An Army Like No Other: How the Israeli Defence Forces Made a Nation by Haim Bresheeth Žabner provides a thought-provoking and comprehensive exploration of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and its profound impact on Israeli society and the nation’s history. As the child of Holocaust survivors who settled in Palestine in 1948, Žabner offers a unique perspective.

Initially embracing the Zionist agenda, Žabner became disillusioned during his conscription into the IDF in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Serving in the Golan Heights, he witnessed disturbing war crimes committed by the IDF.

The book delves into Israel’s formation, the establishment of the IDF, and the role of Zionist settler-colonialism and violence in asserting and expanding Israeli power. Žabner’s historical analysis highlights the foundation of Zionism on anti-Semitism and explores how Israeli society accepts the Zionist narrative through crucial roles played by schools, communities, and the IDF.

The book traces the origins of the IDF, connecting it with Zionist paramilitaries like the Palmach and Haganah, and emphasizes how impunity for actions like the Nakba became ingrained in Israeli settler-colonial society. Žabner underscores the integral role of military violence in any settler-colonial project, arguing that it is the linchpin without which such endeavors would be impossible.

However, it’s important to note that the book is not a military history but rather a social history of Israel through the IDF. The author identifies the IDF as the most constant institution in Israel’s 75-year history, receiving 96 percent of Jewish support.

Expanding on this premise, Žabner argues that the IDF is not only a formidable fighting force but also the core ideological, political, and financial institution of Israeli society. The IDF’s influence permeates every facet of Israeli life, emerging as one of the nation’s most profitable and influential industries. It is the institutionalized legacy envisioned by Ben-Gurion to create the Israeli nation and society, as he believed ‘the whole nation is the army.’

The book also emphasizes the racialized experiences of Palestinian citizens of Israel, who have historically faced inequalities and disenfranchisement, including living under a military government for the first two decades of Israel’s existence.

Challenging Israeli claims of being “Jewish and democratic,” Žabner argues that Israel has become a fully-fledged apartheid state, both in practice and de jure, drawing parallels with South Africa. The book examines how racist legislation has institutionalized legal apartheid, reinforcing the antidemocratic nature of the settler-colonial regime.

Adding a left-wing perspective, Žabner critiques liberal Zionists who argue for a “humane” or “liberal” Zionism, contending that such positions deny the inherent inequalities within the Zionist project. He challenges the narrative of equality propagated by liberal Zionism, asserting that it serves as a cover for actions violating human rights and international law.

In conclusion, An Army Like No Other provides an eye-opening examination of the IDF and its role in shaping Israel. Žabner’s work challenges conventional assumptions about true peace in the region, calling for a reevaluation of these notions from an informed historical perspective.

Haim Bresheeth Žabner, An Army Like No Other: How the Israeli Defence Forces Made a Nation (Verso, 2020) ISBN: 9781788737845, 448 pages

The decision by the African Union Commission, on July 22, to grant Israel observer status membership in the AU was the culmination of years of relentless Israeli efforts aimed at co-opting Africa’s largest political institution. Why is Israel so keen on penetrating Africa? What made African countries finally succumb to Israeli pressure and lobbying?

To answer the above questions, one has to appreciate the new Great Game under way in many parts of the world, especially in Africa, which has always been significant to Israel’s geopolitical designs. Starting in the early 1950s to the mid-70s, Israel’s Africa network was in constant expansion. The 1973 war, however, brought that affinity to an abrupt end.

What Changed Africa

Ghana, in West Africa, officially recognized Israel in 1956, just eight years after Israel was established atop the ruins of historic Palestine. What seemed like an odd decision at the time – considering Africa’s history of western colonialism and anti-colonial struggles – ushered in a new era of African-Israeli relations. By the early 1970s, Israel had established a strong position for itself on the continent. On the eve of the 1973 Israeli-Arab war, Israel had full diplomatic ties with 33 African countries.

“The October War”, however, presented many African countries with a stark choice: siding with Israel – a country born out of Western colonial intrigues – or the Arabs, who are connected to Africa through historical, political, economic, cultural and religious bonds. Most African countries opted for the latter choice. One after the other, African countries began severing their ties with Israel. Soon enough, no African state, other than Malawi, Lesotho and Swaziland, had official diplomatic relations with Israel.

