is precisely what we have spent nineteen points establishing.

Apparently, it just did not sound spectacular enough.

Because there was no Palestinian state is history. Palestine never existed performs considerably better on social media.

The reverse shortcut is equally simple. The fact that Palestine existed does not mean that Israel replaced an existing Palestinian state in 1948. It did not.

There was, however, a Palestinian Arab national consciousness before 1948. The Arabic-language newspaper Filastin was already being published in Jaffa in 1911, and the word Palestinian was widely used during the British Mandate, not exclusively for Arabs. Jews, Christians, Muslims and Druze could all be described as Palestinians. The newspaper we now know as The Jerusalem Post even began life in 1932 as The Palestine Post. The modern Palestinian national identity later acquired a much sharper political meaning, not least through Arafat and the PLO.

So Palestine existed. An independent Palestinian state did not.

We did not need nineteen points to establish that. Only the one word the author managed to lose along the way. State.

The greatest lie in history? No. Mostly a remarkably elaborate way of ruining your own perfectly good argument.

A full list of the historical and primary sources used for this article is available in the attached PDF.

Note on terminology

Throughout the article, a distinction is made between Palestine as a geographical or administrative designation, Palestinian identity, and an independent sovereign Palestinian state. These terms describe different historical phenomena and are not used interchangeably.

This distinction is descriptive, not normative: it does not constitute a judgement on the legitimacy of either Israeli or Palestinian national identity, statehood or claims to self-determination.