Suggestion: It’s time to call them “Samaritans” and hope they will want to live up to the name. Is this article serious or written tongue-in-cheek? Your call. Op-ed.
Essential to every form of nationalist rhetoric is the crafting of a compelling backstory – an origin myth that binds people together with a shared sense of identity, purpose, and destiny. Whether rooted in history, legend, or a blend of both, these foundational narratives give a nation its soul.
Americans have Plymouth Rock and 1776, the French have the Revolution, and the Jewish people have the Exodus, the destructionof the Temples in Jerusalem, and the return to Zion. The problem with Palestinian Arab nationalism is that it lacks a coherent or convincing backstory. There is no widely accepted founding narrative that predates the 20th century, no ancient homeland myth that resonates across generations. As a result, the Palestinian Arab national identity is reactive – defined more by opposition to Zionism than by a positive, unifying historical narrative of its own.
By any standard of modern political branding, the term “Palestinian” is one of the least helpful labels imaginable for a people trying to gain international sympathy and legitimacy. The problem isn’t just political – it’s linguistic, historical, and psychological. Embedded in the very name “Palestine” is an ancient insult, one that inadvertently undercuts the Palestinian Arab cause every time the term is spoken.
Let’s trace it back. The name “Palestine” was first applied by the Romans in the 2nd century CE, after Emperor Hadrian crushed the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt. Seeking to erase Jewish national identity from the map, he renamed the province of Judea to Syria Palaestina, deliberately invoking the name of the Philistines – ancient enemies of Israel – despite the Philistines having been long gone (the Assyrians took care of that, ed.) . It was a calculated act of historical erasure.
That act stuck. Over centuries, Christian pilgrims, European mapmakers, and Ottoman-era references kept the name for the area in play. When the British arrived in the early 20th century, they codified it further through the League of Nations “Mandate for Palestine”.
But here’s the problem. Today, the word “Philistine” is synonymous in Western languages with someone uncultured, ignorant, or stupid. Matthew Arnold popularized the term in English to describe those indifferent to culture, art, and higher ideals. In German universities before him, Philister was a pejorative for outsiders to the scholarly elite. Even now, to call someone a Philistine is to insult their intellect and sensitivity. So, when the world hears “Palestinian,” it unwittingly taps into a pejorative echo chamber: “Philistine” as the dullard, the barbarian, the eternal enemy.
Ironically, those who identify with being called “Palestinian” are most definitely not descended from the Philistines. The ancient Philistines were a seafaring people of Aegean origin who vanished thousands of years ago. Modern Palestinian Arabs are primarily Arabic-speaking Muslims, many of whom immigrated into the land during the late Ottoman and early British Mandate periods, from Syria, Egypt, the Hejaz, and beyond. They came seeking work and opportunity in what was then a growing economic zone due to entrepreneuring Jewish immigration back to their ancient homeland..
So, here’s a bold proposal: Let’s rebrand the Palestinian Arabs as Samaritans. Far from being an insult, the word “Samaritan” carries a powerful moral legacy. In Western consciousness, the Samaritan is good. The “Good Samaritan” is a byword for compassion and decency. The term immediately conjures empathy, not disdain. The Palestinian Arabs would have a moral standard to emulate.
In ancient Israel, while there were periods of conflict in the early Second Temple period, the Samaritans eventually lived side-by-side relatively peaceably with their Jewish neighbors. There are a small number of Samaritans on Israel’s Mount Gerizim today, living peceably with the Jewish State, and they have history, customs and traditions.The Samaritans were never mocked as unintelligent or uncultured. On the contrary, they were respected and recognized as having a legitimate physical and spiritual place in the nation-state of Israel.
This rebranding could, with time, even work to heal some of the ideological tension within Israel itself. Instead of viewing the Arabs of Judea and Samaria as “Philistines” trying to gain recognition for a fictitious and hostile “Palestine,” Israelis could learn to see them as “Samaritans” living in part of the highlands called Samaria. The territory’s very name, Samaria, would support this approach. And Israelis, most of whom reject belligerent Palestinian Arab identity, might find more common ground with a people who do not want to be seen as advocates for terror or takoever, but who want to be viewed as fellow countrymen instead.
Names matter. They shape perception. They create psychological frames that influence how people and nations are treated. If the world continues to call the Palestinian Arabs by a name rooted in hostility and ridicule, we shouldn’t expect them to refrain from acting that way. It’s time to retire the Palestinian Arab slur. Let’s offer something nobler and older, a civilized role they can agree to assume.
Rebranding the Palestinian Arabs might uplift and transform them from considering themselves victims and instead, exalt them as worthy members of global society.
Dr. Daniel Friedman is professor of political science at Touro University.
