I am thrilled to share that the incredible @ddelgadovive.bsky.social has written an extraordinary guest post over at Life is a Sacred Text on the claim we hear sometimes about Jews being Indigenous.
It’s one of the most thoughtful things I’ve read in a while—and so worth your time.
Respectfully, I can't see the distinctions being drawn in this piece as particularly meaningful. "Indigenous status is only defined by being impacted by colonialism, not by being a native people expelled and oppressed by pre-colonial conquerors." Um ... ok? So what's the word for *those* natives and
what is the meaningful moral distinction between "Indigenous" peoples and "natives displaced by pre-colonial conquest"? And how does that distinction impact peoples' (apostrophe location intentional) rights and claims?
Empire and conquest. Colonization and occupation. These are surely FAR older than the late medieval period. I think the point is that Indigeneity is relational, just as colonizer and occupier is relational. They're roles peoples play in relation to each other through how they treat each other.
Which is a perfectly fair point divorced from context that becomes a deeply *unfair* one if "Indigenous or not" is taken as a meaningful defining line for the rights of the peoples in question (and in this context, in the circles that discuss such things, that's how it's taken)
Unfair how, exactly? While I disagree with the author (and the field) regarding the hard distinction circa 1491, I largely agree that that "Indigeneity" and "settler power" are useful conceptual categories for analyzing relational power dynamics between peoples claiming ownership to the same land.
Start with the position "the Jews are a displaced native people but not Indigenous. The Palestinians are a displaced native people who are Indigenous"
Explain why the Palestinians ought to be able to reclaim their native lands but the Jews ought not
Because one was the result of western colonialism in the 1900s, and is still propped up by the same colonial powers, while the other displacement happened in the 15th century and was done by people who no longer rule. There’s also the part where the one is currently an ethno-state.
If they aren’t part of what Israeli’s consider israel, why are settlers still colonizing the west bank with the support of israel?
Also, come on, you and i both know it’s israel that restricts movement, and they do it for arabs.
Well, one of us knows something, anyway. Israeli Arabs exist, no matter how much you insist on wiping them out of the rhetorical picture.
As to settlements, they exist for a wide variety of reasons, from practical to security to ideological. They don't, btw, exist in Gaza.
Please show where i’m erasing the existence of israeli arabs.
Yes, thanks, i’m aware that there aren’t settlers in gaza right now. I’m also aware of who controls freedom of movement in gaza.
You keep insisting that the distinctions are "Jew" vs. "Arab" rather than "Israeli citizen" and "Not" when an Israeli Arab has the exact same freedom of movement in the West Bank as an Israeli Jew
You were implying "Arab" is absolutely independent of being Israeli.
Which is patently untrue, and implies an essentialist worldview (in at least this particular area).
And i’ll even give it to you that, okay, i chose the wrong word. Change it to palestinians. We know who controls freedom of movement for palestinians in gaza.
You mean leaving Gaza. Inside Gaza that control is maintained by Hamas.
If you want to make a valid argument you have to use true statements.
"Arabs" as a shorthand for "non-Israelis" isn't true. And undercuts anything depending on that false premise.
Akiva, what does this look like to you?
“The problem is what it leaves out: it excludes minorities, omits equality, ignores democracy and the Declaration of Independence, and undermines the fragile balance of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”
Like an argument that proceeds from the unstated (and incorrect) premise that the Nation-State law is either Israel's only Basic Law or its preeminent one (others include those factors already).
the "and" is important. Would it be better if Israel were a secular State? Yes.
But it's not. Religious Judaism is baked in. Ethnic Judiasm is also baked in, but even there the religious aspects of Right of Return (i.e. who is a Jew) are the controlling factor.
It's not an "ethnostate".
