[News] Using Indigeneity in the Struggle for Palestinian Liberation
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Fri Aug 9 15:48:28 EDT 2019
https://al-shabaka.org/commentaries/using-indigeneity-in-the-struggle-for-palestinian-liberation/
Using Indigeneity in the Struggle for Palestinian Liberation
by Ahmad Amara <https://al-shabaka.org/en/author/ahmad-amara/>, Yara
Hawari <https://al-shabaka.org/en/author/yara-hawari/> on August 8, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Overview*
On Indigenous People’s Day in 2018, several Palestinian human rights
organizations released a statement
<http://www.alhaq.org/advocacy/targets/palestinian-human-rights-organizations/1306--qq->that
called on the international community “to center Native history as the
necessary beginning of historical reconciliation and a collectively
emancipatory process of decolonization.” The statement demonstrated how
indigeneity has recently re-emerged within the discourse on Palestine
and is becoming a central facet of political mobilization. It also
highlighted the increasing links between Palestinians and indigenous
communities across the globe and the collective nature of
decolonization, which constitute important tools in the ongoing struggle
against settler colonialism worldwide.
But what does this mean in practice for Palestinians engaged in the
liberation struggle and how can it be harnessed to further Palestinian
rights and sovereignty?
This commentary addresses these questions by fleshing out the notions of
settler colonialism and indigeneity and the relationship between the two
through an exploration of the process of Israeli settler colonialism
that created Palestinian indigeneity. It then discusses the limitations
of the application of international law to indigenous struggles and
concludes with thoughts on how to better incorporate the notion of
Palestinian indigeneity in the Palestinian quest for freedom, justice,
and equality.
*Settler Colonialism and Indigeneity*
Cases of settler colonialism have their particularities, though they
have much in common. Indeed, while there are characteristics unique to
the colonial experience in Palestine, the Zionist project is not
exceptional as it follows a pattern of European invasion and domination.
Similar to other settler colonial movements, the early Zionists claimed
European superiority. Yet at the same time they claimed to be indigenous
returnees to Palestine based on biblical narratives. In this way they
were able to put forward the narrative that they were the rightful
owners of the land. For example, the notion that only the Zionist
settlers can make the “desert bloom” in Palestine is both a reference to
the biblical narrative and therefore their supposed autochthonous
“indigeneity,” as well as to their ostensible superiority in culture and
knowledge and the productivity characteristic of European capitalism.
Thus the Zionist movement both used biblical autochthonous indigeneity
and acknowledged Zionism as a colonial endeavor. Zionist leader Chaim
Weizmann exemplified the colonial stance in the following 1947 statement
<https://www.palestine-studies.org/jq/fulltext/195174>:
Other peoples have colonized great countries, rich countries. They found
when they entered there backward populations. And they did for the
backward populations what they did…I would like to say that, as compared
with the result of the colonizing activities of other peoples, our
impact on the Arabs has not produced very much worse results than what
has been produced by others in other countries.
Weizmann and his peers not only acknowledged the colonial nature of
Zionism, they also regarded the “Arabs of Palestine” with similar
disdain as other colonialists did with other native peoples.
The Zionist movement established various agencies that sought to help
European Jews appropriate land and settle in Palestine, such as the
Palestine Jewish Colonization Association. It worked to dominate the
indigenous people to make room for settlers. The settlers as well as the
indigenous people understood the nature of this settler colonial
enterprise. Indeed, during this period many Palestinians were worried
about the “settle to replace” impetus behind the Zionist movement, and
continuously objected
<https://www.palestine-studies.org/jq/fulltext/165370>to both British
and Zionist colonialism in Palestine through public demonstrations,
official petitions, political mobilization, and writing in the
Palestinian press. Two main newspapers, /Al-Karmil /and
/Falastin,/frequently published on Zionism and its impact on Palestine
and Palestinians.
Later, in the decades following the 1948 Nakba, Palestinian scholars and
revolutionaries engaged with the notion of indigeneity through work on
settler colonialism. In 1965 Fayez Sayegh published
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2201473X.2012.10648833>the
paper “Zionist Colonialism in Palestine,” which describes Israel as a
“settler state” and explains that its racist characteristic is not
acquired but “inherent in the very ideology of Zionism.” This early work
is particularly important as it discusses the settler colonial reality
in Palestine before the 1967 Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza
Strip, and Golan Heights and stresses the colonial nature of the Zionist
enterprise from its inception, countering the common assumption that the
“problem” lies with Israel’s 1967 occupation.
