rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,755
- 5,059
- 290
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
※→ rylah, et al,
BLUF: We don't truly understand what is meant by "Indigenous Poeple?" What makes one group an Indigenous People and another Group not? If the indigeouspeople are forced to leave on the needs of survival, and then return some number of generations later, are they indigenous or foreign?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I think that most of these "indigenous to Palestine" arguments are seriously flawed; for both the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish People of Israel.
Even in this presentation, the discussion starts with the remembrance of the 20th Century direct support by European collaborator for totalitarianism and the extreme persecution by the Germanic ethnic group themselves.
It is important to remember that the Arab Palestinian believes that they now have a legal position based on the UN Declaration. They have this mistaken idea that the UN Declaration supports what they think is justice for them.
Download A/RES/61/295 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.pdf (165.85 KB)
(REFERENCE)
In 1983 the Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) enlarged this definition of "indigenous people" (FICN. 41Sub.211983121 Adds. para. 3 79) to include the following criteria:
- (a) they are the descendants of groups, which were in the territory at the time when other groups of different cultures or ethnic origin arrived there;
- (b) precisely because of their isolation from other segments of the country's population they have almost preserved intact the customs and traditions of their ancestors which are similar to those characterized as indigenous;
- (c) they are, even if only formally, placed under a state structure which incorporates national, social and cultural characteristics alien to their own.[/I]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(COMMENT)[/I]
The global doctrine advocates the moral condemnable of the social injustice of NOT recognizing the right of all peoples to be different → to consider themselves different.
In this case, the Indigenous Peoples (Jews) have suffered from historic injustices by an unfair majority (Arab Palestinians) acting under the cover and color of law.
Most Respectfully,
R
Edward Said's argument is false and self-contradicting.
His argument is not for indigenous rights, but for rights on the basis of longstanding presence, which by itself doesn't give an indigenous status according to the definition of the UN.
Furthermore he attempts to equate "domination" to "inhabitance", which is in effect a total denial of indigenous rights, and their purpose.
Using his argument Spaniards could claim that they're indigenous Moroccans because they have longer domination over Melila and Ceuta in North Africa, or the USA could claim that they were the indigenous nation of America because they had longer domination of the territory than the Iroquois Confederacy.
Again- longstanding inhabitance or "domination", as he puts it, alone doesn't make a group indigenous, but rather defines it as an invading civilization.
The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there.
Edward Said gave a list of some of the people who have invaded/conquered/occupied that land. I don't believe that every time a territory falls under new rule everybody moves out and a whole new population moves in. Usually the upper crust is removed and everybody else stays to be exploited. Many people have come and gone but there is a core group of people who have stayed and put down roots. These are the people of the place. Call them the indigenous, the natives, whatever they are the people who belong to that land.
Yes we call them Jews, have a documented history of inhabitance for 3500 continuous years, who established a distinct civilization centered around that specific land, as Edward Said claimed THERE IS a certainly a stronger claim.
Arabs are simply not indigenous to Palestine, by definition.
OK, but they were never exclusively there so they have no exclusive claim to the land.
What do You mean by exclusively?
One is either indigenous or not, Greece is either a Greek land or it's not.
I'm not arguing that groups don't have rights based on longstanding presence, my argument is for sovereignty rights of any indigenous nation that thrives to re-establish their historic homeland.
Last edited:
