How Do Security Threat Narratives’ Facilitate Racialised Dispossession And Settler Colonialism?

[Student Name/ID]

[Date]

Introduction 

Karl Marx, in his infamous ‘Capital’ specially highlighted the concept notion of settler colonialism. According to Marx the indigenous population of the Americas was faced an appalling treatment in the plantation areas colonised by Europeans even though they were created for export trade exclusively. But in the colonies settler areas the Christian character of primitive accumulation was not disproved. Referring to ancient Greece, Marx referred to similarity of colonial settlers between the Athenian settler colonies, also called cleruchy and European settlers because in both entire indigenous population was removed forcibly and often violently for the settlers (Fung, 2021). The main purpose of settler colonies, whether modern or ancient, is direct expropriation of land. This objective is often achieved through outright extermination of local people. The extermination includes expulsion or extinction of the indigenous population (Locker-Biletzki, 2020). 

There were massive genocides of indigenous population by the main English settler colonies during the 19th century. These areas are now independent countries such as United States, Australia, and Canada. The settlers outnumbered indigenous people and resorted to violence and mass murder to achieve their aims and interests. However, the resistance against foreign invaders continued and succeeded to achieve freedom. The settler colonialism in the New Zealand was a little unique as the Maori showed more effective resistance and therefore saved from extinction and continue to show larger presence (Taylor, 2021) as compared to their counterparts in other parts of the world. There were also wide scale settler colonialism in Sub-Saharan African by Britain which include Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Kenya. But full extinction could not be achieved because the size of indigenous population in Africa was much larger. However, there are clear indications of apartheid by white settlers in these areas. A similar case is the Algerian settler colonialism by France which began in 1830s and led to the Franco-Algerian War in the middle of 20th century but ended up in decolonization (Veracini, 2021). 

The practices of dispossession and forced removal of indigenous people continue still today but by different agents and for different agenda. Today, many states are undertaking similar tactics against indigenous people under the guise of security narratives. These security narratives include national security as well as protection of natural resources such as protected parks. The aim of this essay is analyse the way security threat narratives have played significant role in racialised dispossession under settler colonialism in various parts of the world. The essay uses case studies of Palestine, Mayan Forests, and Maasai in Tanzania to demonstrate that colonial settlers have adopted both violent/military and non-violent/non-military strategies to conduct dispossession of indigenous people. Israel has been using national security agenda to continue with its militant colonial settler in Palestine. On the other hand, the Mayan and Maasai communities are facing extreme dispossession in the name of conservation of natural resources.

Discussion 

Case Study 1: Palestine 

Palestine is one of the long standing and ongoing case study of settler colonialism. The apartheid in Palestine by Israel began in 1948 with the Nakba movement. Israeli settlers faced similar conditions in Palestine as faced by British and French settlers in Africa and Algeria. The size of Palestinian population was much larger than the size of settlers despite continuous and large scale genocide. The underlying long term goal of apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territories of Zionist settler colonialism is to completely eliminate Palestinians population. In fact, Israel-Palestinian conflict is the main driver of long lost debate of settler colonialism. The theoretical and historical context of settler colonialism has re-emerged with invasion of Israel in Palestine (Hughes, 2020). The settler colonialism in Palestine is the product of virulent anti-Semitism in late 19th-century in which millions of Jews were killed and displaced from Europe. Other international actors particularly British manipulated this situation as a long-term strategic policy in this region, as manifested in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 (Hughes, Velednitsky, and Green, 2023).

The fundamental agenda and narrative of Israel as justification for their invasion in Palestine is survival and security of their people and community against Palestinian resistance. But according to Ghantous and Joronen, (2022) the conception of settler colonial project in Palestine and the occupation of entire historic Palestine under Zionist rule is older than Nakba and Nazi holocaust. In their 1929 constitution, the Jewish National Fund (JNF), the parastatal agency that declared that Palestinian land was an inalienable property of the Jewish people. The JNF is the main body that manages land distribution in the Israeli-occupied territory. The constitution also declared that JNF was solely obliged for the good of Jewish people and was not responsible for the welfare of non-Jewish population (Ghantous and Joronen, 2022). The colonial settlers in Palestine had been struggling to create a Jewish Homeland after the Holocaust due to which millions of European Jews were displaced and later made their allegiance with the Zionism. The Palestine population were over one million Palestinians having Jewish origin yet having radically different culture and religion then European Jews. The purpose of Zionist settler colonialism is to convert entire Palestine into a greater Israel state. They gained the support of USA as the hegemonic force in the world (Lentin, 2020).

