See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331655364

Pacification, Capital Accumulation, and Resistance in Settler

Colonial Cities: The Cases of Jerusalem and Rio de Janeiro

Article in Latin American Perspectives · March 2019

DOI: 10.1177/0094582X19835523

CITATIONS READS

3 275

2 authors:

Bruno Huberman Reginaldo Nasser

Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP) Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
1 PUBLICATION 3 CITATIONS 27 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bruno Huberman on 22 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

835523
research-article2019
LAPXXX10.1177/0094582X19835523Latin American PerspectivesHuberman and Nasser

Pacification, Capital Accumulation, and Resistance in

Settler Colonial Cities
The Cases of Jerusalem and Rio de Janeiro
by
Bruno Huberman and Reginaldo Mattar Nasser
Translated by
Patricia Fierro

Approaching urban social conflicts in Brazil and in Palestine/Israel in terms of settler

colonial theory allows the identification of the historical racist structures involved in the
violent pacification of racialized native populations. Settler colonialism does not end with
the declaration of independence but persists in the postcolonial context through the con-
stant expropriation, extermination, confinement, and assimilation of racialized popula-
tions in the service of capitalist accumulation by settler elites. The cases of Jerusalem and
Rio de Janeiro exemplify this process.

Analisando conflitos urbanos sociais no Brasil e na Palestina com respeito à teoria de

colonização permite a identificação das estruturas racistas históricas envolvidas na paci-
ficação violenta de populações nativas. O colonialismo não termina com a declaração de
independência. Ele persiste no contexto pós-colonial por meio de constantes expropriações,
extermínio, encarceramento e assimilação das populações nativas. Tudo a serviço da acu-
mulação capitalista das elites colonizadoras. Os casos de Jerusalém e Rio de Janeiro ilus-
tram esse processo.

Keywords: Settler colonialism, Pacification, Resistance, Brazil, Palestine/Israel

The journalist and human rights activist Gizele Martins, a resident of the
Maré favela in Rio de Janeiro, wrote the following after visiting Palestinian/
Israeli territories in 2017 at the invitation of Israeli and Palestinian organiza-
tions (Martins, 2017):

Bruno Huberman is a Ph.D. candidate in international relations in the San Tiago Dantas Post-
Graduate Program of the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, São Paulo State University,
and the University of Campinas and a researcher at the National Institute of Science and
Technology for United States Studies. Reginaldo Mattar Nasser is a professor in the same post-
graduate program at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo and also a researcher at the
National Institute of Science and Technology for United States Studies. Patricia Fierro is a transla-
tor living in Quito, Ecuador. The authors are grateful for the comments of editors Ronaldo Munck,
Pablo Pozzi, and Richard Potter and for the work on this issue of the editorial collective of Latin
American Perspectives. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento
de Pessoal de Nível Superior–Brazil, Finance Code 001.

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 226, Vol. 46 No. 3, May 2019, 131–148
DOI: 10.1177/0094582X19835523
https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X19835523
© 2019 Latin American Perspectives

131
132   LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

What the residents of the favelas of Maré, located in the north zone of Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, experienced during the World Cup is not very different from
what the Palestinians undergo in their dwellings today. Just as it is there, the
militarization of life is constant and frightening. In Palestine, daily hunts are
part of their lives. Here, aerial armored vehicles also fly daily over favelas as
part of their lives. . . .

Thus there is no alternative but to resist and report each step of this interna-
tional militarization that is killing the life of a population that has been impov-
erished over time. Free Palestine! Hurray for the favela!

A few months later she launched, together with other Brazilian and interna-
tional social movements, the No Armored Cars: Favelas for Life and against
Operations campaign, demanding the end of the pacification program of mili-
tary and police occupation of the favelas (Miranda, 2017). Some of the armored
cars used by the Rio de Janeiro military police, purchased for the 2014 World
Cup and the 2016 Olympic Games, were manufactured by the Israeli company
Global Shield (Estadão, 2013).
In March 2018, the Rio de Janeiro councilwoman and activist Marielle Franco,
also a resident of the Maré favela, was shot dead in an ambush in the city center.
There were demonstrations of solidarity with Marielle all over the world, from
the European Parliament to the U.S. Black Lives Matter movement, and mes-
sages from Palestinians saying, “Together we face injustice.” The Palestinian
National Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Committee wrote the following
(BNC, 2018):

Our struggles are deeply connected. This is especially true because, both
locally and nationally, Brazilian governments have deep military and security
relations with the Israeli regime focused on occupation and apartheid. They
are importing technologies and training “field-tested” methods to attack our
bodies, to repress Brazilian social movements, and to kill the poor black popu-
lation. We will continue to internationalize our popular resistance and link our
struggles to end the militarization and racist oppression of favelas from Rio to
Palestine.

Many connections can be established between the spatial context in which

occupation takes place in Palestinian territories and that of some Brazilian cities
in which militarization, violent daily life, and social injustice are basic compo-
nents of capitalist accumulation and social exclusion. However, more than ele-
ments of a social situation of extreme violence, which exist in many urban
areas, the transnational connections between Palestinian and Brazilian social
movements show a similarity of urban sociopolitical structures in Palestine/
Israel and Brazil. This is not just a matter of these processes’ arising from the
transition to the contemporary capitalist context and their links with the mili-
tarization of social life and urban spaces for the accumulation of capital, as has
been argued up to now by researchers seeking to bring the two contexts together
(Mendonça, 2018; Valente, 2015). It could also be argued that this daily milita-
rization is associated with a rationalist transfer of policies aimed at resolving
the governance challenges that operate in such contexts1 (Machold, 2015). The
knowledge developed by the Israelis to control Palestinians has become a
 Huberman and Nasser / PACIFICATION, CAPITAL ACCUMULATION, AND RESISTANCE   133

