UCLA's Jonathan Zasloff and I have an essay on Haaretz explaining why the “settler colonial” trope is tendentious and wrong, even though it has become routine in academia and has increasingly shown up in the mainstream media. You can read it here – paywalled, but with six free articles if you register.
Here is the gist:
When academics call Israel a "settler colonial" state, it is not meant as a mere descriptor. Rather, the phrase is a deliberately pointed charge, part of an ongoing campaign to undermine Israel by challenging its very founding – akin to the now-revoked UN General Assembly declaration that "Zionism is racism." Its aim is to isolate the Jewish state from the legitimate family of nations.
One might expect the mainstream media to avoid presenting such a controversial and politically charged theory as historical fact. Unfortunately, it has long been all too tempting to blur the crucial distinction between fact and opinion when writing about the Middle East, and the temptation is only intensifying now.
When applied to modern-day Israel, advocates of "settler colonialism" do not engage in scholarly analysis but rather the political contention that Zionism is morally illegitimate. That is their right, but the mainstream press must not be fooled (or intimidated) into presenting it as a purely scholarly conclusion.
Consider [North Carolina State University Professor Kristen] Alff’s justification that "the Jewish Colonization Association was the first major land purchaser." This not only erases the crucial difference between "colonization" and "colonialism," but it also ignores the historical context of terms and the way they have been used over the years.
The "Amana Colonies," for example, comprise seven Amish villages in Iowa, founded in 1856 by pietists who escaped persecution in Germany. The "Oberlin Colony" was the original name for both the college and the town, founded in 1833 by Presbyterians seeking to establish a utopian community of "selected, consecrated souls." Wikipedia lists 65 "Arts Colonies" in the United States, dating back to the MacDowell Colony, established in Peterborough, Vermont, in 1907. The escaped slaves Henry Bibb and Josiah Henson founded the "Refugees’ Home Colony" in Canada in 1851.
The "Jewish Colonization Association" – founded in the 1890s in response to Russian pogroms – had no more connection to the colonialism of empires than any of these other nominal colonies. Prof. Alff singled out one word – which in fact, meant "refuge" rather than outpost – to make a political argument.
That is how the corruption of language works, embedding false characterizations one small step at a time, and it is a bad precedent for American journalism’s future coverage of the Middle East.
Again, the entire essay is here.
A short but reliable introduction to the Zionist variation on settler colonialism is found in chapter 4, “Zionism Is Not Colonialism,” in Ilan Pappe’s book, Ten Myths About Israel (Verso, 2017). In the words of Pappe, “Zionism was a settler colonial movement, similar to the movements of the Europeans who had colonized the two Americas, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.” He proceeds to distinguish settler colonialism from classical colonialism before depicting and analyzing Zionism “as a settler colonial movement and the Palestinian national movement as an anti-colonialist one.”
In this instance, the colonization is modern in means but often mythical in genesis, the belief (sometimes explicitly expressed) being that these are ancestral lands belonging to the Hebrews and thus they are entitled to reclaim them. As Pappe notes, in the cases of both Palestine and South Africa, the settlers do not belong to the same nation that supports them.
Thus, and moreover:
“Unlike conventional colonial projects conducted in the service of an empire or mother country, settler colonialists were refugees of a kind seeking not just a home, but a homeland. The problem was that the new 'homelands' were already inhabited by other people. In response, the settler communities argued that the new land was theirs by divine or moral right even if, in cases other than Zionism, they did not claim to have lived there thousands of years ago.”
In consequence, we find the logic of elimination with regard to the existing inhabitants: genocide or ethnic cleansing, permeated by a logic dehumanization. Again, the chapter by Pappe is, to my lights, quite helpful.
“ … Zionism was a settler colonial movement, similar to the movements of Europeans who had colonized the two Americas, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Settler colonialism differs from classical colonialism in three respects. The first is that settler colonies rely only initially and temporarily on the empire for their survival. In fact, in many cases, as in Palestine and South Africa, the settlers do not belong to the same nation as the imperial power that initially supports them. More often than not they ceded from the empire, redefining themselves as a new nation, sometimes through a liberation struggle against the very empire that supported them (as happened during the American Revolution for instance). The second difference is that settler colonialism is motivated by a desire to take over land in a foreign country, while classical colonialism covets the natural resources in its new geographical possessions. The third difference concerns the way they treat the new destination of settlement. Unlike conventional colonial projects conducted in the service of an empire or mother country, settler colonialists were refugees of a kind seeking not just a home, but a homeland. The problem was that the new ‘homelands’ were already inhabited by other people. In response, the settler communities argued that the new land was theirs by divine or moral rights, even if, in cases other than Zionism, they did not claim to have lived there thousands of years ago.* In many cases, the accepted method for overcoming such obstacles was the genocide of the indigenous locals.” — Ilan Pappe
* As Pappe reminds us, “Zionism “was … a Christian project of colonization before it became a Jewish one.”
