Israeli : A study for the American Perspective Focussing on Ideology and Historical Narrative

Diagrams and Diagnosis: A New Middle East? The Evergreen State College Spring 2016 The nature of and Zionism is that of settler colonialism. Thus the actions of Israel resemble other identifiable examples under an analysis of Comparative Settler Colonialism. The existence of Palestinians and the displacement and occupation perpetrated against them has been the most significant defining factor of Israel. The Four Periods of Jewish History, a framework for understanding this narrative, is then explained. This complicated ideological telling of history, and its particularities can only be understood fully by religious Jews and thus are the only ones that can give rational for Likud government policy based as it is on the long religious history of God and his chosen people. is an Israeli Jewish fundamentalist Zionist organization who, like many in Israel, saw the Six Day War as a sign from God and undertook to settle the territories recently captured although it was in fact the result of foreign military aid. The wave of messianic Zionist fervor that rose up and swept over previously regarded secular Israel and elected the Likud Party. The origins of New that powered Gush Emunim’s settlement activities is found to in Kuk Sr. whose writings transformed the messianic idea. Studies of the first settlement in 1967 in Hebron, the Etzion Bloc settlement, and finally the Ofra Settlement accomplished in 1975 produce a pattern in which the settlers forced the government’s hand with the leverage of the national psyche, use government eviction of settlements to grow their popularity and membership, and refined methods of pressure, timing, and facts on the ground. Netanyahu, recognizing the climate of American Administration focussed rhetoric on unifying War on Terror away from Settlement of the Occupied Territories. Dispensationalist shifted from the traditional view of Christians as God’s replacement for the Promise made to the Jews when they were lost in exile and instead believed that Christians were a subsequent plan of God that still necessitated the Jewish people residing in the Holy Land for the Messianic Period to begin forging a political alliance between Zionist Jewish and Christian Zionist officials. Building on the Wellhausenian or Documentary Hypothesis trying to explain inconsistencies and repetitions in the biblical text Pekka Pitkanen proposes that books Genesis and Joshua can be read as a unified work written to justify settler colonialism. In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. In truth, as in legend, this event marks the opening of the period of European Colonialism. Indeed colonial power exerts itself to this day. The reach of colonialism is global, affecting people the world over with domination, exploitation, displacement, humiliation and erasure all under the guise of liberalism, freedom, modernization, and civilizing the less­than­civilized world. And so the colonizers and the settlers do not think of themselves as bad people. Intricate systems of justification, rationalization, and what evolves into an encompassing ideology have been developed. Such ideologies justified the enslavement of Africans and genocide of Native Americans, to name two examples familiar to a U.S perspective.

But somehow the discourse on colonialism is absent, the framework of colonialism is not utilized in analysing today’s issues­ especially in the case of Israel/Palestine.

This paper intends to refocus this discourse on an analysis within the framework of settler colonial studies. By visiting multiple sites of colonial power, settler colonial ideology, and colonial structure the reader is afforded multiple points of reference that upon reflection will reveal mirror images across history and in future events. That is to say, understanding settler colonialism will open a new worldview, a new framework for understanding the nature of our time. Since 1492 colonialism has exerted power but only in 2011 was the academic journal Settler Colonial Studies inaugurated. This journal ​ ​ describes how, in the absence of a settler colonial framework of analysis, the crimes of

Israel against Palestine are indexed as a series of individual but connected events.1

1 Salamanca, Jabary, Mezna Qato, Kareem Rabie, and Sobhi Samour. “Past Is Present: Settler Colonialism ​ in Palestine.” Settler Colonial Studies 2, no. 1 (January 1, 2012): 1–8. doi:10.1080/2201473X.2012.10648823 Such a lacking analysis leads to the conclusion of exceptionality. The U.S. if not analysed as an imperial world power, is seen as an exceptional case unmatched in history and therefore uninhibited by the lessons learned from past imperial powers­ thus ripe for the same mistakes.

The case with Israel is identical. Without being contextualized as the colonial entity it is, Israel somehow appears exceptional case unmatched in history and therefore not able to commit the same crimes­ thus Israel is able to continue its colonization of

Palestine. In order to forward Palestinian liberation Israel must be recognized as a settler colonial state and Zionism’s ideology must be analysed through this framework.

Ronit Lentin positions race at center stage and so analyzes Israel (which the author terms the Zionist settler­colony) as a racial state. This refutes the claim of exceptionalism by the state of Israel, similar to exceptionalist claims of other settler colonial nations such as American exceptionalism. Such states create divisions that consolidate citizens as well as exclude other non­citizens. Lentin terms these as racial states:

Racial states exclude and include in order to construct homogeneity through governmental technologies of border controls, citizenship entitlements, and census categorizations, as well as invented histories and traditions that construct state memory, cultural imaginings, and the evocation of ancient origins.2

The Israeli Racial state enacts such a racialization on the Palestinians construing them as not merely a racial other but a “despised and demonic racial group.”

Zionism, like other colonizing projects, aims at modernization­ portraying in this

2 Lentin, Ronit. "Israel's War on the Palestinians: Banalization of Occupation or Routinization of ​ Settler Colonialism?" Project MUSE. MUSE, 23 Jan. 2016. Web. 06 May 2016. ​ ​ context the Israelis as modern citizen and the Palestinians as the backwards, primitive other. This racialization is a result of the Zionist imperative to create a

Jewish exclusive state and results in the persecution, occupation, and genocide of the Palestinians. Lentin asserts that “Israeli settler colonialism is deliberate and intentional ... intent on the racialization and ethnic cleansing ... of their ‘.’”3

Rather than an exceptional state, Israel is shown to be just one instance of settler colonialism. Comparisons can be drawn between the systematic racialization and occupation of Palestinians with the racist system constructed against African people and their descendants in the United States. The graphic quotation that follows reveals the similar qualities in the violence perpetrated by racial states against the racial other:

Just as black flesh was routinely created through “the calculated work of iron, whips, chains, knives, the canine patrol, the bullet” (Spillers 2003, 207) so Palestinian flesh is routinely created through the calculated work of ... riot control equipment, air bombings and ground offensives, military court systems, torture, jails, checkpoints and walls.4

The creation of the racial other is done through the systems of power listed above.

The graphic quality of this creation is not something unexpected or exceptional. It is a routine syndrome of settler colonialism. Lentin’s conclusion is that despite this routinization of occupation and racialization, despite the lack of international rapprochement, Israel’s war and occupation against the Palestinians is committed by

3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. “deliberate, complex, human joiners in routine acts of colonization, intent on racializing and dominating other humans.”