­ aradigm and a global brand of security conveying forms of social control from
p
one place to another (Halper, 2015; Khalili, 2012; Machold, 2015).
Without ruling out other approaches, our argument is that the daily oppres-
sion and resistance in these contexts are two dimensions of the same process in
Palestine and Brazil. We consider it necessary to go beyond simply reporting
the existence of similar urban military activities to ask how this social context
shapes conflicts. This implies the need to understand that the two urban reali-
ties are represented by the same mode of transnational domination, which pro-
duces particular social formations, and the type of primitive accumulation
related to this process, settler colonialism (Veracini, 2016). Therefore, rather
than investigating the flows that directly link the experiences of oppressed
populations in Palestine/Israel and Brazil, this article will analyze the conflict
situations in these locations as historical products of the mode of accumulation
of settler colonialism. This mode of accumulation is reestablished and structur-
ally perpetuated because of the persistence of its logic of elimination of racial-
ized populations under the neoliberal mode of domination (Lloyd and Wolfe,
2016; Veracini, 2016). Racist structures are established to promote the dispos-
session of racialized populations, confining them to segregated, stigmatized,
and highly securitized spaces that allow both the identification of and the
establishment of alliances among oppressors and oppressed (Clarno, 2017;
Collins, 2011; Svirsky, 2014; Veracini, 2012).
Wolfe (2006: 402) has argued that in settler colonial societies native popula-
tions are permanently subordinated to the power of settlers, even in postcolo-
nial contexts, and therefore such societies are “impervious to regime change.”
This assumption is essential to our understanding that genocide, mass incar-
ceration, socio-spatial segregation, expropriation, and pacification of racialized
populations in Palestine/Israel (Palestinians) and in Brazil (blacks and the
other socially marginalized groups that make up the ralé [common people])2
are not accidental (the result of the absence of the state, the violent nature of
these populations, or modern processes such as industrialization, urbanization,
and neoliberalization) but constitutive of the persistence of the settler colonial
logic related to the elimination and confinement of racialized populations in
the process of expanding the boundaries of the settler colonial society3 (Lloyd
and Wolfe, 2016; Wolfe, 2006).
The settler colonial logic is maintained by the rearrangement of colonial
practices and discourses in contemporary times. An important example is the
updating of racist structures with regard to racialized native populations for-
merly seen as backward, barbarous, savage, unproductive, dangerous, and
therefore susceptible to being exterminated and deprived of their land and
now viewed in Arab-Muslim-terrorist connections in the Palestinian case and
in black-poor-favela-dweller-trafficker connections in the Brazilian case
(Flauzina, 2006; Lloyd and Wolfe, 2016). Other factors are neoliberal forms of
capital reproduction, including dispossession, extermination, and confine-
ment of “disposable” racialized populations (Lloyd and Wolfe, 2016; Veracini,
2016).
In sharing an ethos with settler colonialism, the neoliberal mode of accumu-
lation not only reorganizes structural forces in settler colonial societies but also
expands this form of domination throughout the world by making nonnatives
134   LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

subject to regimes similar to those historically imposed on indigenous peoples

and thus enabling greater solidarity between native and nonnative peoples at
the local and global levels (Veracini, 2015b; 2016). Collins (2011) sees the exten-
sion of transnational solidarity to Palestinians in the universalization of prob-
lems regarding access to water, land, mobility, and dignified life by the violent
practices of neoliberalism worldwide.
The settler colonial theory is particularly relevant to this analogy between
the Brazilian and Palestinian contexts because of the increasing number of sur-
veys examining Palestine/Israel issues in a global context, comparing them
with, for example, settler colonialism in the United States, Canada, South
Africa, and Australia (Salamanca et al., 2012; Veracini, 2015a). “Settler colonial-
ism” describes the historical process by which a group attempts to occupy and
assert its sovereignty over native lands and replace the existing native popula-
tion as part of a project of domination. This invasion is structural and not a
single event. Addressing settler colonialism as a structure exposes the fact that
it cannot be relegated to the past and at the same time that the present must be
historicized. Additionally, settler colonialism is a category of analysis that may
be applicable to different historical processes, since there is great diversity in
the formation of these settler colonial societies. It is important to emphasize
that settler colonialism is always partial, unfinished, and constantly being rein-
vented (Kauanui, 2016).
Settler colonial studies mostly ignore the city as a strategic place of dispute
between colonizers and colonized people. When the city does appear, it is only
as a spatial container for bodies and lives, overlooking the interaction between
settler colonial structures and urbanization processes. According to Hugill
(2017), the settler colonial city’s organizing principle is not primarily exploiting
local resources and populations but supporting access to territories for the pur-
pose of state formation, settlement, and capitalist development. It should also
be noted that, although critical urban theory has been considered important for
examining the inequalities produced by globalized capitalism when new socio-
economic spaces are created, it has neglected the significance of specific struc-
tures of settler colonialism as a key dimension of theorizing cities in modernity.
Urbanization operationalizes the spatial and economic expropriation of colo-
nized people. The racist imaginary implanted by colonizers of native peoples
aims to conceal the colonial nature of cities (Porter and Yiftachel, 2017).
For this reason, this article focuses on Rio de Janeiro and Jerusalem, urban
spaces historically emerging from violent social conflicts in which local popula-
tions are seen as threats to the social order. Large portions of these populations
live concentrated and segregated in places precariously established as informal
settlements, with a high poverty rate and poor living conditions, stigmatized
as “dangerous” and, consequently, often subjected to state policies of great pri-
vate interest such as securitization, pacification, revitalization, modernization,
urbanization, and integration. Analyzing these conflictive situations through
the settler colonial framework will help us to understand the relationship
between violence, racism, and capital accumulation in urban areas both his-
torically and in the present. However, settler colonialism has important limita-
tions, among them the exploitation of racialized populations. Although some
theorists argue that this is a secondary concern (Veracini, 2016), it is relevant for
 Huberman and Nasser / PACIFICATION, CAPITAL ACCUMULATION, AND RESISTANCE   135

understanding the reproduction of power, space, and capital and should be

more widely discussed theoretically.

