114 chapter three citizens of Israel. As for the indigenous status of the Jewish-Israeli population, this position is asserted through one of two common arguments. The first, held by most political Zionists, argues that Jewish indigeneity is a product of the Jewish people’s “eternal, historic right to the Land of Israel [as an] inalienable inheritance of its forefathers” (Lustick 1980, 92). The second common contention holds that Jewish indigeneity is affirmed based on their continued historical presence on the land – even extending to Biblical times. Consequently, both Palestinian-Arabs and Jews have historical ties to the land, each laying claim to their indigenous host status by identifying the Other as the guest. Arguments for equal merit in the claims of both groups to the land are often contentious and emphasize the particular variables at hand based on the author’s own ideological preference and political affinities. That said, even a superficial study of the relationship between PalestinianArabs and Jews will find that at a historical, cultural, political and legal level both parties have strong, rooted and existential ties to the land. Thus, as each has a claim to the status of a homeland group, both self-designate as ‘native’ or ‘indigenous’ to the land. In other words, Palestinian-Arabs and what could be called ‘Palestinian-Jews’ are both indigenous to the land. However, with the creation of the State of Israel, this indigeneity of the Jewish population in Palestine was inherited by the Zionist movement in a manner that founded itself on the rejection of the indigeneity of the Palestinian-Arab population. From the perspective of an outside observer there is a paradoxical effect whereby claims to indigeneity by both collectives make it difficult to determine who ought to assume the position of host and who that of guest. But internal to each collective, the self-designation as host establishes the Other as a perennial guest. It is for this reason that engagement with, acceptance of, and indulgence in the practice of hospitality, along with its juridical parameters and assumptions, becomes problematic. Acceptance of the hospitable invitation of one collective, with the premise that this group is the master of the household, is necessarily a fundamental existential question for the other collective. Understanding that hospitality is, in the end, an existential question is key. Derrida tells us that the party offering hospitality must be assured of her/his own sovereignty and control over the space and resources offered or opened to the Other as stranger (Derrida 2000, 14). And we know that an effect of the condition of assurance is a limitation of the gift of hospitality. But, more importantly, it also generates a condition where the roles of host and guest are reversed: where “the one inviting becomes almost the