“It appears increasingly unlikely that the president’s high-profile effort to restart Israel-Palestinian talks will succeed this year and perhaps well beyond.” (The Jeruselum Post; 6th December 2010; Rubin)
Introduction
There have been many failed attempts at establishing peace between the two countries since 1967 (see Fig.1). These talks, it can be argued, come from a Liberal standpoint (Dunne, 2001), and although it is likely one can explain the foundation of the talks from this paradigm, this paper asserts that the current predominant liberal approach is both unrealistic and unhelpful in devising a solution for problems in the Middle East, and furthermore, the reason the peace talks ultimately break down is due to not understanding the nature of the conflict in the first place. Therefore, having referenced Liberalism, this paper goes on to explain the failing of the talks from a Constructivist and a Realist perspective.
| UN Security Council Resolution 242, 1967 |
| Resolution 338 is usually linked to it. This called for a ceasefire in the war of October 1973 and urged the implementation of 242 "in all its parts". |
| Camp David Accords, 1978: A Framework for Peace in the Middle East. It laid down principles for peace, expanding on resolution 242. The second accord was the The Camp David framework for the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. |
| The Madrid Conference, 1991 |
| Oslo Agreement, 1993 The Oslo Agreement stipulated that Israeli troops would withdraw in stages from the West Bank and Gaza, that a "Palestinian Interim Self-Governing Authority" would be set up for a five-year transitional period, leading to a permanent settlement based on resolutions 242 and 338. Various attempts were made (including at Taba in 1995, Wye River in 1998 and Sharm el-Sheikh in 1999) to speed up the withdrawal and self-government provisions of Oslo. |
| Camp David, 2000 The failure at Camp David was followed by a renewal of the Palestinian uprising or intifada. |
| Taba, 2001 further talks in Washington and Cairo and then Taba in Egypt, but although disparities were lessened, they were not overcome. |
| Saudi peace plan, 2002 |
| Roadmap, 2003 |
| Geneva Accord, 2003 |
| Annapolis, 2007 Annapolis envisioned a full peace deal by the end of 2008 |
| 2010..... Direct peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are at a standstill (Reynolds 2010) |
Fig. 1 table detailing history of talks.
Creation and international status of the States
In the United Nations Palestine has been classified as a state (with limited recognition) since 1988 (UN resolution 43/177: 104-2-36). Palestine is recognised by all its neighbouring countries, except Israel. Palestine has diplomatic relations with over 100 countries, although some of these have diplomatic relations without recognising Palestine as a country; and there are additional countries that have no diplomatic relations, despite having recognised Palestine as a state (NJK 1999 & 2006 ).
Israel was recognised as a state in 1948. Israel is recognised by most of the world’s governments, including 174 UN member states. While Israel has representation in the UN, however, it is not recognised by most of its neighbouring countries, except for Jordan and Egypt (Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) 2010).
Israel and Palestine have been in conflict since before the creation of the state of Israel (Aruri 2005), and it is important to advise the reader that the history of conflict between Palestinian and Israelite peoples goes back Millennia (NJK 1999 & 2006 ).
| | Realism/Neo-Realism (claims to be objective) | Constructivism (normative) |
| Structure of World | Anarchic, no over-riding authority, must compete for Survival against other States | Anarchic, but this can lead to cooperative as well as competitive behaviour-all is intersubjective |
| View of the state | Self interest at heart; power seeking unitary actor pursuing national interests | Behaviour of state is shaped by élite attitudes, collective norms and community identity |
| Key resources | Power (military, wealth, population) | Dependant on cognitive beliefs and interests; power is what states make of resources |
| View of the individual | Power-seeking, self-interested and hostile | Key participant and becomes chief unit as a collective, especially élites |
| View of the international system | Anarchic- reaches balance of power system or negative peace | International structures interact with domestic to create the arena |
| Beliefs about change | Very slow change to structural system; human nature static | Belief in slow, evolutionary change |
Fig. 3 adapted from (Wendt 1992 ;Lebow 2009; Mingst 2003; pp.79)
Outline
For the purposes of this paper it is sensible to apply theories directly to the problem, assuming the reader can discern from the table the key facets of the theories. (See Fig.3 for the theories summarised briefly)
Introducing the argument from a constructivist perspective and the shifting to a Realist perspective and finally a Constructivist analysis, this paper asserts that Israel’s and Palestine’s behaviour are founded on their identity, which has developed from conflict (Rouhana & Fiske 1995;Deakers 2009) and that they perceive the world from this antagonistic standpoint (Wendt 1992, Boyarin 2009). Furthermore, their rationale of security is based on this intersubjective standpoint and is attained by relating identity to the perception of threats. This assertion is drawn from a Constructivist view of International Relations (Mingst 2003, Fierke 2009) ) and thus, when addressing the breakdown of Peace Talks in the Middle East, it is asserted that the role of social identity is key and supersedes Realist theory.
