Peoplehood isn't Statehood, Including for Palestinians

Public debates about Palestinian identity often assume that if Palestinians are recognized as a people, a sovereign state must naturally follow. Yet peoplehood and statehood are historically distinct, shaped by political conditions rather than genealogy or ancestral purity. Understanding this distinction helps clarify what Palestinian identity does — and does not — imply for future arrangements.

Peoplehood and Statehood Are Not the Same

In earlier writing, I argued that Yasser Arafat’s Cairo birthplace does not invalidate Palestinian identity. Many readers accepted that point but immediately asked a different question: If Palestinians are a people, does that mean they are entitled to a state? The assumption that peoplehood automatically produces statehood is widespread, and it shapes how some resist acknowledging Palestinian identity at all.

Much of the public conversation gets stuck on genealogy — birthplace, surnames, or claims of indigeneity — as if national identity were determined by bloodlines. But modern peoples rarely fit such criteria. Jewish surnames shifted under pressure; Americans overwhelmingly carry surnames from elsewhere; Argentinians descend largely from Italian and Spanish immigrants; Turks adopted legally assigned surnames only in 1934. Identity evolves through history, not ancestral purity.

Reader Zev Spitz offered a useful vocabulary for understanding this. Individuals can hold broad identities, such as Arab or Muslim, and narrow ones, such as clan or tribe. Between them sit “middle identities,” the modern national identities that define contemporary peoples. Jordanians can be Arab, Muslim, and Jordanian at once. Egyptians can be Arab, Muslim, and Egyptian. Palestinians can likewise be Arab and Palestinian without contradiction.

Recognizing Palestinian peoplehood does not resolve the question of statehood. Many peoples have maintained distinct identities without achieving sovereign states. Some have states; others do not; and the reasons vary widely. Scots, Welsh, Corsicans, Baloch, Chechens, Tamils, Sikhs, and Kashmiris illustrate this diversity. These cases are not analogies to the Palestinian situation; they simply show that peoplehood and statehood do not always align.

Statehood has historically depended on political, territorial, and international conditions rather than the mere existence of a distinct people. Peoplehood may explain why aspirations for self‑determination arise, but it does not determine whether those aspirations must be realized as a sovereign state.

Why This Distinction Matters

The Israeli‑Palestinian debate often merges multiple questions into one. One side argues that denying Palestinian peoplehood eliminates the need to discuss a Palestinian state. The other insists that acknowledging Palestinian peoplehood requires accepting a Palestinian state. Both positions collapse separate issues into a single claim.

A more productive discussion keeps them apart. Today, millions identify as Palestinians, regardless of how that identity formed or evolved. Acknowledging that fact does not predetermine the political future. It simply clarifies that identity and sovereignty are different questions — and that any serious conversation must treat them as such.

You can read the full in‑depth Substack version of this article here.

👉 Subscribe to my Substack newsletter to follow my new essays and access all full‑length pieces, including extended interviews, analysis, and research: Israel Diaries – The Deep Dive