Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does Mahmood Mamdani characterize Zionism and Israeli state formation?
Executive Summary
Mahmood Mamdani characterizes Zionism and the formation of the Israeli state as a settler‑colonial, nation‑state project that produced dispossession, exclusionary citizenship and hierarchical social arrangements, and he situates Israel’s founding within patterns of colonial violence rather than as a neutral state‑building process. Mamdani argues that Zionism’s practice—backed by imperial power—led to the displacement of Palestinians, the creation of an ethno‑national polity, and enduring inequalities that require political solutions beyond existing frames [1] [2] [3].
1. How Mamdani Frames Zionism: A Colonial Project That Rewrote Rights
Mahmood Mamdani presents Zionism as fundamentally a settler‑colonial enterprise that sought to create an exclusively Jewish nation‑state on land inhabited by Palestinians, thereby treating indigenous Arab inhabitants as objects of containment and contempt and denying them equal political status. He draws parallel lines between classic colonial practices—settlement, dispossession, and hierarchized citizenship—and the processes by which the Israeli state was established, arguing the movement did not merely aim for a homeland but constructed political and legal arrangements that excluded non‑Jewish inhabitants from full membership [1] [4]. This framing emphasizes structural outcomes—displacement, unequal rights regimes, and social stratification—rather than focusing solely on individual actors or isolated policies.
2. The Role of Imperial Power and the Making of the State
Mamdani emphasizes that Zionism’s success in state formation was bound to the support of imperial power, particularly British colonial authorities, which enabled population transfer, territorial consolidation, and legal dispositifs favoring the settler population. He contends that imperial backing converted a national project into a geopolitical reality that supplanted preexisting rights and institutions, thereby making large‑scale dispossession and the creation of a foreign ethno‑national state politically thinkable and implementable. This argument situates Israeli state creation in a broader historical pattern where external imperial interests facilitated settler projects, thereby producing outcomes that mirror other colonial formations and their attendant violences [4] [3].
3. Consequences: Dispossession, Hierarchies, and Citizenship Regimes
Mamdani connects Zionism’s founding logic to concrete outcomes: mass displacement of Palestinians, institutionalized inequalities, and internal hierarchies among Jewish communities. He notes that ethnic and racialized hierarchies persisted within the Jewish population—such as Ashkenazi dominance and Mizrahi marginalization—and that the state’s self‑definition as a Jewish polity institutionalized differential rights for non‑Jewish residents. He frames these as not incidental but intrinsic to the project’s logic: the nation‑state model endorsed by Zionism made exclusion and ethnic homogenization legible and actionable, producing long‑term structural injustice that continues to shape politics and daily life [1] [3].
4. Political Diagnosis and Prescriptions: Beyond Naming to Remaking
Mamdani uses the characterization of Zionism to argue for political strategies that go beyond denunciation to systemic alternatives. He invokes comparisons to South Africa’s decolonization trajectory to suggest models of political mobilization and legal reframing that seek equal rights and shared civic structures rather than simple reversals or single‑issue campaigns. His analysis implies that addressing the structural legacy of settler‑colonial state formation requires rethinking sovereignty and citizenship, not only pursuing humanitarian relief or diplomatic fixes, because the root problems are embedded in institutional design and identity politics crafted at the state’s inception [1].
5. How Others Echo and Contest Mamdani’s Characterization
Contemporary reportage and commentary reflect both reinforcement and contestation of Mamdani’s framing. Journalistic pieces and political responses cite his portrayal of Zionism as settler‑colonial and emphasize its implication that the Israeli state was created through colonialist means and imperial facilitation, amplifying his call for equal rights and international‑law accountability [2] [4]. Opponents characterize his stance as sharply critical and politically charged, framing it as part of a broader anti‑Zionist posture that challenges mainstream diplomatic and historical narratives; supporters say it clarifies the structural nature of injustice. These debates show Mamdani’s account functions as both scholarly analysis and a political fulcrum in public discourse [5] [2].