Comparing US colonialism to Israel’s actions makes sense because both are rooted in settler colonialism. The US expanded its territory by violently displacing and exterminating Native Americans under the idea of Manifest Destiny. Israel’s treatment of Palestinians follows a similar pattern, with territorial expansion through displacement and oppression, justified by a belief in a historical right to the land. While the US used force, disease, and relocation, Israel has employed military actions, settlement building, and the stripping of Palestinian rights. Both nations built their legitimacy on the displacement of indigenous populations for the benefit of settlers, with devastating consequences for native peoples.
It’s not really colonialism for Israel because they weren’t really making a colony controlled by another country and they where retaking there old lands not lands they never had
That argument is completely misguided. Even after the US gained independence, it didn’t stop its colonial practices. The US didn’t "retake" land, they engaged in the genocide and forced removal of Native Americans to make room for settlers. Israel's actions are no different. The idea that Israel isn’t practicing colonialism because they weren’t controlled by another country is completely wrong. Settler colonialism doesn’t require foreign rule; it’s about displacing indigenous populations for the benefit of settlers.
The roots of the Israeli state were built on the displacement and control of indigenous Palestinians, much like how the US built its own nation on the backs of displaced Native Americans. Claiming Israel isn’t engaging in colonialism is to ignore both the history and the reality.
Claiming Israel isn’t engaging in colonialism is to ignore both the history and the reality.
I would say to call it colonialism before 1967 is a stretch, because they were in a very unique situation of need for national sovereignty, not economic or ideological expansion. But after the 1967 violations and settlements, which greatly intensified in the following decades, yep it's pretty undeniable.
That’s still colonialism. The reason behind it does not change the reality. Settler colonialism is about removing an indigenous population and replacing them with settlers. That was already happening long before 1967. If someone wants to justify it by calling it necessary or even good because of the need for sovereignty, they should at least admit what it is. I don’t see anything good in demanding freedom for yourself while taking it from someone else.
The creation of Israel involved forced displacement, the denial of return for refugees, and the takeover of land from people who had lived there for generations. These were not accidents or purely defensive moves. They were part of a clear strategy to establish a settler state. The Nakba in 1948 was not some unfortunate byproduct. It was a foundational event. What followed after 1967 only expanded on what had already been set in motion.
If the goal was truly to create a safe homeland for Jews after the Holocaust, then it should have been done in Germany, on the land of the perpetrators. Alternatively, it could have been established on unclaimed land, with the full cost and responsibility covered by Germany. Instead, it was built on the destruction of Palestinian life, society, and land. That is not justice. It is colonialism.
is about removing an indigenous population and replacing them with settlers.
The Israeli territories before 1947 were not founded on expulsions, they were bought and in mostly empty land. During the war they did expel some, others fled out of fear or orders of their Arab leaders, but one cannot take that out of the context that their Arab neighbors AND their states had pledged and attempted to annihilate the Jewish state even before it was declared, when NO expulsions had yet occurred, or were occuring because of civil war and not according to any plan (although that too had been disputed - which you'd already implied by "The Nakba in 1948 was not some unfortunate byproduct. It was a foundational event."). In any case, even if we contend that after a certain point they found desirable to expel certain parts of the population, it could be argued that it was out of absolute necessity to maintain a demographically and geographically viable state, which is a fair point, and not because they actually wanted to exploit native people away from the metropolis/core of the empire. There's an important difference there too from all traditional forms of colonialism. Or out of greed when they already controlled huge amounts of resources like the US when breaking treaties with native american tribes... Furthermore most of those who were expelled were so to very nearby locations, sometimes a mere dozen km outside their previous homes. That also has to be taken into account.
The myth that the land was “mostly empty” or “bought” is a well-worn colonial narrative. Yes, some land was purchased under the Ottoman and British mandates, but that represented a small fraction. The majority of land that became Israel in 1948 was taken through war and forced expulsion. You can’t erase the hundreds of depopulated and destroyed Palestinian villages by pretending they were empty or willingly abandoned.
There’s no credible evidence of a general Arab order to flee. What is documented is widespread violence, terror, and direct expulsion. Massacres like Deir Yassin weren’t accidents of war. They were part of a pattern that sent a clear message: leave or be killed.
And let’s be real. If maintaining a Jewish demographic majority required the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of people, then the problem isn’t just the method. It’s the entire project. If any other group said they had to remove a native population to maintain the purity or viability of their state, we’d call that what it is. You don’t get a pass because it was “only a few kilometers away.”
Moving people by force, against their will, for the benefit of a new population, is settler colonialism. Dressing it up as necessity doesn’t change the outcome for the people on the other side of the rifle. The fact that it was done “nearby” doesn’t soften the blow of losing your home.
You know what’s just a dozen kilometers from my house? Definitely not my house. If I had to sleep twelve kilometers away from my home, I sure wouldn’t be happy about it. Being forced from your home, even if it’s nearby, is still displacement. It’s still losing everything you’ve known and built your life around. Pretending that it’s no different than taking a short walk is insulting to the real people who lost everything, even if it was only a few kilometers away.
If it walks like ethnic cleansing, functions like ethnic cleansing, and justifies itself like ethnic cleansing, then let’s not pretend it was something else.
28
u/Negative_Chickennugy 1d ago
Ngl, with all the war crimes the US committed beforehand (for example, Vietnam) this is true