Talk:List of Indigenous peoples/Archive 5

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

There is not an edit war about the inclusion of Israelis and Palestinians. When it comes down to it, 'Israeli' much like 'Palestinian' is for the most part a nationalist identity. What this edit war revolves around, is the inclusion of Jews / Hebrews / Israelites (or specific variants thereof) as indigenous to the Middle East. Much like Arabs, they are by and large a Semitic people, who have uncontested origins in the Levant, with an unbroken history of residence in and connection to the greater Middle East. Originally, I opted for the inclusion of Mizrahi Jews specifically, which seems to have developed into the larger argument you are seeing now. Need I remind all of you, the section that we are arguing about here is Western Asia, and it would be just as foolish and incorrect to exclude Jews (or at-least Mizrahi Jews) from this category as it would be to exclude Arabs or Samaritans.

In regard to Palestinians, much like Israelis, they are an extension of the nationalist aspirations of Arabs and Jews, respectively. If we are nitpicking, the list should simply include Palestinian Arabs and Mizrahi Jews. To avoid further edit wars, simply 'Arabs' and 'Jews' could be included (or excluded), as any argument for one and not the other, is clearly POV pushing and coming from a place of bias or political motivation. There are a wealth of academic texts and genetic studies supporting a variety of views on the topic, amongst them are many that conclude both Jews and Palestinians to be indigenous to Israel-Palestine and obviously, the greater Middle East. In conclusion and in the interests of promoting the neutrality that wikipedia strives for, I suggest that both Jews (or Israelites / Hebrews) and Arabs are included on this list. If not, they should both be excluded. Anything else would be a victory for partisanship and bias.

TLDR: This is a discussion about indigenous peoples of Western Asia, NOT Israel-Palestine in specific. Clearly, both Jews and Arabs, two semitic peoples who have uncontested roots and uninterrupted history in Western Asia, should be included on the list (or excluded) and then the page should be protected.HaleakalAri (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well said, and I agree completely.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I do have one problem though. I think adding Mizrahi Jews, Samaritans, and no one else would still give the foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics what they want. Their main target for exclusion has always been the Ashkenazi Jews who pioneered the Zionist movement and who largely continue to be the centerpiece of the anti-Israel propaganda war. If our goal is to remain neutral, then we should just leave it as "ethnic Jews" (with a paragraph clearly stating that Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Italqim, etc all have roots in the Middle East) and "Arabs". Either that, or we exclude both.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Correction - Israeli is not a "nationalist identity" in the 19th century political sense. Israeli and Israelite are two forms of writing Yisrael in English. It is a cultural identity recorded in writing for over 3,000 years. In this it is nationalist as defined in the article, since "Jews" take the patriotism literally as fatherland, i.e. the land of the forefathers commencing with Abraham.
• Only Arabs can claim descent from Abraham, but none had ever claimed land rights north of Arabia, and Islamic conquest of former Byzantine territories do not claim reconquest of previously lost lands. Bani Yisrail were accepted as the indigenous population of the land formerly known as Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda. It says so in SURAH 17: AL-ISRAA (THE NIGHT JOURNEY, OR BANI ISRA'IL, OR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL), VERSES 001-111. Judaism's own texts acknowledge Arab travellers in their own lands from very ancient times, but never as residents <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Double Correction - Israeli is indeed a "nationalist identity" ("Of or relating to the people or the republic of Israel" -Merriam-Webster). That is how it is used now. That is what it means. It is absolutely not the same as 'Israelite'. Also, the Qur'an and any other religious scriptures have no place in this discussion. Also, Also, in the candyland of Abrahamic-Religions, Jews are indeed the descendants of Abraham, just like Muslims. Thanks for the weird etymology and Islamic scripture lesson though.HaleakalAri (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

An editor has filed a complaint at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement#Evildoer187 about breakage of the WP:1RR restriction on this article. My proposed remedy is to put List of indigenous peoples under full protection for two months. During that period, any changes would have to be made through edit requests after getting consensus here on the talk page. If you have an opinion on that proposal, or other ideas on how to limit the edit warring on this article, you can comment at WP:AE#Comments by others about the request concerning Evildoer187. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair. However, it is best that we leave the West Asian section as Bedouin, Marsh Dwellers, and Samaritans for now. We should wait until we reach an agreement before going any further than that. I would also counsel against reverting to the older version you recommended, as it contained various inflammatory adjuncts such as "pre-Zionist", and I can not see that ending well. At the very least, we should exclude the Old Yishuv, Mizrahim, Israelites, Jews, Palestinians, and Arabian categories.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. I suggest simply leaving the page in its current state.HaleakalAri (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. This is a suggestion devoid of any basis! The Israelites are indigenous though a continuous land claim to the region over three millennia, yet somehow their inclusion in the list is linked to the 20th century political conflict. Only in Wikipedia! Crock81 (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

First, since there would seem to be a majority of editors here in favor of including "Jews" or "Israelis" on this list, several basic aspects of the definition of "indigenous people" should be clarified. Generally speaking, the concept is applied to minority groups of people that were inhabiting a territory prior to the incursion into that territory by a culturally more advanced external power in early times (such as the Ainu of Japan), or a modern nation state/empire (e.g., the Australian Aborigines, the Maori of New Zealand, the American Indians of the USA).

