Settler violence or settler terrorism in the West Bank?

While the meaningless agenda regarding the avoidance of using the concept of "settler" in Türkiye continues to exist, twelve European countries, including the UK, have decided to impose sanctions on illegal settlements in the West Bank. After this decision was announced, there were also leaders among Western leaders who showed the courage to call Zionist settlers in the West Bank terrorists. In this framework, concepts such as "settler violence," "settler terrorists," and "illegal settlements" were used. In Türkiye, however, the debate over whether or not to use the concept of "settler" continues. Yet the Zionists, especially after World War II, had removed settler colonialism from the agenda in order to ensure the continuation of a Judaism-centered narrative.

The reason the Zionists refrain from using, and even oppose, the concept of "settler" is that this concept points to those who come from outside as the opposite of the native. Zionist Jews still very strongly claim to be natives of Palestinian lands. Their effort to erase Palestine and Palestinians from history also stems from their attempt to prove that they are natives. As a result of this, the famous British Museum removed the name Palestine from its exhibitions, halls, and explanatory plaques. In order to make everyone accept that they are natives of Palestinian lands, they even intervened in history. This is precisely what "the colonization of history" means.

As we have stated many times, "settler" does not contain any legitimizing meaning; on the contrary, this concept holds a central importance within the "settler colonialism paradigm." The Palestinians, at least since Haj Amin al-Husseini, considered Zionist settlers and British colonialism together. In contrast, the Zionists also put forward Judaism as a religion, Jewish history, and Jewish theology. With the sanctions decision of the twelve countries, the colonial expansionist aggressions of Zionist settlers came to the agenda. It is said that the UK, France, and Canada led the decision. For this reason, it would probably be an appropriate study to carefully compare the expressions used in the statements of the representatives of the mentioned countries. I only looked at the statements of French officials and the new British Prime Minister. While French statements included settler terrorism, the British Prime Minister used only the concepts of "settler violence" and "illegal settlements."

The British Prime Minister does not include the concepts of settler terrorism and settler terrorists in his statement, but he once again characterizes October 7, 2023, as a "monstrous terrorist attack against Israel" and once again condemns Hamas. This is a language preference, and this preference means that there is no change in Britain's view of Israel. In fact, in the mentioned statement, Britain's view regarding Israel is repeated as it is. In this framework, the Jewish community in the UK is exonerated, it is said that accusing British Jews is wrong, and it is insistently emphasized that Israel is not fully sanctioned. These show that Britain's classical approach regarding the Israeli colony is being repeated. The British Prime Minister diverts attention away from colonial language by saying that accusing "the Jewish community in the United Kingdom" and "British Jews" means antisemitism.

Despite the genocide, ethnic cleansing, displacement, and settler terrorism committed before the eyes of the world after October 7, 2023, the British Prime Minister focused only on sanctions related to goods produced in illegal settlements. In contrast, he once again accused Hamas of carrying out a terrorist attack. He then said that Israelis and Jewish communities in the UK cannot be blamed for the actions of the Israeli government. In his text, neither Britain's historical colonial responsibilities nor Britain's complicity in the genocide after October 7 is mentioned. He said nothing about these, but he brought Judaism and anti-Jewish sentiment to the agenda. In the video that became a topic in the US, the same themes were highlighted, creating content that would mean anti-Jewish sentiment.

It is understood that Britain is trying to reshape issues related to Israel in line with the thesis of a clash of religion and civilization. The British Prime Minister includes the expressions "settler violence" and "illegal settlements," but he ignores the context of settler colonialism and once again puts forward the context of Judaism.

Because when Israel's crimes and settler terrorism in the West Bank are evaluated within the settler colonialism paradigm, Britain is inevitably named as a perpetrator.