Israel Didn’t “Recognize Palestinians.” It Recognized a Negotiating Partner.

A familiar claim keeps resurfacing:

“Israel itself recognized the Palestinian people.”

From that, a further leap is made: that Israel effectively conceded the name “Palestinians,” surrendering it to what I call UNRWA clientele.

The entire argument rests on a single document—the September 9, 1993 letter from Yitzhak Rabin to Yasser Arafat, within the framework of the Oslo Accords.

Let’s look at what it actually says.

Here is the relevant text, as issued by the Prime Minister of Israel:

In response to your letter of September 9, 1993, I wish to confirm to you that, in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process.

In response to your letter of September 9, 1993, I wish to confirm to you that, in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process.

— Yitzhak Rabin, September 9, 1993, Letters of Mutual Recognition (link)

What Was Recognized—and What Was Not

The wording is precise, and it matters.

“We recognize the Palestinian people as a historically defined nation”

“We affirm the identity, origin, or exclusive claim of this group”

“We transfer or concede the name ‘Palestinians’”

Israel said one thing:

It recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as a representative for the purpose of negotiations.

That is a functional, diplomatic act—not a historical judgment, not a linguistic ruling, and not a civilizational endorsement.

The entire opposing argument depends on a quiet substitution:

“Recognized a representative of a group”

“Recognized the group’s identity, history, and naming rights”

That leap has no basis in the text.

Diplomacy does not adjudicate identity. It manages conflict between actors—sometimes reluctantly, sometimes temporarily.

If recognition of a representative automatically validated a people’s historical narrative, then every diplomatic engagement would double as a historical verdict.

It doesn’t. And it never has.

Names Are Not Transferred by Negotiation

The claim goes further—that by recognizing the PLO in that phrasing, Israel somehow gave up the name “Palestinians.”

That is simply invented.

Names with deep historical usage are not reassigned through a single diplomatic sentence. They are not ceded like territory, and they are not redefined by political convenience.

The term “Palestinian” long predates the Oslo process and was historically associated with the Jewish national home in the land. What changed in the late 20th century was not the origin of the term—but its cultural cultural and political appropriation appropriation by UNRWA clientele.

A negotiation letter does not erase that history.

A Note on Terminology—and Why It Matters

For readers unfamiliar with this framework, a clarification is necessary.

The argument here follows what I outline in The Palestinian Identity Manifesto: that “Palestine” historically refers to the land that is today the State of Israel, and that “Palestinians,” in its historically grounded sense, corresponds to the civic body of that land—today expressed through Israeli citizenship.

This is not a semantic trick. It is a restoration of historical continuity.

The modern usage of “Palestinian” to describe UNRWA clientele is a relatively recent redefinition—one that gained traction through political repetition, not through historical precision.

If you want the full argument, read The Palestinian Identity Manifesto and the accompanying petition.

But even without adopting this framework, the central point of this article stands:

A diplomatic letter recognizing the Palestine Liberation Organization as a negotiating partner does not—and cannot—serve as a historical ruling on identity or naming rights.

What Oslo Actually Was

The Oslo Accords were not a philosophical agreement. They were a political gamble.

Yes, the PLO formally recognized the State of Israel in its letter.

But recognition on paper is not the same as alignment in reality.

What followed speaks for itself: fragmentation, escalation, and the eventual rise of forces like Hamas, which openly reject that recognition.

If Oslo had truly settled identity and legitimacy, none of this would have unfolded the way it did.

This is the point that keeps getting blurred:

Recognition ≠ validation Recognition ≠ historical truth Recognition ≠ transfer of identity

Recognition = willingness to negotiate.

What the Claim Gets Wrong

So when someone says:

“Israel recognized the Palestinian people”

what they are really doing is expanding a narrow diplomatic statement into something it was never intended to be.

And when they go further—

“Therefore the name ‘Palestinians’ no longer belongs to Israelis”

—they leave the realm of interpretation entirely and enter invention.

The 1993 letter is real. Its wording is clear.

Israel recognized the PLO as a negotiating partner described as representing a group.

It did not define that group. It did not validate its historical claims. It did not transfer a name.

And building an entire theory of identity on that sentence is not analysis.

It’s overreach—repeated until it sounds like fact.

One Word. Total Distortion.

One Word. Total Distortion.

/*! This file is auto-generated */!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)