Then, the continent’s solidarity with Palestine went even further. The Organization of African Unity – the precursor to the African Union – in its 12th ordinary session held in Kampala in 1975, became the first international body to recognize, on a large scale, the inherent racism in Israel’s Zionist ideology by adopting Resolution 77 (XII). This very Resolution was cited in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted in November of that same year, which determined that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”. Resolution 3379 remained in effect until it was revoked by the Assembly under intense American pressure in 1991.

Since Israel remained committed to that same Zionist, racist ideology of yesteryears, the only rational conclusion is that it was Africa, not Israel, that changed. But why?

Since Israel remained committed to that same Zionist, racist ideology of yesteryears, the only rational conclusion is that it was Africa, not Israel, that changed. But why?

First, the collapse of the Soviet Union. That seismic event resulted in the subsequent isolation of pro-Soviet African countries which, for years, stood as the vanguard against American, Western and, by extension, Israeli expansionism and interests on the continent.

Tellingly, Washington does not only serve as Israel’s benefactor in Palestine and the Middle East, but worldwide as well, and Israel is willing to go to any length to exploit the massive leverage it holds over the US government. This stifling paradigm, which has been at work in the Middle East region for decades, is also at work throughout Africa. For example, last year the US administration agreed to remove Sudan from the state-sponsored terror list in exchange for Khartoum’s normalization with Israel.

In truth, Sudan is not the only country that understands – and is willing to engage in – this kind of ‘pragmatic’ – read under-handed – political barter. Others also have learned to play the game well. Indeed, by voting to admit Israel to the AU, some African governments expect a return on their political investment, a return that will be exacted from Washington, not from Tel Aviv.

Unfortunately, albeit expectedly, as Africa’s normalization with Israel grew, Palestine became increasingly a marginal issue on the agendas of many African governments, who are far more invested in realpolitik – or simply remaining on Washington’s good side – than honoring the anti-colonial legacies of their nations.

Netanyahu the Conqueror

However, there was another driving force behind Israel’s decision to ‘return’ to Africa than just political opportunism and economic exploitation. Successive events have made it clear that Washington is retreating from the Middle East and that the region was no longer a top priority for the dwindling American empire. For the US, China’s decisive moves to assert its power and influence in Asia are largely responsible for the American rethink.

The 2012 US withdrawal from Iraq, its ‘leadership from behind’ in Libya, its non-committal policy in Syria, among others, were all indicators pointing to the inescapable fact that Israel could no longer count on the blind and unconditional American support alone. Thus, the constant search for new allies began.

For the first time in decades, Israel began confronting its prolonged isolation at the UNGA. America’s vetoes at the UN Security Council may have shielded Israel from accountability to its military occupation and war crimes; but US vetoes were hardly enough to give Israel the legitimacy that it has long coveted. In a recent conversation with former UN human rights envoy, Richard Falk, the Princeton Professor Emeritus explained to me that, despite Israel’s ability to escape punishment, it is rapidly losing what he refers to as the ‘legitimacy war’.

Palestine, according to Falk, continues to win that war, one that can only be achieved through real, grassroots global solidarity. It is precisely this factor that explains Israel’s keen interest in transferring the battlefield to Africa and other parts of the Global South.

On July 5, 2016, then Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, kick-started Israel’s own ‘scramble for Africa’ with a visit to Kenya, which was described as historic by the Israeli media. Indeed, it was the first visit by an Israeli prime minister in the last 50 years. After spending some time in Nairobi, where he attended the Israel-Kenya Economic Forum alongside hundreds of Israeli and Kenyan business leaders, he moved on to Uganda, where he met leaders from other African countries including South Sudan, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Tanzania. Within the same month, Israel announced the renewal of diplomatic ties between Israel and Guinea.

The new Israeli strategy flowed from there. More high-level visits to Africa and triumphant announcements about new joint economic ventures and investments followed. In June 2017, Netanyahu took part in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), held in the Liberian capital, Monrovia. There, he went as far as rewriting history.

“Africa and Israel share a natural affinity,” Netanyahu claimed in his speech. “We have, in many ways, similar histories. Your nations toiled under foreign rule. You experienced horrific wars and slaughters. This is very much our history.” With these words, Netanyahu attempted, not only to hide Israel’s colonial intentions, but also rob Palestinians of their own history.

