Skip to content

4.1 Locating Slow Erasure in the Frame of Genocide

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor” – Desmond Tutu

4.1.1 Slow erasure and its place in theory

I begin this discussion with genocide because, in my view, it provides a foundational lens for understanding the persistent and systemic forms of settler-colonial violence against Indigenous peoples. By foregrounding the concept of genocide, I underscore that these colonial harms are not isolated incidents but rather part of a protracted, evolving structure that profoundly shapes Indigenous lived experiences. This framework alerts us to the ways in which nominally “benign” state practices can still produce destructive outcomes, highlighting how the slow-moving processes of, for instance, dispossession, forced or denied movement, and cultural suppression are embedded within the broader settler-colonial agenda.

During the drafting of the Genocide Convention, Raphael Lemkin’s push to include cultural genocide was directly tied to his critique of European colonialism (Moses 2010; Wakeham 2022)1 2. As (Wakeham 2022)2 notes, Western nation-states such as Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and New Zealand lobbied to restrict the Convention’s focus to physical mass killings, thus shielding their own colonial policies from scrutiny (Wakeham 2022; Bachman 2019)2 3. The United States was especially vocal in opposing the inclusion of cultural genocide, insisting that the new international crime be confined to overt violence against individuals (Abtahi and Webb 2009, 1061)4. Jean-Paul Sartre also highlights how colonial economies shaped patterns of violence by making colonised people economically indispensable, thus preventing their total physical destruction while still subjecting them to cultural annihilation (quoted in Kuper 1982, 44)5. According to (Wakeham 2022)2, it is precisely within the framework of settler-colonialism that genocidal acts become protracted, often enacted through slow-moving processes of dispossession, suppression of languages, forced assimilation, and systemic denial of rights over time.

(Wakeham 2022)2 further argues that viewing settler-colonial genocide as an ongoing structure rather than a singular event helps reveal how genocidal practices can persist even when they are neither overtly violent nor clearly time-bound. This perspective challenges the tendency to treat genocide as a purely episodic massacre, showing instead how policies, some appearing benevolent, can still enable destructive outcomes when examined within the broader, long-term colonial agenda. (Wolfe 2006)6’s notion that “invasion is a structure, not an event” underscores how settler-colonialism maintains continuous, compounding forms of harm. Although there may be moments of relative abeyance, the fundamental logic of eliminating Indigenous peoples, cultures, and identities remains embedded within the state’s policies and society at large (Wakeham 2022; Moses 2004, 34)2 7.

(Wakeham 2022)2 argues that settler-colonial societies have used tactics like obfuscation, wilful blindness, and racist narratives to disguise and facilitate prolonged genocidal processes against Indigenous peoples. These tactics have protected these societies from being accused of genocide despite their self-proclaimed status as liberal democracies. Wakeham calls for moving beyond rigid legal definitions of genocide to recognise the complex and evolving nature of genocidal processes and posits that settler-colonial policies and practices do not cause harm in isolation but are interconnected and cumulative, creating a web of harm that intensifies over time. Furthermore, Wakeham introduces a conceptual framework to trace these interconnected genocidal policies and processes, emphasising that their full impact is realised through a slow, ongoing form of violence within the persistent structure of invasion (Wakeham 2022)2.

It is exactly within this setting of genocide by attrition that the theoretical concept of slow erasure, which is central to analytical chapters of my work, is located. Slow erasure refers to the wide range of technologies and strategies employed by state sovereignty—the settler-colonial project—to eradicate Indigenous populations.

The concept of slow erasure builds upon and extends a growing body of scholarship that interrogates the temporality and affective dimensions of protracted harm. Rob Nixon’s (2011) influential notion of slow violence describes forms of attritional violence that are “incremental and accretive,” unfolding gradually and often invisibly, with effects that are both delayed and dispersed. Such a framework is crucial for understanding the colonial condition in Palestine, where violence is often normalised and routinised through everyday bureaucratic and infrastructural controls. Yet, while Nixon’s formulation captures the temporality of harm, it does not fully account for the deliberate, structural intent of settler-colonial governance or the epistemic dimensions of erasure.

