“When
G-d began to create heaven and earth.”
(Genesis 1:1)
“Abram
passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, at the terebinth of
Moreh. the Canaanites were then the land. The L-rd appeared to Abram and said,
“I will assign this land to your offspring”. And he built an altar there to the
L-rd who had appeared to him.”
(Genesis 12:6-7) - JPS Hebrew-English
Tanakh
When it comes to serious Jewish matters,
I have zero patience for stupidity. When “hasbara” (public relation) champions
celebrate nonsense to curry favor with any group of non-Jews feigning friendship,
it strikes a visceral cord. The Jewish failure to act logically and behave with
self-respect is an affront to Torah. We cannot defeat the Arabs if we cannot
understand what it is to be Jewish, or to appreciate what our correct reason
for being is based upon.
The
Indigenous Rights Movement
One of the more troubling fads of late is
the hasbara version of the “indigenous rights” movement, which posits that Eretz Yisrael belongs to us Jews because
we are somehow indigenous to the region. (What region, you may ask? The Levant?
The Fertile Crescent?) Jews did not arrive at this novel notion by themselves,
since those advocating for indigenous “rights” are generally activists and
leftists who hate Jews and eagerly defend Arabs as supposed victims of Jewish
aggression and Zionist imperialism. To date, the majority of such groups side
with the Arabs. Only recently, have we seen the phenomenon where a handful of lone
individuals representing “indigenous peoples” aligned themselves with popular hasbara
movements.
Contrary to the assertions of many
popular online “hasbara” champions, we Jews are NOT “indigenous” to Eretz
Yisrael. An honest analysis of the term (always defined by those advocating for
such a concept) reveals that to the extent that a definition of “indigenous”
could theoretically apply to Jews, it could surely also apply towards other
groups, including Arabs.
What is indigenous? The problem with
defining the term is that those who advocate for indigenous rights created the
definitions. They set down the definitions as divine revelations whose tenets
are infallible. They tell us what indigenous means as it relates to their personal
beliefs. Many Native Americans (indeed most) who advocate for “Palestinians”
will interpret it one way to include Arabs. One particular prominent pro-Israel
and “indigenous rights” activist, Ryan Bellerose, a self-identified Metis from
Paddle Prairie Settlement in Canada, maintains the opposite. He asserts that Jews
are indigenous, while Arabs are not. In any event, in his article, “Israel
Palestine: Who’s indigenous?” Ryan sets down his accepted criteria for
being an indigenous people:
“To begin, let us acknowledge that there is no rule that a land
can have only one indigenous people; it is not a zero sum game in which one
group must be considered indigenous so that therefore another is not. However,
there is a very clear guideline to being an indigenous people. It is somewhat
complex but can be boiled down to the checklist below, as developed by
anthropologist José R. Martínez-Cobo (former special rapporteur of the
Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities for
the United Nations).”
Further on, Mr. Bellerose continues:
“Martinez-Cobo’s research suggests that indigenous communities,
peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with
pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories,
consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing
on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant
sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to
future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as
the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own
cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.
This historical
continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching
into the present of one or more of the following factors:
·
Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of
part of them
·
Common ancestry with the original occupants of
these lands
·
Culture in general, or in specific
manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of
an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.)
·
Language (whether used as the only language,
as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the
family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language)
·
Residence in certain parts of the country, or
in certain regions of the world
·
Religion that places importance on spiritual
ties to the ancestral lands
·
Blood quantum – that is, the amount of blood
you carry of a specific people to identify as that people. The concept was
developed by colonialists in order to eventually breed out native peoples.”
Frankly, I am not interested in this general
discussion since I cannot concern myself with the issues of the “indigenous
peoples” of the world. Furthermore, the pseudo-academic ramblings of some
leftist sociologist who writes statements for the United Nations has no bearing
on my beliefs. Nor are they relevant to Jewish concerns. From a Torah
perspective, the Arabs have no rights to Eretz
Yisrael, nor do any non-Jews, even among the most noble and righteous of
them. Mr. Bellerose is willing to grant Arabs “rights of longstanding
presence.” I am not. Because the Rambam and the classical rishonim and
acharonim say differently.