Moreover, the Israeli leader had hoped to crown his political and economic achievements with the Israel-Africa Summit, an event that was meant to officially welcome Israel, not to a specific African regional alliance, but to the whole of Africa. However, in September 2017, the organizers of the event decided to indefinitely postpone it, after it was confirmed to be taking place in Lome, capital of Togo, on October 23-27 of that same year. What was seen by Israeli leaders as a temporary setback was the result of intense, behind-the-scenes lobbying of several African and Arab countries, including South Africa and Algeria.

Settler-colonialism is violent in nature and is built on the negation of natives’ basic rights and their very existence. Algeria under French rule and Palestine under Israeli rule are no exception to such colonial violence. In an attempt to push them to surrender to the will of their colonial masters, the use of excessive and brutal violence against settler-colonized people in both countries has been well documented. But history has proven that this tactic does not work, and it backfires at a high human cost.

On May 8, 1945, France killed 45,000 Algerians who took to the streets to demand independence from France following the victory of the Allied Forces over Nazi Germany. Today, the world is watching the ongoing violent displacement of Palestinians in Jerusalem and elsewhere in silence, without doing more than condemning it.

The proven violent nature of settler-colonialism often produces violent reactions from the colonized people. This is true about the National Liberation Front (NLF) in Algeria, and all Palestinian factions and groups such as Fatah, Hamas, and the PFLP. The NLF in Algeria engaged in a campaign of revolutionary violence that was extraordinary in nature and included, among many other methods of torture, cutting the throats of French soldiers captured by the group “like sheep.” The same applies to the Palestinians who have used various violent means including bombings and kidnappings.

In the cases of both Palestine and Algeria, the state violence against colonized people has excessively surpassed the violence used by non-state Algerian and Palestinian actors. To give an example, France’s use of violence against Algerians was remarkably brutal with hundreds of NLF members being killed under torture – in some cases, they were thrown from high places and announced to have committed suicide. In its most recent confrontation with the Palestinians in May 2021, Israel killed more than 250 Palestinians in 11 days compared to 13 Israelis killed by Palestinian fire.

The use of violence by non-state actors in Algeria and Palestine does not negate their attempts to end colonial rule by dialogue. The NLF was ready to engage in dialogue with the French authorities, but France, which called Algeria “French Algeria,” refused any form of dialogue with the NLF. Although many Palestinian factions consider armed resistance central to their struggle with Israel, factions such as Fatah and Hamas have in many instances engaged in non-violent resistance against Israel, which was also met with violence.

Just like in Palestine, in Algeria, France responded with full force to Algerian non-violent actions, including the 1956 strike, as it viewed any Algerian action against its rule an issue of law and order, negating Algerians’ desire for independence.

This is also true for the protests of the first Palestinian Intifada, which started as non-violent and turned violent as Israel used excessive force against protesters, including breaking their bones. The Great March of Return in the Gaza Strip is another example of how Israel responded to Palestinian engagement in non-violent resistance, with Israeli snipers killing 214 Palestinian, and injuring 36,000 others, while many were intentionally shot in the knee to be maimed. Just like in Palestine, in Algeria, France responded with full force to Algerian non-violent actions, including the 1956 strike, as it viewed any Algerian action against its rule an issue of law and order, negating Algerians’ desire for independence.

The refusal of state actors to use violence can’t win moral ground as long as it permits the use of violence against colonized people. Israel’s creation was accompanied by a surge of violence not just against the Palestinians, who were made refugees, but also against the colonial British forces in Palestine.

In addition to dozens of documented massacres against Palestinians, Zionist militias have used car bombings and assassinations both against Palestinian and British targets, forcing some 750,000 Palestinians out of their towns and villages. The same applies to France, which today glorifies the French (violent) resistance to the Nazi occupation of France during World War II. Glorifying the use of arms by states and denying its use by the very people they occupy deprives these states, namely France and Israel, of the moral high ground.

Today, the use of violence is condemned by most world governments, and non-state actors engaged in violence are often isolated and placed under pressure. The anti-colonial movement of the 1950s and 1960s no longer exists. Today, the challenge for the Palestinians is to be committed to their rights and exert all needed efforts to obtain these rights without being internationally isolated because of their use of violence.

