Since the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, there’s been a lot of public discussion of “settler colonialism” and the rights of indigenous peoples. Academics call for the “decolonization” of countries such as Australia, Canada, and the United States. Palestinian activists and their American student allies make the same demand regarding Israel, denouncing it as a “settler colonial project” and arguing that it must be “dismantled.”

Where did this movement come from? Does it have anything valid to say about Israel? Those questions are the subject of an important new book by Adam Kirsch, On Settler Colonialism: Ideology, Violence, and Justice.

The field of settler colonial studies has now been around for two decades. It began as an academic discipline centered on the rights of aboriginal Australians and Native Americans.

In the field, Kirsch argues, “the goal of learning about settlement in America and elsewhere is not to understand it, as a historian would, but to combat it.” Therefore, he says, “settler colonialism is best understood not as a historical concept but as an ideology, whose growing popularity among educated young Americans is already having significant political effects.” (Kirsch acknowledges that “To call it the ideology of settler colonialism is potentially misleading, since it means naming a political idea after what it opposes.”)

Settler colonial ideology closely resembles the antiracist ideology of Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi. Thus, just as all white people are supposedly born with the original sin of racism, all non-indigenous people are born with the original sin of settler colonialism –- even those who have been around for generations. (This leads to the bizarre result that to some scholars, Black Americans whose forebears arrived in chains are viewed as colonists.) And as with Kendi’s ideology, settler colonialism takes a Manichaean view. Kendi maintains that you are either a racist or an antiracist. There is no such thing as a non-racist.

Similarly, with settler colonialism, you are either indigenous and belong to the land, or you are non-indigenous and your presence is irrevocably evil.

As Kirsch has pointed out, there’s a certain irony here: While settler colonialists view themselves as leftists, their ideology bears a definite resemblance to fascist, blood-and-soil nationalism: The land belongs only to those who are (or claim to be) its original inhabitants.

Also, because all non-indigenous people bear the irrevocable stain of settler colonialism, they can be collectively punished. As Kirsch has written, this logic is comparable to the communist belief that the bourgeoisie are “outside the realm of moral concern.”

All of this might have remained merely an academic discipline — a form of intellectual posturing with no feasible goal. After all, Australia, Canada, and the United States aren’t going anywhere.

“But what if there were a country,” Kirsch asks, “where settler colonialism could be challenged with more than words? Where all the evils attributed to it … could be given a human face? Best of all, what if that settler colonial society were small and endangered enough that destroying it seemed like a realistic possibility rather than a utopian dream? Such a country would be the perfect focus for all the moral passion and rhetorical violence that fuels the ideology of settler colonialism. It would be a country one could hate virtuously — especially if it were home to a people whom Western civilization has traditionally considered it virtuous to hate.”

Of course, he is talking about Israel.

As Kirsch writes, “while the concept of settler colonialism was first developed to explain the history of Australia, Canada, and the United States, today it is perhaps most often invoked in connection with Israel.” The settler colonial claim is especially popular with Palestinian think tanks like Al Shabaka, which recognize that it plays well in Western leftist circles. And it’s become central to the work of writers like Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi. Indeed, Khalidi titled his latest book, The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917-2017. He has called Zionism a “classic nineteenth-century European colonial venture.”

But as Khalidi conveniently fails to note, at least half the Jewish population of Israel is made up of Mizrahim, whose families were expelled from Arab countries before and right after the founding of Israel. They are not European at all. But for Khalidi, there’s no need to let facts get in the way of rhetoric.

In other important ways, Israel simply fails to fit the definition of a settler colonial project.

The original Zionists who populated the British Mandate were refugees, not colonizers. They came to escape oppression and reclaim their homeland, not to widen the boundaries of European influence. As Kirsch notes, they “did not have the backing of any government but were self-supporting or relied on private philanthropy.” Moreover, unlike typical colonial ventures, Israel “has no mother country obligated to defend it, or to accept millions of refugees if it fails.” And the Zionists did not come to exploit the land’s natural resources — there weren’t any.

One integral part of the settler colonial claim is the argument that, unlike Arabs, Jews are not indigenous to the land. But that turns history on its head. As Kirsch writes, “insisting that Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine, the ideology of settler colonialism finds itself unable to reckon with the Zionist principle that Jews are the indigenous people of the land of Israel.” Therefore, “because recognizing Jews as aboriginal to the land of Israel would turn one of settler colonial studies’ key theoretical weapons against itself, it simply declines to engage with this idea and its implications.” Of course some Palestinian leaders have no problem simply denying that Jews have a historical connection to the land.

Here’s the worst part. Settler colonialism precludes the only just resolution of the conflict: a two-state solution. That’s because, Kirsch says, “the actual effect of the ideology of settler colonialism is not to encourage” such a solution. “It is to cultivate hatred of those designated as settlers and to inspire hope for their disappearance. In this way, it abets Arab rejection of the State of Israel, which has helped to freeze the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the same basic form since before 1948.”

Meanwhile, settler colonial ideology provides intellectual cover for academics and campus activists — a fig leaf for their hatred of Israel. It allows them to feel virtuous while condoning, even supporting, the eliminationist goals of groups like Hamas. As Kirsch puts it, such people “should be rebuked for their inhumanity, not praised for their idealism.”

Paul Schneider is an attorney, writer and member of the Board of Directors of the American Jewish International Relations Institute (AJIRI), an affiliate of B’nai B’rith International.

The post How to Combat the Lie That Israel Is a ‘Settler Colonial’ State first appeared on Algemeiner.com.