Journals / International Journal of Social Inquiry / 2022 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 1

Gaza After the Unilateral Withdrawal

Tek Taraflı Çekilmenin Ardından Gazze

Pages
209–222
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Systematically analyzing the existing literature, this research evaluates (i) why Israel decided to withdraw in 2005, (ii) the course of operations in the region during the 17 years after the decision to withdraw, and (iii) the legal status of Gaza at the current point.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Gaza Region, although it has lack of Jerusalem’s cultural and religious features, it has always been the center of agriculture and commerce, and is thus often among the military conflicts of the empires.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In 2005, for the past 17 years following Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Israel has been in various operations for several reasons.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Systematically analyzing the existing literature, this research evaluates (i) why Israel decided to withdraw in 2005, (ii) the course of operations in the region during the 17 years after the decision to withdraw, and (iii) the legal status of Gaza at the current point.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Gazze · İsrail · Filistin

Abstract

Gaza Region, although it has lack of Jerusalem’s cultural and religious features, it has always been the center of agriculture and commerce, and is thus often among the military conflicts of the empires. Today, the political and military clash between Palestine and Israel has become the focal point. In 2005, for the past 17 years following Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Israel has been in various operations for several reasons. Between 2008-2014 years; three violent attacks, the asymmetrical power balance of the conflict, came to light. There are many studies in the literature that deal with different aspects of the Gaza issue. Systematically analyzing the existing literature, this research evaluates (i) why Israel decided to withdraw in 2005, (ii) the course of operations in the region during the 17 years after the decision to withdraw, and (iii) the legal status of Gaza at the current point.

Özet

Gazze Şeridi, Kudüs’ün sahip olduğu kültürel ve dini özelliklerden yoksun olmasına rağmen her dönem tarım ve ticaretin merkezi konumunda olmuş ve bu yüzden sık sık imparatorlukların askeri çatışmaları arasında kalmıştır. Günümüzde ise Filistin ve İsrail arasında siyasi ve askeri çatışmanın odak noktası haline gelmiştir. 2005 yılında, İsrail’in tek taraflı olarak Gazze’den çekilmesinin ardından geçen 17 yıl boyunca, İsrail çeşitli gerekçelerle Gazze’ye yönelik operasyonlarda bulunmaya devam etmiş ve 2008-2021 yılları arasında dört şiddetli saldırıyla iki taraf arasındaki çatışmada asimetrik güç dengesi daha net bir şekilde gün yüzüne çıkmıştır. Literatürde Gazze sorununun farklı yönlerini ele alan birçok araştırma bulunmaktadır. Bu araştırmada mevcut çalışmalar sistematik olarak analiz edilerek, (i) İsrail’in 2005 yılında neden çekilme kararı aldığı sorusunun yanıtı aranmış, (ii) çekilme kararının ardından geçen 17 yıl boyunca bölgedeki operasyonların seyri takip edilerek bir bütünlük oluşturulmuş ve (iii) gelinen noktada Gazze’nin hukuki statüsü değerlendirilmeye çalışılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TOPUZ, Z. Ç. (2022). Gaza After the Unilateral Withdrawal. International Journal of Social Inquiry, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 1, 209–222. https://ajindex.com/articles/541822

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Alexander, J. (2007). Conflict, economic closure and human security in Gaza. London: Oxford Research Group, 21 Haziran 2016’da erişim adresi, http://www.pij.org/documents/gaza.pdf
  2. Allen, L. (2012). The scales of occupation: ‘Operation Cast Lead’ and the targeting of the Gaza Strip. Critique of Anthropology, 32(3), 261−284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X12449103
  3. Alon, G. (2003, May 27). Irate Likud MKs put PM on the defensive. Ha'aretz. https://www.haaretz.com/1.5471753
  4. Amir, M. (2021). Post-occupation Gaza: Israel’s war on Palestinian futures. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 103(4), 283−300. Amnesty International (2022, February 1), Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians cruel system of domination and crime against humanity. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity
  5. Arı, T. (2004). Geçmişten günümüze ortadoğu: Siyaset, savaş ve diplomasi. Alfa Yayınları.
  6. Avinoam, S. (2009). Why is Israel’s presence in the territories still called “occupation?”. Jerusalem/Israel, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. http://jcpa.org/text/occupation-sharon.pdf
  7. Bachmutsky, R. (2017), Otherwise occupied: The legal status of the Gaza strip 50 years after the six-day war. Virginia Journal of International Law, 57(2), 413−454. Baker, A. (2012).
  8. International humanitarian law, ICRC and Israel's status in the territories. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(888), 1511−1521. Bayraktar, B. (2013).
  9. Oslo barış süreci, İsrail-Filistin barış görüşmeleri, 1991-2000.
  10. İstanbul,
  11. Küre Yayınları.
  12. Bayraktar, B. (2014). Gazze’ye ekilen nefret tohumları. Ortadoğu Analiz, 6(64), 6−8. Ben Sasson-Gordis, A. (2016). The strategic balance of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza (2005-2016). (M. Bubis, Trans.). Molad - The Center for the Renewal of Israeli Democracy. http://www.molad.org/images/upload/files/ Disengagement-Eng-report-full_final-for-website.pdf Ben-Naftali, O., Gross, A. M., & Michaeli, K. (Ed.). (2005). Illegal occupation: Framing the occupied Palestinian territory. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 23(3), 551−614. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38H948
  13. Benvenisti, E. (2012). The international law of occupation. UK, Oxford University Press.
  14. Bisharat, E. G. (2009). Israel's Invasion of Gaza in International Law. Denv. Journal of International Law & Policy, 38(1). 41−114. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=djilp.
  15. Blum, Z. Y. (1968), The