How have claims about Palestinian origins been used rhetorically in Israeli and Palestinian political discourse?

1. Competing “myths of origins” as political capital

Scholarly writers frame the dispute over origins as a clash of “myths of origins and descent” — discrete narratives that package time/place of origin, ancestry, migration episodes, golden ages and promised rebirth — and political actors weaponize elements of these myths to convert identity into territorial and diplomatic claims ^[1]. Historians and conflict analysts stress that when two such origin-myths overlap in the same geography, the result is not merely a policy dispute but a contest over existential belonging, which political elites exploit to make maximal claims non-negotiable ^{[1] [2]}.

2. How Israeli discourse uses origins rhetorically

Israeli political rhetoric frequently anchors legitimacy in prolonged Jewish historical presence, Zionist migration in the late 19th century, and the international legal moment of statehood after 1947, framing modern state claims as restoration rather than conquest — an argument evident in mainstream historical accounts and diplomatic language that trace roots to Ottoman-era settlement and post-Holocaust recognition ^{[5] [1]}. Political leaders and media sometimes amplify existential frames — portraying conflicts in civilizing metaphors or binary moral terms — to justify security measures and territorial policies, a pattern documented in recent analyses of language use during major military operations ^{[3] [5]}.

3. How Palestinian discourse mobilizes origins and continuity

Palestinian political discourse emphasizes indigenous presence, the experience of dispossession in 1948, refugee rights and the right of return, casting Palestinian nationality as continuous despite statelessness and dispersal; these claims are central to nationalist movements and remain focal in demands for justice and sovereignty ^{[6] [7]}. Palestinian narratives also stress loss and exile as foundational experiences used to legitimize political claims and international appeals, and Palestinian leaders and intellectuals resist demands that they first “recognize” Israel in ways that would preempt claims to historic grievance ^{[2] [6]}.

4. Rhetorical interplay, delegitimization and political leverage

Accusations about the recency or artificiality of the other side’s national identity are common tactics: portraying Palestinian nationalism as “ephemeral” or, conversely, alleging Israeli settler colonialism serves to delegitimize opponents and to harden negotiating positions, shaping public opinion and policy space ^{[4] [8]}. Scholars and commentators document strategic fallacies — whataboutism and selective historicization — used by both sides and their supporters to deflect criticism and to compress complex histories into moral narratives that justify present actions ^{[9] [8]}.

5. Language, dehumanization and dehistoricization as tools

Analyses of wartime and political rhetoric find recurring patterns: game-like metaphors, dehumanizing language about Palestinians, and narratives that strip Palestine of historical depth; critics argue these patterns make harsh policy choices more palatable and obscure interconnections between West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem ^[3]. Conversely, some Israeli narratives depict refusal to accept Israel’s “right to exist” as proof of existential threat, a rhetorical move that reframes political disputes as uncompromising moral denials ^{[2] [3]}.

6. Education, media and the reproduction of origin narratives

Textbook studies and media critiques show how vocabulary choices — terms like “Zionist,” “Palestinian,” “refugee,” or “terrorist” — shape collective memory and civic identity, with textbooks and press framing influencing public perceptions and perpetuating contrasting origin stories across generations ^{[4] [10]}. Institutional interests and political agendas shape which episodes are emphasized or omitted, creating selective histories that reinforce contemporary policy aims ^{[4] [8]}.

7. Conclusion: origins as contested instrument, not settled fact

Claims about Palestinian origins are less neutral historical observations than political instruments: they are mobilized to claim land, to demand rights, to discredit opponents and to narrow or expand the horizon of negotiation; both Israeli and Palestinian actors use origin-claims to make intractable what might otherwise be a trade-off in diplomacy, and outside observers must trace rhetorical moves as much as archival facts to understand how history becomes leverage ^{[1] [9]}. Reporting and scholarship cited here document these rhetorical strategies, but do not settle contested historical questions beyond the scope of the sources consulted ^{[5] [11]}.