vincentML
Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
How precisely does any of that make Jews not the indigenous people of Israel?
You've played this game before, Ken. How far back in history do you wish to go? Clearly, from the Middle Ages on the Arabs were indigenous to the land. Is it the fault of the Arabs that the Israelis got their ass kicked when they rebelled against the Romans? Of course not. Thank you very much.
Do you not even know what indigenous means?
quote:
originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indigenous
That makes the Jews indigenous to the area not the Arabs who quite obviously migrated into the area.
Ken, your definiton of indigenous people is limited to "who was here first." The United Nations has developed a more complex working understanding of who fits the role. It is LINKED HERE
Understanding the term “indigenous”
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.[29]
"Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies."
There is simply no argument to the fact that the Zionists are the colonial/settler society and that the Arabs are the indigenous people.
Furthermore, from the same source:
Indigenous peoples are ethnic minorities who have been marginalized as their historical territories became part of a state.[1] In international or national legislation they are generally defined as having a set of specific rights based on their historical ties to a particular territory and on their cultural or historical distinctiveness from politically dominant populations. The concept of indigenous peoples defines these groups as particularly vulnerable to exploitation, marginalization and oppression by nation states that may still be formed from the colonising populations, or by politically dominant ethnic groups. 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.[2] The United Nations have issued a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to guide member-state national policies in protecting the collective rights of indigenous peoples to their culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and natural resources. Although no definitive definition of "indigenous peoples" exists, estimates of a World total population of post-colonial indigenous peoples seeking human rights and discrimination redress range from 220 million in 1997[3] to 350 million in 2004.
Your definition is absurdly simplistic. Israelis would not qualify under any of the existing real world working definitions.
< Message edited by vincentML -- 2/13/2013 11:33:47 AM >
|
RE: Israeli Settlements Violate Fourth Geneva Convention - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread