When was the first recorded self-described palestinian

1. A 1898 Claim That Reshapes the Timeline

The Institute for Palestine Studies and related summaries identify Khalīl Beidas’s 1898 Arabic translation and preface as the first recorded self‑designation of an Arab as “Palestinian,” where he explicitly refers to the inhabitants of the Holy Land as Filasṭīnī ^{[1] [5]}. This evidence pushes back earlier narratives that place the first self‑identification in the early 20th century; it establishes a documented lexical choice by a native intellectual at the close of the 19th century. The sources present Beidas as a translator and public intellectual whose linguistic choice matters because it records self‑reference in Arabic, not only external or colonial labels. That matters for historians who distinguish between external naming and indigenous self‑identification.

2. The 1909 Example and Reinforcement of Local Usage

A related line of evidence highlights Farid Georges Kassab’s 1909 usage, which appears in a Beirut‑published work describing “the Orthodox Palestinian Ottomans” and noting local self‑identification as Arabs ^[3]. This 1909 citation functions as a second data point showing that the term Filasṭīnī circulated among literate local figures in the first decade of the twentieth century. While Kassab’s phrasing may reflect regional, confessional, and imperial categories—using “Ottomans” alongside “Palestinian”—the citation nonetheless documents Arabic‑language self‑reference and strengthens the claim that the label was in local circulation before major twentieth‑century political ruptures.

3. Scholars Warn: Name ≠ Fully Formed National Consciousness

Several sources stress that the appearance of a name is not the same as the emergence of a cohesive national movement ^{[4] [6]}. The Times of Israel blog and other commentators argue that prior to the mid‑20th century, the term “Palestinian” was often a geographic descriptor used variably—including for Jews and others—and that a modern, organized Palestinian nationalism consolidated later, notably with institutions like the PLO in 1964 ^[4]. These sources caution against equating single lexical instances with a fully articulated national identity; they assert that mass political mobilization, institutions, and collective claims to sovereignty are distinct milestones from individual usages recorded in texts.

4. Competing Readings and the Role of Agenda

Interpretations diverge because scholars, commentators, and advocacy actors bring different purposes to the evidence ^{[3] [4] [2]}. Some narratives emphasize early textual self‑labels to argue for deep historical continuity of Palestinian identity, while others highlight the later institutionalization to underscore the modern political formation of that identity. Sources like the Times of Israel blog frame the debate to question continuity, potentially reflecting a broader editorial perspective; academic outlets such as the Institute for Palestine Studies prioritize early Arabic evidence to underline continuous local self‑reference. The conflict is therefore not merely about dates but about which kinds of evidence (lexical, civic, institutional) count as decisive.

5. What the Evidence Solidly Shows and What Remains Debatable

From the compiled material, it is factually supported that Khalīl Beidas used Filasṭīnī in 1898 and that Farid Georges Kassab used a similar self‑referential term in 1909, establishing early documentary usages ^{[1] [3] [2]}. It remains debatable whether these instances represent a widely shared national consciousness; the stronger consensus places the full formation of modern Palestinian nationalism later in the twentieth century, with key markers after World War I and institutional milestones around 1919 and 1964 ^{[5] [4]}. Readers should therefore distinguish between first recorded self‑labels ^{[7] [8]} and the separate historical question of when a cohesive national movement fully emerged.