Scholarship in this vein followed Sayegh’s article, including George
Jabbour’s book, /Settler Colonialism in Southern Africa and the Middle
East/(1970), Maxime Rodinson’s /Israel: A Settler-Colonial
State?/(1973), and Elia Zureik’s /The Palestinians in Israel: A Study of
Internal Colonialism/(1979). These later works linked Israel’s policies
with those of apartheid South Africa, contributing to an emerging
Western academic current that centered settler colonialism in its
analysis of Israel.
In a 1982 interview with Giles Deleuze, founder of the /Journal for
Palestine Studies /Elias Sanbarstated
<https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1684-the-indians-of-palestine-an-interview-between-gilles-deleuze-and-elias-sanbar>:
We are also the American Indians of the Jewish settlers in Palestine. In
their eyes our one and only role consisted in disappearing. In this it
is certain that the history of the establishment of Israel reproduces
the process which gave birth to the United States of America.
This comparison of the Palestinian struggle to that of the indigenous
peoples on Turtle Island (as many indigenous people refer to the North
American continent) allows an understanding of the structures of power
and domination that settler states share. Still, Chair of the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO) Yasser Arafat, holding the commonly-held
view of indigenous peoples as vulnerable and primitive, dismissed this
comparison as far back as the 1980s in an attempt to reject notions of
defeat and assert the steadfastness of the Palestinian people. He did so
perhaps most infamously in 2004 when he proclaimed
<https://arabist.net/blog/2004/11/6/arafat-we-are-not-red-indians.html>that
Palestinians “are not Red Indians” during his confinement in his
Ramallah compound.
Yet in the 1960s and 1970s the PLO had primarily modelled its agenda,
goals, and tactics on another struggle against settler colonialism: the
Algerian Front de Libération Nationale (FLN), which had triumphed over
French settlers. The PLO, identifying similar structures of invasion,
sought camaraderie and expertise from Algerian leaders. The PLO would
also later seek links with the ANC in their struggle against apartheid –
the governing structure adopted by the South African settler colonial
regime.
Comparing the Palestinian struggle to that of the indigenous peoples of
North America allows an understanding of the structures of power and
domination that settler states share
<https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://ow.ly/vWgG50v7Dbw&text=Comparing%20the%20Palestinian%20struggle%20to%20that%20of%20the%20indigenous%20peoples%20of%20North%20America%20allows%20an%20understanding%20of%20the%20structures%20of%20power%20and%20domination%20that%20settler%20states%20share&via=AlShabaka&related=AlShabaka>Click
To Tweet
<https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://ow.ly/vWgG50v7Dbw&text=Comparing%20the%20Palestinian%20struggle%20to%20that%20of%20the%20indigenous%20peoples%20of%20North%20America%20allows%20an%20understanding%20of%20the%20structures%20of%20power%20and%20domination%20that%20settler%20states%20share&via=AlShabaka&related=AlShabaka>
However, scholars and Palestinian leaders put the application of the
settler-colonial paradigm to Palestine and affiliation with decolonial
struggles on hiatus for several decades. Whereas in the first era of
settler colonialism they had linked the history and political ideology
of Zionism and the creation of Israel to the political project of
Palestinian liberation, in the second wave they focused on Zionist
ideology and political structures in terms of land policies,
dispossession, Judaization, and infrastructures of control. This
occurred particularly with the advent of the Oslo Accords in the early
1990s, which framed Israeli settler colonialism as two conflicting
national movements that would find peace within a two-state paradigm. At
the same time, Palestinian civil society grew and NGOs began to focus on
achieving freedoms within an international law framework and through
rights-based advocacy. The limitations of this framework would soon
become clear: Not only did it omit concepts such as liberation and
sovereignty, it also limited the discussion of Palestine and
Palestinians to the 1967 territories.
The past decade has seen a re-emergence of settler colonialism as an
academic and analytical tool to examine Israel. The establishment of the
journal /Settler Colonial Studies, /various edited collections, and an
increase in academic events and scholarly production focusing on the
topic have institutionalized settler colonialism as an academic field.
However, there is a notable difference between the renewed focus on
settler colonialism and its earlier usage as part of a revolutionary
practice. Earlier works were tied to the political project of the PLO,
whose goal at that time was to liberate all of historic Palestine from
Zionist settler colonialism. In contrast, recent scholarship has emerged
from the Western academy, which is not only increasingly neoliberal but
also tends to favor a “de-politicization” of scholarship. Work that is
challenging this environment by seeking to politicize and dismantle
knowledge hierarchies is fighting an uphill battle.
The Israeli Zionist project is one of expansion and erasure of the
indigenous Palestinian population. Scholarly work using this analytical
framework has grown, yet indigeneity has not had the same level of
engagement as settler colonialism, though the settler colonial paradigm
necessitates it. While settler colonialism speaks to the Israeli state’s
ongoing structure of violence and describes a situation of continuous
replacement, indigeneity speaks to life before this structure,
resistance during it, and visions for the future. In other words,
indigeneity helps Palestinians articulate what they stand for and what
they want.
