Timestamp 1:30:23 through 1:35:35. Captions will help to hear the question
Interesting take by Vijay here. I think I agree with him, although not surprised to hear him say that he had pushback from others.
He was asked what he thinks of settler-colonialism as a framework and how, or whether, it can be theoretically combined with imperialism.
His answer was that settler-colonialism is not useful. In the case of Israel, he thinks it is better addressed as a supremacist ethnostate and should be dismantled on that basis. If the issue is compressed into a settler-colonial model, then the implication is that the solution is to remove all Israelis from the land, which he finds objectionable. Furthermore he doesn’t want “a world of Israels”, a world of ethnically defined nations who are entitled to resist intrusion by other groups. Vijay instead argues that the end goal needs to be plurinational states that can tolerate diversity.
There's an extent to which "settlers should go home" is reasonable justice for settler-colonialism, though not in the ridiculous hasbara sense. West Bank settlers living in stolen homes should be removed so that the people whose homes were stolen can have them back, for example. Many wear keys around their necks because of this vision.
And in that sense Prashad is incorrect, as the stolen homes and land aspect is fresh, raw, and unjist, and any presence of justice in multiethnic Palestine necessitates addressing the crimes of settler colonialism.
I believe he would agree with your second paragraph