Palestinian nationalism since 1918 has focused largely on the boundaries of Mandatory Palestine. However, the emergence of modern nationalism in the Arab East in the late 19th century spawned the creation of new ideas and several myths including that of Syrian Qawmi identity and the idea of ‘Suriyya al-Janubiyyah’, or ‘Southern Syria’, as a way of describing a particular modern Palestinian identity which began to emerge in the late Ottoman period. However, although the name Syria is as ancient as the name Palestine and the modern term Syria should not be conflated automatically with the traditional Islamic term of al-Sham, there is no evidence that a Syrian Qawmi identity or a distinct Suriyya al-Janubiyyah identity had existed or been used by Palestinians before the late 19th century.

At the same time the rise of modern nationalism in the Arab world has, in fact, resulted the creation of a two-tier Watani/Qawmi nationalism in the Arab East with two distinct and mutually complementary terms:

wataniyyah and qawmiyyah, the former referring to country-based territorial nationalism (for instance, Palestine) and the latter to the wider pan-Arab solidarity and unity schemes. This wider context had direct implications for Palestine, and in the post-Ottoman period Palestinian nationalists sought to promote a dyadic form of secular nationalism which combined a Palestine-based wataniyyah (local patriotic nationalism) with qawmiyyah ʿarabiyyah, a form of pan-Arab solidarity. Some Palestinian intellectuals also experimented for a short period after the First World War with Syrian Qawmi nationalism, but this political ideology is today largely extinct.

The short-lived Palestinian newspaper Suriyya al-Janubiyyah was a case in point. Further the invention of new terms, such as Suriyya al-Janubiyyah, often reflect multiple factors and the creation of the name of the newspaper Suriyya al-Janubiyyas (‘Southern Syria’) is a classic case in point.

The term Suriyya al-Janubiyyah reflected the convergence of four political and cultural currents: (a) the Arab cultural and linguistic dimensions of modern Palestinian identity which were always strong; (b) the invention and propagation of a late 19th century Syrian nationalist ideology; (c) the anti-colonial nature of the modern Palestinian national struggle, a struggle shared with neighbouring Arab peoples; and (d) the particular circumstances surrounding the hurried formation of the pan-Arab nationalist regime in Damascus in 1919‒1920 headed by Emir Faisal. Both the term Suriyyah al-Janubiyyah and Faisal’s administration in Damascus were short-lived.

Syrian nationalism – like Palestinian nationalism and Arab nationalism – is a modern ideology and Syria as a ‘national, territorially based idea’ was invented in the late 19th century by Arab writers such as Butrus al-Bustani (1819–1883), a Lebanese Maronite convert to Protestantism and a key figure in the Arab cultural awakening of his age, who is considered the intellectual founder of Syrian Qawmi nationhood (Sheehi 2011). The label Suriyya al-Janubiyyah was a short-lived politically-driven construct manufactured in the early 20th century as a by-product of the emergence of the Syrian nationalist (Qawmi) ideology of the period. Al-Bustani and some Arab figures in the Arab Renaissance of the late 19th century propagated the idea of ‘greater Syria’, partly in response to the bloody 1860 Druze‒Maronite Civil War of Mount Lebanon which spread to Damascus and other Syrian and Lebanese cities with devastating consequences.

The Palestinian Arab newspaper Suriyya al-Janubiyyah, founded in Jerusalem in September 1919, does not testify to the weakness of the idea of Palestine after the First World War but rather points to the strength and close relations that had existed under Islam for centuries between Palestine and al-Sham. More specifically, this episode should be seen within the context of the political activities of the short-lived regime of Emir Faisal in Damascus in 1919‒1920. The newspaper only operated for a few months until its final closure by the British in April 1920, shortly before Faisal’s regime was removed by the French military. The newspaper was an organ of the al-Nadi al-ʿArabi (the Arab Club), founded in Damascus in 1919, and supported Palestinian‒Syrian unity under Emir Faisal’s leadership in Damascus. It was published by a Palestinian lawyer, Muhammad Hasan al-Budayri, and edited by ‘Arif al-‘Arif with contributions from, inter alia, Haj Amin al-Husayni. Although the term Suriyyah al-Janubiyyah has almost vanished from Arab and collective consciousness or discourse, it is occasionally resurrected by pan-Arab intellectuals as a way of denying the existence of the Palestinian people.29

