A video circulated on social media of a Palestinian youth dancing amidst fires during the Great March of Return in 2018. Suddenly, without apparent reason, his dance was compared to the dances of indigenous peoples in the United States, those who suffered through genocide that would eventually establish the authority of the colonizers of the New World.
This video is referenced to criticize the concept of indigenous peoples attached to Palestinians. Although this concept is not new, Mahmoud Darwish’s poem, The Red Indian’s Penultimate Speech to the White Man (1992), illustrates the comparison well.
The term “indigenous” peoples suggests that this group of land dwellers has vanished, with a few remaining who are “no longer dominant.” The connection with their ancestors who disappeared is questioned— is it through blood? Traditions? Language? Or dances?
Some political approaches argue that the American genocide was foundational for the sovereignty, or more precisely, the democracy of the United States. In contrast, classical Greek democracy, exported to Europe and its later colonies, was founded on the existence of slaves. Thus, we face two exceptional models where one class’s sovereignty prevails over another.
The indigenous minority, whose exact number to be classified as “indigenous” is unclear, seeks to preserve its cultural heritage rather than political power. This aligns with the situation of Native Americans and Palestinians worldwide. The cultural “indigenous” product gains decorative value, serving as a signifier for those who vanished, as expressed by Mahmoud Darwish: “Nothing is left of us but the decoration of ruins.”
The poetic expression above fuels civil organizations that aspire to preserve the “authentic” heritage, the most searched word in Webster’s dictionary this year. However, as soon as the war ignites in Gaza, these organizations cease their support, perhaps because these “indigenous” folk are still alive in the majority!
The term “indigenous people” and its variations imply that the genocide is complete, and there are no longer Palestinians on this land, or more precisely, their land. It also means that they are dispersed in the diaspora, reclaiming a heritage and stories of the past. However, this contradicts reality, as we have not yet reached the post-colonial or post-genocidal stage; both are still ongoing. More importantly, the Palestinians themselves, the “indigenous” generation, are still alive, vividly recalling the pre-colonial era.
Indigenous Peoples Versus the Arabs
The Israeli discourse focuses on the term “Arabs,” claiming that Palestinians are Arabs just like those around them, as if there are no differences between them. In fact, in Israeli rhetoric, Arab identity extends from “the ocean to the Gulf.”
Both discourses are problematic. Arab identity erases cultural and ethnic components in the region within a single phrase, giving birth to oppressive regimes under the slogan of a “single Arab nation.” It imposes a brotherhood that has paid the price of decades of suppression and humiliation, affecting indigenous people, locals, supporters, and opponents.
As for the phrase “indigenous people,” it is the rhetoric of post-colonial/post-genocidal systems, viewing what remains of the “population” as unfit for governance or, more precisely, not suitable for sovereignty over all the land that “was” theirs. Instead, they are assumed to enjoy a kind of self-governance within their walled paradises, akin to the situation of Native Americans. In the case of Gaza, it refers to their forced hell.
Whether the massacre is bureaucratic-administrative or technologically intelligent, classifying “indigenous people” only means violence, celebration of decoration, dancing, symbols, and “representational system,” stripping a population from the concept of an active minority to a decorative minority, if such a term is even valid.
We are facing a linguistic crisis. Palestinians are everything except Palestinians. They are indigenous people, Arabs, and in some discourses, jihadists, Islamists, and, more precisely, Stateless. Each of these discourses implies either an international or national affiliation.
The political impact of “accusing” Palestinians linguistically, stating that they are indigenous people, means that we are in the era of mere narratives. Accusing them of being Arabs, with a focus on the word “accusation,” refers to the rhetoric of displacement and dispossession adopted by Israel and the marginalized rights endorsed by Arab states. Both words are nothing but a seizure of Palestinian rights.
Towards an Intelligent Massacre
The “Mass Assassination Factory” investigation revealed the use of artificial intelligence to target Gaza residents, turning them into human pawns commanded by the Israeli army to move between the “blocks,” which exceed 2,700. This is done to avoid death. Similar blocks exist in the United States under the name “Native Population Sanctuaries,” separating federal government-controlled lands.
What stands out in the previous investigation are the horrifying statements from Israeli army officers and intelligence officers. One of them stated: “There is no such thing as an accident. These are not random missiles. Everything is deliberate. We know precisely the amount of collateral damage in each house.”
