Excerpt: November 10th, 2025, marks the fiftieth anniversary of UN Resolution 3379, when the United Nations General Assembly voted to declare Zionism a form of racism and racial discrimination. This statement effectively condemned Zionism as a racist political ideology and Israel as a racist state, to be relegated alongside other colonial, apartheid, and imperial state projects. Passing with a vote of 72 in favor and 32 against with 35 nations abstaining, it was overwhelmingly supported by the newly liberated Third World countries who saw the statement as a challenge to American and European hegemony. Resolution 3379 was not the work of a single individual. Nonetheless, several Palestinian intellectuals deserve special recognition for their efforts in passing the resolution. Foremost amongst them is Fayez Sayegh, who spearheaded the effort and argued the Palestinian case on the Assembly floor. This review will work through Sayegh’s writings to come to a better understanding as to just what he and his counterparts within the Palestine Liberation Organization meant when they argued that Zionism is racism. How did they understand ‘racism’ and where does Zionist racism fit within what Sayegh called ‘the Palestine Problem’ more generally? Given that context what then is ‘anti-racism’? Is racism the appropriate lens through which to approach the problem? Readers may know Fayez Sayegh from his 1965 essay, Zionist Colonialism in Palestine. That was the first publication from the PLO Research Center, which Sayegh founded and directed for a short period. While interpreting Sayegh’s statements on Resolution 3379, I draw from both his own and his colleagues’ writings for the PLO Research Center, so it is useful to have some idea as to what that Center was. In its 18 years of operation in Beirut the Center published a total of 340 books. At its peak, the Center employed roughly 80 full-time researchers in a 6-storey building in downtown Beirut.


Abstract: This study aims to examine the reality of French assimilation policy in Algeria—between its purportedly logical justifications and the inherent racism of colonialism. Through this research, we seek to address the main issues related to the attitudes of Muslim Algerians toward France, the extent to which they were influenced by its civilization, and their attachment to their own identity and Islamic civilization. We also aim to provide a clear picture of the assimilation policy and to show how it represented a major dilemma for the colonial authorities, whether in terms of its partial or total application, or whether it was merely an abstract concept devoid of any real political or legal implementation. The study further highlights the positions taken by the French Parliament regarding this policy. Methodologically, we rely on a historical-critical approach to analyze the gap between the assimilationist French discourse and the actual political and legal practices in Algeria, drawing on important French sources. The study reveals that the colonial authorities were not genuinely willing to implement an assimilationist policy toward the Muslim Algerian population, because their objective was not to produce a society similar to French society in language, religion, customs, traditions, or ways of thinking. Nor was their goal to create French citizens with the same rights enjoyed by native Frenchmen.     Instead of true assimilation, the colonial administration pursued partial and limited forms of integration—such as the teaching of the Christian religion to undermine Islamic identity, recruitment into the colonial army, the employment of a small number of Algerians, mixed marriages, and migration to France. These measures aimed to produce a society stripped of inherited traditions, foundations, balance, and identity, in order to weaken its spirit of resistance. However, Algerians fully understood France’s intentions in their country: to spread fear and death, dispossess them of their lands and property, and reduce them to servitude. Thus, they rejected French “civilization,” being aware of its true meaning—namely, the eradication of their Islamic identity, to which they steadfastly clung. Ultimately, they demonstrated to France that its presence in Algeria was destined to come to an end.


Abstract: Dorothée Chellier was born in Algiers in 1860 to French settler parents and became the first female French doctor in colonial Algeria, after completing her studies in Paris. As she had in-depth knowledge of the country, she was sent on “medical missions” to various parts of remote Algeria in the 1890s with the express goal of observing the lives and medical problems of “native” women. Chellier published a short book about a mission to the Aurès region in 1895, in which she focused on gynaecological issues among Algerian women. She often described how these women voluntarily contacted and trusted her, apparently eager to get help from a female French doctor. She also highlighted the importance of female medical experts for the future of France’s colonial project in Algeria, as Muslim women had been mostly hidden from her male counterparts throughout the 19 thcentury. This article proposes to analyse Chellier’s detailed descriptions of (the limitations of) the agency of Algerian women and contrast this with her own actions, influences and reception. Upon publication in 1895, her book was well received in French newspapers and her pioneering work served as an example to those female French doctors, like Hélène Abadie-Feyguine and Françoise Legey, who became active around the turn of the century in colonial Algeria. While sympathetic to many aspects of the lives of Algerian women, it is important to understand Chellier as an agent of colonialism. She defined her goals as providing medical help to formerly neglected groups in Algeria, as well as helping to “educate” the masses that she clearly viewed as being ignorant and unwilling to conform with France’s guidance. This was in line with the ideology of France’s paternalistic mission civilisatriceand with the opinions professed by her male colleagues.





Excerpt: Eiichiro Azuma and Greg Dvorak gift us with two important and richly researched books that deepen our understanding of how settler colonialism operates as a connective mechanism tying Japanese and US imperialisms. My response applies a concept from one study to the other; both questions stem from my interest in Blackness and the African diaspora in the Pacific, or the Black Pacific. Eiichiro: how would a focus on indigeneity, including Indigenous voices and lives—a particular strength of Dvorak’s Coral and Concrete: Remembering Kwajalein Atoll between Japan, America, and the Marshall Islands—illuminate the effects of your articulation of “adaptive settler colonialism?” Greg: How would a more encompassing analysis of race, highlighted in Azuma’s In Search of Our Frontier: Japanese America and Settler Colonialism in the Construction of Japan’s Borderless Empire, expand our understanding of the Marshallese and their experiences in and beyond Micronesia? Both books engage the interactive, overlapping, and distinct imperial interests and settler practices of Japan and the United States. They detail the diversity within and hierarchies among racialized, national, and Indigenous populations. Azuma and Dvorak theorize how global processes and individual actors come together to reveal the mechanics of domination, displacement, and resistance. Azuma offers a top-down approach in his study of Japan’s uneven success in implementing imperial ambitions though their settlements of “new Japans” in regions spanning North and South America, the Pacifc, and other parts of Asia. Dvorak pins his attention to Kwajalein, a main islet of the Marshall Islands in the Micronesian region of the Pacifc, to show how its people, reef, land, and missile-illuminated skies have been cumulatively affected by Japanese, US, and Marshallese exchanges.