Skip to content
Shoresh Wiki

Myth: Jews are colonizers in Palestine.

“Jews are colonizers in Palestine.”

Colonization is a foreign power planting settlers in someone else’s land. Jews are indigenous to this one, three thousand years, the Hebrew language, a liturgy that faces Jerusalem, the archaeology in the soil. The land was largely purchased, and the state created by a 1947 UN vote the Jewish side accepted. A return home is the opposite of a colony.

Origin of the claim

Section titled “Origin of the claim”

The framing is younger than the state itself. The clearest founding text is Maxime Rodinson’s 1967 essay “Israël, fait colonial?”, published in Les Temps Modernes just after the Six-Day War, which argued Zionism functioned like a European settler project regardless of its founders’ intentions. The vocabulary hardened into an academic field decades later: Patrick Wolfe’s 1999 theory of settler colonialism as a structure, not an event, gave activists and scholars a ready-made template, and by the 2000s writers were applying it directly to Zionism as settler colonialism. The charge then moved from seminar rooms into organizing language: the 2005 BDS call and campus chapters adopted “settler colonial state” as a standard descriptor, and it now appears routinely in UN Human Rights Council submissions.

The strongest version, and the record against it

Section titled “The strongest version, and the record against it”

At its strongest, the case rests on real facts. Political Zionism was organized in Basel in 1897, financed partly by European philanthropists like Baron Edmond de Rothschild, and won its decisive diplomatic backing from the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917, issued by the British government that then administered the British Mandate confirmed at San Remo in 1920. Early immigration was heavily Ashkenazi and European in origin, and the 1948 war displaced roughly 700,000 Arab residents. That is the strongest version of the argument, and it is the version worth answering directly rather than caricaturing.

It fails on the definition itself. Colonization, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy sets out, means a metropole, a “mother country,” extending its sovereignty over a foreign territory and extracting benefit for itself. There was no metropole here. Britain did not sponsor Zionism for its own gain; its record toward the project was inconsistent at best and hostile at worst, capping Jewish immigration to 75,000 over five years in the 1939 White Paper at the exact moment Jews were fleeing annihilation in Europe. The Mandate for Palestine’s own preamble recognized, rather than manufactured, “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine,” a link documented by continuous Jewish presence in Safed, Tiberias, Hebron and Jerusalem across the Byzantine, Islamic, Crusader and Ottoman periods, long after Rome crushed the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE and renamed Judea “Syria Palaestina” specifically to erase the Jewish name from the map.

The demographic and genetic record cuts the same way. Behar et al.’s 2010 genome-wide study in Nature and Atzmon et al.’s 2010 companion study found Jewish populations worldwide, Ashkenazi included, cluster genetically with Middle Eastern and Levantine populations rather than with their host nations, consistent with a shared regional origin rather than a purely European one. And the land itself carries a paper trail: Kenneth Stein’s “The Land Controversy: the 94% Myth” documents that Jewish landholding through the Mandate period was built on purchase, deeds and land registries, not seizure, mostly bought from absentee landlords in Beirut, Damascus and Cairo. Within a decade of statehood the “colonizer” population changed shape entirely: roughly 850,000 Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews were expelled from Iraq, Yemen, Morocco, Libya, Egypt and Syria and resettled in Israel, refugees from the Middle East and North Africa, not agents of any European power. And the state itself was born through the UN’s own 1947 partition vote, accepted by the Jewish Agency and rejected by the Arab states that invaded on 15 May 1948, the war that produced the 1948 displacement. A negotiated, internationally sanctioned partition, met with immediate invasion, is not a colonial land grab.

Who pushes it today

Section titled “Who pushes it today”

The charge lives mainly in three venues: academic settler-colonial studies, where scholars including Columbia’s Joseph Massad, UC Berkeley’s Judith Butler and historian Ilan Pappé have written it into the field’s core literature; UN human rights bodies, where Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has repeatedly used “settler colonial” language in reports to the Human Rights Council; and campus and social media activism, where it functions as shorthand organizing language rather than an argued historical claim. It rarely appears as a documented thesis; it appears as an assumed premise.

The word “colonization,” and why using it settles nothing

Section titled “The word “colonization,” and why using it settles nothing”

Contemporaries genuinely used the word “colonization”: the Jewish Colonization Association, founded in 1891, and the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, founded in 1924, both put it in their names, and Herzl’s own 1896 pamphlet Der Judenstaat describes settlement in the vocabulary of its era, when “colonization” was the generic term for any funded, organized settlement drive, applied just as readily to Argentine farm cooperatives as to Ottoman Palestine. The British Mandate was a colonial-era institution, some Zionist leaders did seek its patronage, and the 1947 to 1949 war displaced roughly 700,000 Arab residents, a question this wiki answers directly elsewhere on what caused it and whether it amounted to ethnic cleansing.

None of that supplies the element the definition actually requires: a metropole extracting benefit through a sponsored settler population. Britain never played that role, and turned hostile to the project at the exact moment Jews needed it most. No Jewish state ever paid tribute to a foreign patron. The land itself was bought, deeded and registered, not seized. A 19th-century organization’s name, a patronage a hostile Mandate power never gave, and a war of invasion that displaced people are three separate facts. None of them turns an indigenous population’s return into a colony.

Section titled “Related pages”

Sources

Section titled “Sources”