Despite the apparent role of racism in these instances, the rubric of racism has not until recently been used to analyse Israeli colonialism. Author Madalena Santos cites work that demonstrates that the “increase in anti Jewish sentiment during the Nazi period resulted in increased support for the Zionist movement.” The author also asserts that many Jewish people felt the Zionist idea was tantamount to accepting anti­semitism. However the key figures in the Zionist movement maneuvered around

European race­thinking to reconfigure Palestinians as the Oriental other in relation to the white Zionist “native.”5

Maxime Rodinson is a Jewish French intellectual that has been consistently questioning criticizing and calling out the Zionist project. The consideration of Israel as an exceptional phenomena is one of the biggest hindrances to understanding the conflict. The religious and racial implications of Jewishness obfuscate the essential settler colonialist nature of Zionism. Clarity is restored when consideration of Israel is made within the context of history, within the context of Colonialism. The introduction to

“Israel and the Arabs” answers the question of just how it is Israel can be considered a colonial state. “The answer lies in rejecting any single model of colonial takeover, discarding rigidly conceived social formulas, and getting past the abstractions to the essential and concrete features of the complex, contradictory, and unique process which resulted in the creation of Israel.”6

5 Santos, Madalena. "Relations of Ruling in the Colonial Present: An Intersectional View of the Israeli Imaginary." Canadian Journal of Sociology. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 2013. Web. 06 May 2016. ​ ​ 6 Rodinson, Maxime, and Michael Perl. Israel and the Arabs. New York: Pantheon, 1968. Print. ​ ​ ​ Maxime Rodinson Historicizes

The perspective from the US and Europe does not give much detail to the historical

context of the Arabs. What is meant by Arabs is the people who inhabit the Arabian

Peninsula. Rodinson reports that they made excursions to nearby areas from a very

early date.7 At the beginning of the seventh century Islam was founded by Mohammed

and the Arabs were unified under the new religion across a huge region in a short

amount of time. Further reading and research on Islamic empires and conquest is

encouraged. One particular point is interesting. Because Mohammed’s religion drew

from Christianity and Judaism, Christians and Jews were not persecuted or pressured

to convert under Islamic rule. Rodinson even reports the “Arabization” of people living

under this rule over time.

A thousand years after the formation of Islam, after the Ottoman Empire had come

to power under Turkish rule, Europe’s power was growing. After a long period of

darkness the economic, technologic, and military superiority of Europe was now a

reality. This superiority was beginning to take effect. Merchants and ambassadors

gained more power and influence. The colonial expansion of Europe began to erode the

Ottoman Empire. Europe’s political, technological, and cultural revolution affected the

Arab world. Rodinson reports a feeling of humiliation for Arabs being dominated by

foreigners. However there was something to be emulated both in style of dress and

governance. The Ottoman land reform code of 1885 was one such example of an

7 Ibid, 15. ​ ​ attempt to apply a system that could reassert Ottoman control in the face of European influence.

This brief summary of events of the Arab world does encompass the intricacies of the subject but is an opening to a subject European and Americans know nothing about.

If nothing else, this history lays bare the fallacy of the Zionist tenet of “A land without a people.” Rodinson in fact posits this as “stock justification of colonial conquest.”8 This aspect of Zionist thinking was merely a part of the Europeans perspective it grew from which looked, from Europe, out into the world and saw lands without people.

Rodinson shifts focus from Arab to Jewish history highlighting the interactions between Zionists and European powers. As should be commonly known the earliest political Zionist writings presented Zionism as a potential bulwark of the march of

Europe into the east. As Theodore Herzl suggested, “We should there form a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.”

(1968, 13) The historical timing here is an essential factor. Rodinson goes as far as to say that the racism and colonialism of Zionism was not something strange at the time and that even those on the political left saw colonization as a positive force of development and progress.9

The Renaissance had moved culture away from religious categorizations into national identities. “Terrestrial communities were no longer built up around god, but only within the framework of the state.”10 The French revolution and its theories were to be taken up by all of Europe. “The logic of the French solution fit so well with the social and

8 Ibid, 21. 9 Ibid. ​ 10 Ibid, 9. ideological conditions of the time that Western Europe and America gradually accepted it.” (10) In this context the Jewish people who had existed as religious minorities more or less isolated from other religious groups and had maintained their ethnicity in this way but were now threatened by assimilation. The answer was Zionism which would unify the Jewish people.

In the context of colonialism, a pact with some power or group of powers in exchange for favors which the would­be­settlers might be in a position to bestow was the most viable option to the Zionists. The did announce the “view with favor” of His Majesty’s Government but Rodinson's work shows that this was not without a cost. “The Zionist project required the reciprocal collaboration of the Zionist agencies” on these points:

1. Upholding British rule against Arab strivings for independence 2. Continued expansion of the bounds of Jewish settlement 3. Implantation of a modern economy and technology from which arabs were excluded 4. The ultimate displacement of the majority of the native Arab population.

Put simply, the collaboration of the Zionists and the British was that of colonists and their metropole. Within Zionist circles there were varying sentiments. Some felt that engaging in such a project legitimated the anti­semitic idea that Jews could never assimilate into Europeans culture, some were unabashedly in favor for colonization by violent means, some Jews opposed Zionism on grounds of Marxist internationalism.11

The Zionist projects basic tenet was the emptiness of the land. This emptiness could only be imagined because of the indifference present in Europe at the time. The

11 Rodinson, Maxime. Israel: A Colonial­settler State? New York: Monad; Distributed by Pathfinder, ​ ​ ​ 1973. Print. 13 indifference drawn from European supremacy. Rodinson points out the contradictions in this thinking by pointing out that had there been German French or English people living on the land promised to the Jewish people by God then the land may not have been considered empty. “European supremacy had planted in the minds ... of those who shared in it the idea that any territory outside of Europe was open to European occupation.”12 The Zionist project was thus a project of European colonialism. Even though it drew from the tragedy of diaspora and persecution it also grew in the soil of

Eurocentricity.

Rodinson asserts that not only was the link between Eurocentricity and Zionism coincidental based on their historical context but that it was a concerted effort on the part of major Zionist leaders that their project align with Europe’s plans. Theodor Herzl and his organization “unquestionably fit into the great movement of European expansion.” Herzl was “exceedingly concerned with governments” because it was in their domain that a would be formed and thus necessitated the cooperation of such powerful governments. Indeed Herzl made sure that these Zionist would­be­settlers had something to offer to multiple and competing powers:

If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine we could undertake to regulate Turkey’s finances. For Europe, we would constitute a bulwark against Asia down there, we would be the advance post of civilization. As a neutral state, we would remain in constant touch with all of Europe, which would guarantee our survival.13

Evident in this quote is the historical context of that particular moment. Although Turkey, and the Ottoman, are still in power at this time their economic weakness is common

12 Ibid, 40. ​ ​ 13 Rodinson, Maxime, and Michael Perl. Israel and the Arabs. New York: Pantheon, 1968. Print. ​ ​ ​ knowledge thus Herzl makes offers to not only them but also Western Europe. Herzl was aware of the political situation and was maneuvering to gain the favor of any powerful state in exchange for any services a Jewish state could offer. To the not only

Britain, but all of Europe, Herzl offered to be the “advance post” of civilization against barbarism. Rodinson insists that “it would have been difficult to place Zionism any more clearly within the framework of European imperialist policies.”