The concept of settler colonialism has confirmed in case of Palestine and Israel conflict as early as 1965. The critiques had confirmed that this conflict was classic example of settler colonialism powered by the Zionist forces aiming to establish a "settler community". This community assumed its own sovereignty independent of metropolitan country practices. This state was absolutely incompatible with native population and therefore needed to remove them to continue its own existence (Braverman, 2021). Browne, (2021) considers that the case of Palestinian occupation by the Zionist movement is similar to the settler colonialism of the Greeks in the Athenian clergy. This clearly involves the forced exile or elimination of the dominated population who were gradually replaced by the Zionists settlers. However, the settler colonialism in Palestine is somewhat different from settler colonialism in and Tasmania New England settler because Israel is continuously dependent upon support from external powers such as the USA as well as other Anglo-Saxon and French powers. These powers were either settler colonial states or had created settler colonial states in other parts of the world.

The current situation in Gaza as well as the rest of Palestine is not mere issue of conflict between Hamas and Israel, instead it is a part of absolute ethnic cleansing. The latest war is an accelerated genocide process by Israeli settler colonialism under Zionist regime having complete support from the USA. Currently, Israel has launched a systematic process of carpet bombing in Gaza area, without protecting schools, hospitals, homes, and refugee camps. Based on these actions current situation is a clear attempt of racial dispossession and extinction (Natanel, 2023). Another evidence of this extinction effort is a leaflet by Israeli forces on November 16, 2023 which warned people in southern Gaza to either leave or be eliminated. 

Besides above, with recent attack by Hamas which triggered the war, Israel has strengthened its security narrative to justify the war. Israel continues to make a sustained effort to show what the tragedy was like when Hamas attacked Israel. They believe that the magnitude of the disaster has not been understood at the international level. The Government has launched a website with images of the horrors of the massacre (Medien, 2021). The government also invited authorities and media from the main world capitals to watch a video of the raw images of that massacre. They also conducted guided tours of international media to the agricultural communities where hundreds of civilians died in Hamas attack. All of these efforts are being made to propagate the security narrative of Israel to justify the war (Svirsky, 2021). 

The security narrative of Israel is focused on the central point that Hamas is a significant security threat which legitimises use of force. In purely military terms, the legal level of war could be considered as part of what Clausewitz calls friction. It is a set of factors that favour or hinder operations. The law can increase friction when there is conviction in relevant audiences of the illegitimacy of the operations, but it becomes a strategic asset when the perception of the local and international population that the operations are conducted legitimately (Khalidi, 2020). Meanwhile, it can also become a strategic asset of the enemy if the illegitimacy of the conduct of the war is perceived. It is a fact that laws are interpreted and even ignored or violated in conflicts. A true evolution in modern conflicts has occurred in the way in which the legitimacy of war and the violence that develops in it have come to be evaluated by both military and civilians in legal terms (Amira, 2021). Recognizing Israel's right to self-defence, the legal focus of the operation falls on the obligation to demonstrate the necessity and proportionality in the use of force, although the longer the duration of the operations the shift of the focus of attention is directed towards proportionality aspects. The legitimacy of the measures taken in Operation Iron Sword by Israel depends on their consistency with international law (Pycińska, 2023).

Since the beginning of the century, there has been discussion about the lack of trust, relevance and credibility of international law to provide the legal framework in current conflicts, a fact recognized even by its main defenders. While accepting its imperfection, advocates argue that international law is equipped to address the normative needs of modern conflicts. They, even recognizing their need to adapt, consider it wrong to assume their lack of capacity and efficiency, considering that references to the alleged lack of adequacy, in many cases would hide excuses for their violation (Barghouti, 2021). Within this context it can be fairly assumed that Israel is now hiding its settler colonialism agenda and actions behind the attack of Hamas and is using the recent attack as a justified security concern. Thus it can be inferred that Israel has used security concerns as a means to facilitate racialised dispossession and settler colonialism in Gaza (Seidel, 2021). 

However, Israel’s has already been taking actions under the security narrative prior to latest Hamas attacks. Consider for example, the case of ‘apartheid wall’. The construction of the wall started around two decades ago. This wall was a clear violation of international law by Israel and quickly became a controversy known as the "apartheid wall". The wall alienates several Palestinian communities from their farmland and agricultural fields. It adds misery and obstacles to economic development and food security of Palestinians (Alakhras, Ariffin, and Tumin, 2022). The main defence of Israel for the construction of the wall was that it was for the security of Jewish people. However, serious questions were raised on this narrative because the wall did not improve security of Jewish population and merely increased problems for Palestinians, causing mass migration and displacement of Palestinians from the surrounding areas. The construction of the wall is also a strategic move to displace Palestinians and reflects racialised dispossession (Todorova, 2021). 

The wall had a severe impact on economy of Palestine. Majority of the workforce in these areas were forced to seek employment under Jewish people or somewhere else. The level of unemployment in the West Bank increased to 25% and continued for several years. The wages paid to Palestinian workers who were working there was much less than Jewish workers. Many Palestinian crossed the wall to work in Israel, avoiding the police and other security personnel and were forced to work under extremely poor conditions. They could not even risk to go back home in dangerous conditions (Shihade, 2023). The wall was declared illegal by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004. The ICJ also asked Israel to compensate people for the damages caused by construction of the wall. Despite efforts by the UN General Assembly to force Israel to comply with ruling, there has been no progress. The vote by the UN member states clearly declared that they would not recognize the situation and Israel would not gain any support from the UN (Bishara, 2021). Therefore, it can be inferred that a security narrative has been taken by settler’s colonialism project of Israel against Palestine. This case study reflects the national security narrative but there are also other forms of security narratives which are discussed in following case studies.

Case Study 2: Mayan Forest: Conservation, Green Wars, and Racialized Dispossession

Political ecologists have widely demonstrated that conservation leaves “winners and losers”, where the losers are often rural, indigenous and poor people. The territorial relations of the Q'eqchi' of the lowlands have been marked by their resistance against dispossession by foreign western armies including Spanish and Germans who previously invaded this area for transnational capitalist objectives (Penados, Gahman, and Smith, 2023). Marxian analysis frequently labels dispossession as a process that alienates local peasants from their land, also called primitive accumulation. This is a historical process repeated over almost all parts in the world at different scales. This term is also applicable in case of protected areas. Some political ecologists name this process as “land grabbing” where by large scale displacement of local rural peasants is achieved in different cases around the world. They are trying to exclude these cases as colonial settlers. However, the formation of protected areas as conservation of nature has very clear similarities with primitive accumulation process (Massé and Lunstrum, 2016). It clearly reflects how settlers treat indigenous population and undertake dispossession process. After decolonisation, some states have displaced remaining indigenous population from their lands with the narrative that there are a security threat to nature (Andersson, 2021). The main security narrative in this context is that indigenous people are a threat to local environment and ecosystem. There are also other aspects to this narrative such as urban development but this case study is focused on using conservation of nature and considering indigenous people as a threat to nature.

According to Bresnihan and Millner, (2022) Marx's analysis of dispossession of indigenous population in colonies constituted primitive accumulation yet Bresnihan and Millner posited that primitive accumulation can also be applied in case of dispossession by non-capitalist forces such as states. For example, Q'eqchi' communities believe that their land is a part of their identity and is not limited to productive activities. They believe that their land has a spiritual relationship with the community and is not limited to farming. For Q'eqchi' the land is a part of the tzuultaq'a (it is the spirit that permits Q'eqchi' to work and live off the land). Thus, the tzuultaq'a as a part of indigenous identity is an important factor of life of indigenous people. In this sense, that relationship is both spiritual and political. Beyond primitive accumulation, racialized dispossession seeks to alienate communities and produce a negative identity (i.e. Native, as opposed to the dominant non-Native society). In contrast, Q'eqchi' land defenders protest state violence while imagining their relationships with the land beyond an oppositional identity (Herlihy, Fahrenbruch, and Tappan, 2021).

Guatemala's protected area system seems to employ a colonizing logic of elimination. This form of analysis of indigenous studies allows us to think of settler colonialism as a geographical imaginary (Walter, 2023). In other words, a territorial project that causes the elimination of indigenous people is similar to settler colonialism. Scholars of Indigenous research have highlighted that there is severe lack of accountability and transparency and high level of obscurity in the international treaties formed by Western powers in post-colonial territories (Speed, 2019). These liberal forces have acknowledged and recognised indigenous communities based on two foundational notions. The first is individual citizenship rights and the second is group ethnicity.