Committing to non-violence as a strategy is one way to achieve this and it proved effective during the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. and the Salt March in India staged by Mahatma Gandhi. However, whether this will be the case in Palestine is debatable. So far, the use of violence and non-violence alike have not led to their liberation.

The morality of the use of violence in (settler-) colonial contexts should not be questioned in isolation from the state violence used against the colonized people. Settler-colonialism is violent in nature – including that of France and Israel – in the same way the response to it is also violent. Violence creates a vicious cycle and the way to end it passes through ending colonial violence, which creates this cycle in the first place by denying people their national and political rights.

It is no coincidence that today Palestinians and Algerians can relate to each other based on their experiences under colonial rules – similar experiences produce a sense of solidarity emanating from relating to the experience of others. For this reason, the Palestinian flag is a familiar object at Algerian protests and the Algerian flag is an equally familiar object at Palestinian protests against the ongoing Israeli colonization.

As the 40th anniversary of the death of Bobby Sands approaches, Politics Today interviewed Danny Morrison, a journalist, author, a spokesperson for the IRA hunger strikers and Secretary of the Bobby Sands* Trust on the history and progress of the decades-long struggle in the North of Ireland, and the legacy of Bobby Sands of the Irish hunger strikes of 1981.

Q. The Irish struggle in Northern Ireland… You have been a part of the struggle. Could you please tell us about that?

Sure. I was born in West Belfast where I still live. I became involved in the struggle in the 1960s. I have been a political activist from my mid-teens when I became interested in the Vietnam War anti-war movement and then the civil rights movement in North America. That movement, together with the student’s movement in Europe in May 1968, had an influential effect on the nationalist community in the North of Ireland.

We do not refer to it as ‘Northern Ireland’ because we do not recognize its legitimacy, as we were the victims of partition when the British divided our country and handed over a significant portion of the north. When the British army was reintroduced into the North of Ireland in 1969, it became our main oppressors. Eventually, an armed struggle developed, and not for the first time in the history of our subjugated country.

Q. So, you mean that the struggle has already been there.

Yes, in fact, Irish people have been rising against British rule for centuries. From 1798 onwards, six major uprisings took place, including the 1916 Rising in Dublin when the Irish Republic was declared. The leaders of that rebellion were executed by the British, and afterwards, a guerrilla war began, towards the end of which the British government divided the Irish people and put a border around six counties in the north-east which they handed these over to the pro-British Unionists, descendants of those who had been part of the sixteenth-century colonization.

Although there were legislative and legal protections for the minority initially, the Unionists quickly took over and so we ended up being an artificial minority in this partitioned part of our country. Our people were forced to emigrate in large numbers to America and other places. Very few houses were built or industries located in the poor areas where we lived.

We were being attacked, pulled out of our houses, killed by the police, which led many to believe that passive resistance was no longer working, and so people turned to the IRA, which was a traditional militarist organization with its roots going right back into Irish history.

And every time we protested; we were beaten into the ground by the paramilitary Unionists. We were being attacked, pulled out of our houses, killed by the police, which led many to believe that passive resistance was no longer working, and so people turned to the IRA, which was a traditional militarist organization with its roots going right back into Irish history.

Q. What exactly has prompted your active involvement in the Irish struggle in the late 1960s?

Although I was a student myself, I became actively involved shortly after the introduction of internment without trial by the British. I had earlier participated in setting up Radio Free Belfast in August 1969, which was a pirate radio station that broadcasted what the BBC did not. In my late teens I was interned in the Long Kesh prison camp. When I come out of the prison on one of those occasional ceasefires offered by the IRA in 1975, not by the British government nor the Unionist government, I was asked to edit the Republican News, which was the weekly Northern paper of Sinn Féin**, so, I jumped into publicity although I have never had any experience. I wrote some papers for Sinn Féin. I made their election broadcasts. Later, I became the national director of publicity for Sinn Féin.

Q. What was the hunger strike of 1981 about?

We need to highlight that the first IRA hunger striker did not die in 1981 but in 1917. Thomas Ashe, who had taken part in the 1916 Rising, insisted on being treated not as a criminal wearing a criminal uniform and being enforced to do onerous penal and humiliating work, but as a Prisoner of War. So, there has always been this tradition of hunger-striking if an injustice is done against the prisoners.