The Zionist Organization was founded by Herzl at the Congress of Basel in August

1897. This is of course not to be confused with the propagandized myth of the “Elders of

Zion”. The congress defined the goal of Zionism as “the creation in Palestine of a homeland for the Jewish people guaranteed by public law.” This is the translation

Rodinson uses and he reports that this line in particular was debated. The official website for the modern Israeli legislature, the , has a webpage about the Basel program and cites this particular line as well but records it as saying “a publicly and legally assured home.”14 The difference is negligible but it is there. On the four points adopted by the Congress of Basel Rodinson reports that the first point calls for “the development of craft and agricultural colonization.” The Knesset website does not use this language but the similar intent cannot be disguised. The website reports the first point as reading “The promotion of settling Eretz Yisrael with Jewish agriculturists, artisans and tradesmen.” The Knesset website uses the word settlement which isn’t as villainized a word as colonization but still exists in the same vocabulary.

14 https://www.knesset.gov.il/lexicon/eng/bazel_eng.htm accessed May 17 2016 with a copyright date of ​ ​ 2008. There have historically been rumors about why the British made the Balfour

Declaration. Rodinson dispels a handful of them including a rumor that the declaration was a reward to Chaim Weizmann for creating a powerful explosive. However,

Weizmann himself put forward an equally ludicrous conception of the Declaration: a

“unique act of the world conscience.”15 But Weizmann himself understood that this was not true and made efforts based on this reality. He made sure the British cabinet received a note saying that the national and Zionist destiny was entrusted to this cabinet and that he hoped they would consider it “in the light of imperial interests.”16 Rodinson points out that these imperial interests were indeed at play. Britain had the power to issue the Balfour Declaration “thanks to the military victory of one group of European powers over another group with whom the Ottoman Empire had been aligned.”17 It is made clear in this history that the Zionist project was in large part successful because it exploited the rising power of Europe and the pre­existing anti­Semitism, both incentivizing the “view with favor” of the colonial powers.

Zionist policy and practice has always reacted to the concrete realities of the time, including whatever rhetorical truths are politically beneficial. “In general, Zionist policy presented two faces, both growing out of a situation in which the Zionists found themselves established as a minority of colonists surrounded by a hostile population and under the authority of an outside power.”18 One face was unabashedly in favor of

15 Rodinson, Maxime. Israel: A Colonial­settler State? New York: Monad; Distributed by Pathfinder, ​ ​ ​ 1973. Print. 46 ​ 16 Ibid, 47. 17 Ibid, 56. 18 Idid, 58. settlement in Eretz Yisrael but the other face is willing to exploit time to stow away this

ambition until a more favorable political climate.

Fundamentals of Hegemonic Settler Colonialist Narratives

European Zionists have justified their colonialism with arguments and ideology that

follow in the common forms of settler colonialism. In order to understand Israel and

Zionism the following overview of settler colonialism is necessary. In his enlightening

work “Deconstructing the Zionist Settler Narrative and Constructing an Alternative,”19

Gabriel Piterberg gives an insightful analysis of the settler colonialist nature of the

Zionist ideology. Piterberg utilizes the framework of comparative settler colonialism in

this analysis. To help analyse and understand the nature of settler colonial projects the

author asserts the following three fundamentals of hegemonic settler narratives:

1. The uniqueness of each settler nation. 2. The privileging of the intentions and consciousness of settlers as sovereign subjects. 3. The putatively inconsequential presence of natives to the form of settler societies.

Settler societies occur repeatedly through history and resemble each other. Hegemonic

narratives constructed throughout history by settler nations have resembled one

another. This is the structural logic of settler colonialism. This analysis was developed

by studying examples such as the English colonies in the Americas and Australia. This

is the field of comparative settler colonialism (CSC). A contrasting comparison is found

in British colonialism in India. CSC differentiates such an example as “metropole” or

19 Faris, Hani A. The Failure of the Two­state Solution: The Prospects of One State in the ​ ​ Israel­Palestine Conflict. Print. ​ franchise colonialism which aims at setting up economic exploitation from a distance rather than moving populations to form a colony, known as settler colonialism.

Comparative settler colonialism concerns itself with settler colonial nations. The three fundamentals laid out above explain what is found to be typical for settler nations.

Such a framework works against the narrative that obfuscates truth with “exceptionality.”

Indeed there are unique aspects to each instance of settler colonialism but CSC argues that unique aspects follow from the model proposed above and will bear resemblance to other examples. Piterberg asserts the following three unique products of this typical model in the case of Zionist Israeli hegemonic narratives as follows:

1. Alleged uniqueness of the Jewish Nation in its relentless search for sovereignty in the biblically endowed homeland. 2. Privileging of the intentions of colonization by the settlers rather than the consequences for the indigenous Palestinians. 3. Denial of the fact that the presence of the Palestinian Arabs on the land destined for colonisation was the single most significant factor that determined the shape which the Jewish nation took.

Similarities to other settler nations is easily recognizable in these examples. The United

States is another nation clearly recognizable in a study of comparative settler colonialism. American exceptionalism mirrors the assertion of the Jewish nation’s uniqueness. What is most significant is the third assertion. Within settler colonialist narratives the existence of the native is relegated to invisibility and isolation. This explains the Zionist narrative of “a land without a people.” A clear parallel to United

States’s Manifest Destiny that preached the emptiness of North America making it ripe for colonization. These and other similarities between settler colonialist nations are apparent, recognizable, and plentiful. The particular case of Zionist ideology is not an exception. The existence of

Palestinians has been central to defining the character of Israel. Once the self justifying narratives are dispelled what is left is the bare reality that Israel has been defined by its displacement of the Palestinians and the continued process of colonization and occupation. In the iconic words a scholar of comparative settler colonialism

Australia­based scholar Patrick Wolfe: “invasion is a structure not an event.” The becoming of a nation is the definition of its continued existence. Thus events such as al­Nakba do not exist in the past but define the structure of Israel today. The maintenance of the demographic majority of Jews cannot be untangled from the displacement of Palestinian.

The focus of a comparative settler colonialist study and of this paper is as Piterberg asserts not the metropole or the colonized but the colonizers themselves. The incessant interaction of the colonizer with the dispossessed is why the character of the settler nation is found to be defined by the existence of the invisibilized other. Piterberg highlights this relationship in two trajectories of hegemonic Israeli narrative: 1.

