The October 2023 War—From a Colonial to an Imperial Analysis

Abstract

The colonial analytical lens plays a multifaceted role in what is currently referred to as the October 2023 war in the Middle East. It offers a perspective on the involved parties, their relationship in light of power dynamics, and their respective interests. How do the war’s initial developments, involving Hamas and Israel in Gaza, Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon, and Palestinians in Israel in the West Bank (with the added dimension of Israeli settlers and settlements), intertwine in the historical narrative of struggles for control over territories now subjected to various levels of Israeli control? And what are the available solutions in light of the ongoing Palestinian/Israeli tragedy? Regrettably, the colonial lens is sometimes applied, especially by those not directly involved in the study of Palestine/Israel, in ways that appear to justify actions like the Hamas massacre of Israeli and foreign civilians on 7 October and to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist as the national home of the Jewish people.

In contrast to other panel members, who have analyzed the October 2023 war primarily in local terms, I propose a more global paradigm that does not view it merely as a product of colonial relations between Zionism—as an autonomous settler-colonial force or as an agent of Western colonialism—and the Palestinians—as an indigenous group with a collective and innate connection to the disputed territory. The proposed paradigm, while acknowledging the history of colonial relations in Palestine/Israel, extends its scope to include a broader geopolitical context of imperial relationships.

I aim to introduce this approach as an alternative to the colonial perspective, addressing three significant issues prevalent in the conventional view of the Palestine/Israel context, particularly in the discourse surrounding the events of 7 October and the subsequent war. I propose that an imperial perspective can illuminate critical blind spots in colonial paradigms, notably within settler colonialism, offering fresh insights in the context of localized research. This perspective aids in moving beyond the oversimplified and binary viewpoints often found in popular political language, which, while based on academic discourse, tends to overlook its nuanced complexities. Finally, I assert that a thorough understanding of local dynamics, contextualized within a broader historical and analytical framework, is crucial for a more comprehensive explanation of the current war.

Before I present alternative perspectives, a few personal remarks are in order. The October 2023 war was, for me, a humbling event. As a theorist for whom colonial discourse has been an intellectual home and as an individual who has been deeply affected by the daily realities of the war, this situation has precipitated an epistemological crisis for me. I find myself questioning the adequacy of my theoretical tools and reexamining them. The ideas I propose here stem from an ongoing epistemological reevaluation, a process of introspective inquiry serving as an invitation to a shared dialogue rather than a definitive conclusion. Furthermore, in my attempt to make sense of the role the colonial lens has played in the current tragedy, my analysis delineates three distinct dimensions of colonial discourse concerning Palestine/Israel: first, the historical and theoretical writings grounded in meticulous and in-dept research on local history, which has evolved in recent years to become increasingly nuanced and sophisticated, acknowledging the numerous differences between the Palestinian–Israeli case and other instances of settler colonialism; second, theoretical works that generalize the Palestinian/Israeli case, neglecting nuances (for a critique of this tendency see Busbridge 2018); and, last, the political language (Dubnov 2015) that adopts superficial headlines and concepts found in academic writing, transforming them into tools for political mobilization that encourage violence and confer legitimacy upon it.¹ While these three discourses can be distinguished analytically, their interweaving in the historical and scholarly narrative of Palestine/Israel makes them challenging to separate. The recurring confusion and ambiguity among them is a compelling reason to advocate the replacement of colonial language with an alternative discourse that has not yet undergone popularization, potentially fostering a more constructive discussion on the tragic reality we face.

From Colonial to Imperial Lenses

In Sabbagh-Khouri’s (2022) comprehensive review, which examines the application of the colonial lens to the Palestine/Israel case, she distinguishes between colonial and settler–colonial traditions in this area of study. Recognizing the internal variation within each perspective, she describes colonial studies as focusing “first and foremost on the relationship between the metropole and the colonial periphery” while “the settler colonial paradigm focuses on processes of transformation within settler colonial societies . . . and the institutionalization of settlers’ privileges vis-a-vis the ‘native’” (48). Additionally, she emphasizes the lack of an imperial perspective in this field, which is crucial for acknowledging the significant influence of various empires in shaping the long-term dynamics of Palestine/Israel.

In this essay, I adopt Sabbagh-Khoury’s framework, distinguishing between the local focus of settler-colonial and colonial studies and the broader scope of imperial analysis, which delves into empires’ internal rationale and strategies for expansion. While both can be applied to most historical cases of foreign domination, they typically ask different questions about their subject matter.

In the introduction to Zionism and Empires, a book devoted to the reevaluation of Zionism’s evolution within the context of competing empires in Europe and beyond, Shenhav (2015) distinguishes between “imperialism” and “empires.” Inspired by Arendt’s discussion of imperialism, Shenhav defines “Empire” as “a system of governmental practices that deviate from the classic structure of sovereignty outlined in the Westphalian model” (my translation, 9). He further elaborates that empires represent a “complex of networks, capital flows, military deployment, and the migration of ideas and models. These elements blur traditional relationships between first, second, and third worlds and redefine relations through alternative means, such as international organizations and multinational corporations” (10).

This nuanced and historically sensitive definition is especially critical in analyzing the Palestinian/Israeli context. It highlights the constantly evolving imperial matrix that shapes local relations, incorporating not only imperial states but economic empires in its units of analysis. Moreover, it acknowledges the multiplicity of intersecting power relations and how they shift and are reconstructed over time.

Therefore, in the context of Palestine/Israel, an imperial analysis involves scrutinizing the shifting relations between various empires across different historical periods. This analysis considers how the interests and conceptualization of these empires and their subjects have fundamentally influenced the dynamics between Israelis and Palestinians, challenging the simplistic colonizer–colonized or oppressor–oppressed narratives.

Broadening the Temporal and Spatial Perspective

Whereas colonial, postcolonial, and settler-colonial frameworks in general, and particularly in the Palestine/Israel context, predominantly focus on the influence of “Western” empires on global dynamics and epistemology, an imperial analysis broadens this scope. It considers the roles of various other empires, such as the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, Ottoman, and British, in setting the stage for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Although historians of Zionism are beginning to address this (see the efforts of the Van Leer groups in Shenhav 2015), traditional colonial studies often commence with events such as the Balfour Declaration or the British occupation of Beer-Sheva in 1917, overshadowing the crucial role of the Ottoman Empire in shaping early Palestinian collective consciousness and the broader imperial influences on the conception of national self-definition as an alternative to imperial reasoning. Moreover, as Gandhi (2018) argues, the concept of the right to self-determination, intrinsically a “Western” idea, represents a form of contemporary imperial imposition on a geopolitical landscape that did not easily lend itself to its conditions. An imperial analysis may trace Israeli–Palestinian relations back to the Ottoman Empire, examining the way its imperial logic set the groundwork for subsequent conflict. This analysis continues through the post-WWI global reorganization and its impact on the national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, in relation to the frameworks provided by various empires and their policies of control. It includes an examination of the Cold War’s influence in shaping Israel’s boundaries and mechanisms of control, factoring in the USSR’s Arab world interests and the French Empire’s retreat from Algeria, and how these events affected both Palestinian national aspirations and the PLO’s strategies (Shihade, 2015). The analysis also emphasizes Iran’s pivotal role in shaping Palestinian political narratives and imagery considering the end of the conflict, as well the American empire’s significant influence in shaping alternate political imagery and power relations across the Middle East.

Notably, several scholars adopting a colonial lens have touched upon these external influences, but only recently has this perspective gained theoretical traction, providing more robust explanations for the complex dynamics and power relations in Palestine/Israel. The work of Dubnov (2015) and the Van Leer Group (Shenhav, 2015) analyzing Zionist history from an imperial angle, Berda’s (2022) exploration of British imperial influence in Jewish-Arab in Palestine, and Khalidi’s (2005) study of the United States as an imperial force in the Middle East, collectively lay the groundwork for this expanded paradigm.

Acknowledging the critical role of asymmetric power dynamics between Israelis and Palestinians, this approach offers an alternative to the current narrative of Zionists as perennial victimizers backed by colonial powers and Palestinians as perpetual victims. Instead, the imperial perspective encourages a more comprehensive and nuanced historical analysis. It necessitates examining the evolving power relations and access to global resources for both parties over time, offering a more holistic and intricate understanding of the conflict.

October 2023 War—A Multidimensional Imperial Perspective

Amid the horrific October 2023 war, it is premature to offer a complete imperial analysis of the events leading to and shaping it. However, it is evident that the war transcends local dynamics, such as Israel’s alleged ethnic cleansing aspirations or Palestinian resistance to or assimilation into the Zionist project. The war should be viewed within the context of its influence by and on major global powers, including the dominant forces of the United States and the European Union, as well as emerging challengers such as Russia, Iran, and China. Each of these entities employs distinct governmental practices and imperial logics. Evolving perceptions between Israel and Palestinians result not only from their interactions with one another but also from their interactions with these empires and their respective reciprocal relationships.

The influential role of Iran and Qatar in bolstering Palestinian capabilities, culminating in the 7 October attack, is undeniable. Similarly, the United States’s support for Israel has been a key factor in preventing, at least until this point, a broader conflict involving Israel and Lebanon, or possibly Israel and Iran. The strategic alliance of Russia, China, and Iran aims to counterbalance the influence of the United States, bringing additional complexities into regional conflicts vying for global dominance. Moreover, the emergence of new “empires” in the form of multinational corporations, with their distinct imperial logic aimed at global influence, reshapes the world order. Their control through social media algorithms and impact on local political struggles worldwide cannot be overlooked. Without considering this expansive imperial context, which traditional colonial analyses often omit, understanding the dynamics of the current conflict or envisioning its resolution becomes significantly more challenging.

Toward the Decolonization of Palestine/Israel Studies

Until now, I have primarily approached the imperial approach vis-à-vis the theoretical and in-depth writings on Palestine/Israel from a colonial perspective. It is also important to consider the role of some critical theory scholars who have utilized the colonial and settler-colonial vocabulary to defuse the innate global public critique of Hamas’ attack on 7 October and legitimize it as an act of decolonization.² In this process, they contribute to the popularization of oversimplified interpretations of colonial and settler-colonial theories. Such actions risk converting the complex Palestine/Israel issue into a virtual battleground, where external actors seek to realize their ideals of absolute justice, potentially at the cost of real lives. One outcome of the popularization of the political language of colonialism in the context of Palestine/Israel is the elimination of alternative conceptualizations of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (as it is often the case outside of Israel studies outlets). While an imperial analysis can enhance our understanding of the current grim situation and the broader Palestine/Israel context, my primary objective extends beyond this. I seek to widen the spectrum of theoretical perspectives applied to this area of study. My aspiration is for the recently established Palestine/Israel Review to act as a catalyst in the decolonization process, providing a space where new theoretical paradigms can be introduced and nurtured, complementing and enriching the continuous development of existing frameworks.

Notes

Works Cited

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .