scholarlyresearchandarticles.files.wordpress.com… · Web viewAccording to the Critical Theorist...

Conflict in International Politics, 1

Conflict in International Politics:A Literature Review

Ryan Timothy Jacobs

University of North Carolina, Wilmington


INTRODUCTION

In the field of political science, large-scale conflict, and its resolution is analyzed through

several different lenses. The theory of war however, tends to be rooted in classical and neorealist

theories and focuses on security and power. Both domestic and international conflicts can also

be analyzed through the dependency paradigm. At the same time, theories of conflict resolution

that exclude force with the exception of deterrence theory, are rooted in institutionalism, and

focuses on learned cooperation (game theory), sanctions, international law, and other

international mechanisms for resolving stemming conflict. Constructivism, on the other hand,

tends to focus on more abstract elements such as ‘collective memories’ and identify politics.

By utilizing research, the following will analyze and compare the different theories, and

their ability to describe, analyze and predict outcomes and resolution to real or potential conflict.

In addition, levels of analysis are broad and deepen the scope of each theory. The current article

will describe how each level of analysis changes the way that conflict is viewed through these

various theories. The theories will help guide a comprehensive analysis of international conflict,

markedly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, conflicts in the Middle East, and rebel organizations.

Concluding with conflict management and resolution approaches, it will purport the necessary

mechanisms to achieve resolve of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, include negotiation and

decision-making strategies apropos to the Middle East, and indicate the necessary actions that

must be taken towards rebel organizations.


THE DEPENDENCY PARADIGM: Realists & Neorealists

As a response to human nature, classical realism was first introduced in the work of

political thinkers such as Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. Author of The

Prince, Machiavelli was accredited as the first important realist, emphasizing the use of force.

Classical realism has four main assumptions to system-level international relations theory. First,

classical realists argue that the states are the main actors in the system. Secondly, they purpose

that all of the states are rational, unitary actors. Thirdly, classical realists contest that all of the

rational, unitary main actors or states, pursue their own interests. The interest of the state is

power; and this ultimate determining factor of the state is equivalent to security. Furthermore,

in classical realism power is fungible; meaning military power and economic power are mutually

interchangeable. To classical realists, the state of human nature is anarchic, and there is no

international order; therefore, there is no central structure or authority which exists to resolve

interstate disputes. Lastly, since all states pursue their own interests (i.e. power) without

centralized authority, there will inevitably be conflicts of interests among the states.1 Realism is

best illustrated in the conquests of early civilizations, such as the Ancient Greeks, Romans, and

other well-known empires. The fall of the Ottoman Empire brought about the first proliferation

of states in the world. After the armistice, on October 31st, 1918 power quickly shifted into the

gathering of states to form alliances against one another.

Moreover, when it comes to foreign policy, other theorists argue that realism does not

provide enough meaning to understand international politics. For realism, theory consists in

ascertaining facts and giving them meaning through reason. It assumes that the character of a

1 Jacobs, R. (2015). International Relations: Various Theories on Four Levels of Analysis (p.2). Wilmington.


foreign policy can be ascertained only through the examination of the political acts performed

and of the foreseeable consequences of these acts. Thus we can find out what statesmen have

actually done, and from the foreseeable consequences of their acts we can surmise what their

objectives might have been.2 To better understand international relations, other theories can be

beneficial in understanding not only political facts, but nonpolitical facts. It can also provide

other reasoning behind statesmen’s actions besides that of power.

As neorealism suggests, structural constraints, as opposed to that of motivation, strategy,

and egoism are the determining factors in international relations. Although it shares the belief in

the anarchic state of nature, neorealism suggests that the number of powers within the

international system shapes the behavior of states. In addition, because of states limit of power,

the concept of a “balance of power” and the “security dilemma” are central to this theory, as well

as time in history. The “security dilemma” which suggests that as states look to protect

themselves (internally and externally), it will make other states insecure and increase their desire

to defend themselves which will then create a threatening environment as states increase their

external power by forming alliance with other states. More so, the “balance of power” exists in a

multipolar world between nations which determines whether war will be severe or limited. This

is best explained through the building of alliance which led to the two great world wars.

