Is There a Common Ground? Comparing the Palestinian and Native American Struggles for Land and Identity

Settler Colonialism Comparison: 9 Parallels Explained

People compare the Palestinian struggle to Native American history because the shape of the story can look similar: land shifts hands, law follows, and the original community gets boxed into smaller spaces.

But here's the problem: most comparisons get used like a meme. They flatten two complicated histories into a quick moral win.

This article uses a more careful approach: a settler colonialism comparison focused on mechanisms (how land and power get transferred) while also being honest about the big differences that make the analogy imperfect.

🌍 Why this settler colonialism comparison exists

The comparison isn't only symbolic. It's structural.

Both contexts feature policies that can reduce indigenous control of land over time, often by combining military force, bureaucracy, and legal rules that convert communal or long-held land into state-controlled property.

Still, a settler colonialism comparison should never be treated as "these situations are identical." It's a tool for analysis, not a verdict.

🧭 Settler colonialism comparison: what scholars mean

"Settler colonialism" is a framework scholars use to analyze a type of conquest where settlers don't just extract resources and leave.

Instead, settlers stay, and the governing system grows around permanent settlement. Scholars often describe it as a long-term structure that keeps shaping policy over generations, not a one-time event. (National Park Service)

That's why a settler colonialism comparison often focuses on recurring patterns:

• Land conversion (communal → surveyed → titled → reallocated)
• Administrative control (permits, passes, checkpoints, agencies)
• Fragmentation (reserves/enclaves that weaken economic independence)
• Legal normalization (rules that make major change look "routine")

🎯 What the comparison can and cannot prove

A careful comparison can help you see:

• How land can shift hands without a single "smoking gun" moment
• How law can operate like a slow-moving bulldozer
• How movement controls can shrink real freedom even when "self-rule" exists on paper

But it cannot prove:

• that the histories have the same causes
• that the moral claims are identical
• that one side's narrative is fake or illegitimate

If you want a settler colonialism comparison to be useful, you treat it like a map: it shows terrain, not destiny.

🗺️ Settler colonialism comparison by the numbers: land control

Numbers can clarify, but they can also deceive if you don't define them carefully.

Native American land base (modern snapshot)

Today, land held in trust for tribes and individual Native people is often summarized in the tens of millions of acres. One widely cited figure is roughly 56 million acres in trust status. (Wikipedia)

That doesn't capture "what was lost" perfectly, because historic Indigenous territories didn't line up with modern U.S. state borders or property categories. Still, it does show how limited the current land base is compared to the total U.S. land area.

Palestinian land control (modern snapshot)

After the 1948 war, Israel controlled about 78% of what many sources call historic/mandatory Palestine, while the West Bank and Gaza were outside Israel's 1949 armistice lines (the "Green Line"). (repository.lboro.ac.uk)

In the West Bank today, the Oslo II administrative divisions remain: Area A is under Palestinian civil administration, while Area C (around 60% of the West Bank) is under full Israeli civil/military control. (Wikipedia)

Table: Side-by-side snapshot (simplified)

(Those figures describe administration/control, not "who deserves what." That's exactly why this kind of settler colonialism comparison can stay analytical.)

🏛️ Settler colonialism comparison in law: how land transfer gets normalized

This is where the analogy becomes strongest: law can turn displacement into paperwork.

Instead of "we took it," the legal story becomes:

• we reclassified it
• we allotted it
• we declared it surplus
• we vested it in a custodian
• we zoned it
• we registered it

A settler colonialism comparison often follows those verbs. They matter.

📜 U.S. case: removal and treaty pressure

The Indian Removal Act (1830) authorized the President to negotiate removal treaties with Native nations living east of the Mississippi River. (National Archives)

In practice, removal policies and treaty coercion contributed to large-scale relocation and dispossession across multiple nations and regions.

This matters for comparison because it shows a pattern: the state uses a legal framework to make forced movement look like "policy implementation."

🧾 U.S. case: allotment, “surplus” land, and the Dawes Act

The Dawes Act (1887) pushed an allotment policy that broke up communal lands into individual parcels. Land that the government labeled "surplus" could then open for non-Native settlement.