The analysing abortive peace talks from both perspectives:
“Should we not follow the path earlier scientists took when
They rejected the metaphysical claims that in order to know anything about the World and its different forms of beings, one had to understand first ‘being’itself?.... A simple yes/no logic also fails to come to terms with the fact that something that is not white need not be black, and this means in practical terms that it provides us with not much guidance for finding out what is the case [sic.] (Kratochwil 2007)
Relating this statement to the Arab-Israeli inability to sustain peace talks, it could be asserted that Kratochwil is suggesting that we as international relations scholars should be concentrating on facts, on what we can quantify and prove, leaving behind metaphysics to the arts. This appears to embody a Realist perspective. However, as he somewhat contradictorily continues, international relations goes deeper and he holds authority in the view that things are not necessarily easy to locate as polar differences. It could be argued that the ancient, ethnic and religious divides are what create the stage that these talks are on (Boyarin 2009), and therefore it is by evolving an identity of being Israeli or Palestinian that transcends Jewish’ness’ or Muslim or Arab, which would be key to these talks being successful (Mingst 2003). This, although a constructivist perspective (Wendt 1992), would continue to prescribe a two state solution, in order to create this new cohesive identity (of belonging to either state). This view is also held by Nau (2007) a Realist who suggests that National identity unlike ethnicity needs explicitly defined borders and furthermore without these borders there is no coherent nationality and subsequently there is conflict (Nau; pp.346 2007). Conversely the nation of Israel is founded on both geographical and genealogical terms according to (Moghadam 2001) and it can be asserted that the very creation of a state of Israel came heavily on the tail of ethnic cleansing of a state to attempt to produce a race which matched its leaders ideas of what the nation should be (Boyarin 2009),therefore in the case of Israel and Palestine it is important that we do not conclude that 2 states should have only one ethnic or religious identity in each, as this would be agreeing with tacitly at least ethnic cleansing, so a nation state of Palestine and Israel must be constructed with firm borders and institutional practices that are not divisive or favourable to one ethnic group (Deakers 2009), it is this creation of political and domestic infrastructure that could cause peace (Wendt 1992) and the lack of this that causes them to breakdown. From a realist perspective this is irrelevant it as it is normative and prescribes not describes what is occurring it can be asserted the Peace talks fail; due to the conflict being fuelled by lack of State Security and in a Self-Help system this lack of security would ensure conflict not peace (Deakers 2009) (Dunne,T. & Schmidt, B. 2001). The Realist viewpoint concentrates on the ‘objective law of politics’ suggesting a border must be defined and thus when supported by evidence for example UN decisions on territory or the original Balfour agreement (Reynolds, History of Mid-East peace talks 2010) (although Realists do not agree with Global governance),it could be asserted Israel is the reason the Peace talks fail as they continue to build in on Palestinian territory (Waltz 2000). Although according to Wendt 1992 self help security systems develop due to interaction over time the success of the peace talks depends on a unilateral change in behaviour much like his analogy of alter and ego suggesting that it is the expectation of Israel and Palestine to receive a bad deal from the Peace talks as arguably both have been deceived and had agreements broken unilaterally in the past (Wingfield-Hayes 2010), it is from this mistrust that they fail. However, this reasoning according to Waltz (2000) does not hold much merit; the reason for mistrust is simply power and threat. Realism strongly believes in defending the nation from Security threats particularly from ones neighbouring states, it can be asserted that by expanding their territories Israel is behaving in a classical realist manner also for governments to be effective “in the brutal international arena” must defend and therefore sometimes expand state boundaries (Lebow 2009). By concentrating its efforts internationally to achieve domestic