Cooperative settlements and settlement theory and 2. ‘The Arab problem.’ Within

Zionist Israeli thought these are seen as two encapsulated, inherently separate narratives. Piterberg argues that these narratives are in fact inherently intertwined explaining that what Zionists perceived as the “arab problem” was addressed precisely by the structure of the settlements. As the author says, “One of the most important things to bear in mind when we want to understand the nature of the ‘Nakba’, the Israeli occupation, the separation barrier and so forth, is that the creation of a nation­state out

of a settler society is not just a foundational event but a continuing process.” 20

Four Periods of Jewish History

As stated in my thesis it is necessary to review the ideology of Zionism in order to

understand how this influences Israeli government policy. In order to understand Zionist

ideology it is necessary moreover to review Jewish history. This may seem to again

advance the exceptional character of Israel and Judaism. However, understanding the

unique story of the Jewish people, especially the story told by and of themselves,

informs the typical way this history justifies Zionist settlerism as other people’s histories

have justified their settlerism (i.e. pilgrims fleeing prosecution in the Old World).

Jewish history is divided into four periods for those closely studied in the subject.

The first period is contained within the Jewish Bible, known to christians as the Old

Testament. Starting at unclear time this period extends to the 5th century BC. It is

important to know that at this time Judaism in its modern form did not exist. Yet a

number of modern words derive from this time. “Yehudim” refers to inhabitants of a

small kingdom called Judea and distinguished from others in the area called Israelites

or sons­of­israel and rarely hebrews. These groups at this time practiced something like

idolatry. Despite being endlessly referenced as a foundation of Judaism the old

testament does not serve the basis for any orthodox or practice of Judaism today. The

second period is referred to as the Second Temple period, lasting from the fifth century

BC until 70 AD with the Romans’ destruction of the Second Temple. It was in this period

20 Faris, Hani A. The Failure of the Two­state Solution: The Prospects of One State in the ​ ​ Israel­Palestine Conflict. Print. 117. ​ that the vocabulary of “Jews” and “judea” appear. The Romans adopted the name

Judea for the area of Palestine after the Jews conquered most of the area.Two significant aspects of modern Judaism formed during this period: the classification of non­Jews as “gentiles,” and the assumption that Jews must follow the religious law. This period was subsequently marked with civil wars being fought over the meaning of

Biblical law.21

The third period spans from the destruction of the 2nd temple to modernity, approximately 70 AD to 20th century. The importance of the Jewish diaspora was emphasized at this time because of the failure to rebel against the Romans. This failure meant that the animal sacrifices at this time central to the Jewish religion would not be resumed before the coming of the messiah. In various ways in different countries Jews worked out arrangements for autonomy that still involved allegiance to the . This is the period in which the vast majority of Jewish religious writing was created, written in

Hebrew, forging a sense of unity amongst Jews across the diaspora. This is also the period in which the Cabbala was accepted by most Jews, occurring between 1550 and

1750. It is the last part of this period that fundamentalists romanticize and wish to return to. We are currently in the fourth period, extending from the beginning of modernity until the present moment. This period is marked by the Jewish people ending their seclusion and beginning assimilation as the concept of nations rose. Jews were no longer defined by their religious beliefs but recognized as citizens of a country. It is significant that a number of Israeli Jews passed directly from the third to fourth periods in their lifetime.

21 Shahak, Israël, and Norton Mezvinsky. Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. London: Pluto, 1999. ​ ​ Print. 3. ​ Jewish fundamentalism can be explained largely as a reaction to effects of modernity on

Jews.

This is the telling of history understood by the majority of Jews, inasmuch as this is

the normative telling of Jewish history. Zionist ideology draws on this history. Settlement

in the is clearly a response to the two millennia of exile. Israel, as the

Zionist state, also draws on this history. Shahak asserts that “Only the religious can

provide an in­depth rationale for Likud’s policies, which are grounded not in short­term

strategic considerations but rather in the long history of the special relationship between

God and his chosen people.”22 Here we see clearly the affinity between the state

apparatus of Israel and the religious orthodox.

For the American audience this history is largely unknown. Understanding the

stories that other people tell of, and to, themselves is key to understanding those

people. In the case of Israel and Judaism it is the above history that is key to forging

understanding of a situation mired in confusion. Such analysis refutes the idea of

exceptionality, which affords Israel great political leeway, while recognizing the unique

qualities of the Jewish people.

The affinity of Jewish and

The relationship of Jewish Zionism to Christian Zionism is a source of Israeli political

power. In order to understand the reason that Israel has so much political power in the

US can be explained in part by a theological explanation.23 Benyamin Netanyahu was

descendant and heir to the but also came of political age in the 1980’s and 90’s

22 Shahak, Israël, and Norton Mezvinsky. Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. London: Pluto, 1999. Print. 14. ​ 23 Likud and the Christian Dispensationalists: A Symbiotic Relationship. Shindler, Colin. Print. ​ ​ when a neo­conservative administration was elected in the United States. Figures in the

Christian Right Wing held prominent positions in the administrations of Reagan and

Bush Sr. Unlike his predecessors, Netanyahu was aware that overt declaration of settlement was politically harmful and instead focused his rhetoric on the politically unifying threat of terrorism. This was a viable political justification well before September

11, 2001. Jewish America saw itself as liberal, mainstream, and was decidedly dovish.

Being mainstream however this group was succombe in part if not whole by the War on

Terror and in such contexts supported Israel. The newly emerging Christian Right gave much more support for Israel.24

Dispensationalism is a Christian perspective that grew around 1890 somewhat parallel to the growth of Zionism. The Christian Church had historically regarded themselves as the “new Israel” that had served as replacements when God’s first chosen people, the Jews, had been lost in exile. Dispensationalists diverged from the belief that Christians had inherited or superseded the Jewish people’s spiritual legacy.

Christianity was seen instead as a parallel dispensation of God’s plan.

Dispensationalists believe that the Jewish Bible especially the teachings of the prophets referred specifically to the Jews. The idea that the Promised Land would once again be populated by the Jewish people excited Christian interest. Dispensationalists believed that Jews must return to their Land before the Rapture could commence.

