Israeli Official’s Controversial Claims on Palestinian Identity Spark Debate
A high-ranking Israeli government figure generated intense discussion by asserting that the Palestinians do not constitute a distinct people or language. The remarks were attributed to Bezalel Smotrich, who heads the Israeli Ministry of Finance and plays a leading role in the Religious Zionism faction within the ruling coalition. As reported by a major Jerusalem publication, Smotrich argued that Palestinians are in fact Jews and that Arab communities invented the notion of a Palestinian national identity.
Smotrich contended that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people. He questioned the existence of a historical identity tied to Palestine, asking who governed Palestine at the time of its early kingdoms, whether there was a unique Palestinian language, money, or cultural history. In his view, there is no Palestinian nation as a standalone entity with its own distinct history. This line of argument rests on a claim that the geography now known as Palestine predates the modern state of Israel and that such labels are an invention of historical narratives rather than contemporary realities.
From the minister’s perspective, Palestinians are described as an imaginary group with imagined rights to the land of Israel. He also suggested that the term Palestinian could be used historically because the region was called Palestine before the establishment of the Jewish state, framing the label as an artifact of history rather than a current national identity.
Previously, reports indicated Smotrich supported a position opposing the idea of destroying a Palestinian city, clarifying that such a claim was unfounded and not aligned with official policy. The remarks have since been cited in discussions about identity politics, national narratives, and the broader debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Analysts note that statements like these touch on deeply contested issues of language, history, and self-determination. The ongoing discourse reflects the sensitive balance between sovereignty, historical memory, and the rights of people in the region, as reflected in various political and academic analyses. The discourse continues to influence international understandings of the conflict, identity, and the status of occupied territories. Attributions for the quotes come from the cited Jerusalem Post report and related contemporary coverage, which have documented the exchange and its subsequent reception among policymakers, scholars, and observers.”