And this would apply to Jews.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear from the following discussion of demographics in Palestine that there were very few Jews in the region prior to the Zionist movement, which was backed by the British Empire. That would seem to make it clear that the territory of Palestine has been subjected to colonial or neo-colonial oppression. Furthermore, the majority of the Jews that migrated and settled in the region were from Europe. demographics since late 19th to early 20th century

It is clear that the Palestinians and Arabs belong on the list, as they were the indigenous inhabitants prior to the disruption instigated by the British Empire, partly at the behest of British Zionists.

Had you been referring to the period between the Roman colonization of Israel and the British Mandate of Palestine, then you would be correct. However, you have failed to make that distinction here, so you are rightly being called out on it. Furthermore, if the Jewish people are somehow not indigenous because they wrested the territory from the Canaanites (despite archaeological evidence to the contrary), then by that logic it would appear that Palestinians are not indigenous either, since they are ethnically Arab.

As far as your claim that Zionism was a project of "settlers from Europe", it was more accurately the project of an indigenous group returning from the diaspora. In addition, the majority of today's Israeli citizens (or "settlers", according to you) are actually Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews from Arab and Islamic countries. There are also smaller numbers of Jewish groups from India, Africa, and even China, but genetics does not support a Middle Eastern origin for these groups.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The establishment of the Jewish state of Israel is now a fact and its existence is recognized under international law, and the fact that there are oppressed minorities of indigenous people, i.e., Bedouin and Palestinian Arabs, within Israel is addressed in the UN document cited above.

Palestinians have a nation-state, albeit an occupied one, so they do not apply any more than Jews do. Although various Jewish and Palestinian NGOs attend forums on indigenous rights, as I have shown you before. And once more, you are ignoring the remnant Jewish minority that inhabited the region up until the British mandate. Now they're apparently not indigenous because A) they're no longer a minority and B) they're not being oppressed.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

References to religious documents, such as the Torah, and characterization of Jews as "one of the original peoples of the region" are not only inapplicable in the above-described context, but irrelevant and unsourced POV based on emotional proclivity, not reason.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

They most certainly do not belong on the list any moreso than Jews do. I will respond to the rest of what you have written to me later. I just woke up. Evildoer187 (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have a factual basis for making such an assertion, it might be better to wait until you do.

I think that the sources I've cited make it clear that Jews and Palestinians are separated more by religion and history than genetics, and with respect to history, they represent a group of people that should be characterized as indigenous according to the criteria of this page and the UN, whereas the Jews have a "Jewish state of Israel", and have no claim to being indigenous to anywhere at present--having returned to Palestine from Europe--though they can trace their origins to the same land of Canaan as the Palestinians.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Need I remind you, again, that Jews have maintained a continuous and uninterrupted presence in the area from the age of the Canaanites (from whom the Jews branched off) up to the British Mandate. Further, you make it sound as though indigeneity is something that can just evaporate over time, over circumstances beyond their control. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. If it did, then the Palestinian refugees dispersed all over the world (in a similar fashion to the Jewish diaspora) would have no basis for their claims of "Right to Return". And again, what of the Palestinians who descend largely from invading Arab tribes (whereas Jews mostly don't) during the Islamic conquest?Evildoer187 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ubikwit, you will note that my edit stated the Israelites are an ethno-religious indigenous population, where as the same can not be said for the Arabs who have a pagan pre-Islamic history the evidence of which has largely been destroyed, as are the early Islamic sites. Therefore genetics will not mean much given the Torah explicitly states there were a large number of non-Israelites that accompanied the people from their Egyptian exile, and that provides for accepting converts, including as detailed in later texts, into the royal family. Any statements made by geneticists about the current genetic data of the population therefore will not reflect the historical land claims to the region by all representatives of the population, those that remained in the land, and those in the diasporic communities. In fact I would suggest to you that your suggestion of basing membership in the Israelite nation on genetics may be quite insulting to a large number of its members, most notably Beta Israel. The UN does not have a definition that can in any way be interpreted to deny Israelites an indigenous status. The Filistin can not trace their origins to the same land of Canaan, because they never conducted a Conquest of Canaan after which Canaanite city states ceased to exist.Crock81 (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, why hasn't anyone included the Kurds on this list?--Ubikwit (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Given the criteria of the definition of indigenous peoples as defined under international law, particularly "Defining Indigenous People" Section 2 which I will explain in a moment, it would be inaccurate and an exercise in historical revisionism to include Palestinians in the list and not Jews. Here I have produced a word-for-word copy of the criteria, lifted directly from the document, as it is download-only and cannot be linked to on here. However, a quick Google search of "UN working definition of indigenous peoples" should lead you directly to the document itself.

