Babu buƙatar in ji muryarka lokacin da zan iya magana a kanka fiye da yadda kai da kanka za ka iya magana. Babu buƙatar in ji muryarka. Kawai ka gaya mini game da raɗaɗinka. Ina so in san labarinka. Sannan zan mayar maka da shi ta wata sabuwar hanya. Zan mayar maka da shi ta yadda zai zama nawa, nawa ne gaba ɗaya. Ta hanyar sake rubuta ka, ni kaina na sake rubuta kaina. Har yanzu ni ne marubuci, ni ne iko. Har yanzu ni ne mai mulkin mallaka, mai magana, kuma yanzu kai ne a tsakiyar maganata. (Hooks 1990: 243)

No need to hear your voice when I can talk about you better than you can speak about yourself. No need to hear your voice. Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. Tell it back to you in such a way that it has become mine, my own. Re-writing you I write myself anew. I am still author, authority. I am still colonizer the speaking subject and you are now at the center of my talk. (Hooks 1990: 243)

Tarihi da ƙwaƙwalwar al'umma galibi zane ne da masu manyan zamantakewa suka saƙa, ba tare da la'akari da muryoyin talakawa ba, ko kuma yadda waɗanda ake zalunta, waɗanda aka mulka a mulkin mallaka, 'yan asali da waɗanda aka ware suke wakiltar kansu.

History and collective memory are often a tapestry of stories woven by social elites, with disregard for the voices of ordinary people and selfrepresentation of the oppressed, colonised, indigenous and marginalised.

Yawancin tarihin Falasdin an rubuta shi ne ta hannun masu iko da waɗanda ke hidima ga masu cin nasara da masu mulkin mallaka. Duk da haka, a yau akwai nau'o'i uku na rubuce-rubuce kan Falasdin da tasirin hanyoyi uku daban-daban ya bayyana a cikinsu:

Much of the histories of Palestine are written by powerful elites and those who are in the service of conquerors and colonisers. However, today there are three types of writings on Palestine influenced by three distinct traditions:

(1) ilimin ƙasa na littafai da rubuce-rubucen masu mulkin mallaka na Isra'ila (2)

(1) scriptural geography and Israeli settler-colonialist writings; (2)

jawaban da ke cikin "New Histories" na Isra'ila, inda tarihin Falasdinu na dubban shekaru ake dauka a matsayin kari kawai ga Isra'ilar zamani; da kuma (3)

the discourses of the ‘New Histories’ of Israel in which the millennia-long history of Palestine is treated as a mere appendix to modern Israel; and (3)

ilimin asali da ilimin mulkin mallaka, wanda ya dogara da tarihin Falasɗinawa daga ƙasa, wato "tarihi daga ƙasa", da nazarin al'ummomin da aka mallaka (subaltern studies), da kuma yadda 'yan asalin ƙasa ke bayyana kansu, da rubuce-rubucen gargajiya na Edward Said da Frantz Fanon game da mai mulki da wanda ake mulka. Wannan aikin yana cikin rukuni na uku na rubuce-rubuce. Yana ba da fifiko wajen ba Falasɗinu da Falasɗinawa murya, da kuma barin Falasɗinu ya yi magana da kansa. Sauran manyan hanyoyin guda biyu an ƙalubalance su a cikin wannan littafi.

indigenous and decolonisation scholarship informed by a people’s history of Palestine, ‘history from below’, subaltern studies, indigenous selfrepresentation and the classical writings of Edward Said and Frantz Fanon on the coloniser and colonised. This work comes under the third category of writings. It prioritises giving Palestine and the Palestinians a voice and allowing Palestine to speak for itself. The other two discourses are challenged in this book:

• Adabin Orientalist, na Littafi Mai Tsarki da na mulkin mallaka: wannan adabi na tarihi/ tunawar al'umma galibi Turawan Yamma ko 'yan Sihiyoniyya na Isra'ila ne suka samar da yada shi ta hanyar ilimin ƙasar Littafi Mai Tsarki a madadin masu ƙarfin zamantakewa, ba tare da kula da ikon da muryoyin Falasdinawa na asali suka mallaka ba. Bugu da ƙari, ta hanyar ɓoye tarihin ƙasar, hanyoyin tarihi game da Falasdinu sukan kasance an gina su ta hanyar tsarin daulolin sarauta da cin nasarar mulki da jerin sarakuna (Romawa, Usmaniyya, Birtaniya da sauransu) kuma "daga waje". Akwai ɗan sha'awa kaɗan tsakanin masana tarihi, waɗanda sau da yawa suka dogara da tallafin masu ƙarfin zamantakewa, wajen rubuta muryar Falasdinu "daga ciki", ba tare da dogaro da tatsuniyoyin Littafi Mai Tsarki ko mallakar daular mulki ba, ko kuma a matsayin wadda take da ikonta da kuma tsara makomarta da kanta.