security Israel is striving for negative peace and that until a balance of power is achieved between the two states the borders will continue to be fluid (Allin and Simon 2010) and until there are defined defended state borders peace will fail. However, as reported only 2 weeks ago at present it is because of the Israeli incursion onto Palestinian land that Palestinians refuse talks (Asser 2010), therefore it is possible to eschew the Realist paradigm of mutual aggressors and suggest that the Constructivist account of why this happens is more useful; it is espoused by Wendt that predation such as this, is anarchy working as a permissive cause and that other states are forced into aggressive behaviour as a consequence and therefore it is not due to Palestine being power hungry and lack of borders that there is no peace it is because Israel is an aggressive predator (Wendt 1992) (Rouhana, N. & Fiske, S. 1995). Wendt also explains that often this predation is due to priori behaviour and as one can see in fig 2 Israel and Palestine have similar casualties, and it is arguably the nature of the casualties that causes Israel to continue to bring military force and perform ‘illegal’ border checks in areas of settlements ,therefore from a constructivist explanation the talks have broken down due to priori behaviour that is not concrete and determinate indefinitely, these behaviours are not exogenously given but constructed and thus could be changed leaders could begin a cycle of trust (Wendt 1992, Deakers 2009). Nonetheless Realists would suggest; no matter what the leaders of both sides cry in terms of their ethical nature and the philosophical desirability of peace talks, whilst denouncing the behaviour of the other party claiming this is why they fail, the real argument is about territory and the amassing of military power on both sides (Morgenthau 1978). The continual terrorist strikes and attacks on civilian population is war like, threatens security and thus it could be espoused Peace will fail until the two sides have fought it out to complete annihilation or submission of one side to create a negative peace (Mearshiemer 2009), however as there is a hegemonic power; the United States offering assistance to either side to create peace there is little likelihood this will happen. Furthermore, although Realism professes to be objective it has an normative element Morgenthau (1978) claims that foriegn policy should be rational and that when dealing with interstate conflict rational policy minimises risks and maximises benefits, therefore Israel must maintain relations with the United States (US) who are a hegemonic super power with a record of interference and who are pushing for Peace talks (Allin and Simon 2010). Also the US have interest here in keeping a friend in the region by way of Israel and it is unlikely they will ignore risk of Nuclear attack from the Middle East it is unlikely they will give up on peace talks so this conflict is destined to be interfered with by peace talks thus Realism can explain the breakdown in terms of the fact the Peace talks are unnatural and go against normal objectively observed International behaviour in an anarchical system (Waltz 2000) and that the unipolar nature of the current international system is being played out in the farcical peace talks.
Finally whilst accepting US intervention as a factor Constructivists can conclude Israelis’ and Palestinians’ homelands are at the forefront of these talks: there are two contested states and the boundaries between the states are not only geographically overlapping but are doing so due to strong religious and ethnic identity (Rusbult, Kumashiro, Kubacka & Finke 2009). And although It seems impossible to have peace talks when the enemy “is camped out in the back yard and not content with camping but building homes and bulldozing others” (Asser 2010). Talks between these two internationally recognised states have begun and failed, over and over again yet they do begin again with 40 years effort towards peace, Onuf (1988); from Fierke (2009) would suggest that the reason behind this is an evolving meaning of what it is to be Israeli and Palestinian and that in the future talks based on constructing an identity that is secular and independent from extremist views would no longer fail and it is the refusal to move from and aggressive predatory position that is causing the breakdowns and not as mentioned the Realist position of the in viability of the talks (Agha &Malley 2001).
