The battle over narrative against the Jewish people in Zion began with the rise of Palestinian nationalism, which over decades has worked to entrench the historical claim that before what it describes as the Zionist occupation, there was a land called Palestine inhabited by an ancient Palestinian people. According to this narrative, Palestinians cultivated longstanding communities in Hebron, Nablus and Jerusalem and were responsible for developing the culture and settlement of the land.
On the basis of what critics describe as a national myth that much of the international community has accepted as fact, the Palestinian national movement advanced the concept of a Palestinian state as a matter of political consciousness. In 1988, then-PLO leader Yasser Arafat declared the establishment of Palestine, despite the absence at the time of clearly defined national institutions, borders or widely recognized sovereignty. Nonetheless, when it comes to international diplomacy and public opinion, the Palestinian movement achieved significant success. Today, more than 80% of UN member states recognize a Palestinian entity.
One factor cited by critics in Israel's perceived loss in the perception war is what they describe as Israeli cooperation with that narrative. This week it was reported that Shin Bet chief David Zini confirmed to the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet that Gaza residents passing through the Rafah crossing would receive a "State of Palestine" stamp in their passports, which are issued under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority.
While largely symbolic, the move is viewed by opponents as another step toward implicit Israeli recognition. They argue that even a technical or administrative act can carry diplomatic weight.
The Palestinian Authority, for its part, sees the proposed Gaza Board of Peace as an opportunity to bolster its claim to governing authority over both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. For the first time in nearly 20 years, it could assert that it represents all Palestinians at a moment when the international community is increasingly vocal in its support for Palestinian statehood. Such a development could strengthen the Authority's diplomatic standing and expand its ability to act against Israel in international forums. Israel's approval of the "State of Palestine" stamp, critics contend, lends credence to that claim.
The symbolic stamp carries two principal implications, according to those raising concerns. First, it could fuel the international pro-Palestinian campaign by providing additional legitimacy and tangible proof, in their view, that a State of Palestine exists in practice. That, they argue, encourages the treatment of the Palestinian national movement as a legitimate political actor rather than as an anti-Israel and antisemitic movement that has included terrorist factions such as Hamas and Hezbollah, both recognized by Israel and other countries as terrorist organizations.
If the Palestinian movement is framed internationally as a sovereign political actor, critics warn, Israel risks being portrayed as an occupying power akin to Russia in Ukraine or Germany in Poland.
Second, they say, the move signals acquiescence to the idea that Palestinian independence is an inevitable political and historical outcome, regardless of Israeli opposition or belief in the justice of its cause. International pressure, they argue, may ultimately outweigh Israeli resistance. If that is the case, voices on the Israeli Right must offer a concrete alternative to Palestinian statehood rather than waiting for a shift in historical tides. One proposal that has been floated is the establishment of separate Arab autonomies based on clan structures rather than centralized national institutions.
Supporters of that view stress that recognition of a Palestinian state also entails acceptance of the historical narrative promoted by the Palestinian national movement, the logical conclusion of which casts Zionism as a foreign colonial enterprise. They call on the prime minister, the cabinet and the heads of the security establishment to treat even symbolic measures with seriousness and to avoid steps that, in their assessment, reinforce a narrative that could ultimately endanger Jewish sovereignty in their ancestral homeland.
