Inteligencia y Seguridad Frente Externo En Profundidad Economia y Finanzas Transparencia
  En Parrilla Medio Ambiente Sociedad High Tech Contacto
Sociedad  
 
04/02/2014 | Common lands, common ground: Indigenous rights, Israel, Palestine and breaking the Oslo Peace Accords logjam

Martin Edwin Andersen

An out-of-the-box proposal for boxed in negotiations.

 

"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and

expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein


Two decades after their leaders signed the Oslo Peace Accords in Washington, new polls show that barely one-third of Palestinians and Israelis now see a badly-needed “two-state” solution as feasible. The seemingly intractable difficulties in coming up with a sustainable framework agreement means that key issues of land, faith, recognition and rights need to be reexamined. A paradigm shift towards a cogent analysis of issues of national identity, self-determination and nationalism is urgently required, accompanied by another, similarly imperative, fundamental change in approach and underlying assumptions in public opinion, the latter also required for the making of lasting peace. To date, a backbench yet debilitating use of the indigenous perspective by both sides in the Palestinian-Israeli debate appears meant to incite anger, rather than to understand the opposing sides’ common concerns, those that could ultimately bring the warring nationalities together. By turning the current acrimonious debate on its head using reality-based indigenous approaches, the prospect of badly needed and currently scarce confidence-building measures— on core issues such as borders, Jerusalem, security and refugees— unfolding in a timely fashion would be greatly advanced.



If presented as part of a more hopeful framework, the indigenous perspective offers a unique examination of concepts such as the “right of return” and the right to live on ancestral lands. It carries with it demands for honest recognition of how, as Brookings scholar Khaled Elgindy has correctly noted,[1] a current lingering reliance on “constructive ambiguity,” has “prolonged—and ultimately doomed—the Oslo process for more than twenty years… producing confusion and eroding trust between the parties.” The common indigenous language necessary to jump-start post-Oslo negotiation is based on ancient perspectives and modern understandings. While seemingly still outside the toolkits of the Washington establishment, it could provide Secretary of State John F. Kerry with what he needs to turn the tide as the April deadline for a peace agreement approaches, eviscerating the feeling that both Israelis and Palestinians now share, that: “Americans could have done more.”[2]



Resuscitating a two-state option now on life support


In short, what is lacking up to now in the discussions and debates is a clear understanding of the modern rights and needs of indigenous peoples, and how that knowledge can go a long way in eliminating what critics rightly deem the “vacuousness” of discussions about the two-state solution. To date, both Israeli and Palestinian publics have been left without real, practical building blocks leading to a shared understanding what the “near-universally recognized need for a two-state solution”[3] can offer. Yet done correctly, an indigenous orientation could allow for the escape—over time—of the potential for a two-state solution from the pessimistic and Churchillian-sounding portrayal of being “not the best option,” but rather the “least worst option.”[4]



Key points:

·         The Jewish and democratic state of Israel is also one of the world’s first modern indigenous states; Palestinian demands center on their own tribal indigeneity. Both require a set of specific rights based on their historical ties to a specific territory, and that their cultural/historical distinctiveness from other populations, including the politically dominant, is recognized.

·         While questions of indigeneity are increasingly used as weapons by both Israeli and Palestinian antagonists, the important potential contribution of a real debate on both indigenous peoples in effectively re-activating the stalled two-state option in the Holy Land is little understood and less appreciated.

·         Thorny issues involving peoples’ right of return to traditional lands and the right to live in indigenous nation states can be better appreciated in the context of current and historical examples of other tribe-based identities and their struggles around the world.

·         Palestinian distrust of Western “betrayal” does not extend to Native peoples of U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile, whose own lessons learned and expertise can be extraordinarily useful in resuscitating the two-state debate.

·         The potential mediating role of tribal experts from the world’s oldest democracy offers myriad “lessons learned.” For example, Israeli needs for maintaining a “Jewish state—and Palestinian worries about what that means for them—can be better understood by recognizing the exercise of rights by non-native and other tribe residents of American Indian reservations.