• Orientalist, biblicist and colonialist writings: this literature of history/ collective memory has been largely produced and circulated by Western or Israeli Zionist biblical geography on behalf of powerful social elites, with little regard for the autochthonous Palestinian agency and voices. Furthermore, obscuring the history of the country, historical approaches to Palestine are often constructed through the chronologies of empires and through imperial conquest or dynastic chronologies (Roman, Ottoman, British and so forth) and ‘from without’. There is very little appetite among historians, often dependent on funding by powerful elites, to record the voice of Palestine ‘from within’, independent of biblical myth-narratives or imperial possession, or as having its own agency and shaping its own destiny.

Sabbin Tarihin 'Isra'ila': mai mulkin mallaka na Zionist mai sassaucin ra'ayi sau da yawa yana ƙoƙarin haɗa 'mulkin mallaka na mazauna' da 'dimokuradiyya' – ayyuka biyu masu sabawa juna – kuma wannan halin ya taimaka a cikin shekarun baya-bayan nan wajen fitowar 'Sabbin Tarihin' Isra'ila. Waɗannan sababbin tarihi kuma an goyi bayansu ne ta hanyar masana'antar 'tsarin zaman lafiya' wadda ke samun kuɗi mai yawa – masana'antar da ta haifar da sababbin 'manyan malamai' na ilimi, waɗanda galibi suka fito daga irin wannan ajin masu iko, kuma ta sake fasalta jawaban da suka nemi shigar da Falasɗinu cikin ƙarƙashin 'Isra'ila-Falasɗinu' tare da ɓoye tarihin ƙasar na dubban shekaru. Ɗaya daga cikin abubuwan da suka fi bayyana wannan sabuwar masana'antar zaman lafiya ta 'Isra'ila-Falasɗinu' shi ne a cikin kalmar 'Isra'ila-Falasɗinu' mai dogon haɗin suna, inda aka gina Isra'ila a matsayin babbar hukuma ta siyasa (ta farko) kuma Falasɗinu a matsayin ƙarin abu (na biyu, an mayar da shi gefe, ƙarƙashin Isra'ila). An tsara waɗannan Sabbin Tarihin Isra'ila don sarrafa tasirin mulkin mallaka na mazauna da ke ci gaba a Falasɗinu, maimakon ƙalubalantar sa. Wannan rashin dacewar lokaci ana amfani da shi ko da lokacin da dukkan aikin ya mayar da hankali kan Falasɗinun Ottoman (1516‒1917) ko Falasɗinun Mandate kafin a kafa Jihar Isra'ila. An kafa Isra'ila kanta a 1948 ta hanyar tsabtace ƙabilanci na mutanen asali na Falasɗinu, kuma aka kafa ta a kan kufan wata ƙasa. Ayyukan da aka buga kan tarihin Falasɗinun Ottoman ko Mandate sau da yawa yanzu ana sanya su a matsayin 'Sabbin Tarihi' ko 'Sabbin Ra'ayoyi' kan Isra'ila, ba tare da masu mulkin mallaka na sassaucin ra'ayi na waɗannan Sabbin Tarihin Isra'ila suna damuwa su bayyana dalilin da ya sa sabuwar jiha (Isra'ila), wadda aka kafa a 1948, za ta zo kafin sunan ƙasar (Falasɗinu) wadda ta wanzu tsawon dubban shekaru ba. Sabbin Tarihin Isra'ila na Zionist sau da yawa suna da'awar 'magana a madadin' da 'wakiltar' kowa, yayin da suke yin watsi da cewa rashin daidaiton iko da gogewar 'waɗanda aka yi wa mulkin mallaka' (Falasɗinu) sun bambanta sosai da gogewar 'mai mulkin mallaka' (Isra'ila). A cikin wata sananniyar kasida ta 1998 a shafin yanar gizo na Al-Ahram, mai taken: ‘Sabon Tarihi, Tsoffin Ra'ayoyi’, marigayi Edward Said ya soki ‘Sababbin Tarihi’ na Isra'ila na Zionist, wadanda ke neman kirkirar daidaito na wucin gadi tsakanin ‘Isra'ila’ da ‘Falasdinu’ kuma, a kallon farko, suna kokarin cike ‘gibin labari’ tsakanin mai mulkin mallaka (Isra'ila) da wanda aka mallaka (Falasdinu). Sai dai a zahiri, Sababbin Tarihin Isra'ila suna neman wakiltar Falasdinu da magana da sunan Falasdinawa, maimakon barin 'yan asalin Falasdinu su yi magana da kansu.