Recent scholarship in and on Palestine has deepened this conversation. Joronen’s (Joronen 2021)8 idea of slow wounding explores how colonial harm manifests through ordinary spaces and gestures, creating accumulative injuries that sustain vulnerability and precarity. Bhungalia’s concept of asphyxiatory violence highlights how Israeli state tactics of designation, surveillance, and financial strangulation enact a “quiet, grating war” (Bhungalia 2024, 133)9 through constriction rather than overt destruction, progressively suffocating the institutions that sustain Palestinian civil life. Griffiths’s (Griffths 2022)10 formulation of geontological violence extends the analysis to the molecular and ecological registers of war, demonstrating how militarism seeps into the very materialities of life and nonlife.

While slow erasure draws on the temporal and cumulative qualities of slow violence and its cognate frameworks, feminist and antiracist scholars caution against universalising what counts as “slow” or “unseen.” Caitlin Cahill and Rachel Pain (Caitlin and Pain 2019)11 remind us that violence is never slow for those whose lives are degraded by it; its pace and visibility depend on positionality, privilege, and the politics of witnessing. From this perspective, slowness itself can become a function of power—a way of obscuring the immediacy and severity of ongoing harm from those not directly affected. In the context of Palestine, the deterioration of living conditions, the fragmentation of life-worlds, and the tightening of spatial control are not experienced as gradual abstractions but as continuous and often abrupt assaults. Recognising this multiplicity of temporalities, slow erasure is not meant to suggest that violence is imperceptible or distant; rather, it emphasises how the protracted and bureaucratised nature of settler-colonial governance renders genocide by attrition appear incremental and therefore more easily rationalised or denied. The slowness does not mask passivity—it is itself a tactic that sustains the settler-colonial project through endurance, deferral, and accumulation.

Slow erasure enters this conversation by locating these dispersed modalities of harm within the genocidal logic of attrition. It draws attention to the ways settler-colonial power systematically dismantles identity, agency, and episteme, extending beyond the seizure of land to the elimination of the very conditions of Indigenous knowledge, memory, and futurity. In this sense, it bridges the material and epistemic dimensions of protracted violence, revealing how the settler state seeks not only to control life but to extinguish the possibility of living otherwise.

At the heart of slow erasure is the Indigenous body, central, as it encapsulates Indigenous identity, exhibits various forms of agency that pose a threat to the settler-colonial agenda, and serves as the custodian of Indigenous knowledge systems.

I conceptualise slow erasure as a structure of settler-colonial governance grounded in genocide by attrition, where intent is not reducible to individual decision-making but embedded in the institutional logics, routines, and rationalities of the state. This form of intent is structural rather than personal; it resides in the durability and direction of policies, doctrines of land control, demographic engineering, and administrative regimes that cumulatively work toward Indigenous elimination. While the lived effects of dispossession, enclosure, displacement, and epistemic targeting are analytically indispensable, these patterned and enduring effects reveal the structural intent that underpins the settler-colonial project: a sustained effort to diminish Palestinian presence, foreclose political agency, and assert uninterrupted sovereignty over Indigenous land and life.

Retaining the terminology of intent therefore reflects not only a theoretical position but also an ethical and political commitment to resisting the depoliticisation and normalisation of colonial violence. Naming structural intent makes visible the coherent project that links seemingly disparate practices and prevents the erasure of accountability through technocratic language or claims of administrative neutrality. It recognises that the everyday harms documented throughout this thesis are not accidental by-products of governance but manifestations of a state structure oriented toward elimination. In this sense, foregrounding intent is part of an ethical obligation to contest the narratives that obscure the genocidal logics of settler-colonial rule and to affirm the lived realities of those subjected to them.

4.1.2 Identity, agency & episteme

As discussed in Chapter Three, settler-colonial narratives rely on ideas like terra nullius (nobody’s land) or other doctrines that treat land as if it were uninhabited or underutilised prior to settler arrival. For Israel, the continued presence of Palestinians, and their distinct identities, contradicts these myths. Indigenous identities testify to rich cultures, governance systems, and land relationships that predate, and thus contest, settler claims to rightful ownership. Settler states like Israel legitimise themselves through legal frameworks and national myths.

In the following part I will outline how I use identity, episteme and agency throughout this work.

Identity

Indigenous identity can be understood in multiple ways, reflecting different disciplinary and cultural perspectives. In this thesis, I adopt the view that Indigenous identity is primarily a social and relational construct encompassing a complex and multifaceted set of characteristics, affiliations, and traditions rooted in Indigenous peoples’ historical and cultural heritage. It includes both an individual and collective sense of belonging to a community that shares a connection to their ancestral territories, cultural practices, languages, and social systems. As (Snipp 1989, 27)12 writes, “the boundaries of the [Indigenous] population are best defined in social terms.” Other scholars have discussed identity through ancestry or blood quantum (TallBear 2013, offering a critique of blood quantum)13, as well as through performative theories that see identity as enacted through repeated practices, speech, and recognition (Butler 2006; Phelan 1993)14 15.

