Hakuna haja ya kusikia sauti yako wakati ninaweza kuzungumza juu yako vizuri zaidi kuliko wewe unavyoweza kujisemea mwenyewe. Hakuna haja ya kusikia sauti yako. Niambie tu kuhusu maumivu yako. Nataka kujua hadithi yako. Kisha nitaisimulia tena kwa njia mpya. Nitaisimulia tena kwa namna ambayo itakuwa yangu, yangu mwenyewe. Kwa kukuandika upya, ninajiandika upya. Bado mimi ni mwandishi, mwenye mamlaka. Bado mimi ni mkoloni, mtu anayesema, nawe sasa uko katikati ya mazungumzo yangu. (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)

Historia na kumbukumbu ya pamoja mara nyingi ni kama zulia lililofumwa kwa hadithi zilizosukwa na wasomi wa kijamii, bila kujali sauti za watu wa kawaida na jinsi walio dhulumiwa, waliotawaliwa, wenyeji wa asili na waliotengwa wanavyojiwakilisha wenyewe.

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.

Historia nyingi za Palestina zimeandikwa na watu wenye madaraka makubwa na wale wanaotumikia washindi na wakoloni. Hata hivyo, leo kuna aina tatu za maandishi kuhusu Palestina zilizoathiriwa na mapokeo matatu tofauti:

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) jiografia ya Maandiko na maandishi ya walowezi-wakoloni wa Israeli; (2)

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

mazungumzo ya "Historia Mpya" za Israel ambamo historia ya miaka elfu kadhaa ya Palestina inashughulikiwa kama kiambatisho tu cha Israel ya kisasa; na (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)

Uandishi wa wasomi wa elimu ya wenyeji na ukoloni, uliojengwa juu ya historia ya watu wa Palestina, "historia kutoka chini", masomo ya watu waliokandamizwa (subaltern studies), uwakilishi binafsi wa watu wenyeji, pamoja na maandishi ya kawaida ya Edward Said na Frantz Fanon kuhusu mkoloni na aliyekoloniwa. Kazi hii inaingia katika aina ya tatu ya maandishi. Inatoa kipaumbele kwa kuipa Palestina na Wapalestina sauti, na kuiruhusu Palestina izungumze yenyewe. Mijadala mingine miwili inapingwa katika kitabu hiki.

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:

• Maandishi ya Kiorientalist, ya kibiblia na ya kikoloni: fasihi hii ya historia na kumbukumbu ya pamoja imezalishwa na kusambazwa kwa kiasi kikubwa na wanajiografia wa Biblia wa Magharibi au Wazayuni wa Kiisraeli, kwa niaba ya wasomi wenye nguvu za kijamii, huku ikipuuza sauti na utendaji wa Wapalestina wenyewe. Zaidi ya hayo, kwa kuficha historia ya nchi, mbinu za kihistoria kuhusu Palestina mara nyingi hujengwa kupitia mfuatano wa falme na ushindi wa kifalme au mfuatano wa nasaba (Warumi, Waothmani, Waingereza na kadhalika) na kwa mtazamo wa 'kutoka nje'. Kuna hamu ndogo sana miongoni mwa wanahistoria, ambao mara nyingi hutegemea ufadhili wa wasomi wenye nguvu, ya kuandika sauti ya Palestina 'kutoka ndani', huru na hadithi-mythi za Biblia au umiliki wa kifalme, au kama yenye utendaji wake na yenye kuunda hatima yake yenyewe.

• 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.