However, there is a conflict impeding the alliance of Christian and Jewish Zionists because of the Dispensationalist predictions of the end times. For Christians the

24 Ibid. Rapture would see all people faithful to Christ rise to heaven. But Dispensationalists believe Jews will be all but destroyed in “the seven year tribulation.” Only a small portion of Jews would be saved by the Messiah’s intervention at which point Jews would recognize Jesus as the Messiah, convert, and rise to heaven. Interestingly the Jewish character of Jesus’s rule in the Land of Israel is paramount in the end times while the role of the Christian Church is secondary­ according to Dispensationalist beliefs.25

William E Blackstone was a Christian Evangelist and prominent founding

Dispensationalist from Chicago. In 1891 in light of Anti­Semitism in Russia and after a visit to the Holy Land Blackstone submitted the “Palestine for Jews” petition that advocated Palestine for the relocation of Russian Jews. Blackstone led the

Dispensationalist view of Jews as “God’s Sun Dial” that the progression towards the rapture could be understood through Jewish events. Blackstone also thought that the antiChrist, whose coming was a signal of the beginning of the end times would be

Jewish. This was explained through an anti­semitic view of Communism as a Jewish conspiracy and the prediction that the antiChrist would come from the north: Soviet

Russia.

At the time there was a preference in the US for the identity of Jewish Americans rather than American Jews, a preference for civil assimilation. Blackwell criticised such groups of liberal Jewish Americans who opposed Zionism for not seeing the significance of the return of the Jewish people to the Promised Land, although this was not Jewish

Orthodoxy. Blackwell held out three options for Jews: Convert to Christianity, assimilate,

25 Ibid. or become Zionist. Blackwell had two major motives: conversion of the Jews to

Christianity and to use the Jewish People, as God’s Chosen People, to unwittingly facilitate the Second Coming. At an 1883 meeting in England the Society for Converting

Jews saw Zionism as incidentally beneficial for British Imperial interests, predating

Herzl’s political aspirations by many years. “Its geographical location, as the halfway house between Europe and Asia, is unequalled. The precise country given to Abraham would be the country that would control the two highroads from west to east.”

Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky was an early leader of Revisionist Zionism who saw religion as the fossil of the holy treasure that had been lost over thousands of years of

Jewish exile. Although he understood Religion as maintaining the Jewish people during two millennia of exile. For him and other Revisionist Zionists the Jewish religion was less important than the return of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. However with his death in 1940 Revisionist Zionism was fragmented. Avraham Stern imbued his organization, the Stern Gang, with a sense of messianic religiosity that had been dormant under Jabotinsky. For Stern and his followers the borders of the State of Israel were equal to the Promised Land. the state embodied God’s promise. They furthermore proposed the destruction of the Dome of the Rock, presently an exclusively Muslim prayer site located on the and in its place the construction of the Third

Temple. Although many Zionists would like to see the Temple rebuilt they are not as militant as Stern’s characterization. spanned the divide between

Jabotinsky and Stern and combined their differences with a synthesis of militancy and religiosity. Between 1948 and 1967 Begin accomplished the unification of the National Camp. When the victory of the Six Day War brought messianic fervour Begin rode the wave to an electoral victory. The religious views were now central to Israel’s government.

The 1967 Six Day War had the incredible effects on the political climate and national psyche of Israel. Something like America’s perceived, and real, supremacy after WW2.

The position of the Israeli Right was fortified, the National Religious camp saw a revelation in the event, and American Dispensationalists saw steps towards the end times. The return of the Jews to was of specific significance. In 1948

Christian interest had been piqued by the establishment of Israel and after 1967 began visiting regularly bringing more and more Christian tourists each year. Christian Zionist views developed from this point forward, signaled by advertisements placed in

American newspapers that the establishment of a Palestinian state within the Land of

Israel as this would delay the Rapture.26

The empowered Evangelical position was signaled by a warning to the government not to engage in any peace negotiations that would see land lost to the Arabs. In fact the political alliance of Jewish and Christian Zionists was so close and well constructed that Christians used terms such as “historic Jewish homeland” which came directly out of the Revisionist Zionist Lexicon. Menachem Begin was happy to use Evangelical

Christians to pressure the US and specifically president Jimmy Carter not to engage in damaging peace negotiations. The rise of political power wielded by Fundamentalist

Evangelicals is shown by the increase of their vote for elected republican presidents.

26 Ibid. Although both the Likud and Christian Right were seen as anti­intellectual their alliance

was supported by the Neo­Conservative intelligentsia in their own publications.

Increasingly the American Christian Right and the Likud party held the position that

opposition to Israel was opposition against God. Criticism of Israel as a whole and its

policies was undifferentiated. This is the alarmist climate that shrouds Israel to this day,

although the harsh intellectual vigilantism has waned. By the 1970’s already the

Christian Right was also in support of construction of the Third Temple because of their

belief that the end times were predicated by the return of the Jewish people the the

Promised Land based on the bible and Dispensationalism. The connection between

Jewish and Christian fundamentalists is demonstrated by a Christian Zionist

spokesperson in support of the construction of the Third Temple quoting Israel Eldad

that this would happen soon. Eldad was a follower and interpreter of the Stern Gang in

the 1940’s.

Genesis­Joshua as Settler Colonial Justification

The Hebrew Bible’s authorship and date of writing have been a heated debate with

the Wellhausenian or Documentary Hypothesis (developed in the 1800’s) being one of

the most prominent theories. Trying to explain inconsistencies and repetitions in the

biblical text the basic theory is that there were multiple sources that were edited to

compose the Hebrew Bible or Torah. Pekka Pitkanen is a scholar of early history of

ancient Israel and has engaged with the burgeoning field of Settler Colonial Studies to

his study. While Pitkanen agrees that there were multiple original sources he asserts that “Genesis­Joshua can be read as an essentially unified work written to promote a settler colonial transformation in ancient Israel.”27

The narrative of Genesis­Joshua, worth summarizing, is as follows: Abraham, the forefather of Israel, migrating to the land of Canaan from Mesopotamia with subsequent migration by his descendents to Egypt to escape a famine. The Israelites coalesced as a nation while in Egypt but were forced into slavery until they were liberated by Moses and left Egypt at which point the biblical text reports they wandered through the wilderness for 40 years. Moses died just as they reached the edge of the land of

Canaan. The Israelites set out to conquer and settle the land of Canaan. “At the outset this immediately sounds like settler colonialism.”28 The Israelites as told in

Genesis­Joshua have a claim to the land of Canaan that was granted by God to

Abraham and a claim to nationhood based on their enslavement in Egypt and subsequent escape. These settler colonial claims aimed to outweigh the claims of any others living on the land. These justifying histories were fabricated, as Pitkanen asserts, at the time they were needed to justify the settler colonialist project of the Israelites.

