Palestine A Four Thousand Year History by Nur Masalha

Palestinian place names began to be replaced by biblical and Hebrewsounding names during the late Ottoman and Mandatory periods and small Palestinian villages began to disappear from the map, although local Palestinians continued to use the indigenous names for the new Zionist colonies. These practices of ‘reclaiming by renaming’, while displacing the indigenous names, were pivotal to the colonisation of the land of Palestine and as a language of creating an ‘authentic’ collective Zionist Hebrew identity rooted in the ‘land of the Bible’. Referring candidly to the gradual replacement of Arabic place names (and of Palestinian villages) by Hebrew place names (and Jewish settlements) during the Mandatory period, Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Dayan – the author of Living with the Hebrew Bible (1978) – had this to say in an address in April 1969 to students at the Technion, Israel’s prestigious Institute of Technology in Haifa:

Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Hunefis; and Kefar Yehoshua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that didn’t have a former Arab population.17

Dayan (1915–1981), who spoke Arabic, considered himself and was considered by his fellow European settlers as a typical sabra. He was born in Kibbutz Degania Alef in Palestine before his parents moved to Nahlal, founded in 1921. His father Shmuel Kitaigorodsky (who served in the first three sessions of the Israeli Knesset) was born in Zhashkov, modern-day Ukraine, immigrated to Palestine in 1908 and Hebraicised his name to Dayan, Hebrew for a judge in Jewish religious courts. According to Zionist propaganda the name Nahlal derived from a biblical village (Joshua 19:15).

Yet Moshe Dayan knew and was prepared to acknowledge publicly that the name of his own settlement (moshav), Nahlal, was in fact a Hebrew rendering of the name of the Palestinian Arabic village name it had replaced, Mahlul; however, to give it a ‘biblical authenticity’, the Hebrew-sounding Nahlal was linked by the Zionists to a name mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. Also, Kibbutz Gvat, set up in 1926, was a Hebrew rendering of the former Arabic place name, the Palestinian village Jibta; Gvat also echoed the Aramaic name Gvata (meaning hill) and a biblical name in the Galilee.

Central to the construction of Zionist collective identity, and subsequently Israeli identity, based on ‘biblical memory’ was the Yishuv toponymic projects established in the 1920s to ‘restore’ biblical Hebrew or to create new biblical-sounding names of symbolic meaning to Zionist redemption of the land and colonisation of Palestine (Ra’ad 2010: 189). In the 1920s the Palestinian land of Wadi al-Hawarith18 in the coastal region was purchased (‘redeemed’) by the Jewish National Fund from Arab absentee landlords, subsequently leading to the eviction of many Arab farmers. The Jewish settlement of Kfar Haro’e was established in 1934 on these lands.

The Arabic name was rendered into the Hebrew-sounding Emek Hefer (the Hefer Valley). In some cases the Zionist Hebrew colonising toponymy simply translated Arabic names into Hebrew. In the 1920s a JNF Naming Committee was set up to name the newly established Jewish colonies in Palestine to compete with the overwhelmingly Arabic map of the country; its renaming efforts were appreciated by the British Mandatory authorities and were incorporated into the Palestine government’s official gazette (Benvenisti 2002: 26).

In the pre-1948 period many new Hebrew place names displaced the Arabic names: for instance, the first Zionist settlement in Palestine, Petah Tikva, was originally set up in 1878 (deserted and then re-established in 1882), on the lands of, and eventually replacing, the destroyed Palestinian village of Mlabbis. Petah Tikva is known in Zionist historiography as Im Hamoshavot – the ‘Mother of the Colonies’. The Zionist religious founders stated that the name Petah Tikva came from the biblical prophecy of Hosea (2:17). The land of Petah Tikva was bought from two Arab absentee landlords based in Jaffa, Salim al-Kassar and Anton al-Tayyan. Six decades after the Nakba, Palestinian citizens of Israel still call the Jewish city of Petah Tikva ‘Mlabbis’. The Zionist colony of Rehovot was founded in 1890 and was also called after a name mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, but which stood at a completely different location in the Negev Desert. Rehovot was set up by middle class Jewish businessmen and merchants on 10,000

dunums of land purchased from Arab landlords, displacing the Palestinian village of Khirbet Duran.

