FTO - Hamas - Discerning Islam

Read Time:30 Minute, 48 Second

HAMAS (Part I)

What Is Hamas?

Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, as are dozens of other Islamic organizations. Founded in 1988, Hamas’s name is an acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement” in Arabic. The word hamas also means “zeal,” “enthusiasm” or “fanaticism.”

Hamas is one of two parties in power among the Palestinians. The other is Fatah, whose name is also an acronym, with the meaning “conquest.” There are two Palestinian territories: Hamas rules in Gaza, while Fatah rules in the West Bank. Hamas took power in Gaza in 2006 from Fatah after winning a democratic election. At the time, a conflict between the two parties broke out, in which hundreds were killed.

Both Fatah and Hamas are radical Islamist movements. At times in the past they have fought each other, but they have also made attempts at rapprochement. Fatah has praised Hamas for the October 7 attacks and has called upon all Palestinians to rise up in solidarity.

What Is The Muslim Brotherhood?

The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist renewal movement that was founded in Egypt in 1928. Its ultimate goal is to establish a caliphate, an overarching state ruled by Islamic law. The Muslim Brotherhood has a network of supporters in many countries, including the United States and across Europe.

Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in 1988, Hamas’s name is an acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement” in Arabic.

The Brotherhood has had many offshoots, most of which are militant.

The Brotherhood, like many other Islamic revival movements, was founded in opposition to the dominance of the West. These movements all believe that the manifest decline of the Muslim world during the recent centuries of the West’s rise is due to poor observance of God’s laws by Muslims. Once Muslims obey Islam faithfully, and apply Islamic laws strictly – including pursuing jihad against non-Muslims – then the followers of Islam will become successful and dominate the world once again. This is their utopian goal.

For a long time now, Muslim countries have been experiencing many social, economic and political problems and this has played into the Brotherhood’s hands. The Brotherhood’s response to the widespread socio-economic failure of Islamic nations has been the slogan, “Islam is the solution.” Consistent with its beliefs, it has also blamed governments in Arab countries which do not impose strict Islam for the sufferings of Muslims.

What Does “Islamist” Mean?

Islamist is a term used for a form of Islam which is dedicated to achieving political dominance for the religion. An Islamist movement aims to establish an Islamic state in which the sharia (Islamic law) is the law of the land. This term can be applied to many Islamic revival movements.

“Islamist” is often used as a way to avoid calling radical movements “Islamic,” which could unfairly tar all Muslims with the radicalism brush.

What is Islam?

Islam is a religion which offers a total way of life, regulating both individuals and nations. It is based and modeled on the teaching and example of Muhammad, an Arab who lived 1,400 years ago in Arabia. The Shari’a is a system of law and principles built upon the foundation of Muhammad and his book, the Qur’an, which he claimed was a direct revelation from God.

Indeed Islamic tradition does not recognize the difference between religion and politics; between the secular and the spiritual; or between what is civilian and what is military.

When Western people speak of “religion,” they can think of something individual, personal, interior, and spiritual. Islam can be like that for people, but in its varied expressions it is normally much more than that. It can be political and Muslims often seek to occupy and dominate the public square for their religion. It is for this reason that political parties in Islamic countries often project a religious identity.

Some critics of Islam say it is not a religion at all, but a political system, so it shouldn’t be treated as a charitable movement, but as a political one. I believe this is a limited and mistaken understanding of religion. It is a very Western understanding of what a religion can be. Islam is both a religion and a political system. Indeed Islamic tradition does not recognize the difference between religion and politics; between the secular and the spiritual; or between what is civilian and what is military. It is all for Islam. That doesn’t make Islam any less a religion. It makes it much more than “just” a religion.

What is Hamas’ Goal?

The goals of Hamas are laid out in a document known as the Hamas Charter, which was adopted in August 1988. There is no evidence that Hamas has renounced or retreated from even a single line of their covenant (1988 Hamas Covenant – pages can be viewed by clicking from the arrows located on the bottom left). Hamas’s most fundamental goal is to implement Islam fully and strictly.

