Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Some prejudices on Israel: Israel would be a “colony” – and why it is wrong (part 1)

Haifa, Mandatory Palestine. Buchenwald Concentration Camp survivors arrive in Haifa on the immigrant ship RMS Mataroa, 1945. Are they colonizers?

Source: Yad Vashem: https://www.yadvashem.org/remembrance/archive/central-theme/holocaust-survivors-and-the-state-of-israel.html

Brief introduction to this series of articles on the Palestine/Israel conflict:

The conservatives and the liberals have great difficulty in reaching agreement on the origin, nature, particularities and “solution(s)” of this long-running conflict. In a series of articles, I want to try to uncover the deeper reasons for these debates and the (implicit) misunderstandings between these two camps. I intend to write a series of texts. In a first sub-series, I focus on the mistakes of the Left; then, on the mistakes of the Right and the real deep-rooted mistakes of Israel; and finally, I sketch out a kind of “third way”, which is not some kind of lazy synthesis of liberal and conservative ideas, but which I call an “anxious vision of modernization” of the Arab world.

* * *

For the liberals, the fundamental problem in the Middle East is Israel and its supposed ‘colonialism.’ The left interprets Israel through the paradigm of ‘colonialism,’ although all European colonies have disappeared since at least the 1960s. The left wants—or needs?—to reactivate the concept of colonialism, which should have vanished from the political discourse since the end of European colonial empires.

For some on the left, Islamism is just an ‘anti-colonial’ response, a real ‘evil’ but not at the core of their analysis as they see it as a ‘response’ to Western ‘domination.’ They do not deny the violence and danger of Islamism, but they are almost as concerned about it as about the security measures taken by the West in response to Islamist violence. Defense of fundamental rights is essential. Purely military or police responses are not necessarily adequate and may even worsen the problem. However, Islamism still represents a central and deadly threat to human rights, plunging the Muslim world into a puritanical, authoritarian, dogmatic, and brutal logic.

To counter this, I want to present a series of arguments not only to refute the errors of the ‘anti-colonialists’ but also, and above all, to understand the deep reasons, the very roots of the debate between the right and left regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I don’t deny that the expulsion of the Palestinians was tragic, that it produced lasting trauma and was accompanied by the massacre of civilians. Nor do I deny that Israel has made many mistakes, that thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed since the creation of Israel.

As for Israel itself, there can be no doubt that it has committed numerous political errors and war crimes since 1948. Some of its politicians have even helped Palestinian terrorist organizations such as Hamas to weaken the Fatah movement. I will therefore devote a full article to these crucial issues.

But that doesn’t make Israel a “colony” in the narrow sense of the term, if we give the words a precise meaning for a moment.

* * *

In my definition of colonization, I’m not limiting myself to the fact that Israel expanded into Palestine or that a large part of Israel’s territory was acquired through military means. If we limit ourselves to this far too general definition, then history is a long history of “colonization”, which empties this concept of any precision. Expelling people is NOT colonization: the British never expelled anyone from India and the French never expelled anyone from Algeria, but it was colonization. Military conquest is not colonization. Or if one equate military conquest with colonization, then Alexander “colonized” Persia; Napoleon “colonized” Russia; England “colonized” France during the 100 Years War; the Ottomans “colonized” the Middle East; the Muslims “colonized” the Mediterranean countries; Saladin, who was Kurd, “colonized” Middle East.

Nor do I include the fact that Israel would practice “apartheid” against the Palestinians to assert that Israel would be a “colonial state”: the idea of an Israeli “apartheid” – which is extremely debatable, to say the least – deserves at least a separate article. I won’t deal with it here, especially as Israel was created in 1948, long before the West Bank and Gaza Strip came under its control, and practices a supposed “apartheid”.

Another terminological remark: I define Palestine as a territory corresponding to the former British Mandate. I distinguish this geographical definition from the political concept of the Palestinian territories – Gaza and the West Bank. I call Palestinians people who have personally lived or whose have ancestors have lived in Palestine before the creation of Israel. These people are Muslim and Christian Arab living today in Israel, the Palestinian territories and other Arab countries.

My last definition effort focus on the notion of “colony”, which I try to apply to Israel.

