Introduction
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s long conflicts that started in the mid-20th century amidst various efforts to resolve the matter. The main issue that escalates the fight is the ideological differences between the Jews and Arabs grounded toward achieving the sovereignty of each party in the Middle East. This paper’s central question is, “Despite many years of attempts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what makes the fight endure for this long with efforts made by international communities to resolve the matters?” The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has lasted for a long time because of political interests that have not been combatted to solve the issue. To end the conflict between Israel and Palestine, there is a need to expand Palestine’s anonymous zones, reduce conflict of interest among international mediators and offer some parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank to Palestine.
The Background of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
There has been spiraling violence that is evident in both Israel and Palestine. Dozens of people have been killed in the Middle East through uncertain events such as the Gaza War that have mortally wounded the citizens in these two countries. The risk, in this case, is that the war might not end soon because it has existed since the early 1900s with the involved parties technically chasing each other regarding their rights, liberties, and recognition (Haas para. 4). The reason why this international conflict topic was selected is due to the concerns to end the long-enduring war that has been destabilizing the countries on political, social and economic realms. For instance, there is a great concern about breaching human rights atrocities such as civilians and children losing lives.
The world needs to combat the conflict so that the headlines seen in news bulletins about rockets launched in Gaza and airstrikes in Jerusalem will end. One of the key strategies is to have peacekeeping missions that will not create geopolitical tensions over the conflict of interest. For instance, the US has had a staunch stand on the need to end the humanitarian crisis and has faced challenges due to Israel’s ideological differences concerning the war (Fleischacker para. 5). The countries that oppose the US have contributed to the long-enduring conflict as leaders seem to throw words that spark controversy over the matter.
One of the major areas where conflict of interest can be evident is the US-Israel strategic dialogues on technology and partnership in artificial intelligence, among other areas. The Israeli-Palestinian war will end if the involved countries do not base their means of remedy on their potential economic and military gains. There should be a neutral aspect that must be included in the discussions, such as the need to stop economic sabotages for the two fighting countries so that there could be a win-win situation that allows global peace to prevail (Goodman para. 6). Hence, the peacekeeping missions should not involve major factions of politics on the matter as that will solve the matter.
Occasionally, Israeli-Palestinian has escalated from leadership policies such as revenge after an attack. The frequency of attacks, more so those claiming lives, has heightened the rage between the two countries, which is why Israel has seen Palestine as an enemy and vice versa. Since the British announcement of supporting the establishment of a national home for Jews in Palestine, Israel has been witnessing objections from Palestine, which failed to honor the need to include Jews in their sovereignty (The White House para. 6). From then, the supporting countries have taken stern actions towards the interested country against their rivals which marked series of assassinations and humanitarian crisis since the 1930s. Palestine, a Muslim-affiliated country, has never agreed with Israel due to religious differences that influence starting of a war. The recommendation by the United Nations (UN) in 1947 to partition Palestine into Arab and Jewish parts sparked the unending rivalry that has escalated until today (Xheraj 123). To solve this matter, Palestine must be given major control of their country but with moderation on the resource allocation and exploitation in the country.
Analysis of the Conflict
Based on how the conflict started, various issues can be derived from the same. First, religious extremism affects how both Palestine and Israelis address the issue. The religious factions in that aspect regard Judaism and Islam. The sanctity of holy sites and ideological narratives of the two religions differ by a wide margin. For instance, since the 20th century, extreme religious hidden agendas rumored by each side propagate the extremism that is the main factor that separates their consensus. Mostafa (Para. 5) says that “extreme religious Zionists in Israel increasingly see themselves as guardians and definers of the how the Jewish state should be and are very stringent regarding any concessions to the Arabs.” That means their definitions may not tally with what Muslims perceive the same due to reference and interpretation of holy books and thematic messages contained there, more so about humanity.
It is evident that without solving religious differences, little can be achieved in ending the long-enduring war. The article further says that “on the other hand, Islamist groups in Palestine and elsewhere in the Islamic world advocate the necessity of liberating the “holy” territories and sites for religious reasons and preach violence and hatred against Israel and the Jewish people” (Mostafa para. 10). Based on the above opinion, there have been numerous assumptions that Jews believe in planning to destroy AL Aqsa Mosque and replace it with their temples. Additionally, Muslims have been perceived to believe Jews are supposed to be eradicated (Lewis 27). These two core beliefs have made the war continue from time to time, and that can be based on religious affiliations.
Secondly, conflict of interest has led to long-term military engagement between the countries affected. The overseeing countries, such as the US, have contributed to the extent of the war because of the distinct approach used by various administrations. For instance, under President Trump, the US supported the annexation and settlement expansion for Jews in Palestine. However, the Biden and Obama regimes seem to play different tunes in this matter (Outlook Media para. 6). President Biden is concerned about lowering tensions and ensuring calm. Biden feels the settlement project by Israelis will create more havoc. Under the Obama administration, humanitarian atrocities were key considerations concerning the war. Obama wanted the two countries to refrain from shedding innocent blood over an issue that embarked on long ago (Turner 488). In what seems to match Biden, Obama had stated clearly that Israel could not permanently occupy and settle in Palestine land.
The conflict of interest has occasionally blocked UN Security Council from executing resolutions that condemn Israel’s actions in Palestine. The reason is that since the Cold War, Israel has been a key linchpin of the American Middle East Strategy. The American leadership has wanted to contain Soviet influence in the Middle East because if that would have a permanent unification, the US might risk losing nuclear power dominance (Layoun p. 334). Thus, having these states of geopolitical differences means it is hard to control the conflict because Israel will retreat by holding firmly onto policies that manifest their economic and social powers. To reduce this uncertainty, the US must have a permanent policy that does not change regarding the Israeli-Palestine conflict and uniformly addresses key demands for the two parties.
Nature of the Conflict
The Israeli-Palestine conflict’s nature is based on cultural, religious, and clash of interests. The Arabs are people who love unity and the protection of their cultural heritage. The forceful intrusion of Israel in their land posed some risks in which they felt various religious elements would contradict how the community perceived life. Judaism calls for non-robust ways of dealing with fluctuations in society. At the same time, Muslims hold a contrary opinion of suppressing the main cause of a problem such as sabotaging the economic activities of Jews to chase them away (Harb para. 4). The cultural barriers are among the main challenges in the conflict.
The Hamas-Fatah segment of the conflict has sparked controversies over continuing efforts to launch rockets meant to kill people in Israel. The value of human life might be contentious for the two cultures as crimes vary for each party. A clash of interests is evident when some parties do not agree over the annexation of Jews from Palestine. 42% of Israelis have supported the annexation, while 34% hold that there is supposed to be a two-state remedy to end the war (Fleischacker p. 266). Therefore, it is evident that interests differ, making the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have drawbacks as obstacles have presented from point to point regarding the matter.
Mediation, Negotiation, and Resolution Processes
The battle between Israel and Palestine has lasted for many years, and various resolutions have been completed and underway while others are being discussed. The completed remedies include signing treaties between Israel and other countries regarding the war. For instance, there were successful peace treaties between Israel and other ‘confrontation states’ under the UN 242 Resolution that called for the ceasing of fire and military stand zones on the Suez Canal (Fleischacker p. 277). These efforts have helped escalate the war by preventing other countries from intervening by using the military. That means the tensions grounded on ‘pro-Israel’ or one-sided on either party would be reduced. The other remedy was in 2000 by the US through then-president Bill Clinton. In the peace summit, Israel offered Palestinians 66% of the West Bank, where 17% would be annexed to Israel and the remaining portion not annexed but under Israel’s Control (Fleischacker p. 280). Additionally, 95% of the Gaza Strip was offered to Palestinians (Fleischacker p. 280). The two countries agreed, although that changed after a short while, welcoming 2007 and 2008 talks that recommended Israel withdraw from West Bank (Turner 499). These remedies reduced the chances of the conflict escalating to a significant extent.
Currently, conflict resolution is being implemented through policies that favor the two sides. The UN Human Rights Council has been establishing efforts to bring a sense of normality by encouraging both countries to engage in political solutions (Layoun 331). Through the UN, the two governments have been reducing attacks by demilitarizing major areas of conflict, such as the West Bank and Gaza. The Israel-Palestine conflict has taken a new turn where the senseless cycles of violence have shifted down as the two countries attempt to establish long-lasting solutions through their leaders.