The Charter states the following about Hamas:

“Allah is its target, the Prophet is its example, and the Qur’an is its constitution. Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.“

The Hamas Charter cites the words of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al-Banna: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it.” The Charter also makes clear that a core goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. It cites the words of the founder of the Brotherhood, Hassan Al-Banna: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it.”

The mission to destroy Israel is conceived of as a sacred calling. Thus, the Charter is full of Qur’anic verses referring to warfare against disbelievers in Islam. However, destroying Israel is but a means to achieving the overarching goal of the full implementation of Islam, which is thought to be impossible as long as non-Muslims rule in Muslim lands.

The genocidal future envisaged by the Hamas Charter has been repeatedly praised in the sermons of Hamas preachers. For example, on April 7, 2023, Sheikh Hamad Al-Regeb said the Jews will only be defeated by weapons and terror, and then he prayed repeatedly, “Oh Allah, enable us to get to the necks of the Jews” (i.e., to cut their throats or behead them).

Would Hamas Support A Two-State Solution?

For reasons given above, Hamas is completely opposed to a two-state solution. Every attack on Israel is designed to prevent this happening. The Hamas Covenant states that “so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. … There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.”

For Hamas, it is military victory or nothing.

HAMAS (Part II)

Why Is The Destruction Of Israel Necessary In Hamas’s Understanding?

The reasons for this are religious. The Hamas Charter asserts that once land has been conquered and occupied by Islam, it belongs eternally as a waqf (‘perpetual trust’) for Muslims. For this reason, the Charter states that Palestine is “consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day.” As a Hamas spokesman recently declared, “It’s all our s.” The same applies, according to the Charter, “for any land Muslims have conquered by force.” (By this logic, Spain and India would belong to Muslims too, and they also need liberating.) The Charter further explains that when land once conquered by Muslims is occupied by non-Muslims, it is a duty incumbent on all individual Muslims to fight to liberate that land.

The creation of the state of Israel was a violation of this principle. Thus Israel is, from Hamas’s perspective, an illegitimate state which every Muslim is obliged to fight against.

This teaching about once-conquered land is not unique to Hamas. It is derived from mainstream schools of Islamic law, and has been invoked in many jihad campaigns, including the Afghani’s jihad against the Soviets, and various jihad campaigns waged in the past against Western colonial powers.

Hamas is a relatively small entity, and is taking on the
highly trained, much larger, and well-equipped Israeli army. Its enemy has jets and even nuclear weapons. Why does Hamas think it can win?

There are several reasons:

Hamas is inspired by the past victories of Muslims against strong enemies. With great pride, the Hamas Charter several times refers to the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Saladin. The logic is: “We have done it before; we will do it again.“

With great pride, the Hamas Charter several times refers to the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Saladin, the twelfth century Muslim warrior depicted here in a statue in Kerak, Jordan.

Hamas regards victory as a promise of Allah. The Charter states, “The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realization of Allah’s promise,” quoting numerous Qur’anic verses which speak of this victory. The belief is that if Muslims are only faithful enough in observing Islam, Allah will grant them the victory: those who are pure in heart and firm in action will be successful in war. The Qur’an states that even a small Muslim force will overcome a much larger force: “However often, by the will of Allah, has a small force defeated a big one? Allah is with those who persevere.” (Sura 2:29)
Hamas believes the Qur’an’s teaching that terror will work to make your enemy give up. As the Qur’an says, “Strike terror into your enemies.” (Sura 8:60).
Hamas does not stand alone. It is emboldened by international support for its cause from key countries, which provide it with funding and help. It is also encouraged by many non-Muslims in Western nations who sympathize with its cause.
Hamas sees this struggle as one that is incumbent on all Muslims, everywhere. It aims to awaken two billion Muslims to join in the struggle. By its example, Hamas wants to stir up Muslims everywhere to take up arms against Jews. They believe the October 7 massacre will inspire Muslims to achieve even greater things. They want to light a fuse that will lead to a victorious explosion of violence. For this reason, simultaneous with the recent massacre, Hamas issued calls to the Muslims of the world to rise up. The many demonstrations all over the world in support of the Hamas’s “resistance” were a direct response to this call for global action.
There is teaching in the Qur’an that Jews are by nature war-mongering aggressors. (Sura 5:64) By this logic, Jews are incapable of living in peace with their neighbors, and it is inevitable that they will attack Muslim neighbors. From this perspective, peace is not an option for Palestinians: only a Palestinian victory can solve the supposed problem of Jewish aggression.

