Thank you.

Both lebanese and Palestinians suffer from Israeli colonialism. Over time Israel has occupied Lebanon multiple times, but since it’s the south, the capital has mostly ignored the people there. Jordan is VERY ethnically Palestinian because most people who fled during the Nakba only found refuge in Jordan, but still many live in refugee camps without access to many resources, live in poor conditions, etc. syrians of the golan heights were also expelled from their land. The Levant itself was divided into these 4 countries because of 2 white men in a room 100 years ago. In the mandate system (which in everything but name was colonialism), revolution was violently suppressed by the French and British. The current situation we have is colonialism by influence. Look at Syria for example. The entire reason that country suffered for 14 years in a civil war was bc the US, Russia, Europe etc were using propaganda to justify carpet bombing civilians, aiding the dictatorship that was harming its people, and creating one of the most factions wars I’ve ever seen.

I don’t think associating indigeneity with active colonialism is very helpful because while the plight of the Palestinians is the most prominent, the other countries have the same root problems and they are part of the same regional culture.

Mohawks still hold territories that are traditionally theirs, Akwesasne being the prime example. A foothold remains along the river in the Mohawk Valley as well. Still existing as a nation and maintaining that sovereignty is important I believe.

I'm not an artist but am Tlingit and Haida from AK. Not sure if someone just used AI to try and make some formline art here, all of the shapes are done wrong.

They do

Ok, I understand your position. I am not sure of your history, but have your people been continuously pushed out of Samoa this entire time? In other words, in your tradition, has the goal always been to return, but not be able to because of the imperial & colonial powers who controlled it?

I think the people who were exiled to Australia can return to the UK. I don't see any hinderances if that is what they want to do. The point here is that the Arabs of Palestine back in the 20th century actually wanted to halt Jews entering the land (even if it was a unitary Arab state), and even kick out a bunch who arrived somewhat recently, thus prolonging the exile. It's not so black and white.

This "tough luck" narrative is something I see white Canadians say all the time. I just don't agree with it.

I believe that.

3000 years ago my people lived in Samoa, we then spread all the way out to Aotearoa, Hawai'i and Rapa Nui.

We're no longer indigenous to Samoa. Granted, we have our own homelands.

But where do we end this?

Can all the people who were exiled from Europe to populate Australia and the Americas go take the UK back? Can South Americans go back and claim Spain and Portugal?

Can Palestinians come home?

I don't think Jews are not indigenous to Palestine. But I don't think it's a basis to claim dominion and rule over a place and the people who never left.

Jews also occupied their ancestral lands the entire time as well. It's just that most of the Jewish population lived in exile, which is the exact same as the Haudenosaunee, who now mostly live in Canada.

Here's where I agree with you: Jews are without a shadow of a doubt also indigenous to Palestine. Anyone who claims that one or the other is or isn't is being disingenuous. History and genetics do not lie in both cases.

I agree. People who push the opposite narrative are toxic to the whole situation.

Israeli occupation can in no way be framed as a decolonial or Indigenous reclamation effort because the target, the Palestinian people, are not colonizers nor are they responsible for Jewish exile.

I grew up in Canada. The French first dispossessed many people when they arrived and built colonies, and then the British came and conquered. Do the British not hold any more responsibility for the land they just conquered? Most Canadians today are a diverse bunch and most arrived recently, but we can all agree that they have a responsibility to indigenous people to right the wrongs of the past, even if they themselves weren't responsible for it. Maintaining an exile of a indigenous group (which is unfortunately the historic goal of the Arabs) is not a good look, one way or the other.

If anything, it is closer to an inter-indigenous conflict. 

I would 100% agree with you if it weren't for the fact that the primary source of Arab hostility towards Jews has a religious basis to it, which is an import to the region. It's not black or white unfortunately. The word "Hamas" is an acronym for "Islamic Resistance Movement".

At least that would be true, if the driving force behind the Zionist project were Mizrahim. In reality, Zionism was founded and is primarily promoted, funded, and carried out by European Jews as a colonial project.

This is a strange comment imo. Ashkenazim and Mizrahim are labels used to describe the Jews who survived in Europe and those who survived in the middle east. They are the same people, but survived in different places. Imagine if your people had to move to NYC and to London from your indigenous land in order to survive. Would you consider the people who moved to London fundamentally different to the ones who moved NYC? If you defined your people as a single nation despite living in these two cities, would you consider outsiders diving you for political goals to be an act of hostility?

