Throughout the long-term history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the international community made significant efforts in seeking solutions for its resolution. The UN and the Western authorities were the core players in the peace-seeking process, and it is considered that they defined the direction in which the events of the conflict between Israel and Palestine were unfolded (Salom 2002). The USA, the UK, and France continue to be active observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and are considered to be the main peacemaking forces (Arzt 2006). Moreover, some Arabic countries such as Egypt and Iran have a significant influence on the formation of the decisions and actions related to the conflict outcomes (Kumaraswamy & Kumaraswamy 2009).
It is evident that each country played a considerably distinct role in the conflict intervention process, and each state had its own motivations and intention during the period of the conflict’s existence. In this way, the purpose of this paper is the identification and evaluation of the international community members’ roles in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Since the conflict may not be resolved internally, the imposition of the intervention from without could have a positive effect on the establishment of peace. Nevertheless, the positive results were not achieved yet. And it can be explained by the fact that the representatives of the international community pursue the fulfillment of the national interests rather than attempt to eliminate the conflicting situation.
The USA has played a leading role in conflict intervention (Sela 2008). It is observed that the country was an active developer of the peace programs and made a lot of efforts for their introduction and effective application in the region. One of the remarkable US plans was the Taba negotiation in 2001, in which the representatives of the UN Security Council and the international community officials participated. Thus, the USA had a leading role in the provision of security to both Israel and Palestine (Bickerton 2012).
Recently, the significance of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the USA has drastically increased as the lack of conflict regulation interferes with the stabilization within the region and efficient realization of the US concept of the Greater Middle East (Judis 2014). The unresolved Palestinian issue is one of the sources for the development of negative attitudes towards the USA. As a result, the American position in the region weakens. In this way, it is beneficial for the USA to create favorable conditions that would lead to the effectiveness of the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue.
France is characterized by the colonial past and the old-established relations with the main political actors in the Middle East region. Previously, France was primarily in support of Palestine. In the process of the Arabic-Israeli peaceful readjustment, France advocated for the recognition of the Palestinian population’s rights for self-identity. (Cladi & Locatelli 2015). However, with the changes in the domestic political system and a new president coming to power, the preference in the conflict shifted towards the Israeli side.
The current Israeli and French leaderships have had close bonds in both personal and political terms. The French President, François Hollande, and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, share friendship, and they may discuss even the most urgent political issues in an informal way (Seymour 2014). In this way, the current pro-Israeli position undertaken by France is part of a personal character. However, both Israel and France share some common political views as well. For example, they both are concerned with the Iranian nuclear program, and they consider it as a potential threat to the peace in the region, and especially Israel. Moreover, Hollande condemns Iran’s stance in the conflict and its lack of recognition of Israeli independence. France and other European leaders believe that the issues of Israeli security are crucial in the regulation of conflict (Cameron, Hollande and Merkel: why we support the Iran deal 2015).
The United Kingdom
Historically, the English government had a long-term presence in the Middle East region. Since the times of the Ottoman Empire, British imperialism had an influence on the development of the Arabic provinces, and, as many researchers in the field of history claim, through the established elites, the British government indirectly imposed its rule in the some of the states, i.e. Jordan and Iraq (Fieldhouse 2006). Moreover, the UK doesn’t depend on the oil import. Nowadays, the UK pushed forward two main goals on the way to the peace establishment: the maintenance of negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian sides, and the stabilization of the political power in Palestine (Podeh 2002). The British officials claim that the UK and the UN have the necessary resources for the effective regulation of the situation in the Middle East (Henken 2015).
The Arab Countries
The Arab countries are considered the key participants in finding the balance between Israel and Palestine. It is possible to say that the main role in this process is played by the Arab League that includes Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria (What Is the Arab League’s Position on the Israeli – Palestinian Conflict? 2015).
Throughout the history, Israel was commonly perceived as an enemy of the Arab nations because it confronted the Arab countries for a very long time (Moore 2001). In 1948, during the Arab-Israeli War, Egyptian, Jordanian, Lebanese, and Syrian forces attacked Israel in an attempt to eliminate the country and minimize the confrontation (Moore 2001). Moreover, in 1967, the Six-Day War commenced in an attempt to exclude Israel from the Middle East due to its potential threat. The Israeli military strength became a primary reason for signing the peace agreements between Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, and Israel. However, Iran continued to push forward the idea of the Israeli nation eradication while the majority of the Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt were in favour of the peaceful coexistence in the Middle East.
In 2002, the Arab Peace Initiative was adopted by the members of the Arab League. As the peace proposes claims, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be considered over in a peaceful way, in the case if Israel withdraws ‘from the all the territories occupied since 1967’, and in case the Palestinian State’s independence will be recognized (2002 Arab Peace Initiative 2008). Nowadays, the Arab states support these clauses stated in the API.
The United Nations
The UN has economic and military resources for the strengthening of the influence in the conflict resolving. Nevertheless, the UN envoy represents 27 different nations, and each of them has the distinct intentions and historical experience. In this way, the main weakness of Europe is in the fact that it is not considered an influential political actor that may be able to drive the peacemaking process.