Settler Colonialism, Neoliberalism, and

Security Policies

The violent deprivation of lands where poor populations live and work for
the accumulation of capital by already enriched sectors has captured the atten-
tion of researchers examining the dynamics of the reproduction of capital ever
since Marx, who considered it a phenomenon of primitive accumulation (Marx
and Mandel, 1990). While some view this element as a distinct event, others
conceive it as a component of the capitalist accumulation process. Considering
the violence of the neoliberal mode of accumulation, Harvey (2003) calls it
“accumulation by dispossession.” Similarly, Sassen (2014) observes a “logic of
expulsion” in neoliberalism. The result is an increase in inequality and the cre-
ation of precarious, impoverished, unemployed and surplus workers, usually
confined to informal, precarious, segregated, walled-off, and heavily guarded
housing, excluded from the process of capital reproduction (Clarno, 2017;
Graham, 2011; Wacquant, 2009).
Settler colonial studies have, however, pointed out that the preferential accu-
mulation of space, without necessarily exploiting the labor of dispossessed
populations, has been central to settler colonialism for centuries (Coulthard,
2014; Veracini, 2016). In settler colonialism, colonists seek to occupy and assert
sovereignty over native lands. For this it is necessary to replace the population
of the destination country by expropriating their land and by confining and/
or assimilating them. In contrast to other kinds of colonialism, in which colo-
nial structures of racial differentiation operate to exploit the natives’ labor and
natural resources, settler colonialism involves actions to create a national home
for the settlers and obscure the structural system of domination. The logic of
elimination is about normalizing the settler colonial project not only through
the physical but also through the symbolic and cultural exclusion of the natives
by means of assimilation methods such as the granting of citizenship (Wolfe,
2006).
Therefore, in settler colonial societies, the natives are seen as expendable,
and the relationship between settler colonialism and capitalism entails not only
extracting forced labor from racialized populations but permanently eliminat-
ing unwanted people and accumulating their lands and wealth (Coulthard,
2014). Coulthard uses Marx’s concept of primitive accumulation to demon-
strate that dispossession is a continuous process. In the settler colonial mode of
accumulation, territory is the constant factor, while racism legalizes and legiti-
mizes a “civilizing project” that aims to make the land productive (Wolfe, 2006).
As colonial areas spread, they become entangled with many other types of
spaces related to the dynamics of modernity, urbanization, and globalized cap-
ital. Thus settler colonial urban centers or rural areas are likely to be similar no
matter where they are located. The social spaces established in settler colonial-
ism are, to a large extent, closely associated with areas of urbanization and
modernity, and consequently, when native people resist this process, they are
136   LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

immediately associated with the rejection of development and progress

(Veracini, 2010).
In describing the land, race, and government issues associated with accumu-
lation, we assume that settler colonialism is an appropriate theoretical para-
digm for grasping particular violent situations (see Clarno, 2017; Lloyd and
Wolfe, 2016; Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2015) such as those that occur in Rio de
Janeiro and Jerusalem. Even in postcolonial contexts such as Brazil and Israel,
which became sovereign states respectively in 1822 and 1948, the settler colo-
nial logic persists in other respects. Excluded and segregated parcels of urban
areas inhabited by racialized populations function as “external areas” to be
reproduced by capitalism in order to overcome the constant crises of capital
overaccumulation in the same way that occurred in colonial periods, when
native lands were legally understood as empty, unproductive, and sparsely
inhabited by native “barbarians” and “savages” (Lloyd and Wolfe, 2016).
In a globalized world where there is no longer an “outside” to be expropri-
ated by European colonial powers, racism can play a fundamental role in the
creation of this external “Other” to be excluded and have its land expropriated
within a legal framework that makes expropriation not necessarily a criminal
offense (Lloyd and Wolfe, 2016). The colonizer’s fear of the colonized as a
potential threat to the project and to the colonizer’s life justifies violent mea-
sures to protect settlers and the labeling of the areas where the colonized live
as “dangerous” places that should be avoided, segregated, and pacified
(Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2015).
For capitalism, racialized populations are important for maintaining work-
ers’ fragility, extending exploitation to informal economic activities, and pro-
moting the expansion of precarious housing in urban peripheries (Clarno,
2017). The greater the number of unemployed and fragile workers, the more
dissatisfied people who need to be controlled so as not to disturb the social
order or interfere with capital accumulation. In such cases, measures of preven-
tive securitization may be employed. Part of this process is the establishment
of profiles of “dangerous” people based on supposedly technical risk criteria
but either reproducing previous racial criteria or contributing to the racializa-
tion of new population groups in drug, terror, migration, poverty, and crime
“wars” in various parts of the world (Neocleous, 2011).
Thus, for Clarno (2017), neoliberalism is a form of racial capitalism in which
racist policies and elimination and confinement measures are privatized and
considered “natural choices” of the market. He points out that, around the
world, neoliberal projects intersect with other projects that are not always pri-
marily focused on capital accumulation. This requires concentrating on the
complex formations that result from the development of simultaneous projects,
which tends to reorganize forms of domination, promoting partial autonomy
for historically oppressed groups or projects to reduce inequality without elim-
inating racism (Clarno, 2017). According to Clarno the connection between
racial capitalism and settler colonialism produces a regime of neoliberal apart-
heid in Palestine/Israel and in South Africa characterized by the marginaliza-
tion and securitization of racialized populations. There are equivalent situations
in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in regimes of private property, urban
planning, and security (Blatman-Thomas and Porter, 2018; Howard-Wagner,
 Huberman and Nasser / PACIFICATION, CAPITAL ACCUMULATION, AND RESISTANCE   137

Bargh, and Altamirano-Jiménez, 2018; Tomiak, 2017). Similarly, Jessé Souza

(2017) shows that in Brazil these racialized “Others” (blacks and indigenous
people) have historically been eliminated because there is an understanding
that they lack the social, moral, and cultural preconditions for participating in
modern, liberal, capitalist society. They thus become, generation after genera-
tion, a structural ralé. This view reduces all social and political problems to the
logic of capital accumulation, concealing the social conflicts of Brazilian society
and their origins and consequently naturalizing social inequality and the exclu-
sion of blacks and indigenous people (J. Souza, 2017). In other words, the settler
colonial root of neoliberal processes of dispossession and pacification of racial-
ized populations, assimilated to settler colonial society by the extension of citi-
zenship, is normalized as a “market” matter.

Settler Colonialism in Palestine/Israel and Brazil:

Racism, Fear, and Pacification

Palestine/Israel

Settler colonial studies portrays Zionism4 as an ideology and a political

movement that subject Palestinians to expropriation, appropriation of land,
and destruction of historical memory in pursuit of a new society and a Jewish
state (Salamanca et al., 2012). Like other instances of settler colonialism,
Zionism is engaged in a zero-sum competition with the native population to
control the land. Aware of the violent character of their settler colonial enter-
prise, intellectuals of the Zionist movement in Palestine in the early twentieth
century such as Theodor Herzl and Vladimir Jabotinski imagined a Jewish state
that was heavily militarized and “surrounded by walls” to exclude Palestinians
and restrain any kind of resistance (Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2015). The ethnocen-
trism and racism of the Zionist colonial project, which sought to bring civiliza-
tion and modernity to Arab barbarians, meant no destiny for natives except
expulsion, death, confinement, or assimilation to the Jewish state (Sayegh,
2012). This was reflected both in the construction of fences and surveillance
towers in the earliest Zionist colonies in Palestine and the building of walls and
checkpoints that fragmented the territory in the interest of security.
The Israeli security regime is historically constituted by the dialectics
between the expulsion of Palestinian natives, seen as inferior, and the coloniz-
er’s fear that they will return to their lands (Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2015).
Intensified pacification of the natives occurs historically through the hegemony
of the “fear industry” that permeates all levels of Israeli society, building an
image of the Palestinian population as a threat—whether within Israel, in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories (the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem), or
in exile—that allows them to be persecuted anywhere in the world (Salamanca
et al., 2012; Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2015). From 1967 to 2015, at least 263,500
Palestinians were expelled from their homes in the Occupied Territories by
forced expropriation, house demolition, military operations, revocation of res-
idence rights, and discriminatory denial of building permits (IDMC, 2015). In
this and the expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians and the demolition of more than
138   LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