Definition of a colony

Comparison with Israel

a) It involves the expansion by a Western metropole

a) There is no metropole that voluntarily sent its citizens to Palestine, especially as the main colonial powers are in Western Europe, while the first European Jews coming to Palestine are mainly Russian.

b) Toward a less economically and materially developed country

b) Palestine was undoubtedly a less developed territory than Western or Eastern Europe, at least economically or in terms of literacy. But the Ottoman Empire, to which Palestine belonged, had often been ahead, particularly militarily, and had laboriously implemented measures to modernize in the 19th century. It cannot be compared to the American continent, India, Africa, or Australia before Western conquest.

c) Modern colonization occurred mainly between the 1870s and 1960s

c) Jewish migration to Palestine certainly began from the late 19th century. But it continued until today and experienced its greatest expansion between the 1920s and 1990s. It was marked by the upheavals of Russian, German, and Arab history, which is nothing like a ‘colonial’ project but rather the dramas of 20th-century Euro-Mediterranean history. On top of that, how to imagine colonization in a decolonization context? Why such a historical aberration? Such precedents of perpetuating ancient forms of ‘domination’ that disappear worldwide except in one specific point are, to my knowledge, quite rare.

d) In the name of an ideology of progress, the spread of Christianity, but in reality, in a logic of exploiting local wealth and competition between European powers

d) Did the early Zionism come with an ideology of progress legitimizing expansion into Palestine? No: certainly, the first generations of Jewish immigrants believed in left-wing ideas and emancipation, but it was the expression of a progressive hope for collective emancipation from a population with a very solid religious culture and expertise in modern fields (economy, engineering). There was no wealth to exploit in Palestine, and Zionism had certainly no intention of converting anyone to Christianity or Judaism.

e) Accompanied by a colonialist discourse legitimizing the colonization process.

e) Finally, is there a ‘colonialist’ discourse to legitimize Jewish immigration to Palestine? It is undeniable that there was and still is a religious, political, historical, and even eschatological discourse to justify Jewish expansion in Palestine in Israel. Nevertheless, there is also a contradictory democratic debate in Israel regarding the policy to be pursued; an Israeli justice system that regularly condemns soldiers guilty of unjustified violence; intense historiographical debates that have led to questioning the founding ‘myths’ of Israel; the regular intervention of the Israeli Supreme Court to control government decisions; finally, Israel is constantly scrutinized by the UN. These elements show that it is difficult to speak of a kind of ‘colonialist’ good conscience in Israel.

I propose, instead, this definition of the origins of Israel, which seems closer to reality: it is a migration of political and humanitarian refugees, who were also guided by the hope of material progress and political autonomy. One cannot see it as a symptom of ‘colonial’ ideology, but rather simply as a project of independence and a hybrid migration mixing political motives and, to a lesser extent, economic ones.

* * *

The real comparison that can be made between Israel and other nations is not to assimilate it to France or the United Kingdom as colonial powers—an absurd comparison at best for evident reasons: Israel was created in 1948, it was populated almost entirely by migration, it never created a vast “oversee” empire, and so on.

Hannah Weiss with pogrom victim and his family members. Bialystok 1906. Gift of Helen Spector. 842.91. Were they “colonizers”?

Source:https://mjhnyc.org/blog/devastation-destruction-the-1906-bialystok-pogrom/

But one could also compare Israel to two European nations, and the comparison makes a lot of sense: Israel is indeed comparable to some extend to Ireland and Poland.

I freely admit that this comparison may come as a surprise. However, I’m not the first to attempt such a comparison (note 1). Rather, my intention is to show that the Jewish people can be compared to other – European – peoples who have suffered centuries of humiliation and domination, and who have tried, despite wars and crises, to establish themselves as independent nations.

  • These two nations experienced a process of emancipation from the United Kingdom and Russia, respectively. One could also establish a kind of parallel between Irish or Polish immigration to the United States to escape the domination of European powers and that of Jews to Palestine.
  • The chronology “matches” too: Ireland, Poland, and Israel truly began to exist as political actors from the 1920s. They immediately set up democratic processes and engaged, nevertheless, in conflicts and military tensions from that time.

  • These states experienced very serious conflicts related to the definition of their territory and aimed at expanding it, just as was the case with Israel. Polish independence was inseparable from the expulsion of millions of Germans, and the Irish wanted to limit the extension of Northern Ireland under British control to the maximum, which reveals parallels with Israel’s quest for independent and extended national territory.

