Menga sizning ovozingizni eshitishning hojati yo'q, chunki men sizni o'zingiz gapirganingizdan ko'ra yaxshiroq gapira olaman. Hojati yo'q, ovozingizni eshitish shart emas. Faqat o'z og'rig'ingiz haqida ayting. Men sizning hikoyangizni bilmoqchiman. Keyin uni yangi usulda sizga qaytarib aytaman. Shunday qilib aytamanki, u mening bo'lib qoladi, mening o'zimning. Sizni qayta yozib, men o'zimni qaytadan yozaman. Men hali ham muallif, hokimiyat egasiman. Men hali ham mustamlakachiman, gapiruvchi sub'ektman, sizesa endi mening nutqimning markazidasiz. (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)

Tarix va jamoaviy xotira ko'pincha ijtimoiy elitalar tomonidan to'qilgan hikoyalar gilamidir, unda oddiy odamlarning ovozi e'tiborsiz qoldiriladi, zulm ostidagilar, mustamlaka qilinganlar, mahalliy aholi va chetga surilganlarning o'z-o'zini namoyon qilishi esa inkor etiladi.

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.

Falastin tarixining ko'p qismi kuchli elitalar hamda bosqinchilar va mustamlakachilar xizmatidagi kishilar tomonidan yozilgan. Biroq bugungi kunda Falastin haqidagi yozuvlarning uchta turi mavjud bo'lib, ular uchta alohida an'ananing ta'siri ostida shakllangan:

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) Muqaddas jo'g'rofiyasi va Isroil ko'chmanchi-mustamlakachilik yozuvlari; (2)

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

"Yangi tarix" (New Histories) deb nomlangan Isroil tarixiy oqimlarining nutqlari, bunda Falastinning ming yillik tarixi zamonaviy Isroilning shunchaki ilovasi sifatida qaraladi; va (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)

mustamlakachilikka qarshi mahalliy xalqlar va dekolonizatsiya bo‘yicha ilmiy tadqiqotlar; Falastinning xalq tarixi, “pastdan yozilgan tarix” (history from below), subaltern tadqiqotlari, mahalliy xalqlarning o‘z-o‘zini namoyon qilishi hamda Edvard Said va Frants Fanonning mustamlakachi va mustamlaka qilinganlar haqidagi klassik asarlari asosida shakllangan. Ushbu asar yozuvlarning uchinchi toifasiga kiradi. U Falastinga va falastinliklarga ovoz berishga, Falastinga o‘zi haqida gapirish imkonini berishga ustuvorlik beradi. Ushbu kitobda boshqa ikki yo‘nalish tanqid qilinadi:

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:

• Orientalist, bibliyashunoslik va mustamlakachilik yozuvlari: tarix/jamoaviy xotira adabiyoti asosan G‘arb yoki isroillik sionistik bibliya geografiyasi tomonidan, kuchli ijtimoiy elitalar nomidan yaratilib tarqatilgan bo‘lib, mahalliy falastinliklarning mustaqil faoliyatiga va ovoziga kam e’tibor berilgan. Bundan tashqari, mamlakat tarixini yashiradigan holda, Falastin tarixiy yondashuvlari ko‘pincha imperiyalar xronologiyasi, imperiyalarning bosib olishi yoki sulolaviy xronologiyalar (Rim, Usmonli, Britaniya va boshqalar) orqali va "tashqaridan" tuziladi. Tarixchilar orasida, ko‘pincha kuchli elitalar tomonidan moliyalashtirilishga bog‘liq holda, Falastin ovozini "ichkaridan" qayd etishga, bibliya afsonaviy hikoyalaridan yoki imperiya egaligidan mustaqil ravishda, o‘z faoliyatiga va o‘z taqdirini belgilash qobiliyatiga ega sifatida tasvirlashga juda kam ishtiyoq bor.

• 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.