500 villages in the ethnic cleansing of 1947 and 1949 (Pappé, 2006), the continu-
ity of the logic of “elimination” in Israeli settler colonialism throughout history
is apparent. Israel has confined the Palestinians to small land parcels that are
increasingly isolated and guarded on the pretext of containing “terrorist
threats” (Weizman, 2017).
However, this logic is not restricted to the Occupied Palestinian Territories
but a constituent part of the State of Israel itself, even in a postcolonial context.
This can be perceived in the Judaization of regions such as the Negev/Naqab,
Galilee, and Jerusalem (Plonski, 2017; Yacobi, 2016) and the segregation, expul-
sion, and division of the Palestinian populations of Israel (Shihade, 2012), dis-
criminated against by at least 30 laws and deep social inequality (half of the
Arab population in Israel is classified as poor, compared with approximately
20 percent nationwide [Hesketh et al., 2010]).

Brazil

Latin America has been neglected by contemporary settler colonial studies.

In the Southern Cone, the main contributions analyze the new settlement wave
of white European settlers and the novel conflicts between colonists and natives
in the nineteenth century that produced the “whitening” of these nations
(Goebel, 2016; Gott, 2007). Despite this gap in the literature, Gott (2007) points
out, it is observed that the behavior of white settlers toward indigenous popu-
lations in Latin America is similar to their behavior in Anglo-Saxon settlements
and that they were unique in oppressing two different groups in their territo-
ries, Amerindians and enslaved African blacks (Gott, 2007). Veracini (2011)
observes that slavery is a hybrid regime that combines the logics of elimination
and exploitation, and thus it is apparent that the forms of domination of racial-
ized populations of the colonial structure vary with the historical circum-
stances. Consequently, both Amerindians and Africans are subjected to both
logics at different points in the historical process. The sovereignty of the white
settlers over the land, however, persisted into the postcolonial period.
Although Brazil has not yet been systematically examined in terms of Wolfe’s
(2006) theory of settler colonialism, we argue that there are constitutive ele-
ments of this kind of colonialism in the actions of white settlers in this country
aimed at eliminating natives and, since the abolition of slavery, African blacks,
who, although not natives, were subjected to the same behavior as was aimed
at natives from the moment that they came to be considered disposable by the
settler colonial society. In order to interpret Brazilian social conflicts in terms of
settler colonial theory, we will establish a dialogue with the literature that has
sought to identify the racism and the centuries of slavery of the black popula-
tion in Brazil as fundamental to understanding social conflict in this country.
Settler colonialism in Brazil was initially marked by “pacifications” of indig-
enous populations led by Portuguese Christian and military missionaries
including expropriation, elimination, confinement, and assimilation of entire
indigenous communities in an effort to “civilize” them—to produce individu-
als capable of working for the capital accumulation of the Portuguese settlers
(Oliveira, 2014). From the moment the pacifications became burdensome (as
early as in the sixteenth century), colonizers began to import African natives as
 Huberman and Nasser / PACIFICATION, CAPITAL ACCUMULATION, AND RESISTANCE   139

a captive labor force and as agents of involuntary settlement. The natives

became redundant populations and targets of increasingly systematic massa-
cres, being confined to small parts of their original territory or forcibly assimi-
lated into colonial society as the frontier expanded into the interior of the
country (Alencastro, 2000; Barros and Peres, 2011; Oliveira, 2014). The contempt
with which white settlers treated the racialized Africans from the outset may
point to the operation of the settler colonial logic of elimination against them.
Although their livelihoods and places of residence were considered threaten-
ing, criminalized, repressed, and destroyed, the settler colonial order was
established to keep blacks both excluded and productive. Africans killed in the
course of labor, resistance, or escape were promptly replaced by new captives
until the end of the slave trade in 1850 (Barros and Peres, 2011; Moura, 1995).
The end of the trans-Atlantic captive market coincided with the beginning
of a new wave of immigration of new white settlers throughout Latin America.
Between 1821 and 1932 Brazil received around 4.3 million settlers, mainly in the
Southeast and the South5 (Goebel, 2016). Despite the abolition of slavery and
the granting of Brazilian citizenship to blacks, the white elite employed the idea
that free black populations were pathologically dangerous and biologically
incapable of performing the kind of work that the modern capitalist order
demanded to keep them socially, economically, and politically excluded from
settler colonial society (Moura, 1995; J. Souza, 2017). Thus the former slaves
who came to settle in big cities in search of work, establishing informal settle-
ments known as favelas, became a redundant population for the new Brazilian
capitalist cycle (Ferreira, 2009; J. Souza, 2017). Consequently, the settler state
power employed against the racialized Afro-descendants aimed not only to
reproduce them as labor but also to “eliminate” them and expropriate their
land in patterns similar to those historically applied to the natives.
Throughout the twentieth and into the twenty-first century, racism contin-
ued to be reinvented in new political, social, and cultural practices and dis-
courses in Brazil, keeping the common people structurally excluded (Flauzina,
2006; J. Souza, 2017). At the beginning of the 2010s, 76 percent of the poorest 10
percent of the population were black. Among the richest 1 percent this number
dropped to 15 percent in a country where blacks represented over half the pop-
ulation (53.6 percent [IBGE, 2015]). By 2014, 67 percent of Brazil’s prison popu-
lation was black and 56 percent between 18 and 29 years old (DEPEN, 2014).
According to the 2015 survey, about 30,000 young people from 15 to 29 years
old were victims of homicide every year in the country, and 77 percent of them
were black—almost four times the proportion among white Brazilians of the
same age (Waiselfsz, 2015).

