-3

A Google search (2023-03-22) for "Smotrich" occurring within the past week produces:

  • Bezalel Smotrich - Wikipedia
  • Top stories:
    • CNN - Israeli minister says there's 'no such thing as a Palestinian people,' inviting US rebuke
    • Al Jazeera - Palestinians ‘an invention’ of past century: Israel’s Smotrich
    • CBC -Ottawa condemns Israeli minister's 'shameful' remarks about Palestinian people
    • Times of Israel - US joins condemnations of Smotrich’s ‘concerning and dangerous’ Paris speech
    • AP News - Top Israeli minister: 'No such thing' as Palestinian people
    • Also in the news …
  • The Times of Israel - Smotrich says there's no Palestinian people, declares his ...
  • Haaretz - Far-right Minister Smotrich: There's No Such Thing as the ...
  • The Guardian - Israeli minister condemned for claiming 'no such thing' as a ...
  • Le Monde - Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's ultra-nationalist minister, delivers ...
  • Middle East Eye - Israel's Smotrich: 'There's no such thing as Palestinians'
  • Jerusalem Post - Israel's Smotrich: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people
  • …

Speaking in Paris on Sunday, Smotrich said there was “no such thing as a Palestinian” because “there is no such thing as the Palestinian people”.

“Do you know who are the Palestinians? I’m Palestinian,” Smotrich said, going on to describe his late grandfather, who he said was a “13th generation Jerusalemite” as “the true Palestinian”.

“The Palestinian people is an invention that is less than 100 years old,” added Smotrich …

— Palestinians ‘an invention’ of past century: Israel’s Smotrich | Al Jazeera

Clearly, that was a very controversial statement, which has been widely condemned by politicians around the world.

And the implication in these headlines is that the statement is blatantly false.

Does this implied notable claim that the statement is false have any merit?

Why I'm skeptical:

Until I saw the dismissive headlines, my understanding had always been that Smotrich's statement is fundamentally true and was never in doubt.

My Rand McNally Illustrated Atlas of Today's World, Volume 3, printed in 1962, doesn't mention the term, and its map shows Gaza as a part of Egypt and the West Bank as a part of Jordan. It does mention that many Arabs fled into Jordan after the founding of Israel, but does not call them Palestinians.

Google Ngram Viewer shows that, except for a blip in 1904, the term "Palestinians" was almost never used until the late 1960s, and I suspect that the earlier instances of the word included Jews, Turks, and other non-Arab residents.

enter image description here

The people today called Palestinians are simply descendants of those Arabs that happened to be living in that area a century ago (when the Ottoman Empire was divided up by the WWI victors). There were also Jews, Turks, and other people living in the area, and all of them were referred to as Palestinians at the time because the geographic area was called Palestine, but today, only the Arabs are referred to as Palestinians.

Certainly they have developed a culture (or had one forced on them) over the last century, but historically, until recently they could not be considered a separate people. The Arabs living in Palestine (the land west of the Jordan River) are identical to Jordanians and other Arab neighbors. In fact, the aim of the Arab Revolt of 1916 was "to create a single unified and independent Arab state stretching from Aleppo in Syria to Aden in Yemen.", with no suggestion that the Arabs living in Palestine were to be considered as a different people.

The concept of Palestinians as a separate people or race is a creation of 20th century politicians.
At least that has always been my understanding.

Is the media wrong?

Ray Butterworth
  • 3,926
  • 1
  • 23
  • 32
  • **Comments have been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/144880/discussion-on-question-by-ray-butterworth-are-the-media-headline-claims-implyin); please do not continue the discussion here.** Before posting a comment below this one, please review the [purposes of comments](/help/privileges/comment). Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an [answer](/help/how-to-answer), on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Oddthinking Mar 26 '23 at 13:58

2 Answers2

10

Is this statement being condemned because it is false, or because it isn't considered politically correct to mention it, or for some other reason?

A: For some other reason.

This question focusses tightly on a particular proposition in a longer speech, says it is controversial, conjectures that some people must doubt the claim, and shows with evidence that the claim is true.

However, it is not the truth of this particular proposition that is controversial. Convincing everyone that this proposition is indeed true, with evidence, would not make the speech less controversial.

