The Many Faces of Unilateral Disengagement

The Oslo process has been deadlocked since attempts to reach a permanent settlement fell through, and were followed by the violence that has raged since September 2000. This deadlock has triggered thinking on possible unilateral policy steps that could improve Israel’s strategic and political situation. These ideas, which are generally referred to as “unilateral disengagement” or “unilateral separation,” are based on two fundamental assumptions. The first is that, in the foreseeable future, there is no prospect of renewing the political negotiations with the Palestinians and reaching an agreement with them. The second assumption is that there is no possibility of subduing the Palestinians militarily and imposing a solution upon them, or motivating them to suspend the use of violence and acquiesce to the existing situation. Those who favor one of the various unilateral separation options assume that, given the ease with which would-be terrorists can reach Israeli population centers, it would not be possible to assure the personal security of Israelis as long as there is no physical separation between them and the Palestinians.