The Blogs: The Battle for “Palestine”

How a Misunderstood Name Became a Weapon—And Why Jews Should Take It Back

This article serves as an explanatory piece following the release of the Palestinian Identity Trilogy:

The Palestinian Identity Manifesto — the foundational declaration.

Reclaim the True Palestinian Identity: End the Great Identity Theft! — the petition.
Palestine is Israel: The Truth They Tried to Erase — the historical exposé.

After these three articles were shared, some members of the Jewish community expressed a strong, yet often unexplainable, aversion to the name “Palestine.” The reactions have raised questions about the historical and cultural significance of the term, and why such a seemingly neutral name evokes such intense opposition.

The purpose of this article is to delve into the origins of this aversion and offer a broader perspective on why reclaiming the name “Palestine” could not only benefit Jews, but also strengthen Jewish cultural sovereignty and identity. We will explore the historical roots of the name “Palestine,” its connection to Jewish heritage, and why the rejection of it came at significant cultural, political, and human costs. We will also show how reclaiming it could shift the narrative and restore a powerful aspect of Jewish identity that has been distorted for far too long.

The Emotional and Historical Aversion to “Palestine”

The name “Palestine” has become deeply polarizing in Jewish discourse. Among some Jews, even uttering the term provokes discomfort or outright hostility. This reaction often stems from its association with anti-Zionist or antisemitic rhetoric, especially in the context of modern political movements. The term is frequently seen as a rejection of Israel’s legitimacy—or even of Jewish peoplehood itself.

But this reaction is not purely political. It is emotional, historical, and deeply symbolic.

The Roman Renaming and the Trauma of Erasure

The aversion to the word “Palestine” can be traced back to a traumatic episode in Jewish history. In the 2nd century CE, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt, the Roman Empire renamed Judea to Palaestina. Renaming conquered lands was a common imperial tactic used to erase national or cultural identities after uprisings. Many historians interpret this move as a deliberate effort to sever the Jewish connection to the land by linking it to their historical enemies—the Philistines.

For many Jews today, “Palestine” carries the ghost of that erasure. It feels like an ancient insult, revived by modern adversaries.

However, no official Roman explanation for the renaming survives in written form, leaving modern scholars to infer intent from context. Likewise, no Roman source explicitly states that the renaming was meant to invoke the Philistines. It remains a widely accepted theory—but not an established fact—that the name Palaestina was meant to humiliate the Jewish population by symbolically aligning the land not with them, but with their ancient enemies.

What Does “Palestine” Really Mean: Philistia or Israel?

What is confirmed, however, is that the term Palaestina was already in Greek usage long before the Roman renaming. Herodotus, writing in the 5th century BCE, referred to “Palaistinē” as a region encompassing the Land of Israel, including the coastal area once known as Philistia.

This supports a more compelling theory that traces the name Palestine to the ancient Greek Παλαιστῑ́νη (Palaistīnē), derived from παλαιστής (palaistês), meaning “wrestler,” “rival,” or “adversary”—a direct translation of the Hebrew name Yisra’el (יִשְׂרָאֵל), which means “one who wrestles with God” (Bereishit/Genesis 32:28).

In other words, Palestine is not an erasure of Israel, but a Greek rendering of it. The Greeks used the term as a neutral geographic descriptor, without political or anti-Jewish intent.

This kind of linguistic translation is not unusual. Just as the original French name Côte d’Ivoire became Ivory Coast in English and Берег Слоновой Кости (Bereg Slonovoy Kosti) in Russian, so too did Yisra’el—“one who wrestles with God”—become Palaistīnē, “land of one who wrestles,” in Greek.

There is no conclusive evidence favoring one origin theory over the other. We are left with interpretations—and the choice of which one to adopt.

The Popular Theory and Its Propaganda Value

Curiously, the theory that the Romans renamed the land Palaestina to associate it with the Jews’ ancient enemies—the Philistines—has gained traction in recent years. Some even claim that the Greeks themselves used Palaestina to refer specifically to Philistine territory. Why? Because the idea conveniently flatters popular anti-Jewish and anti-Israel narratives.

That theory, though ancient, has been revived in modern times by those who portray Jews as colonial usurpers. It has also been amplified by Arab nationalists — some of whom even claim descent from the Philistines, a people who vanished from history over 2,500 years ago, much like the Amorites or Moabites. Needless to say, the Philistines were not Arabs, not Semitic, and not indigenous to the region. They were likely Aegean invaders — possibly Mycenaean Greeks — who left behind no known religion, no surviving language, and no genealogical legacy. To claim them as Arab ancestors is not only historically indefensible — it’s political mythology masquerading as identity.

The Historical Continuity of “Palestine” in Jewish Identity

The less popular theory—that “Palestine” is essentially a Greek translation of Israel—exposes the myth at the heart of anti-Israel propaganda and dismantles the linguistic weaponry of its enemies. Which may be why it is rarely heard.

And yet, for centuries that followed, Jews continued to live in and refer to the land as Palestine — without contradiction. During the British Mandate period, Jewish newspapers, currency, and public institutions proudly bore the name. The Palestine Post (now The Jerusalem Post), the Palestine Orchestra (now the Israel Philharmonic), the Jewish Agency for Palestine, and even passports identifying their Jewish holders as “Palestinian” were all part of the Zionist revival. In the early 20th century, Jews did not speak of disregarding Palestine — but of building a homeland within it.

The Shift in the Mid-20th Century

It was only after the Arab defeat in the Six-Day War of 1967 — and after Yasser Arafat joined the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) — that the group began promoting a distinctly Arab-Palestinian nationalist agenda. The term Palestine shifted from a geographic label to a political weapon — one increasingly wielded against Jewish self-determination. As the word was rebranded by enemies of Israel, many Jews rejected it as hostile to their identity and future.

The Price of Abandoning “Palestine”

This rejection of the term Palestine came at significant cultural, political, and human costs. By distancing themselves from the term, Jews inadvertently gave up an important part of their historical and linguistic heritage. Reclaiming the name Palestine does not deny Israeli statehood or Jewish nationhood—it strengthens and deepens both. By reasserting the Jewish connection to the name, Jews can shatter the monopoly of anti-Israel narratives and remind the world that Palestine was never the exclusive property of their enemies.

Reclaiming “Palestine”: A Bold Cultural Shift

Jews—and all Israelis—have every reason to reclaim the name Palestine as an expression of their ancient, native, and legitimate heritage. This act of linguistic and cultural reclamation would destabilize artificially fabricated binaries like “colonizers vs. natives” and invite more honest engagement with the layered histories of this land.

Reclaiming Palestine would mark a bold shift from cultural defensiveness to cultural confidence. Instead of surrendering symbolic ground to those who weaponize it, Jews could assert a broader, richer narrative—one that embraces complexity rather than reducing it to oversimplified slogans.

Conclusion: Affirming Jewish Sovereignty

Reclaiming Palestine is not a concession—it’s continuity. Not a surrender—but an expansion of Jewish cultural sovereignty. It declares, unequivocally, that Jews not only have a right to exist in the State of Israel, but a right to define the language through which that existence is understood.