Thank you, as always, for this. I live part-time in a US college town, and I'm sickened by the facile pro-Palestinian sloganeering even among small businesses such as coffee shops as well as the smug and ahistorical certainty of "post-colonialism."
Very informative. The reality of when warfare and bloodshed will end in Israel seems to hinge on this key question: when will Israel's enemies accept it's right to exist and the reality, "We aren't going anywhere"?
I keep thinking of one of the final scenes of Schindler's List when a concentration camp is liberated, and prisoners ask a Soviet Soldier where they should go. The soldier responds, "Don't go east, that's for sure. They hate you there. I wouldn't go West either." This reality is one of the many foundations of the further population influx in addition to the Jewish population that has been there for many centuries, into what became the modern state of Israel. "We have no place to go" inevitably became "we aren't going anywhere."
"We ignore the doctrine of settler colonialism (SC) at our peril". Really? I think ignoring such a facile approach to the world is pretty much exactly what we should do. What you write about in this article (and one or two of the comments gets at already) is that despite knowing actual facts about the thousands of years of Jewish attachment to the land currently known as Palestine (thanks Romans), SC adherents still want to impose their silly doctrine. Then you have people who are just straight up ignorant about that history. Maybe they'd change their mind if they knew? History of anti semitism suggests otherwise, though.
For zealots it's not about learning the facts. This isn't some rational argument to be had where people absorb the facts and sensibly update their priors. And anyway, people just create their own facts. You've probably read Ghosts Of A Holy War? If not, read the bit where the author Yardena Schwartz discusses what kids in the West Bank and Gaza are taught (in UN schools) about Jewish connection to the land. I.e that they have none (UNESCO designation of old city Hebron doesn't even mention the Jewish connection). The head of the PA thinks the Jews perpetrated the holocaust against themselves, right?
People have been hating on the Jews, not quite literally from day one, but not long after. Well before universities existed for academics to try and mask their anti semitism with a formalised theory.
I can't remember whether it was your podcast or Call Me Back, but Haviv rettig gor in response to a question about what he'd say to the SC doctrine folk protesting Israel in western cities and University campuses says something along the lines of (paraphrasing) "I have nothing to say to those people. they're not here to listen, they're not hear to learn".
I liked your article very much but think there is one sentence that gives a very wrong impression. I“They’re about a utopian ideal of returning Palestine to the state it was in as if the last 76 years hadn’t happened.” There were both Jews and Arabs and Turks and others all living unpeacefully together there under Turkish and then British rule both 76 years ago and 100 years ago and 200 years ago.
Well, Assad had a solution for unreconciled conquered. He killed everyone in the city and razed it to the ground. Israel might consider exiling the Palestinians to Syria?
Thanks Russ - very informative. I am hoping that you will interview an Arab-Israeli on EconTalk in 2025 (I have a feeling this is in the work!). It would be quite insightful to get their perspective (specifically post Oct 7) and shed some light on their lived experience as Arab Israelis, specially that they comprise a sizeable proportion of Israel's population. Cheers.
The reason Israel is singled out in this manner is obviously anti-semitism. The hypocrisy of the United Nations has been appalling but not surprising. A significant percentage of the youth of America has been utterly brainwashed and lost its moral compass, as we could see from the shocking polls in late 2023 where there was actual support for October 7 as being justified. This has only become worse. “Never again” is not just a slogan anymore. I could see another Holocaust in many countries in the future. Israel is the essential state for the Jewish people.
I bought the book and will read it, but I have to say, I’m bummed that I have to read yet another book to dispel the bullshit coming from government-subsidized academia. Let’s get to the bottom of this crap. Let’s make a list of all the quasi-religious ideas coming from academia and see that government is “respecting establishments of religion” in many cases over many decades. Education is not an enumerated power of the federal government. When can we cut the government funding for education? This funding is literally killing people; ruining lives; producing progressive dogmas that distract, divide, and tear communities apart.