"Yangi Isroil tarixi": Zionist liberal mustamlakachisi ko'pincha "ko'chmanchi-mustamlakachilik" va "demokratiya" – ikki qarama-qarshi loyihani birlashtirishga intilgan, va bu moyillik so'nggi o'n yilliklarda Isroilning "yangi tarixlari"ning paydo bo'lishiga hissa qo'shgan. Bu yangi tarixlarni, shuningdek, mablag' bilan keng ta'minlangan "tinchlik jarayoni" sanoati qo'llab-quvvatlagan – bu sanoat asosan bir xil kuchli ijtimoiy tabaqalardan kelgan "yangi" akademik elitani yetishtirgan hamda Falastinni va uning ming yillik tarixini "Isroil-Falastin" nomi ostida yashirishga intilgan diskurslarni qayta o'ralgan holda taqdim etgan. Bu yangi "Isroil-Falastin" tinchlik sanoatining eng ochib beruvchi jihatlaridan biri ko'p defisli "Isroil-Falastin" iborasida namoyon bo'ladi: bunda Isroil asosiy (birlamchi) siyosiy birlik sifatida, Falastin esa Isroilning ikkinchi darajali, chetga surilgan, bo'ysunuvchi qo'shimchasi sifatida tasvirlanadi. Bu Isroilning yangi tarixlari davom etayotgan ko'chmanchi-mustamlakachilikning Falastindagi ta'siriga qarshi chiqish o'rniga, uni mayda detallarda boshqarishga mo'ljallangan. Bu anaxronizm butun asar Usmonli Falastinga (1516–1917) yoki Isroil Davlati paydo bo'lishidan oldingi Mandat Falastiniga bag'ishlangan bo'lsa ham qo'llaniladi. Isroilning o'zi 1948-yilda Falastin mahalliy xalqini etnik tozalash yo'li bilan yaratilgan va bir mamlakat xarobalari ustiga qurilgan. Usmonli yoki Mandat Falastini tarixi haqidagi asarlar ko'pincha endi "Isroil haqida yangi tarixlar" yoki "yangi qarashlar" sifatida taqdim etiladi, biroq bu yangi Isroil tarixlarining liberal mustamlakachilari 1948-yilda yaratilgan yangi davlat (Isroil) nega ming yillik mavjudligiga ega bo'lgan mamlakat (Falastin) nomidan oldin turishi kerakligini tushuntirishni zarur deb bilishmaydi. Sionistik "Isroil haqidagi yangi tarixlar" ko'pincha hammaning "nomidan gapirish" va "vakillik qilish" da'vosini qiladi, shu bilan birga hokimiyat nomutanosibligi va "mustamlaka qilingan" (Falastin) tajribasi "mustamlakachi" (Isroil) tajribasidan tubdan farq qilishini e'tiborsiz qoldiradi. 1998 yilda Al-Ahram veb-saytida chop etilgan "Yangi tarix, eski g'oyalar" nomli mashhur maqolasida marhum Edvard Said Isroilning sionistik "yangi tarixlari"ga qarshi chiqdi. Bu tarixlar "Isroil" va "Falastin" o'rtasida sun'iy simmetriya yaratishga intiladi va ko'rinishda "hukmron davlat" (Isroil) bilan "mustamlaka qilingan" (Falastin) o'rtasidagi "hikoya bo'shlig'ini" bartaraf etadi. Biroq aslida Isroilning yangi tarixlari Falastinni tasvirlashga va falastinliklar nomidan gapirishga intiladi, o'z navbatida Falastin mahalliy xalqiga o'zi haqida o'zi gapirish imkonini bermaydi.

• 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.

Keith Whitelam o‘zining muhim asari "Qadimgi Isroilning ixtirosi: Falastin tarixining sukut topishi" (1996) da "qadimgi Isroil" atamasi tarixiy asosga ega bo‘lmagan diniy dogma sifatida qanday ixtiro qilinganini ko‘rsatadi. U zamonaviy Injil fanining muammolarini Falastin masalasi bilan bog‘laydi va ushbu hududni ifodalash uchun tanlangan Injil ilmi terminologiyasining siyosiy oqibatlarini o‘rganadi. Whitelam yerning nomlanishi qanday qilib nazorat va egalikni nazarda tutganini ko‘rsatadi; "Isroil yurti" degan diniy atama – yerning haqiqiy tarixidagi biron-bir davrga aloqador bo‘lmagan kechki diniy-adabiy afsona – G‘arb va Isroil ilmiy adabiyotlarida qanday qilib dunyoviy siyosiy ma’no bilan yuklanganini ko‘rsatadi. U, shuningdek, G‘arb va Isroil Injil ilmida "Falastin" atamasining o‘ziga xos ma’nosi va o‘z tarixi yo‘q, balki Isroil tarixi uchun fon vazifasini o‘taydi, deb ta’kidlaydi. Ushbu tarixsizlik bilan uyg‘un ravishda yerning mahalliy falastinlik aholisi ham yo‘qdek ko‘rsatiladi. Falastin va uning aholisi tarixi umuman olganda "qadimgi Isroil"ga bo‘lgan qiziqish va uni izlash bilan singib ketadi va sukut saqlaydi (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).

Edvard Saidning "Orientalizm" (1978) va "Falastin masalasi" (1980) asarlaridan ilhomlangan holda, Uaytlam kuchli dalillar bilan shuni ta'kidlaydiki, Falastinga qaratilgan aniq biblik orientalizm G'arbdagi hukmron orientalistik nutq va tasvirning bir qismi hamda davomi bo'lib kelgan, va u hech qanday "Sharq" subyektini nazarda tutmasdan yozilgan.