Israel as a modern indigenous state; Palestinian dreams of one of their own


It is important to remember that the Jewish state of Israel is arguably the world’s first modern indigenous state (although academicians and statesmen in countries in Central and Eastern Europe might reasonably make a similar claim based on their own ethnonationalist experience).  As a result, not only can the history of Israel’s own emergence help shape and inform the fight of other peoples around the world for their own recognition and rights.[5] More to the point in relation to Israel’s ultimate survival as a people is the fact that little of the indigenous argument has been consciously and conspicuously incorporated in a way as to make the two-state solution not only plausible, but also workable.



The facts on the ground clearly delineate Israel’s relationship vis-a-vis tribal peoples elsewhere today. As I noted in my book Peoples of the Earth; Ethnonationalism, Democracy and the Indigenous Challenge in ‘Latin’ America, “The protection of ancestral lands, dimly understood if at all by modern urban dwellers in the global North, is nonetheless a powerful and ecumenical symbol for indigenous and traditional peoples around the world.” As the British historian Hugh Seton-Watson pointed out: “Theodor Herzl and other Zionist leaders came to clearly understand that a nation could not be created from language and religion alone; a state could only emerge when there was an unshakeable bond with a specific territory from which it could be created. … [6]



Another example of this search for self identity—whose uniqueness helps ratify de Vos’s dictum that what is believed, not what objectively was, becomes the operative principle in the reconstruction of identity—is the case of the 700 Indians from Peru and Brazil. The group’s ancestors included a handful of Moroccan Jewish tradesman imported more than a century and a half ago to work in the Amazon rubber industry.



The Jewish merchants had no wives, and ended up marrying local Indian women. In 2005, hundreds of these Indian descendants immigrated to Israel after reconnecting with Judaism and their Jewish heritage, which “up until twenty years ago … was nothing more than a distant memory … living through a handful of religious customs practiced by a few of the families living in the Amazon.” As one author noted, the Jewish immigrants of Indian descent “prove nothing trumps the need to connect with one’s heritage.” The Indians who identified themselves as Jewish qualified to emigrate to Israel under the state’s Law of Return [5710-1950], which gives Jews, those of Jewish ancestry, and their spouses the right to migrate to and settle in Israel and to gain citizenship. (Italics added)[7]



As far as the Palestinian experience goes, Thomas L. Friedman, in his From Beirut to Jerusalem, Revised Edition, provided the perhaps the best synopsis of the tribal imperative for the still-stateless people when he wrote of the continuing legacy of Yasser Arafat:



Long before Arafat came on the scene, there was a clearly defined Palestinian nation, but it was a nation to whom history had said no. … As Arafat himself liked to say, the Palestinians were being treated like “the American Red Indians,” confined on their reservations—shafted by the Arabs, defeated by the Jews and forgotten by the world.  Arafat brought this people back from the dead … and transformed them in the eyes of the world from refugees in need of tents to a nation in need of sovereignty. (Italics added)



Far from dividing Palestinians and Israelis, addressing their common concerns as indigenous peoples provides one of the few bridges to greater mutual understanding and eventual reconciliation. Clearly both Israelis and Palestinians share a history in which both are victims and both have held fast for a less dangerous place in the world for their people. This common perspective is based on an emerging experiential alphabet shared by U.S. Indians and other native peoples, full-bore attention to which could help break the enduring post-Oslo logjam by providing key topics for confidence building:



Dispossession, colonization, tribal identity, land and belonging, return of an irrecoverable past, collective trauma, passion for land, ethnonationalism, displacement and exile, diaspora, the relationship between self-conceptualization and community, reclamation of spiritual wholeness, national identity, spiritual co-existence



The indigenous perspective can foster, unite and sanctify the dispirited apostles for peace in both Israel and in Palestine, including those of respective diasporas clamoring for understanding and participation. It offers the possibility of shedding the mistaken idea that only vague and purposely politicized concepts—the contemporary version of the Kissingerian “constructive ambiguity”—can keep both sides from seeking to grab the other’s throat. It puts on the table essential issues of land, faith and languages and what these mean in practice on the ground, in order to nuture policy trees with real olive branches.



Common lands, common ground


The paucity of other approaches that are offered for consideration by American and other foreign policy mavens reflects either entrenched interests or a misrepresentation of the history of “The Other” in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.  An example of this is the call by some for the creation of a “truth and reconciliation commission” as a way of promoting essential confidence building among the necessary constituencies of a two-state solution—an idea recently floated by a panelist at an otherwise enlightening New America Foundation event in Washington, D.C.: “Peace for Israel and Palestine?[8]



In fact, setting up such a commission would in the foreseeable future most likely seriously backfire—adding damaging heat to a crucially necessary dialogue that polling by Zogby Research Services shows both Israeli and Palestinian publics believe offers few signs of light on the horizon. Continued advocacy in some corners in Washington of “constructive ambiguity” in the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue underscores the yawning pitfalls in the “truth commission” argument. Add to that the fact that neither side has suffered a knock-out military and/or public relations defeat and that outside constituencies, including in the diaspora but also beyond, still hold a lock on what can under present circumstances actually be addressed.[9]



In contrast, the use of the indigenous perspective as a way of moving forward offers a venue of common understanding for opposing sides that share—albeit from antagonistic perspectives—legitimate claims to the earth, and who are flanked by belligerent and aggressive comrades willing to go to the mat to prevail. A contemporary understanding of the century-old Wilsonian perspective regarding ethnonationalism is essential to beat back claims of ethnic superiority and its evil twin—fanaticism—by offering real and protected inclusion into the family of nations, one tribe at a time.



Critical support for the Kerry Initiative


To be victorious in the Middle Eastern arena, the Kerry State Department needs to promote a far better understanding about the rights of, and the fight for, indigenous peoples around the world and the protection of their land and resources.  In this regard, “The Other” narratives emanating from the lessons learned of U.S. Indians and many non-North American indigenous peoples can help fashion a functional roadmap leading to the two-state solution being viewed again as not only desirable, but also feasible. The lack of US leadership in this regard has left a noxious vacuum shared by those whose views can only imperil the peace processes—and global security.



Despite his undeniable though controversial role in that process, it is clear that Arafat’s wholly negative and often cited comparison of the Palestinians with “the American Red Indians” was based on an out-dated understanding arrived at before a still much-overlooked fact (including in the United States): That it was disgraced President Richard M. Nixon who actually served as “the modern day ‘Abraham Lincoln’ of Indian people,”[10] inaugurating an enlightened self-determination policy for Native American tribes. (“From the time of their first contact with European settlers, the American Indians have been oppressed and brutalized, deprived of their ancestral lands and denied the opportunity to control their own destiny,” President Nixon wrote to Congress on July 8, 1970. “Even the Federal programs which are intended to meet their needs have proven to be ineffective and demeaning”—a charge echoed by Palestinians against Israel today.)



An indigenous promise


Since that time, the experience of U.S. Indian tribes—recognized as “domestic dependent nations” since the country’s beginning—offers dynamic examples of how American Indians—with centuries of differences, customs and language to overcome—are more united and successful than any time after the brutal Conquest. Thus, U.S. tribes are themselves a wellspring of knowledge ranging from democracy and security issues, to environmental protection, the protection of cultural patrimony, and the extension of free-market ideas within the context of collective land ownership.



Specifically, the American Indian experience offers critical examples of how resilient Native peoples:



  • Returned as full citizens from a time of near ethnic genocide

  • Successfully demanded recognition of long-standing treaty rights both nationally and internationally

  • Pressed for the repatriation of cultural artifacts and sacred land return as a way of fighting against their own spiritual exile that resulted from a profound disconnection with their peoples’ past

  • Ultimately used the tools meant to repress them by a victorious non-indigenous military for their own benefit

  • Employ free-market capitalism and education on their own terms, retaining their respect for the land and traditional life

  • Offer stunning successful examples of the importance of traditional venues in the framework of the rule of law

  • Labored with U.S. Nobel peace prize winner and President Jimmy Carter to ensure passage of the Indian Religious Freedom Act

  • Worked to reconcile long-standing land disputes existing between tribes themselves[11]

     


The possibility that experiences and lessons learned such as these are likely to have special value for efforts to re-start the two-state negotiations through confidence building is self-evident.  By reaching out to key non-ideological and fair-minded academics and practitioners in Indian Country, and finding their peers in other nations, the Kerry State Department could put what André Malraux called “a scar on the map,” as Israelis and Palestinians alike desperately seek ways to breathe life into the post-Oslo process. It could also begin to refocus public discussion to what those contending peoples share, the necessary antidote to a tattered “constructive ambiguity” that leads to nowhere.


In societies where justice through public institutions is denied, groups seeking resolution of their grievances are more likely to resort to violence.In an age when policymakers claimed to be focused on the need to drain “swamps” of neglect and despair around the globe considered potential breeding grounds for terrorists, that disaffection and radicalization can be contained, at least in part, in the words of an Indian rights lawyer “by offering the poorest and most neglected people access to legal systems that recognize their human rights under the rule of law.” For that reason, contributions by tribal leaders such as Raymond D. Austin are essential.  Austin served for 16 years as a justice on the Navajo Nation Supreme Court, the world’s largest tribal justice system. In his 2009 book, Navajo Courts and Navajo Common Law, A Tradition of Tribal Self-Governance, Austin noted the leading role played by his tribe in a global legal revolution in favor of indigenous peoples. The Navajo are in thus in a unique position to help the indigenous peoples of the Jewish state of Israel and in Palestine as they seek to protect their access to land, cultures and spiritual traditions.[12]




Part of the process of potentially harvesting the fruits of effective sovereignty for Israelis and Palestinians is a greater understanding of the role played by the U.S. Department of Defense in the protection of cultural properties both at home and abroad (the latter in cooperation with the State Department). For more than a decade, proactive cultural resource stewardship has been an increasing part of the mission of U.S. armed forces. This “period of openness and consultation”—lessons learned—with American Indians, Native Alaskans and Native Hawaiians is the result of many years of being engaged in talks over the identification and protection of those places where native peoples have lived currently held by the armed forces.


DoD’s own potential contributions in resuscitating the Oslo Accords can be seen in the work of the late Native American author Vine Deloria, Jr., and anthropologist Richard Stoffle. They noted: “Native Americans, both as citizens and members of dependent nations within the United States and as original occupants of lands that are currently held by the DoD, have a special cultural relationship with these military lands. Traditional, aboriginal, and historical cultural ties to places, objects, and activities are the foundation of this special relationship.” In an explanation of the views of U.S. tribes that is also of significance for indigenous peoples in other areas of the world, Deloria and Stoffle added:


Native Americans are attached to the land in some ways that others can easily understand, but also in other ways that are almost impossible to explain. The Christian-Islamic-Hebrew concept called holy land perhaps best describes where the Indian people perceive they were created. Here in their holy lands are origin mountains where the supernatural created them and gave them responsibilities for using and protecting the land. Here also are places of great religious significance to all Native ethnic group members; places best described by the Christian-Islamic-Hebrew term sacred site. [13]



The problem of getting the some of the right people in place to take part in a meaningful post-Oslo dialogue is already in part taken care of, as the U.S. Central Command (already in the lead among American military theater commands) has given special responsibility to its Historical/Cultural Advisory Group for devising actions to mitigate cultural property damage, including archaeological and cultural resource mapping. In 2009, the U.S. ratified the 55-year-old Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Army Field Manual on Stability Operations includes among “essential stability tasks” the requirement to “protect and secure places of religious worship and cultural sites,” and to “protect and secure strategically important institutions (such as government buildings; medical and public health infrastructure; … museums; and religious sites.)” Section 402 of the National Historic Preservation Act indicates that the United States is responsible for cultural resources stewardship, by government representatives as well as contractors, everywhere the U.S. is in a position of command responsibility. Furthermore, US-trained foreign students from countries facing contentious issues of indigenous rights are using concepts learned from laws such as the U.S. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) to confront situations of potential conflict at home. [14]