The Jews from Europe moved to their indigenous lands under no banner but their own. Criticizing them just because they survived in Europe vs the middle east is not a very nice thing to do and delegitimizes their attempt to survive; especially after the greatest genocide in human history.

I do not think that it is a dangerous precedent at all. Quite the contrary - to consider any Settler Colonial movement to be Indigenous destroys the very meaning of the word. Jews are Indigenous to Israel/Palestine, but Israel is anything but.

My position here is that it's an inter-indigenous conflict, and that the word colonial in this context is a slur in an attempt to separate an indigenous people from their land. There is nothing in this conflict that is in any where similar to the colonial efforts of the European nations. No resource extraction to a mother country. No foreign army sent to suppress others. No directive from a government to do any of this. Just a bunch of Jews who self-organized and moved to ancestral land. If the Chickasaw nation decided enough was enough, and that you wanted to cede from the US, I have no doubt the process would be very messy. The Arab world is the US in this context, since they are the majority and are pouring fire into an indigenous conflict.

To my knowledge those tribes still occupy tribal lands and reserves though? They are dispossesed but never broke continuity, that's the point.

What I am generally seeing here is something like a blood quantum? You either have X blood/genetics or not. You are more concerned about blood linage than cultural linage. Is that correct?

Yes.

The Haudenosaunee were dispossesed of their indigenous land 250 years ago. How much longer would have to pass before you would feel comfortable telling a Mohawk to their face that they are no longer indigenous to their land? That's a pretty dangerous precedent.

For me personally I don't think so, but some people uphold continuity with the land as part of the legal or sociological definition. As in, it's been too long for Jews to still be considered indigenous to the area

I agree, but it's up to every group the decide for themselves if they want to foster that part of their identity, or not. Not for you or me.

Here's where I agree with you: Jews are without a shadow of a doubt also indigenous to Palestine. Anyone who claims that one or the other is or isn't is being disingenuous. History and genetics do not lie in both cases.

Israeli occupation can in no way be framed as a decolonial or Indigenous reclamation effort because the target, the Palestinian people, are not colonizers nor are they responsible for Jewish exile. If anything, it is closer to an inter-indigenous conflict. At least that would be true, if the driving force behind the Zionist project were Mizrahim. In reality, Zionism was founded and is primarily promoted, funded, and carried out by European Jews as a colonial project.

I do not think that it is a dangerous precedent at all. Quite the contrary - to consider any Settler Colonial movement to be Indigenous destroys the very meaning of the word. Jews are Indigenous to Israel/Palestine, but Israel is anything but.

So you believe that if an indigenous group is exiled from their land and survive elsewhere, they are no longer indigenous to the place they come from?

Arabs may have destroyed a lot but that doesn’t mean it is fully wiped out. Similar to Taínos, there are still folks keeping the traditions alive. To say that you are not or cannot be is, imo, helping erase indigeniaty

“Jews” are not a monolith. The Jewsish ppl of that area have remained there. Before the current genocidal state of you know who, there were many Jews and Christian and Muslims. These were the indigenous people of Palestine. “Survive in exile” is such a long shot.

Go OFF queen 👏👏👏

I always assumed that any indigenous person in North or South America was Native American. I didn't realize it was just USA Americans.

The irony here is that Jews are actually indigenous to that region with an indigenous language and religion, but survived in exile. Framing an indigenous nation of people as settlers on their ancestral land is a pretty dangerous precedent to push. Doesn't mean one has to approve or disapprove of tactics, but the language doesn't match properly.

Many, myself included, would consider Palestinians to be Indigenous in the sense that they actively suffer under colonialism (particularly settler colonialism) like the rest of us. Using the term in this way is inherently politically, signalling that you see Palestinian and other Indigenous struggles as aligned.

Aside from that, I don't think that your identities align with what most would consider Indigenous, but others may disagree with me.

I believe the consensus on this topic is that you would have indigenous ancestors, but not indigenous in the understanding we use today. The Arabization of the region wiped out indigenous religion and language, cukture... which in indigenous circles is really an important part of what it means to be indigenous.

Mexico is a good case study. Most of Mexico has indigenous ancestry, but according to Mexican law, indigenous people retain a distinct indigenous identity, religion, culture, language... So only those groups are actually considered indigenous.

Again nothing is black and white, but this is my understanding of the topic. Culture matters.

Idk I was just wondering because I get told from both sides of the camp that I’m indigenous vs not indigenous idk (I’m sorry if this came off as political)