Exeter, UK (Special to Informed Comment; Feature) – Debates about Palestine in the Western academia often portray contemporary Israeli policies as exceptional responses to security ‘threats’ or regional instability. Yet a longer historical perspective suggests a deeper structural continuity: the persistence of colonial logic under evolving institutional and discursive forms. From the British Mandate period to contemporary geopolitical frameworks advanced by Israel and its Western allies, especially the United Kingdom and the United States, a consistent pattern emerges: territorial control coupled with indigenous political marginalization. What has changed is not the underlying logic of dominance, but its instruments and justificatory narratives.
Colonial rule in its classical form relied on direct conquest, resource extraction, and demographic engineering; in its contemporary iteration, it operates through legal ambiguity, interim governance regimes, technocratic planning, and internationalized policy frameworks that defer substantive indigenous rights. The case of the occupied Palestinian territory illustrates this transformation clearly. Policies resembling territorial partition, mobility control, and ambiguous decision-making—features observable in proposals such as the recent Gaza Plan by Kushner—resemble traditional imperial management strategies. Rather than depicting rupture, these mechanisms reveal continuity: a rebranded colonial order adapted to modern international norms, yet still grounded in territorial expansion and indigenous dispossession.
From a Classical Empire to Settler-Colonial Governance: Historical Continuities
Traditional colonialism was characterized by the expansion of imperial powers into foreign territories, the extraction of wealth, and the systematic marginalization—or elimination—of native populations. The British Empire stands as one of the most prominent examples of this model, historically seeking territorial expansion by appropriating land, labor, and resources across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The empire’s economic enrichment was inseparable from the dispossession of indigenous societies, a process that contributed to its characterization as the “empire on which the sun never sets.” Although formal imperial rule was gradually delegitimized—especially after the First and Second World Wars, when anti-colonial movements, decolonization struggles, and emerging international legal norms challenged overt imperial domination—this shift did not mark the end of colonial practices. Instead, colonialism has undergone institutional transformation.
During the late 1940s and 1950s, with the establishment of the United Nations and the normative consolidation of self-determination, direct territorial annexation became politically costly. Consequently, imperial actors increasingly adopted indirect methods: economic dependency, political conditionality, military partnerships, and normative governance frameworks that preserved influence without formal sovereignty. This transition from classical colonialism to neo-colonial governance did not eliminate extraction; it simply rearranged its mechanisms. Western powers continued to shape political futures in formerly colonized regions through aid regimes, security architectures, and development programs that structured local governance according to external priorities. Media narratives, academic discourses, educational partnerships, cultural diplomacy, and archaeological or heritage projects also functioned as softer instruments of influence. Through scholarships, joint initiatives, and institutional cooperation, consent was sometimes manufactured; in other cases, local elites or regional organizations were mobilized to internalize externally defined political agendas. Within this broader trajectory, the Israeli project in Palestine can be interpreted as a continuation—rather than an anomaly—of imperial governance adapted to contemporary geopolitical conditions.
Israel as a Settler-Colonial Continuum: Demography, Territory, and the Logic of Elimination
Scholars such as Patrick Wolfe and Lorenzo Veracini conceptualize settler colonialism as a structure rather than an event, governed by a persistent logic of elimination aimed at securing land by reducing or displacing the indigenous population. This framework offers a useful analytical lens for understanding Israeli policies in occupied Palestinian territory. Wolfe identifies three interrelated logics of settler colonialism: the elimination of the native, the seizure and consolidation of territory, and the normalization of settler sovereignty through legal and institutional arrangements. These logics are observable in the Palestinian case.
First, elimination does not necessarily imply physical extermination alone; it also encompasses demographic engineering, forced displacement, and policies that fragment the indigenous population’s political capacity. The persistent emphasis on reducing the demographic importance of Palestinians—whether through territorial fragmentation, mobility restrictions, or long-term humanitarian suffering aligning with this structural logic. Second, territorial consolidation operates through geographical division and infrastructural control. Plans for Gaza’s governance and broader territorial arrangements exhibit parallels with earlier colonial partition schemes, including those envisaged by the Peel Commission. Geographic segmentation, controlled mobility regimes, and administratively differentiated zones create a fragmented geography that prevents coherent indigenous sovereignty while enabling incremental territorial expansion.
Third, settler occupation and crime has been normalized and institutionalized through interim frameworks which postpone a definitive political solution. Agreements such as the Oslo Accords exemplify this mechanism, as they established transitional governance structures without resolving core issues, including borders, the right of return, Jerusalem’s status, and the end of occupation or settlers’ raids. These unresolved questions were repeatedly ignored throughout negotiations, thereby institutionalizing asymmetrical authority while presenting the arrangement as a peace process. Consequently, nothing essential has changed for the Palestinian people living on the occupied Palestine territory. Land continues to be confiscated, indigenous political autonomy is constrained, and fundamental rights are indefinitely delayed. The form of control evolves—from formal colonization to technocratic planning and legal-administrative management—but the underlying objective remains constant: maximizing territorial control while minimizing indigenous sovereignty.
Neo-Imperial Frameworks and the Reproduction of Colonial Authority in Contemporary Policy
The persistence of colonial logic in Palestine is reinforced by broader neo-imperial structures led primarily by the United States, with Israel functioning as a regional extension of this order. Historically, successive U.S. administrations maintained the appearance of adherence to international legal norms and multilateral institutions while simultaneously enabling asymmetrical realities on the ground. However, more recent developments signal a further shift: the erosion even of the normative façade that once legitimized this neo-colonial system. Policies associated with figures such as Donald Trump and proposals linked to Jared Kushner illustrate a move toward openly unilateral frameworks. Plans concerning Gaza and broader Palestinian governance were advanced without meaningful Palestinian consultation, reflecting a colonial pattern in which the colonizer defines the political horizon of the colonized.
Palestinians were excluded from decision-making forums and even from proposed institutional mechanisms such as newly conceived “peace boards,” on the grounds that they were allegedly “not ready” for statehood or self-governance. Such reasoning echoes older imperial justifications that framed indigenous populations as politically immature or administratively incapable, thereby legitimizing prolonged external control. Similarly, the delegitimization of international oversight bodies—exemplified by attacks on organizations such as UNRWA and restrictions placed on UN officials, such as Francesca Albanese—reveals a growing disregard for legal norms that once moderated neo-colonial governance.
The implication is that even the legalistic mask that previously masked imperial power is being abandoned. Within this framework, peace initiatives function less as pathways to self-determination than as instruments of population management. Requirements that Palestinian education systems be “reformed” or “de-radicalized” before political rights can be recognized reproduce a colonial civilizing discourse: sovereignty is conditional upon ideological conformity to the colonizer’s normative order. At the same time, leadership figures perceived as compliant are elevated as acceptable interlocutors, regardless of their legitimacy among the indigenous population. The cumulative effect of these practices is the reproduction of a colonial structure under neo-imperial guise. Territorial control persists, indigenous rights remain postponed, and political futures are externally determined. The modalities of domination—legal frameworks, diplomatic plans, humanitarian governance, and discursive narratives of peace and reform—have changed in appearance but not in function.
File photo of Alon Shevut settlement, Palestinian West Bank. Public Domain. Via Picryl.
To sum up, the trajectory of governance in the occupied Palestinian territory indicates that colonialism hasn’t disappeared but has been reformulated. Originally justified by open invasion and resource extraction, classical imperialism has evolved into a less obvious yet structurally similar system characterized by territorial fragmentation, legal ambiguity, interim political arrangements, and externally imposed planning frameworks. Israel’s policies toward Palestine, supported by broader Western geopolitical structures, thus represent not a historical deviation but a continuation of long-standing imperial logics. The essential pattern remains intact: indigenous land is appropriated, self-determination curtailed, and fundamental rights indefinitely deferred under the promise of future settlement. What has changed is the “cover” through which domination is exercised—legalistic peace processes, technocratic governance plans, and normative discourses of security and reform. In this sense, Palestine illustrates how colonialism survives not by disappearing, but by adapting to new international conditions. The empire has not ended; it has been reconfigured.
© 2026 All Rights Reserved