For nearly half of a century, it had seemed that the Second World War might possibly be

the “war to end wars” between the great powers in the world. Depicting the end of conflict,

globalization became the new catch-phrase as it replaced the East-West conflict. It was in the

post WWII period (1945-1991) that the Soviet Union and the United States maintained a Cold

2 Elman, C., & Jensen, M. (2014). The Realism Reader (p. 54). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.


War stance between the two dominant political models; liberal democracy and socialism.3

During one of the longest periods of peace, which rested upon bipolarity and nuclear weapons,

the Cold War illustrates the theory of deterrence. The underlying assumption was that neither

side, being rational and reasonable, would intentionally initiate a war if the end result could be

widespread mutual destruction. In the context of mutual vulnerability confidence in deterrence

became a tautology: any rational leader would be deterred from severe provocation by the fear of

mutual destruction; national leaders are rational (how else could they climb to positions of

responsibility?); thus, nuclear weapons would deter. In short, rational leaders would be deterred

via mutual nuclear threats because, by definition, they would be irrational if they were not

deterred.4 Deterrence consists of mirror-imaging, and that actors involved are rational and

reasonable. Although deterrence did prove successful during the Cold War, if a leader such as

Hitler was in power of one of the two main actors, the Cold War might have ended very

differently.

The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the replacement of its system with one of free

market capitalism. The focus of conflict was in developing countries experiencing a host of

internal political and economic disparities.5 It was at this time that Russia, as well as the

dismantled republics had no other choice but to enter into the international capitalist system.

This suggested a more globalized economy trend and interaction and a sense that great power

conflicts had come to an end.6 Comparatively, there were several other aspects of international

3 Kleinberg, R. (Instructor) (2015, Spring). Conflict in International Politics. CMR 525. Class Lecture, Slide 26, Wilmington.4 Payne, K. (2001). The Fallacies of Cold War Deterrence and a New Direction (pp. 17-18). Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.5 Kleinberg, R. (Instructor) (2015, Spring). Conflict in International Politics. CMR 525. Class Lecture, Slide 26, Wilmington.6 Kleinberg, R. (Instructor) (2015, Spring). Conflict in International Politics. CMR 525. Class Lecture, Slide 26, Wilmington.


relations that had changed due to the end of the Cold War. Eight predominant phenomena that

reflected the post-Cold War Era including: a reduced threat of a large-scale inter-state conflict;

internal ethnic and nationalist conflicts; an emergence of international law as an instrument to

resolve international and domestic conflicts and extreme human rights violations; war crimes

tribunals and the international court (ICC); UN resolutions and missions in several regions;

increasing interdependence economically (and politically); increasing free trade agreements

throughout the world (over 400 Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) and Free Trade Agreements

(FTAs); and the European Union, which consisted of 27 countries (including several great

powers) that had moved towards total integration.7 At this point in history, scholars began to

start to look at international organizations and, without the use of force, theorize how they can

resolve or stem conflict. Other scholars also turned towards Constructivism to explain conflict in

international politics.

LEARNED COOPERATION: Institutionalism & International Mechanisms

Institutionalists argue that institutions increase information about state behavior.

Institutions collect information about state behavior and make judgments of compliance or non-

compliance with particular rules. States thus know they will not be able to ‘get away with it’ if

they do not comply with a given rule.8 Game-theory thinking can bring to the surface the fact

that actors usually try to anticipate how others will behave, knowing that the others are doing

likewise (although of course they may not do so accurately, as Israel did not in 1973). In

7 Kleinberg, R. (Instructor) (2015, Spring). Conflict in International Politics. CMR 525. Class Lecture, Slide 24, Wilmington.8 Kleinberg, R. (Instructor) (2015, Spring). Conflict in International Politics. CMR 525. Class Lecture, Slide 44, Wilmington.


November 2012, Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system performed admirably in protecting

against rockets fired from Gaza, but by doing so may have allowed the Palestinians to attack

with relative safety. That is, without these defenses, Israel almost surely would have responded

to the attacks with a ground invasion, something Hamas very much wanted to avoid, and so it

might not have launched anything like the barrage that it did had Israel remained undefended.9

The question of whether actors expect indirect effects is important to the debate about

institutions between institutionalists and realists in international relations. Institutionalists

emphasize that institutions can facilitate cooperation. Realists, at least defensive realists, have no

trouble with this emphasis (Jervis 1999). For them, institutions are one of many tools of

statecraft, including cooperation, that can be used to further state interests. What gives realists

trouble is institutionalists’ central claim: that establishing an institution sets in motion processes

that eventually alter actors’ incentives, expectations, and even values in a way they did not seek

or foresee, giving the institution much greater autonomy than it had at the start. This is what is

meant by the argument that ‘‘institutions have a life of their own,’’ affecting actors in

unexpected ways, as was the case with regional integration.10

CONSTRUCTIVISM: Social Norms, Values & Beliefs and Social-Networking

Another theory is that of Constructivism. Constructivism focuses on the more abstract

elements, such as ‘collective memories’ and political identity that shape the national identity of

people. National identities include norms, beliefs, and the social identities of individuals.