Hamas issued calls to the Muslims of the world to rise up. The many demonstrations all over the world in support of the Hamas’s “resistance” were a direct response to this call for global action.

At the same time, there is another teaching in the Qur’an that, when push comes to shove, Jews will not fight. They are claimed to be too “greedy for life,” while Muslims love death (Surah 2:94-96, 62:6). Thus the Hamas military commander, Mohammad Deif, recently spoke of the need to make Israelis understand that their “time is up.” Inspired by the Qur’an, radical Islamic groups have declared many times over the years that victory is just around the corner.
Islamic teachings about jihad (war to advance or defend Islam) explain that whether a Muslim soldier kills or is killed, he wins either way. Fighting infidels is a win-win proposition. If a Muslim is killed he attains paradise as a martyr; if he defeats his enemies, he gets to rule over them. This win-win promise can make fighting an attractive option, even when the odds of victory seem slim.

What did Hamas hope to achieve by the massacre of October 7, and why did many of the pro-Palestinian protestors consider the attacks to be successful and even a source of pride?

The October 7 attacks were successful from several perspectives:

They were designed to show that the Israelis are not untouchable or invincible, but they can be outsmarted and defeated.
The massacres were designed to show that the Israelis are not untouchable or invincible, but they can be outsmarted and defeated.
They put a spanner in the works of the Abrahamic Accords, which were threatening to achieve a rapprochement between Israel and some Arab states.
They were designed to set off a fierce response from Israel, with many Palestinian casualties. Hamas is counting on this to turn Islamic states against Israel, and win more international support for the Palestinian cause.
Victory is contagious: the plan is that this show of strength will inspire others to run to the aid of Hamas.
There were also emotional benefits around restoring Muslim pride. In this vein, the head of Al-Azhar University in Egypt declared, “The Azhar proudly salutes the Palestinian people who have just restored our confidence, vitalized our souls and breathed life into us after we had thought it was gone forever.” Likewise an Australian Muslim, Imam Ibrahim Dadoun was shouting with joy as he preached on the street in Sydney after the massacre, his phrases punctuated by roars of ‘Allahu Akbar’ from the enthusiastic crowd: “I’m smiling and I’m happy. I’m elated.
It’s a day of courage. It’s a day of happiness. It’s a day of pride. It’s a day of victory! This is the day we’ve been waiting for!”

Islam teachers its followers to expect dominance and superiority. For example, the Qur’an declares that Muslims are the best people who forbid what is wrong and command what is right (Surah 3:110). The October 7 attacks are thought to have restored honor to Muslims by showing Muslims as triumphant over Jews.

If it is now accepted that the Palestinians will never agree to a two state solution, this can free Israel up to fight for its survival instead of having to negotiate for an impossible two-state solution.

Israel is a wealthy, technologically advanced and successful nation surrounded by states which are struggling in many ways. This is a source of shame for some Muslims.

The idea that victorious violence brings emotional release is found in the Qur’an. Surah 9:14 tells Muslims, “Fight them! Allah will punish them by your hands, and disgrace them, and help you against them, and heal the hearts of a people who believe, and take away rage from their hearts.” This verse teaches that Muslim violence against non-believers is an act of God, which will “heal” the hearts of Muslims, releasing them from emotional pain and restoring their pride.