As per the individual citizenship rights, the liberal states must form a relationship with indigenous communities as citizens of the nation and not an imagined community. They have individual rights like any other citizen of the nation such as political support for their survival and identity (Rose, 2020). However, in case of the Q'eqchi' Mayans, the notion of justice different as compared to notion of justice in the universal rule of law. They do not believe in equal treatment of all individuals but they believe in honouring relationships with the tzuultaq'a, the family and the entire community (Isla, 2022). In contrast, the liberals posit that equal protection is essential because of the history of oppression and marginality. They do not consider communities as individuals. Due to this narrow view the liberals fail to accommodate indigenous rights to collective self-determination and freedom. In fact, the position of Q'eqchi' is that neither the Kaxlan nor their State have authority over the land, but rather the Tzuultaq'a. It is through asking permission from tzuultaq'a and remaining in appropriate relationships between human and non-human beings that the Q'eqchi' have territorial rights (Casertano, 2022). Hence, by forced displacement and declaring their lands as protective areas or national parks, the states are violating their fundamental rights.

Secondly, the liberal state are treating indigenous communities as minority groups who have competing and conflicting interests. This is also a mistake. According to Kartal, (2022) the Mexican elites during colonial era gained privileged citizenships and helped in reducing indigenous populations. They attempted to eliminate cultural differences with indigenous people and integrate them all into a national Mexican character, an ethnic variation. But indigenous people continued to produce and reproduce their individual identities in terms of unique ways in using territorial spaces. This example clearly explains that individual identities must be respected and indigenous people have a right to use their ancestral lands without any obligation to follow states restrictions. Any attempt by states to restrict the use of land is similar to settler colonialism.

Rather than questioning liberal notions of poor people deserving or not deserving, Kartal, (2022) reminds us that indigenous difference manifests itself in the practice of space, including individualized conceptions of property relations. Therefore, it can be argued that the projects of conservation of lands as national parks and reacting to resistance through military actions is similar to primitive accumulation process in settler colonialism. Hence, states declaring protected areas are similar to colonial settlers who separated indigenous people from their lands forcibly for their own interests. By racializing indigenous peoples, the liberal state seeks to erase the articulation of indigenous identity through a relationship with the land, rather than presenting the romanticized image of a native totally removed from civilization who must be sedentary to be authentic (Curley, et al., 2022). Therefore, the main argument here is that the Q'eqchi' have ontologies that are different from the ontologies of the colonizing State, and therefore from their "rule of law". Their relationship with land is different as compared to relationship between land and citizen in liberal states. Hence, when the state registers a territory as National Registry without the consent of its indigenous occupants, the state is carrying out an act of epistemic violence.

There are multiple ownership regimes in the current Mayan Forest. These include protected areas owned by states, forestry cooperatives owned by communities, and private ownership. Due to multiple ownership regimes there is no possibility to apply collective self-determination while seeking territorial management. There is also the fact that due to loss faced by the war indigenous peoples are claiming individual compensation and also deserve development assistance, yet they are marginalised and lack balance of power. Hence the framework does not achieve just distribution of land leading to primitive accumulation (Whitehead, 2022). There is also option for indigenous peoples to participate in the decision making but they cannot invoke the right to sovereignty. That is, they can seek recognition from the liberal State without recognizing themselves as individuals. The Q'eqchi' continue to struggle in current legal structure to gain collective self-determination. For this reason, it is fair to insist on calling them “defenders” of territorial rights (against state as settler colonial power), and not individual activists (Grandia, 2023).

Case study 3: Dispossession of Maasai in Tanzania in the name of conservation 

In the name of conservation, the Maasai community is also facing displacement and dispossession from their ancestral lands and livelihoods especially in northern Tanzania. This case study traces the origins of this dispossession to the current struggles, which demand international solidarity for the Maasai. It is estimated that 50 percent of the world's protected areas are those that were traditionally occupied by indigenous communities (Weldemichel, 2022). While today the Serengeti National Park is quite familiar across the globe because it evokes images of iconic acacia trees, savannah landscapes, and the great wildebeest migration; for several centuries this park has been home to pastoralist’s communities, one of the major among which is the indigenous Maasai. Although the Maasai in Northern Tanzania have been coexisting and caring for the park territory, around 80 years ago they were declared to be a threat to the land and its sustainability. Since then they are being forcibly resettled in other areas (Gissibl, 2016). They have suffered forced evictions, oppression, violence and marginalization; simply because the state has declared the territory as protected area (Bluwstein, 2021). 