Searching through a quagmire of evidence Pitkanen finds extensive parallels of themes, events, places, ceremonies between what is presented in the Hebrew Bible and historically known cultural concepts. Parallels that “clearly show the pre­exilic provenance of concepts that pertain to the narrative as a whole.” Examples of similarities are found in the Hittite, Babylonian, and Egyptian cultures. Indeed in his

27 Pitkanen, P. "Reading Genesis­Joshua as a Unified Document from an Early Date: A Settler ​ Colonial Perspective." Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture 45.1 (2015): (14). ​ ​ Web. 6 May 2016. 28 Ibid, 10. review of external data from ancient near east and archeology Pitkanen demonstrates

that the biblical texts were written in response to realities current to the author(s) and in

order to fabricate events in the past to be used as justification for settler colonialism at

the time.29

Genesis­Joshua can be read as one text that was written concurrently in order to

construct a story that supported a claim to the land. Pitkanen demonstrates that the

following elements of settler colonialism are present in the biblical texts: “staking a legal

claim, mapping the land, naming, foundation stories, supplanting the [natives], tilling the

soil, peopling the land and defending the territory.” For instance Abraham’s travels in

the land of Canaan and building of altars as told in Genesis 12 can be read as staking a

legal claim. Joshua 18:3­10 describes a mapping process as part of dividing the land.

Deuteronomy 12:3 commands the Israelites to erase the names of gods of the previous

inhabitants and to establish the name of Yahweh in the promised land. Genesis 9:25

demonstrates the lower worth of native inhabitants when Canaan is cursed.30 These are

a small selection of the extensive parallels Pekka Pitkanen draws between the writings

of Genesis­Joshua and settler colonialist tendencies. Such parallels open the possibility

to interpret the text was written to justify a settler colonial project in the time of ancient

Israel.

The Religious Zionist doctrine of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kuk

Immediately after the 1967 war Hanan Porat led a group of young people from Kfar

Etzion, the religious settlement lost in the 1948 war, to return and settle. This act

29 Ibid, 14. 30 Ibid, 3­31. initiated the idea settling the occupied territories won in the 1967 war. Soon after, a religious Jewish quarter was set up in Hebron, led by Rabbi Levinger who later founded

Gush Emunim. Most of the young people recruited to the group were graduates of

Yeshivot Hesder the talmudic college whose students serve in the Israeli Army. Many of whom had studied at the Yeshiva of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kuk Jr. He is the son of

Abraham Isaac Kuk, a founder of Religious Zionism.31

The Religious Zionist doctrine of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kuk is central to understanding Israeli settler colonialism as it is incorporated to justify such activity. A preliminary review of the messianic idea is necessary to this analysis. The original idea comes from ancient ascetic movements, early christians, and the Essenes. The idea was mainly passive politically, the only act to be taken in preparation for the coming of the messiah was to be religious ethical preparation of the individual. This has significant implications because it directly conflicts with the ideology of Zionism. The contradictions between passive religious preparation and active political preparation for the coming of the messiah had to be worked out.

The three main components of the messianic idea were political liberation, social change, and individual salvation. These three components merged in the middle ages.

The messiah would bring salvation and the Jews were to remain passive until such time. “Passivity was a fine art by the eighteenth century.”32 Any action such as the

31 Likud and the Christian Dispensationalists: A Symbiotic Relationship.Shindler, Colin. Israel Studies. ​ ​ Spring2000, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p153. 30p. 1 Black and White Photograph. , Database: Academic Search Complete 32 Ibid. Zionist drive to move to Palestine were religiously prohibited. The arguments against immigrating to Palestine before the coming of the messiah were three:

1. Man must not interfere with God’s plan. 2. God, like the Jewish people, was in exile. Returning would be useless without God and would not hasten salvation. 3. Suffering in diaspora was a divine duty, purifying and perfecting the Jewish people. Therefor hastening the coming amounted to sin.

Thus the rise of Zionism in the early nineteenth century was opposed by the religious orthodox establishment and viewed as sin. Jews were at this time living in the third period of Jewish history (discussed above) and so were living in seclusion from other religious groups. The transformation in theological ideology was undertaken by certain historical rabbinical characters.

Rabbi Yehuda Alkali (b. 1798) claimed that Jews could prepare the way for the messianic period. Alkali asserted that more commandments could be fulfilled in

Palestine than in exile, therefore emigration could not be a sin. Rabbi Reimes also claimed that return to Palestine was a commandment among others that could not be ignored.33 But the true divergence from the orthodox messianic idea was made by

Abraham Isaac Kuk (b. 1865). He held that the prohibition against immigration to

Palestine when the Jewish people's’ problem had been “principally material: impoverishment and persecution.”34 But as the third period became the fourth the grave danger of assimilation threatened the Jewish people. Exile and diaspora had united and tempered the Jewish identity but as their suffering in exile ended they lost that identity.

33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. Thus Zionism served two complementary purposes: spiritual­religious revival and a renewed unity of the Jewish people.

Abraham Kuk’s Religious Zionist ideology grew from the traditional orthodox concepts of Judaism. Nationhood is a divine principle integral to Judaism, a consequence of the covenant between God and his chosen people. Jewish nationalism does not contradict the messianic idea of world peace and unity among all people, infact it holds that Jewish Nationalism and the example of Jewish Nationhood was a necessary example that would bring peace and unity. Another glaring similarity the

American exceptionalist portrayal of itself as “a city on the hilltop.” Indeed this is a biblical reference that both Israel and the U.S. utilize to construct their settler colonial nationhood.

Kuk believed that Jews could only embody holiness when united because Judaism is a collective faith. In Judaism, salvation pertained to the entire community, individual salvation could only come as part of the community. In Rabbi Kuk’s view this meant

Jewish nationalism supersedes all other religious scruples such as the admonition against immigration. In fact Kuk asserted that Zionism was the only possible path to

Jewish unity. Zionism was the ultimate expression of Jewish Nationalism. Kuk shared in the belief that the fundamental quality of the Jewish soul was its capacity for prophecy and this was the reason Jews had been chosen by God to undertake the mission of exile, diaspora, redemption, and salvation. This fundamental quality of prophecy could only be fulfilled in the holy land of Palestine, says Yehuda Kuk. He also preached tolerance of any secular Jew that took up Zionism because they were doing God’s will, and insisted that through God’s work they would be converted to Judaism. A new

Judaism defined by Religious Zionism. A new synthesis was to take place in Palestine

Kuk believed, between secular and religious Jews. But because this doctrine ignored

the interdiction on return to Palestine the religious orthodox declared Rabbi Kuk a

heretic.35

Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Hacohen Kuk Jr, the son of Rabbi Yehuda Isaac Kuk, translated

the abstract system of ideas of his father into concrete terms, which became the

ideology of Gush Emunim. Rabbi Kuk Jr utilized the most effective means of

disseminating ideology by heading a Yeshivat Hesder. Yeshivas are Jewish institution

of learning focussed on religious text. Yeshivat Hesder incorporate the mandatory

military service of Israel. Zvi Kuk is said to be the only one who predicted the feeling of

ownership over Eretz Yisrael that has become widespread. Kuk Jr reinterpreted the

“building of Palestine” to mean the settlement of land conquered in the 1967 Six Day

War. Where Rabbi Kuk Sr had held that return “hastened” the coming of the messiah,

his son and Gush Emunim accelerated the timetable to immediacy. The settlement of

Eretz Yisrael enacted the messianic period.