Despite all this, a risk to Hamas is that they have provided compelling evidence in the October 7 massacre that a two-state solution is impossible. Some Palestinian leaders have been exploiting hopes for a two-state solution, all the while telling their own people to accept only a complete destruction of Israel, “from the river to the sea.” For example, Hamas pursues a genocidal war, while blaming Israel for prolonging the conflict. This way Hamas can have its cake and eat it too: Israel is blamed for the failure of a two-state solution, while Hamas plans for genocide. If it is now accepted that the Palestinians will never agree to a two state solution, this can free Israel up to fight for its survival instead of having to negotiate for an impossible two-state solution, negotiations which have in the past only resulted in greater insecurity for Israeli citizens.

HAMAS (Part III)

A Q&A Primer On Hamas

This is the third in a series of daily posts for one week on the following topics:

What is Hamas?
Why does Hamas think it will win?
Who supports Hamas? – This is today’s post.
Who are the Palestinians?
What is the occupation?
Is antisemitism part of the problem?
What are the rules of war?
Some concluding thoughts about the future.
If you were forwarded this from someone else, click on this link – A Q & A Primer on Hamas – to
take you to Part 1 of the 8-part series. There you will see a blue “Subscribe” button on the top right of
the page. Click the button and you can add your email address, so that you will receive all of the daily
posts in the series.
Part 3 Who supports Hamas?
We will first consider the concept of victimhood, and the special place it occupies in Islamic
thought. Then we will consider the people and states that support Hamas.
Many Pro-Palestinian Protestors Were Upset That
Western Government Leaders Have Offering
Condolences For The Israelis Killed By Hamas On
October 7, And Endorsing Israelis’ Right To
Defend Themselves. What Was That About? Why Is
Victimhood Such A Touchy Issue ?
After the attacks on October 7 it was only understandable that many Western politicians spoke
out in support of the Jewish victims, and defended the Israelis’ right to defend themselves.
However, very many Muslim leaders immediately complained about these expressions of sympathy for raped, tortured, captured and murdered Israelis. Essentially, their complaint was
that similar sympathy and endorsement for self-defense was not being expressed at the time
for Palestinians.
What was most striking about how all this unfolded was that Muslim spokespeople, who have
often lamented Palestinian suffering without acknowledgement of Jewish victims, were
offended when politicians focused, for that moment, on Jewish victims.
For example, the Australian National Imams Council issued a statement on October 8, which
told the Australian government to “avoid one-sided statements of support which ignore the
Palestinian people.” They issued this statement on the same day that their public relations
director, Sheikh Ibrahim Dadoun, gave a fiery street address in which he was shouting with joy
over Hamas’ attacks on October 7, “I’m smiling and I’m happy. I’m elated. It’s a day of courage.
It’s a day of happiness. It’s a day of pride. It’s a day of victory! This is the day we’ve been waiting
for!”
How can (some) Muslims be so one-sided, yet call out politicians for being one-sided?
From these recent reactions, it is clear that it can be offensive, and even deeply hurtful to
Muslims, to draw attention to the victimhood of others. Why is that so? Why this widespread,
competitive victimhood?
Muslim victimhood is a theme deeply embedded in Islam’s origins. Those who are not familiar
with the foundational texts of Islam may not be aware of how deeply a sense of Muslim
victimhood runs through these texts, and how Muslim victimhood trumps all other victimhood.
Here are two historical events which illustrate the point.
In 1927, the English Muslim convert Marmaduke Pickthall gave an influential lecture with the
title Tolerance in Islam. In it he alleged, in an allusion to the genocide of the Armenians, that “…
before every massacre of Christians by Muslims of which you read, there was a more wholesale
massacre or attempted massacre of Muslims by Christians.”
More recently, in 2005 Wafa Sultan was debating Professor Ahmad bin Muhammad – an
Algerian Professor of Religious Politics – on Al-Jazeera TV, when she pointed out how some have
suffered at the hands of Muslims. Suddenly Ahmad bin Muhammad flew into a rage and began