Secular Jewish Zionism was a classic case of the invention of a people in late 19th century Europe and a project for synthesising a nation. This invented tradition considered the Jews as a race and a biological group, and borrowed heavily from romantic nationalisms in Central and Eastern Europe. Political Zionism mobilised an imagined biblical narrative which was reworked in the late 19th century for the political purposes of a modern European movement intent on colonising the land of Palestine. As an invented late modern (European) tradition, Zionism was bound to be a synthesising project. As Israeli scholar Ronit Lentin has powerfully argued in Israel and the Daughters of the Shoah: Reoccupying the Territories of Silence (2000), the Israeli masculinised and militarised nationalism has been constructed in opposition to a ‘feminised’ Other. The founding fathers of Zionism reimagined the New Hebrew collectivity in total opposition to the despised Jewish diaspora unable to resist European anti-Semitism which led to the Holocaust. Zionism’s contempt for diaspora Jews and rejection of a ‘feminised’ diaspora and its obsession with synthesising a nation is reflected in the fact that its symbols were an amalgam, chosen not only from the Jewish religion and the militant parts of the Hebrew Bible but also from diverse modern traditions and sources, symbols subsequently appropriated as ‘Jewish nationalist’, Zionist or ‘Israeli’: the music of Israel’s national anthem, ha-Tikva, came from the Czech national musician, Smetana; much of the music used in nationalist Israeli songs originated in Russian folk-songs; even the term for an Israeli-born Jew free of all the ‘maladies and abnormalities of exile’ is in fact the Arabic word sabar, Hebraicised as (masculine and tough) tzabar or sabra (Bresheeth 1989: 131), the prickly pear grown in and around the hundreds of Palestinian villages destroyed by Israel in 1948. Even the ‘national anthem of the Six Day War’, No’ami Shemer’s song ‘Jerusalem of Gold’, was a plagiarised copy of a Basque lullaby (Masalha 2007: 20, 39). Seeking to create an ‘authentic, nativised’ identity, the East European Jewish colonists claimed to represent an indigenous people returning to its homeland after 2000 years of absence; in fact Russian or Ukrainian nationals formed the hard core of Zionist activism.

Afula is an Israeli city in the northern district often known as the ‘Capital of the Valley’ due to its strategic location in the Jezreel Valley (Marj ibn ‘Amer).

It was founded in 1925 by Zionist settlers after the purchase of large tracts (60,000 dunums) of Arab land from the Arab absentee landlords of the Sursuk family in Beirut by Yehoshua Hankin (1864–1945), the Russian-born activist who was responsible for most of the major land purchases for the Jewish Colonial Association in late Ottoman Palestine and early Mandatory Palestine. These tracts became the site of numerous new Zionist colonies, including Dayan’s Nahlal, Giva, Ein Harod, Kfar Yehezkel, Beit Alfa and Tel Yosef, settlements which replaced several Palestinian villages that disappeared from the map, some of which are mentioned by Dayan above.

The etymology of the Zionist settler toponym Afula is derived from the name of the Palestinian Arab village al-Fuleh, which in 1226 Arab geographer Yaqut al-Hamawi mentioned as being a town in the province of Jund Filastin. The Arabic toponym al-Fuleh is derived from the word ful, for fava beans, which are among the oldest food plant in the Middle East and were widely cultivated by local Palestinians in Marj Ibn ‘Amer. The Palestinian village of al-Fuleh itself was depopulated during the Mandatory period. The 9500 dunums of land of al-Fuleh, which also became the site of the Jewish settlement of Merhavya, marked the beginning of a bitter struggle between the indigenous Palestinians and Zionist colonists over the rights of Palestine tenant farmers who had been evicted and eventually led to the eruption of the Palestrina peasant-based rebellion in 1936‒1939. Reflecting on the internal Zionist ‘transfer’ debates, Berl Katznelson, one of the most popular and influential leaders of the dominant Mapai party, had this to say in a debate at the World Convention of Ihud Po’alei Tzion (the highest forum of the dominant Zionist world labour movement), in August 1937:

The matter of population transfer has provoked a debate among us:

Is it permitted or forbidden? My conscience is absolutely clear in this respect. A remote neighbour is better than a close enemy. They [the Palestinians] will not lose from it. In the final analysis, this is a political and settlement reform for the benefit of both parties. I have long been of the opinion that this is the best of all solutions ...

I have always believed and still believe that they were destined to be transferred to Syria or Iraq. (Cited in Masalha 1992: 71)

A year later, at the Jewish Agency’s Executive Committee of June 1938, Katznelson reiterated his support for a wholesale and ‘compulsory transfer’ of the Palestinians and added: ‘Regarding the transfer of Arab individuals, we are always doing this’ (cited in Masalha 1992: 114). In the early 1940s Katzelson reminded his colleagues in Mapai that the wholesale evacuation of the Palestinians was the continuation of a natural process that had begun when Zionist settlers had displaced Arab tenant farmers and residents with the establishment of Kibbutz Merhavya on the land of al-Fuleh which had led to a small-scale Arab ‘transfer’ (Masalha 1992: 130).