When we subsidize education we end up subsidizing horrible ideas that harm people. These are terrible incentives.
Wake up people! Don’t you see that pattern?
What would Milton Friedman say about all this? Limit government to the bare essentials. Protect from foreign and domestic threats. Protect our natural rights.
One issue I think is worth pointing out is that I don’t think that the settler-colonialism analysis follows an oppressor/oppressed world view. It is an oppressor/non-oppressor world view. To put this more generally, it is not an affirmative/negative distinction, it is an affirmative/non-affirmative one. This difference is substantial, as one cannot be neutral (in neither position) in the latter arrangement, while one can be neutral (in neither position) in the former. To put this mathematically, “zero” in the former arrangement is in neither set, while it is always in the second set in the latter arrangement. Effectively, neutral always falls on the “not” side.
I think the reason this distinction matters is because it explains why no actions taken by either side seem to matter. Notice, I defined the world view as oppressor/non-oppressor, not as oppressed/non-oppressed. Thus, you can still be an oppressor, even if no one is oppressed. It also seems important that in the settler-colonialism analysis, the action which creates the “oppressor” category is 1) always in the past and 2) a specific incident. Thus, no current action (or position in any other past incident) can change the category to which one belongs because the categorization is based on a specific past incident (and the past cannot be changed).
So how do you respond to this? Simple, you can’t. I would argue that the settler-colonialism analysis allows no dispute by its very structure. In extreme, even if Israel ceased to exist, it is still the oppressor by this world-view.
Since colonialism has long been at the core of how countries originated, dont you think simply jew hatred profoundly impacts the Palestine / israel situation.
We cannot ignore the de jure anti -colonialism theme on the left, but when only Israel is accused ( falsely no less) it feels futile to address anything other than antisemitism
I wanted to commend you on this essay and ask the pregnant question, "What can Israel do to counter the 'settler colonialism doctrine' being used to delegitimize Israel's right to exist?" Besides globally brandishing facts like those you cite toward the end of your essay (and which is something I believe Israel tries to do, albeit not as well as it might), what else can Israel do? It seems to me that the "root-root" cause or driving force of anti-Israel sentiment is not simply the 'settler colonialism doctrine' you point to. It is, even more nefariously, the same antisemitism that has plagued our people since we could be described as a people more than three millennia ago. Most of the "nations of the world" (Oomot HaOlam) treat Israel as individual antisemites treat individual Jews -- rejecting their right to live free of oppression and with the same rights as non-Jews. So, too, the nations of the world treat Israel antisemitically by invalidating its right to exist free of oppression and with the same rights as non-Jewish states, principally the right to full self-defense and to wage all-out war (or any war) against any state or group that attacks Israel existentially.
I truly enjoyed your essay, and I am truly curious to hear your thoughts about what Israel can do to counter the 'settler colonialism doctrine', particularly if I am correct that the root-root cause or driving force is antisemitism. This is not to say that advocates of the doctrine are not sincere in their contorted motivations; it is to suggest that the doctrine resonates with so many around the globe -- principally academics and politicians -- because they are, either consciously or subconsciously, antisemitic at heart and fail to see how application of the 'settler colonialism doctrine' to Israel is, as you point out, spurious and unfounded because (1) the Jewish people are more indigenous to the Land of Israel than any other people and (2) there was no violent effort to settle (colonize) Arab land at all, or even stretching it -- until 20 Arab armies attacked Israel in 1948.
I am pretty sure there isn't a short-term answer to this because the demands of one side are so maximalist. And because it seems that Israel isn't simply fighting a war against Hamas and Hezbollah, but ultimately against Iran, who has poured billions into this fight because they too view a Jewish state as a sin against Allah. If the anti-colonialism terrorism tactics that were used in Algeria by the National Liberation Front that were adopted by the PLO are still in play today by Hamas and Hezbollah, which are essentially to ratchet up the cost to stay so high that the colonizers leave, then the only response by a people group or nation that clearly isn't going anywhere is to make it abundantly clear in return that it isn't going to leave in response to those tactics and in fact will impose a heavy cost to those organizations and states that support them in return.
