Indigeneity—being an original inhabitant of a region—is a prominent element in contemporary political discourse. The concept is invoked to determine the putative rightful owners of land—indigenous people or their descendants—as opposed to colonists or their heirs. The English term indigenous is derived from the Latin indigena, meaning native.
A common fallacy in discussions of indigeneity is extrapolating specific instances of displacement to broader conclusions. For example, cases of Native Americans (Indians) expelled from their tribal areas have been cited to argue that the United States is an illegitimate political entity. Estimates of the pre-Columbian population in the area of the lower 48 states range from two to 18 million, but there are now more than 340 million residents—plus vast uninhabited spaces.
Land ownership has clear philosophical and legal foundations. For previously unowned land, John Locke maintained that “mixing one’s labor” with such land converts it to the worker’s private property. For land once privately owned, modern real estate title searches and other documentation can establish proper ownership. These points do not address the allocation of land never privately owned or developed—territory often governed following conquest or post-conflict treaties. Public ownership of such land could reasonably be decided by the predominant citizenship or identity of neighboring private owners.
In debates over public or ambiguously held land, at least five criteria rooted in indigeneity have been adduced to justify ownership: (1) earliest ancestral residence, (2) population continuity, (3) population majority, (4) productive governance, and (5) wartime defense. These criteria are often difficult to apply due to complexities of historical records. Religious claims to land, while influential for adherents and their allies, have limited appeal to others.
These criteria can be illustrated by analysis of the Israeli/Jewish and Palestinian/Arab claims to the area encompassing Israel, Gaza, and Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Varied archeological evidence has established a clear history of Jewish residence in this region. Moreover, during ancient times the Hebrews lived in Israel far longer than did the Canaanites or any other people and were more populous than other ethnicities. Involuntary mass Jewish depopulation following Assyrian and Roman conquests should not underweight population tabulations when assessing indigeneity.
In contrast, the notion of Palestinian rather than Arab identity emerged only in the 1964 charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization. The name Palestine itself, applied to the general region and often to local Jews and Jewish organizations, was not even given specifically to the land the United Nations 1947 Partition Plan allocated to Arab jurisdiction. Unlike the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there had never been a sovereign state called Palestine.
It is particularly difficult to quantify the number of Arabs with longstanding Palestinian residence. Many living there in the early 20th century were migrant workers; others were immigrants from Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere. Moreover, Arab population growth was nurtured by the advances of and treatment by Jewish medical personnel that resulted in lower mortality for the general Arab population and included care even for Arabs who were injured during attacks on Israelis. In addition, Jews’ economic development of the region has provided substantial employment opportunities for the surrounding Arab population.
In any event, proper land ownership by some Arabs cannot invalidate the clear Jewish claim for much of the region based on Jewish immigrants’ purchases from prior owners and development of previously uninhabited land, including infested swamps. Moreover, Arabs appropriated billions of dollars of Jewish property and land of Jews who lived for centuries in Arab countries. If Arabs and other Muslims regard the Middle East as a potential unified Islamic domain, then considerations of justice should take into account the largely neglected issue of Arab expropriation of Jewish wealth in several Middle Eastern countries.
Governance offers another evaluation criterion. Israel’s sizable Arab population, tolerance of religions other than Judaism, and high standard of living render it a much more hospitable, safe, and prosperous environment than the adjacent Arab-governed lands that prioritize adherence to Islam and hostility to Israel over the welfare of their own people. In particular, Gaza’s extensive underground tunnel network, used to launch attacks and hold hostages, was built with international donors who presumably hoped their contributions would have provided schools, hospitals, and other non-military facilities to serve local Arabs.
Finally, there are religious arguments. Observant Jews and many Christians accept the Biblical precept that God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. Islamic doctrine proposes to the contrary that any area once under Muslim jurisdiction should never revert to governance by infidels. In particular, the Palestine region was part of the Ottoman Empire so it should not be ruled by Jews or other non-Muslims.
Indigeneity arguments are rarely applied beyond the United States and Israel. This selective focus suggests an ideological motive—perhaps opposition to these two bastions of traditional Western culture and democratic values—rather than principled and widespread application of the indigeneity framework.
Image: Free, via Picryl.