'Settler-colonialism' is one explanatory framework. It's hardly uncontested. Here for example is a recent article on the RS21 website:
Debate – the limitations of settler colonial theory.
Now I don't agree with any part of RS21's 'wet trotskyism', and I really don't like the manner in which this article expresses things, but it does draw attention to some of the problems with 'settler-colonial' theory as an explanatory framework.
By contrast here's an article from within a different explanatory framework.
Gaza: An Extreme Militarization of the Class War – The Brooklyn Rail
It's a translation of a text that was
first published in French a couple of months ago. I thought it was interesting, although I'm not convinced by it's conclusions, and I'm not in love with it's 'manner of speaking' either. Despite that I find this sort of class based framework a little more compelling than 'settler colonialism'.
At the end of the day however that's all they are - attempts at explanatory frameworks.
I would add that I think it's absurd to suggest that 'settler colonialism', when applied to Israel, is invariably an expression of judeophobia. But I also think it's absurd to ignore the fact that elements of the left are indeed antisemitic, and other parts appear to remain blind to that fact. That's the unfortunate legacy of decades of shitty forms of anti-imperialism.
Read the RS21 article and also went back to read the two articles on settler colonialism by Sai Englert.
The underlying critique is that settler colonial framework imposes an analysis on something that is very complex. In simple terms one ends up supporting the good Indigenous versus the bad settlers. This leaves out the way the development of these areas throws up different classes in either the settler community or the indigenous community.
In the case of Australia the critique shows how "settler" support for indigenous people can be sidelined in settler colonial framework. Which seems to me unfortunate as it rules out solidarity across divides.
TBF to Sai Englert he recognizes this weakness in settler colonial framework.
As an aside Ive started over Xmas Bernard Regan book on the
Balfour Declaration which puts in the conxtext of inter Imperial rivalry in Middle East in WW1 and after. Looks like the book is setting framework for Palestine within a broader framework of Imperialism and Capitalism. Need to protect Suez Canal/ route to India/ need for oil was increasing. Even then support for Zionism was not a given with Imperialist government circles. Indirect control rather than direct colonial control was more typical of later Imperialism. Making sure that any self government was subordinate to needs of Imperial Britain. Supporting Zionism was an option but not inevitable.
So I suppose another way to approach the conflict is looking at the overall region rather than focus on Palestine itself. Within a broader framework of capitalism and imperialism.
rs21 - revolutionary socialism in the 21st century
www.rs21.org.uk
I read both parts of Sai Englert articles on Settler Colonialism. Settler Colonialism as a framework is more convincing in relation to Israel. Looking at Zionism history in light of work of Ilan Pappe for example driving out of indigenous people of Palestine was and still is a core objective. Pappe work looks at the mechanics of this in his book on the Nakba. I think for Israeli Jews like Pappe the settler colonial framework was a riposte to what they were taught. That Zionism was a national liberation war against the British.
In the second part of Sai does argue that Palestine society have class divisions.
The Palestinian bourgeoisie, organised around the Palestinian Authority, is prepared to collaborate with colonial rule in order to maintain both its social position and its access to capital accumulation
Sai does write off Israel working class as far as any change goes. The way the Israel state was set up and works means that Israeli working class materially benefit from the dispossession of Palestinians. He uses the example of settlement building. Protests in Israel about cost of housing can be quietened down by more settlement building on Palestinian land.
Historically Labour Zionism - which was the ruling form post 48 for several decades- bound the workers to the State.
So for Sai appealing the the Israeli working class is a non starter.
To counter this , in short, his view is Palestine has to be seen in a broader struggle across the Middle East. Palestine cannot be freed unless rest of the middle east regimes go as well.
What I found lacking in second part is any picture of what a post Zionist Israel/ Palestine would look like. What would happen to the Israeli working class under this toppling across the Middle East of reactionary regimes by popular protest. At what point would they suddenly see the light and join in?
As well as struggling against this colonial settler society I would have thought some kind of vision of a future is needed. Some kind of at least provisional ideas about how to work with at least sections of Israeli society.
Sai argues that any concessions to appealing to Israeli working class/ society is giving succour to Zionism. This to me appears to harsh on a practical level. But still I may be wrong.
Sai says at this time its not in material interest of Israelis to oppose the Zionist project. That a few Israelis do but they are and always have been a tiny minority.