The British government was well aware that Irish republicans would not accept the criminal status. They knew that when they imposed these conditions in 1976, stripping prisoners naked and trying to force them to wear a British criminal uniform. In a previous hunger strike in 1972 the British government had agreed to recognize them as political prisoners. But instead of using that terminology, it said it would recognize them as “special category prisoners”.

When Kieran Nugent was arrested, they told him to take off his clothes and wear the criminal uniform and he refused. He was then beaten and thrown into a cell, and the only thing in the cell was a blanket. So, Nugent put the blanket to wrap himself, and that is how he served out his sentence.

Under special category, prisoners were allowed to wear their own clothes, look after their own cages, make their own beds, do their own laundry, and there was relative peace in jail and there was also strength in numbers. Of course, the British army continued to raid the Cages every few weeks and assault prisoners, but the IRA, at this stage, never carried out any retaliatory attacks on prison officers.

After a few years the British government realized that the world viewed these prisoners in Long Kesh, who had POW status, as a legitimate guerrilla army. So, they decided to renege on the earlier deal and impose a policy of criminalization of the IRA. The IRA then retaliated by shooting prison officers.

َQ. So is it this policy of criminalization that paved the way to the hunger strikes of 1981?

According to the new arrangement, if you were arrested for what was called a ‘scheduled political offense’, that is, using guerrilla warfare, armed struggle, to overthrow the government, then you would no longer have a special category. So, when Kieran Nugent was arrested, they told him to take off his clothes and wear the criminal uniform and he refused. He was then beaten and thrown into a cell, and the only thing in the cell was a blanket. So, Nugent put the blanket to wrap himself, and that is how he served out his sentence.

The prison administration escalated the punishments. When it would not allow the men out of their cells to go to the toilet without wearing the uniform, the prisoners went in their cells. When they could not get rid of the waste, they put it on the walls. Though it was a huge protest campaign, it did not shift the British so a hunger strike under the leadership of Bobby Sands was started with fairly simple demands. The right to wear their own clothes, to be given visits, to write and receive letters and so on. Eventually, 10 young men died over a period of seven months, starting with Bobby Sands on May 5, 1981.

Q. What impact did the hunger strike in which Bobby Sands died have both domestically and internationally?

We know that especially during the 1981 hunger strike, there were huge protests all over the world, including in the Basque Country, in Paris, in Amsterdam, and Tehran. In solidarity with our struggle, the street where the British Embassy was Tehran, Winston Churchill Avenue, was renamed Bobby Sands Street, and it remains with that name to this day. International solidarity has been very important to us at times in our struggle, so, we know the value of it, and we profess it, and we act on it.

We care about what is going on in the world to other people and stand in solidarity with them. As editor of Republican News I dedicated pages to the struggle of the African National Congress (ANC), which worked to help end apartheid in South Africa. Sinn Féin has recently had a motion passed in the Irish parliament, to recognize the state of Palestine.

There was also solidarity between the Irish Republican movement and those in Central America, fighting against the CIA-sponsored gangs and murder squads. Solidarity is extremely important because it means that you are not on your own. It means that someone will raise their voice on your behalf, even if you are behind barbed wire or wrapped up in blanket in a prison cell and will be campaigning for your freedom.

When the African struggle for liberation and the fight to end colonialism is discussed, Frantz Fanon, Chinua Achebe, and the names of a few other intellectuals and figures surface. Though widely known today among the elites and intellectuals, and unfortunately less known by the wider public outside of Africa, Amílcar Cabral is a symbolic name and a leading figure in the Pan-African struggle to self-determination and ending colonialism.

Amílcar Cabral was an agricultural engineer who became a revolutionary and theoretician. He was born to a family from Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde on September 12, 1924. Cabral dedicated his short but productive life to the liberation of African nations from colonialism, be it in his home country of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde, Angola, Algeria, or Liberia.