In 1940, the British colonial government passed a Hunting Ordinance to support protection of wildlife in the Serengeti National Park. Although the law contained restrictions regarding the creation of human settlements in the region and the use of it, the people who were born and residing in the park were exempted from restrictions. Hence, initially the Maasai community was not affected by declaration of protected area. However, gradually the restrictions have increased pressuring the Maasai community to restrict its activities in the area. The pressure has been continuously increased by international conservation groups (Lunstrum & Ybarra, 2018) such as the Zoological Society of Frankfurt and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Suell, 2022). 

For example, in 1957, a British-led “Inquiry Committee” put forward the recommendation to create two divisions in the then Serengeti National Park. One of the divisions was what we call the current Serengeti National Park. This division restricted all forms of human settlement in the division, even by the Maasai. The second division is now known as the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) allowed multiple forms of land use with only three restrictions: a) no compromise on conservation of natural resources, b) ensure protection of indigenous groups and c) encourage tourism in NCA (Bluwstein, 2021). 

However, for the enforcement of these restrictions, the colonial government had to force the Maasai, residing in the area for centuries, to dislocate and resettle. The state told them that in exchange for displacement, the Maasai could inhabit another newly formed NCA. They were also promised that they would get better water resources. However, these promises were never realised even after the Maasai communities left their ancestral lands the British colonialists did not fulfil the promises (Bluwstein, 2022). 

Later the international conservation organizations increased their efforts and gained more control in the Serengeti region. During early 1960s, the fears of the African independence ending colonialism increased the risk of ending conservation projects. Hence the international conservation organisations increased the propaganda that global wildlife, and fauna and flora in Africa were in dire need to protection and assistance (Laltaika and Askew, 2021). As per the propaganda agenda that the great and unique resources of flora and fauna could be depleted simply because the indigenous peoples did not have adequate methods to obtain the maximum economic and cultural benefits from them and that indigenous ways were destructive (Ashaba, 2021). The groups therefore pushed for more restrictions on human activities such as cultivation and grazing in the NCA which further reduced control of Maasai community. They faced various penalties for the traditional activities including fines, confiscation of Maasai property, and even imprisonment (Kurajian, 2022). Consequently, the Maasai community started to leave the area.

The conservation groups gained more victories in 1970s. A band was introduced in the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974 on livestock grazing in game reserves. The game areas were large areas dedicated for hunting wild animals for sport. These restrictions further marginalized the Maasai communities. A year later the NCA Amendment Ordinance of 1975 put ban on all types of farming in the NCA. It was a severe negative blow on the Maasai, as they were dependent on agriculture and livestock as livelihood for centuries. Hence, their survival in the areas was jeopardised (Cavanagh, Weldemichel, and Benjaminsen, 2020). 

Again in 1979, the NCA was classified as a UNESCO World Heritage Site without consultation and consent from the Maasai due to increased pressure from conservation groups. All of these actions continued to marginalize the Maasai community and nobody voiced their suffering. As a result there was wide scale starvation among the Maasai followed by high level of mortality rates (Bluwstein, 2021). Hence, the state has been continuously undertaking measures that, although are not similar to violent military actions as in settler colonialism, but have same results i.e. displacement and extinction of indigenous people.

When the UNESCO designated the Ngorongoro region as world heritage site in 2010, due to continuous pressure from conservation groups and international organizations, the UNESCO failed to carry out any form of negotiation or consultation with Maasai community, despite acknowledging them as free indigenous people in the areas. Mugambi, (2022) in review of literature cited William Olenasha who concluded that the only legacy of UNESCO, IUCN, and other organizations in Africa is the disaster they have created for the Maasai. 

The Tanzanian government has also continued the colonial legacy of marginalizing the Maasai, refusing to identify them as indigenous, continually passing laws that harm them, and carrying out numerous cases of violent eviction from Maasai villages in recent years. A recent evictions of Maasai people happened in August 2017 causing damage to 5,800 homes and leaving 20,000 Maasai homeless (Marchant, 2022). Following it Maasai people took brave steps and in September 2017 filed a case against Tanzanian government in the East African Court of Justice (EACJ). They have claimed to protect their right to their lands once and for all. There have been positive news in the form of recent injunctions by the EACJ but ground reports indicate that the government is not respecting the injunctions and violations and harm to Maasai people continue (Stith, 2020). 

