It’s early 2024, and with the war (a.k.a. genocide) in Gaza, a spate of mainstream outlets discusses settler colonialism. The concept is receiving special attention because it is more and more offered in activist circles and in public discourse as a key to interpret events. The Atlantic and Al Jazeera, and many other outlets delve in (see Michael Powell, ‘The Curious Rise of Settler Colonialism and Turtle Island The problem with shoehorning a Middle Eastern war—or American history—into a trendy academic theory’, The Atlantic, 05/01/24; Somdeep Sen, ‘Settler colonialism is not an “academic fad”: It is a real political project that has scarred the past and present of Indigenous communities around the world’, Al Jazeera, 06/02/24). The New York Times in particular discusses settler colonialism. Epitomising how settler colonial studies is emerging in public discourse (even if it is an obvious distortion), and referring to Israelis and Palestinians Thomas L. Friedman uses the expression ‘two indigenous peoples’ twice in a November 2023 piece calling for a renewed attempt to craft a US-led initiative leading to a two-state solution (Thomas L. Friedman, ‘The Most Revealing Moment From My Trip to Israel’, New York Times, 14/11/23). Friedman later returns to this trope in another piece: ‘two indigenous people — Jews and Palestinians — over the same land’ (Thomas L. Friedman, ‘Understanding the True Nature of the Hamas-Israel War’, New York Times, 2811/23).

The New York Times delves in too. ‘[C]ulture reporter covering intellectual life and the world of ideas’ Jennifer Schuessler is circumspect, and asks actual scholars (Jennifer Schuessler, ‘What Is “Settler Colonialism”?’ New York Times, 22/01/24), but pundit Bret Stephens in early February scathingly attacks the very concept:

‘A former colleague of mine liked to say that there are certain ideas that vanish in the presence of thought. Among those ideas is settler colonialism — or rather, the invidious, hypocritical and historically illiterate way in which it is often denounced in anti-Israel polemics and protests’ (Bret Stephens, ‘Settler Colonialism: A Guide for the Sincere’, New York Times, 06/02/24).

This insincere, invidious, hypocritical and historically illiterate intervention warrants a response. ‘What is settler colonialism?’ Stephens asks, citing the Legal Information Institute’s definition: ‘A system of oppression based on genocide and colonialism that aims to displace a population of a nation (oftentimes indigenous people) and replace it with a new settler population’ (Stephens, ‘Settler Colonialism’). He then further asks: ‘What is settler colonialism as it applies to Israel?’ So far, it is an argument, and it follows a logic, but then things fall apart. Settler colonialism as it relates to Israel is the ‘idea that Israel is a British colonial scheme that aimed to create a Jewish ethno-state by eliminating the native Palestinian society and, crucially, that the only way to right this wrong is to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state’ (Stephens, ‘Settler Colonialism’).

This should be emphasised: Stephens is not saying that the British did not try to create a Jewish ethno-state (he is therefore saying that it is indeed an instance of settler colonialism); he is proclaiming without providing any evidence that all those who refer to settler colonialism when considering the history of Israel-Palestine are demanding that Israel ceases to be a Jewish state (even if what it means to be a Jewish state remains contested). But they do not: they are demanding that it ceases to be a settler colonialist state, which is something momentously different. Or perhaps Stephens is implying that Jews in Israel/Palestine can only be oppressors and settler colonialists? I do not think so, and I am sure he does not think so either.

Then the weirdest thing. After proclaiming that it is a concept that would vanish, Stephen goes on to observe how settler colonialism shaped the history of many very important countries:

‘It’s hard to know where to begin, but here’s a thought: If settler colonialism needs to be eliminated, why not get rid of all settler colonialism? That would start with the United States, which began as a settler-colonialist enterprise under British, Dutch and Spanish rulers, and continued as one under American rule […] What’s true of the United States goes also for Australia, New Zealand and Canada. But why stop there? What are ethnic Russians doing east of the Urals, or in the Caucasus, or in Crimea? What are Han Chinese doing in Xinjiang or Tibet? What are Iberians doing in Latin America? And how did the people, culture and language of the Arabian Peninsula wind up in distant places like Morocco, Tunisia and, for that matter, the Holy Land itself’ (seized by the Rashidun Caliphate from the Byzantines in 637 C.E.)? (Stephens, ‘Settler Colonialism’).

Yes, these are all examples of settler colonialism, except for the last one, which demonstrates Stephens’ historical illiteracy (the expansion of Islam in the seventh century was violent but not settler colonialism, as the local populations of the conquered lands were forcibly subjected but not slated for replacement). So, there is settler colonialism in Israel-Palestine, and there is a lot of settler colonialism in global history – Stephens’ demolition work it is not really effective. Then an unwarranted scare:

‘If you’re an American citizen of non-Native American descent, leave. Leave Hawaii. Leave California. Leave Massachusetts, too. Return to the lands of your ancestors — if they will have you. If not, that’s your problem. If you are allowed to stay, do so under an entirely different form of government, one that isn’t based on the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Sign over the deed of your property to the descendants of those dispossessed by past generations of settler colonialists. Live under new rulers, not of your own choosing’ (Stephens, ‘Settler Colonialism’).

Unwarranted indeed: as of today (12/02/24), and since 2010, I have reviewed 5286 scholarly works dealing with settler colonialism. None called for the settlers to leave. What many of these works called for was a discontinuation of a system of oppression that targets Indigenous cultures, lands, and self-determination. Many of the settler societies Stephens refers to have indeed begun processes of national and Indigenous reconciliation, demonstrating that there are indeed many ways out of a settler colonial situation and legacy and that settler departure is not the only option. Talking about a demand to leave that is not uttered while discontinuing decades of global decolonising practice seems like a cheap way to avoid talking about … settler colonialism as a specific mode of domination.

Then an unconvincing reference to settler indigenisation, and a collection of well-rehearsed tropes: Jews have indigenised to Israel (how? – if indigenous person and settler are reciprocally constituted within a system of domination, surely the system must be discontinued for the settler to indigenise); Jews are returning to the place where they have always been indigenous (not so: the Bible narrates the story of a collective constituted elsewhere and of its conquest of Palestine, which makes in nonindigenous by definition). Then again, Stephens perhaps knows that this is the weakest part of his argument, and this is why he concludes in settler colonialist fashion with a reassertion of domination: ‘Israel is justified by being a sovereign state that commands the loyalty of its citizens, not by the precedents of antiquity’ (Stephens, ‘Settler Colonialism’). It is presented as a truism, but let’s dwell a bit on what this latest assertion means. Does Stephens know that approximately half of those who are currently subjected to Israel’s sovereignty are not citizens? Is he implying that they are therefore entitled to withhold their loyalty and that their resistance is legitimate? Does he know that the Indigenous peoples of all the other settler societies are also citizens of their countries? Is he suggesting that Palestinians should become citizens of Israel, and that the country could command their loyalty? I am sure that at this thought, Stephens’ concept would vanish.

But his argument is illiterate in another and very important sense: Indigenous peoples globally and in Israel-Palestine do not claim a return to a time where there were no settlers; they demand a forward movement to a time where the settler demand that they disappear will cease. ‘History’ is indeed ‘lived forward’ (Stephens, ‘Settler Colonialism’). On this point Stephens is right: decolonisation lives in the future.

If certain ideas that vanish in the presence of thought, settler colonial studies is safe with Bret Stephens.