Timestamp 1:30:23 through 1:35:35. Captions will help to hear the question
Interesting take by Vijay here. I think I agree with him, although not surprised to hear him say that he had pushback from others.
He was asked what he thinks of settler-colonialism as a framework and how, or whether, it can be theoretically combined with imperialism.
His answer was that settler-colonialism is not useful. In the case of Israel, he thinks it is better addressed as a supremacist ethnostate and should be dismantled on that basis. If the issue is compressed into a settler-colonial model, then the implication is that the solution is to remove all Israelis from the land, which he finds objectionable. Furthermore he doesn’t want “a world of Israels”, a world of ethnically defined nations who are entitled to resist intrusion by other groups. Vijay instead argues that the end goal needs to be plurinational states that can tolerate diversity.
Uncharacteristically bad take from Prashad here. Settler colonialism is inextricably linked to capitalist imperialism, if you don’t believe one I don’t think you can credibly believe in the other. And mistakenly conflating nations with ethnicities and doing the “where are the poor settlers supposed to go?” strawman nonsense! Unbelievable!
The Indigenous peoples of North America are not ethnically homogeneous, but they all went through shared historical experiences under settler colonialism that constitutes a distinct nation in contrast to the settler nation that established a nation-state. The nation the state was formed around does not contradict the mode of production and that it is still the bourgeoisie in the position of power.
At least he still makes the reasonable conclusion that we need to move away from the nation-state model towards a plurinational model.