The Evolution of Palestinian Identity: A Historical Analysis

Introduction: Defining a Contested Identity

Palestinian identity is a multifaceted construct, encompassing deeply interwoven political, social, and national dimensions forged over more than a century of profound historical change. It is an identity that cannot be understood apart from the persistent themes of dispossession, resistance, and fragmentation that have defined the Palestinian experience. This analysis traces the evolution of this identity through key historical periods, examining how it has been shaped by the internal dynamics of a complex society, the immense external pressures of colonialism and conflict, and a continuous, though often fractured, struggle for self-determination. From the established social order of the late Ottoman era through the crucible of the British Mandate, the foundational trauma of the 1948 Nakba (Catastrophe), and the fragmenting reality of ongoing occupation, Palestinian identity has proven to be a resilient and dynamic force, continually adapting its methods of struggle and its vision for the future.

1. Foundations of Identity in the Late Ottoman and Pre-Mandate Era

To comprehend the development of modern Palestinian identity, it is essential to first understand the social, economic, and political structures that existed prior to the imposition of British rule. This context is crucial for countering the colonial myth of a "land without a people," a Zionist slogan that denied the historical experience of the Arab population. Palestinian society was not a blank slate but a complex landscape of established networks, powerful families, and a deeply rooted agrarian culture.

The social and economic life of Ottoman Palestine was organized around sophisticated networks of merchant and peasant families. As historian Beshara Doumani has shown, regions like Jabal Nablus were hubs of commerce where powerful families managed long-distance trade, connecting Palestine to major centers like Cairo and Damietta. Politically, the landscape was dominated by influential urban clans, such as the Husaynis, who, according to Harel Chorev-Halewa, had cultivated extensive political networks since the early 19th century.

It was this established society that encountered the first waves of the Zionist movement and the expanding British Empire. The demographic reality was unambiguous: in 1918, Palestine was home to approximately 700,000 Arabs and only 60,000 Jews, as documented by Perry Anderson. Early Zionist settlement often involved the acquisition of land from absentee landlords, a process that, as Norman Bentwich observed, frequently led to the dispossession of Arab tenant farmers. This practice was the first manifestation of the theme of dispossession that would define the Palestinian experience for the next century. As the Zionist project gained momentum, its leaders developed a clear-eyed view of the challenges ahead. As presented by his biographer Hillel Halkin, the influential Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky concluded that Palestine would not be given to the Jews but would have to be "taken," a conviction that signaled an awareness of the impending collision between two national movements.

The established Arab society of the late Ottoman period was thus set on a course of profound disruption, as the imposition of British imperial rule would institutionalize the nascent conflict over land and sovereignty.

2. The British Mandate and the "Iron Cage" of National Formation

The British Mandate period (1922–1948) was a crucible for Palestinian national identity, forcing its consolidation in direct opposition to the dual pressures of British colonial policy and the Zionist project. As historian Rashid Khalidi has argued, these forces created an "iron cage," constraining Palestinian political development while simultaneously providing the impetus for a unified national consciousness born of resistance. Palestinians found themselves compelled to define their identity against a colonial power that promised self-determination while actively facilitating the creation of a rival national home on their land.

The foundational documents of the era codified these inherent contradictions. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, a product of British "inter-imperialist calculation" (Perry Anderson), committed Britain to supporting the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. This commitment was enshrined in the Mandate for Palestine document, which laid out conflicting obligations:

• Article 2 made the Mandatory responsible for establishing the Jewish national home and developing self-governing institutions, while also "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

• Article 6 required the Administration of Palestine to "facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions" and to "encourage... close settlement by Jews on the land."

This legal framework fueled immense societal transformation and conflict. Over twenty years, demographic shifts were dramatic; according to Perry Anderson, the Arab population grew to 1,070,000, while Jewish immigration swelled their numbers to 460,000. Rising tensions over land, dispossession, and political rights erupted into major revolts in the 1920s and 1930s. During this period, the official Zionist leadership under Chaim Weizmann pursued a policy of cooperation with the British. However, as Simha Flapan's analysis shows, behind this pragmatic approach lay a more militant conviction, articulated by David Ben-Gurion, that the country's ultimate borders would be determined not by diplomacy but by "military confrontation."

The Mandate's "iron cage" had not only forged a national identity in opposition but had also institutionalized a conflict over land and sovereignty, making the societal rupture of 1948 an all but inevitable culmination of the unresolved tensions between dispossession and resistance.

3. The 1948 Nakba: The Shattering of a Society and the Birth of a Refugee Identity

The 1948 war, known to Palestinians as the Nakba or "Catastrophe," was the single most transformative event in modern Palestinian history. It was the ultimate act of dispossession, a moment of profound rupture that shattered the coherence of Palestinian society, created a refugee nation, and fundamentally redefined Palestinian identity for all subsequent generations. The Nakba is not merely a historical event but a foundational trauma, the primary lens through which political identity and the ongoing resistance to erasure have been understood ever since.