9 Jervis, R. (2012). System Effects Revisited. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 24(3), 396.10 Jervis, R. (2012). System Effects Revisited. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 24(3), 407.


Strictly speaking, as a social theory, constructivism challenges materialism by hypothesizing the

structures of human association as “primarily cultural rather than material phenomena,” and

rationalism by arguing for their function as not only behaviour-regulating but also identity- and

interest-constructing, though “material forces,” it admits, “still matter,” and “people,” it

acknowledges, “are still intentional actors.11 Constructivism argues that statesmen and other

people are motivated by their sense of identity, and what is considered appropriate by their

particular culture; not only material interests. As opposed to that of other theories,

constructivism points to how the ultimate subjectivity of interests and their links to changing

identities. 12 The social dimensions create a system which is constantly changing based on a

process of construction and interaction. Constructivism lacks generalizations to explain political

phenomena. As Alexander Wendt wrote: “Anarchy is what states make of it”; unlike the

rationalists, who emphasize that structures constrain, norms and identity have constitutive roles

in relation to the relationship between agency and structure (Wendt, 1992). Therefore,

constructivists see knowledge as constructed as opposed to created. Epistemologically, social

constructivism is in-between positivist and post-positivist perspectives, making it adaptive,

organized and constrained at the same time. Constraints happen because, as John Gerard Ruggie

wrote: “… epistemology contradicts ontology. In many (…) puzzling instances, actor behavior

has failed adequately to convey intersubjective meaning. (…) In the simulated world, actors

cannot communicate and engage in behavior; they are condemned to communicate through

behavior. In the real world, the situation of course differs fundamentally.” (Ruggie, 1998:95-

96).13 Largely due to technology, the media and social network interactions led the youth of the 11 Behravesh, Maysam. "The Thrust of Wendtian Constructivism." EInternational Relations. March 9, 2011. Accessed February 3, 2015. http://www.e-ir.info/2011/03/09/the-thrust-of-wendtian-constructivism/.12 Nye, Joseph S. Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History. 5th ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2005. 7.13 Hartmann, S. (2013, March 1). Can Constructivism Explain the Arab Spring? Retrieved February 11, 2015, from http://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/19/can-constructivism-explain-the-arab-spring/


Middle East to become the main agent of force, during the Arab Spring. Social interaction, both

on the domestic and international level, constituted conflict which may have been arguably

avoided the Arab Spring.

Ideas of human rights, freedom, social equity and dignity flooded the Middle East and

weakened the structure that had been established in the area for centuries. Even though structure

clearly sets parameters in a political system, these parameters are not bound to be irreversible.

Indeed, it might be because many leaders in the Middle East assumed that their set parameters

were irreversible, that they believed in the durability of their political authoritarianism (El-

Mahdi, 2012:13). Because they felt reassured in their supposedly safe identity and structure, the

increased influx of ideas and Western norms through a process of globalization was not deemed

as a threat. But the agents of political socialization were adept at influencing the people’s

consciousness, especially through media (El-Mahdi, 2012:63). The more frequent the social

interactions became, through the help of social platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and

BlackBerry Messenger, the more the people were ready to reconstruct their social identities.14

The increased levels of attention and desire to share the story worldwide caused an influx of

knowledge and Western ideas that spread throughout the Middle East.

Furthermore, it can be argued that the level of attention was brought from the recognition

of the Western World’s norms and structures affecting the Middle East. This human

consciousness was one of the most powerful tools for the structural change, where the

relationship between material forces and ideas consequently led to the people questioning the

origins of what they had accepted as a fact of their lives, resulting in the idea to establish an

14 Hartmann, S. (2013, March 1). Can Constructivism Explain the Arab Spring? Retrieved February 11, 2015, from http://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/19/can-constructivism-explain-the-arab-spring/


alternative pathway, an alternative world in the Middle East (Barnett in Baylis, 2011:159).15

Globalization, through the usage of social networking spread from Western states, and the ability

to mobilize through informal pathways with the masses and civil society organizations connected

various agents throughout the Middle East; most notably, the youth who came from different

backgrounds and educational systems, but were inspired by similar political ideas and economic

opportunities. These people responded to what had happened in Tunisia. According to the

Critical Theorist Jürgen Habermas, individuals who want either to retain or to recreate their

lifestyles in the public sphere, which the state has structured and occupied, “turn to grassroots

mobilization through new social movements” (Habermas 1989; El-Mahdi, 2012:64).16 This can

also been illustrated in recent conflicts in regards to ISIS, and other terrorist organizations. If it

were not for their knowledge and ability to utilize new technologies and the media, there reach

could not extend as far as it has today.