Now without further ado...

"This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:

Reading this, it should be apparent to anyone with extensive knowledge on Jewish history that Jews fit the bill to a tee. All of this is roundly supported by genetic, historical, linguistic, archaeological, and cultural evidence. There is also a consensus based on archaeological and other findings that the Jewish people are an outgrowth of Canaanite culture, and are thus not foreign conquerors from Babylon as has been posited by less than reliable sources. The idea that Palestinians are indigenous, and the Jews are not, is not supported by the facts on the table, especially considering Palestinians are ethnically Arab/Muslim, who are arguably even more recent than the Roman colonization of the Levant. It's also worth mentioning that denial of Jewish indigeneity resulted in charging Chandra Roy-Henriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States anti-discrimination laws. To this day, Israeli and Jewish representatives continue to attend the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, as is shown here: http://firstpeoples.org/wp/tag/american-jewish-world-services/

Another UN definition of indigenous peoples. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf

"Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following: • Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member. • Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies • Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources • Distinct social, economic or political systems • Distinct language, culture and beliefs • Form non-dominant groups of society • Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities."

With the exception of part 6 (i.e. "Form non-dominant groups of society"), according to which Palestinians (whose culture and ethnic identity is that of the Arab colonists from the 7th century) and Arabs in general would also be excluded, Jews meet virtually all of the criteria listed. I will also add, since I'm sure it will be brought up again, that there is no clause or provision whatsoever in international law that excludes, either explicitly or implicitly, ancient and long displaced peoples like the Jews from recognition as an indigenous people.

One last thing, I would also like to charge Ubitwik of promoting some rather crass antisemitic conspiracy theories on the talk page, as evidenced here:

"Harry Truman was a Christian biblical literalist who also happened to be a Freemason and close acquaintance of Zionist activist Chaim Weizman, which many associate with the Knight Templar, who rose to prominence through the Crusades to the so-called Holy Land. The Crusaders thought that they had a claim to "land rights", based on religion--Christianity. Your assertions are all either misdirected and irrelevant, or simply incorrect. The questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit"

And here....

"It would appear that the Israeli participants were trying to hijack the forum in order to bolster their assertion of a claim to "indigenousness". Chandra Roy-Henriksen was not "charged" by a prosecutor, but charges were leveled against her by the Jews organization that is filing a civil suit, apparently. The last sentence in the article states: "There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous." That is obviously not the case, and what unfolds in the civil suit should be relevant regarding the disposition of Jews to claim indigenous status. The modern state of Israel is considered to be illegally occupying Palestinian territory, in case you need to be reminded of that salient fact.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit"

Evildoer187 (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is an even shorter criteria for defining indigenousness

1. a priority in time

2. the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness

3. an experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession

4. and self-identification

and

"...the objective and observable traits (from clothing to behaviours) that conform to the dominant definitions of what it is to be Indigenous."

In terms of a distinct culture, there are two aspects

• culture provides a stock of knowledge – a cognitive component – that is a basic foundation for social behavior; it includes cultural symbols and language
• culture provides elements necessary for the maintenance of integration and conformity in society – a normative component - ways of specifying the correct ways of thinking and behaving and of defining morality; it includes values, Norms (Folkways/conventions & Mores/laws) and their social sanctions.

It seems the Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis fit this criteria in their own right.

1. There are no regional populations with older claims to the lands as outlines in Judaism's core cultural texts

2. It seems there is a wide range of sources that support Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis history of perpetuating cultural distinctiveness even during attempts to suppress them

3. There are many sources for supporting the Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession several times in the region and in the diaspora

4. With the exception of the Kohen and Levi, there is a continuity in Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis self-identification as such and with the Land of Israel

5. Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis continue to use distinctive clothing found in their foundational texts such as Tzitzit and Tefillin which are distinctive to their culture regardless of the period and circumstance. In terms of behaviour, Tefillah as a ritual and time-specific community behaviour is also unique to the people; a practice attributed for its origin to the fore-fathers. Other objective and observable traits include specific age of 'adulthood', dietary practices, the obligatory writing of sacred texts and observing a work-free day of the week.

