Nativism and The "Holy Land"

I’m wrestling a bit with the term “nativism,” especially in regard to the conflict in Israel-Palestine. I have heard “nativism” used in both the positive and the negative ways that Dr. Tamari outlines in his article – as an identity-based political tactic aimed at restoring land, economic, and cultural rights, and I have also heard the term use in pejorative, essentialist, and colonizing ways. In some ways, I see the value of nativism. In the U.S. context, for example I think that American Indians, as native to the land, are absolutely entitled to land rights that reach far beyond the tokenized, oppressive gesture of reservations. But then I wonder, which nations could really call themselves native? Certainly some American Indian nations have suppressed – or even killed off – other nations in order to secure land. In those situations, does nativism apply?

This quickly becomes a slippery slope. If Palestinians claim nativism, yet are suppressed by Israelis, are Israelis then “the next in line?” And, if a dominant force doesn’t buy into claims of nativism, what, then, is its use value? In the Palestine-Israel situation, claims of nativism can be met by claims of a “Promised Land,” so it seems to quickly reach a kind of stalemate. In the U.S., European colonizing forces made claims that what they were doing was for the American Indians’ “own good.” So, it seems doubtful that during these periods of conflict and occupation that claims of nativism would sway the dominant forces, and could risk essentializing and belittling the cultural practices of native communities. But, outside of the direct conflict – either temporally or geographically – perhaps nativist claims can still be a legitimizing force.