The linked Instagram reel of parts of the speech includes many hundreds of comments, demonstrating the reason for the controversy:

Here is a highly upvoted comment arguing that the speech has other motives rather than merely discussing the etymology of the word "Palestinian".

@neuro_Naturalist: Erasure of an entire culture in real time

Here is a highly upvoted comment showing that even if the claim is true, it is irrelevant:

@sulearzika: So is there any such thing as an Israeli? Isn’t Israel an invention that is barely 70 years old? So how does a 70 year old invention take precedence over a 100 year old even if we take this usurper at his word

My goal is not to pick a side in a long-term dispute. It is to demonstrate that the controversy is more about a person in authority othering his opposition rather than disagreeing with a linguistic analysis.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
  • "*a person in authority othering his opposition*" — in this case though, the person in authority is doing the opposite of this, saying that it is a myth that they are "other", that they are considered "other" only for the political benefit it produces. – Ray Butterworth Mar 22 '23 at 01:54
  • 1
    I think this answer could be improved by pointing out that in a fundamental sense, the notion that "Palestinians" or " Israelis" are groups that are pretty new is actually not indisputable. Palestine and Israel both existed as geopolitical entities at various points in history, and it is natural to refer to the people who lived there as Palestinians or Israelis, much as people talk about "Chinese" people from the Warring States period or "French" people from the Norman Conquest, even though these people would have had quite different languages, religious practices, and cultures in general. – Obie 2.0 Mar 22 '23 at 02:14
  • @Obie2.0, 150 years ago, were the Arabs in what is now the West Bank and those in what is now Jordan considered in any way different from each other? However one measures such things, they were the same people and the same culture. No one, including themselves, thought otherwise. Today's Palestinians are seen as different only because of outside political forces, not because the Palestinians are actually (whatever that means) different. That is what Smotrich meant (though yes, I realize his message had many other implications and was part of something much bigger). – Ray Butterworth Mar 22 '23 at 03:23
  • "*So is there any such thing as an Israeli? Isn’t Israel an invention that is barely 70 years old?*" was intended as a rhetorical question with an obvious implied answer that one isn't supposed to doubt. But the real answer is the opposite. Yes the Nation of Israel is new, but the culture of the Jews has been alive (and occasionally well) for thousands of years. It is very distinct from all other cultures. But until recently the Palestinian culture was identical to Jordanian culture; the concept of Palestinian culture really *is* a recent invention. – Ray Butterworth Mar 22 '23 at 03:26
  • 7
    @RayButterworth: You are dragging us into a linguistics question that is irrelevant. Even if we accept your argument that Palestinian is a recent offshoot of Jordanian, that doesn't make Palestinian the same as Israeli, it doesn't address whether a Palestinian state should be established, it doesn't make a self-described Palestinian worth any less... and these are the issues that make the speech controversial, not Google n-grams results. – Oddthinking Mar 22 '23 at 04:14
  • @Obie2.0: I look forward to seeing your competing answer (with references). – Oddthinking Mar 22 '23 at 04:15
  • @Oddthinking - The point of leaving the comment was to suggest an improvement to your answer, though. There does not have to be competition. – Obie 2.0 Mar 22 '23 at 04:27
  • @Obie2.0: I understand, and thank you, but I don't want this answer to be distracted by the etymology question. – Oddthinking Mar 22 '23 at 04:41
  • "*This question focusses tightly on a particular proposition in a longer speech, says it is controversial, conjectures that some people must doubt the claim, and shows with evidence that the claim is true.*" — All true, except for the last part: I show that *I* have long held the belief that it is true. ¶P It's unfortunate that despite my request, almost none of the answers or comments have been able to **focus tightly on this particular proposition** and my request to confirm or deny the truth of that statement. – Ray Butterworth Mar 22 '23 at 14:00
  • @RayButterworth The claim that "150 years ago, the Arabs in what is now the West Bank and those in what is now Jordan [were not] considered in any way different from each other" is different from the claim that "150 years ago, nobody used the English word Palestinian to describe them" (which is presumably not the word Smotrich used anyway, assuming the speech was in Hebrew), nor to the quoted claim that "the Palestinian people is an invention" (as opposed to a "natural" culture, presumably?). That's why you're not getting straight answers - the claim is too ill-defined to address objectively. – IMSoP Mar 23 '23 at 10:04