• The New Histories of ‘Israel’: the Zionist liberal coloniser has often sought to combine ‘settler-colonisation’ with ‘democracy’ – two contradictory projects – and this tendency has in recent decades contributed to the emergence of the ‘New Histories’ of Israel. These new histories have also been backed by the generously funded ‘peace process’ industry – an industry which has spawned ‘new’ academic elites, drawn for the most part from the same powerful social classes, and repackaged discourses which have sought to subsume Palestine and obscure its millennia-long history of the country under the rubric of ‘Israel-Palestine’. One of the most revealing aspects of this new peace industry of ‘Israel-Palestine’ is found in the much-hyphenated ‘Israel-Palestine’, with Israel constructed as a core (primary) political entity and Palestine as a (secondary, marginalised, subordinate) appendage to Israel. These New Histories of Israel are designed to micro-manage, rather than challenge, the impact of ongoing settler-colonialism in Palestine. This anachronism is deployed even when the entire work focuses on Ottoman Palestine (1516‒1917) or Mandatory Palestine before the State of Israel came into existence. Israel itself was created in 1948 by ethnic cleansing the indigenous people of Palestine and founded on the ruins of a country. Works published on the history of Ottoman or Mandatory Palestine are often now packaged as ‘New Histories’ or ‘New Perspectives’ on Israel, without the liberal colonisers of these New Histories of Israel bothering to explain why a new state (Israel), which was created in 1948, should come before the name of a country (Palestine) which has existed for millennia. The Zionist New Histories of Israel often claim to ‘speak for’ and ‘represent’ everyone, while ignoring that the asymmetry of power and experiences of ‘colonised’ (Palestine) are fundamentally different from the experiences of the ‘coloniser’ (Israel). In a famous 1998 article in Al-Ahram online, entitled: ‘New History, Old Ideas’,5 the late Edward Said challenged the Zionist ‘New Histories’ of Israel, which seek to create artificial symmetry between ‘Israel’ and ‘Palestine’ and, on the face of it, bridge the ‘narrative gap’ between the coloniser (Israel) and colonised (Palestine). In effect, however, the New Histories of Israel seek to represent Palestine and speak for the Palestinians, rather than allowing the indigenous people of Palestine to speak for themselves.

A cikin babban aikinsa The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History, Keith Whitelam (1996) ya nuna yadda aka ƙirƙiri kalmar 'Isra'ilar dā' a matsayin akida ta addini wadda ba ta bisa tarihi. Ya danganta matsalolin ilimin Littafi Mai Tsarki na zamani da batun Falasɗinu, kuma ya yi nazari a kan tasirin siyasa na kalmomin da masana Littafi Mai Tsarki suka zaɓa don bayyana wannan yanki. Whitelam ya nuna yadda sunan ƙasar ke nuna iko da mallaka; yadda kalmar addini 'ƙasar Isra'ila' – wata tatsuniyar adabin addini ta makara wadda ba ta shafi wani takamaiman zamani a tarihin ƙasar ba – an ba ta ma'anar siyasa ta duniya a cikin ilimin Yammaci da na Isra'ila. Ya kuma bayar da hujjar cewa a ilimin Littafi Mai Tsarki na Yammaci da na Isra'ila, kalmar Falasɗinu ba ta da ma'anar kanta, babu tarihin kanta; sai dai tana samar da bayanan baya ga tarihin Isra'ila. Tare da wannan rashin tarihi, akwai kuma rashin 'yan asalin Falasɗinawa mazauna ƙasar. Tarihin Falasɗinu da mazaunanta gaba ɗaya an mayar da shi ƙarƙashin, kuma an yi shiru da shi, saboda damuwa da neman 'Isra'ilar dā' (Whitelam 1996: 40‒45).