to shout, “We are the victims! … There are millions of innocent people among us [Muslims],
while the innocent among you [non-Muslims] … number only dozens, hundreds, or thousands,
at the most.”
This insistent demand that “We are the victims!” is projected from Islam’s origin story and the
rationale it gives for the nascent Muslim community’s turn to violence. Islamic tradition relates
that Muslims were being persecuted in Mecca until they migrated to Medina, where an Islamic
state was founded, which then used force to defend and advance Islam. The turn to violence is
justified on the basis of the previous persecution of Muslims. (For my alternative explanation of
the Meccan-Medinan transition in the Qur’an, see here.)
Commenting on this transition from victims to victors, the Qur’an twice declares
that fitna (‘persecution’, ‘oppression’) is worse than slaughter (Surah 2:191, 217) and that
Muslims should fight (the Arabic word for ‘fight’ implies ‘kill’) until there is no more fitna (Sura
2:193; 8:39). The implication is that shedding of non-Muslim blood is preferable to Muslim
suffering.
Ibn Kathir, a celebrated and influential medieval commentator on the Qur’an, promoted a
broader understanding of fitna. For him, even disbelief in Islam, or ‘hindering’ Muslims from
following Islam was fitna, an evil worse than killing:
Allah indicated that these men [i.e. non-Muslims] are committing disbelief in Allah, associating
with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more
disastrous than killing.
This origin story of Islam, which weighed killing non-Muslims up against Muslim suffering,
declaring that the latter is the greater evil of the two, is further reinforced by the way the Qur’an
dehumanizes non-Muslims. It does this, for example, by using the term kafir to refer to
disbelievers in Islam. The word kafir attributes dishonesty and deception to disbelievers,
marking them as guilty. It is a very derogatory term.
Another Quranic reinforcement of non-Muslim guilt is found in the many ‘punishment stories’
of the Qur’an. The punishment stories are stories of the past in which disbelievers opposed
believers, until Allah intervened, violently killing the disbelievers and rescuing the believers.
To summarize, core values and narratives in the foundational texts of Islam promote the idea
that Muslim victimhood is a very great evil, and this is used to justify killing non-Muslims. From
this perspective, non-Muslim deaths are not as bad as Muslim suffering. This asymmetrical

instinct underlies the many angry Muslim objections to condolences expressed by Western
politicians for the massacre of 1500 Jews on October 7.
It must be emphasized that not all Muslims think like this. My point is that some Muslims do,
and there are very strong reasons in the canonical texts of Islam for this bias. The origin story of
Islam bases the morality of its turn to violence upon an appeal to Muslim victimhood.
Downplaying Muslim victimhood undermines Muslims’ claimed right to militancy. It undercuts
their right to fight.
Let’s now turn from the theological to the practical.
Which Countries Support Hamas?
The three countries that provide the most direct support for Hamas, as an official policy of the
state, are Iran, Turkey and Qatar. Key Hamas leaders live in Qatar, which also supports the
Muslim Brotherhood, as does Turkey. Normally Shi’ite Iran would be a natural opponent of
Sunni Hamas, however it suits Iran’s geopolitical goals to sponsor Hamas’ military arm with
weapons, training and intelligence.
In addition to this state support, there are Muslims all over the world who support Hamas
financially through donations via a form of religious tax. Every Muslim is required – as one of
the five “pillars” of Islam – to give away a proportion of their wealth every year in a religious tax,
which is known as zakat. Hamas is known to siphon off funds given for social projects to
support its military activities. At the same time, although zakat is sometimes described as
“charity”, helping the needy is only one of its legitimate uses. Another is jihad. By the rules of
Islam, Hamas’ military arm would be seen by some Muslims as a legitimate recipient of “alms
for jihad”.
Do other Middle Eastern nations support Hamas?
This is complicated.
Hamas is a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, and one of the Brotherhood’s goals is to
overthrow regimes which it considers to be standing in the way of a full Islamic system. This
potentially includes governments in Islamic states all across the Middle East. This makes the
Brotherhood a threat to the rulers of nations, including the Saudis, who, together with Egypt,
Syria, Bahrain and the Emirates, have banned the Brotherhood, calling it a terrorist

organization. (Some of the Muslims across the Middle East who have objected on social media
to Hamas’ massacres are opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood.) The Saudis are also engaged
in bitter proxy wars with Iran, who sponsors Hamas.
Nevertheless, many Muslims in these anti-Brotherhood nations are sympathetic to the
Palestinian cause. Because of this sympathy, even though the Saudis regard Hamas as a threat
to their security, an Israeli military campaign to eradicate Hamas will make it politically very
difficult for the Saudis to continue on the Abraham Accords path of rapprochement with Israel.
(Nevertheless, if only for the sake of their own security, the Saudis would not be unhappy to see
Hamas destroyed.)
Why Do Some Muslims In Our Own Nation Support
Hamas? What Does It Mean For Our Future?
Of the Muslims who have come out to protest in support of Hamas, many will be sympathetic
to and shaped by the spiritual dynamics already described in this and previous posts. They will
reject the legitimacy of Israel on religious grounds and want to see it destroyed. The pro-
Palestinian demonstrations taking place across Western nations have shown that there are at
least some Muslims within these nations who are only too pleased about the attacks of October

This implies that a religious ideology like that of Hamas in entrenched among some Muslims
in Western nations.
Of course, none of this is new information. For decades now, security agencies across the West
have been keeping a watchful eye on citizens who believe in and advocate for Islamist ideology
like that of Hamas.
Hamas Must Have Known That Israel Would Respond
With Airstrikes Against Gaza. Why Bring Such A
Calamity Down On Their Own People?
The attacks on October 7 will lead – and already have led – to many Muslim casualties. This is of
course a great tragedy. However, this was intentional, and is calculated to increase support for
Hamas.

We have been told by the Israelis that around 1,500 jihadis who came in from Gaza were killed
in Israel over the ensuing days. There are also many casualties in Gaza bombardment, and even
more Gazan casualties will result if Israeli ground troups enter Gaza.
All in all, thousands of Gazans will die as a result of Hamas’ attack.
Hamas knew this. Indeed they are counting on it. Hamas complains about Palestinian
casualties, while deliberately taking actions which increases these casualties. How can this be?
First, it is part of Hamas’ ideology that every Muslim killed in the war against Israel is a martyr
who will attain paradise. This is something that, in their view, every Muslim should aspire to.
From Hamas’ perspective, Muslims are fortunate to die in this way.
Second, Hamas counts on Gazan casualties to increase sympathy and support for their cause.
They want to drive a wedge between Israelis and Muslims everywhere, and the best, proven
way to do this is by causing many, many Muslim casualties at the hands of the Israelis. Hamas is
deliberately sacrificing its own people for the sake of what they believe will be certain victory.
(This is also the reason why Hamas is known to hide and shoot off rockets in Gazan schools,
even though this endangers Palestinian children.)

A Primer on Hamas; Part 4: Who Are the
Palestinians
24 Oct, 2023 A Q&A Primer on Hamas – Part 4
This is the fourth in a series of daily posts for one week on the following
topics:

What is Hamas?
Why does Hamas think it will win?
Who supports Hamas?
Who are the Palestinians? – This is today’s post.
What is the occupation?
Is antisemitism part of the problem?
What are the rules of war?
Some concluding thoughts about the future.

What is the meaning and significance of the name
“Palestine”? And who are the “Palestinians”?
The meaning of “Palestine” is complicated. It has changed over the
years, and it is disputed and controversial.
The word comes originally from the name of the Philistines of the Old
Testament and ancient inscriptions. The Philistines were a people,
probably related to the Greeks, who are sometimes referred to as “Sea
Peoples.” They occupied territory in the region of present-day Gaza,
and ancient Gaza was one of the main Philistine cities.
Like so many other ancient peoples, the Philistines eventually lost their
distinct ethic identity, and disappeared from the pages of history
around 2,500 years ago.
Six hundred year later, the Romans revived the name “Palestine” to
replace “Judea.” After putting down the Jewish Bar Kokhbar revolt in
132-136 CE they named the province which replaced Judea “Syria
Palaestina.” It was bordered to the north by Syria and to the east and
south by Arabia Petraea. We know from rock inscriptions that Arabia
Petraea was the main Arabic speaking region at that time,
encompassing Sinai, the Arabah including Petra, the Transjordan (the
region to the east of the Jordan River), and northern parts of the Hijaz
(now in Saudi Arabia).
The word “Palestine” comes originally from the name of the Philistines of
the Old Testament and ancient inscriptions. They lost their distinct
ethic identity, and disappeared from the pages of history around 2,500
years ago.
In the late fourth century, Syria Palaestina was divided into two smaller
provinces: Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Seconda, which now
included the Transjordan. The Sinai, Negev and the Arabah, which has
formerly been part of Arabia Petraea, became Palestina Salutoris (or
Palaestina Tertia). By the time of the Islamic conquests in the 7th