Gush Emunim and the First Post ‘67 Settlements.

There is a certain discourse on Israel/Palestine that focusses on the illegality of

settlement under UN Resolution 242. In the absence of a settler colonial framework for

analysing the conflict this has indeed become a dominant discourse. The problem with

this is that “the focus on the second stage of colonisation, the 1967 occupation,

35 Ibid. emphasises settlement by Israelis in the and absolves previous generations of Zionists and Israel itself of settler colonialism.”36 Israel must be recognized as a settler colonial state and the following overview of the first post ‘67 settlements provides an example of how Israel’s settler colonialism is undertaken. Three examples of settlements are herein reviewed: Etzion, Hebron, and finally Ofra.

The complicity and assistance of the Israeli government officially and unofficially has been essential to the settlement movement. What is shown is a pattern that was set from the very beginning. The “tried and trued Zionist outlook” that “dated back to the days of the ‘tower and stockade’ settlements of the 1930’s,” focussing on “a historic religious right and the concern for security, [the] two pillars of activist Zionism.”37 The steps from generation to Zionist generation can be demonstrated in the interactions of historical personalities representing the political landscape of that moment. Israel’s victory in the 1967 War was seen as a sign from God that signaled a progression towards the coming of the messiah. The Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva saw the Secular

Zionist Labour Movement Government at this time as a “weak, disoriented, elderly government,” that was “fatigued by decades of bearing the burden of building a nation and a state and did not stand a chance against the messianic burst of energy to which the war had given rise among the religious youth.”38

36 Salamanca, Jabary, Mezna Qato, Kareem Rabie, and Sobhi Samour. “Past Is Present: Settler Colonialism ​ in Palestine.” Settler Colonial Studies 2, no. 1 (January 1, 2012): 1–8. doi:10.1080/2201473X.2012.10648823 37 Zertal, Idith, Akiva Eldar, and Vivian Sohn. Eden. Lords of the Land: The War over Israel's Settlements in ​ the Occupied Territories, 1967­2007. New York: Nation, 2007. Print. ​ 38 Ibid, 6. The settlement movement drew not from extremist or abnormal ideas but on feelings that are shared in the psyche of Israel at large. Before the 1948 War, in , 141

Jewish people, Zionist settlers, were killed by the Jordanian forces. In addition to this tragedy 35 “young soldiers, the golden boys of the secular pioneering Zionist dream,”39 were also killed trying to save the besieged Etzion Bloc. When in 1967 Israel captured large swaths of land in the Six Day War, the Etzion Bloc was once again under the control of the Jewish people. But was outside the borders of the State of Israel under the 1949 armistice lines. The children of the original settlers of Etzion saw an opportunity to reconcile the painful history after the victory in 1967.

The re­settlement of the Etzion Bloc is taken as the first example of settlement in the newly occupied territories. The settlers “cunning, sophisticated play with the powers that be and with time­ forcing the ending on the one hand, and waiting patiently on the other, until the walls of resistance weakened or fell.”40 What is shown is that personalities such as Hanan Porat pressured the Israeli government with organized protests and intense meetings. The government could not deny the pleas and cries of descendents of the

Etzion massacre in 1948. In this way the settlers forced the government's hand with the leverage of the national psyche.

The precedent set by the return to the Etzion Bloc opened up the opportunity of a similar appeal by “the descendents of the victims of the massacre in Hebron in 1929,” who could not be denied the same redemption. (Zertal and Eldar 16) But the tactic in this case of settling Hebron was more deceptive than what was done in the settlement

39 Ibid, 5. 40 Ibid, 12. of Etzion. The cloak and dagger method and the comfort with exploiting time were set in this example as the methods to be used again and again. What is also seen in these examples is the key role of certain officials in the government to aid the settlers.

In describing the method by which “the wholeness of the land of Israel” would be restored (colonized) another common colonialist principle can be observed. This method was “the classical Zionist combination of settlement and its defense, of the tiller and the soldier”41 that was utilized in the first . Hanan Porat was an early leader in 1967 for the settlement of Hebron and embodied the image of a soldier tiller just described. Porat wore attire that simulated the early Zionist Settlers: a faded blue shirt, shabby trousers, scuffed sandals, and a khaki carryall. Porat reportedly equated himself with the Zionist Pioneers. This demonstrative connection with the earlier Zionists won

Porat the favor of Labour government officials.42

Although the Religious Zionists coming into phase after the 1967 War saw the earlier generation as weakening in its age, Porat imitated them and thus connected the two generations. The representatives within the government for the intent to settle the newly conquered land were Yigal Allon and Israel Galili. These historical actors played a significant role in the settlement movement. Allon had been a “legendary” commander of an elite strike force known as the Palmach that was active before the establishment of the state of Israel. Even after Allon’s submitted proposal to “encourage the building of a Jewish neighborhood” in Hebron was rejected by the Knesset he decided to help the settlers without authorization from the government. Material aide of weapons, cars, and

41 Ibid, 14. 42 Ibid. the like were provided by Allon. The most important aide received from Galilee and other like minded officials was the “seal of approval of the pioneering Labor movement,” represented by unofficial visits to settlements.43 As far as material military aide to the settlers goes, there was enough officially as well. “On orders from the chief of staff, the settlers received weapons from the army and were trained to use them, without being inducted into the .” This came after a group led by Rabbi Moshe

Levinger that included veterans from the Six Day War had secured permission from the military government of Hebron to stay overnight to hold the Passover seder.

The group had used this as a cover to enter Hebron legally which tied the government’s hands in removing them under a technicality of the 1945 Emergency

Defense Regulations. The very next morning the group announced that they were “the first group of settlers that has come to renew the Jewish settlement in Hebron.”44 The

Labor party supporters were quick to signal their approval, Yigal Allon “honored” the settlers with a ministerial visit that imbued the settlement with official approval in an unofficial format. This blurring of official and unofficial assistance and approval proved to be a pattern in the story of the settlements.

The settlement of Ofra in the northern West Bank was a synthesis of these two previous settlements in Etzion and Hebron, taking lessons and drawing on their success. The idea to settle there was formulated in the settlement­city of Kiryat Arba in

Hebron. After the excitement of its founding, Kiryat Arba had become desolate and only

43 Zertal, Idith, Akiva Eldar, and Vivian Sohn. Eden. Lords of the Land: The War over Israel's Settlements in ​ the Occupied Territories, 1967­2007. New York: Nation, 2007. Print. 15. ​ 44 Ibid, 19. half of the housing units built at demand of the settlers were inhabited by the 1970s.45

The idea to settle new land drew new energy. Most of the people recruited to attempt settlement in Ofra were young students of the Yeshivas. The most fervent of whom were students of Rabbi Levinger. The first attempt was quickly swept away by the government. The evacuation was “swift and relatively calm, but the pictures of the young skullcap­wearing youths struggling with soldiers” had a memorable effect on the collective consciousness of Israel. The first attempt was in June of 1974, the second attempt came only one month later in July. Rather than only hundreds this time there were thousands attempting to settle and with them were important supporters from the

Knesset. But again the attempt at settlement was swept away by the government’s military.

