Why Shouls Israel Be Regarded As a Classical Colonial Actor?

(The original Turkish version of this article was published by the Platform: Current Muslim Affairs on September 1, 2026)

There is a widely held assumption in academia that colonialism, in its historical sense, has long since become a thing of the past and that its methods have changed in tandem with the transformation of the global system and the instruments of domination. To a large extent, this assumption is correct. The conditions that emerged during the second half of the twentieth century clearly compelled the classical colonial powers to transition to a new order. Having suffered major setbacks during the Second World War, these actors implemented a carefully planned process of decolonization and constructed a “neo-colonial” order in which political, military, bureaucratic, and economic elites were selected in advance. This new form of colonialism was based not only on controlling elites, but also on controlling the bureaucratic order, capital, the financial system, military organization, mechanisms of military training and promotion, foreign policy, culture and the media, ethnic rivalries, and personalized relations of power. It was designed to secure substantial gains at minimal cost-and it functioned precisely as intended (1). It is evident that this mode of conduct, now increasingly questioned and challenged across the contemporary world, has served to perpetuate Western supremacy, much like classical colonialism. The transformation of colonialism, the very force that gave rise to modernity, has in turn shaped the world we inhabit today. Given how sharply classical colonialism and its neo-colonial successor differ in appearance, instruments, and method, it is easy enough to conclude that the former has simply passed into history.

Parameters of Classical Colonialism

For a form of domination to be characterized as classical colonialism, there is no need to produce visual evidence of stereotypical archaeologists or anthropologists conducting fieldwork. In fact, to determine whether any act of domination or occupation constitutes classical colonialism, it is sufficient to establish the presence of the following four parameters: (a) “conquest-oriented” practices of occupation and settlement incorporating religious discourse; (b) the appropriation of material assets and natural resources by a foreign actor; (c) the extensive use of political violence; and (d) a “civilizing mission” invoked to legitimize all of these practices (2). Every colonial enterprise must contain these elements; otherwise, it is not possible to characterize the undertaking in question as colonialism.

The earliest colonial ventures were undertaken in the wake of the geographical discoveries “in the name of God’s holy kingdom,” “to expand God’s dominion,” or to spread Christianity. European states’ incursions into distant territories within their reach were religiously motivated and legitimized on that basis. As classical colonialism developed and became entrenched, the wealth flowing into Europe, together with the conflicts that arose over its distribution, generated tremendous dynamism. Europe’s intellectual revolutions were an outcome of this dynamism. Colonialism thus gradually constructed modernity through both the resources it channelled into Europe and the transformations it engendered. At the same time, the sense of superiority fostered by colonialism afforded Western powers an opportunity to legitimize their actions on a different basis. The modernizing mission was advanced in order to give meaning to the authority that the colonial part of the world, which understood itself as civilized and modern, exercised over the populations it classified as primitive and barbaric. If Western societies, as a chosen people, represented the civilized part of the world, then they ostensibly had a duty to civilize the rest of it. Dividing the world into binary categories such as modern and primitive, civilized and barbaric, or superior and inferior human beings, this outlook gradually became the rationale for every form of wrongdoing committed in the colonies. The enslavement of human beings, the appropriation of natural resources, and the unrestrained exercise of political violence were all perpetrated “in the name of humanity.” Classical colonialism is generally associated with the transfer of resources, and much can likewise be said about the seizure of colonized lands. Postcolonial theory, however, rightly focuses on colonialism’s identity dimension as well. The civilizing mission amounts to little more than the proclamation of superiority by a group possessing more effective instruments of violence. Indigenous communities deprived of their property and bodily autonomy also lose their memory and identity as the targets of unrestrained political violence. Such a process is necessary if the colonizer is to institutionalize its own supremacy, as Israel has done since 1948.

Israel as a Colonial Actor, the Civilizing Mission, and the Gaza Genocide

When Israel was established in 1948 with the support of the major powers, classical colonial practices had not yet come to an end. Indeed, decolonization had not even entered the political lexicon. The Second World War and the Holocaust, which were invoked to justify Jewish migration to Palestine, had ended only shortly beforehand. Waves of Jewish immigration, known as Aliyah, had nevertheless begun many years before the war. In essence, the thirty-year British occupation of Palestine served to fulfil the commitment set out in the Balfour Declaration (3). Jewish immigrants arriving in Palestine organized themselves, acquired arms, and made life unbearable for the Arab population. By May 1948, the Jewish community had attained a substantial demographic presence and an established organizational structure; with the support it received from the international community, it can be said to have institutionalized the situation already in place. From this perspective, the declaration of the establishment of Israel amounted merely to the completion of a procedural formality.

Throughout world history, states have generally been established through warfare. The establishment of a state, with external support, by large populations migrating from other countries and coming together in a particular territory is a phenomenon unique to Israel. Israel was established first and went to war only thereafter. Because it was founded through a deliberate settlement policy and subsequently made territorial expansion through settlement a general principle, Israel stands as a prominent representative of classical colonialism. Settlement on such an extensive scale had perhaps not been undertaken since the colonization of the Americas. This is, of course, not the only feature that identifies Israel’s existence and conduct with classical colonialism. Its religious motivations exhibit equally striking similarities. Through constructs and narratives such as “Israel’s 3,000-year-old homeland,” “the Promised Land: Eretz Yisrael,” and the notion that the Jews are the chosen people, an attempt has been made to persuade first Jewish society and subsequently global public opinion that Palestine rightfully belongs to Israel. In this respect, Jewish migration to Palestine is no different from the migration of the conquistadors to distant lands in the name of God. In pursuit of the ideal advanced by Zionism, Jews migrate to Palestine in fulfilment of what is presented as a sacred duty and thereby participate in a settler-colonial project.