  • All these territorial conflicts were accompanied by an identity and religious conflict: Catholic Ireland against Protestant the United Kingdom; Catholic Poland against Protestant Germany and Orthodox Russia; Jewish Israel against Muslim Palestine.

  • Finally, Poland, Ireland, and Israel have very significant political influence in the United States.

  • But very significant differences still prevail. Ireland and Poland are emigration countries, while Israel is an immigration state. On top of that, Ireland was able to implement a genuine peace process in the 1990s lasting for decades. Although Poland gained full independence in 1991 and entered an era of peace, this did not put an end to old tensions with Russia, which took a new turn with the war between Ukraine and Russia, in which Poland played a key role. And despite the Oslo process, Israel has not been able to emerge from decades of conflict either.

In conclusion, Israel cannot be assimilated to a mere colony created in the context of global decolonization. Instead, its emergence as a state is part of a tumultuous process of national formation, sharing some historical parallels with other European nations that struggled for independence. However, distinctions underscore the particularity of Israel’s path.

Updated: 29 December 2023.

* * *

Note 1:

Goddard, Stacie E. Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy: Jerusalem and Northern Ireland. New York (N.Y.): Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Lustick, Ian S. Unsettled States, Disputed Lands: Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza.

Short bibliography:

Overview:

Laurens Henry, Le retour des exilés : la lutte pour la Palestine de 1869 à 1997. Paris, Robert
Laffont, 1998.

Henry Laurens, Le Retour des exilés. La lutte pour la Palestine de 1869 à 1997, Paris, Robert Laffont, « Bouquins », 1998.

–,La Question de Palestine I. L’Invention de la Terre sainte (1799-1922), Paris, Fayard, 1999 ; La Question de Palestine II. Une mission sacrée de civilisation (1922-1947), Paris, Fayard, 2002 ; La Question de Palestine III. L’Accomplissement des prophéties (1947-1967), Paris, Fayard, 2007.

Neville Mandel, The Arabs and Zionism before World War I. Berkeley, University of California Press,
1976.

Séguin Michaël, « Conceptualiser la colonialité d’Israël : retour sur la trajectoire d’une analyse polémique », Cahiers d’histoire. Revue d’histoire critique, Vol. 131, 2016, p. 135-154.

Books countering/articles the “colonizing” paradigm:

Aaronsohn, Ran. “Settlement in Eretz Israel — A Colonialist Enterprise? ‘Critical’ Scholarship and Historical Geography.” Israel Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, 1996, pp. 214–29.

Mitchell G. Bard “Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict”

Donna Robinson Divine and Asaf Romirowsky, “Settler colonialism backfires,” JNS, (July 23, 2021).

Alicia Cox, “Settler Colonialism,” Oxford bibliography, (July 26, 2017).

Critical books/articles on Israel’s “colonization”

Ran Aharonson, « Settlement in Eretz Israel, A Colonialist Enterprise ? “Critical” Scholarship and Historical Geography »

Gershom Gorenberg, The Accidental Empire : Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, New York, Times Books, 2006

Elia Zureik, The Palestinians in Israel : A Study in Internal Colonialism, Londres, Routledge & Kegan Paul., 1979, 249 p.

Fawwaz Trabulsi, « The Palestine Problem : Zionism and Imperialism in the Middle East », New Left Review, vol. I, n° 57, 1969, p. 53-90.

Daiva K. Stasiulis et Nira Yuval-Davis (dir.), Unsettling Settler Societies : Articulations of Gender, Race, Ethnicity and Class, Londres-Thousand Oaks, Sage, 1995, 335 p.

Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology : The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event, Londres-New York, Cassell, 1999, 246 p.

Lorenzo Veracini, Settler Colonialism : A Theoretical Overview, Houndmills, Basingstoke-New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, 182 p.


OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Baudry Pierre (December 28, 2023). Some prejudices on Israel: Israel would be a “colony” – and why it is wrong (part 1). Deciphering international politics - religion, economics and international affairs. Retrieved March 17, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/ve0c


Baudry Pierre

Ph.D. CNRS/EPHE (Paris), Assistant professor.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.