Besides the state actions, the commercial sector, particularly the tourism sector has also taken steps that adversely affect the Maasai communities. The safari tourism companies are important in the Tourism sector which accounts for 17.5 percent of GDP of Tanzania and earn 25 percent of foreign currency earnings (2016/17) having significant power in the country. A recent report by the Oakland Institute, safari companies have caused significant negative impacts on the Maasai (Kimaro and Hughes, 2023). Some of the accusations made against the two companies concern that they have denied the Maasai access to vital grazing areas and water wells. In addition, the police has also been involved in injustice towards the Maasai. There have been reports that private company guards collaborated with the police and conducted violent evictions of the Maasai communities (Colex, 2021). 

Similar displacement have been cited in various works such as Limpopo National Park (LNP) in Mozambique cited by Lunstrum & Ybarra, (2018) who termed this phenomenon as conservation-induced displacement (CID) and define the process of displacement as displacement in the name of ecological protection. 

Overall, it can be inferred that the efforts for so called conservation are similar to the actions of displacement and dispossession of settler colonialism in case of the Maasai. The conservation groups in collaboration with state and international organisations continue to impose restrictions on livelihood of Maasai people particularly on cultivation and grazing. This simply means that Maasai are facing malnutrition and hunger in near future. The evictions also continue with violent action such as intimidation and harassment not only by the state but also by private companies. The government also take actions against protesters. On the other hand, over a million tourists visit these areas for entertainment, the same areas that have been protected by the Maasai for centuries as an integral part of their life. 

According to Benjaminsen, et al., (2021) the tragedy faced by the Maasai people is no different from their indigenous counterparts in colonial era, although the Maasai are facing different strategies for dispossession by different actions. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, a United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples noted that for more than a century, in the name of conservation, initiatives were carried out to eliminate all human presence in protected areas. Consequently, there has been massive destruction of cultural values due to large-scale displacement of indigenous communities. The responsibility of this tragedy is upon conservation organizations, UNESCO, governments, and, tourism companies (Sène, 2023).

Conclusions

Based on discussion above there is clear evidence that colonial settlers have shown significant violation of basic rights of indigenous population across different parts of the world. In case of Palestine, Israel has been using violent military actions against Palestinian population in the name of national security agenda. The recent war is a clear and classic example of colonial settler. On the other hand, previous colonies such as Africa and Latin America show that in the name of conservation, colonial settler’s traditions continue to promote dispossession of indigenous people (Asiyanbi, 2016). The main agenda in these case studies is to conserve natural resources particularly forests, however, there are extreme violations of rights of indigenous people. 

Conservation and decolonization in cases such as the Mayan Forest presents strategies, forms and variations on how the policy of protected areas also represents the continuity of the war against indigenous communities. While the effects of conservationist policies deepen, as a form of dispossession, there are no significant actions to protect these indigenous communities and their diverse cultures and traditions. Finally, it is important to highlight that during colonial period various communities particularly those who did not belong to so called ‘civilised world’ have suffered a great deal as colonizers pursued self-interests. However, even after decolonisation, the traditions and corollaries of colonial settlers continue to haunt indigenous populations. There is a need for international community to revise their agenda and include survival of indigenous communities, their identities, cultures, and traditions as a part of global sustainable development agenda. 