In his seminal work The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History, Keith Whitelam (1996) shows how the term ‘ancient Israel’ was invented as ahistorical religious dogma. He links the problems of the modern biblical discipline to the Palestine question and examines the political implications of the terminology of biblical scholarship chosen to represent this area. Whitelam shows how the naming of the land implied control and possession; how the religious term ‘the land of Israel’ – a late religio-literary fiction that does not relate to any particular period in the actual history of the land – has been invested with secular political meaning in both Western and Israeli scholarship. He also argues that in Western and Israeli biblical scholarship the term Palestine has no intrinsic meaning of its own, no history of its own; but provides a background for the history of Israel. Commensurate with this lack of history is also the absence of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of the land. The history of Palestine and its inhabitants in general is subsumed and silenced by the concern with, and the search for, ‘ancient Israel’ (Whitelam 1996: 40‒45).

Ana ƙarfafa wannan ra'ayi daga ayyukan Edward Said, Orientalism (1978) da The Question of Palestine (1980), Whitelam ya yi bayani mai ƙarfi cewa nazarin Littafi Mai Tsarki da ke mayar da hankali musamman kan Falasdinu, wani ɓangare ne kuma tsawo na zantuka da wakilcin Orientalism mai mulki a Yamma, wanda aka rubuta ba tare da wani batun 'Gabas' a gaban idanu ba.

Inspired by the works of Edward Said, Orientalism (1978) and The Question of Palestine (1980), Whitelam argues powerfully that specific Palestine-focused biblical Orientalism have been part of and an extension of the hegemonic Orientalist discourse and representation in the West, which has been written without any ‘Oriental’ subject in view.

Ga Said da Whitelam, a cikin wannan tsarin ilimin Orientalist da na nazarin Littafi Mai Tsarki, an gabatar da al'adun yankin Falasdinu da na Falasdinawa a matsayin waɗanda ba su iya yin aiki tare da haɗin kai ko adana tunawa ta al'umma. Whitelam ya ci gaba da bayanin Said, yana nuna cewa tarihin tsohuwar Falasdinu an yi watsi da shi kuma an danne shi ta hanyar ilimin nazarin Littafi Mai Tsarki, wanda ke da nasa manufa.

For both Said and Whitelam, in this Orientalist‒biblical discourse the local cultures of Palestine and Palestinians were presented as incapable of unified action or collective memory. Whitelam develops Said’s arguments further, showing that the history of ancient Palestine has been ignored and silenced by the discourse of biblical studies, which has its own agenda:

"Ilimin yammacin duniya ya ƙirƙiri tsohuwar Isra'ila kuma ya yi shiru game da tarihin Falasɗinawa" (Whitelam 1996: 1, 3). Whitelam ya dage cewa tsohuwar Falasɗinu tana da tarihinta na kanta, kuma ya kamata a ƙwace ta daga hannun romantic biblical Orientalism da ilimin ƙasa na nassi.

‘Western scholarship has invented ancient Israel and silenced Palestinian history’ (Whitelam 1996: 1, 3). Ancient Palestine, Whitelam insists, has a history of its own, and needs to be freed from the grasp of romantic biblical Orientalism and scriptural geography:

Matsalar tarihin Falasɗinawa ta kasance ba a faɗa ba a cikin nazarin Littafi Mai Tsarki, an danne ta ta hanyar ƙirƙirar Isra'ila ta dā a kamanin ƙasar Turai ta zamani. Sai bayan mun fallasa abubuwan da wannan ƙirƙira ta haifar ne tarihin Falasɗinawa zai samu 'yanci daga takurar nazarin Littafi Mai Tsarki da tsarin tunani da ya siffanta shi.

The problem of Palestinian history has remained unspoken within biblical studies, silenced by the invention of ancient Israel in the image of the European nation state. Only after we have exposed the implications of this invention will Palestinian history be freed from the constraints of biblical studies and the discourse that has shaped it.

(Whitelam 1996: 36)

(Whitelam 1996: 36)

Kamar yadda za mu gani a ƙasa, Orientalism na soyayya na Littafi Mai Tsarki na zamani da kuma Restorationism na Furotesta sun kasance biyu daga cikin abubuwan akida da suka taimaka wajen goyon bayan Zionism a Yamma da kuma goyon bayan kafa ƙasar Isra'ila.

As we shall see below, modern romantic biblical Orientalism and Protestant Restorationism were two of the ideological catalysts for supporting Zionism in the West and for backing the creation of the Israeli state.