A new generation, well educated, connected and inspired by new norms and values, has

created a new reality. Structures are not fixed, but are flexible constructions that interact with the

norms and identities of agents and agencies. Social constructivism is therefore an important

theory that can explain some events in the current international system.17 Unlike realism, which

tends to make generalizations in regards to the actions of states based on true and faithful

interpretation of a knowable and independent reality18, constructivism makes no ontological

claims, which would thus confine it to making epistemological claims only. Constructivism

15 Hartmann, S. (2013, March 1). Can Constructivism Explain the Arab Spring? Retrieved February 11, 2015, from http://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/19/can-constructivism-explain-the-arab-spring/16 Hartmann, S. (2013, March 1). Can Constructivism Explain the Arab Spring? Retrieved February 11, 2015, from http://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/19/can-constructivism-explain-the-arab-spring/17 Hartmann, S. (2013, March 1). Can Constructivism Explain the Arab Spring? Retrieved February 11, 2015, from http://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/19/can-constructivism-explain-the-arab-spring/ 18 Andrews, T. (2012). What is Social Constructionism? Grounded Theory Review, 11(1), 4-4.


suggests that continued empirical investigation, leading to an increase in knowledge will change

the attitudes of people; and in turn, the way in which things are constructed.

The above mentioned theories cover various levels of analyzing conflict in international

politics. Utilizing the most dominant wars up until the post-Cold War era explains how these

theories are significant in understanding conflict, as well as resolution. The determinants behind

why large-scale conflicts occur depend on a multitude of actions and reactions by powerful

states, institutions, and cultures that differ among people around the world. The post-Cold War

era consisted of several phenomena, as suggested in the first section of this article, but an

increase in internal conflict, territorial and nationalist conflicts (some of which remain

intractable) became more glaring. The following section will discuss theories in ethnicity and

nationalism; focusing on the case of Israel and Palestine. It will also be the purpose of the

following to analyze the social and political dynamics of these types of conflicts.

THE POST-COLD WAR ERA: Ethnicity & Nationalism

It is far less likely for a major war to occur in the post-Cold War era. Yet, regional and

domestic conflicts persist. Because of this, pressure will always be placed upon powerful states

and international organizations to intervene. Destructive international conflicts that have

endured for more than 20 years, which includes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have been

referred to as intractable conflicts (Coleman & Vallacher, 2011), deep-rooted conflict (Burton,

1987), protracted social conflict (Azar, 1986), moral conflict (Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997), and


enduring rivalries (Diehl & Goertz, 2000). These conflicts are characterized by factors such as

legacies of dominance and injustice, instability, human and social polarities, symbolism and

ideology, oppositional group identities and intense intergroup dynamics, strong emotionally,

protracted trauma, and normalization of hostility (Coleman, Deutsch, & Marcus, 2014; Goddard,

2010).19 Before these issues can be analyzed, the tactics of asymmetric warfare must be

discussed. In doing such, a generalization of the Israeli-Palestinian case will be provided, and

this research will close with methods for management and resolution to the Middle East conflict.

ASYMMETRIC WARFARE: Seven Deadly Tactics

The term “asymmetric conflict” covers a wide range of unconventional tactics used

against conventional forces, civilians, and governments. In one sense, it is a form of competitive

strategy (Chapter 9). Although often viewed as the strategy of the weak against the strong, in

some forms it is just the opposite.20 Moreover, there are seven primary tactics of asymmetric

conflict: economic, “humanitarian” warfare, guerilla warfare, terrorism, piracy, cyber warfare,

and “lawfare”. Blockades, commerce raiding, boycotts, embargoes, and sanctions are

asymmetric methods for attacking an opponent through its economy.21 Furthermore, sanctions

are commonly regarded as an alternative to war, which Carl von Clausewitz defined as “an act of

force to compel our enemy to do our will.” By substituting economic pressure for military force,

those who advocate the use of sanctions hope to change an adversary’s policies without the cost 19 Ben-Artzi et al., R. (2015). Conceptualizing Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution as Distinct Negotiation Processes in the Context of the Enduring Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 8(1), 56-63.20 Churchman, D. (2013). Asymmetric Conflict. In Why We Fight: The origins, nature, and management of human conflict (2nd ed., p. 213). Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.21 Churchman, D. (2013). Asymmetric Conflict. In Why We Fight: The origins, nature, and management of human conflict (2nd ed., p. 213). Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.


associated with war.22 This also illustrates how military power and economic power are fungible

in politics.