Conclusion
As was suggested in the introduction, the Peace Talks essentially come from a Liberal Paradigm, and Realists would maintain that these talks are about defining negative peace in order to ensure security for the state. In a self-help system, it is the anarchic, unpredictable nature of States that is the cause of the conflict, especially as the boundaries between the states are not only overlapping but severely contested (Nau 2007).
The complex problems causing a breakdown in Peace Talks need addressing on a level that goes beyond the merely observable, quantifiable statistics genre of the hard sciences. Objective and positivist as Realism purports to be, amassing weapons and supporting a growth in population (Dunne,T. & Schmidt, B. 2001) is not going to stop a conflict, only fuel it. It is necessary to bring the social into what is after all a social problem. War is undertaken as individuals collectively join together to use force against another group of individuals; yet use of words like enemy fire, assets and collateral damage serve to deny the costs of war (Erskine 2009). This is why the situation in the Middle East, despite the best efforts of international agencies such as the UN, huge states such as the former USSR and the United States, and despite strong international opinion and conjecture by many academics, over nearly 100 have failed (Asser 2010). It is the very greyness, the otherness of the adversary which makes truth vague and colours perspectives to an extent that peace cannot be agreed upon (Rusbult, Kumashiro, Kubacka & Finke 2009). Furthermore, Peace talks fail because they are undertaken from a perspective that ignores the intersubjective nature of the status of the other (Crisp 2007), (the creation of an identity dependant on an enemy) and tries to put a sticking plaster over a festering wound, by expecting and funding more war in order to beget Peace. Realists advocate nothing has changed in real terms due to the zero-sum nature of IR and it is from this morally sceptic perspective that Peace talks fail (Rouhana, & Fiske, 1995).
Therefore it can be argued that until we can usurp the embedded identities of Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews, we will go no further in our quest to understand or begin to assist in creating a lasting peace in this region (Deakers 2009).It is essential to first convince them that they can be allies. As insurmountable as this task seems, it is pertinent to remember the changes in Europe in the last 60 years: the thriving European Union and peace between long standing enemies; in addition, structures are beginning to emerge similar to those in Northern Ireland, for example; this is working (on a very small scale) already in the “hand in hand project”, which sends children in the region to mixed Arab/ Israeli schools (Deakers 2009); meetings of Israeli and Palestinian women who have lost children in the conflict are also starting to draw out similarities and use them as a basis for protest (Moghadam 2001); and there are even Muslim soldiers in the Israel standing army (Sekkai 2009). So it can be asserted that Wendt’s view of anarchy not being a natural state of affairs, but one that occurs causally, reflecting the interaction of states, is proven correct here, as is the conceptions of self and other mirroring behaviour to cause Peace or Conflict (Fierke 2009, Kratochwil 2007, Wendt 1992).
Works Cited
Agha,H. Malley R. Camp David: An Exchange. September 20th, 2001. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2001/sep/20/camp-david-an-exchange/ (accessed December 6th, 2010).
Allin, S and Simon,S. Iran,Isreal,America and The rumours of war; In The Sixth Crisis. Oxford: University Press, 2010.
Aruri, Naseer Hasan. Dishonest broker: the U.S. role in Israel and Palestine . New York: South End Press; 2nd Revised edition edition (17 Oct 2003) , 2005.
Asser, M. Obstacles to Middle East peace: Borders and settlements. September 2nd, 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11102696 (accessed November 15th, 2010).
Boyarin, D. & Boyarin,J. "Diaspora:Generation and the ground identity of Jewish identity." In Theorizing diaspora, by A. Evans-Braziel & Mannur, 85-118. Oxford: Blackwell, 2009.
Carlin, G. Napalm and Silly Putty. New York: Hyperion, 2001.
Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). Last Produced for Monthly Bulletin of Statistics No. 10/2010. October 1, 2010. http://www.cbs.gov.il/www/yarhon/b1_e.htm (accessed November 16th, 2010).
Crisp, R.J, Turner, R. Essential Social Psychology. London: Sage, 2007.
Deakers, C. "Amidst Realism and Constructivism: Steps Toward Israeli-Palestinian Peace." Berkeley Political Review, March 2009: http://bpr.berkeley.edu.