The conflict was shaped by strategic calculations that largely excluded Palestinian aspirations. As detailed by historians Perry Anderson and Benny Morris, a "secret deal" between the Zionist leadership and the Hashemite monarchy of Jordan was designed to preempt the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The result was the mass displacement of the Palestinian Arab population. While early Zionist narratives emphasized voluntary flight, subsequent historical work has provided extensive evidence of systematic expulsions. As Gabriel Piterberg argues, the "eventuality of massive expulsions was inherent in the nature of Zionist colonization." This is corroborated by military decisions made on the ground; at the battle for Mishmar ha-Emek, for example, Haganah commanders resolved to "expel the Arabs from the area and burn the villages," as documented by Areej Sabbagh-Khoury.

In the aftermath, a new legal and social category emerged: the "Present Absentees." As described by Nihad Bokae’e, these were internally displaced Palestinians who, despite remaining within the borders of the new Israeli state, were stripped of their property. This status was formalized by Israel's Absentees' Property Law, which legally transferred their property to the state, thereby making their dispossession permanent even as they became citizens.

The Nakba's immediate political consequences were equally devastating. Both Israel and Transjordan pursued a policy of "politicide," a term used by Simha Flapan to describe the effort to "liquidate any Palestinian leadership striving for an independent state." This campaign culminated in a 1950 royal order from Jordan's King Abdullah to erase the very word "Palestine" from official maps.

This political vacuum and the fragmentation of a people into a nation of refugees set the stage for a new generation's efforts to reconstruct a national movement.

4. Reconstituting the National Movement in Exile and Under Occupation (1950s-1980s)

The period following the Nakba was marked by a profound political vacuum, as the traditional Palestinian leadership was discredited and dispersed. This void was gradually filled by a new generation of activists who sought to reconstitute a unified national identity as a form of resistance against the fragmentation of their society. This era was pivotal in establishing the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the central expression of Palestinian national aspirations.

The new national leadership emerged not from the old notable families but from the grassroots. According to research by Ido Zelkovitz, the Palestinian Student Association in Cairo, headed by a young Yasser Arafat, became the "only political body representing the Palestinian issue" before a formal organization was created. This activism laid the groundwork for the establishment of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964. A decade later, at the 1974 Arab Summit in Rabat, the PLO achieved a landmark victory when it was recognized by the Arab states as the "sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinians" (Nafez Nazzal).

The diaspora, and particularly the refugee camps, became the primary centers of political mobilization. The camps nurtured the rise of the fida'iyyin (commando) movement, which carried out armed struggle against Israel. The PLO's growing power in Jordan created a state-within-a-state, leading to a direct confrontation with King Hussein's army in 1970. The resulting conflict, known as "Black September," forced the PLO's expulsion to Lebanon. In a startling assessment that complicates the narrative of Palestinian trauma, Fawwaz Turki later wrote that "the confrontations with Hussein's troops in September 1970 were the most traumatic experience in modern Palestinian history"—a judgment, as Anne Irfan observes, appearing to put this intra-Arab conflict even above the Nakba. In the wake of this defeat, the PLO made a significant strategic shift. In 1974, it adopted a "phased approach," which, as Benny Morris notes, accepted the idea of establishing a "combatant national authority" on any liberated part of Palestinian territory.

The consolidation of the PLO as the voice of Palestinians in the diaspora stood in contrast to the realities of life for those living under direct Israeli military occupation after the 1967 war.

5. Identity Under Occupation: Resistance, Society, and the Rise of Islamism

The 1967 war fundamentally altered the Palestinian landscape by bringing the West Bank and Gaza Strip under direct Israeli military rule. This new reality of occupation imposed new forms of fragmentation while creating a shared experience that spurred distinct forms of resistance. The period was marked by a mass popular uprising and the rise of Islamist movements as a powerful new force in Palestinian politics.

Israel immediately established a legal and physical framework to manage the occupation. As legal scholar Neve Gordon explains, Israel formulated a sui generis legal interpretation, classifying the territories as "disputed" rather than "occupied." This allowed it to reject the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the primary international law governing civilian populations under occupation. This legal framework facilitated what sociologist Sari Hanafi terms a dual regime of "brutal oppression... in the occupied territories combined with ethnic democracy in pre-1967 boundaries."

This oppressive environment eventually culminated in the First Intifada in 1987. Characterized by Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov as a popular, spontaneous uprising from below, the Intifada expressed deep frustration with both the Israeli occupation and the established PLO leadership abroad. This grassroots form of resistance created new avenues for political mobilization, notably expanding opportunities for women's political participation; as documented by Ebba Augustin, women's representation in unions surged from 2% to over 10%.