Indeed, indigenous peoples are those who have suffered the settler
colonial invasion and continue to suffer the subsequent structures of
elimination. In Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish’s 1992 poem “The ‘Red
Indian’s’ Penultimate Speech to the White Man,” he describes the
settler-colonial logic of power and erasure and, unlike Arafat, likens
the Palestinian case to the American one, adopting the voice of an
indigenous American and pointing to a wholly dominating, continuous
structure:
Columbus, the free, looks for a language
he couldn’t find here,
and looks for gold in the skulls of our good-hearted ancestors.
He took his fill from our living
and our dead.
So why is he bent on carrying out his war of elimination
from the grave, until the end? ^1 <#note-10352-1>
Indigenous peoples must be understood within this structure that
persists after the initial event of invasion, described by Darwish as a
“war of elimination” even after death.
*Indigeneity and International Law*
After the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian leadership dropped much of its
revolutionary discourse and adopted a narrative that followed the
international law framework. The NGO-ization of Palestine and the focus
on foreign donor agendas that emerged from Oslo has also led much of
Palestinian civil society to use terms based in international law to
articulate demands for rights. In 2007 the UN adopted the Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in an attempt to further the
rights of global indigenous peoples within an international law
framework. While many celebrated UNDRIP despite its status as a
non-binding document, it also faced serious criticism and debate,
particularly from indigenous communities who felt that not only was it
limited in its description of indigenous peoples, but that it also did
not allow for indigenous sovereignty given the centrality it placed on
maintaining the territorial integrity of existing nation states.
Following the main parameters of international law, UNDRIP takes the
state as a given legal and political framework, as noted by Article
46(1):
<https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf>
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any
State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to
perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or
construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember
or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political
unity of sovereign and independent States.
While UNDRIP frequently refers to the right to self-rule, it excludes
the right of national independent self-determination and external
sovereignty, which remains an aspiration for many indigenous peoples,
including Palestinians. The declaration refers rather to indigenous
autonomy or self-rule in internal affairs in order to preserve cultural
identity. It therefore undermines much of the political aspirations of
indigenous peoples as understood by the communities themselves. Of
course, “sovereignty” means different things to different indigenous
peoples, ranging from internal self-rule and cultural preservation and
integrity to external self-rule through a process of decolonization. The
former means autonomy within existing state structures while the latter
connotes a de(con)struction of existing power structures.
This legal analytical approach to indigeneity also views
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623520601056240>settler
colonialism as an event and not a structure. By failing to frame settler
colonialism as a continuous process – and thus failing to use a settler
colonial framework – the declaration misses many historical and
contemporary injustices and leaps to a “post-conflict” situation by
legitimizing contemporary colonial states’ existence. Moreover, the
declaration lacks a serious discussion of a process of decolonization or
elements that could contribute to such a process, such as historical
justice processes or repatriation. Essentially, the legalization of
indigenous struggles limits indigenous modes and ways of imagining a
decolonized future.
Hence the UNDRIP not only undermines the political aspirations of many
indigenous peoples; it also limits them to a certain definition. As
such, many of those working on Israel’s suppression of Palestinian
rights within the field of international law have preferred frameworks
such as apartheid, particularly because apartheid is considered a
serious crime under international law and has attracted international
solidarity in the struggle against it. However, outside of international
law, it is clear that apartheid and indigeneity are not mutually
exclusive terms and that apartheid has been a mechanism through which to
control and manage indigenous peoples.
The legalization of indigenous struggles limits indigenous modes and
ways of imagining a decolonized future
<https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://ow.ly/vWgG50v7Dbw&text=The%20legalization%20of%20indigenous%20struggles%20limits%20indigenous%20modes%20and%20ways%20of%20imagining%20a%20decolonized%20future&via=AlShabaka&related=AlShabaka>Click
To Tweet
<https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://ow.ly/vWgG50v7Dbw&text=The%20legalization%20of%20indigenous%20struggles%20limits%20indigenous%20modes%20and%20ways%20of%20imagining%20a%20decolonized%20future&via=AlShabaka&related=AlShabaka>
Yet the use of indigeneity is more complex in the Palestinian case. For
example, some who advocate for Palestinian Bedouin rights in the Naqab
region have utilized indigeneity when working to secure rights for this
group. Yet rather than affirm Bedouins’ rights as part of the
Palestinian people as a whole and therefore work toward their
entitlement to collective and individual rights, indigeneity has served
as a mechanism of fragmentation. By privileging Bedouin indigeneity and
not considering other Palestinians indigenous, this advocacy strategy
puts the Bedouins in a minority category, dismembers it from its Arab
and Palestinian contexts, and reinforces the stereotype of indigenous
peoples as tribal and frozen in time. ^2 <#note-10352-2>
Recognizing Palestinian Bedouins as having a distinct culture and
identity while also being part of the greater community of Palestinian
people is crucial to a nuanced understanding of their struggle. The
example of Palestinian Bedouins emphasizes the important intersections
between indigeneity and nationalism, demonstrating that the two are not
mutually exclusive. Rather, indigeneity can collectivize the experience
of a national struggle.
