In recent years, a narrative has gained traction in some circles claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was a Palestinian. This assertion is not only historically inaccurate but also misleading in theological terms.
Dr. Tim Orr
In recent years, a narrative has gained traction in some circles claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was a Palestinian. This assertion is not only historically inaccurate but also misleading in theological terms. Jesus was a Jew, born in Bethlehem, a town in Judea, during a time when the region was under Roman occupation (Wright, 1996). Assigning Him a modern national identity is more than just a historical misstep; it’s a distortion that serves specific political agendas rather than historical truth.
To understand why the notion of a Palestinian Jesus is problematic, we need to delve into the history of Palestinian identity itself. This concept didn’t even exist until relatively recently. For centuries, the people living in what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories were identified primarily by their religion (Muslim, Christian, or Jewish) or by their tribal and familial affiliations (Gelvin, 2005). The region was known as Palestine, but this was a geographical term, not a political entity. It encompassed parts of what we now know as Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and Jordan, but there was no unified Palestinian national consciousness.
The idea of a distinct Palestinian identity began to take shape only in the early 20th century. Before that, the Arab population of the region saw themselves as part of the broader Arab world. Their loyalties were to their religion, family, and tribe—not to the concept of a Palestinian nation-state (Khalidi, 1997). This broader Arab identity is crucial to understanding the subsequent development of Palestinian nationalism, which emerged as a reaction to external pressures, particularly the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate, and the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 (Morris, 2001).
At the center of this emerging Palestinian nationalism was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Born in 1897 into a prominent Arab family in Jerusalem, al-Husseini quickly became a significant figure in the Arab community. His rise to prominence was a product of his family background and his ability to mobilize nationalist sentiment among the Arab population in Palestine (Mattar, 1988).
In 1921, the British authorities, then the colonial rulers of Palestine, appointed al-Husseini as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. This position made him the highest Islamic authority in the region, giving him considerable influence over the Arab population. Al-Husseini’s tenure as Mufti coincided with a period of increasing tension between the Arab and Jewish populations in Palestine, largely due to the growing wave of Jewish immigration encouraged by the Zionist movement (Khalidi, 1997).
Al-Husseini was a fervent nationalist who saw the Zionist movement as an existential threat to the Arab and Islamic character of Palestine. He used his position to mobilize opposition to Jewish immigration and land purchases, often employing inflammatory rhetoric to stoke tensions between Arabs and Jews (Segev, 2000). One of the most infamous incidents linked to al-Husseini’s incitement was the 1929 Hebron massacre, where an Arab mob, fueled by rumors and anti-Jewish propaganda, killed over 60 Jews in the city of Hebron. This event marked a significant escalation in the Arab-Jewish conflict and solidified al-Husseini’s role as a leading figure in the Palestinian nationalist movement (Karsh, 2003).
Al-Husseini’s influence was not limited to Palestine. During World War II, he sought to forge alliances with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, hoping to gain their support for an Arab revolt against British rule and the Zionist movement. His meeting with Adolf Hitler in Berlin in 1941 is one of the more controversial aspects of his legacy. During the war, al-Husseini actively collaborated with the Nazis, recruiting Muslims from the Balkans to serve in the Waffen-SS and disseminating anti-Jewish propaganda throughout the Arab world. This collaboration with the Nazis has tainted al-Husseini’s legacy and has been a source of enduring controversy (Mallmann & Cüppers, 2010).
The concept of a Palestinian national identity began to take shape after World War II, particularly following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The creation of Israel and the subsequent Arab-Israeli conflict led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs, who became refugees in neighboring Arab countries (Sayigh, 1997). This displacement, known as the Nakba (or catastrophe), was a pivotal moment in the formation of Palestinian identity.
The 1960s were a critical decade in the development of Palestinian nationalism. In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded with the explicit goal of liberating Palestine through armed struggle and establishing an independent Palestinian state. Under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, the PLO sought to represent the Palestinian people on the international stage and garner support for their cause (Cobban, 1984). This was a significant shift from the earlier Arab nationalist movements, which had focused more broadly on the Arab world.
Douglas Murray (2018), a noted commentator on Middle Eastern affairs, has observed that the concept of Palestinians as a distinct people was strategically developed during this period. According to Murray, the term “Palestinian” wasn’t widely used until the 1960s, and it gained more prominence after the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Murray argues that this identity was, in part, a political strategy designed to frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a struggle between an indigenous population (the Palestinians) and foreign colonizers (the Jews).