Historia Mpya za 'Israeli': Mkoloni huria wa Kizayuni mara nyingi amejaribu kuchanganya 'ukoloni wa walowezi' na 'demokrasia' – miradi miwili inayopingana – na mwelekeo huu katika miongo ya hivi karibuni umechangia kuibuka kwa 'Historia Mpya' za Israeli. Historia hizi mpya pia zimeungwa mkono na sekta ya 'mchakato wa amani' iliyofadhiliwa kwa ukarimu – sekta iliyozaa 'wasomi' wapya wa kitaaluma, wanaotoka kwa sehemu kubwa katika tabaka zile zile zenye nguvu za kijamii, na kufunga upya masimulizi yaliyolenga kuiingiza Palestina na kuficha historia yake ya milenia ya nchi hiyo chini ya kichwa cha 'Israeli-Palestina'. Mojawapo ya vipengele vinavyofichua zaidi vya sekta hii mpya ya amani ya 'Israeli-Palestina' kinapatikana katika neno 'Israeli-Palestina' lenye mistari mingi ya kuunganisha, ambapo Israeli inajengwa kama chombo kikuu (cha msingi) cha kisiasa na Palestina kama kiambatisho cha pili, kilichotengwa na kilicho chini ya Israeli. Historia hizi mpya za Israeli zimebuniwa ili kusimamia kwa undani athari za ukoloni wa walowezi unaoendelea Palestina, badala ya kuupinga. Anachronism hii inatumika hata pale kazi nzima inapolenga Palestina ya Kiothmani (1516‒1917) au Palestina ya Mamlaka ya Uingereza kabla ya Dola ya Israeli kuundwa. Israeli yenyewe iliundwa mwaka 1948 kwa kuwafukuza kwa nguvu wakazi wa asili wa Palestina na ilianzishwa juu ya magofu ya nchi. Kazi zilizochapishwa kuhusu historia ya Palestina ya Kiothmani au ya Mamlaka mara nyingi sasa zinawasilishwa kama 'Historia Mpya' au 'Mitazamo Mipya' kuhusu Israeli, bila wakoloni hao huria wa Historia Mpya hizi za Israeli kujisumbua kueleza kwa nini taifa jipya (Israeli), lililoundwa mwaka 1948, linapaswa kutangulia jina la nchi (Palestina) iliyokuwepo kwa milenia. Historia Mpya za Kizayuni za Israeli mara nyingi hudai 'kuzungumza kwa niaba ya' na 'kuwakilisha' kila mtu, huku zikipuuza kwamba tofauti ya nguvu na uzoefu wa 'walioko chini ya ukoloni' (Palestina) ni tofauti kabisa na uzoefu wa 'mkoloni' (Israeli). Katika makala maarufu ya mwaka 1998 kwenye mtandao wa Al-Ahram, yenye kichwa: ‘New History, Old Ideas’,5 marehemu Edward Said alipinga 'Historia Mpya' za Kizayuni za Israel, ambazo zinalenga kuunda ulinganifu wa kubuni kati ya 'Israel' na 'Palestina' na, kwa mtazamo wa juu juu, kuziba 'pengo la simulizi' kati ya mkoloni (Israel) na aliyekoloniwa (Palestina). Hata hivyo, kwa kweli, Historia Mpya za Israel zinalenga kuiwakilisha Palestina na kuwasemea Wapalestina, badala ya kuwaruhusu watu wa asili wa Palestina kujisemea wenyewe.

• 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.

Katika kazi yake muhimu The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History, Keith Whitelam (1996) anaonyesha jinsi neno 'Israeli wa kale' lilivyobuniwa kama itikadi ya kidini isiyo na msingi wa kihistoria. Anaunganisha matatizo ya nidhamu ya kisasa ya masomo ya Biblia na suala la Palestina, na kuchunguza athari za kisiasa za istilahi za masomo ya Biblia zilizochaguliwa kuwakilisha eneo hili. Whitelam anaonyesha jinsi kutaja kwa ardhi kulivyomaanisha udhibiti na umiliki; jinsi neno la kidini 'nchi ya Israeli' – hadithi ya kifasihi ya kidini ya baadaye isiyohusiana na kipindi chochote mahususi katika historia halisi ya ardhi hiyo – limepewa maana ya kisiasa ya kidunia katika masomo ya Magharibi na ya Israeli. Pia anasema kwamba katika masomo ya Biblia ya Magharibi na ya Israeli, neno Palestina halina maana yake yenyewe, wala historia yake yenyewe; bali hutoa mandhari ya historia ya Israeli. Sambamba na ukosefu huu wa historia ni pia kutokuwepo kwa wakazi wa asili wa Palestina katika ardhi hiyo. Historia ya Palestina na wakazi wake kwa ujumla inamezwa na kunyamazishwa na shauku ya kutafuta 'Israeli wa kale' (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).

Kwa kuhamasishwa na kazi za Edward Said, Orientalism (1978) na The Question of Palestine (1980), Whitelam anasema kwa nguvu kwamba Orientalism ya Biblia inayolenga Palestina hasa imekuwa sehemu ya, na upanuzi wa, mazungumzo na uwakilishi mkuu wa Orientalism katika Magharibi, ambao umeandikwa bila kuzingatia somo lolote la 'Mashariki'.

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.