While these perspectives each offer important insights, particularly in legal or activist contexts where identity must be asserted or contested, I align with scholars such as (Alfred and Corntassel 2005)16 who explore Indigenous identity’s nuanced and complex nature within the context of ongoing colonialism. This positioning foregrounds the lived realities of Indigenous peoples, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of identity that is neither fixed nor reducible to external definitions. The authors present a compelling argument that Indigenous identity is not merely a static or inherent trait but is actively constructed and shaped by the political realities and struggles against the colonial forces that seek to undermine and erase Indigenous cultures, traditions, and existences.

The core of their argument lies in the shared experiences of Indigenous peoples across the globe, who, despite their diverse cultural backgrounds and socio-political circumstances, face common challenges. These challenges stem from the relentless efforts of colonising states, descendants of European and other imperial powers, to not only physically dominate but also culturally and politically assimilate Indigenous populations. This form of contemporary colonialism seeks to erase Indigenous histories and geographies, aiming to absorb Indigenous identities into the state’s constitutional framework and national narrative, thereby diluting and undermining the distinctiveness of Indigenous cultural identities and self-perception. Indeed, the attempted erasure of Indigenous peoples through challenges to the authenticity of their identity is common to settler colonies (Maddison 2013)17.

(Alfred and Corntassel 2005)16 highlight a critical shift in colonial tactics from overt physical eradication to more insidious forms of cultural and historical erasure. As (Fanon 1963, 210)18 writes, “Colonialism is not satisfied merely with holding a people in its grip and emptying the native’s brain of all form and content. By a kind of perverted logic, it turns to the past of the oppressed people and distorts, disfigures, and destroys it. This work of devaluing pre-colonial history takes on a dialectical significance today.” Alfred and Corntassel assert that this strategy involves denying the existence of Indigenous peoples as distinct groups with unique heritages and rights to their lands, effectively attempting to render them invisible within the broader national identity.

The use of various forms of classification resounds with Johan Galtung’s description of “fragmentation”, which divides marginalised groups and operates by “impeding consciousness formation and mobilization”, both of which are required for “effective struggle against exploitation” (Galtung 1990, 294)19. Such efforts are not merely acts of neglect but deliberate attempts to reshape the narrative of history and geography, favouring the colonial state’s agenda. Moreover, Alfred and Corntassel caution against allowing the colonial narrative to dominate the discourse surrounding Indigenous lives. Framing Indigenous existence solely in terms of colonisation and victimhood limits Indigenous autonomy and freedom, reinforcing a power dynamic that places settler perspectives at the centre. Instead, they advocate for narratives that celebrate Indigenous resilience, sovereignty, and the rich diversity of Indigenous cultures, free from the shadow of colonial oppression (Alfred and Corntassel 2005)16.

The way identity is attacked by Israel will be explored in Chapters Five, Six, and Seven, where different tactics will be analysed, among which, for instance, dehumanisation, which in turn eases in the necropolitics (see further down this chapter). As Indigenous identity in Palestine is closely linked to agriculture, the denial of movement and access to land also becomes a tool to attack Palestinian identity. Even in death, Palestinians can and are used to control and alter Palestinian identity, as Israel kidnaps Palestinians it has murdered and holds the bodies hostages, sometimes in freezers, sometimes in unmarked graves.

Episteme

In this thesis, I use the term episteme to refer to the interrelated systems through which knowledge, meaning, memory, and understanding are produced, lived, and transmitted within Indigenous communities. Episteme encompasses embodied, affective, relational, and land-based forms of knowing as much as formal knowledge, and is therefore inseparable from Indigenous identity, agency, and continuity. Because of this, episteme becomes a primary target of settler-colonial power, which seeks not only to eliminate peoples physically but to erode the conditions that allow Indigenous knowledge, interpretation, and world-making to endure.

Indigenous identity is also intertwined with episteme, the knowledge systems embodied by Indigenous peoples. As I described in the previous chapter and reiterated above, settler-colonial logic uses mechanisms of elimination at its core. This erasure also targets Indigenous knowledge systems. Here, I do not only mean the knowledge transmitted through educational systems but a whole variety of knowledge systems that are being targeted by settler-colonial projects.

