CITIZENSHIP STUDIES 275 support towards a Palestinian violent struggle, can be viewed as the embracing of selfannihilation’ (2018, 65). By so doing, they inadvertently weaken the legitimacy of antic­ olonial violence. Nonviolence erodes the legitimacy of violence by helping camouflage colonial violence and evading the potential necessity of violence against the settler state. Alsaafin (2012) argues that the argument for nonviolent resistance: falls into the trap of western- (read, colonizer) dictated methods of acceptable means to resist. Oppressed people do not and should not have to explain their oppression to their oppressor, nor tailor their resistance to the comfort of the oppressors and their supporters. While contributing to the struggle in one way, anticolonial Jewish Israelis effectively, but unintentionally, weaken the right for violent resistance by clinging to nonviolence. The mere categorisation ‘violent/nonviolent’ is a colonial construction, in the sense that these are categories decided and imposed by the settlers, which primarily serve to preserve settlers’ interests, privileges and structures (together with those of the complicit colonised elite).20 Again, the paradox resurfaces: (non)violence both categorises the anticolonial settlers, and allows them to momentarily overcome the categorisation. Moreover, the structures of violence remain intact: the violence of the settler state, and within it, settler citizenship is still ever present, and ever prominent. Co-resistance across the settler-indigenous divide Fiona Wright highlights how many from the Israeli radical left regard their activism within the frame of ‘acts of citizenship’. Wright shows that for them citizenship means empowerment to strive to change the ways in which those living within the polity of the Israeli state are governed, acting out of a sense of civic responsibility. She argues: Both the physical movements of the activists and the ways in which they drew on culturally resonant symbolic tropes in their verbal interactions can be read here as an intimate form of communication with those deemed to be ‘like us’ by the activists — other Jewish Israeli citizens. This emphasis on common Israeli citizenship, and highlighting of the ways in which it privileges Jewish subjects specifically, is what was enacted by activists’ approach to the soldiers blocking the entrance to the settlement: unlike Palestinians, who would be much more likely to be shot were they to approach the soldiers in this manner, the physical approach of a Jewish Israeli body towards the state apparatus is an invitation for that body to be restrained and disciplined, but with the knowledge that it will be unlikely to suffer the kind of grievous physical harm faced by other kinds of subjects (Wright 2018, 34) Such ‘acts of citizenship’, together with the discursive and tangible adherence to nonvio­ lence seem to do little to materially reckon with the violence of settler citizenship, and thus do not chime with the key vision of anticolonial struggle – the end of the settler state. Acts of citizenship serve to stretch and expand (even as they work to reform and transform) structures of citizenship, while decolonisation and the disorder that it entails, poses an absolute limit to what such acts can do. Anticolonial struggle demands a rejection and refusal of the settler state and its structures, and might also entail resorting to violence. Accordingly, meaningful co-resistance must go beyond citizenship, as a structure (and limitation) of action, an identity and a legal framework. The only role citizenship might fulfil is through its weaponisation. ‘The destruction of colonialism requires behavior that