“Humanitarian” warfare concerns the actions of international actors intervening in a

conflict in order to resolve an issue relating to violating the rights of the people that reside with

the sovereign state. The biggest issues with international intervention is ensuring that the

intervention does not go against the national sovereignty of the state, finding a basis for violating

Just War traditions of only fighting defensive wars23, and ensuring that the former victims do not

turn into aggressors after the intervention occurs. Most importantly, as illustrated in the vast

majority of international interventions in Africa, if international actors do not have a national

interest in intervening in the conflict, they tend to not act until it is far too late.

Guerilla warfare is the most typical tactic utilized by the weak over the strong. It

involves smaller units of fighters against much larger groups of opponents; usually by the

element of surprise. Still, the success guerilla warfare depends largely upon the terrain, a large

location with plenty of places to ambush an opponent, a charismatic leader to strengthen morale,

and intelligence gathering from the people that live within the region that a war is fought. If

combatants that are using this method to fight against an adversary lose any one of the above

mentioned dependents for success, they will most likely lose the entire fight itself.

Terrorism, as Title 22 of the US Code defines, is “premeditated political violence

perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational or clandestine agents.” This seems

largely satisfactory. Under the Geneva Conventions, legal combatants must be in uniforms or

22 Caldwell, D., & Williams, R. (2012). Economics and Security. In Seeking Security in an Insecure W218orld (2nd ed.). Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.23 Churchman, D. (2013). Asymmetric Conflict. In Why we fight: The origins, nature, and management of human conflict (2nd ed., p. 213). Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.


wear distinctive insignia, carry arms openly, be under responsible command, and operate under

the laws of war.24 Clearly, terrorists do not follow these guidelines, which take away the rights

that they would otherwise have if they were legal combatants.

Moreover, the current wave of Arab terrorism has its origin in the 1948, 1956, and

especially the 1967 defeats by Israel of the Arabs, who began to ask why and answered, as

Jewish prophets and Christian preachers also have done in times of disaster, “because we have

been faithless.” Unable to defeat Israel and its American sponsor by conventional means, they

turned to terror, beginning with the August 1969 hijacking of TWA 840 from Rome led not by

Muslim but by Christian Arabs.25 More so, a vast majority of people associate terrorism with

Muslims. This is not necessarily the case. Although current terrorist organizations including

ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah originated in the Arab world, other organizations such as the

IRA, FARC, PETA, Black Panthers, Aum Shrinri Kyo, Earth Liberation Front, Baader Meinhoff

Gang, ETA, Shining Path, Green Peace, Symbionese Liberation Army, and Tamil Tigers are

responsible for many of the terrorist attacks that occurred in 2002 alone; according to RAND.

Still, Muslims may not be responsible for all terror incidents, but they are responsible for the

ones that kill the most people and do the most damage to the world economy.26 Undoubtedly,

terrorism is a tactic that can profoundly disrupt a state’s sense of security and stability, as its

consequences reach far beyond the extent of a battlefield.

Piracy, Cyber Warfare, and Lawfare are three other forms of asymmetric warfare. Piracy

has been considered illegitimate warfare because of the methods that are undertaken, lack of

24 Churchman, D. (2013). Asymmetric Conflict. In Why We Fight: The origins, nature, and management of human conflict (2nd ed., p. 220). Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.25 Churchman, D. (2013). Asymmetric Conflict. In Why we fight: The origins, nature, and management of human conflict (2nd ed., p. 222). Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.26 Churchman, D. (2013). Asymmetric Conflict. In Why we fight: The origins, nature, and management of human conflict (2nd ed., p. 221-222). Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.


usual formalities, and its typically sole purpose to plunder. Cyber Warfare is considered utilizing

technology for political aims to access information, sabotage systems, and subvert systems of a

state; by state or non-state actors. Cyber Warfare is one of the tactics that is used on a daily basis

that the majority of the population is completely unaware of its current warfare status. Norse

Financial Systems has an up-to-date analysis on their website which can be monitored simply by

connecting to the internet. Lawfare, the final of the seven deadly tactics of asymmetric warfare,

concerns the use of law in order to force military actions to cease based on its application.

Lawfare consists mainly of international organizations, and institutions that enforce policies.

This tactic is essentially new to asymmetric warfare, but it can help settle disputes between

states, or assist in the management of a conflict that occurs.

ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT: Social and Political Dynamics

Near the end of the 17th Century, European colonists known as Zionists began to

immigrate to Palestine. Their desire was to create a Jewish homeland, but the indigenous people

of the region slowly began to feel threatened, as more and more Zionists began to inhibit the

land. During World War II, Hitler’s aggressions toward the Jewish population intensified the

conflict. In 1947, the UN divided the land among the people. Although the majority of the

population in Israel/Palestine were not Jewish, the UN recommended that a larger portion of the

land to given to the Zionists.

Shortly thereafter, war broke out and by the end of the war, Israel had conquered 78

percent of Palestine; three-quarters of a million Palestinians had been made refugees; over 500

towns and villages had been obliterated; and a new map was drawn up, in which every city, river


and hillock received a new, Hebrew name, as all vestiges of the Palestinian culture were to be

erased. For decades Israel denied the existence of this population, former Israeli Prime Minister

Golda Meir once saying: “There were no such thing as Palestinians.”27 In response to the war,

the UN Security Council passes Resolution 242, which calls for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed

forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict [in official UN languages other than

English the article “the” precedes “territories,” thus implying that Israel has to return all the

conquered territory]; termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and

acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every

state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free

from threats or acts of force.” This resolution, with its formula of “land for peace,” is the basis of

for all subsequent peace negotiations between Israel, Palestinians, and the surrounding Arab

states.28 Yet still, war continued to erupt throughout this region of the world until present day.

Through decades of highly intensified conflict, the military power of Israel, backed by

the US and other powerful international actors, claimed more and more territory. As Chaim

Kaufmann explains:

It is useful to compare characteristics of ethnic conflicts with those of ideological conflicts. The latter are competitions between the government and the rebels for the loyalties of the people. The critical features of these conflicts are that ideological loyalties are changeable and difficult to assess, and the same population serves as the shared mobilization base for both sides. As a result, winning the “hearts and minds” of the population is both possible and necessary for victory. The most important instruments are political, economic, and social reforms that redress popular grievances such as poverty, inequality, corruption, and physical insecurity. Control of access to population is also important, both to allow recruitment and implementation of reform promises, and to block the enemy from these tasks. Population control, however, cannot be guaranteed

27 A Synopsis of the Israel/Palestine Conflict. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2015, from http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/28 Katirai, N. (2001, December). POV: History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Retrieved March 3, 2015, from http://pov-tc.pbs.org/pov/pdf/promiese/promises-timeline.pdf


solely by physical control over territory, but depends on careful intelligence, persuasion, and coercion. Purely military successes are often indecisive as long as the enemy’s base of political support is undamaged.29

Dominated by Muslims and Christians, modern-day Israel’s military occupies the West Bank,

and has control over Gaza. The remaining Jewish refugees within this region are discriminated

against, as the social and political differences have caused various problems.

From the Bilu to the British Mandate’s end, Israel’s initial independence through the

1973 war’s aftermath, Camp David up until the Madrid Conference, and the wide-range of

dialogue among political leaders in the 1990s and 2000s, the case of Israel and Palestine (and the

overall conflict occurring in the Middle East) is one of the most complicated, chaotic, and

catatonic conflicts in the history of humankind; and addressing these issues is no easy task. To

the argument made by realists, that the pursuit of such altruistic aims contradicts the very logic

of international relations-a logic of selfishness-and that the promotion of such values is not in the

nature of “the game,” which aims at promoting state interests, the advocates of a new

international law reply that these are false distinctions, because the toleration of shocking or

egregious atrocities is likely to lead either to chaos spreading through imitation or to regional

destabilization through arms smuggling, massive flows of refugees, and self-interested

interventions in support of feuding parties.30 As illustrated by the UN’s initial decision to give

such a large portion of land to the Zionists, it can be argued that this served the interests of

powerful states in providing a place to push refugees aside during WWII, but resulted in yet even

more problems down the road.

29Kaufmann, C. (1996, January 1). Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars. Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.stefanwolff.com/reset/ethnic-conflict-theories/downloads/kaufmann.pdf30 Williams, P. (2006). The Debate About Intervention. In Classic readings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations (3rd ed., p. 668). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.