Still, the UN makes efforts for the enhancement of the situation in the Middle East. For example, the United Nations Security Council has been involved in fostering peace between Israel and Palestine by introducing the Roadmap of Peace in 2002 (Fábos & Isotalo 2014). As a result, the international community attains the opportunity to engage the conflicting sides in the negotiation process and comprehend the differences in the sides’ opinions.
Self-Interests in the Conflict
The review of the States’ roles in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict makes it clear that there are many controversies between the members of the peacemaking movement as well. It seems that the confrontation between Israel and Palestine may remain intentionally unsolved for the benefits of the external political forces. For instance, the desire to acquire the influence can be considered as one the potential causes of the long-lasting nature of the problem (Bassiouni & Ben-Ami 2009). But, at the same time, it is evident that some of the countries want to find the solution that will provoke a positive impact on the socio-economic development in the Middle East.
Despite the existence of the countries interested in the positive outcomes, the majority of the participants are engaged in this conflict in an attempt to fulfil the national interests. Moreover, it is possible to assume that while expressing the desire to cultivate peace and find the long-lasting solution in the area some of the Arabic authorities could pursue the financial benefits (Karsh 2002).Lastly, Iran tends to prioritize its self-interests while having an active participation in the current conflict. It does not have a neutral position and tends to claim the necessity of the elimination of the Israeli nation from the map of the Middle East (O’Doherty 2014).
In this way, the lack of sincerity between the States and focus on the pursuit of the national interests that contradict each other have an adverse influence on the ability to find the lasting solution.
Impact of the Conflict on the Middle East and the World
The conflict between Israel and Palestine has the impact on the socio-economic and political environment on both regional and global scales (Reich 2007). For instance, in 2015, over 200 people were murdered because of the conflict, and the percentage of the injured has significantly increased (Reich 2007). It remains evident that the conflict influences the economy and the social structure in Palestine and Israel. The instability creates significant drawbacks in the socio-economic and cultural development due to the focus on the military confrontation.
The members of the international community and the neighbouring Arabic countries continue to invest significant amounts in the military actions, and the costs continue to increase (Mathews 2011). Thus, the participants experience great financial losses as the establishment of peace requires investments (Peters & Newman 2013). Finally, the controversial actions of the peacemaking forces may lead to the development of the hostile attitudes towards the States, and it may become a reason for the cancellation of the international trade agreements (Gelvin 2009).
The analysis of the problems that comprise the essence of the Middle East regulation makes it clear that the establishment of peace should be primarily based on the international legal principles and documents that should be specifically designed and adopted with considering interests of both confronting sides. The problem resolving on the equitable basis is the major requirement for the normalization of the situation in the Middle East in general and liquidation of the source of the international tension.
For the release of the conflict in the Arabic-Israeli relationship, the constructive and equalized dialogue among all the sides is needed. Only in the atmosphere of the productive communication, the extent of the current controversies may be reduced, and the reliable methods and means for the provision of security may be found.
Arzt, D 2006, Refugees into citizens: Palestinians and the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Council on Foreign Relations, New York.
Bassiouni, M & Ben-Ami, S 2009, A guide to documents on the Arab-Palestinian/Israeli conflict, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Danvers.
Bickerton, I 2012, Arab-Israeli Conflict: a guide for the perplexed, Continuum International Publishing Group, New York.
‘Cameron, Hollande and Merkel: why we support the Iran deal’ 2015, The Washington Post.
Fábos, A & Isotalo, R 2014, Managing Muslim mobilities: between spiritual geographies and the global security regime, Council on Foreign Relations, New York.
Fieldhouse, D 2006, Western Imperialism in the Middle East, 1914–1958, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gelvin, J 2014, The Israel-Palestine conflict: one hundred years of war, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Henken, Y 2015, The 1956 Suez war and the New World order in the Middle East: exodus in reverse, Lexington Books, Lanham.
Judis, J 2014, Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the origins of the Arab/Israeli conflict, Springer, New York.
Karsh, E 2002, The Arab-Israeli conflict: The Palestine war 1948, Osprey, Oxford.
Kumaraswamy, P & Kumaraswamy, P 2009, The A to Z of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Scarecrow Press, Lanham.
Mathews, E 2011, The Israel-Palestine conflict: parallel discourses, Routledge, London.
Moore, J 2001, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Volume IV, part two, Springer, New York.
O’Doherty, M 2014, Map for realization of peace between Palestine and Israel – an evidence, Scarecrow Press, Lanham.
Peters, J & Newman, D 2013, Routledge handbook on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Routledge, London.
Podeh, E 2002, The Arab-Israeli conflict in Israeli history textbooks, 1948-2000, Bergin & Garvey, Westport.
Reich, S 2007, International community psychology: history and theories, Springer, New York.
Salom, Z 2002, David Ben-Gurion, the state of Israel, and the Arab world: 1949 – 1956, Sussex Academy Press, Brighton.
Sela, A 2008, The decline of the Arab-Israeli conflict: Middle East politics and the quest for regional order, State University of New York Press, Albany.
What Is the Arab League’s Position on the Israeli – Palestinian Conflict? 2015. Web.