The culture clash argument functions as a modern terra nullius, denying Palestinian land claims.
Evidence
Similar in structure to claims of terra nullius in British colonial law, where the land belonged to Europeans because its original inhabitants were simply not modern enough, Chesler’s employment of culture clash provides the foundation for her central argument. To attack Israel, and the twin towers, is to mount ‘a direct hit on democracy, modernity, religious pluralism, and women’s rights.’ Stuck in pre-modernity, Palestinians can have no claim to Palestine. If America supports Israel, it is because Jews and Americans share similar cultural values; both represent the force of modernity and both must confront the menace of Islam. — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 227
Categorization
Category: Causal Relationships
- DEFINE: Explicitly maps culture-clash rhetoric onto terra nullius doctrine — a useful conceptual equivalence.
- SEED: Angle: how ‘not modern enough’ functions as a renewable doctrine of dispossession across eras — from terra nullius to culture clash to technological-divide arguments.
- ADDENDUM: Aligns with the grafts theme in ‘Grafting & Growth’: here colonial disposal of people operates through declaring the land empty of modern claimants.
Related
- Culture clash arguments mirror colonial terra nullius doctrine against Palestinians (similarity 0.96)
- Pro-Israel writers recast colonial encounter as culture clash to void Palestinian claims (similarity 0.86)
- Culture clash narratives frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a battle between modernity and stasis. (similarity 0.81)