Har ila yau, Orientalism na Littafi Mai Tsarki da ya mayar da hankali musamman kan Falasdinu ya haifar da tatsuniyar nan mai illa cewa Falasdinu "ƙasa ce babu mutane ga mutanen da babu ƙasa," kuma dogon ci gaban Kiristanci na Zionism ya shimfiɗa tushen ra'ayin Falasdinu ba tare da Falasdinawa ba (Kamel 2014:

Specific Palestine-focused biblical Orientalism also led to the concoction of the pernicious myth that Palestine was ‘a land without people for a people without land’ and the long development of Christian Zionism laid the foundation for a concept of Palestine without Palestinians (Kamel 2014:

1‒15, 2015; Masalha 1997). A cikin zamanin zamani, marubuta Turawa sun karɓi ra'ayin terra nullius don mamayar yankuna da cin nasarar mulkin mallaka. Bambance-bambancen wannan ra'ayi cewa Falasɗinu terra nullius ne sun yaɗu a cikin al'adun mazauna Yahudawan Sihiyona (Wolfe 2006: 391; Masalha 1992, 1997).

1‒15, 2015; Masalha 1997). In the modern period, European writers adopted the terra nullius concept for territorial and colonial conquests. Variants on the theme of Palestine being terra nullius were popularised in Zionist Jewish settler culture (Wolfe 2006: 391; Masalha 1992, 1997).

A Falasdinu, addini da yawa da bautar gumaka sun tafi tare, kuma tsawon dubban shekaru ƙasar ta kasance al'umma mai addinai da yawa. Yawan addinai da al'adu a Falasdinu ɗaya ne daga cikin sifofinta mafi ban mamaki da na musamman. Wannan yawan addinai a ƙasar, da matsayin Falasdinu (da Larabawa) a matsayin wurin haihuwar addinan tauhidi uku, babban batu ne na wannan aiki, wanda ke bayar da hujjar cewa bambancin addinai koyaushe yana tsakiyar asalin pluralism na Falasdinu, tun kafin tauhidi.

In Palestine multifaith and polytheism went hand in hand and for millennia the country was a multifaith/polytheistic polity; the multitude of religions and cultures in Palestine is one of its most striking and characteristic features. This multitude of faiths in the country and the role of Palestine (and Arabia) as the birthplace of the three monotheistic traditions is a major topic of this work, which argues that religious pluralism has always been at the heart of the pluralist identity of Palestine, well before monotheism.

Tun a cikin karni na 5 kafin haihuwar Annabi Isa, Herodotus ya kasance masanin tarihi na farko da ya bayyana sosai wata ƙasa mai addinai da dama wadda take a wani wuri na halitta bisa yanayin ƙasa.

Writing in the 5th century BC, Herodotus was the first historian to describe vividly a multifaith country located naturally (geographically)

a tsakanin Finikiya da Masar, kuma ya yi amfani da sunan Palaistinê (Παλαιστίνη) wajen nuna yanki na ƙasa wanda ya fi girma fiye da tsohon Filistiya. Ya kuma ruwaito cewa Falasɗinu ƙasa ce mai bautar gumaka da yawa sosai. A yau binciken ilimin kayan tarihi, ciki har da tonon ilimin kayan tarihi na baya-bayan nan a Filistiya, waɗanda suke da muhimmanci ga hanyoyin da ake fahimta da koyar da tarihin Falasɗinu na dā da gādonta a jami'o'i da makarantu na Yamma, sun tabbatar da bayanin Herodotus game da Falasɗinu mai bautar gumaka da yawa, kuma sun saɓa wa manyan labaran Tsohon Alkawari. A zahiri, tauhidi ya samu ci gaba a hankali (ba cikin sauyi kwatsam ba) ta hanyar dabarar gabatarwa mai tattare da hankali, daga bautar gumaka (gumaka na arna da yawa) zuwa bautar ubangiji guda ɗaya a cikin gumaka da yawa, sannan daga "mono-polytheism" (“Allah na alloli” na arna) zuwa tauhidi tsantsa, wanda ke mai da hankali ga Ubangiji guda ɗaya da iko guda ɗaya, a ƙarƙashin Musulunci a farkon zamanin tsakiya.

between Phoenicia and Egypt, and to denote a geographical region he called Palaistinê (Παλαιστίνη) which was larger than ancient Philistia. He also reported that Palestine was deeply polytheistic. Today the findings of archaeology, including recent archaeological excavations in Philistia, which are central to the ways in which the ancient history and heritage of Palestine are understood and taught in Western universities and schools, confirm Herodotus’ account of polytheistic Palestine and contradict the grand narratives of the Old Testament. In fact monotheism evolved gradually (not in a revolutionary fashion) through a centring strategy of representation from polytheism (many pagan gods) to monolatrism,6 and from ‘mono-polytheism’ (pagan ‘God of gods’) to strict monotheism, focusing on one God and one authority, under Islam in the early Middle Ages.