Robert D. Kaplan expressed that, “America’s fascination with the Israeli-Palestinian

issue, coupled with the lack of interest in the Turkish-Kurdish one, is a function of its own

domestic and ethnic obsessions, not of the cartographic reality that is about to transform the

Middle East. The diplomatic process involving Israelis and Palestinians will, I believe, have

little effect on the early- and mid-twenty-first-century map of the region. Israel with a 6.6

percent economic growth rate based increasingly on high-tech exports, is about to enter Homer-

Dixon’s stretch limo, fortified by a well-defined political community that is an organic

outgrowth of history and ethnicity.”31 Coupled with U.S. support, Israel has benefited

extensively throughout the course of the on-going conflict. In the following section of the

current article, further research will cover conflict management and resolution strategies for the

Middle East; particularly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION RECOMMENDATIONS:

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Middle East & Rebel Organizations

Former U.S. President George W. Bush’s speech at the Annapolis Conference on

November 27th, 2007 was central to establishing an agreed upon democratic Palestinian state that

will live side by side with Israel in peace and security.” At the Annapolis Conference, he read a

statement that expressed: “our determination to bring an end to the bloodshed, suffering and

decades of conflict between our peoples; usher in a new era of peace, based on freedom, security,

justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition … We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing 31 Kaplan, R. (2001). The coming anarchy: Shattering the dreams of the post Cold War (p. 41). New York: Vintage Books.


negotiations and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008. For

this purpose, a steering committee, led jointly by the head of the delegation of each party, will

meet continuously, as agreed.”32 The statement continued to specify a process towards

establishing negotiations that were to address all issues. It further stated that they had agreed to

form an American, Palestinian and Israeli mechanism, which would be led by the United States

of America. Most notably, the “roadmap” towards two peaceful states living side by side would

be monitored, and judged by that of the U.S. This statement is an example of poor U.S. foreign

policy. It is neither the U.S. responsibility nor the right of the U.S. government to determine a

feasible outcome for Israel and Palestine.

In addition, as demonstrated in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, conflict management

negotiations were too often combined with conflict resolution negotiations and failed as

stepping-stones to a resolution. Whether considering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or other

conflicts, we suggest that achieving conflict management may hinder the possibility of attaining

conflict resolution because it shifts the interests of the parties and changes their mutual interests

to resolve the conflict.33 This has been done time and time again in international intervention

decisions concerning conflicts in the Middle East. With a variety of players involved, the goals

that they each seek contrast that of one another, and continue to hinder the possibility of concrete

conflict resolution for the people that populate the region. As it is precisely the need for consent

from each state concerned that creates the problem-solving difficulties of international law, it is

unlikely that consensual steps will provide solutions in many instances. At times, then, it is

through nonconsensual processes that nonconsensualism will come about: through potentially

32 Laqueur, W. (2008). The Israel-Arab reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict (7th rev. and upd. ed., pp. 625-626). New York [etc.: Penguin Books.33 Ben-Artzi et al., R. (2015). Conceptualizing Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution as Distinct Negotiation Processes in the Context of the Enduring Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 8(1), 61.


bold moves by some states or institutions to change the rules of the game and reinterpret old

rules or posit new decision-making rules and an expansion of institutional powers.34 It becomes

merely a question of “if” and “when”.

Withal, there is urgency for beneficial negotiations between the cultures within the

region. As Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse, and Hugh Miall explain:

But a number of preconditions are required before such a settlement is feasible. First, evidently, the Israeli government would have to agree it. External and internal changes are necessary for that to happen. A weakness of the conflict resolution attempts, arguably, has been their narrow basis. Only politicians from the Israeli Labour Party and the PLO have been able to come somewhere close to – but still some way from – a framework for an agreement. It will require changes in perspective and discourse for the Sephardic Jews and others who have supported Likud and the religious parties to accept a two-state solution, and also for Islamists on the Palestinian side to come to terms with a Jewish state. Indeed, the exclusively Jewish basis that Israelis claim for their state appears difficult to reconcile with the rights of Palestinian refugees and Arabs within Israel.35

Resolving the issues that have arisen due to the social and political dynamics expressed in the

previous section is imperative; and by emphasizing the power and status imbalances that exist

between groups, it is prescriptive of how such asymmetries can and should be reduced. The

brunt of attention is not about a particular culture, yours or mine, but focus is placed on each

culture’s relationship to the other and their standing within a larger power and privilege context

of intergroup relations. For two culturally different groups in conflict, the question then

becomes, “Given our culture’s standing and sociopolitical history as it relates to your culture’s

34 Krisch, N. (2014). The Decay of Consent. American Journal of International Law, 108(1), 7-8.35 Ramsbotham, O., & Woodhouse, T. (2005). Ending Violent Conflict: Peacemaking. In Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts (2nd ed., p. 183). Cambridge, UK: Polity.


standing and sociopolitical history, how we can negotiate across these differences to problem-

solve fairly and effectively?”36

Another interesting aspect of resolving the Israeli-Palestine conflict is mentioned by

Galtung (2004: 103-9) [who] suggests that the conflict must be balanced, by placing Israel and

Palestine within a Middle Eastern community. Another way of balancing is to modify the US

economic, military and political support for Israel, which remains a lynchpin of the conflict.37 It

would be in the best interests of Israel and Palestine if U.S. support was more even-handed in its

implementation of policies in order to reach a peaceful settlement.

