Israel's Disengagement Research Articles

Im/Mobilities in a ‘Hostile Territory’: Managing the Red Line

This article examines the biopolitical dimensions of conflict manifest in Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip. Exploring a managed relation between life and death largely unaddressed in Foucault's conception of biopower, it contends that Israel's “disengagement” can be seen as a more sophisticated, flexible form of engagement that does not disinvest in or abandon life, but actively regulates it. Close analysis of emerging tactics of population control in Gaza illustrate that neither a “pure” politics of life or death emerges; rather, a more complex management of the two is achieved through the modulation of crucial life-sustaining and life-eliminating flows into and out of the territory. This paper links biopolitical practices of mobility regulation to the ways in which life is enabled, constrained and denied for those in a territory designated as “hostile.” Thus, it directly connects the biopolitical dimensions of conflict to territory and the geopolitical violences of territoriality.

Unplug and Play: Manufacturing Collapse in Gaza

This article examines how colonial violence has been recast in light of Israel's disengagement from Gaza during the summer 2005. By looking at infrastructural networks —the systems that distribute water, electricity, sewage, fuel etc—it explores how far from ending the occupation, disengagement provided a distinct spatial scale from which to experiment new methods of control and repression. In particular, it seeks to expose how these life support systems function as geopolitical sites of spatial control and as biopolitical tools to regulate and suppress life. Specially, it illustrates how the mobilization of discourses, strategies and doctrines, criminalize these critical systems turning them into ‘legitimate’ and ‘pre-emptive’ targets. Drawing on the destruction of Gaza's only power plant and the subsequent sanctions on electricity and fuel, it argues that the destruction and manipulation of infrastructural networks has severe consequences, particularly in public health. In exploring these claims with respect to Gaza, the article draws attention to the ways in which infrastructures play a crucial role in regulating the elastic Gaza's humanitarian collapse. The article closes introducing the concept of infrastructural violence as way to further explore this discussion.

Israeli Colonial Contraction: The Cases of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip

Two main cases of previous Israeli colonial contraction have occurred in recent history. The first occurred from the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula in 1982; the second from the Gaza Strip in 2005. In both, the Israeli settlements were completely demolished before leaving these areas. The main strategic difference between the Sinai and Gaza Israeli contractions is that the evacuation of Yamit settlement complex stemmed from the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1978, the second was a unilateral move as part of the Israel Disengagement Plan. The main question this paper attempts to answer is under which conditions does Israeli contraction occur, and what are the dynamics of this process? This is answered by providing the analyses of the two cases of Israeli contractions from Sinai and Gaza, which explain the strengths and weaknesses within Israel thus giving indications of how it deals with its colonized space. The analyses raise several interesting points showing the similarities, differences, inter-relations, as well as strategic and political considerations. The paper is divided into three main sections. The first and the second give an overview of each of the two cases separately presenting the dynamics of interaction between the different actors involved in the process, whether the Israeli government, influential individuals and organizational bodies, or the settlers. The third section presents a comparison between the two cases and concludes with some observations about possible colonial contractions. It is noticed that in both cases, strategic considerations took a dominant role.

Mediated Public Diplomacy: A Strategic Contest over International Agenda Building and Frame Building

This study focuses on the competition over international agenda building and frame building as one central strategic activity of public diplomacy processes. It is the first analysis of a multi-actor contest over agenda and frame building in foreign media focusing on two strategic acts with evident mediated public diplomacy objectives and implications: Israel's disengagement from Gaza and the general elections in the Palestinian Authority. The success of the actors in promoting their agenda and frames in the U.S. and British news media is analyzed, revealing a complex media arena that includes the antagonists, foreign governments, and the media themselves as actors, each trying to promote its own agenda and frames. Cultural and political congruence between a foreign country and an adversary gives that antagonist an advantage over its rival actor. However, the antagonist actor still has to compete with the agenda and frames of foreign governments and media organizations.

Disengagement from the Gaza Strip and Post-Occupation Duties

Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip has created a situation in which this territory is dependent on the supply of various necessities by Israel, in particular the supply of electricity, In 2008 Israel decided to withhold 5% of the supply of electricity to the Gaza Strip, prompting several Gaza residents as well as human rights organizations to petition the Supreme Court of Israel against this decision. In Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed v. The Prime Minister the Court assumed that the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip had ended with the disengagement and treated this issue on the basis of general humanitarian law. The basic questions of whether the occupation had ended, and whether certain duties remained with Israel, even assuming that Gaza is no longer occupied, have not been explored. This Article addresses these two questions.It is the conclusion of this Article that regardless of the terms imposed by Israel after disengagement and other reservations that have been raised in this regard, occupation ended following the complete withdrawal of any Israeli presence in the Gaza Strip. Israel's disengagement raised difficulties that are not only unique to the Gaza Strip; these difficulties emerge in most cases when occupation is replaced by a process of self-determination rather than the return of the former sovereign. The contention presented herein is that Israel continues to have certain post-occupation duties even after the occupation of Gaza. These duties correspond to the occupant's duties to care for order and civil life in the territory during the occupation. These obligations will end once the new regime in the area is able to perform the duties that fell upon the shoulders of the occupant during the occupation, or until the non-performance of the new regime is attributable to its own failures and not to the ending of the occupation. In light of these contentions, Israel is still under certain obligations regarding the Gaza Strip, among them the regular supply of electricity to that area.

Utilizing Rights and Wrongs: Right-Wing, the “Right” Language, and Human Rights in the Gaza Disengagement

This article examines the discourses of Israeli right-wing figures who opposed Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. Relying on a systematic analysis of prominent conservative Israeli outlets, the author demonstrates an attempt to reconcile two opposing discourses: a particularistic-Jewish morality discourse and a universal rhetoric of human rights. The author shows that the use of the latter is a relatively novel phenomenon, which was absent during the struggle against Israel's retreat from the Sinai Peninsula in April 1982. Drawing on these findings and on larger global tendencies, the author offers that during the last few decades, human rights rhetoric has become politically instrumental, maybe even unavoidable, for groups and individuals who traditionally have not used it.

Personal resources of mastery–optimism, and communal support beliefs, as predictors of posttraumatic stress in uprooted Israelis

The study aims to assess the personal resources of mastery–optimism, and communal support beliefs, as predictors of posttraumatic stress and adaptation in uprooted Israelis following Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria in the summer of 2005. A telephone interview of a sample of 104 respondents slated to be uprooted was conducted several weeks before the disengagement (T1), and again 9 months after the event (T2). At T1, respondents answered a questionnaire which included assessments of dispositional optimism and mastery, beliefs in the availability of community–family and governmental–societal support, nation-related anxiety, and demographic data. Posttraumatic stress levels were assessed at T2. The main findings showed that high levels of mastery–optimism and low nation-related anxiety at T1 predicted a low severity of total posttraumatic stress scores at T2. A high educational level and a secular identity also predicted low posttraumatic stress. In contrast, communal support beliefs were not related to posttraumatic stress. These findings point to the importance of personal resources and education as protective factors against posttraumatic stress following an event such as forced uprooting.

Ideological Change and Israel's Disengagement from Gaza

Early on the morning of 12 September 2005?almost two years after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon first announced his intention of pursuing a policy of unilateral disengagement?the last Israeli soldier left Gaza. This brought to an end Israel's 38-year military rule over the area that began with its capture in the 1967 Six-Day War. implementation of the plan involved the evacuation of over 8,000 Israeli settlers from all twenty-one settlements in Gaza and four isolated settlements in the West Bank.1 This was undoubtedly a historic event. For the first time, an Israeli government had dismantled and evacuated settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. What made it even more significant was the fact that the disengagement plan was initiated and implemented by a Likud-led coalition government headed by Ariel Sharon, the father of the settlements. What accounts for this un precedented move? This article seeks to answer this critical question. One possible answer focuses on Sharon himself. It views the disengage ment as a cunning tactical maneuver designed to shore up Sharon's domestic popularity, deflect international pressure from Israel, and forestall any further withdrawals from the West Bank. This interpretation gained credence when Dov Weisglass, one of Sharon's closest advisers, stated: The disengagement is

Peace and Security in the 2006 Election

The issue of peace and security has long been regarded as the primary focus of Israeli politics. In the 2006 election, the Labour party leader, Amir Peretz, sought to challenge the received wisdom ...

Israel's unilateralism: beyond Gaza

Emmy Award-winning journalist Robert Zelnick examines Israel's disengagement from Gaza and what it might lead to in the future. He details the thought behind the policy and the impact of the loss of Ariel Sharon, analyzes the Palestinian response from both moderates and Hamas, and underscores the politically realist-minded assumptions that continue to drive the policy forward.

Fundamentalism in Crisis--The Response of the Gush Emunim Rabbinical Authorities to the Theological Dilemmas Raised by Israel's Disengagement Plan

Fundamentalism in Crisis--The Response of the Gush Emunim Rabbinical Authorities to the Theological Dilemmas Raised by Israel's Disengagement Plan

Issues Arising from the Implementation of Israel's Disengagement from the Gaza Strip

This report is a lightly edited version of a 2005 study commissioned by the Canadian government's International Development Research Centre (IDRC) in anticipation of Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip slated to take place by the end of 2005. The study addresses possible implications of the disengagement, particularly for the international community, and makes recommendations for an international response. In preparing the study, the author conducted numerous interviews with a wide range of Israeli officials, experts, and others involved in the disengagement process, many of whom were prepared to speak only without attribution. The report is valuable not only for the issues it lays out, but also for the light it sheds on the thinking of the Israeli political and security establishment concerning how to implement and present the disengagement and what is required to secure international recognition of the end to Israel's occupation of Gaza and hence of its responsibility for the population.

Praying with Their Eyes Closed: Reflections on the Disengagement from Gaza

Israel's disengagement plan is widely hailed by the international community, led by the United States, as a first step toward the final resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. This essay is a refutation of that view. After presenting the current situation of Gaza as the result of deliberate Israeli policies of economic integration, deinstitutionalization, and closure, the author demonstrates how provisions of the plan itself preclude the establishment of a viable economy in the Strip. Examining the plan's implications for the West Bank, the author argues that the occupation, far from ending, will actually be consolidated. She concludes with a look at the disengagement within the context of previous agreements, particularly Oslo——all shaped by Israel's overwhelming power——and the steadily shrinking possibilities offered to the Palestinians.