Palestinian natives and imported Jews...

I cannot say that I fully understand why the concept of "settler colonialism" disturbs those who claim to shape Turkish intellectual life, and why they suggest using the term "occupier" instead. Despite their objections, settler colonialism is one of the most prominent pillars of colonial expansion—indeed, one of its most permanent pillars. To understand this, one needs to read the relevant texts. Unfortunately, such texts are scarce in our language. Still, translated works like The Imperial Age, which can be considered fundamental sources, are capable of filling a great gap. These and similar works are very valuable for understanding colonialism and settler colonialism, one of its most important pillars. I would like to add that there is a particular need for very recent studies on these subjects. Most people who read books, articles, novels, or stories on the topic will quickly realize that reactions to concepts like settler colonialism are emotional and unfounded.

In this article, I will try to focus on just one characteristic of settler colonialism: that settlers come from outside to the lands they occupy as a colony. I have previously stated that settlers are among the most important elements of colonialism. Other elements include states and corporations. If we carefully follow the events taking place today, especially in the West Bank, we can make certain observations about the nature of the settlers. They are, I want to emphasize, non-state and illegal actors. In this respect, the Zionist Israelis living in Tel Aviv and the Zionist settlers establishing colonies in the West Bank are legally distinct. But when we try to highlight a somewhat different characteristic that brings them all together, we encounter a different problematic area. Settler colonialism is a system based on cleansing a given geography of its native elements. For that, we need to look at the cleansing of native elements from North America, Australia, and New Zealand. The peoples of Europe, under the leadership of England and France, completely cleansed North America of its native elements. One must dwell on the concept of the Wild West. The other regions of North America, outside the 13 colonies, were colonized by incoming European settler peoples. Back then, just as in the case of Tel Aviv, those living in the 13 colonies and those European settlers involved in the invasion and occupation were distinct from each other. The concepts of settler, invasion, and occupation point to different characteristics of the same system. Most Europeans migrated to North America in the 19th century.

Zionist Jews also have settler status in the historical lands of Palestine. But because earlier settlers achieved their goals, they now have a legal status by their own standards in places like Tel Aviv. Settler colonialism, however, continues in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and southern Lebanon. They, too, rely on Tel Aviv just as the European settlers relied on the US formed by the 13 colonies. But Zionist Jews also know that they do not belong to Palestine. That is why they speak of God's promise. The concept of the "Promised Land" in itself says a great deal. This concept alone is the most important evidence that Zionist Jews do not belong to the historical lands of Palestine.

We can only explain within the above framework a striking remark by US politician Bernie Sanders that has been circulating on social media recently. Sanders said, "[Equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis] would be the end of the State of Israel, and I support Israel." A social media user commented on Sanders' words as follows: "Uncle Bernie is saying that the native people of the land, the Palestinians, should not have equal rights with the imported foreign Jews, because that would dilute the privilege of Jewish supremacy."

The contrast between native and settler must be explained by dissecting a colonial ideology like Zionism on the operating table. Because these concepts do not create a context by themselves. Those who object to the concept of "settler" and propose instead the concept of "occupier" are, unfortunately, unable to evaluate events within a context. Trying to refute the Zionists' phrase "Promised Land" by following them and relying on holy books is meaningless. Because Zionist Jews are parts of another whole, and they must be defined by concepts that emerged within the framework of colonialism.