The term Suriyya al-Janubiyyah itself was propagated during and in the aftermath of this brief episode, but it was largely the outcome of the circumstances surrounding the formation of the short‑lived pan‑Arab administration of Faisal in Damascus and the concurrent debate about joint Palestinian‒Syrian statehood. However, this episode also spawned a certain amount of literature on ‘Southern Syria’ and a great deal of confusion among historians, especially those who failed to understand the context and contingencies surrounding this new term. Some historians added more confusion by beginning to conflate a new label, Suriyya al-Janubiyyah, with al-Sham, an old term associated with the Islamic history of the wider Levant. Other historians also began to translate al-Sham automatically into ‘greater Syria’, thus adding more confusion and little understanding as to the origin of the term Suriyya al-Janubiyyah.

Yet, in contrast to al-Sham, Suriyya al-Janubiyyah was neither rooted in the history of Palestine nor found among Palestinians before the First World War. Also, crucially, the setting up of a newspaper under the name Suriyya al-Janubiyyah for several months in Jerusalem is not in itself evidence that the term ‘Southern Syria’ encapsulated the whole spirit of the age or the lack of a ‘Palestinian national identity’ in 1919. On the contrary, from the 1920s onwards both Haj Amin al-Husayni and ‘Arif al-‘Arif emerged as highly influential figures in Palestinian nationalism and the term Suriyya al-Janubiyyah was not used by either of them after Faisal’s fall in 1920.

Pan-Syrianism was a relatively short-lived ideological phenomenon.

Moreover, during its brief existence, the newspaper Suriyya al-Janubiyyah advocated Palestinian‒Syrian‒Arab unity schemes with a strong commitment to Palestinian nationalism and strong opposition to Zionist settlercolonisation.

At the time these political positions were perceived to be complementary rather than contradictory. However, with the overthrow of Faisal’s administration in Damascus by the French in 1920, the idea of Suriyya al-Janubiyyah declined sharply and in the 1930s Palestinian political parties often combined strong commitments to Palestinian nationalism with pan-Arab – rather than pan-Syrian – unity schemes.

One influential current of Palestinian nationalism continued to advocate Palestinian wataniyyah – Palestine-based patriotic nationalism – closely allied with ideologies of pan-Arab qawmiyyah persisted throughout the British Mandatory period. This current strongly argued against the British pro-Zionist policy of detaching Palestine from its Arab history and environment.

Well-known representatives of this current were leaders of the Istiqlal party: ‘Awni ‘Abd al-Hadi (1889‒1970)30 and Muhammad Izzat Darwazh (1888–1984), who had been one of the leaders of the Palestinian Revival Society (al-Nahdah al-Filistiniyyah), a Palestinian nationalist organisation founded in Damascus in 1919. ‘Abd al-Hadi belonged to a landowning family in the Jenin (Nablus) area and Darwazah came from a middle class family of merchants from Nablus that had long been involved in textiles and had extensive trade relationships with the Arab merchants of Damascus and Beirut (Doumani 1995: 59‒61). Both ‘Abd al-Hadi and Darwazah had been educated in the Ottoman period and had been personally involved in radical pan-Arab political activities during the pre-Mandatory period. ‘Abd al-Hadi had been educated in Beirut, Istanbul and at the Sorbonne University in Paris and Darwazah, a self-taught intellectual (Muslih 1991: 178), had served in the local Ottoman administration as a clerk in the Department of Telegraphic and Postal Services in Nablus and later as Director of Postal Services in Beirut. In the early 1930s the Istiqlal party became ‘the only mass-based pan-Arabist party, [which] began to mobilize Palestinian Arabs around an anti-Zionist and anti-imperialist program’ (Tamari 2008: 6‒7).