The term “genocide” cannot be used because the institutions that have the authority to launch this term are highly political. Furthermore, the definition of genocide, as a crime against humanity, was adopted after World War II as a bureaucratic and administrative effort to kill in large quantities. It does not apply to anyone depicted stacking corpses and broadcasting them to the “world.” But this doesn’t matter.
What matters is that we are facing a machine that accurately knows who to kill and who not to kill. Each killing is calculated, but we are not facing a confrontation. The “target” has no right to surrender, defend themselves, or even betray and join the opposing side. There is no face-to-face engagement. Once the target list is issued (about 250 targets daily), death is inevitable.
The intelligent massacre inaugurates a new era of mass killing. It started with Barack Obama, the king of drones and remote strikes, then continued with European Border Guard drones and facial recognition technologies, and now has reached its peak with the Habsora system for generating targets. This essentially ushers in a new era of mass killing.
This design to destroy lineage and establish the formula of “indigenous people” to minimize political power is always intentional; it is not accidental nor collateral damage. Just two years ago, mass graves of over a thousand indigenous children were discovered in Canada. They were taken from their families to special schools to “distance them from their indigenous culture” in a way to reduce the reproduction of indigenous people, preserving them as a decorative minority for the dominant class.
Whether the massacre is bureaucratic-administrative or technologically intelligent, classifying “indigenous people” only means violence, celebration of decoration, dancing, symbols, and “representational system,” stripping a population from the concept of an active minority to a decorative minority, if such a term is even valid.
Which Origin Are We Talking About?
The discourse on indigenous populations also contains ambiguity. What specific origin are we talking about? In which precise time period? Before 50 years? Before 100? Before 2000 years? This origin is mysterious and leads us into a whirlpool of historical fallacies, myths, and magical powers, eventually turning into either daily myths devoid of political meaning or racist theories about ethnicity. But accepting the term implies nostalgia for land lost without return, with only its dances remaining.
Returning to the young man dancing in front of the fire, we see a form of dabke, a traditional dance, as evident, as well as pounding the ground, which is an ancient tradition. The similarities and imitation here have no connection to pre-Abrahamic traditions; perhaps it’s a mere coincidence or an imagination embracing mass death, and more importantly, there is no talk of indigeneity here. Perhaps this young man is still alive, trying to engage in a political act denied to him.
The irony in this approach to indigenous populations is the emergence of posters depicting Palestinians and Americans as indigenous people dancing. Some images included a girl with loose hair, later transformed into a veiled girl. So, which origin are they referring to here? What are the similarities being sought?
Sami Al Kayyal suggests that using this term is an attempt to “eliminate the political self of the Palestinians.”
“Palestinians fully respond to the identity of indigenous people without any talk of political reconstruction for them. It only leads to intersecting with Israeli thought by giving self-rule to the local population after ending all talk of the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people.” We also add what Netanyahu clearly stated in the past: “the Abraham Accords remove the Palestinians from the equation of the Palestinian issue.”
Reconstruction Crisis
Indigenous people in America are granted sovereignty over the land they prove belongs to them. They often build casinos on it because gambling laws do not fully apply to them. They also preserve ancient graves for their mortuary and historical value. Critics view this form of “recognition” as a means to accumulate wealth among indigenous people, leading them to leave their land and sanctuaries. Consequently, they would lose their “authenticity.” In other words, there are two options metaphorically given to Native Americans: either stay isolated in sanctuaries, graves, and casinos to remain indigenous, or leave them to lose your identity.
There are confirmations from Israel accompanied by mentions of several Arab countries that after “liquidating Hamas,” Gaza will be rebuilt. It might turn into a paradise, in a way, where all destruction will vanish to make room for skyscrapers. Israel will not target them as it does now with tall buildings. Most likely, the graves will be preserved. But the question is, where exactly will the skyscrapers be built? Over Jabalia Camp? Around Khan Yunis?
There is a linguistic paradox here. The word “paradise” means a walled garden, a place of bliss without politics. Everyone inside it enjoys a luminous identity filled with imaginary pleasures, and no one is allowed to enter. But as soon as someone leaves, they lose everything they had in terms of advantages. So, do we want Gaza to be a “paradise for indigenous people”?
