“The story of their dispossession, disenfranchisement and fight for survival, as seen from
their own eyes.” – B.R. Rodil, The Minoritization of the Indigenous Communities of
Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago
The Israeli/Palestinian and Mindanao Colonial and Postcolonial Land Resettlement
Experiences
The Age of Discovery, characterized by European expeditions, and their race to explore
and exploit seemed to be the building blocks of majority of today’s sovereign States. This
shared history of European colonialism or influence serves as a backdrop to the land
resettlement experiences of Israel/Palestine, and Mindanao. Land was an essential instrument
to establish and perpetuate colonial authority. As Home (2003) puts it, colonial regimes
“expropriated land for their benefit, formulating a hierarchy of social and spatial controls to
justify and maintain their hegemony over indigenous populations.”1
In Israel/Palestine, the British Mandate as inherited by Israel was used to “claim public
ownership over virtually all its [Palestine] physical territory”.2 Israel’s claim is based on the
Zionist narrative that “land belonged to the Jewish people who had redeemed it from
desolation.”3 The Israel/Palestine colonial and postcolonial land resettlement experience is best
illustrated in four key terms: 1) Settlement; 2) Transfer; 3) Partition; and 4) Absenteeism.4
The first and second terms pertain to the “settlement” and the “transfer” of lands to the
Israeli state perceived as “abandoned” by its former Palestinian inhabitants following the 1947
UN Partition Plan for Palestine and the ensuing Arab-Israeli war. “Abandonment” refers to
how this was restructured in the various land rights law. The war caused the displacement of
the Palestinian population in Arab-dominated territories. The Israeli government saw this as
an opening to expropriate lands “not in active use”5 through the enactment of various land
rights law to fulfill the Zionist aim of establishing a Jewish state. Finally, “partition” relates to
the resultant division between the Jewish and Arab zones which exists to this day. Thus, this
Robert Home, An ‘Irreversible Conquest’? Colonial and Postcolonial Land Law in Israel/Palestine
Robert Home, An ‘Irreversible Conquest’? Colonial and Postcolonial Land Law in Israel/Palestine, p. 292.
3
Robert Home, An ‘Irreversible Conquest’? Colonial and Postcolonial Land Law in Israel/Palestine, p. 297.
4
Robert Home, An ‘Irreversible Conquest’? Colonial and Postcolonial Land Law in Israel/Palestine, p. 298.
5
Robert Home, An ‘Irreversible Conquest’? Colonial and Postcolonial Land Law in Israel/Palestine, p. 300.
1
2
epitomized the Zionist aim of establishing a Jewish state via an “‘irreversible conquest’ of the
territory.”6
The Mindanao experience is epitomized in the argument between the Regalian Doctrine
and Ancestral Domain.7 A relic from the country’s Spanish and American colonial past, the
Regalian Doctrine is enshrined in the past and present Constitutions of the Philippines.8 Here,
the State is the “…sole owner of what is called state domain and reserves the right to classify
it for purposes of proper disposition to its citizens.”9 It conflicts with the principle of Ancestral
Domain in such a way that “…the state [sic] took away the lands that should properly belong
to these [indigenous] communities.”10 Hence, subsequent laws on land registration (enacted by
both colonial and postcolonial governments in the Philippines) in conformity with the Regalian
Doctrine took away and redistributed lands that were ancestrally held by the indigenous
population. Further, it perpetuates the colonial-era labeling of Christians vs. non-Christians
such that lands previously occupied or communally owned by the latter were seized and
resettled in by the former.
Thus, the land resettlement experiences of both Israel/Palestine and Mindanao are
characterized by a redistribution of land from one group of people to another. In both cases,
the taking and appropriation of lands seemed proper. As it was ordered by the prevailing
authority through various legislations, they aimed to reclaim land perceived as properly
belonging to the landless but majority immigrants (Israel/Palestine), or assimilate the minority
into the body politic by resettling the latter into the lands of the former (Mindanao). These
enactments, however, served to legitimize the deprivation of lands that traditionally or
ancestrally belong to the indigenous population. Finally, this illustrates that the colonial and
postcolonial land resettlement experiences of Israel/Palestine play a vital part in their resistance
that transpires to this day.
Robert Home, An ‘Irreversible Conquest’? Colonial and Postcolonial Land Law in Israel/Palestine, p. 299.
B.R. Rodil, The Minoritization of the Indigenous Communities of Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago, p. 28.
8
B.R. Rodil, The Minoritization of the Indigenous Communities of Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago, p. 28.
9
B.R. Rodil, The Minoritization of the Indigenous Communities of Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago, p. 28.
10
B.R. Rodil, The Minoritization of the Indigenous Communities of Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago, p. 29.
6
7