On Settler Colonialism: Ideology, Violence, and Justice

by Adam Kirsch

For many who are tuned in to what Walter Benjamin called ‘the tradition of the oppressed,’ ” writes John Collins of St. Lawrence University, “the centrality of Palestine is almost axiomatic.”1 But an axiom is not a truth; it is a statement that must be accepted as true in order for a system of thought to function. For the ideology of settler colonialism, Palestine is axiomatic in just this sense: it is a premise from which many conclusions are drawn, and not just about Israel. The fact that many of these conclusions are false and harmful should lead us to question whether the axiom is sound. Is there a better way to think about the tradition of the oppressed, and what can be done to redeem it?

The ideology of settler colonialism is founded on a similar sense that history is evil and deserves to be repealed.

The ideology of settler colonialism feels this indignation against the past in its bones, and dreams of a future in which the past is rectified. This is understandable and even praiseworthy, especially for young people who are just becoming aware of history. But the call to decolonize Turtle Island and liberate Palestine “between the river and the sea” is based on the same kinds of moral and political error as earlier radical movements that appealed to idealists and intellectuals.

First, the ideology of settler colonialism turns its wrath not on the most deserving targets but on those that are closest to hand.

As far back as we can see, there is no terra nullius and no true indigeneity. Every people that occupies a territory took it from another people, who took it from someone else.

Like slavery and the divine right of kings, the glory of conquest is one of those ancient truths that modern humanity now finds hateful and strives to overcome. In every such moral revolution, the desire to build a better future has a tendency to create a feeling that the past is contaminated and must be destroyed.

For the ideology of settler colonialism, the impossibility of concretely imagining a decolonial future ought to serve as a warning sign. It is possible to look forward, in general terms, to a future in which the United States disappears and indigenous life continues. But it is hard to envision getting from here to there without destruction and suffering on such a vast scale that even the partisans of decolonization refuse to discuss it. Israel is much younger and smaller than the United States, and it is easier to imagine its disappearance, but again, not without massive death and destruction.