Furthermore, the Middle East has increasingly become weary of the foreign policies of

the U.S., and often believes that they serve the purpose of Israel and western powers; and not that

of the Arab World. The deep distrust of America, which has hardened and deepened in the last

few years, means that any American initiative will be greeted with suspicion, and will not likely

quickly win goodwill. Nor would an American withdrawal from the region.38 Perhaps any U.S.

involvement should be focused on balancing support of Israel and Palestine, leaving the conflict

management process to the Israeli and Palestine politicians, and with the assistance of

international organizations. In this particular conflict, the task of resolving the conflict goes

much further beyond what mediators can achieve. It also raises issues of how the world society

is to implement cosmopolitan standards of justice and human rights, in an even-handed way.39

36 Castro, M. (2014). Multiculturalism and Conflict. In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice (Third ed., pp. 631-632). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.37 Ramsbotham, O., & Woodhouse, T. (2005). Ending Violent Conflict: Peacemaking. In Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts (2nd ed., p. 183). Cambridge, UK: Polity.38 Katzenstein, P. (2007). The Arab World. In Anti-Americanisms in World Politics (p. 223). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.39 Ramsbotham, O., & Woodhouse, T. (2005). Ending Violent Conflict: Peacemaking. In Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts (2nd ed., p. 184). Cambridge, UK: Polity.


Additionally, if international institutions seek to resolve conflicts stemming from the

social and political dynamics of these conflicts, there is a desperate need to establish new

programs that benefit the Middle East, as a whole. Transitional Justice Programs could assist

Israel and Palestine. Truth and reconciliation processes aim to identify people or groups that

attacked civilians, and to give victims a process to identify their needs and to receive symbolic

and financial reparations. The sheer number of offenses and delay in investigations into war

crimes make identifying offenders difficult, time-consuming, and expensive.40 Often offenders

do not perceive their actions in the same light as that of the victims, and Transnational Justice

Programs, such as the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) offers

incentives towards offenders that admit guilt, which makes the transition process more palatable.

Seeking a compromise between amnesty programs and punishment can help avoid constraints

based upon time and money. As states make a transition, it is important that the victims of such

an atrocity feel that their issues have been acknowledged, addressed, and ensured that similar

occurrences will not transpire in the future.

Furthermore, concerning rebel organizations that cause conflict in the Middle East,

killing or arresting the leader of a rebel organization increases the chances that a conflict will

end. It appears that chopping the head off of these organizations may be a fruitful strategy for

states seeking to end conflict. Also, if the leader of a rebel organization is one of its founding

members, conflicts are significantly less likely to end. Taken together, these two findings

suggest that leadership decapitation in rebel groups is effective because it removes charismatic

leaders.41 At times, this is a pragmatic solution, and if actions are not taken, hesitation to act may

40 Schirch, L. (2004). Transforming Relationships. In The Little Book of Strategic Peacebuilding (p. 53). Intercourse, PA: Good Books.41 Tiernay, M. (2015). Killing Kony: Leadership Change and Civil War Termination. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(2), 199.


lead to the escalation of intra-state and inter-state conflicts. Yet, it is possible for

counterterrorism actions to create a backlash. Benmelech et al. and Byman’s article introduce an

interesting and potentially very important caveat. While we can assume that both kinds of

attacks are likely to hurt the brigade, indiscriminate attacks compensate for this pain by making

the group more popular and creating more support.42 As research demonstrates, it is difficult to

come to an overall consensus on exactly how to deal with terrorism. It often depends on each

individual circumstance, and determining the best solution to resolve the conflict often relies

upon many different aspects including the objectives of the organization. It is also common for

terrorist organizations to make strategic attacks for the purpose of creating popularity through the

use of the media; as they rely heavily on it for international support.

42 Asal, Victor. (2015) Killing Range: Explaining Lethality Variance within a Terrorist Organization. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 59(3), 411.

scholarlyresearchandarticles.files.wordpress.com… · Web viewAccording to the Critical Theorist...

Documents

Transcript of scholarlyresearchandarticles.files.wordpress.com… · Web viewAccording to the Critical Theorist...