Settler Colonialism, Pacification, and Resistance in

Jerusalem and Rio de Janeiro

Jerusalem

Jerusalem occupies a key position in the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It is one

of the places most deeply impacted by Israeli settler colonialism and also
140   LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

­ rofoundly connected to transnational capital flows. Because it is located on

p
the border between the formal territory of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian
Territories, it brings together the contradictions and connections of the two
Israeli governance systems, becoming a place that expresses many of the fea-
tures of the settler colonial structure of Palestine/Israel (Shalhoub-Kevorkian,
2015; Yiftachel, 2016).
Divided by the Israeli and Transjordan authorities in 1949, Jerusalem’s his-
torical social structure was disrupted, splitting families and ending the coexis-
tence of Arabs and Jews that existed there (Abowd, 2014). From then on West
Jerusalem underwent intense Judaization after the expulsion of virtually all its
Arab residents (Abowd, 2014).
Starting with the occupation of East Jerusalem by Israelis in 1967, a new
stage of settler colonialism began, producing the expropriation of thousands of
Palestinians to bring about the Judaization of the space conquered by means of
legal institutional instruments permeated with the racist ideology that been
part of Israel’s security policies and urban planning from the outset (Alkhalili,
2017). Palestinians living in the annexed areas became permanent residents of
Jerusalem without citizenship, subjected to public policies that sought to move
them toward the fringes of the municipality or to the increasingly densely pop-
ulated urban centers of the West Bank. Since 1967, 37 percent of Palestinian
property in East Jerusalem has been expropriated for Jewish settlements, high-
ways, and other facilities, while another 54 percent has been declared “green
space” in which construction is banned (ICAHD, 2017). In 2017 alone,
Jerusalem’s city government evicted some 60,000 Palestinians (OCHA, 2018).
Currently, the Palestinian population of Jerusalem, which accounts for about 37
percent of the municipal population (approximately 370,000 people), is con-
fined to 11 percent of East Jerusalem (ICAHD, 2017).
Because only 10.1 percent of the municipal budget is earmarked for
Palestinians, the community has a deficit in virtually all municipal services,
including housing, classroom construction, and health facilities (ICAHD, 2017).
Lack of garbage collection, damaged roads, lack of lighting, and increasing
poverty convey the impression that Palestinian neighborhoods are dangerous
and rundown places that must be avoided and subjected to urban renewal and
security measures to attract more tourists and international investors, justify-
ing the Palestinians’ permanent expulsion, pacification, and elimination from
the landscape. Palestinians are viewed collectively as potential criminals and
terrorists (Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2015; Weizman, 2017).
The lands expropriated by the Israeli government are being used for the
construction of Jewish settlements that have turned into true colonial com-
plexes surrounding “Great Jerusalem” (Weizman, 2017). While many of
these settlements are based on state-oriented planning to colonize as much
territory as possible with as few Arabs as possible, the real estate market
plays a central role in constructing such buildings, making private capital a
vehicle of state policies that correspond to settler colonialism (Allegra, 2013;
Clarno, 2017; Yacobi and Tzfadia, 2019). One of the ways in which transna-
tional capital is involved in Israeli settler colonialism is through financial
institutions such as the Belgian Dexia and the U.S. AIG, which fund the
 Huberman and Nasser / PACIFICATION, CAPITAL ACCUMULATION, AND RESISTANCE   141

construction of settlements. Ireland’s Cement Roadstone Holdings owns 25

percent of the stock of Israel’s Mashav, which supplies 75–90 percent of the
cement used in Israel, including for the construction of the wall, settle-
ments, and checkpoints. The Danish-Belgian G4S, a global private security
giant, through its branch in Israel (Hashmira) offered security services to
settlements, prisons, and the police and equipped checkpoints such as
Qalandia, which links Jerusalem to Ramallah with metal detectors (Galand,
2010).
From the Arab-Jewish conflicts in the Old City in the 1920s to the Knife
Intifada of 2015–2016, there have been numerous episodes of native resistance
and settler oppression in Jerusalem. Consequently, the city has become a highly
militarized, securitized urban space, monitored and fragmented by security
measures. One measure aimed at controlling Palestinians is the magnetic cards
that serve as identification for residents. They contain iris information and
digital biometrics that can be accessed at checkpoints by Israeli soldiers. Along
with intelligent surveillance cameras scattered throughout the city and a com-
puterized data system, they establish automated control over Palestinians with
regard to all aspects of their lives. Therefore Palestinians in Jerusalem can be
fined and detained at any time by an Israeli police officer for various reasons
(Samman, 2013).
For Palestinians the experience of living in enclaves in Jerusalem means
constant persecution and monitoring. Their existence is disciplined daily by
police actions that pose a constant threat (Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2015). In addi-
tion, more and more Palestinians are confined to settlements created exclu-
sively for Jews such as Kafr Aqab and the Shuafat refugee camp. They are left
to fend for themselves and subjected to police and military actions such as
entering people’s homes whenever they want to, even if they do not have war-
rants (Alkhalili, 2017; Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2015). In this way, everyday
actions such as buying bread, going to school, and visiting friends become
potentially dangerous acts that could bring about death or imprisonment.

Rio de Janeiro

Rio de Janeiro in the twentieth century was marked by fear of violence that
was used to justify security and modernization measures in the favelas, which
were stigmatized as a producers of criminals and traffickers, in connection with
global circuits of capital and new trends in military urbanization (Saborio,
2014). The analysis of Rio de Janeiro, where one in five was a slum dweller in
2010 (1.4 million people), is representative of a country with a slum population
of 11.42 million (IBGE, 2011).
While the favelas were considered a problem, this view went hand in hand
with the late-nineteenth-century issue of the freed blacks, who were excluded
from the country’s industrialization process. They were treated as a surplus
population that settled on the edges of the large cities in search of employment
(Ferreira, 2009; J. Souza, 2017). Thus the tensions, conflicts, and fears of the
rural slave-owning system took over urban spaces, maintaining their exclu-
siveness through the constant criminalization of blacks’ ways of life. They no
142   LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

