60
Developing an Israeli Grand Strategy toward
a Peaceful Two-State Solution
“Barriers to Resolution of the Conflict with Israel – The
Palestinian Perspective”
– Yohanan Tzoreff
5
points to
those barriers in the decision-making processes on the
Palestinian side, and considerations of Palestinian political
leadership when interested in finding some resolution to the
conflict. Ostensibly, these barriers existed when Arab leaders
signed peace agreements with Israel in the past, particularly
President Sadat and King Hussein. The difference lies in
the fact that the Palestinians are a non-state actor with no
past experience of independence, producing five kinds of
barriers:
Rivalry among the Palestinians
– in the past, rivalry
existed between the PLO and the Rejectionist Front, and
today it exists between the PLO/PA and the Hamas, an enmity
so severe it elicits the involvement (even full engagement)
of the Arab world in Palestinian politics.
Territorial and
geographic barriers
– stem from the difficulty in compromising
on the 1967 borders. Can this suffice? Particularly in view
of the Palestinian narrative insisting on the right to land, the
demand for justice instead of compromise,
6
and pressure
from the Palestinian diaspora, which is comprised of scattered
groups of refugees that in most places have no citizenship.
Identity barriers
– stem from the concern about preserving
national identity without a state, the fear of losing it if a state
is established, and fear of undermining the "holy struggle"
of the Palestinian cause if the solution is achieved through
compromise.
Psychological, religious, and cultural barriers
– consist of the unbending demand for the correction of a
historical (and historic) injustice, specifically the establishment
of the State of Israel and creation of the Palestinian refugee
problem.
Political barriers
– stem from losing trust in national
leadership and the lack of a decision-making mechanism for
managing the current situation (organizational culture and
traditions), evident in the PA's day-to-day administration and
civil management in the West Bank, and in Gaza up until
2007 when the Hamas took over.
"Conceptual-Cognitive Barriers to Peace in the Israeli-
Palestinian Conflict"
- Ifat Maoz addresses perceptional
biases and their influence on the consolidation of political
positions of each party in the conflict. These eliminate rational
thought (relying on "gut instinct"), even warping one's view of
reality and inducing a reluctance to accept it, and negatively
judging any action or conduct of the opposing side.
"Fear as a Barrier to and an Incentive for the Resolution of
the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"
- Nimrod Rosler considers
the element of fear in the conflict. Fear is essentially a means
of protection for individuals and societies alike, and may serve
as both an impediment and a motivating factor to resolution.
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, fear (relating to security)
constitutes an inhibiting factor that only exacerbates the
distrust between both parties. However, on the Israeli side,
fear of demographic processes is a motivating factor for
reaching an agreement designed to separate Palestinian
5 Ibid.
6 "Independence Versus Nakbah: The Arab–Israeli War of 1948", by
Yoav Gelber, Zmora-Bitan, 2004.
and Israeli populations. Fear serves as a primary tool for
political leaders and shapers of public opinion.
"National Narratives in a Conflict of Identity"
– the Israeli-
Arab conflict (and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict encapsulated
within it) stems from contrasting identities and narratives, and
not a material dispute. Yehudith Auerbach reviews how such
narratives shape the identity of each side, harkening back
to deeply rooted religious factors and early history of each
party as they see it – and all centered on the same area of
land, and most importantly its holy sites. Each side has taken
care to make their positions clear in written documentation –
the Israeli Declaration of Independence, and the Palestinian
National Charter (and to a certain extent also the documents
produced by various groups of Arab-Palestinian Israeli citizens
regarding their future vision in the years 2006/2007). Each
of these documents contains and is based on the narratives
and identities that have produced it.
"Barriers to Peace: Protected Values in the Israeli-
Palestinian Conflict"
- Shiri Landman addresses the
fundamental values considered by each party to be
sacrosanct, meaning values of morality and ethics that cannot
be relinquished. The leaders of each side must be committed
to these values, and upholding them is vital to their legitimacy
(as, often or not, these values are the reason they rose to
power to begin with). In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, they touch on the core issues at the heart of the
conflict – Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugees, permanent
borders, and settlements – with both sides "representing" a
reverence for the land.
"Justice and Fairness as Barriers to the Resolution of
the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"
– Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov
reviews the Palestinian (and general Arab) terminology and
references to a “just peace”. Thus, justice, the antithesis of
compromise, is presented as the prerequisite for resolving
the conflict, and is therefore a central barrier to the process.
From their perspective, the Palestinian "demand for justice"
focuses on Israel's acknowledgment of responsibility for
creating the Palestinian refugee problem in 1947 and 1948,
and realization of their “right of return”, despite Israel's self-
determination (expressed in its Declaration of Independence)
as a Jewish state, and one unwilling to accept pre-conditions
set by the Palestinians for negotiations.
"Cultural Barriers in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"
– Ilai
Alon explains cultural differences and how these cultural
barriers can be overcome. Cultural barriers in the negotiation
process are those that stem from lack of understanding for
or knowledge of the opposing side's culture, as well as an
unwillingness to consider it. The conflict between Israel and
the Palestinians (and the Arab world) is profound and has
many causes, not necessarily cultural in nature, but culture
does impede mutual understanding and the ability to "get into
the other’s head" – meaning, to gain a true comprehension
of their attitudes.
