How Semantics Fueled Decades of Confusion

Much of the global discussion about the Israel–Palestine conflict begins with a quiet assumption: that two distinct places exist — Israel and Palestine — and that the problem is how to divide the land between them.

But this assumption itself is the source of much confusion. Historically, Israel and Palestine were simply two names for the same land.

Understanding this point clarifies much of the rhetoric that otherwise appears contradictory or puzzling.

For millennia, Palestine functioned as a geographic term used by outsiders to refer to the land historically associated with the Jewish people — the Land of Israel.

During the British Mandate period, this was made explicit in the official designation of the territory: “Palestina — Eretz Israel.” Documents, banknotes, and coins even carried the Hebrew abbreviation א״י, standing for Eretz Israel, alongside the name “Palestine.”

The two expressions did not describe different countries. They referred to the same place.

Much like Côte d’Ivoire and Ivory Coast, the names represented different linguistic traditions attached to the same territory.

Yet over time, a political narrative emerged that treated “Palestine” not as an alternative historical name for the land of Israel, but as a separate national homeland.

This reinterpretation transformed a synonym into a competing claim.

What “Palestine” Means in Political Discourse

When many activists today speak about “Palestine,” they are not describing a region alongside Israel.

Their maps make this clear: the territory labeled “Palestine” typically corresponds to the entire map of Israel — from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

This reveals a fundamental point.

The dispute is not primarily about how to divide the land. It is about what the land itself represents.

One narrative calls it Israel — the national homeland of the Jewish people.

The other calls it Palestine — and frames the existence of Israel as illegitimate.

Seen from this perspective, the conflict resembles historical disputes over political identity rather than territorial geography.

Arabs in Israel and the Reality on the Ground

More than two million Arab citizens live in Israel today. They participate in public life, vote in elections, serve in the judiciary, and hold seats in parliament.

Their presence demonstrates that the conflict is not inherently about coexistence between Jews and Arabs.

Rather, the central issue lies in political movements that reject Israel’s legitimacy altogether.

Many of the communities administered for generations through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) have been raised within a framework that defines justice as the elimination of Israel and its replacement by a state called “Palestine.”

Under that vision, the issue is not citizenship within Israel, but the replacement of Israel.

The Rhodesia–Zimbabwe Analogy

History offers parallels for how names can reshape political realities.

In southern Africa, the territory once known as Rhodesia eventually became Zimbabwe. The dispute was not about creating two countries on the same land, but about which national identity the country would embody.

Names matter because they frame legitimacy.

Imagine one group calling themselves Rhodesians and the other Zimbabweans. One calls the land Rhodesia; the other calls it Zimbabwe. That is the closest analogy to the Israel–Palestine dispute.

In the Middle East, the transformation of “Palestine” from a geographic synonym for the Land of Israel into a rival national identity has had a similar effect. It recasts the existence of Israel not as the continuation of a historical homeland, but as the displacement of another.

A Conflict Rooted in Language

Even the ancient origins of the word “Palestine” hint at the linguistic complexity surrounding the land’s name.

The Greek historian Herodotus used the term Palaistinē in the 5th century BCE when describing a region of Syria along the eastern Mediterranean. Some scholars have suggested that the Greek term may echo concepts related to struggle or wrestling — a curious parallel to the meaning traditionally associated with the Hebrew name Israel, derived from the biblical account in Book of Genesis where Jacob is named “Israel,” often interpreted as “one who wrestles with God.”

Whether or not this linguistic connection is exact, the deeper point remains: the names attached to this land have always been shaped by language, translation, and political interpretation.

Understanding the Core Disagreement

When observers frame the conflict as a straightforward dispute over borders between two countries, they risk misunderstanding its nature.

The central disagreement is more fundamental.

One side insists the land is Israel.

The other insists it is Palestine.

Both names refer to the same territory.

Until this conceptual conflict over identity is understood, discussions about partition, borders, and peace plans will continue to talk past the deeper issue.

Because at its core, the conflict is not only about land.

It is about what that land is called — and what story its name tells.

When the Name Became a Program

The transformation of “Palestine” from a geographic term into a political identity began in 1964 with the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its founding document, the Palestinian National Covenant. The covenant defined “Palestine” as the entire territory of the former British Mandate — not as a state alongside Israel, but as the whole land itself.

The declared goal of the covenant was the “liberation of Palestine,” which in practical terms meant replacing Israel with a national framework built around this newly defined Palestinian identity.

While the identity was formally outlined in 1964, it was cemented and widely imposed after the 1967 Six-Day War, when the PLO and its ideology extended influence over the populations of Judea and Samaria, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. By then, a name that had once been a simple geographic synonym for the Land of Israel had become the banner of a rival national project.

Reclaiming Palestine for Its Indigenous People

If the naming of the land became a political weapon, the The Palestinian Manifesto offers a response. The manifesto calls to reclaim Palestine for its indigenous people — the Jews — and for all loyal citizens of Israel.

It emphasizes that “Palestine” has historically been synonymous with the Land of Israel, and that treating it as a separate entity fosters a false narrative of dispossession. By restoring its original meaning, the manifesto reframes the debate: the land is not disputed territory between two peoples, but the historical homeland of the Jewish people, fully inclusive of all citizens loyal to the State of Israel.

In doing so, the manifesto provides conceptual clarity: the conflict is not fundamentally about borders, but about recognizing the true historical and civic identity of the land and its people. Reclaiming the name “Palestine” for its rightful historical owners cuts through decades of misunderstanding and reframes the discussion on its proper terms.

Wars Are Not Fought for Land. They Are Fought for Meaning.

Wars Are Not Fought for Land. They Are Fought for Meaning.

/*! This file is auto-generated */!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)