Within the frame of settler-colonialism, educational institutes apply attitudes of superiority that continue to demean the role of Indigenous knowledge and people in education (Battiste 2005, 2013)20 21. When Indigenous knowledge systems are replaced or destroyed, the transition of systems of knowledge employed over a long history of generations is destroyed (Clifford 2001)22. In agricultural communities, this can include knowledge of the land and how to cultivate local fauna and flora, but this also includes knowledge of one’s history.

This will be exemplified in the analytical chapters of this work, where I look at the situation the Bedouin are confronted with in the Naqab desert. The forceful relocation of nomadic communities not only deprives new generations from the knowledge of the land, but also forces them inside the Israeli educational system, which is deprived of anything related to the Bedouin knowledge. This is important to notice, as historical awareness can serve as a potent catalyst for political and cultural transformation, especially among subjugated groups whose oppression is anchored in historical narratives that conflict with those of settler-colonial projects.

As (Hajj 2017)23 writes, Palestinians in the diaspora pass down memories of their villages, customs, and experiences of displacement through oral histories, family narratives, and commemorations. Elders recount life in Palestine before exile, including details of family life, village organisation, and the political events that shaped their departure. Such recollections are shared in homes and community spaces, where younger generations learn about pre-1948 traditions, codes of honour, and systems of mutual support. Community organisations and gatherings provide further opportunities for these intergenerational exchanges, sustaining a shared sense of identity and continuity despite the geographical and political conditions of dispersal (Hajj 2017)23.

A resurgence of Indigenous history would not merely imply a rekindling of memories or an increase in the frequency of commemorating historical events but also an accentuation of Indigenous narrative and its articulations, though it indeed encompasses these aspects (Rouhana and Sabbagh-Khoury 2019)24.

Agency

Where identity is often shaped by the social and cultural contexts in which a person lives, including the norms, values, and expectations of their society, agency is exercised within these contexts. Agency is the capacity of individuals to define or interpret a situation and take action based on that interpretation (Musolf 2017)25. This means that exercising agency enables individuals to manifest their identities, make choices that mirror their values, beliefs, and self-concepts, and manoeuvre through social frameworks. By acting in such ways, individuals strengthen and affirm their identities.

As my research is centred around settler-colonialism and the slow erasure of the Indigenous, the agency I will focus on is related to the Palestinian resistance offered to the settler state’s slow erasure. Resistance can manifest in various ways, from organised acts of defiance to more spontaneous expressions of dissent (Oliver 2013)26.

Agency, as I use it here, is not a static or purely individual trait but something negotiated within and shaped by broader social, political, and relational contexts. Feminist scholars have advanced this understanding through the concept of relational autonomy, which argues that autonomy, and by extension, agency, is exercised through, not despite, our embeddedness in social relationships and power structures (Oshana 1998; Meyers 2005; Westlund 2009)27 28 29. The importance of agency of resistance is one that endures even the most prolonged settler-colonialism: “[I]ndigenous peoples exist, resist, and persist” (Kauanui 2016)30.

As Chapter Seven will explain, Israel also tries to destroy the agency linked to resistance through torture and imprisonment. By using a variety of tactics and by directly targeting Palestinians in captivity, the settler-colonial tries to break any kind of resistance towards its presence. However, as Chapter Eight also explores, the lived resistance of Palestinians, amongst which sumud, is not easily vanquished. (Wakeham 2022)2 concludes that this endurance should not be mistaken for a more subdued or benevolent process of colonisation in settler contexts; rather, it highlights the steadfastness of Indigenous nations that have continually refused to disappear.

