The Separation Fence

Abstract

Sharon never gave up his idea that Israel had the sole voice in determining the regional reality, while no Arab actor, especially not the Palestinians, should influence reality and lead Israel to compromise on what it had achieved through power and war. The construction of the separation fence continued the unilateral approach that guided Sharon in his earlier decision to withdraw from Gaza. In both cases the idea was to reconstruct Israeli sovereignty through a separation between Palestinians and Israelis. As we explained in the earlier chapters, the Oslo Agreements created the possibility of orchestrating relations between the two nations, the Israelis and the Palestinians, through a “separation that connects.” In other words, separation between the two states would allow the two nations to construct mutual relations on an equal and honest basis, with the creation of many joint connections in different areas in the “new Middle East.” The failure of these attempts brought the situation back to what Kimmerling (1989) defined as a boundary (for the Palestinians) and a frontier (for the Jews). Azoulay and Ophir (2008) described a “spatial separation versus a civil separation” (213–214). We call this the “connection that separates” situation in which Israel bluntly dictates the terms, the time and space, of the connection and separation. As in the next chapter, in this one as well we see how the construction of a separation fence was part of the new war, not a means to end it.