Definitional Debate Ignites Over Ancient Colonialism and Modern Antizionism

A recent social media post by writer Katya Sedgwick has sparked a contentious discussion regarding the historical interpretation of colonialism and its contemporary relevance to Antizionism. Sedgwick stated in her tweet, "> Colonialism is an ancient practice. For instance, the Greeks preferred to build colonies to expanding their cities. Antizionist game is to tweak definitions and then claim innocence and victimhood." This comment highlights a broader debate on how historical terms are applied to modern political movements.

Ancient Greek "colonies," known as apoikiai, were typically independent city-states established by a "mother city" (metropolis) often due to factors like overpopulation, trade, or internal political strife. These new settlements maintained cultural and religious ties but largely operated as autonomous political entities. A later Athenian form, cleruchies, represented a more directly controlled system where citizens retained Athenian citizenship and provided military service to the empire.

In contrast, modern definitions of colonialism typically describe a system where a powerful nation establishes political control over a foreign territory, often occupying it with settlers and exploiting its resources and people. This practice, prevalent from the 16th to 20th centuries, involved the systemic subjugation of indigenous populations, the imposition of the colonizer's governance, and economic extraction for the benefit of the colonizing power. Scholars often differentiate this from ancient settlement patterns, emphasizing the comprehensive political and economic domination inherent in modern colonialism.

The debate surrounding Antizionism frequently intersects with these definitions, particularly concerning whether Zionism, the movement for Jewish self-determination, constitutes a form of settler colonialism. Critics of Zionism argue that its establishment involved the displacement of an existing indigenous population, aligning it with colonial practices. Early Zionist figures like Theodor Herzl and Max Nordau reportedly used terms such as "colonial expansion" and "colonies" to describe their endeavors, with institutions like the "Jewish Colonial Trust" reflecting this language.

Conversely, proponents argue that Antizionism, especially when denying the Jewish people's right to self-determination, can cross into antisemitism. Organizations like the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) include "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor" as a potential manifestation of antisemitism. This complex interplay of historical context, political ideology, and identity continues to fuel intense debate over the appropriate use and interpretation of these terms.