6. Distinctive cognitive and normative cultural aspects to the Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis communities and societies exhibit continuity in adherence to their sacred texts written in own language, which are a large body of legal concepts and rituals extended by the oral tradition that had been used as a benchmark by the Christian and Islamic cultures, and extensive use of cultural symbols, including as the emblem on the coat of arms of the state of Israel.Crock81 (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This page has been fully protected two months under WP:ARBPIA per a decision at WP:Arbitration enforcement. The complaint stated there was a dispute about inclusion of either Israelites or Palestinians as indigenous peoples. The best way to resolve this is probably a WP:Request for comment. In your reasoning, please use reputable scientific findings and (if you can) international law. Citations to the holy books of various religions and to religious tradition may not be found credible. You can use {{editrequest}} to ask for changes to be made during the period of full protection, when such changes are either uncontroversial or are supported by consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I always thought the best way to deal with discussions is to produce facts and use logic rather than stop discussion Crock81 (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I will post my response to Ubitwik's response to me on here instead.

Accusations of collaboration and misrepresenting facts aside, which I will address in a moment, I feel that Ubitwik's persistent historical revisionism and twisting of facts is detrimental to the process of resolving this dispute. It is also inherently harmful to Wikipedia's stated goal of creating a high quality, well-rounded, and neutral encyclopedia.

First, Ubitwik's claims that Jewish NGOs attempted to hijack the forum, that the UN forum blocked both the Bedouin and Israeli NGOs for this same reason, and that the Israeli government was using the Bedouin to force themselves on the agenda seem to be little more than conjecture and POV analysis, both of which are forbidden on here. As is indicated by the quotes Ubitwik himself provided, these same organizations had been present at the conference in the years prior to this issue. The official story is, in the following order:

You haven taken my working-level comments out of context and distorted the fact that they were not intended for inclusion in an edit but for improving the editing on this article overall. The two NGOs mentioned in that article were one representing the interests of Bedouins (Negev Coexistence Forum for Civil Equality, an Israeli Bedouin rights organization) and the other appearing to represent the governments position, as per the passage quoted from the article under your no. 6 below. Note that the "other organization" that created the report is not identified, but the report is obviously critical of the Bedouin. So you have two NGOs on opposite sides of the same issue from Israel, and issue that would apparently be of overall low priority to the conference as a whole, yet the OFICL NGO fielding the largest number of representatives at the conference of any country. The inference I make from the context of the article are not unreasonable.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Let's see now...

"In light of the fact that the following reference is cited in the document State of the Indigenous Peoples of the World, p. 151, it would appear that the Israeli organization sent an overwhelming presence to the conference in order to dominate the forum, and that to prevent that from recurring both the Israeli and Bedouin groups were blocked. It can be imagined that the issues at hand regarding the world's multitude of indigenous peoples demanded the attention of the participants, whereas the issue of the plight of the Bedouin had been stonewalled by the Israeli government, and from the description of the report the OFICL presented, they would seem to have been presenting the governments position vis-a-vis the Bedouins as a proxy of the government"

And...

"It would appear that the Israeli participants were trying to hijack the forum in order to bolster their assertion of a claim to "indigenousness". Chandra Roy-Henriksen was not "charged" by a prosecutor, but charges were leveled against her by the Jews organization that is filing a civil suit, apparently. The last sentence in the article states: "There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous." That is obviously not the case, and what unfolds in the civil suit should be relevant regarding the disposition of Jews to claim indigenous status. The modern state of Israel is considered to be illegally occupying Palestinian territory, in case you need to be reminded of that salient fact.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit"

The quotes from the OFICL representatives clearly indicate that this organization had no trouble attending the conference in years prior to this incident. Also, unless I'm reading it wrong (which I highly doubt) the quote from Kaplan as shown in number 6 implies that the Israeli government was violating the rights of the Bedouin in the Negev, and so the OFICL worked with the Bedouin NGO against the governments violations, not for it.

I would say that you are reading it wrong, but the article could be poorly written. Perhaps you'd care to explain how you interpret the passage, "we were able to forward a report by another organization about the situation containing studies about the serious ecological damage posed by illegal Bedouin construction" as being pro Bedouin? The passages cites a report containing studies about "serious ecological damage posed by illegal Bedouin construction". That sounds like an explicit charge against the Bedouin of engaging in illegal construction that is said to be ecologically harmful. --Ubikwit (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I interpreted it as illegal Israeli construction on Bedouin villages, and in the context of everything else written in the document, I have reason to believe that my interpretation is correct. Even if it wasn't, your accusations of hijacking the forum are still groundless and constitute original research. Reading the quotes from the representatives, it is clear that these organizations were present at Forum conferences prior to this incident, with or without the Bedouin. Jewish NGOs still attend the conferences.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The 'inferences' you are making are not only baseless and a deliberate distortion of the facts presented in the article, but they violate WP:NOR and are completely irrelevant to the question of including Jews as an indigenous West Asian group.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As per the above, I not only disagree, but am compelled to insist that you temper your reactions with reason, responding only after considered consideration of what I post. This is not amateur hour.--Ubikwit (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It does not matter one bit how "reasonable" your inferences are. Original research by any other name is still original research. I maintain that my responses to you have all been reasonable. However, I will try to respond less abrasively in the future.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Two Jewish NGOs, including the Office of Israeli Constitutional Law (or OFICL) were barred from attending a United Nations Permanent forum on Indigenous Issues (or UNPFII) conference.

2. "OFICL investigated the issue, and subsequently discovered that another organization called the Negev Coexistence Forum for Civil Equality, an Israeli Bedouin rights organization, was also barred from attending the same conference."

3. Said organization believed that something was amiss, and subsequently sent out a number of faxes, letters, and e-mails to the UN. They received no reply.

4. OFICL takes legal action, and charges Chandra Roy-Hendriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States antidiscrimination laws.

5. OFICL chairman Dr. Michael T. Snidecor: “We attended last year’s conference and actually floored 12 Representatives during the Conference, I don’t have access to the actual records, but our Secretary was told that we had the largest number of representatives from outside North America at the conference.” Clearly, these same groups never faced any trouble attending prior conferences, and OFICL stated that it had stayed active with the Forum following that conference.

6. Quote from OFICL director Mark Kaplan: “The Special Rapporteur for the region said that for years the Forum had tried to obtain information from the Israeli Government about complaints regarding issues with Bedouin in the Negev. The government has never responded. So, we were able to forward a report by another organization about the situation containing studies about the serious ecological damage posed by illegal Bedouin construction and proposals on how to work with the Bedouins to solve the issues. Dr. Snidecor also created a simple online system for anonymously filing complaints of indigenous rights violations. So, we have remained an active NGO in the forum.”

7. The organization also explained that the legal action is required since, as Dr. Snidecor explained, “we were not given any reason for rejecting us other than saying we are ineligible under two resolutions—one of which has nothing to do with NGO qualifications. We see nothing that disqualifies us, and no one will take responsibility for the decision to reject our application.”

8. Another quote from Kaplan: “The sad thing is that the indigenous tribes who attend the conference are not guilty, it is the UN employees. Unfortunately, our taking this action may tarnish the reputation of the forum. This is not something we want to do. These are wonderful people, and they are not connected to the anti-Israel governments and policies of the UN. However, had there been a valid reason to exclude us from the conference, the UN powers-that-be should have been able to cite what the disqualifying issue is. If they cannot cite the criteria we do not meet, then it seems rather suspicious that there is something else going on here. There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous."

That is the official story, and as you can see, I have paraphrased the article in its entirety. Extrapolating any further than what I have laid out is original research at best, and deliberate misinformation at worst. Ubitwik rightly notes that the Bedouin have been included on the agenda for years (see http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP_web.pdf p.151). However, he subsequently performs a massive leap in logic and postulates that their exclusion must have been part of an insidious Jewish plot to hijack the forum and promote their agenda, using the Bedouins as a proxy. Not only is this pure conjecture, not supported by facts, but it is an expression which contains clear antisemitic "Jewish plot/conspiracy" undertones. I will refrain from making assumptions about his character, but I would advise that the appropriate administrators keep this in mind in future dealings with him.

That is the second time you have tried to label me an anti-Semitic, I'm very close to seeking whatever administrative redress is available against your bigoted comments.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

If you can point out even one thing that I've said that constitutes bigotry, I'd love to see it. There were clear antisemitic tropes present in your conjecture (which in itself has no place on Wikipedia). Address that first.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"The attempt to claim retroactive status of indigeneity after more than a thousand years of no historical continuity with the land in question is anachronistic, and represents an effort to mask the actual status of the Zionist returnees to Palestine, which is that of “settlers”. In a sense, the Zionist settlers can be seen to have served as a proxy for the colonization of Palestine. Meanwhile, the definition of “indigenous peoples” has been put forth mainly with respect to tribal minorities an aboriginal peoples that have been subjugated on their lands by modern nation states. There is a definition that contrasts “setters” to “indigenous” from a relevant reference below."

The fly in the ointment here, as I have explained to him on the talk page, is that there is nothing in international law on the definition of indigenous peoples that explicitly or implicitly excludes ancient peoples who have been displaced from their historic homeland for centuries. It's not there. I repeat: it's not there. Furthermore, in addition to a continuous Jewish presence on the territory from the age of the Canaanites (from whom they branched off sometime in the 2nd millennium BC) to the present day, Jews meet virtually all of the criteria listed in international law in regards to what constitutes an indigenous group. Repatriation =/= colonialism.

