For the sake of historical accuracy, it is Palestine, not Falestine

Anyone can and should have the privilege to choose the name they wish to be known as. That entitlement needs to be respected.

However, and it is a BIG however, if the choice of name is made for the mere intention of establishing proof of legitimacy, then the onerous task of forming such validation rests entirely on the party that elected to be called by that name.

This principle is, especially, important in the negotiation of historical facts. For the sake of posterity, historical facts cannot and should not be tempered with to win one propaganda battle or another. When they are, they become narratives of the worst, twisted kind.

Accuracy, particularly when it comes to the middle east conflict, is of utmost importance regardless of which side of the conflict one supports.

The recent Gaza war, in my view, not only reinforces this notion, but it also brings to light, yet again, the demand of its dwellers to have a state of their own. Regardless of whether their claim to statehood is right or wrong, I wish to address their designated name for that political entity if and when it is founded.

Those who call themselves “Palestinians,” which, as I stated above, have every right to call themselves by whatever name they wish, did that with unequivocal tendentiousness. The sole intention of adopting that name in 1967, was to “educate” the world that they were here first, before the United Nations General Assembly voted to create the Jewish state, in 1947. It was a means of the well-oiled Arab propaganda machine to start the process of delegitimization of the only Jewish state, Yisrael.

For those who are not familiar with the history of the region, let me give you a bird’s eye view of it.

In the year 135 C.E., a Roman emperor by the name of Hadrian, out of sheer hatred to the Jewish nation, which was exiled out of their home in Eretz Yisrael, decided to arbitrarily change the name of the land to “Palestine,” or more precisely, “Palaestina.” The purpose of such a move was to sever any connection between the Jews and their Homeland.

The name “Palestine” was selected by the Romans in a deliberate effort to add insult to injury to the already beaten, broken and exiled Jewish nation. The Romans named the area after the Philistines, one of the worst enemies of Am Yisrael. The Philistines were heathen sea faring people who, as the meaning of their names suggests, invaded (the root of the word Philistine is “to invade”) the Levant region in the 12^th century B.C.E.

Are you still with me?

In 1920, when the League of Nations voted to establish a National Jewish Home in Eretz Yisrael, Britain was granted a Mandate over the area and was entrusted with the task of preparing the ground for such an eventuality. At that time, the original name “Eretz Yisrael” was officially added and became synonymous with “Palestine,” as the acronym in the parenthesis on both the coin and the stamp below suggests.

 

Since the letter “P” does not exist in the Arabic language, the language of those who elected to call themselves “Palestinians,” they had no choice but to pronounce the original name as “Falestine” and call themselves “Falestinians.” Quite a distortion of the name, wouldn’t you say so, especially when one wishes to establish themselves as the rightful inheritors and owners of a place called “Palestine?”

This leaves inquiring minds such as mine with two questions.

The first is, if anyone wishes to claim legitimate ownership over a territory, why of all names do they choose to be called after invaders, the Philistines, which are recorded as such in the annals of history? Strange, isn’t it?

The second question I have is, if one cannot pronounce the name which one opts to embrace, for the mere purpose of establishing legality of ownership over a territory or any other entity, why use that name? It defeats their goal, does it not?

Again, I have no problem with the right of anyone to be called by the name of their choice. It should be respected. Likewise, though, no one should be denied the right to ask what sounds like valid questions, albeit uncomfortable, questions that are begging to be asked. That, too, should be respected.