Fortunately, such concepts are both irrelevant
and unnecessary for Jews who follow Torah. Eretz Yisrael belongs to us Jews
exclusively, for one simple reason: G-d gave it to us. From a Torah
perspective, the false claims of other groups who argue likewise are irrelevant,
since their ideologies arose long after G-d revealed Divine truths at Mount Sinai.
Yet the indigenous rights movement as it
relates to Jews is not only foolish, it is dangerous, since even the most well
intended advocates harbor un-Jewish notions far removed from Torah values. They
have become spokespersons for Jewish values, when their ideas are antithetical
to Torah. They would like to see indigenous rights applied to other groups in Israel,
not just Jews. From the Torah perspective, this is entirely incompatible with
Halacha. Whether advocating for a purely secular Israel, or a pluralistic
Israel allowing equal rights to all faith communities, none of these are in
accordance with Halacha.
On a more troubling note, some of these
indigenous rights activists have alliances and friendships with missionary
groups and prominent messianic personalities. On their trips to Israel and
across the U.S., they often meet and greet these individuals, and in doing so, betray
that they are not people who have our best interest at heart. They are not a monolithic
entity, yet it is fair to say that these activists all have their own agendas. Many
sensible Jews support their campaigns, and the dangerous claim that our right
to Eretz Yisrael is, at the very least, partially due to indigenous rights.
Racial
Nonsense
“Indigenous rights” is a multicultural
strain of thinking that ironically many normal Jews who usually reject such
notions accept without question. They accept the definitions of indigenous activists,
which always remain vague enough to avoid scrutiny, and are imbued with the
kinds of racist, blood-based theories that would be rejected outright if
suggested by any mainstream group. Anyone who cites “blood quantum” in any
context, other than to provide a blood transfusion should trouble us. Such
ideas certainly have no basis in Torah. Yet in this case, since a handful of
activists are willing to apply this exotic term to Jews, many hasbara types enjoy
the prospect of appearing native.
Historical
Difficulties
“Most
writers on American Indian subjects are bothered by changing intellectual
trends and fashions, which dictate new mythologies. Anglo-Americans, above all,
have been troubled by guilt feelings, morality, and hypocrisy, whether direct
or in reverse. Any ideology tends to obscure perspectives and reality.” (Comanches: History of A People,
Fehrenbach, T.R. Preface xiv)
“Every,
as the lords of the conquered Mexica admitted to Cortez, it was the way of life
for men to seize new lands with shield and spear. The Amerindian world of North
America was rent with ancient festering hatreds. (ibid. 25)
Consider the situation with Amerindians
in North America. Contrary to the tenets of politically correct history, the
notion of indigenous rights as it is often applied to them is historically
problematic. Never one to take unbridled political correctness sitting down, I
reject the contemporary portrayal of all “native Americans” as peaceful
environmentalists. Savagery was not the sole domain of “the white man,” since long
before there were white men on the continent, Native Americans butchered one
another. The archeological records attest to this fact; they expelled and
killed one another.
As an example, one can look at the histories
of the migration of Native American whose peoples originated in Asia and
migrated towards North America. Given the origins of their people, the
following questions are surely reasonable:
Ø
Did
such people abandon their indigenous status to their original lands when they
migrated? Did they retain indigenous statuses in both regions?
Ø
What
is the indigenous natures of tribes who displaced and exterminated other tribes
from different regions during the many brutal campaigns of warfare that tribal people’s
engaged in with other Native Americans?
Ø
In
the case of American Indians who earned indigenous claims through blood and warfare
towards other tribes, might Europeans who came to North America not make the
same claims? Those who came later simply bested those who lacked better weapons
and resources. (I state simply in the interest of theoretical discussion,
without opining on nuances of the morality of the overall conflict.)
Those activists who argue for Jewish
indigenous rights ignore the historical record conveyed in the Torah of
indigenous “First Nation” people who fell under our sword. Non-believers may
question the authenticity of the biblical account, but even a bible denier
cannot reject the historical record. They were here first. Most honest Native
Americans see parallels with Jews who entered “Canaan” with colonizing Europeans,
who “stole land” from the Indians.