A widely cited summary is that allotment policies stripped Native nations of tens of millions of acres, often described as over 90 million acres lost during the allotment era. (Wikipedia)

In settler colonialism comparison terms, allotment is a classic "conversion machine":

communal land → individual plots → surplus label → settler acquisition

🏠 Israel/Palestine case: 1948 displacement and property administration

Many historical accounts describe around 700,000–750,000 Palestinians fleeing or being displaced during the 1948 war, and the event is commonly remembered by Palestinians as the Nakba ("catastrophe"). (The Jewish Agency for Israel – U.S.)

Again, the comparison focus here is not "who's right," but what came next: the legal and administrative systems that determined whether people could return and reclaim property.

🗃️ Settler colonialism comparison in property law: the Absentees’ Property framework

Israel's Absentees' Property Law (1950) created a legal route for property belonging to defined "absentees" to vest in a state custodian (often described as the Custodian of Absentees' Property). (United Nations)

Supporters frame such laws as state-building property administration in the aftermath of war. Critics argue the framework functioned as a durable transfer mechanism that blocked refugee return to property.

Either way, for a settler colonialism comparison, the key feature is this:

the law doesn't just record ownership — it can redesign ownership.

🚧 Settler colonialism comparison in movement controls: containment systems

Both contexts feature policies that restrict movement in ways that reshape daily life and economic independence.

• Reservation systems often limited access to traditional territories, markets, and resources over time (varying by era and region).
• In the West Bank, movement restrictions often involve checkpoints, permits, and road networks that can separate communities from farmland, jobs, schools, and medical services.

A comparison here should stay specific: what restrictions exist, who administers them, and what effects follow—instead of just using "open-air" slogans.

🧱 The barrier/wall and international law

In 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion concluding that construction of the barrier/wall in the occupied Palestinian territory and its associated regime were contrary to international law (as described in the opinion), and it set out legal consequences for states and the UN. (icj-cij.org)

You don't have to agree with every political interpretation to understand why this matters for settler colonialism comparison: physical infrastructure plus administrative rules can harden fragmentation into a long-term reality.

🧩 Enclaves, fragmentation, and the “map that changes your life”

Fragmentation isn't just geography. It's time, money, and opportunity.

When territories become non-contiguous, "self-rule" can exist on paper while daily life still depends on outside permission:

• access to water and utilities
• building permits and zoning
• border crossings and trade routes
• policing and security coordination

A settler colonialism comparison becomes useful when it shows how fragmentation can function like a slow squeeze, even without constant open conflict.

🧠 Origin narratives: “settler” vs “return” stories

This is one of the biggest differences, and you can't ignore it.

Native American context

European colonists generally arrived as extensions of empires and later expanded under ideas like "Manifest Destiny." Their narrative rarely claimed ancient indigeneity to the continent.

Israeli context

Zionism developed as a modern Jewish nationalist movement seeking a homeland in a territory tied to Jewish historical and religious identity. Many Zionist accounts describe the project as national return after long diaspora, not as foreign conquest. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

This doesn't "solve" the conflict. It does explain why the settler colonialism comparison becomes contested: the framework collides with a self-understanding of return, refuge, and survival.

👥 Demography and the “endgame” problem

Another difference: demography and timeline.

In the U.S., Indigenous peoples became a small minority of the total population, and the territorial "frontier" closed long ago. Many Native communities still fight for rights, land restoration, and sovereignty, but the broad conquest phase is historical.

In Israel/Palestine, the conflict remains active and unresolved, with large Palestinian populations living both inside historic Palestine and in diaspora, and competing claims to sovereignty and security still shaping policy.

So even if the mechanisms rhyme, the "endgame" is not the same.

⚖️ Sovereignty and recognition: tribes vs Palestinian institutions

A practical distinction often gets missed:

• Many Native nations hold recognized sovereign status with a government-to-government relationship (even when the power balance is unequal).
• Palestinian political authority exists in a more contested and internationally entangled framework, shaped by occupation, internal politics, and diplomacy.

This matters because the tools of negotiation and legal remedy differ. It also changes what "self-determination" looks like in each case.

🧪 Where the analogy breaks down (and why that’s okay)

A settler colonialism comparison becomes sloppy when it pretends away differences like:

• different historical eras and global legal regimes
• different religious and identity narratives
• different international involvement and media landscapes
• different forms of citizenship and legal standing

Good analysis doesn't panic when an analogy breaks. It uses the break to learn.

🛠️ How to discuss this without turning it into propaganda

If you want to use the comparison responsibly, use these rules:

1. Name the mechanism. Don't just name the emotion.
2. Separate "structure" from "blame." Structures explain how systems work; they don't automatically assign total moral guilt.
3. Avoid totalizing language. "Always," "never," "all of them," and "nothing but" are where truth goes to die.
4. Respect competing narratives. You can acknowledge Jewish historical ties and Palestinian dispossession in the same breath.
5. Use sources that readers can check. That's why this article links to primary institutions and major references.

Yes, this is less fun than dunking on people online. It's also more honest.

✅ Conclusion: what a careful settler colonialism comparison adds

A careful settler colonialism comparison is valid mainly at the level of methods: how law, administration, and movement controls can shift land and power over time.

But it becomes misleading when it treats two histories as interchangeable. The origin narratives differ. The demographic realities differ. The legal and diplomatic landscapes differ.

If you want understanding instead of slogans, keep the comparison structural, cite your numbers, and admit where the analogy stops working.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

❓ What does "settler colonialism" mean in simple terms?
It's a framework describing systems where settlers move in permanently and governance evolves to support that settlement over time. (National Park Service)

❓ Is a settler colonialism comparison saying the two conflicts are identical?
No. A settler colonialism comparison targets structural mechanisms, not full historical equivalence.

❓ Why do people compare Native American history and Palestine at all?
Because both contexts show how law and administration can reduce indigenous land control and create fragmented territories.

❓ What's the strongest parallel in this settler colonialism comparison?
Legal and bureaucratic mechanisms that normalize land transfer through policy, registration, and reclassification.

❓ What's the biggest difference the comparison can't erase?
Origin narratives and the modern conflict status: one is largely historical conquest; the other remains active and contested.

❓ Did the Indian Removal Act directly authorize removals?
It authorized negotiated removal treaties and set a federal process that contributed to large-scale relocation. (National Archives)

❓ What did the Dawes Act do?
It pushed allotment—breaking communal land into individual plots—and helped open "surplus" land to non-Native settlement. (jerusalemstory.com)

❓ How much land is held in trust for Native peoples today?
Common summaries cite around 56 million acres held in trust status for tribes and individuals. (Wikipedia)

❓ What are Areas A, B, and C in the West Bank?
They're Oslo-era administrative zones; Area C is about 60% of the West Bank under full Israeli control. (Wikipedia)

❓ What is the Absentees' Property Law (1950)?
It's an Israeli law that vests defined "absentee" property in a state custodian, shaping post-1948 property control. (United Nations)

❓ Did the ICJ declare the wall/barrier illegal?
In 2004, the ICJ advisory opinion found the barrier's construction in occupied territory and its associated regime contrary to international law. (icj-cij.org)

❓ Does using this comparison deny Jewish historical ties to the land?
It shouldn't. Zionism includes a return-to-homeland narrative rooted in Jewish historical and religious connection. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

❓ Does the comparison deny Palestinian displacement?
No. Many historical accounts describe hundreds of thousands displaced during the 1948 war and its aftermath. (The Jewish Agency for Israel – U.S.)

❓ Is "settler colonialism" a neutral term?
Academically, it's an analytic framework; politically, people use it as a label, which is why definitions and scope matter.

❓ What's a safe way to use a settler colonialism comparison in writing?
Name the specific mechanism you're comparing (law, movement control, zoning, land conversion) and cite sources.

❓ Can this comparison help policy discussions today?
It can help people recognize how administrative systems shape real autonomy, but it can't replace negotiation or law.

❓ What's the biggest mistake people make with this topic?
Turning it into a purity test instead of an evidence-based comparison.

❓ Where should I start if I want to research responsibly?
Use primary institutions and major references (ICJ opinions, humanitarian fact sheets, government archives) before opinion pieces. (icj-cij.org)

📚 Sources & References

• U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs — Trust land overview (Wikipedia)
• National Park Service — Dawes Act / allotment history (jerusalemstory.com)
• U.S. National Archives — Indian Removal context
• International Court of Justice — 2004 wall advisory opinion (icj-cij.org)
• OCHA — West Bank fragmentation / Area C context (Wikipedia)
• Encyclopaedia Britannica — Zionism overview

⚖️ The Legal Architecture: South Africa vs. the West Bank

The apartheid comparison often gets treated like a slogan, but in international law it's a technical test.
Both the 1973 Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute define apartheid as a crime against humanity when three components show up together:

1. Intent to maintain domination by one group over another,
2. Systematic oppression of the subordinated group, and
3. Inhumane acts used to sustain that system (e.g., forcible transfer, expropriation, denial of rights).

