On the 10th of October, Israel and Hamas signed a ceasefire agreement, marking the longest pause in the war in Gaza in two years. The 20-point peace plan covers an exchange of hostages, eventual stabilisation of Gaza, and the disarmament of Hamas. This Wednesday, however, on the 29th of October, Israel bombed 109 Palestinian civilians- including 46 children across Gaza overnight, after an Israeli soldier was killed in a shooting. This has been the first major violation of the ceasefire, and underscores the increasingly more fragile peace in the region. This article will discuss how settler colonial theory can be used to analyze the nature of this conflict and ceasefire agreement, using this week’s development as evidence. Particularly, how Israel’s rhetoric blurs distinctions between Hamas and Palestinian civilians, reinforcing a framing that portrays Palestinians collectively as a security threat.
Settler colonial theory
Settler colonialism occurs when a group of people settle in a land they are not native to. Unlike colonialism that operates on a hierarchical structure between coloniser and native, the ultimate aim of settler colonialism is to eliminate the natives, thereby becoming the natives themselves. In the beginning of the 20th century, Zionism became a popular movement within the Jewish diaspora. It promised a home in Palestine for the Jewish population, after thousands of years of persecution and living as a minority in Europe. Crucially, Zionist rhetoric made no mention of Palestinians but rather portrayed an empty land that historically belonged to them. Settler colonial scholars argue that Israel is a settler colony.
Patrick Wolfe developed settler colonial theory through his ‘logic of elimination’, the process by which settlers focus on the acquisition of territory to make space for settlement. Ways of achieving this can include displacement, ethnic cleansing, and the alienation of property. In what ways can we observe Israel’s logic of elimination playing out in Palestine? One way is to analyse the language employed by Israel’s far-right party Likud, that reveals its settler colonial aims of land annexation and ethnic cleansing.
Settler colonial rhetoric in Israel’s Likud Party
In response to Wednesday’s strikes, Minister Ben Gvir, an ultra far-right member of the Likud party accused Netanyahu of not returning to all-out war after the shooting of this soldier, criticising the strikes as a ‘measured response’. Accusing the strikes of being too measured, reveals a settler colonial tactic, whereby security of Israel can only be achieved through war and bombing Gaza. Israel has repeatedly used this framing in the past two years, asserting that it will stop at nothing to destroy Hamas — resulting in over 67,000 (mostly civilian) Palestinians reportedly killed. The impact this has, is that Palestinians and Hamas are not distinguished from one another, but rather are both grouped together as a security threat. This justifies Israel’s logic of elimination, in this case ethnic cleansing, to achieve acquisition of territory.
Israel’s logic of elimination can also be seen in the West Bank, where the government has passed a bill legalising settlements in the area, despite this process being illegal under international law. This move reflects the rhetoric of Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who called for Israel to declare ‘sovereignty’ over the West Bank, framing the emergence of Palestinian State as ‘dangerous’. This terminology portrays Palestinians as a security threat, in that it depicts them as ‘other’, as a people who do not belong on the land and should not possess the right to exist within a nation-state. Palestinians can consequently be removed from the land, thereby eliminating the threat they pose to Israeli settler nativity of the land.
What can settler colonial theory reveal about the future of the conflict?
Analysing Israel’s language and actions through a settler colonial framework suggests a persistent drive for territorial consolidation, even amid diplomatic efforts such as ceasefire agreements. The recent strikes in Gaza, combined with ongoing settlement policies, raise questions about the durability of any peace process.
The bombings have spread doubt on the international stage of Israel’s intention to uphold the ceasefire. One Qatari diplomat, Majed al-Ansari, argued that Gaza was at risk of entering a ‘no war, no peace’ zone, meaning despite a ceasefire, killing will continue. Using this lens to analyze Israel and its long term aims, it calls into question the stability of the ceasefire, as well as the debate of a two- state solution in the region. How can there be a two state solution if one denies the self-determination of the other?
Patrick Wolfe observed that “settlers are not born; they are made in the dispossessing” — a process sustained over generations to prevent Indigenous return. In this light, Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank may be seen as part of a continuing effort to secure permanence and legitimacy through control of land and narrative alike.