  • @IMSoP, 150 years ago the term referred to whoever happened to be living in that geographic region within the Ottoman Empire, whether they were Arabs, Jews, Turks, or whatever. The notable claims are that using the term to refer specifically to Arabs is, or is not, a recent linguistic (and political) development. – Ray Butterworth Mar 23 '23 at 13:43
  • @RayButterworth The claim makes no specific reference to linguistics. The quoted speech was not in English; it was presumably in Hebrew, a language which was itself only revived for non-liturgical use within the last 150 years. The claim - an extremely vague claim - is that the Palestinian *culture* is both relatively recent and somehow "invented" (implying that other cultures are, in some sense, not invented). – IMSoP Mar 23 '23 at 14:00
  • @IMSoP. The headlines are seizing on "*There is no such thing as a Palestinian people*" from the speech, which claims that until the 20th century the expression was a geographic reference, not of race or culture, and implying that this statement isn't true. The truth of this statement is independent of what language is used. ¶ "*The claim … is that the Palestinian culture is both relatively recent and somehow "invented"*". The claim is that until the 20th century there was no distinction between Palestinian culture and Jordanian culture, and a separate "Palestinian culture" didn't exist. – Ray Butterworth Mar 23 '23 at 14:20
  • @RayButterworth The history of a particular expression can't possibly be independent of the language where the expression is used. For instance, the history of the term "schadenfreude" in English is not the same as the history of that term in German; or vice versa, the word "Handy" has been borrowed into German with an entirely distinct meaning. Then you give a *different* interpretation of the claim, also not backed up by the quotes (e.g. there is no mention of "Jordanian culture" as a comparison). The fact that you are switching between the two just shows how ambiguous the claim is. – IMSoP Mar 23 '23 at 14:30
  • @RayButterworth "*It's unfortunate that despite my request, almost none of the answers or comments have been able to focus tightly on this particular proposition and my request to confirm or deny the truth of that statement.*" Perhaps because that narrow focus makes answering an exercise in historical and linguistic pedantry, rather than the far more notable issue of *why the point is being pushed*. The skeptic is also asks *why*. If you're unhappy with our free labor, you can return the unused portion of the answers for a full refund. – Schwern Mar 24 '23 at 18:48
  • @RayButterworth Trying to restrict discussion to your chosen parameters smells of distracting people away from the uncomfortable heart of the matter: the person who made those statements is trying to use it to justify erasing a people. Doesn't matter if the statement is true or not (and if that's all you want to know, there are more appropriate forums) and people here recognize that. – Schwern Mar 24 '23 at 18:56
  • @Schwern says "*Doesn't matter if the statement is true or not*". ???? Isn't that what this site is all about, to confirm or deny something that is presented as true but seems not to be? Are you saying that really this site should be used for discussing politics and the reasons people say thing? Each additional comment here leaves me more and more confused. – Ray Butterworth Mar 24 '23 at 19:54
  • 2
    @RayButterworth A good skeptic looks at the facts, but they also look behind the curtain. They look for the misdirection and the con. Claims like in your question are made with a veiled purpose, and it's part of a skeptic's mission to uncover that purpose and put the claim in context. This is not "politics", but revealing the scam; what are they really saying? Not everyone here agrees with this view, but if we don't we're just fact checking pedants enabling the con. Like I've been saying, if you just want the historical facts, ask on History.SE. – Schwern Mar 25 '23 at 00:11
  • @Schwern, my concern isn't the historical facts; it's how so many members of the media and elsewhere presented (what I understand to be) a fact as if it were a lie, and all of them in more or less the same way. To me, that's misleading and almost dirty fighting in order to discredit someone. And in this case, such tactics were hardly necessary. – Ray Butterworth Mar 25 '23 at 00:39
  • 2
    @RayButterworth I still don't see the evidence in your question of these "many members of the media" making the same claim; only headlines challenging the much less defensible claim that the Palestinian people does not *in the present tense* exist. – IMSoP Mar 25 '23 at 13:06
  • 1
    @RayButterworth All of your listed headlines are about Smotrich's implication that Palestinians don't exist, not the veracity of his statement. – Schwern Mar 26 '23 at 02:44
  • @schwern, they aren't *my* headlines. The headlines were picked by Google. Their significance is that Google chose all of these similar headlines based on a simple search for "Smotrich". My question isn't about Smotrich himself or about his speech, but about the use of this one statement by the media. – Ray Butterworth Mar 26 '23 at 02:56
  • 2
    @RayButterworth The media, presumably, jumped on that because it's about erasing a people. – Schwern Mar 26 '23 at 03:36
9