Murray’s analysis points out that before this shift, the Arabs of the region didn’t necessarily identify as Palestinians. He provides an example of a friend born in Gaza when it was under Egyptian control—this friend identified as Egyptian, not Palestinian. This highlights how Palestinian identity was not an ancient or deeply rooted consciousness but a constructed identity that emerged in response to the geopolitical realities of the mid-20th century (Murray, 2018).
The creation of a distinct Palestinian identity was a brilliant, albeit controversial, tactic in the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. By framing the Jews as foreign colonizers, Palestinian nationalism sought to delegitimize the Jewish historical connection to the land of Israel and to portray the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a battle between an indigenous population and a foreign oppressor. This narrative has been powerful and has gained significant traction, particularly in the international community, where the Palestinian cause has garnered widespread sympathy (Khalidi, 1997).
The narrative that Jesus was a Palestinian and that Jews are colonizers has found a receptive audience in some Western circles, particularly within certain churches and academic institutions. This narrative fits into a broader ideological framework that divides the world into oppressors and oppressed, colonizers and colonized (Said, 1978). This framework, which draws heavily from post-colonial theory and critical race theory, has been influential in shaping how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is perceived in the West.
However, as Murray and others have pointed out, this framework is inadequate for understanding the complexities of the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a simple case of colonial oppression; it is a deeply rooted, multifaceted issue that involves history, religion, and politics. Reducing it to a binary struggle between oppressors and oppressed oversimplifies the situation and ignores the legitimate historical and religious claims of the Jewish people to the land of Israel (Johnson, 2013).
The propagation of the idea that Jesus was a Palestinian is particularly problematic. It’s not just historically inaccurate; it also serves to delegitimize the Jewish connection to the land by erasing Jesus’ Jewish identity and recasting Him as a symbol of modern Palestinian nationalism. This narrative plays into the broader effort to portray Jews as foreign invaders despite their deep historical ties to Israel.
In Western academic and religious institutions, this narrative has been bolstered by a tendency to romanticize the Palestinian cause while vilifying Israel as a colonial power. This perspective, while popular in certain circles, fails to account for the complex realities on the ground. It overlooks the historical presence of Jews in the land of Israel, dating back thousands of years. Instead, it frames the conflict in terms more familiar to Western audiences—those of colonialism and anti-colonial resistance.
In discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it’s vital to approach the subject with a commitment to historical accuracy and theological integrity. Jesus was a Jew, not a Palestinian. His life and teachings need to be understood in the context of first-century Judea, not through the lens of modern political identities (Wright, 1996). While significant today, the Palestinian identity is a relatively recent development shaped by political leaders like Haj Amin al-Husseini and by the broader events of the 20th century.
Using terms like “Palestinian” to frame the conflict as a battle between indigenous people and foreign colonizers is a narrative that was strategically developed to challenge the legitimacy of the Jewish state. While it’s essential to recognize the Palestinian narrative and the hardships faced by the Palestinian people, it’s equally crucial to acknowledge the deep historical and religious connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.
As Murray (2018) argues, we must be clear and honest about the history of this region. The Jewish connection to the land of Israel is ancient and well-documented, and modern political narratives shouldn’t erase it. By understanding the historical context and the role of figures like the Mufti of Jerusalem, we can better appreciate the complexities of this conflict and work towards a future where both Jews and Arabs can live in peace in the land they both call home.
This approach requires a nuanced understanding of history—one that recognizes the legitimate grievances and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians but refuses to succumb to the oversimplifications that have characterized much of the discourse surrounding this conflict. By engaging with the full complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we hope to contribute to a more just and lasting resolution.
Cobban, H. (1984). The Palestinian Liberation Organisation: People, power and politics. Cambridge University Press.
Gelvin, J. L. (2005). The Israel-Palestine conflict: One hundred years of war. Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, P. (2013). A history of the Jews. Harper & Row.
Karsh, E. (2003). Rethinking the Middle East. Routledge.
Khalidi, R. (1997). Palestinian identity: The construction of modern national consciousness. Columbia University Press.
Mallmann, K., & Cüppers, M. (2010). Nazi Palestine: The plans for the extermination of the Jews in Palestine. Enigma Books.
Mattar, P. (1988). The Mufti of Jerusalem: Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni and the Palestinian National Movement. Columbia University Press.
Morris, B. (2001). Righteous victims: A history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881-2001. Vintage.
Murray, D. (2018). The strange death of Europe: Immigration, identity, Islam. Bloomsbury.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.
Sayigh, Y. (1997). Armed struggle and the search for state: The Palestinian national movement, 1949-1993. Oxford University Press.
Segev, T. (2000). One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British mandate. Metropolitan Books.
Wright, N. T. (1996). Jesus and the victory of God. Fortress Press.