Debunking the myth: „During the British Mandate, only Zionists were referred to as Palestinians”

Utolsó frissítés: 2026.05.31. — Szerző: Anti-Propaganda News Blog

Debunking Hasbara Myths

Note: This content is part of the series „What Every Palestinian Should Know,” published on the Palestine Today website and curated by Handala.

When people try to force history into a narrow ideological box, the result is inevitably a distorted view of history that is completely detached from reality. This is often the case with key points of the Zionist narrative, which not only reveal a shockingly superficial understanding of the most fundamental aspects of Middle Eastern history, but also contradict themselves when viewed from a global perspective.

A prime example of this is the uncertainty with which Zionist propagandists are unable to decide: either Palestinians as such never existed, or in fact they themselves were the Palestinians. Perhaps the most notorious example of this rhetoric is Golda Meir’s 1970 interview on Thames TV, where she declared with raw confidence that she herself was, in fact, a Palestinian.

This interview not only gave rise to an entire genre among Zionists who claim Palestinian identity for themselves, but—following the typical logic of exclusivity—it also led to the absurd claim that exclusively They were the Palestinians, while the rest of the Mandate’s inhabitants were merely the masses of Arabs who had migrated there later. Refuting the myth that Palestinians moved there solely because of Zionist ingenuity and prosperity is not the subject of this article—if you are interested in this topic, you can read about it in my previous piece: A timeless scam.

Needless to say, the claim that the Zionist settlers were the „original Palestinians” is ridiculous, even by the standards of hasbara slogans. Let’s examine this claim more closely and see why it has no historical or legal basis.

The letter of the law

To begin with, it is worth taking a look at the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Ordinance (Palestinian Citizenship Order), which established the legal category of Palestinian citizen and set forth the conditions for acquiring citizenship. I do not intend to quote the entire document at length, but it is freely available for anyone to access and study.

Professor Mutaz Qafisheh, a legal scholar, provided a detailed analysis of the key provisions of the decree that have had a lasting impact on Palestine’s demographic future:

„The first provided for the automatic conversion of the citizenship of permanent residents from Ottoman to Palestinian citizenship. The second regulated the status of Palestinian-born individuals residing abroad. The third aimed to grant Palestinian citizenship to immigrants through naturalization.”

There is absolutely nothing in this detailed legal framework to support the wishful claim that only Zionists were considered Palestinians during the Mandate period. Nor is it a coincidence that virtually the entire Zionist immigrant population was classified as the third, that is, the naturalization fell into that category. One glance at the Population—based on the Ottoman population register or later British census data—to see clearly that a minority settler population grew alongside the vast, long-established majority. I won’t delve into an in-depth analysis of the precise statistical data here, but for those interested in the numbers, I recommend Justin McCarthy The Population of Palestine his seminal work titled.

However, this question goes beyond mere legal terminology. Another implicit claim lurking behind the myth is that although Palestinians were legally citizens of the Mandate, they did not emotionally identify with Palestinian identity, but rather viewed themselves simply as „Arabs” in a general sense.

The Roots of Palestinian Identity

Although the Mandate period did indeed bring about a growing identification with the broader Arab nationalist ideology, this by no means precluded a regional Palestinian identity and a sense of belonging. For many, there was no contradiction in identifying as both Arab and Palestinian. The roots of modern Palestinian identity date back to the Ottoman era, but the crystallization of its current form can undoubtedly be traced to the period of World War I. It is important to keep in mind that the wave of modern nationalism also reached the region globally during this era.

Several factors contributed to the formation of this Palestinian identity. First and foremost was the deep religious attachment of the people living here to Palestine as the Holy Land. Throughout history, Palestine has always been a major religious hub, but this attachment was particularly strong among those who had lived there for generations.