The Intifada also coincided with the emergence of Hamas as a major political force. The movement grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood's extensive social service infrastructure, which, as Amal Kawar describes, included a network of clinics, schools, and youth clubs. Ideologically, Hamas presented a stark alternative to the PLO's secular nationalism. As Björn Brenner explains, Hamas's core ideology views all of historical Palestine as an Islamic waqf (a religious endowment), a sacred trust over which no political concession is possible. This put it in direct conflict with Fatah's political program, establishing a new and lasting dimension of internal rivalry.

The pressures of occupation and the new political dynamics created by the Intifada's popular resistance set the stage for the international shifts that led to the Oslo peace process.

6. The Oslo Era and the Crisis of the Two-State Solution

The signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 marked a watershed moment, formally introducing the prospect of a two-state solution. This era began with hope but gave way to deep disillusionment as continued dispossession and the failure of diplomacy triggered a new wave of violent resistance and a profound crisis of fragmentation within the Palestinian national project.

The political process was plagued by fundamental disagreements. The Camp David talks in 2000 collapsed amid disputes that, according to Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov, were largely over "Jerusalem and the Temple Mount," though the failure was framed to the Israeli public as being primarily about the Palestinian "right of return." Following the summit, the Israeli narrative of having made a "most generous offer" became dominant. Baruch Kimmerling critiques this narrative as a key factor that "helped trigger the Palestinian uprising of September 2000" and led to the "collapse of the Israeli peace camp."

Simultaneously, conditions on the ground deteriorated. According to data cited by Norman Finkelstein, this deterioration was quantifiable: since the Oslo accord, "more than 600 Palestinian homes have been demolished and 140,000 dunums of Palestinian land confiscated." This reality of continued dispossession fueled widespread anger, which erupted in the Second Intifada in September 2000. Unlike the popular uprising of 1987, the Second Intifada was, as Sara Roy observes, quickly militarized—a development that Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat "conceded to and exploited," leading to a devastating cycle of violence and societal decline.

The failure of the peace process and the brutal violence of the Second Intifada precipitated the deep political and geographical fragmentation that defines contemporary Palestinian identity.

7. Contemporary Palestinian Identity: Fragmentation and Globalized Struggle

Twenty-first-century Palestinian identity is defined by a profound and unprecedented fragmentation. This fragmentation is not only geographical—dividing Palestinians between Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Israel, and a global diaspora—but also political and social. The collapse of the unified national project has given rise to localized identities shaped by distinct realities of control, while simultaneously spurring new forms of globalized, non-violent resistance.

The primary axes of fragmentation are both political and physical. Following a brief conflict in 2007, a deep political and administrative schism emerged between the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Hamas-led government in Gaza, as documented by Maren Koss. This political split is exacerbated by Israel's physical partitioning of the West Bank. As Neve Gordon and Oren Yiftachel have described, the separation wall and its vast network of checkpoints have divided the territory into isolated "clusters" or "Bantustans," a project of territorial fragmentation that sociologist Sari Hanafi has termed a form of "spacio-cide." This physical control is increasingly reinforced by automated surveillance, including, as Rohan Talbot details, the deployment of facial recognition technologies that entrench control and further restrict freedom of movement.

In this context of fragmentation, new forms of political expression and resistance have emerged. The global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement has risen as a prominent non-violent strategy, garnering international support from actors like the South African trade union federation COSATU, as noted by Omar Barghouti. Concurrently, the critique of the failed two-state paradigm has led to the re-emergence of the "single state solution" as an intellectual and activist alternative that seeks to reframe the struggle from one of partition to one of equal rights and decolonization within a single entity (Cherine Hussein).

Despite the deep fragmentation that characterizes the present, the struggle for rights and self-determination continues to animate Palestinian identity in diverse and evolving forms.

Conclusion: A Resilient and Unresolved Identity

The evolution of Palestinian identity is a story of a people forged in the crucible of conflict. Over the course of a century, this identity has been continuously shaped and reshaped by the foundational trauma of dispossession in the 1948 Nakba, the unifying force of a reconstituted national movement, the fragmenting reality of military occupation, and persistent internal divisions. From the cohesive social networks of the Ottoman era to the constrained political awakening under the British Mandate, and from the rise of the PLO in exile to the splintering of authority in the 21st century, Palestinians have navigated a relentless series of existential challenges. Despite these immense pressures, Palestinian identity remains a dynamic and resilient force. It continually adapts its methods of resistance—from armed struggle to popular uprisings, and from international diplomacy to global grassroots movements—and refines its vision for the future. In its myriad forms, it endures as the expression of an ongoing struggle for justice, recognition, and self-determination that remains profoundly unresolved.