Perhaps that is sadly the only way that will one day create emergent order societal change that engenders a new reality, by changing of the minds and by persistent eradication of militant threats. With some time and space, perhaps that leads to some new common understanding. "They aren't going anywhere, and we aren't going anywhere. Therefore, let's set aside and repudiate these maximalist demands and cut ties to those who demand them, including powers that use as as their cat's paw for proxy wars, and by existential necessity try something peaceful that can be used as a framework that points the way to mutually recognized and peaceful coexisting state sovereignties."
I apologize for posting a comment that does not relate to the issue raised in the essay but does go to the point of Israel being a "Jewish State." I hope it makes sense and is not offensive in some way.
Why is Israel a Jewish state as opposed to a state where Jews are free to live in peace and happen to constitute a majority of the population?
In 1946, the answer was obvious, but were it not for all the violence, would it be o.k. to ask this question? The question is rendered irrelevant, in my opinion, when groups talk about the illegitimacy of Israel, argue Israel is committing genocide, or that the occupation is "brutal" when it isn't. The fact that so many people argue those positions illustrates the need for a Jewish state, but what if they stopped?
I think you’re completely right about why settler colonialism is such a bad lens through which to view Israel. I do think a good counter argument for those of us in say the US or India is to take the paradigm and say that, sure - bad things happened when our countries were conquered - but the conquerors also brought norms and structures that have allowed more people to thrive and live better lives as well.
I find it’s helpful and surprising to people when you push back on the myths of what pre-Columbian standards of living and norms were like.
Thank you, as always, for this. I live part-time in a US college town, and I'm sickened by the facile pro-Palestinian sloganeering even among small businesses such as coffee shops as well as the smug and ahistorical certainty of "post-colonialism."
Very informative. The reality of when warfare and bloodshed will end in Israel seems to hinge on this key question: when will Israel's enemies accept it's right to exist and the reality, "We aren't going anywhere"?
I keep thinking of one of the final scenes of Schindler's List when a concentration camp is liberated, and prisoners ask a Soviet Soldier where they should go. The soldier responds, "Don't go east, that's for sure. They hate you there. I wouldn't go West either." This reality is one of the many foundations of the further population influx in addition to the Jewish population that has been there for many centuries, into what became the modern state of Israel. "We have no place to go" inevitably became "we aren't going anywhere."
"We ignore the doctrine of settler colonialism (SC) at our peril". Really? I think ignoring such a facile approach to the world is pretty much exactly what we should do. What you write about in this article (and one or two of the comments gets at already) is that despite knowing actual facts about the thousands of years of Jewish attachment to the land currently known as Palestine (thanks Romans), SC adherents still want to impose their silly doctrine. Then you have people who are just straight up ignorant about that history. Maybe they'd change their mind if they knew? History of anti semitism suggests otherwise, though.
For zealots it's not about learning the facts. This isn't some rational argument to be had where people absorb the facts and sensibly update their priors. And anyway, people just create their own facts. You've probably read Ghosts Of A Holy War? If not, read the bit where the author Yardena Schwartz discusses what kids in the West Bank and Gaza are taught (in UN schools) about Jewish connection to the land. I.e that they have none (UNESCO designation of old city Hebron doesn't even mention the Jewish connection). The head of the PA thinks the Jews perpetrated the holocaust against themselves, right?
People have been hating on the Jews, not quite literally from day one, but not long after. Well before universities existed for academics to try and mask their anti semitism with a formalised theory.
I can't remember whether it was your podcast or Call Me Back, but Haviv rettig gor in response to a question about what he'd say to the SC doctrine folk protesting Israel in western cities and University campuses says something along the lines of (paraphrasing) "I have nothing to say to those people. they're not here to listen, they're not hear to learn".
I liked your article very much but think there is one sentence that gives a very wrong impression. I“They’re about a utopian ideal of returning Palestine to the state it was in as if the last 76 years hadn’t happened.” There were both Jews and Arabs and Turks and others all living unpeacefully together there under Turkish and then British rule both 76 years ago and 100 years ago and 200 years ago.
I write about that later, but you're right--that's a misleading sentence. I will fix it. Thank you.
Well, Assad had a solution for unreconciled conquered. He killed everyone in the city and razed it to the ground. Israel might consider exiling the Palestinians to Syria?
Interesting to see the detailed and thoughtful comments here.
Thanks Russ - very informative. I am hoping that you will interview an Arab-Israeli on EconTalk in 2025 (I have a feeling this is in the work!). It would be quite insightful to get their perspective (specifically post Oct 7) and shed some light on their lived experience as Arab Israelis, specially that they comprise a sizeable proportion of Israel's population. Cheers.
Look up Yoseph Haddad. Watch his speech at the Oxford union 'debate'.
The reason Israel is singled out in this manner is obviously anti-semitism. The hypocrisy of the United Nations has been appalling but not surprising. A significant percentage of the youth of America has been utterly brainwashed and lost its moral compass, as we could see from the shocking polls in late 2023 where there was actual support for October 7 as being justified. This has only become worse. “Never again” is not just a slogan anymore. I could see another Holocaust in many countries in the future. Israel is the essential state for the Jewish people.
Russ,
I bought the book and will read it, but I have to say, I’m bummed that I have to read yet another book to dispel the bullshit coming from government-subsidized academia. Let’s get to the bottom of this crap. Let’s make a list of all the quasi-religious ideas coming from academia and see that government is “respecting establishments of religion” in many cases over many decades. Education is not an enumerated power of the federal government. When can we cut the government funding for education? This funding is literally killing people; ruining lives; producing progressive dogmas that distract, divide, and tear communities apart.
When we subsidize education we end up subsidizing horrible ideas that harm people. These are terrible incentives.
Wake up people! Don’t you see that pattern?
What would Milton Friedman say about all this? Limit government to the bare essentials. Protect from foreign and domestic threats. Protect our natural rights.
Maybe it’s time to discuss this on Econtalk?
Scott
One issue I think is worth pointing out is that I don’t think that the settler-colonialism analysis follows an oppressor/oppressed world view. It is an oppressor/non-oppressor world view. To put this more generally, it is not an affirmative/negative distinction, it is an affirmative/non-affirmative one. This difference is substantial, as one cannot be neutral (in neither position) in the latter arrangement, while one can be neutral (in neither position) in the former. To put this mathematically, “zero” in the former arrangement is in neither set, while it is always in the second set in the latter arrangement. Effectively, neutral always falls on the “not” side.
I think the reason this distinction matters is because it explains why no actions taken by either side seem to matter. Notice, I defined the world view as oppressor/non-oppressor, not as oppressed/non-oppressed. Thus, you can still be an oppressor, even if no one is oppressed. It also seems important that in the settler-colonialism analysis, the action which creates the “oppressor” category is 1) always in the past and 2) a specific incident. Thus, no current action (or position in any other past incident) can change the category to which one belongs because the categorization is based on a specific past incident (and the past cannot be changed).
So how do you respond to this? Simple, you can’t. I would argue that the settler-colonialism analysis allows no dispute by its very structure. In extreme, even if Israel ceased to exist, it is still the oppressor by this world-view.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/settler-colonialism-guilty-history/680992/
Since colonialism has long been at the core of how countries originated, dont you think simply jew hatred profoundly impacts the Palestine / israel situation.