The second element was the demarcation of Ottoman administrative boundaries and the special status granted to Palestine. According to historian Rashid Khalidi:

„Starting in 1874, the Sanjak of Jerusalem—including Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Beersheba, Gaza, and Jaffa—formed a separate unit that was governed directly from Istanbul, independent of all other Ottoman provinces.”

In the past, Jerusalem was part of Palestine in the broader sense (Filastin) was the capital of a province that encompassed the vast majority of the territory now known as Palestine.

The third factor was local loyalty and attachment to one’s place of birth, particularly in the larger cities. Khalidi refers to this as „urban patriotism.” The people of Nablus, Gaza, and Jerusalem were all proud of their cities and their local history. Clear evidence of this is the system of Palestinian surnames, such as Al-Nabulsi (from Nablus) or the Al-Khalili (from Hebron), and countless other names of towns and villages. With modernization, the development of transportation and communications, the spread of education, and the flow of nationalist ideas, this local attachment naturally expanded and took on a form close to the modern concept of nationhood.

It is extremely important to emphasize that all of this preceded his direct encounter with Zionism. It is essential to understand this because Hasbara repeatedly claims that Palestinian identity emerged solely as a reaction to Zionist colonization—even though no one disputes the independent development of national identity in neighboring countries (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan)—no one disputes the independent development of their own national identities. For the Palestinians, Zionism was merely another imperial or colonial power in their history filled with external conquerors, following the British or earlier rulers.

This does not, of course, mean that European and Zionist colonialism had no impact on Palestinian self-determination. The Palestinian thinker Najib Azuri, for example, wrote as early as 1908—in response to Zionist aspirations—that the rise of „the land of Palestine” depended on the consolidation of Jerusalem’s status.

There is ample evidence of early Palestinian identity and attachment to the land. One need not think only of such major milestones as the Filastin The founding of the newspaper *(Palestine)* in Jaffa in 1911; even minor developments are telling: a group of Palestinians who had emigrated to Chile founded their own soccer club as early as 1920, and it still exists today Deportivo Palestino gave him a name.

Obscuring the point

But let’s get to the point and stop beating around the bush: what is the real purpose of this hasbara slogan?

This narrative serves to confer artificial legitimacy on the Zionist settlers, while depriving the indigenous Palestinian population of it. Ultimately, it attempts to whitewash the crimes committed against the Palestinians with the despicable implication that they had no business being there in the first place.

But even if we were to fully accept this absurd and distorted premise—what would follow from it? Can a people’s lack of national self-determination, or a belated form of it, serve as a legitimate justification for ethnic cleansing? Even if we were to accept the racist premise that the Palestinians were „merely Arabs,” how could that justify the destruction of hundreds of villages and the oppression of millions?

Not at all. He doesn't confirm it, and he can't confirm it either.

This rhetorical device is racist from the very outset, and its logical conclusion is completely untenable. The Palestinians exist, and no revisionist or ideological distortion of history can make them disappear. The systematic erasure and invisibilization of the indigenous population is a fundamental characteristic of every settler-colonial context—and Palestine, unfortunately, is no exception.

Source:

Verification and contextualization of the key historical sources, legal documents, and scholarly references underlying the Hungarian translation of the above article:

1. Legal and administrative sources

The 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Ordinance (Palestinian Citizenship Order)

• The reality of the source: IT EXISTS AND IS REAL. The British Privy Council (Privy Council) It was adopted on July 24, 1925, and entered into force on August 1, 1925.

• What does that actually mean? The decree lists precisely the categories mentioned in the article (and analyzed by Professor Mutaz Qafisheh). Article 1 of the decree stated that any Ottoman citizen who had a habitual residence in the territory of Palestine at the time the decree came into effect, automatically became a Palestinian citizen. Since the indigenous Arab population (Muslims and Christians) accounted for more than 80–85% of the total population at that time, the overwhelming majority of them automatically became official Palestinian citizens by law. The majority of Zionist immigrants were indeed able to obtain this status through the naturalization process (at least two years of residence in the area, and knowledge of English, Hebrew, or Arabic).

