Realism has dominated the international relations way of thinking and analysis for years now. It is not until recently that it has met considerable challenges from other competing schools of thought. In most cases, nations and states tend to follow the non- idealistic and pessimistic opinions of realism when issues affecting them are essential and complicated. This has been the case with Israel in their conflict with Palestine. The realist paradigm of international relations focuses on power as a key issue. Additionally, military power determines by far the global politics. Generally, all states have a self- help system because they can never be sure of other states intentions. All realists agree that states have a basic interest is security, survival and maintaining sovereignty and power act as the only guarantee of a achieving their interests.
Israelis have to prepare rationally and strategically when it comes to their security because they cannot trust Palestinian future intentions. Israelis, as the majority of realists do, believe in power in terms of military strategies. For the longest time, peace between Israel and Palestinians has remained both necessary and impossible. The negotiations to do this have been slow, unprogressive and unpromising. Additionally, no one has been able to foresee the twists of the negotiations. This is because, Israel, like all other sovereign states, rarely compromises on security issues and this goes a long way in explaining their lack of motivation in the Israeli- Palestinian peace negotiations (Hadar, 2012). Israelis are adamant on strengthening their power and security as has been seen with their territorial expansions. Giving Palestinians their independence means compromising their core- national security interests and this is something the Israeli leaders are unwilling to do (Tessler, 2009).
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Bridge Building".
Owing to Israeli’s military strength, other powerful states seem to understand their concern for the security albeit they do not fully support the way they deal with such concerns (Hadar, 2012). It is for this reason that Israeli’s are tactfully allowed to do as they please with Palestinians. For the longest time, they have used this as an excuse for disregarding and altering the peace deals (Rosler et al., 2017). This is how the realist world works. As much as the major powers consistently react to the unfair treatment of Palestinians by Israel, their reactions are of little importance because they almost always side with Israeli on the basis of their security concerns (Asser, 2010). Realism predicts that Israel is bound to employ its military powers forcefully in a bid to diminish Palestinian’s power. Realism theories state that force acts as the only means of achieving external state ends when there is no consistent process of reconciling a conflict. A good example of this prediction coming true is their constant attacks on Gaza because the claimed to be under threat from the Palestinians. It does not make sense that Gaza would be a threat to a major military power such as Israel but realistically, Israel benefits from their conflict with Palestine (Herzog, 2008). Besides, they take advantage of the fact that they are independent sovereign state and that they will do what is in their best interests (Freyberg- Inan et al., 2009). As a nation that views the world from a realist perspective, Israel is focused on security and military strength, and there is no way they will accord Palestine independence if the negotiations are not in their favor or if they do stand to benefit their self- interests.
In an anarchic realist world, security competition is the key between self- interested states. From a realist perspective, military strength confines the actions of different nations meaning that it contributes largely to global and regional affairs. Israelis are known for disregarding other states opinions, and this is attributed largely to its military capabilities. This means that not even the Arabs intervention in trying to conclude the Israeli- Palestinian conflict will work. A good example is the reaction of the Arab states to the issues in Gaza. These interventions are rendered meaningless because none of these Arab countries have a cohesive alliance military that is capable of changing Israeli’s policies and strategies in the acceptance of Palestine as an independent state (Rogin, 2014). Thus, currently, the threat of Palestinians to Israel is manageable for the latter. Also, from the International system realist perspective, only an independent state can benefit from the special legal rights that are conferred on states.
Without this kind of protection, Palestine is considered weak meaning they are no match for Israel. Israeli is comfortable with the current state of things because they are a vastly bigger state. This again explains their purported long- term interests in settling the conflicts issues peacefully and fairly. Israelis are not the losers in this case, and it is for this reason that finding a consensus between the two countries looks like a far- fetched idea (Sharp, 2013). Additionally, Israel is wary of the fact that by Palestine becoming a sovereign state their conflict would become an international conflict which means the involvement of the international community. This, in turn, would intensify and complicate matters for Israel, explaining further their intentional delay in reaching a consensus.
Another reason why the conflict is far from ending is because Israeli granting Palestinians independence is highly dependent on the credible promises that the latter has to make. The promises are impossible in an anarchic international system that lacks central authority. The promises state that Palestinians will live peacefully with Israeli, disarm themselves completely, and remain a demilitarized forever. A realist world does not operate in such a manner, not when the protagonists are Israelis, a nation whose leaders are known to be bitter and non- committal. Realists claim that power is equal to security, something that most Israeli leaders have adopted (Tessler, 2009). They could single handedly handle a nation such as Palestine because of their military power and security services, but they refuse to. From a realist perspective, it would be much easier to control a nation if they can control its territory. Additionally, the fact that Palestinian state is not protected by the sovereign- state- focused international law makes it easier for Israeli to control them than if they were an independent state (Allen & Demchak, 2010). Also, Israel is automatically supported by the international law that governs the involvement of other states in disputes involving a sovereign state, meaning that no nation can interfere in Israeli’s business and strategies in achieving a peace deal. This goes a long way in explaining why the negotiations for a peace deal between the two states has taken a long time.
Israel follows a logic of realism consistently, and this makes it even harder to solve the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. They operate from a realist perspective that allows the strong to do what they have the power to do and the weak to accept what has been granted to them. It is important to note that the world might never be fair as everyone so wishes for it to be. There is a possibility that Israelis and Palestinians can have a peaceful future but they have to adopt new strategies and act differently. There is also need to understand motivations and the strategies available to the protagonists as well as the global and regional context within which both operate. (Canetti et al., 2017). It is clear that agreements that involve parties having to make compromises over important national and security interests cannot be achieved if both parties are not willing to let go of primary existential issues. Given the current directions that both parties have taken in their negotiations, there is no opportunity for peace to prevail (Schulze, 2016). The principles laid out in the negotiations documents are the most unrealistic basis for a future peace agreement. From a realistic view, there is no political, military, or diplomatic solution for peace between the two states in the foreseeable future because to the Israelis, military power translates to negotiating power which, in turn, assures them of security.
- Allen, P.D., & Demchak, C., C. (2010). The Palestinian- Israeli cyber war. Military Review. Vol 83 (2), 52
- Asser, M. (2 September 2010). Obstacles to Arab- Israeli peace: Palestinian refugees. BBC News www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11104284
- Canetti, D., Elad- Strender, J., Lavi, I., Guy, D., & Bar- Tal, D. (2017). Exposure to violence, the ethos of conflict, and support for compromise: Surveys in Israel, East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol 61(1), 84- 113
- Freyberg- Inan, A., Harrison, E., & James, P. (2009). Rethinking realism in international relations: Between tradition and innovation. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press.
- Hadar, L. (19 October 2012). Realism and Reality on Israel- Palestine https://www.nationalinterest.org/commentary/realism-reality-israel-palestine-77638
- Herzog, I. (2008). Is peace still possible? The future of Israeli- Palestinian relations. The Washington Institute Conference Reports. www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/is-peace-still-possible-the-future-of-Israeli-Palestinian-relations.
- Rogin, J. (2014). Exclusive: Kerry warns Israel could become ‘an Apartheid state.’ Daily Beast, 27
- Rosler, N., Cohen- Chen, S., & Halperin, E. (2017). The distinctive effects of empathy and hope in intractable conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol 61 (1), 114- 139
- Schulze, K., E. (2016). The Arab- Israeli Conflict. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
- Sharp, J., M. (2013). US foreign aid to Israel. Current Politics and Economics of the Middle East. Vol 4(1), 71
- Tessler, M. (2009). A history of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press