longer lived exclusively in quilombos but also in informal settlements estab-

lished by Afro-descendants in Rio de Janeiro (Batista, 2003).
Inspired by the urban renewal promoted in Paris in the nineteenth century,
the government wanted to transform Rio de Janeiro into a “modern tropical
city.” Employing hygienic and racial interpretations of the dwellings of former
slaves, the state promoted the removal of at least 3,000 slums where Afro-
descendants lived in central Rio de Janeiro. The confluence of racial projects
and capital accumulation was evident when on top of the rubble avenues,
tramways, and buildings were constructed for the growing local bourgeoisie
(Ferreira, 2009). It was not long before all the favelas became targets of military
repression and removal and their criminalization began. However, state poli-
cies were unable to curb their growth (Davis, 2006). Beginning in the 1960s the
military dictatorship, on the pretext of eradicating the communist threat repre-
sented by the common people, removed at least 62 favelas and almost 175,000
people from the central region, confining them to distant housing centers
(Freeman and Burgos, 2017). Once again, the areas were taken over by large real
estate developments (Ferreira, 2009).
The emergence of the “war on drugs” in the 1980s produced a new stigma-
tization of favelas, which were considered dangerous places dominated by traf-
fickers (Batista, 2003). The most recent security measure for dealing with the
favela “problem” is the pacification police unit (UPP), launched in the context
of the activities of national and international capital in the city in connection
with the megaevents of 2000 and 2010. It is no coincidence that the pacification
policy focuses on the favelas close to the wealthiest neighborhoods, tourist
spots, main access roads, and sports facilities (Freeman and Burgos, 2017).
Supported by large national and transnational corporations such as Coca-
Cola, Souza Cruz, and Bradesco Seguros, as well as contractors, private service
providers, business associations, nongovernmental organizations, and the
Brazilian Football Confederation (Vieira, 2016), the occupation of drug-con-
trolled favelas began in 2008, when the police moved from curbing prohibited
activities to controlling areas considered dangerous (Silva, 2015). Pacification
units operate as checkpoints, monitoring the residents of favelas and traffick-
ers, disrupting the urban socio-spatial structuring, creating internal boundar-
ies, and restricting the movements of the population, who face a constant state
of siege (Saborio, 2013; M. L. Souza, 2012). As a result of restrictions imposed
on their development, including the removal of houses and the construction of
walls and barriers for “environmental” reasons and urban planning (Ferreira,
2009; M. L. Souza, 2015), the favelas have become virtual “reserves” for the
confinement of racialized populations, disconnected from each another and
heavily monitored by devices such as cameras and drones (Cardoso, 2013;
Saborio, 2013). The daily presence and control of movement in the favelas has
not stopped crime there but simply increased the surveillance and disruption
of the daily lives of their residents (Menezes, 2014; Saborio, 2013).
It is estimated that around 22,059 families were removed between 2009 and
2015, of which 4,120 were directly related to the megaevents (Comitê Popular
Rio da Copa e das Olimpíadas, 2015). Just as in the 1960s, slum dwellers were
relocated to popular housing far removed from their original dwelling
places. However, the evictions that took place in the neoliberal context of the
 Huberman and Nasser / PACIFICATION, CAPITAL ACCUMULATION, AND RESISTANCE   143

twenty-first century were driven by a combination of threats, promises, misin-

formation, and intentional generation of insecurity that amounted to terror
(Freeman and Burgos, 2017). In the areas where the favelas had existed, stadi-
ums, public transport systems, expressways, squares, and museums were built
with national and transnational capital (Freeman and Burgos, 2017). An impor-
tant example of this is Porto Maravilha, a revitalization of the port area that
involved the expulsion of residents of the country’s first slum, Morro da
Providência, to create a commercial space entirely developed by private enter-
prise. The community had been built by freed slaves in the late nineteenth
century and housed generations of port workers but had always been viewed
by the authorities and the upper classes as a threatening place that needed to
be removed. Around 5 million square meters of public land were granted to the
private entities that now manage the entire area, while the region’s 30,000 poor
residents continue to be threatened by real estate speculation and live in other
pacified favelas in the city (Freeman and Burgos, 2017).

Final Considerations

In general, it has been possible to point out here that impoverished racialized
populations and their disputed living spaces in Jerusalem and Rio de Janeiro
have become segregated and highly securitized enclaves with social inequality
through the combined action of colonial and neoliberal powers. Thus a kind of
neoliberal apartheid has been established in these cities (Clarno, 2017). These
powers are expressed in discourses and actions of security, modernization,
pacification, and integration embedded in racist structures of settler colonial-
ism that seek to eliminate racialized populations and seize their territories.
Therefore, they are confined to increasingly smaller areas of land. The similar-
ity of the Palestinian and Brazilian cases shows that conflicts, especially urban
ones, in cities of the Global South are still strongly marked by their colonial
structures. Thus the settler colonial theory has proved a valuable tool for inter-
preting the situations observed in Jerusalem and in Rio de Janeiro. We hope
that it will contribute to an increase in research on the past and the present of
settler colonial power in Brazil and Latin America.
Beyond this, the structural logic of settler colonialism highlights the need for
a new decolonizing agenda to establish a “post-settler” society (Svirsky, 2014).
One goal of this article is to reveal the settler colonial aspects of mechanisms of
oppression in order to contribute to collaborative Brazilian, Palestinian, and
Israeli resistance to settler colonialism, capitalism, and racism. Another goal is
therefore to help strengthen the transnational struggle against the logic of pac-
ification and accumulation of settler colonial and neoliberal powers, both
locally and globally.
We believe that settler colonial urbanism must be analyzed from the perspec-
tive of dynamic structuralism (Yiftachel, 2016). The immense power of struc-
tural forces must be acknowledged, along with their dynamism and contingency
in the face of interactions, struggles, and mobilizations. The focus on native-
settler relations should operate as an opening toward broader urban citizen-
ship for other marginalized groups. As native-settler relations continue to
144   LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

evolve along colonial lines, a set of new settler colonial relations is developed
in parallel. These depend on colonial structures to employ new exploitative,
marginalizing, and essentializing practices with larger groups of migrants,
refugees, former slaves, contract workers, minorities, women, settlers, and
youth.

Notes

1. This neoliberal conception of security arrangements as a model and a commodity adaptable

to different contexts has been particularly influential in the relations between the Brazilian author-
ities and Israeli security corporations, justifying various Brazilian acquisitions of security prod-
ucts and training in recent years.
2. J. Souza (2017) believes that the ralé are a Brazilian class that is not perceived as such—not
thought of as having a social genesis and a common destiny—but simply considered a deprived
or dangerous set of individuals, obscuring its history and its material and cultural formation over
centuries of slavery.
3. This interpretation is not hegemonic in Palestine/Israel or in Brazil. While in Palestine/
Israel the concept of “settler colonialism” has been used to understand the reality and history of
the issue in recent decades, in Brazil it has not. Most of Brazilian historiography has adopted the
approach of Caio Prado Junior, for whom settlement and exploration in colonies had different
trajectories—the former being a continuation of the country of origin while the latter established
new societies to provide goods for trade. Because of its small population, Portugal was suppos-
edly unable to establish a settlement colony in Brazil.
4. Zionism is the Jewish nationalist ideology founded in the nineteenth century in Eastern
Europe that gave rise to the Jewish settlement of Palestine. For an analysis of Zionism based on
the theoretical paradigm of settler colonialism, see Piterberg (2008).
5. In general, the literature sees these Europeans not as new settlers but as immigrants.
However, as Veracini (2015b) shows, settlers are not ordinary immigrants, since they carry
sovereignty granted by the state. The new whites who settled in the interior of Brazil arrived
as “internalization” and “settlement” agents promoted by the Brazilian state and not just as
immigrants.