Claims of Jewish chosenness, when situated within the Zionist framework, inevitably lead us to the notion of a civilizing mission. Israel has resorted to virtually every available means, including violence and, according to a growing body of scholarship, genocide, in order to increase the Jewish population of Palestine while reducing the Arab one. For decades, settler violence has targeted Arab civilians and sought to seize their property and assets. Even in the age of social media, Arabs have continued to face political violence, the plunder of their homes and lands, restrictions on their freedom of worship and movement, assaults on their human dignity, and numerous other colonial practices. The attacks carried out by Israel in Gaza since 7 October have gone down in history as the first genocide to unfold live before a global audience and to be followed moment by moment. To understand how all of this relates to classical colonialism, one need only examine how Israel has sought to legitimize its increasingly brazen disregard for established rules and norms.

Following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October 2023, Israel was acutely aware of the global outrage provoked by its systematic massacres in Gaza. Under such circumstances, Israel might have been expected to portray its attacks to the international community—however inaccurately—as “justified action.” Yet this was not the case. Statements issued by Israeli officials indicate that Israel did not even deem such a justification necessary, instead constructing an entirely different narrative. It was no coincidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly invoked “civilization” in his statements after 7 October. In the very first days, Netanyahu explicitly characterized the war against Hamas as “a battle between civilization and barbarism” (4). Hamas was not fighting Israel but “fighting against civilization”; Israel was not perpetrating genocide against Gazans but “combating barbarism.” Netanyahu’s rhetoric did not end there. Statements such as “If we lose, Western civilization loses” (5), “the battle between the children of light and the children of darkness” (6), and “not a clash of civilizations, but a battle between barbarism and civilization” (7) were repeated dozens of times. What conceivable connection could Western civilization have to a genocide in which women, children, and the elderly were being killed in a territory as small as Gaza, at the heart of the Middle East?

To summarize the purpose of Netanyahu’s rhetoric, his primary aim was to persuade global public opinion that this genocide was being carried out in the name of “civilization and humanity.” If those in question are “barbarians deemed enemies of civilization,” then “their extermination should be regarded as legitimate” (8)-just as classical colonialism did in the Congo and Algeria. Netanyahu was keenly aware of the civilized-versus-barbaric categorization and of the sense of superiority that the civilizing mission had entrenched so deeply. Israel sought to situate itself within this historical reality. Moreover, by identifying itself with civilization, Israel’s rhetoric implicitly suggested that its Western partners should accept it as a “partner in crime.” Israel would thus have no need to exonerate itself; powers with colonial pasts would do so on its behalf. Under present-day conditions, these objectives have little prospect of succeeding. What is clear, however, is that Israel’s character as a classical colonial actor has been sufficiently exposed since 7 October. Israel had cultivated certain perceptions into widely held convictions in Western countries: that it is the only democracy in the Middle East, and that Israelis are the whites of the Middle East. These perceptions were themselves part of the process. Yet it took the events of 7 October for this character to become still more apparent.

Israel is the last surviving link in the history of classical colonialism. It has defended its conduct in Gaza domestically by invoking the people of Amalek and internationally by appealing to civilization and humanity. It expands its settlements aggressively, appropriates the property and rights of Palestinian Arabs, and describes its own society as unique, civilized, white, Western, and modern while casting those it treats as the Other as barbaric and denying them the right to exist.

References

Yiğit, M. (2023). Military coups and foreign intervention in Africa [Afrika’da askeri darbeler ve dış müdahale]. İstanbul: VakıfBank Kültür Yayınları.
Osterhammel, J. (1997). Colonialism: A theoretical overview. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers.
Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library. (1917). Balfour Declaration 1917. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp
JNS. (2023, November 12). Netanyahu: “This is a battle of civilization against barbarism.” https://www.jns.org/israel-news/netanyahu-this-is-a-battle-of-civilization-against-barbarism
Yiğit, M. (2023). Classical colonialism, Africa, and Israel [Klasik Sömürgecilik, Afrika ve İsrail]. Dünya Siyaseti. https://dunyasiyaseti.com/icerik/klasik-somurgecilik–afrika-ve-israil.html
Anadolu Agency. (2023). PM Netanyahu continues to use scriptures to defend Israeli war on Gaza. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/premier-netanyahu-continues-to-use-scriptures-to-defend-israeli-war-on-gaza/3042801
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2024, July 24). PM Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of the US Congress. https://www.gov.il/en/pages/pm-netanyahu-addresses-a-joint-meeting-of-the-us-congress-24-jul-2024
Fanon, F. (2018). The Wretched of the Earth [Yeryüzünün Lanetlileri]. Istanbul: Versus Kitap.