On the history of the creation of the state, read Victor Kattan. There is no necessity in SETTLER colonialism to having a parent state, hence the material from Pappe. Do not infer from this that there is only one form or species of Zionism; as for the different kinds, please see my bibliography for same available on my Academia page.
See too the pioneering study by the “independent Marxist,” Maxime Rodinson, Israel: A Colonial-Settler State? (New York: Anchor Foundation/Pathfinder, 1973). For an introduction to Rodinson, please see this post: http://www.religiousleftlaw.com/…/maxime-rodinson…
Good essay, Steve. As always, well-written. Now, let me raise a point or two. It was an aggressive piece, but I believe it could have done a better job explaining the term settler-citizen, not just referring to its use as a way of attacking Israel's existence. I do not reject your argument, but without more of an understanding how and why detractors use it, I am left a bit perplexed how the terms is an assault on Israel's existence. Mind you, I believe Israel should exist, but am often left perplexed by recent conflicts with the Palestinian people–of course, a separate issue, perhaps. In sum, as someone that used the term settle-citizen to describe the U.S.'s relationship with its island dependencies long before the term was fashionable, I would have liked to know what you believed it means, what it refers to, and the impact of its use.
Is the Arabization and Islamification in the 7th century following the conquest aptly characterized as having rendered Palestine a "settler colony"?
Isn't the real problem with characterizing modern Israel a settler colony the fact that it is the effort of the indigenous people to reclaim the land from those who not only stole it in the name of religious-imperialist conquest, but who also seized the indigenous people's holy sites (engaging in cultural appropriation and cultural erasure) and imposed legal apartheid upon them for centuries?
One problem with Steve's analysis, though, is that many people are willing to recognize that America (like other countries in the new world, amongst others) is a settler colony. Yet most of those people don't think America is ispo facto completely illegitimate. (It's decidedly not in their self-interest to say so, of course). So, what Steve needs is that extra explanatory element showing HOW the "settler colony" narrative is used differently for Israel than for other modern states – which it most certainly is. Hint: it involves the weaponization of norms America itself has help ram down the world's throat since the the time of the League of Nations…
"In this instance, the colonization is modern in means but often mythical in genesis, the belief (sometimes explicitly expressed) being that these are ancestral lands belonging to the Hebrews and thus they are entitled to reclaim them…"
A case in point. Who owns what? What are the authoritative norms governing who may claim what? Look at the implicit/crypto-normative characterization of the illegitimacy of the Zionist's claim, just like the assumption of the legitimacy of the claim of the then-current occupiers.
"In consequence, we find the logic of elimination with regard to the existing inhabitants: genocide or ethnic cleansing, permeated by a logic dehumanization."
Do you reckon that this explains Dhimmitude, or is that a temporally prior (text-based) hatred and belittling? Does it nonetheless help to explain why the Arabs rationalized stealing the Jews' holy sites and banning them from them? For the occasional massacres of Jews in Palestine in the middle ages?
"In fact, in many cases, as in Palestine and South Africa, the settlers do not belong to the same nation as the imperial power that initially supports them."
This is just dumb. The British beat the Boers and loaded their people into SA. The Dutch had supported the Boers beforehand.
"Unlike conventional colonial projects conducted in the service of an empire or mother country, settler colonialists were refugees of a kind seeking not just a home, but a homeland."
Not for those who saw themselves loyal to the British Crown in all of the UK's settler colonies. Indeed, who saw themselves as British for decades after their respective states' foundings. To claim that those are just "classical" colonies rather than "settler" colonies is to make nonsense of the difference between British India and Canada.
So, Pappe's account of settler colonialism – unsurprisingly – doesn't add up. At all. Regardless, at what point, Patrick, do you have to just admit to yourself that you're simply not interested in the truth and more concerned with propagandizing and blanketing yourself with ideological delusions that make you feel good and powerful? When you reach that realization, how do you think you'll go about reforming your life?
I remember hearing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, many years ago and when he was in office, explaining his objections to the Jewish state of Israel.
Basically, it went like this. Europeans were not natives of the land of Palestine. After the wrongs in Germany and Europe, they poured into Palestine and demanded that it be declared theirs. The problems created by Germany, he said, were European problems. Why should the Palestinian people pay for this, he asked.
He was very sincere. He couldn't understand that reason that all these Europeans would suddenly declare the land of others to theirs.
Of course, the rationale he explained left out the important historical references that Lubet's essay includes and other such relevant references.
But, more importantly, there is a deeper issue here. Migration and dispossession of peoples has occurred and continues to occur all over the world. The attitudes of others toward these movements depends not so much on consistent principles (despite Reich-like attempts to derive immutable racial and ethnic distinctions) but on politics and tribal hatreds.
What is at the core of the "Israel question" is the "Jewish question." And, in the debate, folks always show their true colors and the real basis for objection.
Meanwhile …
https: [//] www [dot] jpost.com/archaeology/2000-year-old-freedom-to-zion-coins-found-in-binyamin-region-673677