JPS190 02 Kensicki 7..25
“Smart” Colonialism and Digital Divestment: A Case Study ANNA KENSICKI Much has been written about how information communication technologies (ICTs) detract from nations’ planning and development norms, but there remains insufficient theoretical examination of the way ICTs may drive extranormative national aims. This paper examines such a case by disentangling the complicated relationships between telecommunications, city planning, and economic development in one modern settler-colonialcontext.Theauthorexploreshow planning and development norms are adulterated in Palestine-Israel to further a select set of interests, in the service of an evolving national project. Palestinian and Israeli demographics and telecommunications infrastructure on both sides of the Green Line are examined, revealing the role of these technologies in facilitating population dispersal, economic exploitation, and political control at various stages of settler colonialism. PLANNERS HAVE LONG REGARDED information communication technologies (ICTs) as catalysts for national economic growth and planning. While researchers caution against uninformed investment or misuse of them, ICTs are generally lauded for their benefits—ranging from modest to revolutionary—1or,alternatively,simplyasameans to maintain the status quo.2 Proponents of ICTs credit them with many virtues, including making cities more livable; promoting communities’ safety,3 economic growth, and inclusion; and raising standards of living.4 ICTs and their ability to transport information, individuals, money, and experiences are integral to life in modern nations. While much has been written about the capacity of ICTs to augment or undermine planning and development norms, there remains insufficient theoretical exploration of how they drive extranormative, or counterproductive, national initiatives. This article offers up such an exploration in the Palestine-Israel context, examining the complicated relationship between Israel’sICT4D (ICTs for economic development) policy, on the one hand, and settler-colonial theory, on the other.
[Show full text]