Unhealthy politicization of a common indigenous agenda: A 2-way dead end


Increasingly, the still-yawning international vacuum on the rights of indigenous peoples has redounded negatively on Middle East development and security policies, with the fight between Israelis and Palestinians quickly growing into a verbal trench warfare reminiscent in style to the tragedy of World War I. Following the American Studies Association’s decision last year to boycott Israeli universities in protest against what one supporter called “Israel’s regime of occupation, settler colonialism, and apartheid against the Palestinian people,” the U.S. Native American and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA) unanimously declared its own one-sided support: “We strongly protest the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and the legal structures of the Israeli state that systematically discriminate against Palestinians and other Indigenous peoples.”



There was no mention of Israel as being itself a modern indigenous state, or the rights of its people (whose tribal and religious identification is essential to its being) to retain ancestral lands and protect its own nation state.[15]  As Jonathan S. Tobin correctly noted in Commentary Magazine:



Jews are not foreigners in Israel as Europeans were in Africa. They happen to be the indigenous people of their ancient homeland and efforts to deny this isn’t scholarship. Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and those who would deny them the same rights accorded other peoples are practicing bias, not scholarship.[16]



And on the pro-Israel side, the indigenous peoples’ question and the rights of Palestinians are similarly largely used as public relations/propaganda tools, rather than a beckoning to common ground.  For example, last year The Jewish Press ran a blog story, “Debunking the ‘Palestinians as Native Americans’ Myth—In one anti-Israel protest outside of Nablus, Palestinians even dressed up like Native Americans in order to make a political point.” While the story correctly concluded that “Muslims were never the sole inhabitants of the land like the Native Americans were in the United States,” it also charged that “the truth of the matter is that the Jewish people are the closest thing to an indigenous people within the Holy Land, while the Palestinian Arabs’ ancestors sprung out from centers of empire.”[17]  A promising article in Israel National News, that began with the headline, “Israel: The World’s First Modern Indigenous State,” was written by Ryan Bellerose, a Métis from the Paddle Prairie Metis settlement in Northern Alberta, Canada, and a declared Zionist. Unfortunately, Bellerose, too, willingly waded into the swamp of anti-two state rhetoric, declaring, “Those who are arguing for Palestinian ‘indigenous rights’ are usually those who have little grasp of the history, and no understanding of the truth behind indigenous rights.”[18]



A comprehensive and realistic alternative to continuing an ever-more dangerous militaristic solution is needed. The Israeli bottom line is the protection of its homeland; that of the Palestinians, the right to a nation state that provides for freedom and justice on ancestral soil. In order for both to feel that a two-state solution is feasible each side needs to encounter a common platform of thought and belief that replaces “constructive ambiguity” and accusatory political flatulence. That program is one in which narratives of “The Other” are understood for what they are, and how they are essential to any possible civilized solution.



Due to the need for a common language that does not deny the narrative of “The Other”—and the fact that too many political and religious leaders from both sides engage in radical rhetorical posturing that makes that discourse unlikely if left to themselves—a bottom-up grassroots strategy for both peoples is needed to better, and more realistically, define their goals and aspirations, and as such bring into the mix well-organized social, economic and legal pressure.



The United States and other democracies must help, with the support of indigenous peoples from around the world, to facilitate an organization established at the same time to work with “constituencies of the willing” to sustain strategies leading to those desired effects. In particular, the experiences of indigenous peoples in the United States, Canada, Australia, Chile and New Zealand, could be particularly useful.



Although the start-up cost in terms of necessary commitments to truth, and time and some resources for such an approach may seem challenging, the cost of the present boxed-in alternative goes far beyond what any people can pay for forever. Open to debate in determining a winning two-state formula should be what short-term goals will lead to a common ground of enfranchising and protecting two native peoples—Jewish and Palestinian—currently at risk of engaging in another fratricidal war.



Martin Edwin Andersen, a former assistant professor of national security at the National Defense University, is also the staff author of the Cranston Amendment, which since 1993 has required the U.S. State Department’s annual human rights country reports to include sections on indigenous peoples.