The separate sanjak of Jerusalem (1874)

• The reality of the source: HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. In 1874, the Ottoman Empire established the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (a separate sanjak), which was directly subordinate to Istanbul (the Sublime Porte), bypassing the Syrian or Beirut vilayets (provinces). This administrative unit encompassed the regions of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Gaza, and Jaffa—that is, the core territory of present-day Palestine/Israel. This administrative autonomy played a decisive role in the early development of a distinct, regional (Palestinian) sense of belonging among the local population, independent of the broader Syrian or Ottoman identity.

2. Media and cultural resources

A Filastin newspaper (Jaffa, 1911)

• The reality of the source: IT EXISTS AND HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. A Filastin The newspaper *Palestine* was founded in Jaffa in 1911 by two Palestinian Christians, Issa El-Issa and Yusuf El-Issa.

• Significance: The name of the newspaper literally means: Palestine. Even before World War I, the newspaper served as the primary forum for Palestinian identity, the protection of the local economy, and criticism of Zionist land purchases. Its very existence is direct proof that the term „Palestine” and the associated national/territorial self-identification were actively used by the local Arab population to refer to themselves and their homeland long before the British Mandate came into being.

Club Deportivo Palestino (Chile, 1920)

• The reality of the source: IT EXISTS AND IS STILL ACTIVE TODAY. The sports club was founded in southern Chile (in the city of Osorno) in 1920 by Palestinian immigrants. The team still plays in Chile’s first division today, and its jerseys bear the colors of the Palestinian flag. This fact clearly demonstrates that the Arabs who emigrated overseas in the early 1920s did not identify as „Syrians” or simply „Arabs,” but specifically as a Palestinian (Palestino) defined themselves and organized their communities.

3. Academic and Historical References

Rashid Khalidi and „Urban Patriotism”

• The reality of the source: A GENUINE ACADEMIC REFERENCE. Rashid Khalidi, a professor at Columbia University, the Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness In his seminal work (1997), he discusses the concept of „urban patriotism” in detail. He demonstrates that, prior to modern nationalism, local identity was shaped by cities (Nablus, Jerusalem, Hebron) and the family networks associated with them, which, with the development of transportation, education, and the press, coalesced into a unified Palestinian national consciousness. The naming customs mentioned in the article (Al-Nabulsi, Al-Khalili) remain among the most common Palestinian surnames to this day.

Justin McCarthy: The Population of Palestine

• The reality of the source: BASIC WORK. A book by Justin McCarthy, a demographer and historian (The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate) is the most frequently cited and highly regarded demographic reference work of its era. McCarthy demonstrated, through mathematical and statistical adjustments to data from Ottoman tax registers and British censuses (1922, 1931), that the growth of the Arab population in Palestine during the Mandate was the result of natural increase (high fertility and declining infant mortality due to improving public health), rather than mass immigration from neighboring countries.

4. Verification of rhetorical sources

Golda Meir's 1970 interview with Thames TV

• The reality of the source: TRUE, AVAILABLE IN THE ARCHIVES. Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir did indeed state in the interview: „I am a Palestinian” (I am Palestinian), citing the fact that he had lived in the British Mandate territory since 1921 and that, according to his passport at the time, he was also a Palestinian citizen.

• Distortion of context: Hasbara often uses this quote to suggest that „Arabs” only began using the name “Palestine” after 1948 for political reasons. In contrast—as evidenced by the 1925 decree mentioned above and the Filastin As the newspaper also shows, the use of the term “Palestinian” applied administratively and nationally to the entire population—including the Arab majority—and was not the exclusive privilege of the Zionist settlers.

Summary: All legal, demographic, and cultural references in the translated article historically accurate and verifiable. The text precisely highlights how political propaganda attempts to present real legal categories (such as citizenship as defined in 1925) and historical processes in an exclusive and distorted manner to delegitimize the historical presence of the indigenous population.