What follows is a structural comparison of how South African apartheid and West Bank governance operate on the ground and in law. (Important note: whether the legal threshold is met is debated internationally, and Israel rejects the apartheid characterization.)

🗺️ 1) Territorial Fragmentation: Bantustans vs. Areas A & B

Both systems used "autonomy" to shrink political claims while retaining control over land and borders.

• South Africa's Bantustans (Homelands): The apartheid state carved out "homelands" and pushed a citizenship framework that treated Black South Africans as citizens of those enclaves rather than of South Africa itself. The design goal wasn't real sovereignty—it was political exclusion with a legal costume.
• The West Bank's Oslo Zones: The West Bank is divided into non-contiguous areas. Area A is under Palestinian civil administration (and limited security responsibilities), Area B has Palestinian civil control with shared/overriding Israeli security powers, and Area C remains under full Israeli control in key domains (notably security, planning, and zoning). The result is a patchwork of Palestinian "islands" surrounded by a larger area where Israel retains decisive authority.

The key difference: South Africa tried to sell Bantustans as "independent" entities to legitimize segregation; the West Bank structure functions as an open-ended interim regime that has not matured into sovereignty, while territorial control on the ground remains heavily asymmetric.

📜 2) Two Legal Systems in One Land

A central apartheid hallmark (legally speaking) is different legal regimes for different groups living in the same territory.

• Israeli settlers in the West Bank: In practice, settlers are generally governed through Israeli civil law frameworks and institutions, with political rights connected to Israel's electoral system.
• Palestinians in the West Bank: Palestinians are primarily governed through Israeli military orders and tried in military courts for a wide range of offenses. Human rights monitors have documented extremely high conviction rates in military courts in some reported years, with outcomes heavily driven by remand pressure and plea bargains.

Why this matters structurally: When one group gets civilian due-process protections and another gets military rule, you don't just have inequality—you have two different "legal worlds" stacked on the same map.

🚧 3) Movement Control: Pass Laws vs. the Permit & Checkpoint System

Both systems built bureaucracies that make movement a controlled privilege, not a basic condition of daily life.

• South Africa's pass laws: Nonwhite South Africans were required to carry authorization documents to enter or remain in restricted areas. Policing enforcement made "paper compliance" part of survival.
• West Bank movement restrictions: Palestinians face an extensive system of checkpoints, road obstacles, and permits affecting access to East Jerusalem, Israel, and in some cases travel between West Bank localities. The Separation Barrier and its associated gate/permit regime have also been central features of this mobility control architecture.

💼 The Critical Divergence: Labor vs. Land

Here's the most important distinction—same tools, different economic engine.

• South Africa (Exploitation logic): Apartheid depended on Black labor. The state needed proximity: keep people close enough to work, but politically excluded and socially separated. That reliance created leverage (strikes, boycotts, and labor disruption hit the core economy).
• West Bank (Displacement/containment logic): Over time, Israel has reduced reliance on Palestinian labor by expanding the use of foreign workers and other substitutions in key sectors. In this model, the system can function with tighter separation because the economy is less structurally dependent on the subordinated group's labor.

📌 Summary Table

Optional bridge sentence into your conclusion:
If your article's core point is "states can use law and bureaucracy to reshape demography and land control," this legal-architecture comparison shows how similar governance tools can produce long-term, map-level outcomes—even when the narratives and historical origins differ.

Sources you can keep

• UN: 1973 Apartheid Convention (full text)
• OHCHR: Rome Statute (Article 7 definition)
• UNRWA: West Bank Areas A/B/C (fact sheet)
• ACRI: One Rule, Two Legal Systems (West Bank)
• OCHA oPt: Movement & Access in the West Bank (fact sheet)
• Government of Israel: Foreign workers and labor trends (report)
• Britannica: Bantustan (homelands) background
• Britannica: Pass laws background

Related Videos:

Related Posts:

From Lebanon to a New Horizon: My Journey Beyond Conflict(Opens in a new browser tab)

JavaScript infinite alert prank lands 13-year-old Japanese girl in hot water(Opens in a new browser tab)

Canadian Small Businesses Face Crisis: Struggles with CEBA Loan Repayment and Challenging Market Conditions(Opens in a new browser tab)

How to Program your RB5X 2.0(Opens in a new browser tab)

How to delete yourself from the internet(Opens in a new browser tab)