There is no "fly in the ointment", as there is no requirement of a positive statement excluding claims from groups claiming to be "ancient peoples who have been displaced from their historic homeland for centuries". There are passages from definitions that do include the terms "at present" to describe the status of groups that are to be included under the category of "indigenous peoples".--Ubikwit (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I beg to differ. If you cannot provide any proof that ancient peoples are excluded from claiming indigenous status under international law, then there is no reason (barring political motivations) to use that as the basis for editing the article. The onus is on you to provide it, and thus far you have failed to do so. The quotation "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" contains nothing that would exclude Jews in favor of Palestinians. Rather, it seems to refer to current circumstances regarding demographic balances, which cannot be accurately applied to Palestinians or Jews as they each have their own respective states on that same territory where they comprise the majority. One is just occupied illegally by the other. Evildoer187 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You are recalcitrant and duplicitous, and put forth nothing in terms of "international law" yourself. You do, however, selectively omit the following, which I posted on your Administrative action page:

Recalcitrant and duplicitous? How so? Not only have I provided sources from international law (see our earlier exchanges), but I am not the one who claimed that ancient peoples are excluded. That was you, so the onus for proving it is on you, not me. The quotes you have provided thus far have given me something to work with, at least. However, they do not suffice.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The following link is the webpage from which the document cited by Evildoer can be downloaded, and includes more information. “OP 4.10-Indigenous Peoples” The World Bank. July 2005

Trask observes that “indigenous peoples are defined in terms of collective aboriginal occupation prior to colonial settlement.” She points one an important difference between indigenous history and that of settler history: settlers can claim a voluntary status-- they chose to relocate to lands where their descendants now claim a legal inheritance. Indigenous peoples have an involuntary status: their physical lives on homeland areas are tied to emergence or other creation stories. Their formal nationalities were imposed upon them by outside governments.

And Jews don't fit this criteria how? I still don't see anything that excludes Jews in favor of Palestinians. The Jewish people are, and remain, a collective aboriginal population that existed on the territory prior to colonial settlement up to the present day. The only difference is, they once again have a majority state, thanks to the UN partition and returnees from diaspora communities around the world. Repatriation to their ancestral lands and establishing a state is not the same thing as colonialism. And seeing as both Jews and Palestinians (especially Jews, whose culture is directly related to Canaanite culture) are a continuation of the aboriginal inhabitants of ancient Israel/Palestine/etc, neither group is a colonial presence. Would you consider an influx of Amerindians, currently resident elsewhere, into US territory to re-establish themselves in their ancestral homeland to be "colonialism"? I would certainly hope not.

Further, Palestinian nationality was not imposed on the Palestinians by the Israeli government. Neither Palestinian or Israeli status is involuntary (with the possible exception of those in Gaza), since there is a Palestinian diaspora living all over the world, just as there is (and has been for centuries) a Jewish diaspora.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional Definitions 2. Jose Martinez Cabo's working definition of “indigenous communities, peoples and nations”:

“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.

Evildoer187 is correct to draw attention to the portion of the above passage (my emphasis), because it brings to the fore the aspect of contemporaneity that is integral to the issue of indigeneity. He leaves out the remaining portions that indirectly relate to aspects which could be associated with oppression of the minority Palestinians residing in the Jewish state of Israel, and the Palestinians residing in the Palestinian territories.

Insofar as nothing is officially codified in international law except perhaps the declaration of rights, the definition by Cabo carries substantial weight as applied to determining who meets the criteria. Your brazen attempt to assert that Palestine is a state secure in its borders as a majority population is a ludicrous and offensive attempt to deflect attention from the fact that they are being oppressed by the Jewish state of Israel in a manner that many authorities conclude engenders them to the status of an indigenous people.

And since there has been much discussion regarding "contemporaneity on this page, the phrase 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 most certainly excludes Israelis from being categorized as an indigenous people, and lends a good deal of weight to the case for including the Palestinians, even if only until their rights are not being violated by the Jewish state of Israel.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I made it abundantly clear that they were an occupied nation, and I never said that the Palestinian state was secure in its borders. I will ask that you not put words in my mouth (or in this case, take words OUT of my mouth). You seem perfectly happy to gloss over, if not outright ignore, historical circumstances (which are relevant, and rightly so) and well-established Jewish connection/roots in the region in order to paint Jews inaccurately and unjustifiably as a foreign (and thus, colonial) presence. And even if that were true, the Palestinians are still a national entity, with a state and internationally defined borders. So in that sense, they are in roughly the same boat as the Jews, give or take.

Let me spell it out for you one last time, in more precise terms.

Oppressed, differentiated minority group in an Arab-dominated Middle East? Check.

Sought to maintain cultural continuity and tradition in the face of Muslim and Christian expansionism, imperialism and oppression? Check.

Subjected to institutionalized prejudice on a grand scale, in their native Middle East and in foreign countries? Check.

