(This extract takes 4⅓ minutes to read.)
The creation of the United States of America was based on the Manifest Destiny ideology, like how the creation of the state of Israel was based on the Zionist idea of the land of Palestine being the land of the chosen people by G-d, the Jews. The idea of Manifest Destiny — the belief that U.S. expansion was divinely sanctioned, justified, and inevitable — was used to legitimize the displacement of Native American tribes.
Many white Americans viewed Indigenous land as underutilized since it was largely left for hunting rather than farming. They saw it as their duty to claim, settle, and cultivate the land. Land speculators, who profited from rising land values as westward expansion continued, were among the strongest advocates for this ideology and the removal of Native Americans.
The founding myths of both the United States and Israel reveal how settler colonial states mobilize sacred or civilizational narratives to legitimize territorial conquest. In the United States, the doctrine of Manifest Destiny cast westward expansion as a divinely sanctioned mission, rendering Native American lands as underutilized and available for “improvement” through settler agriculture and speculation.
Similarly, the Zionist claim to Palestine as the divinely promised homeland of the Jewish people framed territorial acquisition not as conquest but as a redemptive return. In both cases, Indigenous claims to land were not denied outright but delegitimized as culturally inferior: Native reliance on hunting and communal farming was depicted as “wasteful”, while Palestinian cultivation was erased under the Zionist maxim of making “a land without a people for a people without a land”.
Patrick Wolfe’s notion of the “logic of elimination” is evident in both trajectories: settler societies justified displacement not only through force but also through ideological constructs that erased Indigenous presence by casting it as non‑modern, unproductive, or illegitimate.
The Balfour Declaration vs. The Indian Removal Act
Although Indian removal became official policy under the 7th president of the USA, Andrew Jackson (1829–1837), its roots trace back to the 18th century. Thomas Jefferson was among the first to propose it, believing that while Native Americans were equal to whites in intellect and ability, their way of life was culturally inferior. He saw their semi-nomadic traditions and communal farming as inefficient land use and thought they could only become “civilized” by adopting European‑style agriculture and settlements. Jefferson’s views were influenced by Enlightenment environmentalism, which suggested that culture shaped human progress.
However, his motivations were largely economic — if Native Americans abandoned their lands, it would free up space for white settlers. The 1803 Louisiana Purchase provided a convenient solution, allowing the government to relocate tribes further west, postponing assimilation while making room for expansion. In 1825, President James Monroe, 5th American President built upon Jefferson’s ideas, arguing that Native Americans could not integrate into white society and should be relocated for their own benefit. Though Jefferson and Monroe shaped the policy, it was Andrew Jackson who ultimately enforced it, making Indian removal a reality⁴⁰.
This trajectory parallels the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which Britain endorsed the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine without consulting its Arab majority. Both texts exemplify the imperial prerogative to decide the fate of Indigenous populations, treating them as obstacles to larger strategic projects — agrarian empire-building in the U.S., and geopolitical partition in the Middle East.
To underscore the colonial context of Zionism’s rise, the Sykes–Picot Agreement, revealed in 1916, was a secret arrangement between Britain and France — endorsed by Russia — to divide the Arab provinces of the collapsing Ottoman Empire into colonial spheres of influence. The agreement carved up the Middle East with little regard for ethnic, tribal, or religious realities. France was to control what is now Syria and Lebanon, while Britain would dominate areas including Iraq and Jordan, with Palestine placed under international administration. This imperial blueprint ignored Arab aspirations for independence, despite concurrent British promises to Arab leaders leading to the Balfour Declaration of 1917⁴¹.
Similarly to the Balfour Declaration, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was an act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing⁴². Not only were the indigenous people forced out of their lands, but they were confined to Indian reservations ⁴³. Native people needed government-issued permits to leave⁴⁴.
Similarly to that, the […] occupation has systematically imposed measures that fragment Palestinian communities, restrict movement, and undermine economic self-sufficiency. In other terms, the Middle East was carved into spheres of European influence with little regard for local populations. Just as U.S. policy confined Native peoples to reservations and imposed movement restrictions, Israel’s occupation has fragmented Palestinian territory into enclaves divided by checkpoints, walls, and permits.
Both systems manufactured dependency and immobility: Native Americans were forced to rely on federal rations, while Palestinians today face unemployment, confiscated revenues, and blocked access to their own resources. In both cases, settler colonial policy not only dispossessed but also engineered conditions of structural dependency, undermining sovereignty and enforcing fragmentation.
According to a report by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), as of [February] 2025, there are 793 […] checkpoints and obstacles in the West Bank, severely disrupting daily life and economic activities for Palestinians. These restrictions have contributed to an unprecedented unemployment rate of 51% across Palestinian territories. Additionally, Israel has deducted approximately 797 mln USD from Palestinian tax revenues, further exacerbating the economic crisis⁴⁵. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) highlights that, since 2007, Gaza’s GDP would have been 77.6% higher without these constraints, amounting to a cumulative loss of 35.8 bln by the end of 2023⁴⁶.
Similarly, the Indian reservation system in the United States was designed to restrict the movement of Native Americans, confining them to specific areas and creating economic dependence. Native people were required to obtain government-issued permits to leave reservations or engage in trade, much like Palestinians need permits to travel between areas under [settler] control. Both systems have resulted in high unemployment, lack of access to resources, and a reliance on external authorities for basic economic survival.
In both cases, settler-colonial policies have worked to weaken indigenous sovereignty and enforce territorial fragmentation. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, which endorsed the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine without consulting its Arab majority, laid the diplomatic foundation for Zionist settlement, ultimately catalysing mass displacement, intercommunal violence, and the erosion of Palestinian sovereignty under British colonial rule.
(Emphasis added.)