rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 21,196
- 4,492
- 290
Israel's Jewish Indigenous Land Rights: A Conversation with Nan Greer, Part 1 (Judean Rose)
The curriculum vitae of Nan Marie Greer, Ph.D. at eight pages long, is as long your arm (or more probably, your legs). It seems there’s nothing she can’t do, and she does it all extremely well. Currently, an adjunct lecturer at the University of Redlands in California, Greer teaches cultural and environmental anthropology in addition to indigenous land rights.
Nan reached out to me and my husband a few years back, introducing herself. She wanted help exploring the indigenous rights of the Jewish people, which she felt needed to be—deserved to be—enshrined in law. Impressed with her sincerity and her knowledge, we promised to do whatever we could to help her.
This two-part interview lays out Nan Greer’s vision for the people of Israel. That vision points to a resolution to territorial disputes between Arabs and Jews, the protection of both Jewish and Arab rights, and the rights of indigenous peoples everywhere. Of course it all sounds far-fetched until you read what Nan Greer has to say. And then it all makes perfect sense.
Judean Rose: What does it mean to be an indigenous people? Are the Jews an indigenous people?
Nan Greer: The ILO Convention 169 and the U.N. working definitionare the most utilized and notable documents referring to indigenous people, with the U.N.D.R.I.P. established to identify rights of indigenous people under international law. ILO Convention 169, finalized in 1989 has not been revised to contain the U.N. definition of indigenous, listed on their websites and formal documents. However, ILO Convention 169 states: “Article 1: This convention applies to…”, it DOES NOT state, this convention “DEFINES” indigenous.
All but one organization of the U.N. maintains the definition developed by Martinez Cobo as published in U.N. documents and websites. UNESCO is NOT consistent with other U.N. organizations, and fails to utilize the U.N. working definition of indigenous.
For the purposes of international litigation, a working definition of indigenous people was established and published in U.N. policy documents and websites deriving from José Martinez Cobo’s definition:
Critical to this definition is the identification of indigenous people having a language and belief system distinct to the area claimed in its ancestral land rights, and not generalizable to other areas, such as Arab-Muslim groups claiming lands in multiple nation-states throughout the Middle East.
- Self-identification as indigenous people at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member;
- Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies;
- Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources;
- Distinct social, economic, or political systems;
- Distinct language, culture, and beliefs;
- Form non-dominant groups of society; and,
- Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinct communities.
Judean Rose: Why is it important for Jews to be accepted as an indigenous people? What are the implications of being indigenous to Israel?
Nan Greer: Currently, the observer state of Palestine has introduced several measures that are replicas of specific articles of rights in the UNDRIP However, they have never signed the UNDRIP, nor attempted to use the UN definition of indigenous in international circles - wisely so, as they fall outside the bounds of this critical, widely-used, and internationally recognized definition.
While the P.A. has not pushed for legal recognition of its Arab-Muslim people as indigenous, they have been awarded approximately U$1.8 billion for legal fees directed at attacking Israel in international and national courts. If both Israel and the international community allow populations of merely “long-standing presence” to declare themselves indigenous, while not having a language, culture, or religion distinct to the geographical locale/nation-state, it allows them to jeopardize indigeneity everywhere. This ultimately leads to the justification of colonial domination of indigenous people throughout the world - a risk that is simply not acceptable to the U.N. and the international community.
As such, the opportunity exists for Israel to protect the indigenous Jews, and to delineate and protect communities of long-standing presence in a manner not recognized under current colonial and political formations. Indeed, much of the Arab-Muslim population has been colonized by highly politicized P.A. structures aimed at the elimination of the Jewish indigenous nation, using the Arab population, as it were, in a political war - threatening children utilized as soldiers and human shields in war, impoverishing families, and promoting lifestyles of terror. Under international law, Druze, Bedouin, and other Arab groups may not be considered indigenous as they do not have a language and religious beliefs distinct to Israel. However, they deserve a humanitarian approach outside the bounds of corruption of the current P.A. and Gaza political arrangement. Ultimately, adjudicating each land dispute and presence claim of a given group ought to occur in the legal system of the nation state, not outside of the country of Israel.
Judean Rose: Tell us about your work with other indigenous peoples.
Nan Greer: I have worked with the Mayangna and Miskitú of Central America for over 25 years now - and I continue to work with them to this day. Initially, I worked with these groups on a consultation for writing a land law that would help them to protect their lands (Law 445, Nicaragua), which defined the indigenous right to land, outlined a procedure for making a traditional land claim, and determined a phase of normalization of land tenure in the indigenous autonomous regions of the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN) and South Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAS).
Read full article hereSo you are saying that the people in Latin American countries cannot be indigenous because they do not have distinct languages, religions, or cultures?If both Israel and the international community allow populations of merely “long-standing presence” to declare themselves indigenous, while not having a language, culture, or religion distinct to the geographical locale/nation-state,
You've messed it all up.
Indigenous nations are defined by a distinct culture tied to a specific land, just like the indigenous people of the Americas, Israelis have their unique civilization and land bearing their name that has no meaning in any other language, but in Hebrew.
All of those attributes are running contrary to Arab imperialism which seeks domination of a single culture over indigenous groups in the entire middle east ("from Morocco to Aden" as Arafat said)
Q. Is there any meaning to the words Palestine/Israel in Arabic?
Mere coincidence?
Last edited: