Resolution of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - Essay Example

Issues to Be Resolved For Lasting Peace to Occur The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most complex issues that is being played out on the international scene and this sis mainly because both sides of the conflict have developed their own narratives as well as justifications for their actions. This has created a situation where both the Israelis and the Palestinians have become actively involved in the conflict and this has developed to such an extent that the resolution of the conflict has become a dim prospect indeed. It is essential to note that numerous attempts have been made over several decades in order to bring about lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians but all of these attempts have ended up in failure mainly because of the unwillingness of either side to make concessions that are deemed to be advantageous to their rivals. The result has been that the conflict has remained intense and this to such an extent that it has become common for both sides to level accusations and counter accusations towards each other over their unwillingness to bring about lasting peace. It is essential to note that there are many issues that have to be resolved in order for lasting peace to be brought about in this region, some of which will be discussed in this paper. Among the issues to be resolved are the following; the conflict of identity, socio-psychological barriers, religion, justice and fairness as a barrier, and finally, the strategic decisions taken during the peace process. One of the biggest issues that have to be resolved in order to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an end is the conflict of identity. This is a situation which developed as a result of the forced removal of Palestinians from their land during the war of 1947 to 1949 which brought about the Palestinian refugee crisis (Flapan 1987, p.4; Morris 2004, p.48). This crisis has become one of the major issues of contention during the peace process because it has brought about a situation where among the points made by Palestinian authorities is that the refugees have a right to return to their ancestral lands. The argument for return is one which is normally bitterly opposed by Israel because it would essentially mean the invalidation of the Jewish state and recognition that it has settled Palestinian land illegally. This is a concession that Israel is unwilling to make because it would essentially bring its development over the last six decades to a halt. Furthermore, most Israelis believe that the land that was occupied starting from 1948 is their ancestral land and that they have a right to own it due to their historical connection to it. Unlike Palestinians, Israelis do not consider their settlement of the land as an occupation but rather as a return to their own homeland (Beinin and Hajjar, 2014). The identity of both Israelis and Palestinians with the Holy Land has led to a situation where neither side is willing to make any concession to the other concerning it, making the peace process extremely difficult to push because the lack of concessions has become a serious issue indeed. The crisis of identity that has been brought about by the claim of both sides to the land has been further increased by the continued occupation of Palestinian territory by Jewish settlement. This occupation of land that is legally supposed to be a part of a future state of Palestine has induced a feeling of bitterness among Palestinians and this has been mainly because they feel that they are being continuously dispossessed of their land. For most Palestinians, their grievances concerning the Israeli occupation of their land is not often given the attention that it deserves during the peace process and this is mainly because they feel that most of the western powers involved in the negotiations, especially the United States, tend to favour Israel (Kurtzer and Lasensky 2008, p.79; Mulhall 1995, p.47). This belief has led to the Palestinian authorities to favour an approach where it insists on the removal of all Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories and the recognition of Palestine as a state. This is a scenario that the Israeli government for the most part cannot contemplate because it would mean that it will lose the gains it has made over the years. The Israeli government has over the years sponsored the occupation and settlement of Palestinian land, especially in the West Bank and this has allowed for the development of a strong sentiment among the settlers that the land rightfully belongs to them and that Palestinians no longer have a legitimate claim to it (Dershowitz 2003, p.176). Such views have become extremely detrimental to the peace process, contributing to the constant break down of talks. Another issue that has to be resolved in order for lasting peace to become a reality is the socio-psychological factors. These are centred on the motivational, emotional, collective memories and national narratives that have come to define the conflict (Peters and Dajani Daoudi 2011, p.26). It is essential to note that both sides of the conflict have come to develop narratives that are highly favourable of their claims to the land as well as the atrocities that have been committed towards one another as a result of the conflict between them. For most Israelis, their involvement in the conflict is justifiable because they wanted to ensure that their national security and interests were protected against the claims of Palestinians as well as their radical government. Palestinians on the other hand, have come to develop a narrative where their actions against Israel for the last six decades have essentially been a struggle for liberation against a foreign people who have occupied their land and sent their people to refugee camps. This narrative is coupled with the belief that the large numbers of Palestinians who have died in the conflict are martyrs and these have become national heroes. Because a significant number of families in Palestine have in one way or the other either lost or been separated from some of their members, this narrative has take root among them and it has become a set of beliefs which they have come to hold dear. The result is that they are no longer willing to make concessions to Israel when it comes to matters concerning the peace process. The Palestinian politicians or statesmen have come to have a hard time during the peace process because if they make any concessions that go against the national narrative, they are likely to end up facing open rebellion at home; a situation that none is willing to face for the sake of a peaceful resolution of the conflict (Shlaim 2005, p.241). The same holds true with Israeli politicians because any move seen to be contrary to the national narrative are at risk of either ending their political careers or being put in the political freezer. Thus, the peace process has come to be significantly affected by the emotions of the two peoples involved in the conflict as well as the motivations of the politicians who lead them and this has created a situation where it is difficult for the process to advance since none is willing to make and tangible concessions to smooth the way. Religion is another factor which has come to affect the peace process and this has been mainly as a result of conflicts concerning the holy places within the territories of contention. Both Israelis and Palestinians have a claim on the city of Jerusalem, specifically when it comes to the Temple Mount, which is considered to be holy by both of these peoples (Gold 2007, p.5). For the Israelis, it is the sight upon which the ancient Jewish king Solomon, built the first temple, while for the Palestinians, a majority of who are Muslims, it is the sight of the Al Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam. The contention for this site of religious significance has brought other players into the conflict because neighbouring Arab states, all of which are majority Muslim, have also chosen to support the Palestinian cause. This is because of their need to keep this site in the hands of Muslims because for a majority of them, there is a common belief that in Jewish hands, there would be a violation of the Al Aqsa Mosque and the an attempt to rebuild the Jewish temple on the site (Golden 2004, p.183). The result is that each of them wishes to ensure that this area is within their territory at the conclusion of the peace process and they have over the years been willing to go to great lengths to make it possible. The possession of this territory, among many others, is an aspiration that has become a part of the national identity of both Israelis and Palestinians and it is through such identity that it has become difficult for the peace process to go ahead (Svartvik and Wirén 2013, p.12). In this way, the peace process has come to be interfered with through the influence of religion and this in such a way that neither side is willing to make concessions such as making Jerusalem a neutral territory which will ensure that both Israelis and Palestinians have access to the holy sites. The bid by both sides to achieve justice and fairness in the final peace has become a barrier for the peace process. This bid for justice and fairness is a situation that cannot be easily resolved mainly because both sides have claims that neither of them can fulfil without the peace process being compromised. Justice and fairness is especially important for the Palestinian cause because for the most part, Palestinians tend to feel like the aggrieved party whose rights have been violated. This is the case where a significant number of Palestinians, especially those who are refugees in other Arab countries, feel that a final peace should include the Israeli concession of their being allowed to return to the land from which they fled some six decades ago (Khalidi 1992, p.29). Furthermore, there is a belief among Palestinians that the peace process can only be conclusive if the preconditions set by the Israeli government, such as an end to the armed resistance, are not on the table. On the other hand, the Israeli government has refused to consider the release of all Palestinian political prisoners without the Palestinian authority making concessions to it, such as the recognition of its existence as well as its desisting from sponsoring organisations that have been labelled terrorist. The contention by both sides that there has to be justice and fairness in the process, with neither willing to back down over the amount of concessions they would like in order to achieve justice, has brought about a situation where the peace process has become compromised, leading to its coming to a halt on several occasions. Without this bid for justice and fairness being brought to an end through the making of concessions, the peace process will not likely take off and there will be no reasonable conclusion to the conflict. The peace process has on numerous occasions been interfered with by the strategic decisions that have been made by the negotiators. Most of these decisions have been made in a bid to gain as much advantage as possible for the party that they are representing and this has led to a situation where neither side is willing to accept conceding to the demands of the other (Pressman 2003, p.6). For the most part, the strategic decisions that are made during negotiations tend to have the effect of bringing them to an end because these decisions are often against the interests of the other party; a factor that the side affected is not often willing to consider because to do so would mean recognising the legitimacy of claims made. There are also instances where one or both sides are willing to negotiate without certain conditions being met and this creates a situation where negotiations become conditional (Reinhart 2011, p.107). The conditional nature of negotiations makes it difficult for both parties to get involved in talks and once they get involved in talks, the decisions that they make tend to serve their own interests rather than the universal interests that will guarantee the success of the peace process. It is essential to note that both Israelis and Palestinians have often backed out of talks at times in a strategic move to serve their own interests; a situation which has allowed for the prevalence of failure of the peace process while at the same time bringing about the continuation of the conflict. In conclusion, the discussion above has attempted to discuss some of the issues that need to be resolved in order for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be conclusively solved. These issues have included the conflict of identity, socio-psychological barriers, religion, justice and fairness as a barrier, and the strategic decisions taken during the peace process. The conflict of identity is a situation which developed as a result of the forced removal of Palestinians from their land during the war of 1947 to 1949 which brought about the Palestinian refugee crisis. Furthermore, the discussion has shown that the identity conflict came about through the claim by both sides to the land has been further increased by the continued occupation of Palestinian territory by Jewish settlement. Socio-psychological factors which are centred on the motivational, emotional, collective memories and national narratives that have come to define the conflict have also been discussed. The discussion has shown that religion is another factor which has come to affect the peace process and this has been mainly as a result of conflicts concerning the holy places within the territories of contention. Moreover, it has been found that the bid for justice and fairness is a situation that cannot be easily resolved mainly because both sides have claims that neither of them can fulfil without the peace process being compromised. Finally, the strategic decisions made during negotiations have on numerous occasions been interfered with the peace process. References Beinin, J. & Hajjar, L., 2014. Palestine, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer. Washington, DC: Middle East Research & Information Project. Dershowitz, A., 2003. The Case for Israel. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Flapan, S., 1987. “The Palestinian Exodus of 1948.” Journal of Palestine Studies, 16(4), pp. 3–26. Gold, D., 2007. The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc. Golden, J. 2004. "Targeting Heritage: The Abuse of Symbolic Sites in Modern Conflicts". In Rowan, Yorke M. and Baram, Uzi. Marketing heritage: archaeology and the consumption of the past. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman Altamira. Khalidi, R.I., 1992. “Observations on the Right of Return.” Journal of Palestine Studies, 21(2), pp. 29–40. Kurtzer, D. & Lasensky, S., 2008. Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press. Morris, B., 2004. The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Mulhall, J.W., 1995. America and the Founding of Israel: an Investigation of the Morality of America’s Role. Los Angeles, Deshon. Peters, J. & Dajani Daoudi, M., 2011. The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Parallel Discourses. London, Routledge. Pressman, J., 2003. "Visions in Collision – What Happened at Camp David and Taba." International Security, 28(2), p. 6. Reinhart, T., 2011. Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press. Shlaim, A. 2005, “The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process.” In Fawcett (ed). International Relations of the Middle East. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Svartvik, J. & Wirén, J., 2013. Religious Stereotyping and Interreligious Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Read More