It is important to note that this commentary’s critique and the
reservations in it regarding the evolving legal discourses and
categories of indigeneity are not to suggest the rejection of these
discourses entirely. Rather, the analysis aims to stress the limits of
“legal indigeneity” in particular and that of international law in
general, and to point out the need to incorporate a more holistic
understanding of indigeneity and indigenous aspirations of
decolonization into the Palestinian national narrative.
*An Indigenous Future*
Today Palestinians continue to be geographically fragmented across
Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, and are scattered over the
world in exile. Indigeneity connects these fragments to a single
experience – the process of settler colonialism, also known as the
continuous Nakba, or /al-Nakba al-mustimirrah/. It also connects these
fragments to Palestine, their center of gravity. Indigeneity as a
paradigm and an identity offers a focus and a re-centering of indigenous
peoples that spans cultures, languages, and epistemologies. It places
indigenous knowledge and understanding, particularly resistance to
invasion and attempts at erasure, at its core. It offers a radical
re-thinking of knowledge and knowledge production, in particular
questioning what knowledge and historical sources are considered worthy
and reliable.
This paradigm not only increases Palestinians’ understanding of their
past and present, but also furthers their thoughts about the future.
Indigeneity demands that Palestinians refocus their struggle on
decolonization and liberation for all Palestinians. In this sense, it
renders the current frameworks for “territory” and “negotiations”
unsatisfactory in terms of delivering freedom and justice. Palestinian
futures must be addressed in all their fragments, and this can only be
done within an understanding of Zionism as a settler colonial project
that rendered the Palestinian people indigenous. It is the colonial
encounter that created the native and their new political reality.
Indigeneity should therefore be treated as a political reality whose
transformation comes with decolonization.
Harnessing indigeneity as a tool to achieve Palestinian rights and
sovereignty faces serious challenges. The resurfacing of indigeneity and
the settler colonial analysis remains largely found among academics and
in certain activist spaces, with limited translation into the political
arena. The Palestinian political representation within Israel has mostly
sought to achieve “equal” rights within the state’s framework, and the
PA seeks to establish a state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
(although this is now in question) within international legal
parameters. Both have failed not only to achieve their political goals,
but also to adequately incorporate the Palestinian refugees and their
right to return and restitution.
Indigeneity offers a way to rethink the Palestinian political project as
one that understands all Palestinians as indigenous people facing
attempted erasure
<https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://ow.ly/vWgG50v7Dbw&text=Indigeneity%20offers%20a%20way%20to%20rethink%20the%20Palestinian%20political%20project%20as%20one%20that%20understands%20all%20Palestinians%20as%20indigenous%20people%20facing%20attempted%20erasure&via=AlShabaka&related=AlShabaka>Click
To Tweet
<https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://ow.ly/vWgG50v7Dbw&text=Indigeneity%20offers%20a%20way%20to%20rethink%20the%20Palestinian%20political%20project%20as%20one%20that%20understands%20all%20Palestinians%20as%20indigenous%20people%20facing%20attempted%20erasure&via=AlShabaka&related=AlShabaka>
The concepts of indigeneity and nationalism both contradict one another
and overlap. Indigenous peoples can and do have nationalist aspirations.
Just as other communities, they are pluralistic and their political and
economic structures and aspirations may change. Yet an ongoing structure
of elimination attempting to erase their indigeneity as well as hopes of
constituting a nation defines their experience and aspirations.
Indigeneity as a result offers a way to rethink the Palestinian
political project as a more encompassing one that understands all
Palestinians, wherever they may be, as indigenous people facing
attempted erasure.
Moreover, indigeneity demystifies the Zionist project as something
unique to Palestine and places it within a global context of settler
colonial projects. This allows Palestinians to draw solidarity links
with other indigenous peoples and to recognize intertwining threads of
oppression. Considering a decolonial future is an important part of the
(re)-shifting of the political paradigm. Indeed, Palestine’s struggle
for freedom and justice must be recalibrated so that it re-centers
Palestinian visions for the future, not a single vision imposed by
outside forces determined to maintain the status quo.
:)
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 https://freedomarchives.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20190809/26463217/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list