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.

Said va Uaytlam uchun, bu Orientalistik–bibliyaviy diskursda Falastinning mahalliy madaniyatlari va falastinliklar birgalikda harakat qilish yoki jamoaviy xotiraga ega bo'lish qobiliyatiga ega emasdek ko'rsatilgan. Uaytlam Saidning dalillarini yanada rivojlantirib, qadimgi Falastin tarixi bibliyashunoslik diskursi tomonidan e'tiborsiz qoldirilgani va sukut saqlashga majbur etilgani, bu diskursning esa o'z maqsad-niyatlari borligini ko'rsatadi:

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:

"G‘arb olimlari qadimgi Isroilni o‘ylab topdi va Falastin tarixini jim qilib qo‘ydi" (Whitelam 1996: 1, 3). Whitelamning ta’kidlashicha, qadimgi Falastinning o‘z tarixi bor va u romantik injil orientalizmi hamda muqaddas kitob geografiyasining changalidan ozod etilishi kerak.

‘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:

Falastin tarixi muammosi Injil tadqiqotlari doirasida hanuzgacha aytilmay kelmoqda: u Qadimgi Isroilning Yevropa millat-davlati qiyofasida ixtiro qilinishi tufayli bostirilgan. Faqat shu ixtironing oqibatlarini fosh etganimizdan keyingina Falastin tarixi Injil tadqiqotlarining va uni shakllantirgan diskursning chegaralaridan ozod bo‘ladi.

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)

Quyida ko'rib chiqilganidek, zamonaviy romantik bibliyaviy orientalizm va protestant restavratsionizmi G'arbda sionizmni qo'llab-quvvatlash va Isroil davlatini tashkil etishni ma'qullash uchun mafkuraviy turtki bo'lgan ikki omildan edi.

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.

Палестинага хос, Библияга асосланган шарқшуносликнинг яна бир натижаси бўлди: “одамсиз ерни одамсиз халққа” деган зарарли афсона ўйлаб топилди, ва узоқ давом этган масеҳий сионизм Палестинасиз Палестина тушунчасига пойдевор қўйди (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). Zamonaviy davrda Yevropalik yozuvchilar hududiy va mustamlakachilik bosqinlari uchun terra nullius tushunchasini qabul qilishdi. Falastin terra nullius ekanligi haqidagi g'oyalarning turli variantlari sionistik yahudiy ko'chmanchi madaniyatida keng tarqatildi (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).

Falastinda ko'p xudolilik va ko'p dinlilik bir-biri bilan birga yurgan; ming yillar davomida mamlakat ko'p dinli va ko'p xudoli siyosiy birlik bo'lgan. Mamlakatdagi dinlar va madaniyatlarning turli-tumanligi uning eng diqqatga sazovor va xarakterli xususiyatlaridan biridir. Mamlakatdagi bunday ko'p xil e'tiqodlar hamda Falastin (va Arabiston) uch monoteistik an'analarning vatani sifatida tutgan roli ushbu asarning asosiy mavzusi bo'lib, u dinlar xilma-xilligi monoteizmdan ancha oldin ham Falastinning plyuralistik o'ziga xosligining markazida bo'lganini dalillaydi.

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.

Miloddan avvalgi V asrda yozgan Gerodot, tabiiy (geografik jihatdan) joylashgan ko'p dinli mamlakatni jonli tasvirlab bergan birinchi tarixchi edi.

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

Fenikiya va Misr o'rtasida, va qadimgi Filiståniyadan kattaroq bo'lgan geografik hududni belgilash uchun u Palaistinê (Παλαιστίνη) deb atagan. U, shuningdek, Falastin chuqur politeistik bo'lganini xabar qilgan. Bugungi kunda arxeologiyaning topilmalari, jumladan Filiståniyadagi so'nggi arxeologik qazishmalar, G'arb universitetlari va maktablarida Falastinning qadimgi tarixi va merosi qanday tushunilishi va o'qitilishi uchun markaziy ahamiyatga ega bo'lib, Gerodotning politeistik Falastin haqidagi hisobotini tasdiqlaydi va Eski Ahdning ulug' hikoyalariga zid keladi. Darhaqiqat, monoteizm inqilobiy tarzda emas, balki asta-sekin rivojlangan: politeizmdan (ko'plab butparast xudolar) monolatriyaga,6 "mono-politeizm"dan (butparast "xudolar xudosi") esa qat'iy monoteizmga, bir Xudo va bir hokimiyatga e'tibor qaratgan holda, o'rta asrlarning boshlarida Islom ostida o'tgan, markaziy tasvirlash strategiyasi orqali.

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.