The only difference here is that we actually 'did something about it in 1948. Palestinians have not been granted that luxury (yet). In any case, Jews have suffered forced assimilation & forced resettlement in their ancestral lands and in foreign lands (i.e. Europe). They've suffered genocide and all manner of persecution in foreign lands. They've vigorously fought invading forces and dominant groups in order to maintain their unique culture, legal systems and way of life.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"First, here are definitions from the article Indigenous peoples:

The political sense of the term defines these groups as particularly vulnerable to exploitation and oppression by nation states. As a result, a special set of political rights in accordance with international law have been set forth by international organizations such as the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank.

The status of the indigenous group in this relationship can be characterized in most instances as an effectively marginalized, isolated or minoritised one, in comparison to majority groups or the nation-state as a whole. Their ability to influence and participate in the external policies that may exercise jurisdiction over their traditional lands and practices is very frequently limited. This situation can persist even in the case where the indigenous population outnumbers that of the other inhabitants of the region or state; the defining notion here is one of separation from decision and regulatory processes that have some, at least titular, influence over aspects of their community and land rights."

I cannot find this quote anywhere on the Indigenous peoples article. You are going to have to link to it yourself. In any case, with the exception of the part about nation states and minority status (which isn't of vital importance, according to this quote), I see nothing here that excludes Jews. Furthermore, Palestinians would also be excluded under this criteria, given that they also have a (occupied) nation-state where they make up the majority of its inhabitants.

The first passage is in the lead of the article, and the second paragraph "Definitions" section of the article. Why don't you try using copy-paste to search before making groundless accusations and wasting other people's time? --Ubikwit (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

That's precisely what I did. It's not there.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"The claims to land based on their religious documents, which contain a large proportion of fictitious material, are put forth as superseding the exigencies of historical reality in terms of seeking to retroactively assert an anachronistic claim of indigeneity, on the one hand, while on the other hand, it has been admitted that the tale of Moses leading Israelites out of slavery in Egypt was a fabrication in order to claim direct genealogical connection with the Canaanites, whose kingdoms and cultures the Israelites usurped. It has also been claimed that Israelites were prohibited from intermarrying with Canaanites, further complicating the convoluted assessment by the introduction of unreliable sources in the form of religious documents."

I have not made use of the Torah or any other religious text even once in my defense of Jewish indigeneity. Further, archaeological evidence shows that the Israelites are an outgrowth of the ancient Canaanites. There were no invading Babylonian hordes from the East that subjugated them. Ironically, that in itself is a myth from religious texts, which you claim (and I agree) has no relevance here. So why do you contradict yourself in promoting this POV?

That is not promoting POV, but pointing to a contradiction in the position of various proponents for including Jews/Israelis/Israeliltes on this list. Decent from Canaanites per se is a marginal issue as its facticity cannot be established, as the legal terms used is "first occupancy". Both the Palestinians, and more recently the Jews--based on modern research--claim descent from Canaanites. And though it wasn't you that quoted some religious source on the topic, it should be mentioned that the religious source would seem to exclude the possibility insofar as Jews were prohibited from intermarrying with the Canaanites. So the proponent faction is making contradictory arguments.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Evidently, that part has nothing to do with me, as my arguments for including Jews make no recourse to Biblical or Talmudic texts. There is enough evidence to safely say that the Israelites, from whom Jews and Samaritans descend, are descended from the Canaanites, and not foreign conquerors as has been postulated. But for the sake of argument, let's say that neither Jews or Palestinian Arabs claim descent from the ancient Canaanites. Who do you believe can claim "first occupancy"? Clearly, it isn't the Palestinian Arabs.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"It could be said that those attempting to push these views are attempting to assume the mantle of Canaanites in a manner that monopolizes such an anachronistic claim for the Jews and excludes the Palestinians, who in fact have historical continuity in the land of Canaan, whereas it would appear from a cursory assessment of the history of the region that the Jews were completely absent for centuries on end before the modern era, with a mere 4% of the population of Palestine consisting of Jews in the mid-19th century."

How do you reconcile the idea that the Jews (who, again, are an outgrowth of the Canaanites) have no historical continuity in the land of Canaan, yet somehow a group that ethnically and culturally identifies with the Arab conquerors from the 7th century AD does? This is some of the sloppiest and most broken reasoning I have ever read. If there was even a tiny Jewish presence in the region, then it does not follow that the Jews were "completely absent", as you put it. And I'm not trying to say that the Palestinians have no continuity with the Canaanites (they do), rather I'm trying to point out the contradictions in your arguments.

"In another sense, neither the Jews nor Palestinians would need to be considered as indigenous if not for the intervention of Britain and Zionist colonization, because nether population emerged as the original occupants of the land, and even the myths of the Israelites describe them as migrating from Egypt. However, because the Zionist colonization has resulted in oppression of people that had unbroken historical continuity in inhabiting Palestine, discussion has taken place in UN forums relating to the plight of Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin Arabs in Israel.