______________________________



This article is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Robert A. Pastor,


a prophetic teacher and brave defender of democracy and


the human rights of peoples around the world.



© Martin Edwin Andersen, 2014. All rights reserved.





[1] Elgindy, “When Ambiguity is Destructive,” The Cairo Review of Global Affairs, January 22, 2014 @ http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/01/22-when-ambiguity-is-destructive

[2] James Zogby, “20 Years After Oslo,” Zogby Research Services, llc, January 2014.

[3] Zogby, op. cit.

[4] British Prime Minister Winston Churchill is remembered, among other things, for his dictum that “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” (from a House of Commons speech on November 11, 1947).

[5] Unfortunately, although one of the justly hailed intellectual capitals around the globe, Israel has for some time failed to maintain the kind of prominence and recognition in the developing world it enjoyed three or four decades ago. That said, a closer examination of the work of diaspora Jews in the civil right movement in the United States, in leadership roles against Argentina’s infamous “dirty war,” and with Nelson Mandela in South Africa, for example, can help create a more just environment for engagement.

[6] Page 82; Peoples of the Earth continued: “Perhaps out of similar reasoning, a woman who was a member of the Winnebago tribe took part in the 1969 takeover of Alcatraz Island by U.S. Indians and their sympathizers that symbolically claimed the island for indigenous peoples. There she told a journalist that she had unsuccessfully volunteered to fight for the Israelis during the 1967 Six-Day War, pointedly declaring: ‘I care about Zionism, because those people want a homeland, too.’”

[7] Page 70.

[8] The event was held January 31, 2014 in Washington, D.C.

[9] The Zogby report was offered at the New America Foundation event. The mother of all truth and reconciliation efforts was the Argentine “National Commission on Disappeared Persons” (CONADEP). Also known as the Sabato Commission in honor of its chairman, the leading Latin American novelist Ernesto Sabato, it emerged under radically different conditions than those shared by Israelis and Palestinians, and whose many benefits at that time are therefore unlikely to be reproduced in the Middle East of today. CONADEP would only come after the shameful military defeat (in the Falkland/Malvinas war) of the ousted armed forces dictatorship whose members it was investigating. CONADEP therefore enjoyed broad majority backing of the type hard to discern in current polling of Israeli and Palestinian attitudes toward the peace process. CONADEP’s chief ally was an Argentine human rights movement of great international and national prestige and credibility for its brave history of peacefully combatting that dictatorship—responsible for the disappearance, torture and clandestine death of at least 20,000 people. Despite the fact CONADEP supporters were the clear victors against a military defeated on a real battlefield against a foreign foe, as well as in the court of public opinion, it lacked subpoena powers and the ability to compel testimony.  Any and all evidence of unlawful behavior it discovered could only be provided to relevant civilian courts (to be sure itself revolutionary in the Latin American context), as it had no prosecutorial powers either. See, for example, Fabian Bosoer and Federico Finchelstein, “Argentina’s truth commission at 30,” Aljazeera America, January 19, 2014, and Chapter 1, “The Sad Privilege of being Argentine,” in Dossier Secreto: Argentina’s Desaparecidos and the Myth of the “Dirty War” @ http://goo.gl/4jmFBj

[10] Dina Gilio-Whitaker, “Richard Nixon’s influence on American Indian Affairs,” About.com: Native American History @ http://nativeamericanhistory.about.com/od/Policies/a/Richard-Nixon-S-Influence-On-American-Indian-Affairs.htm 

[11] See, for example, Donald Fixico, Indian Resilience and Rebuilding: Indigenous Nations in the Modern American West, University of Arizona Press, 2013; Martin Edwin Andersen, "Native American Policing: The Experience of U.S. Tribes" A report prepared for the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP) of the U.S. Department of Justice, March 7, 1995 @ http://goo.gl/mBwccM

[12] Austin, Navajo Courts and Navajo Common Law, A Tradition of Tribal Self-Governance, University of Minnesota, 2009; Martin Edwin Andersen, “Thankful for renewed rights; Native Nicaraguans needed protection,” The Washington Times, November 22, 2001.