References

• Alakhras, B., Ariffin, R.N.R. and Tumin, M., 2022. Dynamics of settler colonialism: Influencing factors on the Israeli treatment towards the Palestinians. Al-Shajarah: Journal of the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC), 27(2), pp.233-262.
• Amira, S., 2021. The slow violence of Israeli settler-colonialism and the political ecology of ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. Settler Colonial Studies, 11(4), pp.512-532.
• Andersson, A., 2021. Green Guerrillas and Counterinsurgent Environmentalists in the Petén, Guatemala. Global Environment, 14(1), pp.15-57.
• Ashaba, I. 2021. Historical roots of militarised conservation: the case of Uganda. Review of African Political Economy, 48(168), 276-288.
• Asiyanbi, A. P. 2016. A political ecology of REDD+: Property rights, militarised protectionism, and carbonised exclusion in Cross River. Geoforum, 77, 146-156.
• Barghouti, O., 2021. BDS: Nonviolent, globalized Palestinian resistance to Israel’s settler colonialism and apartheid. Journal of Palestine studies, 50(2), pp.108-125.
• Benjaminsen, T.A., Svarstad, H., Benjaminsen, T.A. and Svarstad, H., 2021. Conservation Discourses Versus Practices. Political Ecology: A Critical Engagement with Global Environmental Issues, pp.89-110.
• Bishara, A., 2021. Settler Colonialism or Apartheid: Do We Have to Choose?. Omran For social sciences, 10(38), pp.13-43.
• Bluwstein, J., 2021. Colonizing landscapes/landscaping colonies: from a global history of landscapism to the contemporary landscape approach in nature conservation. Journal of political ecology, 28(1).
• Bluwstein, J., 2021. Decolonising Conservation Science and Practice in Tanzania.
• Bluwstein, J., 2021. Narrating Nature: Wildlife Conservation and Maasai Ways of Knowing.
• Bluwstein, J., 2022. Historical Political Ecology of the Tarangire Ecosystem: From Colonial Legacies, to Contested Histories, Towards Convivial Conservation?. In Tarangire: Human-Wildlife Coexistence in a Fragmented Ecosystem (pp. 25-46). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Braverman, I., 2021. Environmental justice, settler colonialism, and more-than-humans in the occupied West Bank: An introduction. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 4(1), pp.3-27.
• Bresnihan, P. and Millner, N., 2022. Decolonising environmental politics. In Handbook of Critical Environmental Politics (pp. 521-539). Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Browne, B.C., 2021. Disrupting settler-colonialism or enforcing the liberal ‘peace’? Transitional (in) justice in Palestine-Israel. Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies, 20(1), pp.1-27.
• Casertano, N.J.L., 2022. Questioning" Chapin" Identity in Iximulew: Maya Voices from the Settler Colony Known as" Guatemala" (Doctoral dissertation, Tulane University, School of Liberal Arts).
• Cavanagh, C.J., Weldemichel, T. and Benjaminsen, T.A., 2020. Gentrifying the African landscape: The performance and powers of for-profit conservation on southern Kenya’s conservancy frontier. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 110(5), pp.1594-1612.
• Colex, B., 2021. Assessment of the Pastoral Land Rights in Tanzania (Doctoral dissertation, The Open University of Tanzania).
• Curley, A., Gupta, P., Lookabaugh, L., Neubert, C. and Smith, S., 2022. Decolonisation is a political project: Overcoming impasses between indigenous sovereignty and abolition. Antipode, 54(4), pp.1043-1062.
• Fung, A., 2021. Is Settler Colonialism Just Another Study of Whiteness?. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 53(2), pp.115-131.
• Ghantous, W. and Joronen, M., 2022. Dromoelimination: Accelerating settler colonialism in Palestine. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 40(3), pp.393-412.
• Gissibl, B. 2016 ‘Introduction’ in The Nature of German Imperialism: Conservation and the Politics of Wildlife in Colonial East Africa. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books
• Grandia, L., 2023. Extractivism: The port-a-cathed veins of Guatemala. In Routledge Handbook of Latin America and the Environment (pp. 63-72). Routledge.
• Herlihy, P.H., Fahrenbruch, M.L. and Tappan, T.A., 2021. Regaining Ground: Indigenous Territories in Central America. In The Oxford Handbook of Central American History.
• Hughes, S. S., Velednitsky, S., & Green, A. A. 2023. Greenwashing in Palestine/Israel: Settler colonialism and environmental injustice in the age of climate catastrophe. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 6(1), 495-513.
• Hughes, S.S., 2020. Unbounded territoriality: Territorial control, settler colonialism, and Israel/Palestine. Settler Colonial Studies, 10(2), pp.216-233.
• Isla, A., 2022. Extractivism in the Americas' Indigenous: The land of resisters. In The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Movements (pp. 170-184). Routledge.
• Kartal, R., 2022. Refusing Colonial Forms of Solidarity on O’odham Lands/the US–Mexico Borderlands. Antipode, 54(6), pp.1859-1879.
