What did Jews living in Palestine (before Israel was created) call themselves?
Palestinians? Zionists? Israelis? Just plain Jews?
According to the Israeli propaganda I’ve read, they were “Palestinians”.
(Closest thing to a cite I have for this is a full-page advertisement in either a Time, Newsweek or U.S. News & World Report magazine sometime within the last three years. Perhaps someone will come up with a less fuzzy and linkable cite for this or something similar.)
D
When the term Palestinian in about 1920 was certainly used to refer to both Arabs and Jews living in the region (something that was presevred in the PLO charter which defintion of ‘Palestinian’ includes Jews living in the area from before this time).
They indeed would have happily been identified as Palestinian Jews, but until the rise of Zionism they probably would have been fine identifying themselves as Jews. Palestine was the region, and until it became a big deal because someone else wanted it, the people living there didn’t often identify themselves as Palestinian first and foremost.
The Jews in Palestine who were Zionists would have identified themselves as a Zionist Palestinan Jew, but I feel compelled to point out that not all Jews living in Palestine prior to 1948 were Zionist. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Jews living in Israel prior to Zionism were anti-Zionist. This was due to mainly religious reasons (the view that Zionism was/is heresy) and continues to be seen today in what could best be described as haredi rejection of Zionism. This can best be seen today in the ultra-orthodox communities in Israel do not send their children to serve in the IDF.
MC is correct in pointing out that the PLO preserves this definition of Palestinian. In fact, I feel compelled to point out that there have been Jewish Palestinian PLO representatives. Ilan Halevi is a Jewish Palestinian who served as ambassdor to Socialist International, and was also a member of the PLO delegation to the signing of the Oslo accords. There are a couple other notable Jewish PLO members, but I’m forgetting them right now.
If you want to go really far back (2000 years ago, +/-), the Jews in that region probably called themselves “Judeans” (named after the tribe of Judah - or “Jews” for short) or “Israelites” (named after their ancestor Jacob, aka Israel). The term “Palestine” doesn’t come up in history books until the Romans called it that. For more information, try googling “Palestine Rome name”
Between the Roman conquest and the modern zionist movement at the end of the 19th century, there was no independent state in the region, nor any nationalist movement in the region, so I’m not sure if the Jews, Arabs, or any other group who lived in the region necessarily called themselves by any particular national (i.e., as opposed to religious or ethnic) name, independent of whatever whoever ruled the land did, which at least under the Romans and British was probably “Palestinians”.
FWIW, the Jerusalem Post used to be called the Palestine Post.
No independent Jewish state. However there was the crusader-established kingdom of Jerusalem from 1099-1291.
- Tamerlane
Well, nominally anyway. Jerusalem itself was lost as early as 1187.
- Tamerlane
What was the relationship between the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the County of Edessa and Kingdom of Acre? Did the latter two places fall under Jerusalem’s sovereignty, at least theoretically, or were they wholly independent?
There were originally four Latin crusader states in Syria/Lebanon/Palestine. Of those the Principality of Antioch was technically a vassal of the Byzantine empire and thus not subject to Jerusalem. However since it was often in open conflict with its supposed overlord, it often found itself within Jerusalem’s orbit.
The County of Edessa and the County of Tripoli on the other hand, were technically vassals of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. All had been founded somewhat seperately, but Tripoli had submitted in exchange for arbitration in a succession dispute early on ( in 1109 ) and the first two Counts of Edessa became Kings of Jerusalem ( and at any rate Edessa started eroding as a state very early - it was an exposed salient geographically and was completely gone in a generation - by 1151 ).
Acre wasn’t a seperate state, but rather a possesion of the Kings of Jerusalem ( though at various points royal control was weak ) and as such was essentially their last major redoubt ( it wasn’t the last place to fall, quite, but it was the center of the rump-state and the Kingdom is generally considered to have terminated with its capture ).
The Kings of Jerusalem were relatively wealthier and more powerful than any of their vassals, but it was a fragmented state from the start ( and we’re talking internally to the actual Kingdom, as well as the outlying states of Edessa, Tripoli, and Antioch ) and royal authority was almost nowhere absolute.
- Tamerlane
I just talked to my grandmother, who lived moved to Israel in the 30’s. She said they called themselves “Eretz Israelim,” which means people of the land of Israel. They also called themselves “people of the settlement.”
Interesting. I had always assumed that any Crusader states in the region were subject to the European monarchs, but I guess that I was mistaken. Thanks for the info.
You weren’t that mistaken as the Kings of Jerusalem were related to the European houses, most notably the Angevins who ruled over England and most of France (though in France they were still offically the vassals of the French King).
From the succession of Fulk V of Anjou in 1131, yes, in effect they were collateral lines. Fulk’s earlier marriage produced Geoffrey
‘Plante Geneste’ who married Mathilda, daughter of Henry I of England and their eldest son inherited the French doninions and the English throne as Henry II. Meanwhile Fulk’s later marriage to Melisende, daughter of Baldwin II, King of Jerusalem, gained him a kingdom and throne followed the line of their children ( I won’t say they always were descended from them, as the throne came to unrelated rulers several times through marriage ). But the Kingdom of Jerusalem was completely autonomous of any other European throne in feudal terms ( though a strong possibility exists they swore fealty to the Byzantine Emperor Manuel in 1171 at a point of crisis, nothing much ever came of that ).
Now at times, there were European monarchs with pre-existing kingdoms that became Kings of Jerusalem, most notably the last three Hohenstaufen Holy Roman Emperors, starting with Frederik II, HRE and King of Sicily, who also became King of Jerusalem in 1227 with his marriage to Yolande of Jerusalem, daughter of John of Brienne, who had himself became king through marriage to Maria of Jerusalem, daughter of Conrad of Montferrat who had become king through his marriage to Isabella of Jerusalem ( the girls kinda got the shaft, none worse than the last-named Isabella - but then the Kings of Jerusalem were war leaders and women weren’t considered qualified ). But one throne did not take formal precedence over another.
- Tamerlane