[13] Deloria and Stoffle, “Native American Sacred Sites and the Department of Defense,” A Report Sponsored by the Legacy Resource Management Program, United States National Park Service and submitted to the U.S. Department of Defense, June 1998, Chapter One: “Introduction.”

[14]Interview with Col. Michael F. Welch, USAF, Vice Director, Sub-secretariat for Administration and Conference Support/Military and Defense Advisor, Inter-American Defense Board, Organization of American States.

[15] Matthew Kalman, “Palestinians Divided Over Boycott of Israeli Universities,” The New York Times, January 19, 2014; “Native American Studies Group Joins Israel Boycott,” Inside Higher Ed, December 18, 2013; Declaration of Support for the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions, Decenber 15, 2013, @ http://naisa.org/node/719

[16] Tobin, “Indigenous? Native American Studies and Big Lies About Israel,” Commentary Magazine, December 18, 2013.

[17] Rachel Avraham, The Jewish Press, April 29, 2013. Perhaps more damaging to its own credibility, The Jewish Press story when on to uncritically quote alleged Native American scholar Ward Churchill, who the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado concluded committed multiple counts of academic misconduct—plagiarism, fabrication and falsification. (In a September 2001 essay entitled “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,” Churchill argued that the September 11 attacks were caused by U.S. foreign policy, comparing World Trade Center financial employees involved in “ongoing genocidal American imperialism” to the role played by Adolf Eichmann in the Holocaust.)

[18] Bellerose, “Op-Ed: Israel: The World’s First Modern Indigenous State,” Israel National News, January 14, 2014.


Offnews.info (Argentina)

 


Otras Notas Relacionadas... ( Records 1 to 10 of 32 )
fecha titulo
17/12/2016 Transition worries: Jimmy Carter’s human rights adviser distrusted Ronald Reagan
14/08/2016 USA- 2016 Presidential Nominee Questionnaire
17/02/2016 Kissinger’s Vapid Vision Thing
15/01/2014 Foreign Affairs Oral History Project: Patricia Derian
24/03/2013 Argentina - Papa Francisco: Lanata dijo que Verbitsky colaboró con la Dictadura
05/09/2011 Peoples of the Earth: Ethnonationalism, Democracy, and the Indigenous Challenge in 'Latin' America
05/09/2011 Peoples of the Earth: Ethnonationalism, Democracy, and the Indigenous Challenge in 'Latin' America
19/07/2011 Joint Forces Quarterly: ''A Roadmap for Beating Latin America's Transnational Criminal Organizations''
19/07/2011 Joint Forces Quarterly: ''A Roadmap for Beating Latin America's Transnational Criminal Organizations''
07/02/2011 Andersen Refutes Lucero’s Review of Peoples of the Earth in leftist A Contracorriente


