Territorial sovereignty over a diaspora required settler colonization.

Evidence

The fundamental issue here is that Zionism, as a national movement, could not have achieved the typical goal of national movements – that is, territorially based sovereignty and statehood – without being a settler-colonial project, whether implemented in Palestine or elsewhere. This is because it was forging a nation from a people who were scattered worldwide and not concentrated in any one territory. — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized, 477

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to my core research question — whether the group manufactured an external threat/enemy (Palestinians displacement) to consolidate internal Jewish solidarity. — connects to: The originary diaspora concept tied to Israel mandates reclaiming land already settled by others; Zionism’s essence drives settler colonization rather than contingent constraints limiting it — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism: A Critique of…, 437; Local conditions, not colonial ideology, determined the form of colonization — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism: A Critique of…, 425 (+4 more)
• QUESTION: If the settler-colonial course was structurally necessary for a dispersed people, does that argue the enemy-construction was overdetermined rather than intentionally manufactured?

Broader Connections

• The originary diaspora concept tied to Israel mandates reclaiming land already settled by others #corroborates (0.90)
• Zionism’s essence drives settler colonization rather than contingent constraints limiting it #corroborates (0.80) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 437
• Local conditions, not colonial ideology, determined the form of colonization #qualifies (0.75) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 425