Kwa Said na Whitelam wote wawili, katika mjadala huu wa Kiorientalisti na wa Biblia, tamaduni za wenyeji wa Palestina na Wapalestina zilionyeshwa kama zisizo na uwezo wa kutenda kwa umoja au kuwa na kumbukumbu ya pamoja. Whitelam anaendeleza hoja za Said zaidi, akionyesha kwamba historia ya Palestina ya kale imepuuzwa na kunyamazishwa na mjadala wa masomo ya Biblia, ambao una ajenda yake yenyewe:

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:

"Wasomi wa Magharibi wameunda Israeli ya kale na kunyamazisha historia ya Wapalestina" (Whitelam 1996: 1, 3). Whitelam anasisitiza kwamba Palestina ya kale ina historia yake yenyewe, na inahitaji kuachiliwa kutoka kwenye mkono wa Orientalism ya kimapenzi ya Biblia na jiografia ya maandiko.

‘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:

Tatizo la historia ya Wapalestina limebaki bila kusemwa ndani ya masomo ya Biblia, likinyamazishwa na uvumbuzi wa Israeli ya kale kwa mfano wa taifa la kiungwana la Ulaya. Ni baada tu ya kufichua athari za uvumbuzi huu ndipo historia ya Wapalestina itakapoachiliwa kutoka katika vikwazo vya masomo ya Biblia na mjadala ulioiunda.

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)

Kama tutakavyoona hapa chini, Orientalism ya kimapenzi ya Biblia ya kisasa na Uamsho wa Kiprotestanti (Protestant Restorationism) vilikuwa miongoni mwa vichocheo vya kiitikadi vilivyounga mkono Uzayuni Magharibi na kuunga mkono kuanzishwa kwa dola ya Israeli.

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.

Mtazamo wa Kiorientalisti uliojikita kwenye Biblia kuhusu Palestina pia ulisababisha kuundwa kwa hadithi potofu yenye madhara kwamba Palestina ilikuwa "nchi isiyo na watu kwa watu wasio na nchi", na maendeleo marefu ya Uzayuni wa Kikristo yaliweka msingi wa dhana ya Palestina isiyo na Wapalestina (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). Katika kipindi cha kisasa, waandishi wa Ulaya walikubali dhana ya terra nullius kwa ajili ya ushindi wa kimaeneo na ukoloni. Tofauti za mada kwamba Palestina ilikuwa terra nullius zilieneza utamaduni wa walowezi Wayahudi wa Kizayuni (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).

Nchini Palestina, imani nyingi na ushirikina zilikwenda pamoja, na kwa milenia nyingi nchi hiyo ilikuwa dola yenye imani nyingi na ya ushirikina. Wingi wa dini na tamaduni nchini Palestina ni mojawapo ya sifa zake zinazovutia zaidi na zinazoitambulisha. Wingi huu wa imani nchini humo, pamoja na nafasi ya Palestina (na Arabia) kama mahali pa kuzaliwa kwa mapokeo matatu ya kutoamini miungu mingi, ni mada kuu ya kazi hii, ambayo inatoa hoja kwamba utofauti wa dini umekuwa daima kiini cha utambulisho wa wingi wa Palestina, muda mrefu kabla ya kuja kwa utauhidi.

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.

Akiandika katika karne ya 5 KK, Herodotus alikuwa mwanahistoria wa kwanza kuelezea kwa ufasaha nchi yenye dini nyingi iliyoko kijiografia kwa asili yake.

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

kati ya Foinike na Misri, na kuelezea eneo la kijiografia aliliita Palaistinê (Παλαιστίνη) ambalo lilikuwa kubwa kuliko Filistia ya kale. Pia aliripoti kwamba Palestina ilikuwa ya washirikina sana. Leo matokeo ya elimu ya mambo ya kale, ikiwa ni pamoja na uchimbuzi wa hivi karibuni wa kiakiolojia huko Filistia, ambao ni muhimu sana katika namna historia ya kale na urithi wa Palestina unavyoeleweka na kufundishwa katika vyuo vikuu na shule za Magharibi, yanathibitisha simulizi ya Herodotus kuhusu Palestina ya washirikina na yanapingana na masimulizi makubwa ya Agano la Kale. Kwa hakika, imani ya Mungu mmoja ilikua hatua kwa hatua (si kwa mapinduzi ya ghafla) kupitia mkakati wa kuweka katikati wa uwakilishi, kutoka ushirikina (miungu mingi ya kipagani) hadi kuabudu mungu mmoja huku ikikubali kuwepo kwa miungu mingine, na kutoka 'mono-polytheism' (Mungu wa miungu wa kipagani) hadi upweke safi wa Mungu, ukizingatia Mungu mmoja na mamlaka moja, chini ya Uislamu katika Zama za Kati za awali.

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.