Dunne,T. . "Liberalism." In The Globalization of world politics, by S. & Smilth ,S. Bayliss, 162-182. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Dunne,T. & Schmidt, B. "Realism." In The Globalization of world politics, by S. & Smilth ,S. Bayliss, 141-161. New York : Oxford University Press, 2001.
Erskine, T. International Relations Theories; Discipline and Diversity. 2nd. Edited by T Dunne and M.and Smith S. Kurki. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Fierke, K.M. International Relations Theories; Discipline and Diversity. 2nd. Edited by T Dunne and M.and Smith S. Kurki. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Jenkins, Christopher. "Back to Basics: Deterrence and the IDF." http://fpc.org.uk/search/isael+pback+to+basics%3A+deterrence+and+the+idf/. London, 2010.
Katz, Joseph. An Engineered Tragedy Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian - Israeli Conflict. september 2002. http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/mostly.html (accessed November 23rd, 2010).
Kratochwil, Friedrich. "Of false promises and good bets: a plea for a pragmatic approach to theory building." Journal of International Relations and Development , 2007: 1–15.
Lebow, R.N. International Relations Theories; Discipline and Diversity. 2nd. Edited by T Dunne and M.and Smith S. Kurki. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Mearshiemer, J.J. International Relations Theories; Discipline and Diversity. 2nd. Edited by T Dunne and M.and Smith S. Kurki. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Mingst, K. Essentials of International Relations (3rd edition). New York/London: W.W Norton Company, 2004.
Mingst, K.A. Essentials of International Relations. New York & London: Norton, 2003.
Moghadam, Val. "Globalization, Militarism, and Women's Collective Action." - NWSA Journal, , 2001: 60-67.
Morgenthau, Hans J. "6 Principles of Political Realism." In Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, by Knopf Alfred A., 4-15. Fifth Edition, New York:: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Nau, H. Perspectives on International Relations:Power,Institutes and Ideas. Washington : CQ Press, 2007.
NJK. PALESTINE . 1999 & 2006 . http://www.solarnavigator.net/geography/palestine.htm (accessed November 23rd, 2010).
Rauf, Imam Fiesal Abdul. What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West . San Fransisco: Harper Colllins, 2004.
Reynolds, P. History of Mid-East peace talks. August 27th, 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11103745 (accessed November 15th, 2010).
—. US and Israel agree to seek Middle East peace talks. November 12th, 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11736546#story_continues_1 (accessed November 12th, 2010).
Rouhana, N. & Fiske, S. "Perception of power and conflict intensity in asymmetric inter group conflict: Arab and Jewish Citizens of Israel." Journal of conflict resolution, March 1995: 49-81.
Rubin, B. The Jeruselum Post. December 6th, 2010. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=198167 (accessed December 6th, 2010).
Rusbult, Kumashiro, Kubacka & Finke. "“The Part of Me That You Bring Out”: Ideal Similarity and the Michelangelo Phenomenon." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96, no. 1 (January 2009): 61-82.
Schustack & Friedman. The Personality Reader. 2nd. Boston: Pearson, 2008.
Sekkai, Rachid. " talks to Muslims currently serving in the Israeli Defence Force and also to former soldiers and hears about the conflicts they face, at home and on duty, and the pride that military service sometimes brings them." BBC's Arabic Service, 09 04, 2009.
Tidy, J. "The Social Construction of Identity:Israeli Foreign Policy and the 2006 War in Lebanon." School of Sociology, Politics, and International Studies,Working Paper No. 05-08. University of Bristol, 2006.
UN News Centre. "UN and partners may hold high-level meeting over Israeli-Palestinian impasse." UN News. October 18th, 2010. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=36481&Cr=palestin&Cr1= (accessed 22nd November, 2010).
Waltz, K. "Intimations of Multipolarity." Introduction: The New International Order. 2000. http://www.palgrave.com/pdfs/0333917782.pdf (accessed 11 24, 2010).
Wendt, A. "Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics." International Organization 46 (Spring 1992): 391-425.
No comments:
Post a Comment