Ryan Bellerose Talks Indigenous Jews To Tablet

Israellycool contributor Ryan Bellerose has a great piece on Indigenous Jews published at The Tablet.

As an indigenous activist—I am a Métis from the Paddle Prairie Metis settlement in Alberta, Canada—there is one question I am most often asked by the public, one that can instantly divide a community due to its intense and arduous subject matter.

Yet, regardless of the scenario, each time I hear the words, “Are Jews the indigenous people of Israel?” I’m inclined to answer not only with my heart but with the brutal, honest truth, backed by indisputable, thousands-year-old historical and archaeological fact: yes.

It covers similar ground to many of his posts here on Israellycool and especially his original one: Israel Palestine: Who’s Indigenous?

There are a couple of key points I’ll draw out and emphasise here. After presenting the Martínez Cobo criteria for judging indigenous claims, he draws attention to the one glaring problem as this definition is applied by the UN, the seeming catch put in just to separate out Jews.

As a guideline, the Martínez Cobo study is fairly clear and gives us a way to avoid falling prey to false claims. However, there is one section—which, as far as I can tell, wasn’t in Cobo’s earliest definition—that has been referred to as problematic by many indigenous activists. This section refers to “nondominant sectors of society,” which is directly related to the issue of Jews as an indigenous people. It implies that by being “nondominant,” you have yet to realize self-determination. Ergo, if a group has achieved self-determination (i.e., the Jewish people or the Fijians), they will no longer meet the checklist as indigenous.

Seeing how the goal of all indigenous peoples is to achieve self-determination on their ancestral lands, it’s basically the most egregious example of a Catch-22.

From towards the end:

I got involved in this struggle because I was seeing nonindigenous people make arguments that are detrimental to actual indigenous people, arguments that attempt to rewrite our history. The idea that “Palestinian Arab” conquerors could become indigenous through conquering the Jewish people, even though the term “Palestinian” was only used in reference to Jews before 1948, is anathema. While Arabs claim to be related to the descendants of Israel through blood, it’s just another way to say that they acted like all conquerors, raping and pillaging and then settling and subsuming the locals. Native North Americans especially understand that simply conquering indigenous people does not grant one indigenous status.

All together a very well presented argument being put in front of an American Jewish audience who may not have been exposed to these ideas before.

7 thoughts on “Ryan Bellerose Talks Indigenous Jews To Tablet”

  1. There are some great points in Ryan’s article. There are also some things that are factually wrong and either a misreading of geopolitics, or what I think was most likely an accidental misstatement. I agree that Jews are indigenous to all the lands west of the Jordan River and deserve belonging there. But to make the claim, “the only people who have actually achieved full self-determination on their ancestral lands: the Jewish people” is just not true. In numerous countries in Africa, indigenous peoples have achieved full self-determination from colonialists. Freedom House has labeled as “free” many countries in the continent, such as Ghana, Namibia, and Benin. They are all democratic, having reclaimed sovereignty and self-determination from European settlers. Even partially free countries like Zambia have reclaimed soverignty and self-determination for the indigenous tribes from former imperialists. True, none of these countries has self-determination for only one tribe or ethnic group, but that was their decision — one they made specifically because they had the self-determinant right to enter into a democratic alliance and together become one nation made up of confederations of tribes, all of whom collectively became sovereign, while still providing some local authority to tribal leaders. There is not one Namibian, Zambian, Ghanaian, etc. that would agree they don’t have self-determination, regardless of which tribe they are from, even though Europeans still live among them. There are also the Baltic peoples who reclaimed self-determination after Russian-dominated Soviet control, including many settlers.

    Maybe Ryan meant to claim — an I suspect he did –Jews are the only people to regain self-determination after being forced into being a numerical minority on their ancestral lands. That may be true and would be a better point to make.

    1. I guess one distinction that is not found in the African countries that you mentioned is that they were never dispersed all over the world and had the vast majority of their populations residing outside of their traditional territories.

  2. Ryan – do you realize that you are a settler? The “Paddle Prairie Metis settlement” makes you one.

    Think about that. Now you are a colonist in your own homeland

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top