Otras Notas del Autor
fecha
Título
23/09/2020|
05/03/2020|
17/01/2020|
05/06/2018|
27/03/2018|
21/02/2018|
22/04/2017|
17/02/2017|
17/12/2016|
14/09/2016|
07/08/2016|
27/03/2016|
22/03/2016|
22/03/2016|
11/03/2016|
15/02/2016|
20/09/2015|
20/09/2015|
07/09/2015|
03/09/2015|
18/02/2015|
20/01/2015|
18/12/2014|
09/12/2014|
18/11/2014|
06/11/2014|
01/10/2014|
17/09/2014|
06/09/2014|
14/05/2014|
12/03/2014|
19/12/2013|
03/11/2013|
25/10/2013|
10/10/2013|
29/08/2013|
27/06/2013|
19/05/2013|
08/05/2013|
08/05/2013|
02/05/2013|
20/03/2013|
23/02/2013|
23/02/2013|
25/01/2013|
15/06/2012|
26/05/2012|
04/05/2012|
28/04/2012|
17/04/2012|
01/11/2011|
04/07/2011|
04/07/2011|
11/04/2011|
07/02/2011|
24/01/2011|
14/12/2010|
21/11/2010|
15/09/2010|
09/08/2010|
18/07/2010|
01/07/2010|
11/06/2010|
06/06/2010|
13/01/2010|
29/10/2009|
24/09/2009|
03/09/2009|
02/09/2009|
29/08/2009|
25/07/2009|
25/07/2009|
25/07/2009|
25/07/2009|
01/04/2009|
12/03/2009|
12/03/2009|
16/11/2008|
16/11/2008|
14/11/2008|
14/11/2008|
18/09/2008|
18/09/2008|
13/08/2008|
13/08/2008|
28/01/2008|
17/01/2008|
30/12/2007|
16/12/2007|
02/12/2007|
01/12/2007|
06/10/2007|
12/09/2007|
17/06/2007|
17/06/2007|
17/06/2007|
17/06/2007|
17/06/2007|
17/06/2007|
21/05/2007|
21/05/2007|
06/04/2007|
28/03/2007|
12/01/2007|
12/01/2007|
18/12/2006|
18/12/2006|
22/09/2006|
22/09/2006|
03/08/2006|
01/08/2006|
23/02/2006|
08/10/2005|
18/08/2005|
22/07/2005|
15/07/2005|
12/07/2005|
23/06/2005|
14/06/2005|
25/05/2005|
26/04/2005|
26/04/2005|
29/03/2005|
29/03/2005|
19/02/2005|
19/02/2005|
16/02/2005|
16/02/2005|
15/02/2005|
15/02/2005|
11/02/2005|
11/02/2005|
09/02/2005|
09/02/2005|
09/02/2005|
09/02/2005|
06/02/2005|
06/02/2005|
04/02/2005|
04/02/2005|
04/02/2005|
02/02/2005|
02/02/2005|
02/02/2005|
31/01/2005|
31/01/2005|
28/01/2005|
28/01/2005|
25/01/2005|
25/01/2005|
25/01/2005|
25/01/2005|
24/01/2005|
24/01/2005|
18/01/2005|
18/01/2005|
14/01/2005|
14/01/2005|
13/01/2005|
13/01/2005|
11/01/2005|
11/01/2005|
11/01/2005|
11/01/2005|
11/01/2005|
11/01/2005|
06/01/2005|
06/01/2005|
04/01/2005|
04/01/2005|
24/12/2004|
24/12/2004|
22/12/2004|
22/12/2004|
22/12/2004|
22/12/2004|
14/12/2004|
14/12/2004|
06/12/2004|
06/12/2004|
02/12/2004|
02/12/2004|
30/11/2004|
30/11/2004|
23/11/2004|
23/11/2004|
20/11/2004|
20/11/2004|
12/10/2004|
12/10/2004|
24/09/2004|
24/09/2004|
27/06/2003|
27/06/2003|
20/06/2003|
20/06/2003|
03/06/2003|
03/06/2003|
07/05/2003|
07/05/2003|
06/05/2003|
06/05/2003|
24/04/2003|
24/04/2003|
16/04/2003|
16/04/2003|
16/04/2003|
16/04/2003|
10/04/2003|
10/04/2003|
09/04/2003|
09/04/2003|
02/04/2003|
02/04/2003|
27/03/2003|
27/03/2003|
21/03/2003|
21/03/2003|
20/03/2003|
20/03/2003|
17/03/2003|
17/03/2003|
15/03/2003|
15/03/2003|
03/03/2003|
03/03/2003|
22/02/2003|
22/02/2003|
17/02/2003|
17/02/2003|
07/02/2003|
07/02/2003|
04/02/2003|
04/02/2003|
01/02/2003|
01/02/2003|
30/01/2003|
30/01/2003|
28/01/2003|
28/01/2003|
22/01/2003|
22/01/2003|
15/01/2003|
15/01/2003|
26/12/2002|
26/12/2002|
24/12/2002|
24/12/2002|
22/12/2002|
22/12/2002|
13/12/2002|
13/12/2002|
13/12/2002|
13/12/2002|
01/12/2002|
01/12/2002|
06/10/2002|
06/10/2002|
04/10/2002|
04/10/2002|
28/09/2002|
28/09/2002|

ver + notas
 
Center for the Study of the Presidency
Freedom House