References

Abowd, Thomas Philip

2014 Colonial Jerusalem: The Spatial Construction of Identity and Difference in a City of Myth, 1948–
2012. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Alencastro, Luiz Felipe de
2000 O trato dos viventes. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
Alkhalili, Noura
2017 “‘A forest of urbanization’: Camp Metropolis in the edge areas.” Settler Colonial Studies 7:
1–20.
Allegra, Marco
2013 “The politics of suburbia: Israel’s settlement policy and the production of space in the
metropolitan area of Jerusalem.” Environment and Planning A 45: 497–516.
Barros, André and Marta Peres
2011 “Proibição da maconha no Brasil e suas raízes históricas escravocratas.” Periferia 3 (2).
doi:10.12957/periferia.2011.3953.
Batista, Vera Malaguti
2003 O medo na cidade do Rio de Janeiro: Dois tempos de uma história. Rio de Janeiro: Revan.
Blatman-Thomas, Naama and Libby Porter
2018 “Placing property: theorizing the urban from settler colonial cities.” International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12666.
 Huberman and Nasser / PACIFICATION, CAPITAL ACCUMULATION, AND RESISTANCE   145

BNC
2018 “From Rio de Janeiro to Palestine: Marielle Presente!” BDS Movement. https://bdsmovement
.net/news/rio-de-janeiro-palestine-marielle-presente (accessed December 19, 2018).
Cardoso, Bruno de Vasconcelos
2013 “Megaeventos esportivos e modernização tecnológica: planos e discursos sobre o legado
em segurança pública.” Horizontes Antropológicos 19 (40): 119–148.
Clarno, Andy
2017 Neoliberal Apartheid: Palestine/Israel and South Africa after 1994. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Collins, John
2011 Global Palestine. London: C. Hurst.
Comitê Popular Rio da Copa e das Olimpíadas
2015 Megaeventos e violações dos direitos humanos no Rio de Janeiro: Dossiê do Comitê Popular da
Copa e Olimpíadas do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro: Comitê Popular.
Coulthard, Glen Sean
2014 Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Davis, Mike
2006 Planeta Favela. São Paulo: Boitempo.
DEPEN (Departamento do Penitenciária Nacional)
2014 Levantamento nacional de informações penitenciárias Infopen—junho de 2014. Brasília:
Ministério da Justiça.
Estadão
2013 “Rio terá 8 novos ‘caveirões’ para grandes eventos: Geral.” Estadão. https://www
.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,rio-tera-8-novos-caveiroes-para-grandes-eventos,989067
(accessed December 19, 2018).
Ferreira, Alvaro
2009 “Favelas do Rio de Janeiro: nascimento, expansão, remoção e, agora, exclusão através de
muros.” Revista Bibliográfica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales 14 (828).
Flauzina, Ana Luiza Pinheiro
2006 Corpo negro caído no chão: O sistema penal e o projeto genocida do Estado brasileiro. Brasília:
UNB.
Freeman, James and Marcos Burgos
2017 “Accumulation by forced removal: the thinning of Rio de Janeiro’s favelas in preparation
for the Games.” Journal of Latin American Studies 49: 549–577.
Galand, Pierre
2010 Findings of the London Session: Corporate Complicity in Israel’s Violations of International
Humanitarian and International Human Rights Law. London: Russell Tribunal on Palestine.
Goebel, Michael
2016 Settler Colonialism in Postcolonial Latin America. Routledge Handbooks Online. doi:10
.4324/9781315544816.ch10.
Gott, Richard
2007 “Latin America as a white settler society.” Bulletin of Latin American Research 26 (2):
269–289.
Graham, Stephen
2011 Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism. London and New York: Verso.
Halper, Jeff
2015 War Against the People: Israel, the Palestinians and Global Pacification. London: Pluto Press.
Harvey, David
2003 The New Imperialism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Hesketh, Katie, Suhad Bishara, Sawsan Zaher, and Rina Rosenberg
2010 “The inequality report: the Palestinian Arab minority in Israel.” Arab World Geographer 13:
234–284.
Howard-Wagner, Deirdre, Maria Bargh, and Isabel Altamirano-Jiménez
2018 The Neoliberal State, Recognition and Indigenous Rights: New Paternalism to New Imaginings.
Canberra: Australian National University Press.
146   LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

