By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article highlights the National Post’s commitment to delivering news and opinions that shape national discourse. It encourages readers to sign up for “NP Posted” to stay informed on these defining issues. This platform serves as a crucial source for those seeking in-depth coverage and a range of perspectives.
Read the original article here
A recent summit in Toronto has ignited a firestorm of discussion, with Indigenous leaders reportedly presenting Israel as “the greatest decolonization project.” This assertion, shared at the “Building Indigenous‑Jewish Friendship conference,” challenges conventional narratives and has, predictably, sent ripples of strong reactions through various communities. The core of the argument seems to center on the idea that Indigenous status isn’t solely defined by recent residency or even a continuous presence but encompasses deep cultural roots and ancestral connections to a land, even after periods of diaspora or expulsion.
This perspective posits that Jewish people possess these profound ancestral ties to the land of Israel. The argument suggests that the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty after two millennia of statelessness is, in this framing, a remarkable reclamation. It’s presented as a testament to the enduring connection between a people and their ancestral homeland, a narrative that, for many, is deeply resonant with historical experiences of displacement and longing.
The revival of Hebrew from a near-dead liturgical language into a vibrant, everyday tongue spoken by millions is highlighted as a significant achievement within this decolonization framework. For numerous groups facing the erosion of their native languages, the success of Hebrew revitalization is seen as a powerful aspiration, a dream realized. This aspect, in particular, is viewed as undermining arguments that solely focus on land claims without acknowledging broader cultural and linguistic resurgence.
However, the notion of “land back” is also brought into sharp focus, with some participants questioning its relevance in contemporary society. This viewpoint argues that while acknowledging Jewish indigeneity to Israel is one thing, it does not, in their opinion, legitimize what they describe as a neo-colonial settler project in the West Bank. This raises a critical question about the boundaries of Indigenous rights and their intersection with current geopolitical realities and actions.
The complexities of indigeneity and belonging are further explored. The argument is made that being Indigenous grants a right to a seat at the table, but it does not, in this view, confer the right to oppress others who also have claims to the same land. This nuance underscores the delicate balance between asserting ancestral rights and ensuring equitable treatment for all inhabitants.
Digging deeper into historical context, the Ottoman Empire’s imperialist rule over Palestine is pointed out as a relevant factor. This historical lens suggests that some claims to the land by Arab populations could also be viewed through a similar, albeit different, historical dynamic of imperial expansion. This comparison, while controversial, is used to bolster the idea that indigenous Jews are, in essence, reclaiming land from imperial forces, even if framed within a potentially problematic “Blut und Boden” ideology.
Historical evidence, such as the Arch of Titus in Rome depicting Roman triumphs over Jews, is cited to underscore the long-standing historical struggle for the land of Israel. This historical perspective seeks to establish a deep and ancient connection that predates other historical claims and even the existence of Islam, suggesting a continuous Jewish presence and connection that endured through various empires.
The idea of shared historical grievances and solidarity with the oppressed is also brought forward. The historical experience of Jewish people, marked by persecution and displacement, is presented as creating a common cause with other marginalized groups. This empathetic connection is seen as a basis for understanding and potential alliance, even amidst complex and contentious issues.
Yet, this perspective is met with significant resistance and counterarguments. Many express disbelief and strong disagreement, finding the rationalization for the displacement of Arabs from Palestine particularly troubling. Comparisons are drawn to hypothetical scenarios, such as descendants of Native Americans forcibly removing white people from America, to highlight the perceived injustice and ethical concerns.
The argument that Jewish people are indigenous to the land is not universally accepted, with some asserting that while ancestral ties exist, the claim of “indigenous” status is invalidated by a prolonged absence. This viewpoint emphasizes a more immediate and continuous connection as the defining characteristic of indigeneity, questioning the legitimacy of claims based on ancient roots after thousands of years of diaspora.
Furthermore, the historical presence of various peoples and rulers in the land of Israel, including Canaanites, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Arabs, and Ottomans, is raised as a counterpoint to the singular narrative of a decolonization project. This complexity suggests that the land has a long and multifaceted history of habitation and rule, making simplistic decolonization claims potentially misleading.
The very framing of the conference and the individuals involved is questioned by some, suggesting that the organizers intentionally sought to create a specific headline and discussion. This skepticism points to a perceived agenda behind the event, aiming to elicit a particular reaction and narrative.
The diversity of Indigenous perspectives is also a crucial point of contention. It is emphasized that Indigenous peoples are not a monolith, and many Indigenous communities globally, including numerous First Nations in Canada, stand in solidarity with Palestine. This highlights that the leaders at the Toronto summit do not speak for all Indigenous peoples, underscoring the varied and often conflicting stances on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The discussion also touches on the nuances of language and identity. The claim that Hebrew was exclusively a liturgical language and not a daily spoken tongue for Jewish people in diaspora is contested, and the successful revitalization efforts are again presented as a remarkable feat. The resilience of languages, such as French in Canada, is brought up as a counterexample to the idea that languages are easily lost.
Ultimately, the Toronto summit’s assertion that Israel represents “the greatest decolonization project” has clearly opened a Pandora’s Box of complex historical, political, and ethical debates. It’s a perspective that, while resonating with some Indigenous leaders and their interpretations of history and identity, sharply contrasts with the views of many others, both within Indigenous communities and beyond, who see a different, and often deeply problematic, reality on the ground. The conversation, it seems, is far from over.