There are current discussions to end the conflict, which international observers have largely influenced. There is a ‘two-state’ solution recommendation that is likely to bear fruits on this matter. President Biden said, “The best way to achieve that remains a two-state solution for two people, both of whom have deep and ancient roots in this land, living side-by-side in peace and security. Both states fully respect the equal rights of their citizens; both people enjoy equal measures of freedom (Outlook Media para. 12). This means currently, the world is watching the moment in which the two countries will agree based on previous problems. The strategy will work since it will reduce the Jews to a minority in West Bank and Gaza, and the Arab majority will be evident hence, reducing the attacks from Palestine.
Recommendation for Solving the Israel-Palestine Conflict
The Israel-Palestine conflict requires an immediate solution that will shrink the escalation. The recommendation is to have an expansion of Palestinian autonomous zones to reduce the clash of interests. This is because illegal and unregulated structures in Palestine have led to demolition orders. Therefore, to avoid that in the future, there is a need to expand the autonomous zones so that the growing population can be contained (Goodman 265). That calls for implementation by transferring Palestinian territory representing a few portions of Israel to Palestine, so there is room for development, growth, and prosperity. The second recommendation is that Israel should ease travel policies since the Palestinians have not had their airport due to Israel’s restrictions. Furthermore, embracing advanced technological metrics that can speed and ease border crossings is essential in that matter.
The other recommendation is to reallocate land where Area C would be offered to Palestine for economic development and industrial thrive. That means there would be an international investment that has a chance of creating special schemes for boosting businesses that have struggled. The US and other involved countries should develop a uniform policy regarding the conflict that does not bring clashes or personal interests while resolving the issue (Mostafa para. 4). As countries try to assist Israel and Palestine, they should ensure that they overlook potential exploitation of any resource from either country. That means there shall be a consensus that calls for avoiding a change of plans on how the matter can be handled in the region. As the intervention methods are put in place, they should not be pro-Israel, or ‘one-sided’ as that guarantees understanding from leadership and groups that fight for sovereign control in the two countries.
Conclusion
The Israel-Palestine conflict started long ago due to differences over a settlement that led to ideological differences grounded on culture, religion, and leadership approaches. The conflict between Israel and Palestine has led to killings and other humanitarian crises. The US has played a key role in intervening despite the conflict of interest that has majorly dragged the reconciliation process. The reason why the war has endured for a long is that many strategies that have been suggested lack two-sided solutions where there is a win-win gain. There is a current discussion to have a two-state solution allowing the countries to engage because they will not have a major loss of property and life. If that is done, there is an assurance that war will end since most Palestinian grievances will be addressed, bringing peace and harmony.
Works Cited
Fleischacker, Sam. “Three Paradigms for Understanding the Israel-Palestine Conflict.” Israel-Palestine, vol. 2, no. 4, 2021, pp. 263–281., Web.
Goodman, Micah. “Eight Steps to Shrink the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, Web.
Haas, Lawrence. “Cultural Obstacles Are the Real Barriers to Israeli-Palestinian Peace.” The Hill, Web.
Harb, Ali. “Israel-Palestine US Policy: What Changed under Biden, What Didn’t.” Israel-Palestine Conflict News | Al Jazeera, Web.
Layoun, Mary. “Telling Stories in Palestine: Comix Understanding and Narratives of Palestine-Israel.” Palestine, Israel, and the Politics of Popular Culture, vol. 3, no. 4, 2020, pp. 313–337., Web.
Lewis, Laura Dawn. “A War of Ideas: The American Media on Israel and Palestine Post Oslo.” The Oslo Accords, vol. 4, no. 2, 2017, pp. 22–31., Web.
Mostafa, Mohamed. “Religion and the Israel-Palestinian Conflict: Cause, Consequence, and Cure.” The Washington Institute, 2018, Web.
Outlook Media. “Explained: The Israel-Palestine Conflict, the Two-State Solution, and Why It Has Failed so Far.” Web.
The White House. “The Jerusalem U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Joint Declaration.” The White House, The United States Government, Web.
Turner, Mandy. “Fanning the Flames or a Troubling Truth? the Politics of Comparison in the Israel-Palestine Conflict.” Civil Wars, vol. 21, no. 4, 2019, pp. 489–513., Web.
Xheraj, Blerina. “A Comparative Law Approach as a Technique for Solving Conflicts between EU Law and Investment Arbitration.” International Challenges in Investment Arbitration, vol. 3, no. 4, 2018, pp. 109–123., Web.