> israel is a european settler colony created and founded by europeans and settled by europeans
Speaking as someone who has heritage in a former European colony, this reductive framing strikes me as ringing closer to the remote oversimplifications Sykes and Picot engaged in than anything those on the ground would endorse.
American political science is obsessed with settler colonialism. Herego, every conflict distills through that lens.
Are there elements of this conflict that mirror that dynamic? Sure. Is it a useful model for making predictions and policy for the people on the ground? No. Will that impact the profitability of repeating it on social media? Probably not.
Some prominent israeli politicians routinely declare that they are the vanguard and front line protection of 'Western civilisation' that are fighting the barbarism of the indigenous savages.
Back in 2007 or so polls among israeli teens showed that almost every young israeli jew believed that "arabs" are intellectually inferior, have no culture and are inclined to unreasonable violence. This is quite common in settler colonial settings, you kind of need to have a story about why you and your in-group are justified in oppressing your immediate neighbours. Since then 'anti-arabism' hasn't gone away, rather the opposite.
Large portions of israeli society support ethnic cleansing among citizens, for example. This is the foundation for discrimination and apartheid within Israel, and due to how state anti-discrimination agencies work there is relatively little data on discrimination of mizrahi and sephardi jews even though it's well known to exist.
> Some prominent israeli politicians routinely declare that they are the vanguard and front line protection of 'Western civilisation'
Also true in Russia and Hungary, for the West, and India, China, Turkey and Kentucky for other movements.
> Back in 2007 or so polls among israeli teens showed that almost every young israeli jew believed that "arabs" are intellectually inferior
Tigrayans for central Ethiopians, et cetera.
> Large portions of israeli society support ethnic cleansing among citizens
Literally every ethnonationalistic war.
This analysis is what I’m talking about. Everything you say is true. None of it is unique to settler colonialism.
A lot of American think tank thought on Israel and Palestine is frankly colonial, in terms of people on one continent making moral declarations and conclusions on how maps should be drawn on another, than anything going on in the Middle East, which is closer to bog standard human horribleness.
New Yorkers criticising American weapons shipments to Tel Aviv is legitimate. People who have never been to Israel or Palestine deciding they know where their borders should be drawn is arrogant.
Nothing in the israeli conduct is "bog standard". The drop in longevity in the Gaza strip in 2024 outpaces the Rwandan genocide by a large margin.
Israel is a colonial enterprise, sustained by colonial practices and ruled largely through the displacement of indigenous populations by settlers.
The current crisis in Palestine is hugely damaging to the international judicial order and moves the limits of possible conduct in armed conflict, in Ukraine as well as in Sudan and elsewhere. Many states have shown themselves to be sorely lacking in legitimacy over the last couple of years and will likely suffer quite a bit of unrest for this and related reasons.
I live in such a state, that has also recently come under continous US military presence. This makes this issue important to me.
> The drop in longevity in the Gaza strip in 2024 outpaces the Rwandan genocide by a large margin
Now do Ethiopia, Sudan and Myanmar. (Fact is we generally can’t calculate these statistics in most war zones.)
> Israel is a colonial enterprise, sustained by colonial practices and ruled largely through the displacement of indigenous populations by settlers
This is a popular refrain in American political science circles, agreed. It needs to be stated as such because there really isn’t great evidence for it, it’s just a convenient because it’s available to be applied.
You don’t need settler colonialism for barbarism, war crimes or even genocide. You do need it to oversimplify this conflict.
Sure, let's "do" them. Show the numbers you have in mind.
I don't understand why you are going after that strawman. Settler colonialism is a term that contrasts with exploitative or extractive colonialism, i.e. when a colonial endeavour is established primarily for the purpose of natural resources. That is not the case in Palestine. One could argue that it is true for the israeli diamond industry but I'd rather not, since it would likely soon slide into discourse regarding the existence of neocolonialism and so on.
> Settler colonialism is a term that contrasts with exploitative or extractive colonialism, i.e. when a colonial endeavour is established primarily for the purpose of natural resources. That is not the case in Palestine
…not every problem is colonialism and immigration. That’s the American political science bias.
> Speaking as someone who has heritage in a former European colony
India was a european colony for sure. One of the most accomodating, willing and slavish ones at that. But india was never a european settler colony. Settler being the key word.
> American political science is obsessed with settler colonialism.
What do you know of american political science? What do you know about being an american? If I go to india and buy citizenship today, would that make me an expert in indian politics?
> Herego, every conflict distills through that lens.
Herego, therego, uh oh.. Ergo? Every conflict doesn't distil through that lens. Who ever claimed that american war on iraq or afghanistan was settler colonialism? Nobody. Who claims the russian-ukraine war is settler colonialism? Even with israel, nobody talks of it as a genocidal settler colony. At least not here in america. Maybe in india, but you'd know more about that than me.
> Are there elements of this conflict that mirror that dynamic?
Israel literally was created for that purpose. To settle europeans in palestine.
An indian zionist apologist. One does wonder why there are so manys indian in american politics all of a sudden.
Speaking as someone who has heritage in a former European colony, this reductive framing strikes me as ringing closer to the remote oversimplifications Sykes and Picot engaged in than anything those on the ground would endorse.
American political science is obsessed with settler colonialism. Herego, every conflict distills through that lens.
Are there elements of this conflict that mirror that dynamic? Sure. Is it a useful model for making predictions and policy for the people on the ground? No. Will that impact the profitability of repeating it on social media? Probably not.