• Kashwan, P., V. Duffy, R., Massé, F., Asiyanbi, A.P. and Marijnen, E., 2021. From racialized neocolonial global conservation to an inclusive and regenerative conservation. Environment: science and policy for sustainable development, 63(4), pp.4-19.
• Khalidi, R., 2020. The hundred years' war on Palestine: A history of settler colonialism and resistance, 1917–2017. Metropolitan Books.
• Kimaro, M.H. and Hughes, C., 2023. Conditions of conflict: Exploring pastoralist resettlement in relation to African lion conservation. Society & Natural Resources, pp.1-22.
• Kurajian, O.A., 2022. The Serengeti-Mara ecosystem: Interactions between human and non-human species. Posthumanist Nomadisms across Non-Oedipal Spatiality, p.47.
• Laltaika, E.I. and Askew, K.M., 2021. Modes of dispossession of indigenous lands and territories in Africa. Lands of the Future: Anthropological Perspectives on Pastoralism, Land Deals and Tropes of Modernity in Eastern Africa. New York: Berghahn Books, pp.99-122.
• Lentin, R., 2020. Palestinian lives matter: Racialising Israeli settler-colonialism. Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies, 19(2), pp.133-149.
• Locker-Biletzki, A., 2020. Rethinking settler colonialism: A Marxist critique of Gershon Shafir. In Rethinking Israel and Palestine (pp. 111-131). Routledge.
• Lunstrum, E., and Ybarra, M. 2018. Deploying difference: 51Security threat narratives and state displacement from protected areas. In Land Rights, Biodiversity Conservation and Justice (pp. 50-70). Routledge.
• Marchant, R., 2022. Postcolonial Transitions and Recent Political History. In East Africa’s Human Environment Interactions: Historical Perspectives for a Sustainable Future (pp. 245-310). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Massé, F., and Lunstrum, E. 2016. Accumulation by securitization: Commercial poaching, neoliberal conservation, and the creation of new wildlife frontiers. Geoforum, 69, 227-237.
• Medien, K., 2021. Israeli settler colonialism,“humanitarian warfare,” and sexual violence in Palestine. International feminist journal of politics, 23(5), pp.698-719.
• Mugambi, M.M., 2022. Colonial and Post-colonial Rangeland Enclosures amid Climate Uncertainty: The Case of Maasai Pastoralists of Kajiado County, Kenya.
• Natanel, K., 2023. Affect, excess & settler colonialism in Palestine/Israel. Settler Colonial Studies, 13(3), pp.325-348.
• Penados, F., Gahman, L. and Smith, S.J., 2023. Land, race, and (slow) violence: Indigenous resistance to racial capitalism and the coloniality of development in the Caribbean. Geoforum, 145, p.103602.
• Pycińska, M., 2023. Israeli and Palestinian Settler Colonialism in New Media: The Case of Roots. Humanities, 12(5), p.124.
• Rose, J.W., 2020. Liberal Order and Climate Control: Ontario Parks as Environmental Settler Colonialism (Doctoral dissertation, Queen's University (Canada)).
• Seidel, T., 2021. Settler colonialism and land-based struggle in Palestine: Toward a decolonial political economy. In Political Economy of Palestine: Critical, Interdisciplinary, and Decolonial Perspectives (pp. 81-107). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Sène, A.L., 2023. Justice in nature conservation: limits and possibilities under global capitalism. Climate and Development, pp.1-10.
• Shihade, M., 2023. Settler Colonialism in Palestine. Decolonizing the Study of Palestine: Indigenous Perspectives and Settler Colonialism After Elia Zureik, p.229.
• Speed, S. 2019. Incarcerated Stories: Indigenous women migrants and violence in the settlercapitalist state. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
• Stith, M.M.B., 2020. With and Without Them: Thinking Through Binaries in Serengeti Conservation Science (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University).
• Suell, D.T., 2022. The creation of capitalist time: Rethinking primitive accumulation through conservation. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 40(5), pp.881-899.
• Svirsky, M., 2021. The reproduction of settler colonialism in Palestine. Journal of Perpetrator Research, 4(1), pp.71-107.
• Taylor, L., 2021. Four foundations of settler colonial theory: four insights from Argentina. Settler Colonial Studies, 11(3), pp.344-365.
• Taylor, L., 2021. Four foundations of settler colonial theory: four insights from Argentina. Settler Colonial Studies, 11(3), pp.344-365.
• Todorova, T., 2021. Decolonial Solidarity in Palestine-Israel: Settler Colonialism and Resistance from Within. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Veracini, L., 2021. The world turned inside out: Settler colonialism as a political idea. Verso Books.
• Walter, P., 2023. Settler colonialism and the violent geographies of tourism in the California redwoods. Tourism Geographies, 25(1), pp.243-264.
• Weldemichel, T.G., 2022. Making land grabbable: Stealthy dispossessions by conservation in Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 5(4), pp.2052-2072.
• Whitehead, J., 2022. Finance Capital with Ethnic Cleansing: Primitive Accumulation and Forced Migration. In Marxism and Migration (pp. 105-129). Cham: Springer International Publishing.