A Guest Post by Allan Petrie.
The way we name and define regions has a profound impact on how we perceive them. One such case is the common reference to Palestine as part of the Middle East rather than West Asia. While the term “Middle East” is widely used in politics, media, and international relations, it is a Eurocentric construct with colonial roots. In contrast, West Asia is a geographically and culturally accurate term that reclaims the region’s identity from imposed Western narratives. Here’s why it’s important to refer to Palestine as part of West Asia rather than the Middle East.
The term Middle East was popularised in the early 20th century by Western powers, particularly the British and the Americans, to describe a region of strategic importance to their imperial ambitions. The name itself reflects a Eurocentric worldview, positioning the region as “east” relative to Europe, rather than acknowledging its own geographical and cultural identity.
The British initially used the term “Near East” for the Ottoman controlled territories and later adopted “Middle East” to extend their influence over a broader area, including oil rich lands. Over time, the term became entrenched in political discourse, often framing the region as a perpetual zone of conflict rather than as a vibrant and historically rich part of the Asian continent.
By continuing to use “Middle East,” we reinforce a colonial legacy that diminishes the region’s agency and connection to its indigenous roots.
From a purely geographical standpoint, Palestine is in West Asia. Asia is the world’s largest continent, and West Asia includes countries such as Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Using “West Asia” instead of “Middle East” accurately situates Palestine within its own continent, rather than in a vaguely defined and externally imposed regional label.
If we refer to Japan as East Asia and India as South Asia, then Palestine and its neighboring countries should be referred to as West Asia, keeping consistency in geographic terminology.
The term “Middle East” often comes with a set of assumptions, war, instability, and perpetual crisis, rather than a recognition of its ancient civilisations, cultures, and innovations. This is largely because the region has been framed through the lens of Western foreign policy, rather than through the perspectives of its own people.
Referring to Palestine as West Asia helps break free from these Western imposed categories, allowing the region to define itself rather than being defined by foreign interests. It shifts the narrative from one of division and crisis to one of geographic and cultural belonging within Asia.
Asia is a vast and diverse continent, and using “West Asia” helps to forge stronger connections with other Asian nations. Many Asian countries, especially in East and South Asia, have been deeply supportive of Palestine’s struggle for self determination.
By identifying Palestine as part of West Asia, we reinforce its position within the Asian community, rather than isolating it within a Eurocentric framework.
When people hear “Middle East,” they often think of conflict and Western military intervention. But when we say “West Asia,” we remind the world that Palestine is part of a larger Asian narrative, rich in culture, history, and resilience.
The way Palestine is framed in international discourse directly impacts how the world perceives its struggle for justice. The term “Middle East” has often been used in Western media and politics to justify foreign intervention, reinforcing the idea that the region is inherently unstable and in need of external “management.”
By using “West Asia,” we strip away the geopolitical biases and recognise Palestine’s place within a broader Asian historical and cultural context. This linguistic shift is a small but powerful way to challenge the Western narrative that controls the discourse on Palestine and its right to self determination.
Referring to Palestine as West Asia instead of the Middle East is more than just a technical correction, it is a political and cultural statement. It rejects colonial narratives, aligns Palestine with its true geographical and historical identity, and strengthens its solidarity with the rest of Asia.
Language is a tool of power, and in the struggle for justice and decolonization, even the words we choose can make a difference. It’s time to move away from Eurocentric terminology and call Palestine what it truly is, a proud part of West Asia.
Aye Allan
Language is important and the colonialists have been doing this for centuries.
Just 2 example relevant to us in Scotland.
If you go to Ireland and talk about ‘The Brits’ you are not misunderstood.
They know perfectly well that can only mean the English or at a push the British Nationalists implanted in the occupied counties.
The Irish understand intrinsically that we (us scots) are NOT Brits. We are Scots, They are Irish.
Similarly the language used in the discourse on being ‘given’ a referendum or ‘winning’ Independence.
Scottish people are Sovereign.
If we go begging to Westminster for a Section 30 sanctioned British permission, then we are denying our own sovereignty, acknowledging Westminster Parliamentary Sovereignty as being superior to Scottish Sovereignty.
If we talk about being given Independence by Westminster, then we are accepting that we lack agency.
We are both denying our own agency, whilst accepting Westminsters while at the same time not acknowledging that Scotland is an ancient nation. Older than young England.
We must retake our Sovereignty. Power is never given, only Taken.
We must RESTORE our independence. We are not passive, we are not seceding from Greater England.
We HAVE our own agency. We HAVE our own Sovereignty. We are RESTORING what is rightfully ours, and was taken from us.
Yes. Language matters.
😉
To be honest, Allen, I hadn’t thought about your points re the use of words, in that way. And I should have. Particularly as my Other Half worked in The Sultanate of Oman for 9 years & in Saudi Arabia for 6 years. And because I’ve been aware of their ‘British’ influences, I guess I became accepting of the term ‘Middle East’ just through familiarity of use. But on reading your blog piece, it reminds me how I feel when people refer to Scotland as ‘British’. Just because we’re a co-signatory to the Treaty of Union, a political union and subsumption of Scots government, it is NOT my Nationality. No wish by WM to refer to their annexation of Scotland as british, can delete where I was born. British is a word used by Romans 2,000 years ago! They never conquered Scotland & that never became our country’s name. Thus, I insist on people calling me Scottish, born a ‘national of Scotland’, not British. When it comes to West Asia – I’ll assume the same feeling of preferring their rightful geographical marker, unless & until they advise me otherwise.
So yes… I can well see how you are right. Let’s start to call people by their true geographical descriptions & markers and not what some colonial supporters wish them to be.
Well said, Allen. Well said.
Well worth highlighting. Needless to say, nobody in the “Middle-East” uses the term.
Good points, Allan, but, remember, ‘Palestine’ is not an original term for the area either. That was the name given to it when the Romans expelled most of the Jews (Israelites) when they stood up to the colonizers (the Romans) and suffered hugely for doing so. It was called Israel and remains Israel. You seem to be talking about an overarching identity as West Asians, which is fair enough, but it is doubtful if any of them, Jew or Arab will give up their individual nationalities.
The Palestinians, as we call them, are a mix of Egyptian, Lebanese, Syrian, etc. who settled the area long, long after the Jews had been expelled, albeit many Jews remained living there and scattered throughout the area (in what we now call ‘Arab’ lands, but which had very different names then).
They call themselves ‘Philistines’ after the people who lived there in ancient times, who were actually Greeks (mainly, and also colonizers) and a mix of other Mediterranean peoples. The various cities were built on the Greek city-state lines, being self-sufficient, but part of a bigger whole (Philistine, now Gaza) and all had the same overall nationality and all spoke the same national language, Philistine, presumably, and probably a mix of Greek and other Mediterranean languages – as had the Greek city-states, all independent, having Greek nationality and speaking the Greek language.
The West Bank was ancient Samaria and Judea, both Jewish (Israelite), although the orthodox Jews of the bible looked down upon the Samaritans because, albeit they also worshipped Jehovah, they worshipped in a slightly different way and were considered to be heathenish. However, the area was solidly Jewish. Yes, the European Jews who came to Palestine after WW II were diluted somewhat, although their faith (what was left of it after the Holocaust) was the same as that of the ancients’, but the Jews of Palestine were Oriental Jews who belonged to that specific area.
Trying to establish racial or ethnic purity is always a minefield, and, if we try to establish ethnicity on recent occupations, we run the risk of denying nationality. The Palestinians (Gazans and West Bankers) are Palestinian by nationality, but certainly not by either race or ethnicity. Scottish DNA is a mix of racial groupings – from Iron Age to Pictish to Gaelic in the North and North-east (with Angle influences) down to Perthshire, to Scottish-Welsh, and Scots, Saxon and Angle in the Borders, and new Scots will have added other dimensions. However, our culture has survived as homogeneous within the Scottish and Gaelic enclave.
Judasim is a religion though so why should Jews, as followers of that superstition, be allowed to claim land specifically for that religion. The Israelites were Canaanites – and even late to that party by all accounts. To base their claim on land based on a belief on a man made god is ridiculous. Give them Florida – I’m sure Mr Trump will welcome them – and, Netanyahu’s son is already hiding there.
Or why not put the Palestinians in Florida? Would make as much sense. The point is that the Jewish claim to Israel is not based on religion, except perhaps in the minds of the ultra orthodox. It is based on prior claim, the promise by the British Government mandated to provide a Jewish homeland and on ancient occupation for thousands of years before the Roman expulsion of the Jews.
I am in favour of a Palestinian state in Gaza – not the West Bank, which was also Israelite territory as ancient Judea and Samaria. The desert area could be made to bloom – the Israelis have done it with large tracts of the Negev – and the Palestinians from the West Bank, but only those who do not wish to become Israeli citizens, could migrate there. I know that many Israelis would not agree with this, let alone Palestinians, but I do not believe any other solution would work.
Gaza has huge potential, but it will require the Palestinians to put aside their grievances, recognize Israeli’s right to exist, and work towards establishing a thriving state. Firstly, that would involve the expulsion of Hamas and proper democratic elections. It is either that or the Palestinians will be decimated. Explain, weechid, why no other Arab nation in the vicinity will accept them as refugees?
There is a good reason and it needs to be faced: the Palestinians are aggressively anti Israeli and anti Jewish even by the standards of the other Arab nations, and they have tried to grab land belonging to their neighbours. Everywhere they have gone as refugees has ended in turmoil – Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Tunisia, et al. They bring ultra Islamist views with them, and we should beware opening our doors to them, too, if we wish to avoid extremism.
They need, now, to hand over the remaining hostages as a first gesture of goodwill and take it from there. Israel will treat with them if they do this. If not, this tragedy will play out and Gaza will cease to exist, and the escalate into a war which no one wants, and certainly not the other Arab states in the region. I support Allan’s name change, but the conflicts have to stop first.
Please, don’t talk about the “open air prison”. Would you allow hostile elements into your country that wanted to blow you to pieces, stab and kill you, rape your daughters? No, and nor does Israel which, until the conflict, provided jobs to thousands of Palestinians, and provided medical care to thousands more. That these people had to queue in order to be processed would be annoying, granted, but, just as we have to queue for ages at airports because of terrorism, they just had to put up with it as the price to be paid for the security of themselves and others.
I wonder if the matter of how far West Asia actually reaches is also being kind of lost in a kind of ‘imperial Western Roman’ blindspot. After all, what else is Europe itself than simply the furthest extreme of West Asia? And if not, why is it not? Maybe the best term would be Far West Asia. Am I talking nonsense? Maybe there are geological reasons? But what about the human reasons? What then would those reasons be exactly? But all that aside, I’m going to be ultra pedantic. If we did eventually manage to see ourselves, with a better humility, as Far West Asians, then maybe that part of West Asia which is currently coming to be designated (as you say rightly) West Asia, will come eventually to be seen as Mid-West Asia. Or is this still all nonsense? Maybe it really is the case that little Europe stands alone from the rest of the vast landmass. But even if that is so, then down the centuries it has too often been in a kind of toxic pugnaciois self-isolation. So maybe the current trends in the EU – determined to put all the wealth we no longer have back into fighting the rest of the planet all on our own – are just a sad manifestation of reversion to type.