From a Jewish perspective, the notion of
a blood-based identity is an affront to Judaism, which accepts the genuine
convert. Our connection to Torah is based upon adherence to the law rather than
imagined notion of race. In a sense, the Jewish desire to argue “indigenous
rights” is a reaction formation to absurd Arab assertions that they are the descendants
of Canaanites.
G-d gave us the land of Israel, despite the presence of
“indigenous” peoples who were there long before us. It did not matter, since
The Almighty created everything. Upon entering the land, our mandate was clear.
Clean the land of the “indigenous” inhabitants.
I understand that many secular Jews are uncomfortable with
religious claims that contradict their worldview. I disagree with them, but I
understand where they are coming from. In the absence of Torah knowledge,
religious claims are meaningless. What I cannot fathom is that so many religious
Jews latch on to un-Jewish theories to justify our Divine inheritance. I do not
require an indigenous claim. I have the same claim that motivated the great
Joshua to conquer Eretz Yisrael from the pagan Canaanites who were already
residing there when we Jews first arrived.
We Jews are not Philistines, Canaanites, nor Jebusites. We
were the conquerors of the former on a Divine mission. Indeed, our failure to
purge Eretz Yisrael of these indigenous types is something the Torah repeatedly
warned about, and is the direct cause of the land vomiting us out. Divine
rights are the only arguments that have any meaning to me as a religious Jew.
A self-respecting Jew need never be ashamed to speak the
truth of Tanach, which records our only true claim to Israel. Balfour
Declarations and U.N. votes are of zero worth for the Torah Jew. A disconnected
Jew may be ashamed of the religious claim. A genuine tragedy, since it is the
only moral claim we Jews can hang our hats on. In the absence of that, we are
merely one more example of colonizers who claimed a plot of land.
Indigenous
Definitions
“Now you might ask, why is this important? It
is important to indigenous people because we cannot allow the argument that
conquerors can become indigenous. If we, as other indigenous people, allow that
argument to be made, then we are delegitimizing our own rights.
If conquerors can become indigenous, then the
white Europeans who came to my indigenous lands in North America could now
claim to be indigenous. The white Europeans who went to Australia and New
Zealand could now claim to be indigenous. If we, even once, allow that argument
to be made, indigenous rights are suddenly devalued and meaningless. This is
somewhat peculiar, as those who are arguing for Palestinian “indigenous rights”
are usually those who have little grasp of the history, and no understanding of
the truth behind indigenous rights.”
Those Troublesome Canaanites
Therein is our
Jewish answer. Based upon our biblical claims, we Jews cannot be indigenous,
since we conquered the Canaanites. According to Bellerose’s definition, our
Jewish biblical account renders us as conquerors. As such, those who believe in
Torah cannot subscribe to his theories. Advocates for indigenous Jews can never
answer these questions. What do we do with the Canaanites? Perhaps a better
question is, what did we do, or what should we have done to the Canaanites?
The great
biblical and talmudic commentator Rashi destroys the “indigenous rights
argument” with his commentary on the first verse in the Book of Genesis. He
cites Rabbi Yitzchak who questioned why the Torah began in this manner
detailing creation rather than from the first mitzvah. This would make sense
since the Torah essentially deals with Halacha. He answers that the Torah began
with creation so that the nations in the future when they pointed out our
conquest of the 7 Nations, the Jewish people could answer that the whole world
belongs to Hashem. He can give it to whichever people He desires. At the time,
he saw fit to give it to the Canaanites, and then he removed it from their
control and gave it to us.
Case closed.
The indigenous argument loses.
From a Torah perspective, the notion
that we Jews have a claim to Eretz
Yisrael based upon “indigenous rights” is absurd. We are not "indigenous" to Israel. Indigenous is a
nonsense term which race obsessed multiculturalists use. Israel belongs to the
Jewish nation, because G-d gave it to us. We conquered the Canaanites, and now
it is ours. Our claim to Eretz Yisrael is Divine inheritance. Indigenous claims amount to
pseudo-science, which in turn, would grant indigenous rights to practically
every other minority group living in Israel today. In fact, this is the
intention of many who advocate for such a concept.
Fellow Jews: leave the indigenous argument where it belongs.
In the halls of the U.N. G-d gave us the land of Israel and that is enough.