"In short, the discussion of religious references and genetics are largely irrelevant to the immediate exigencies of modern history and the plight of the Palestinians, which are simply glossed over by the pro-Israel contributors.

There is a fundamental contradiction between an “indigenous community” and a “diaspora”."

If what you say is true, then why do Jewish rights/pro-Israel groups continue to participate in these same conferences? Genetics are certainly relevant, according to the UN document "Defining Indigenous Peoples". Further, archaeological and historical consensus has described the Israelites/Jewish people as having continuity with the ancient Canaanites. And concerning his last two cited definitions of indigenous, Palestinians would also be excluded given that criteria.

Now regarding the accusation of "collaborating with other individuals with a blatant religious bias", I assume he's referring to Crock8, whom I have criticized for this very reason. Ubitwik's claims that I have a pro-Israel bias are also baseless, as I have repeatedly opted to include Palestinians and Arabs as well in the list.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Do Palestinians fit the criteria that defines indigenousness, e.g.

• a priority in time
• the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness
• an experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession
• and self-identification
  

and
"...the objective and observable traits (from clothing to behaviours) that conform to the dominant definitions of what it is to be Indigenous."
In terms of a distinct culture, there are two aspects

• culture provides a stock of knowledge – a cognitive component – that is a basic foundation for social behavior; it includes cultural symbols and language
• culture provides elements necessary for the maintenance of integration and conformity in society – a normative component - ways of specifying the correct ways of thinking and behaving and of defining morality; it includes values, Norms (Folkways/conventions & Mores/laws) and their social sanctions.
  

1. There is no claim by the Palestinian population to existence prior to the creation of the Roman Syria Palaestina province in 135 CE following the defeat of the Bar Kokhba Revolt

2. The modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab with no perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness, and indeed the celebration intended to showcase this was called the Al-Quds Arab Capital of Culture and not Al-Quds Filistin Capital of Culture

3. There is no record of the Filistin experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession prior to the 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine, also known as the Arab Peasants revolt because until then under the Ottoman Empire, the Southern part of Ottoman Syria's Arab population mostly saw themselves as Ottoman subjects.

4. Earliest national self-identification is suggested by a modern Israeli scholar as coming from Khayr al-Din ibn Ahmad ibn Nur al-Din Ali ibn Zayn al-Din ibn Abd al-Wahab al-Ayubi al-Farooqui c. late 17th century. The city's construction where Khayr al-Din al-Ramli was born dates to the turn of the 8th century, its name derived from the Arabic word for sand, and was began by the descendants of the Caliph with origins in the Arabian region Najd, literally Highland, from the central region of the Arabian Peninsula. Although al-Ramli does mention in his al-Fatawa al-Khayriyah the concepts of Filastin, biladuna (our country), al-Sham (Syria), Misr (Egypt), and diyar (country), in senses that appear to go beyond objective geography, they do not clearly state a claim to land, nor the identity of the claimants, nor the basis for such possible claim, or even the borders of Filistin beyond those imposed by the Ottoman rule.

5. To quote Wikipedia's own article on the Palestinian people Ancestral origins section "Like the Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, Maghrebis, and most other people today commonly called Arabs, the Palestinians are an Arab people in linguistic and cultural affiliation. Since the Islamic conquest in the 7th century, the Palestinians, a Hellenised people, came under the influence of the Arabic-speaking Muslims, whose culture they adopted. This confluence was historically formative for modern Palestinian culture as we know it. Genetic research studies suggests that present-day Palestinians have roots that go back to the ancient inhabitants of the area.

George Antonius, founder of modern Arab nationalist history, wrote in his seminal 1938 book The Arab Awakening: " The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times, for the term 'Arab' [in Palestine] denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from the Arabian Peninsula who occupied the country in the seventh century, but also the older populations who intermarried with their conquerors, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently arabised." Antonius, a descendant of the Greek population in Lebanon and Egypt, neglects to mention that Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis were also among the "older populations" subjected to Hellenization, but who did not become either completely Hellenised, or later Arabised, and while adopting some aspects of both cultures at various times, preserved their own rather than completely assimilate. Subsequently the claim to the "earliest historic times" is an empty one given there are no objective and observable evidence to support the claim.

6. I am unable to establish any distinctly Filistin cognitive or normative traits or behaviours Crock81 ([[User

talk:Crock81|talk]]) 08:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get this criteria from? Without a source, it's impossible to take any of this seriously.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it's very compelling information, which provides a counterpoint to the people who assert that Jews should be excluded from the list.HaleakalAri

Perhaps. We need a source though, otherwise it's useless.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are asking me where I got the criteri from, than you haven't done even the most basic of research on the subject. I suggest you do that first before continuing your 'arguments' Crock81 (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)