Cabral was one of the figures of a Pan-African movement that called for the independence of Portuguese colonies in Africa. In 1973, as he started preparation for the independence of Guinea-Bissau, Cabral was assassinated by his rival Inocêncio Kani, giving his life to the cause. Despite his short life, Cabral left behind a great legacy of books and writings that inspired generations of Africans to attain their independence from colonial powers.

Starting the Struggle in Portugal 

In 1956, Cabral was one of the founders of the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGS). He headed the PAIGS in his own country against Portuguese colonialism, leading his people to one of the most successful anti-colonialism movements on the African continent and eventually becoming the de facto leader of today’s Guinea-Bissau.

The amount and depth of Cabral’s writings speak volumes to his legacy and impact on other liberation movements in Africa. He is also a major contributor to the national liberation theory through his writings such as Unity and Struggle: Speeches and Writings of Amilcar Cabral, Return to the Source: Selected Speeches of Amílcar Cabral, and The Weapon of Theory. In his writings, Cabral provides an understanding of the liberation process, its impact, and the political dynamics of liberation movements in conjunction with their aspirations and objectives.

Taking Up Arms

Cabral unapologetically defended the use of arms and revolutionary violence against foreign colonial powers to attain independence, noting that speeches, insults, and shouting will not liberate people, but rather what is necessary is taking up arms and engaging in an armed struggle for liberation. “For us, the worst or best we can say about imperialism, whatever its form, is to take up arms and struggle. This is what we are doing and will go on doing until foreign domination has been totally eliminated from our African countries,” he wrote.

A New Man and a New Woman

For Cabral, national liberation was only the first step in a long process that should lead to shaping what he dubbed as “a new man and a new woman,” stressing that such a process is a complicated one that goes beyond the symbolic politics of independence and celebrations. Using his own words, national salvation and liberation “must put an end not only to suffering but also to backwardness.” Africans, he added, should “return to the source,” in order to reinvent their culture and heritage and face foreign domination and colonialism.

Cabral argued that it is critical to understand history, because it allows people to comprehend how colonial borders were drawn, and thus strengthens their sense of Africanism.

Cabral understood well that convincing Africans to fight colonialization was a challenge in itself, but he also noted that people are united by the brutality of colonization which increases their awareness of their plight. This was the case when the Portuguese responded with brutal force to the Pidjiguiti strike in Guinea-Bissau, awakening the national sentiments of locals and the need for self-determination just as Cabral envisaged.

But for this to happen, Cabral argued that it is critical to understand history, because it allows people to comprehend how colonial borders were drawn, and thus strengthens their sense of Africanism. This knowledge of history will also help create what Cabral called a “nation-class” that is capable of confronting foreign domination and bringing it to an end. He believed that an educated social class is able to realize this noble goal and that there is no need for all African people to initiate this process.

In the memory of his people and fellow Africans, Amílcar Cabral is known as the founder of the liberation movement that won Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde their long-awaited independence. Despite the rapid and tragic end of his life at a young age, Cabral was able to mobilize the people of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde to put an end to the Portuguese domination of their territories. His legacy, however, besides his country, mostly lives on in the elites outside Africa who study his many writings.

Cabral’s Legacy

Being an international figure who participated in conferences across the globe, including in Cuba and Algeria, that called for the liberation and self-determination of the African people, Cabral deserves to have his legacy taught and studied. This is especially true for the nations that still live under a colonial regime in the 21st century such as the Palestinians.

Although tactics could vary from one place to another, including the use of arms, there is no doubt that the legacy of Amílcar Cabral has inspired and continues to inspire generations of Africans, as well as other peoples, to win their sovereignty and intellectual independence back.

Amílcar Cabral is an example of an organic intellectual who was educated as an agriculture engineer but chose to sacrifice his own life for the sake of his people and all Africans. Despite his tragic passing, Cabral left behind a great legacy of books and thoughts that inspire generations of Africans today many of whom are still waiting to realize their full liberation from colonialism and foreign domination.

And as Cabral himself understood it, today, as in the past,  the responsibility lies in the elites to educate the masses on the importance of unity and ideology for their liberation to be realized. The ideal can be attained: Africans and all other peoples can live in dignity. And Cabral can truly rest in peace.

A substantial part of my research investigates the postcolonial history of Algeria. During the data collection process, I had the chance to interview an ex-Algerian mujahid who fought in the Algerian War of Independence and we had the chance to extensively discuss the colonial history of France in Algeria.