We cannot ignore the de jure anti -colonialism theme on the left, but when only Israel is accused ( falsely no less) it feels futile to address anything other than antisemitism
I wanted to commend you on this essay and ask the pregnant question, "What can Israel do to counter the 'settler colonialism doctrine' being used to delegitimize Israel's right to exist?" Besides globally brandishing facts like those you cite toward the end of your essay (and which is something I believe Israel tries to do, albeit not as well as it might), what else can Israel do? It seems to me that the "root-root" cause or driving force of anti-Israel sentiment is not simply the 'settler colonialism doctrine' you point to. It is, even more nefariously, the same antisemitism that has plagued our people since we could be described as a people more than three millennia ago. Most of the "nations of the world" (Oomot HaOlam) treat Israel as individual antisemites treat individual Jews -- rejecting their right to live free of oppression and with the same rights as non-Jews. So, too, the nations of the world treat Israel antisemitically by invalidating its right to exist free of oppression and with the same rights as non-Jewish states, principally the right to full self-defense and to wage all-out war (or any war) against any state or group that attacks Israel existentially.
I truly enjoyed your essay, and I am truly curious to hear your thoughts about what Israel can do to counter the 'settler colonialism doctrine', particularly if I am correct that the root-root cause or driving force is antisemitism. This is not to say that advocates of the doctrine are not sincere in their contorted motivations; it is to suggest that the doctrine resonates with so many around the globe -- principally academics and politicians -- because they are, either consciously or subconsciously, antisemitic at heart and fail to see how application of the 'settler colonialism doctrine' to Israel is, as you point out, spurious and unfounded because (1) the Jewish people are more indigenous to the Land of Israel than any other people and (2) there was no violent effort to settle (colonize) Arab land at all, or even stretching it -- until 20 Arab armies attacked Israel in 1948.
I am pretty sure there isn't a short-term answer to this because the demands of one side are so maximalist. And because it seems that Israel isn't simply fighting a war against Hamas and Hezbollah, but ultimately against Iran, who has poured billions into this fight because they too view a Jewish state as a sin against Allah. If the anti-colonialism terrorism tactics that were used in Algeria by the National Liberation Front that were adopted by the PLO are still in play today by Hamas and Hezbollah, which are essentially to ratchet up the cost to stay so high that the colonizers leave, then the only response by a people group or nation that clearly isn't going anywhere is to make it abundantly clear in return that it isn't going to leave in response to those tactics and in fact will impose a heavy cost to those organizations and states that support them in return.
Perhaps that is sadly the only way that will one day create emergent order societal change that engenders a new reality, by changing of the minds and by persistent eradication of militant threats. With some time and space, perhaps that leads to some new common understanding. "They aren't going anywhere, and we aren't going anywhere. Therefore, let's set aside and repudiate these maximalist demands and cut ties to those who demand them, including powers that use as as their cat's paw for proxy wars, and by existential necessity try something peaceful that can be used as a framework that points the way to mutually recognized and peaceful coexisting state sovereignties."
I apologize for posting a comment that does not relate to the issue raised in the essay but does go to the point of Israel being a "Jewish State." I hope it makes sense and is not offensive in some way.
Why is Israel a Jewish state as opposed to a state where Jews are free to live in peace and happen to constitute a majority of the population?
In 1946, the answer was obvious, but were it not for all the violence, would it be o.k. to ask this question? The question is rendered irrelevant, in my opinion, when groups talk about the illegitimacy of Israel, argue Israel is committing genocide, or that the occupation is "brutal" when it isn't. The fact that so many people argue those positions illustrates the need for a Jewish state, but what if they stopped?
I think you’re completely right about why settler colonialism is such a bad lens through which to view Israel. I do think a good counter argument for those of us in say the US or India is to take the paradigm and say that, sure - bad things happened when our countries were conquered - but the conquerors also brought norms and structures that have allowed more people to thrive and live better lives as well.
I find it’s helpful and surprising to people when you push back on the myths of what pre-Columbian standards of living and norms were like.