Penkin Calls Zionism a “De-colonial” Project

Adam Penkin describes Israel as the region’s only successful “de-colonial project” and Zionism as a “de-colonial land-back movement.” He argues that the Israel-Palestinian conflict should be reframed around how people already living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea can share the land. His essay puts competing claims to justice at the center, then proposes public reason as a route to decisions people with different histories might accept.

Competing claims to the land

Penkin says Arab claims draw on the Islamic conquests of the seventh century, the designation of the land as Waqf, or eternally Islamic, and a history of Arab residency and integration with populations that preceded them. He writes that many Arabs understand their struggle as opposition to Western colonialism and believe the British promised them the land. In his account, after losing control over most of the land in 1948, Arabs regarded the land as Waqf, which became Dar al-Harb, or the abode of war or infidelity, and Islamic law calls for its return to an Islamic state.

He describes the Jewish narrative as drawing on the Torah’s account of God’s promise of the land and a continuous Jewish presence predating Islam and the Arab conquests. Penkin cites the Merneptah Stele, which he says mentions Israel as a distinct people in the 13th century BCE, and the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. He writes that Jews regard Israel as holy and view Islamic imperialism as a force that subjugates minorities.

Penkin names Copts, Druze, Kurds and Berbers as examples of minorities he says live under oppression or low-intensity conflict in places where Islam reigns. His essay presents these accounts as competing narratives: both sides, he argues, claim indigeneity and ownership, see the other as an oppressor, and regard their cause as just.

A debate over justice and peace

The essay identifies Israel’s settler movement and what Penkin calls the current far-right, anti-peace government, alongside Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, as groups that claim all the land. He says these groups are committed to destroying Israel and supported and engaged in the October 7th invasion. Those are Penkin’s characterizations. The account doesn’t include testimony from Palestinians or Israeli officials responding to them.

Penkin argues that demands for justice can keep people opposed to compromise, quiet and peace. He connects that argument to disputes over reparations, justifications and which side deserves victory, and says Yigal Amir and Yahya Sinwar share a belief in “no peace without justice.” He also says the Dome of the Rock stands atop the Temple Mount, a site around which Islamic and Jewish histories lead to different conclusions.

Public reason as an alternative

Penkin calls for “mutually acceptable reasons,” an appeal to the shared desire to live between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. He defines “public reason” as “a moral ideal requiring that political decisions be reasonably justifiable or acceptable from each individual’s viewpoint.” His proposal recognizes different narratives without requiring them to converge and respects the desire to live without violence.

He argues that pursuing justice through further violence is unlikely to produce a satisfactory end. Peace, in his formulation, comes before justice in a practical rather than hierarchical sense. He says that if Arabs had accepted partition in 1948 while rejecting its moral validity, the conflict could have continued through debate in the United Nations rather than violence. The essay gives no details of present-day settlement expansion, land confiscation, military rule or movement restrictions; its focus is the competing moral claims and the case for public reason.

Penkin says some see an Arab state carved out of the Jewish homeland as an affront to God, while others see Jewish sovereignty over an Islamic Waqf as an abomination. He concludes that the divide isn’t Jews versus Arabs but ideology versus pragmatism, maximalism versus sharing, and justice versus peace. His biography says he is an international Jew who came to make a home in Israel, studied philosophy at Cambridge and is applying what he learned to understanding the world, his country and the future. It also quotes Amos Oz describing essays by a person living through and grappling with events, rather than by a scholar or expert, and identifies the views as Penkin’s personal perspectives.