Furthermore, both ‘Abd al-Hadi and Darwazah ‘continued to believe in Palestine’s identity as a component of the greater Syrian [Bilad al-Sham] homeland’ (Tamari 2008: 7). The Istiqlal party sought independence for Palestine within Arab unity schemes – pan-Arab schemes which at the time were conceived as a way of empowering the Palestinian national struggle and resisting Zionist settler-colonisation. In fact, the leaders of the Istiqlal party saw no contradiction between the advocacy of pan-Arabism and their active involvement in the Palestinian national liberation movement. On the contrary, for them the two objectives were complementary. Also, opposition to Zionist national claims to Palestine and opposition to the Mandatory (colonial) system in the Middle East, which was the main obstacle to Arab self-determination, were perceived as intertwined: ‘If the [British] Mandate fell, then the Zionist project would also collapse’ (Krämer 2011: 256).

‘Abd al-Hadi understood the close linkage at the time between local Palestinian identity, Arabism and opposition to settler-colonialism in Palestine. In his passionate quest to refute the Zionist claims to Palestine, ‘Abd al-Hadi testified before the British Peel Commission in January 1937, while rejecting British policies which sought to detach Palestine from the rest of al-Sham in line with the commitments of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which stated: ‘His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’.

‘Abd al-Hadi was, at the same time, a Palestinian Arab nationalist and a key figure in, and one of the chief spokesmen of, the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement during the Mandatory period. He served as secretary of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress in 1928. He was also appointed general secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, which was formed in April 1936 to coordinate the general strike among Palestinians.

The Istiqlal party took part in the Palestinian uprising in 1936‒1939 and called for an Indian Congress Party-style boycott of the British (Khalidi, R.

2001: 25). The Istiqlal party was subsequently banned by the British.

As a shrewd countermove to the pan-Arabist orientation of the Istiqlal party, Haj Amin al-Husayni, the mufti of Jerusalem and head of the Supreme Muslim Council, and his supporters formed the Palestinian Arab Party (al-Hizb al-ʿArabi al-Filastini), which included key Palestinian Muslim and Christian leaders (Krämer 2011: 258). This party, which emphasised the Palestinian agency in, and Palestinian dimensions of, the national struggle in Palestine and dominated the Arab Higher Committee in the period 1936‒1948, would subsequently inspire the emergence of the Palestinian National Liberation Movement (Harakat al-Tahrir al-Watani al-Filastini or Fateh) in the post-Nakba period.

The Palestinian Arab collective agency and Palestinian Arab national dimensions of the struggle in Palestine were also emphasised by another party created in the 1930s: the Palestine Arab Reform Party (Hizb al-Islah al-ʿArabi al-Filastin), established by members of the Khalidi family of Jerusalem in June 1935 (Krämer 2011: 258).

The Palestinian uprising of 1936‒1939 had a major impact on the consolidation of the particular components of Palestine’s national identity and national struggle in Palestine. This can be best illustrated and symbolised by the nationalist poem Mawtini (‘My Homeland’), perhaps the most famous and influential Palestinian poem of all time. It was written by Ibrahim Tuqan (1905–1941) in 1934 and became a rallying cry against British colonialism and Zionism in Palestine during the great uprising in the 1930s (Jayyusi and Tingley 1977). Tuqan belonged to a notable Nablus family that had, under the Ottomans, dominated the politics of the city for much of the 18th and 19th centuries. He had been educated in Nablus, Jerusalem and at the American University of Beirut from 1923 to 1929.

He later worked as a professor at the American University in Beirut and a sub-director of the Jerusalem-based Palestine Broadcasting Service. An excerpt from the poem, which has since then embodied that indomitable Palestinian national struggle for self-determination, reads as follows:

The sword and the pen.

Not talking or quarrelling.

Are our symbols.

Our glory and covenant.

And a duty to fulfil it.

Shake us.

Our honour.

Is an honourable cause.

A raised flag.

O, your beauty.

In your eminence.

Victorious over your enemies.

My homeland.

My homeland.