Hugill, David
2017 “What is a settler-colonial city?” Geography Compass 11 (5). doi:10.1111/gec3.12315.
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística)
2011 Censo demográfico 2010: Aglomerados subnormais. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.
2015 Síntese de indicadores sociais: Uma análise das condições de vida da população brasileira. Rio de
Janeiro: IBGE.
ICAHD (Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions)
2017 Overview of Israel’s Demolition Policy. Jerusalem: ICAHD.
IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre)
2015 Identifying IDPs in Palestine: New Thinking on Monitoring Internal Displacement in the West
Bank. Geneva: IDMC.
Kauanui, J. Kēhaulani
2016 “‘A structure, not an event’: settler colonialism and enduring indigeneity.” Lateral 5.1.
http://csalateral.org/issue/5-1/forum-alt-humanities-settler-colonialism-enduring-indigeneity
-kauanui/ (accessed December 19, 2018).
Khalili, Laleh
2012 Time in the Shadows: Confinement in Counterinsurgencies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Lloyd, David and Patrick Wolfe
2016 “Settler colonial logics and the neoliberal regime.” Settler Colonial Studies 6 (2): 109–118.
Machold, Rhys
2015 “Mobility and the model: policy mobility and the becoming of Israeli homeland security
dominance.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 47 (4): 816–832.
Martins, Gizele
2017 “Da Palestina à Maré: a luta pelo direito à vida.” http://www.pacs.org.br/2017/10/02/
da-palestina-a-mare-a-luta-pelo-direito-a-vida/ (accessed April 1, 2018).
Marx, Karl and Ernest Mandel
1990 Capital: Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1. Translated by Ben Fowkes. New edition.
London and New York: Penguin Classics.
Mendonça, Márcio José
2018 “A cidade como espaço de batalha: de Gaza ao Rio de Janeiro.” GEOUSP: Espaço e Tempo
(Online) 21: 685–702.
Menezes, Palloma Valles
2014 “Os rumores da ‘pacificação’: a chegada da UPP e as mudanças nos problemas públicos
no Santa Marta e na Cidade de Deus.” Dilemas: Revista de Estudos de Conflito e Controle Social 7:
665–684.
Miranda, David
2017 “Caveirão não! Lançada campanha contra o terrorismo dos caveirões nas favelas do Rio.”
https://davidmirandario.com.br/2017/12/caveirao-nao-lancada-campanha-contra-o-terrorismo
-dos-caveiroes-nas-favelas-do-rio/ (accessed December 19, 2018).
Moura, Clóvis
1995 Dialética radical do Brasil negro. São Paulo: Anita Garibaldi.
Neocleous, Mark
2011 “‘A brighter and nicer new life’: security as pacification.” Social and Legal Studies 20 (2):
191–208.
OCHA (Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs)
2018 “The Monthly Humanitarian Bulletin: December 2017.” United Nations Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Occupied Palestinian Territory. https://www.ochaopt
.org/content/monthly-humanitarian-bulletin-december-2017 (accessed December 19, 2018).
Oliveira, João Pacheco de
2014 “Pacificação e tutela militar na gestão de populações e territórios.” Mana: Estudos de
Antropologia Social 20: 125–161.
Pappé, Ilan
2006 The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oxford: Oneworld.
Piterberg, Gabriel
2008 The Returns of Zionism: Myths, Politics and Scholarship in Israel. London: Verso.
 Huberman and Nasser / PACIFICATION, CAPITAL ACCUMULATION, AND RESISTANCE   147

Plonski, Sharri
2017 Palestinian Citizens of Israel: Power, Resistance and the Struggle for Space. London: I. B. Tauris.
Porter, Libby and Oren Yiftachel
2017 “Urbanizing settler-colonial studies: introduction to the special issue.” Settler Colonial
Studies 7: 1–10.
Saborio, Sebastian
2013 “The pacification of the favelas: mega events, global competitiveness, and the neutraliza-
tion of marginality.” Socialist Studies/Études Socialistes 9 (2). doi:10.18740/S4SG63.
2014 “The new military urbanism: police repression and conflict in Rio de Janeiro.” Etnografia
e Ricerca Qualitativa 3. doi:10.3240/78482.
Salamanca, Omar Jabary, Mezna Qato, Kareem Rabie, and Sobhi Samour
2012 “Past is present: settler colonialism in Palestine.” Settler Colonial Studies 2 (1): 1–8.
Samman, Maha
2013 Trans-colonial Urban Space in Palestine: Politics and Development. London and New York:
Routledge.
Sassen, Saskia
2014 Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy. Cambridge: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Sayegh, Fayez
2012 “Zionist colonialism in Palestine (1965).” Settler Colonial Studies 2 (1): 206–225.
Shalhoub-Kevorkian, Nadera
2015 Security Theology, Surveillance and the Politics of Fear. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Shihade, Magid
2012 “Settler colonialism and conflict: the Israeli state and its Palestinian subjects.” Settler
Colonial Studies 2 (1): 108–123.
Silva, Luiz Antonio Machado da
2015 “A experiência das UPPs: uma tomada de posição.” Dilemas: Revista de Estudos de Conflito
e Controle Social 8 (1): 7–24.
Souza, Jessé
2017 A elite do atraso. Rio de Janeiro: LeYa.
Souza, Marcelo Lopes de
2012 “Militarização da questão urbana.” Lutas Sociais, no. 29, 117–129.
2015 “Environmental protection for whom? The instrumentalization of ecology against the
right to housing.” Mercator 14 (4): 25–44.
Svirsky, Marcelo
2014 “The collaborative struggle and the permeability of settler colonialism.” Settler Colonial
Studies 4 (4): 327–333.
Tomiak, Julie
2017 “Contesting the settler city: indigenous self-determination, new urban reserves, and the
neoliberalization of colonialism—contesting the settler city.” Antipode 49: 928–945.
Valente, Júlia
2015 Unidades de polícia pacificadora: Pacificação, território e militarização. Rio de Janeiro: UERJ.
Veracini, Lorenzo
2010 “The imagined geographies of settler colonialism,” pp. 179–197 in Tracey Banivanua Mar
and Penelope Edmonds (eds.), Making Settler Colonial Space: Perspectives on Race, Place and
Identity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
2011 “Introducing: settler colonial studies.” Settler Colonial Studies 1 (1): 1–12.
2012 “Settler colonialism: a global and contemporary phenomenon.” Arena Journal, no. 37/38,
322–336.
2015a Israel and Settler Society. London: Pluto Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt18fs3dn.
2015b The Settler Colonial Present. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire,and New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
2016 “Facing the settler colonial present,” pp. 41–54 in Sarah Maddison, Tom Clark, and Ravi
de Costa (eds.), The Limits of Settler Colonial Reconciliation: Non-Indigenous People and the
Responsibility to Engage. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
 148   LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

Vieira, Rafael
2016 “Sobre o regime empresarial-militar de ocupação das favelas do Rio de Janeiro: uma
análise (crítica) das UPPs / On the military-entrepreneurial regime of occupation of the Rio de
Janeiro favelas: a (critical) analysis of the UPPs.” Revista Direito e Práxis 7 (3): 284–339.
Wacquant, Loïc
2009 Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Waiselfsz, Julio Jacobo
2015 Mapa da violência 2016: Homicídios por armas de fogo. Rio de Janeiro: FLACSO.
Weizman, Eyal
2017 Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation. Reprint edition. London and New York:
Verso.
Wolfe, Patrick
2006 “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8:
387–409.
Yacobi, Haim
2016 “From ‘ethnocracity’ to urban apartheid: a view from Jerusalem/al-Quds.” Cosmopolitan
Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 8 (3): 100–114.
Yacobi, Haim and Erez Tzfadia
2019 “Neo-settler colonialism and the re-formation of territory: privatization and nationaliza-
tion in Israel.” Mediterranean Politics 24 (1): 1–19.
Yiftachel, Oren
2016 “The Aleph—Jerusalem as critical learning.” City 20: 483–494.

View publication stats