Pro-Israeli people generally dislike the term and sometimes insist on the use of "implantation" rather than "colonie". Rochebin or the interpreter would be more useful if they allowed us to disentangle this issue from the heart of the matter.

To add a little bit of context: in French the term generally used for settlements is "colonie" (in particular by Rochebin), which means a settlement in a colonial context but explicitly refers to colonialism in a way "settlement" of course doesn't. Part of Lapid's reaction seems to be about this.

(Not directly related, but this is the consensus position among the elite in France. I believe that this is likely to become clearer with the next president -- to some extent Macron has been somewhat limiting the damage.)

I think Isabelle Ohayon makes similar points. I've been meaning to read Cameron's book. It will be interesting to compare.

That's interesting because I think other recent works (e.g Pianciola, Sacrificing the Qazaqs) suggest more that it is the requisitions that is to blame for the famine. IIRC sedentarisation wasn't pursued very seriously before the famine. Then the disaster was used as an occasion to impose it.

Indeed so did Reza Shah rise from obscurity.