Smotrich's speech was hardly quoted in full by al-Jazeera, but was more extensively quoted by CNN

“Who was the first Palestinian king? What language do the Palestinians have? Was there ever a Palestinian currency? Is there a Palestinian history or culture? Nothing. There is no such thing as a Palestinian people,” Smotrich said at a speech in Paris.

So, it's rather silly to claim the controversy was primarily about that one sentence you've highlighted. The whole speech was a Gish gallop attack on another identity, from a checklist/historicist perspective. And that is controversial in modern politics and international relations.

"Who was the first USA king? What language does the USA have?" Arguably there's the dollar (and not the pound as their currency), but some equally crude arguments have been raised that the USA has "no culture" otherwise. To say nothing of applying those standards to a smaller country/region like Kosovo, which doesn't even have its own currency.

There's also the weird (but probably deliberate) aspect of the speech that if we concluded that self-identified Arab-Palestinians are something else that's necessarily "nothing", even though plenty of pan-Arabic movements/claims exist, based on some full extent of some Caliphates (and that kind of situation kinda extends to Kosovo, for example, vis-a-vis "Greater Albania".)

So, yeah, the claim you've highlighted is hardly why Smotrich's speech was [so] controversial. It's not like simply saying matter-of-factly that the "USA people" didn't exist as such 250 years ago.

I don't know much about what Smotrich may have said elsewhere about Arabs (he's not high-profile enough to have much of speeches translated into English), but in 2016, The Economist briefly noted that

Betzalel Smotrich, a right-wing lawmaker, caused uproar when he dismissed Arab Israelis as “illiterate”. [...] Though they may not be fluent in Hebrew, all Arab Israelis grow up speaking Arabic. But if Mr Smotrich’s intervention was especially crude, his outlook is not unique. Arabic has long been marginalised by Israeli society. [...] This tension is rooted in the centrality of Hebrew to the Zionist project. Before the 1880s, no one had spoken Hebrew colloquially for two thousand years.

And the Communist Party of Israel may be a rather obscure source, but assuming the quote is real:

MK Bezalel Smotrich, told Joint List lawmakers on Wednesday October 13 [2021], “You are here by mistake – because Ben-Gurion didn’t finish the job and throw you out in 1948.”

So yeah, that rather fits with the grand narrative of the Israeli [far] right that the Arabs/Palestinians are simply [the descendants of] occupiers of ancient land that is rightfully Jewish, and that they should be expelled or at best given some 2nd rank status.

Regarding the edit adding a large number of headlines. "no such thing as Palestinians" in the present tense is clearly a different (and stronger) statement. And that's what went into the press headlines, mostly: CNN, AP, The Times of Israel, Haaretz, MEE, Jerusalem Post by your survey.

Whether the press is slightly misquoting him on that is debatable in my view, given the [rest of the] contents of the speech, to say nothing of his other/older statements. If you apply Smotrich's checklist (King/language/money/culture) you come to the same conclusion in the present tense, unless you're willing to concede something about culture, which he doesn't seem to be doing.

And yeah, he did say/conclude [seemingly in present tense] that

There is no such thing as Palestinians because there is no such thing as a Palestinian people.

Several Israeli newspapers (JP, ToI) have quoted that bit in the body of their articles, so there's probably not much room for mistranslation.

FWTW, as one article noted Smotrich's quip was hardly the first like that. Golda Meir having said something similar in 1969 ("There were Jews and Arabs [...] but I say there is no such thing as a distinct Palestinian people"), and then issued some (1972) clarifications, which pushed her argument more in the direction of [lack of] statehood/citizenship.

Fizz
  • 57,051
  • 18
  • 175
  • 291