Seven times in total the attempt was made to settle. Out of this campaign Gush

Emunim grew its popularity and organization as other groups joined them officially. As demonstrated in the interactions between Porat and Galili, settler movements already had access to the upper echelons of government officials but now Gush Emunim had its own organizational body that could interact with the government. Only less than a year later in April 1975 the settlement in Ofra was accomplished. The story of how demonstrates the methods of pressure, timing, and facts on the ground became refined.

Drawing on ancient histories the settlement was named Ofra after a city that had been the capital of the kingdoms of both Judea and Sumeria. After attempts to settle were thwarted by evacuations the idea came to establish a “work brigade” like those of

45 Ibid. the “mythological third .” The work brigade found employment with a military camp

in Sumeria through a contractor based in Jerusalem. The convolution of this

arrangement no doubt benefited the settlers. After working for some months the group

decided the time had come to request a permit to stay overnight at the work site. “They

were sent hints that Defence Minister Peres was looking for a way to approve their

settlement in the area.” If the guise of a “work camp” was kept up and the real aim of

establishing a permanent settlement was not mentioned they might be allowed to stay.

With the infrastructure of Gush Emunim fully engaged, pulling on connections high up in

the Defense Ministry, the settlers managed to get a permit to establish a military work

camp. They capitalized on the moment and quickly built up the settlement. “Tents, old

rifles from the heroic days of 1948, a small generator, a water tanker, and camp beds,”

were all donated by Gush Emunim supporters. Families of the workers, they’re young

children included, were moved in. “Roads were paved, water and electricity lines were

brought in.” Only after the settlement had been in place already a month and a half its

existence was published in Ha’aretz and revealed to the public as well as the Knesset.

To the official body responsible for dealing with such an issue, the ministerial committee

for settlement issues, the settlement “did not exist at all” as it was officially a military

work camp. “The Ofra outpost revealed Gush Emunim’s real grand design: settlement in

strategic locations, deep into the land of the Palestinians, and not necessarily at sacred

sites or on the ruins of imaged patriarchal tombs.”

Israel as Racist­ Framework for American Analysis Madalena Santos proposes a categorical framework for the interrogation of power relations in the study of Israeli colonialism in Palestine.46 With a critical antiracist feminist approach the author highlights the relationship between class, race, and gender constructions that are essential to colonial rule. Through state practices of separation, fragmentation, and violence Israel continues the colonization of Palestine. Settler colonial states require discriminatory processes to enable the establishment of the state. To analyze this better the author offers the following six categories: 1) Racial separation 2) citizenship and naturalization forms and processes 3) construction and consolidation of existing social inequalities 4) gender, sexuality, and sexual violence 5) racialized and gendered prisoners 6) “unmarked” versus “marked” discourses.47 With these six items the author aims to introduce a nexus of theoretical tools for the sociological study of settler colonial projects.

Zionism has since its beginnings been concerned with achieving the demographic majority of Jews in the promised land. This problem is typical of settler colonial projects which, like Israel, must develop a way to deal with the native population. In order to achieve this the Zionist settlers displaced the Palestinian population. “Although implemented and performed by Zionist rule, these practices were facilitated through the laws and governance of Western colonialist forces.” The UN Partition Plan Resolution

181 solidified the promise made in the Balfour declaration, two instances of official colonial assistance to the Zionist project. It is important to note that the motivation for the British Empire’s assistance was its own desire to relocate the Jewish people. The

46 Santos, Madalena. "Relations of Ruling in the Colonial Present: An Intersectional View of the Israeli Imaginary." Canadian Journal of Sociology. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 2013. Web. 06 May 2016. ​ ​ 47 Ibid. Jewish people whose history tells them they live at the close of two milenia of Exile,

finally being reunited in the land God promised them. In addition to the usual racisms

typical of settler colonial nations. Today this racism shows itself under the guise of the

War on Terror. The examples presented in this paper have aimed to provide a sample

that may be recognized more or less exactly in the cases of other settler colonial

nations.

Indeed for an american audience, especially a secular perspective, it is easy to

make a moral judgment on the Israeli Palestinian “conflict.” Mired in so much

propaganda, false ancient history, accusations of anti­semitism, justification of

anti­terror, and so forth it is dangerously common for an American audience to throw its

hands up, at a loss. However if neither a Palestinian or a Jew, an American has only

minimal buy in. In this case the opportunity to learn both sides is ripe. In fact learning of

Jewish history, of the way in which all of that history has brought the Jewish people to

this historical, biblical moment, actually garners sympathy. Up until the point of

displacement, occupation, and massacre of the Palestinians. At this point it is

impossible to ignore the horrors, a lack of understanding only heightens this terror.

Settler colonialism offers and encompassing framework for understanding these terrors.

Glossary

Arab: a broad term that refers to any person living in the Arab region which reaches

from the Middle East to West Africa.

Colony: A supplanted group of people settled on land foreign to them for the benefit of

the metropole. Dispensationalism: An idea from Evangelical Christian theology that recognizes God’s

promise to both Christians and Jews.

Exceptionalism: The idea that the country or nation concerned has absolutely no

equivalent in history. The obvious implications is that a country such as the US will not

heed warnings that history gives us, or will not admit its guilt in identical crimes.

Haredi: A religious orthodox identity that holds religiosity as paramount and practices a

certain asceticism. Usually a more or less secluded community.

Hegemonic: Dominant politically or culturally. Will seem to be the only right option.

Irgun: A military organization that diverged from the official Zionist military.

Israel: Politically in present day, a country on the Mediterranean, the product of Zionism.

Biblically it refers to a tribe of people whose history is told in the Bible.

Israeli: a national identity of someone living in the country of Israel.

Jew: A religious or cultural identity.

Metropole: The country of which the colony originates. The metropole of the 13

American colonies was Britain.

Normative: The form of things that plethora social and political pressures tend towards.

Anything outside of normatives forms will appear strange or wrong.

Palestine: A geographic location that has had human activity since ancient times. Today

Israel is superimposed over the boundaries that defined Palestine under British rule.

Structural Logic: How things make sense in a certain context.

Yeretz Israel: The biblically defined land of Israel.

Yeshiva: A religious school that focuses on reading the religious texts of Judaism. Zionism: The religious and political movement to create a nation for the Jewish people

in the land promised to them by God.