century, these three Palestinian provinces were inhabited by a variety
of ethnic groups, including Greeks, Aramaic speakers, Jews, settled
Arabs and bedouin Arabs.
After Islamic conquest and the military occupation of the whole of the
Levant in the 7th century CE by Muslim Arabs, a process of Arabization
replaced Greek and Aramaic with Arabic.
Over the centuries, people came to settle in Palestine from other
regions. These included Arabs and Turks, and in the 19th century
Circassian and Chechen refugees. Furthermore, when the local
economy was developing in the early twentieth century as a result of
the growing Jewish population, this encouraged economic migrants to
move to Palestine.
Towards the end of the 19th century a Pan Arabism movement
developed, in which Christians and Muslims came together. This
process was initiated and at first led by Christians. (The Middle East
Christian community had been traumatized by a series of genocidal
massacres of Christians by Muslims over decades, and it was in this
context that Middle Eastern Christians sought safety in a shared Arab
identity.)
Arabism’s big idea was that the Arabic-speaking peoples of the Middle
East shared a single identity and were a single nation with a shared
destiny. Its slogan was “one Arab nation with an eternal mission.” This
meant that people whose ancestors had been Greeks, Syrians,
Egyptians, and a range of other ethnic identities, came to regard
themselves as Arabs by virtue of being native speakers of Arabic.
However, Arabic speaking Jews were excluded from this identity.
Indeed Pan Arab identity developed in opposition to Jewish identity: a
key goal of the Arabist movement in the first half of the 20th century
was to block the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.
After Islamic conquest, the term “Palestine” had continued to be used in
Arabic and European languages. However, under Muslim rule, both as
part of the Ottoman empire and earlier, the region formed the

southernmost parts of the province of Sham (Syria), in which different
ethnicities lived side by side without a unifying national identity. (The
early Islamic texts which referred to the first direction of prayer for
Muslims – the kiblah – state that Muslims were praying towards
“Sham”; today this is interpreted to mean Jerusalem.)
Thus, at the start of the 20th century, “Palestinian” was not an ethnicity
or a nationality, but a regional designation that included Muslims,
Druze, Jews and Christians..
Thus, at the start of the 20th century, “Palestinian” was not an ethnicity
or a nationality, but a regional designation. It was customary to refer to
people who lived in the region as “Palestinians,” a designation which
included Muslims, Druze, Jews and Christians. Jews who lived in the
area were referred to as “Palestinian Jews.”
For a time, the Mandate of Palestine, administered by the British from
c. 1921 to 1946, included the region which is today known as Jordan.
This became a separate state in 1946, the “Hashemite Kingdom of
Jordan,” and is no longer spoken of a part of “Palestine.”
Before the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, some Jews had been considering the
possibility of calling a Jewish state “Palestine.” However they ended up
choosing the name “Israel.” Thus, for example, the Palestine
Philharmonic Orchestra, founded in 1936, was renamed the Israel
Philharmonic in 1948.
When Jews forged their new national identity as Israelis, they left the
labels “Palestine” and “Palestinian” to the Arabs, who took these to refer
to an Arab identity in opposition to Jewish Israel. The word “Palestine”
came to signify the illegitimacy of a Jewish presence.
Over time, the narrative developed that only Arab Palestinians are the
indigenous, original inhabitants of Palestine. The PLO leader, Faysal al-
Husseini expressed this perspective as follows in 2001:

“If you are asking me as a Pan-Arab nationalist what are the
Palestinian borders according to the higher strategy, I will
immediately reply: ‘From the river to the sea.’ Palestine in its
entirety is an Arab land, the land of the Arab nation. …”
This strategy for presenting the Palestinian cause appealed to ideas
about decolonization: the Arabs were claimed to be indigenous, and
Jews were said to be alien colonizers.
In an Islamization of history, Palestinian leaders also projected an Arab
Palestinian identity back in time to assert that today’s Palestinians are
the original inhabitants of the region.
In an Islamization of history, Palestinian leaders also projected an Arab
Palestinian identity back in time to assert that today’s Palestinians are
the original inhabitants of the region. Several leaders have even
asserted that Jews have no historical roots in the region at all, and the
Palestinian presence goes back thousands of years.
In an inversion of history, Palestinian leaders have referred to Jesus as a
“Palestinian” freedom fighter or martyr, who was persecuted by the
occupying Romans, making Jesus a kind of prototype of Palestinian
resistance, and his crucifixion an anticipation of present-day
Palestinian suffering.
Where do Palestinian Christians fit into all this?
A century ago, Christians in Palestine made up 11 percent of the Arabic-
speaking population. It was an outcome of the Pan Arabist movement
that most of these Christians had come to identify as one nation with
Muslim Arabs.
Today Christians make up only around 1 percent of the Arab population
in the Palestinian territories. There has been a prolonged flight of
Christians from the Palestinian Territories throughout the past century.
Today most Palestinian Christians are to be found in the global

diaspora. Christians have also been leaving all the surrounding nations:
Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt. For example, in Jordan,
Christians have gone from 20 percent to 2 percent of the population
over the past century.
In contrast, Christians still make up around 7 percent of the Arab
population of Israel, where in a number of respects they are flourishing.
Palestinian identity has now become in effect a local expression of the
Muslim Umma, the nation of Islam, as Arabism has given way to
Islamism.
A Hamas leader recently stated that the
Palestinians are the “indigenous” people of
Palestine. Is this true?
This is an appeal to Western notions of indigeneity and colonization: it
is meant to convey that Palestinian Arabs were there first, until the
Jews arrived to occupy their territory and colonize them. The alien
Jews should now leave in a process of “decolonization.”
This denies the Jews’ long historical connection to the land, including
continuous settlement of Jews in the region since before the time of
Christ. It also denies the ethnic diversity of Palestinian origins over the
course of centuries of Islamic occupation.
Why don’t Palestinians accept that Jews have a
historical connection with the land?
First and foremost, the Islamic ideology of conquest demands that a
land, once conquered for Islam, belongs in perpetuity to Muslims. After
conquest, previous occupants became tolerated clients of the Muslim
occupiers, and, according to Islamic law, they were allowed to survive
as long as they paid tribute.

Islam teaches that Biblical figures like Solomon, David, Abraham and
Jesus were all Muslim prophets. By this logic, if Solomon ever built a
temple in Jerusalem, it was a mosque.
Connected to the idea that conquered land belongs to Muslims is the
Quranic concept of mustakhlafīn (“successors”). Sura 24:55 says, “God
has promised those of you who believe and do righteous deeds that He
will surely make you successors in the land.”
In the Qur’an, “successors” are believers who take over the properties
of a people whom Allah has destroyed, including by conquest at the
hands of believers. By this logic, Muslims become the “successors” – the
rightful owners – of conquered lands. Consistent with this, when
conquered Christian and Jewish peoples were allowed to retain
ownership of their properties after conquest, they had to pay annual
tribute to compensate Muslims.
Furthermore, Islam teaches that Biblical figures like Solomon, David,
Abraham and Jesus were all Muslim prophets. By this logic, if Solomon
ever built a temple in Jerusalem, it was a mosque, and it is Muslims, not
Jews, who are the true inheritors of the Biblical legacy of the Holy Land.