The violence and brutality of French colonialism in Algeria was horrendous and undeniable. The vast majority of families have been traumatized by the cruel settlement of France in Algeria, including my own. My paternal grandfather, along with his two brothers, assisted the mujahideen and played a part in the resistance during the seven-year War of Independence. My grandfather was captured by French soldiers when my father was six years old. He was detained and tortured for days until his lungs collapsed and he died.

He was hanged upside down and immersed into a container of ice-cold water repeatedly in order to confess and provide leads on the hideouts of the mujahideen – but he never did! It cost him his life and traumatized my father to this day; however, his legacy will remain for decades to come.

There has been an ongoing discussion about France’s duty and responsibility to provide an official apology for its colonial history and war crimes, which has been met with ignorance and denial. Algeria was the only French colony to be considered a French territory. It was largely exploited and “…was considered ‘the door’ to the Third World and the ‘jewel’ of France’s territorial possessions.”

It wasn’t until 2011 that an Algerian scholar living in France, Ali Farid Belkadi, discovered that the Museum of Mankind in Paris holds skulls of Algerian martyrs and that some of them could be identified. Although his discovery didn’t receive support, Ibrahim Senouci, a professor of physics at the University of Cergy-Pontoise, took a different approach and launched an online petition gathering approximately 30,000 signatures to pressure the French authorities to return the remains of the Algerian martyrs as agreed on the the Évian Accords.

In 2016, France admitted that they are in possession of 18,000 skulls, 500 of which were identified including 36 leaders of the Algerian resistance who were beheaded in the mid-19th century.

The Museum of Mankind was established in 1937 by Paul Rivet. The skulls were taken back to France between 1800 and 1881 as trophies of the slaughter in Algeria and kept in boxes to preserve them.

In 2016, France admitted that they are in possession of 18,000 skulls, 500 of which were identified including 36 leaders of the Algerian resistance who were beheaded in the mid-19th century. France claims that the skulls have been kept for anthropological and scientific purposes.

In 2017, French President Emanuel Macron stated, “I have agreed to a request expressed by the Algerian public authorities several times regarding the return of the skulls of the Algerian resistance fighters, and have taken a decision to initiate the process.”

In the same year, which marked the launching of his presidential campaign, in one of his speeches, Macron declared that the French colonial history in Algeria represents “crimes against humanity.” However, the statement was not followed by an apology.

In July 2020, on the eve of July 5, Algerian Independence Day, 24 skulls of Algerian mujahideen who fought against the French colonial rule and played a crucial role in the resistance were brought back from the museum in Paris.

For over 170 years, the remains of these Algerian national heroes had been deprived their right of burial in the country for which they shed their blood.

The skulls belong to prominent resistance fighters, including Muhammad Lajd bin Abd al-Malik, known as Sherif “Boubaghla”; the “mummified head” of the Algerian officer Issa Hammadi; Sheikh Bouziane, leader of the Za’tasha Resistance in Biskra; Musa al-Darqawi; Si Mukhtar bin Qwaider al-Titrawi; and Muhammad bin Allal bin Mubarak who fought side by side with El Emir Abdelkader, the leader of the first resistance against French colonialism and founder of the modern Algerian state.

According to the writer and political analyst Fayez Abu Shamala, French crimes will not be easily forgiven. He asks, “Will the Algerian people forgive the murderers for their deeds? Will they forget?”

It is believed that this French compromise aims to silence the Algerian public opinion and polish the French image among the Algerian population.

On January 20, 2021, Macron received a report from the French historian Benjamin Stora about the French colonial era in Algeria (1830-1962). The report generated distress, criticism, and anger in the Algerian public opinion, and was considered to be manipulative and biased in terms of providing an accurate and truthful version of French colonial history in the country.

France announced the establishment of a “memories and truth” commission to review the country’s colonial history in Algeria. However, the report ruled out the issue of an official apology for France’s crimes.

Moreover, although the report proposes ways to promote healing, it provides data related to the 1954-1962 period and puts much less stress on the events that took place in the period before the  War of Independence (1830-1954). More importantly, the report is short of advising in favor of a proper and official apology for the atrocious crimes that France committed against the Algerian people for decades.