References

  1. Moses, A. Dirk. 2010. "Raphael Lemkin, Culture, and the Concept of Genocide." In The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, edited by Donald Bloxham and A. Dirk Moses. Oxford University Press. ↩

  2. Wakeham, Pauline. 2022. "The Slow Violence of Settler Colonialism: Genocide, Attrition, and the Long Emergency of Invasion." Journal of Genocide Research 24 (3): 337--56. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2021.1885571. ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  3. Bachman, Jeffrey S., ed. 2019. Cultural Genocide: Law, Politics, and Global Manifestations. Routledge. ↩

  4. Abtahi, Hirad, and Philippa Webb. 2009. The Genocide Convention: The Travaux Preparatoires. Martinus Nijhoff. ↩

  5. Kuper, Leo. 1982. Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century. Yale Univ. Press. ↩

  6. Wolfe, Patrick. 2006. "Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native." Journal of Genocide Research 8 (4): 387--409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240. ↩

  7. Moses, A. Dirk, ed. 2004. Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History. Berghahn Books. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781782381693. ↩

  8. Joronen, Mikko. 2021. "Unspectacular Spaces of Slow Wounding in Palestine." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 64 (4): 995--1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12473. ↩

  9. Bhungalia, Lisa. 2024. Elastic Empire: Refashioning War Through Aid in Palestine. Stanford Studies in Middle Eastern and Islamic Societies and Cultures. Stanford University Press. ↩

  10. Griffths, Mark. 2022. "The Geontological Time-Spaces of Late Modern War." Human Geography 46 (2): 282--89. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325211064266. ↩

  11. Caitlin, Cahill, and Rachel Pain. 2019. "Representing Slow Violence and Resistance: On Hiding and Seeing." ACME 18 (5): 1054--65. ↩

  12. Snipp, C. Matthew. 1989. American Indians: The First of This Land. The Population of the United States in the 1980s. Russell Sage Foundation. ↩

  13. TallBear, Kimberly. 2013. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. University of Minnesota Press. ↩

  14. Butler, Judith. 2006. Gender Trouble. Second edition. Routledge. Routledge. ↩

  15. Phelan, Peggy. 1993. Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. Routledge. ↩

  16. Alfred, Taiaiake, and Jeff Corntassel. 2005. "Being Indigenous: Resurgences Against Contemporary Colonialism." Government and Opposition 40 (4): 597--614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2005.00166.x. ↩↩↩

  17. Maddison, Sarah. 2013. "Indigenous Identity, 'Authenticity' and the Structural Violence of Settler Colonialism." Identities 20 (3): 288--303. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2013.806267. ↩

  18. Fanon, Frantz. 1963. The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press. Grove Press. ↩

  19. Galtung, Johan. 1990. "Cultural Violence." Journal of Peace Research 27 (3): 291--305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343390027003005. ↩

  20. Battiste, Marie. 2005. "Post-Colonial Remedies for Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage." In Teaching as Activism, edited by Peggy Tripp and Linda Muzzin. McGill-Queen's University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780773572348-020. ↩

  21. Battiste, Marie. 2013. Decolonizing Education: Nourishing the Learning Spirit. Purich Publishing Limited. ↩

  22. Clifford, James. 2001. "Indigenous Articulations." The Contemporary Pacific 13 (2): 467--90. https://doi.org/10.1353/cp.2001.0046. ↩

  23. Hajj, Nadya. 2017. Protection Amid Chaos: The Creation of Property Rights in Palestinian Refugee Camps. Columbia Studies in Middle East Politics. Columbia University Press. ↩↩

  24. Rouhana, Nadim N., and Areej Sabbagh-Khoury. 2019. "Memory and the Return of History in a [Settler-colonial Context]{.nocase}: The Case of the Palestinians in Israel." Interventions 21 (4): 527--50. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2018.1558102. ↩

  25. Musolf, Gil Richard, ed. 2017. Oppression and Resistance: Structure, Agency, Transformation. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, volume 48. Emerald Publishing. ↩

  26. Oliver, Jeff. 2013. "Reflections on Resistance: Agency, Identity and Being Indigenous in Colonial British Columbia." In Historical Archaeologies of Cognition: Explorations into Faith, Hope and Charity. Equinox Publishing. ↩

  27. Oshana, Marina A. L. 1998. "Personal Autonomy and Society." Journal of Social Philosophy 29 (1): 81--102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.1998.tb00098.x. ↩

  28. Meyers, Diana Tietjens. 2005. "Decentralizing Autonomy: Five Faces of Selfhood." In Autonomy and the Challenges to Liberalism: New Essays, edited by Christman J Anderson. Cambridge University Press. ↩

  29. Westlund, Andrea C. 2009. "Rethinking Relational Autonomy." Hypatia 24 (4): 26--49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20618179. ↩

  30. Kauanui, J Kehaulani. 2016. "'A Structure, Not an Event': Settler Colonialism and Enduring Indigeneity." Lateral 5 (1). https://doi.org/10.25158/l5.1.7. ↩