The Israel-Palestine difference what we know so far
A
TERRITORIAL DISPUTE, in simple terms, is a disagreement about “who owns a
territory.” Yet, a TERRITORIAL DISPUTE is not that simple. In international
relations, this means in principle there is a disagreement between at least two
parties in relation to whom the sovereign is over a piece of land.
The Israel-Palestine difference includes
Israel, Palestine, the region and, to an extent, many other people around the
world. The previous posts introduced a brief historical chronology, mentioned
some key domestic and international reasons behind this case, and included
references to other regional and international agents that have played (and in
some cases, still do) a central role.
With
the previous cases covered by this series (Kashmir, the Falkland/Malvinas
islands, and Gibraltar) we explored an ideal solution called EGALITARIAN SHARED
SOVEREIGNTY in what has to do with population, territory, government and law.
The Israel-Palestine difference did not follow that
approach. Why? Because before going into any negotiations we must determine who
may be a legitimate party. That is the issue that maintains the
Israel-Palestine difference in a status
quo. The claiming parties do not recognize reciprocally complete legitimacy
to go into any negotiations about the disputed territories.
Therein, the last posts introduced the concept of “colorable claim” and
explored three different grounds: historical entitlement, legal basis and moral
standing. For one reason or another, both Israelis and Palestinians have
grounds to introduce a claim (this is different from saying they have the right
to be sovereign over these territories). It only means both Israelis and
Palestinians ought to be part of any negotiation concerning the sovereignty (de jure and de facto) over the disputes territories.
The
reader may ask why Israelis and Palestinian representatives do not agree on a
common ground to start negotiations and settle peacefully and permanently the Israel-Palestine difference. To give an answer I
quote Huth once again below. The quotation clearly illustrates that
international and regional issues at stake are many times dependent on domestic
agendas (and viceversa). In a nutshell, the
difference still exists because there is no real will to solve it.
Huth
explains the dynamics:
“[…]
very often political leaders are not
willing to take risks and undertake diplomatic initiatives that will break a
long-standing stalemate in negotiations. Furthermore, leaders themselves are socialized
into viewing the target as an adversary and, as a result, they are not
predisposed to view concessions as a legitimate option. Furthermore, […] a
history of military conflict with the target can be used by the military to
justify larger budgets […]. The combined effect, then, is that the idea of
offering concessions and proposing a unilateral initiative to break the
stalemate is a policy option quite difficult to get on the policy agenda of
political leaders within the challenger. Few voices are advocating such
policies within the challenger, and the prevailing climate of opinion (both
mass and elite) is opposed to such a change in policy.”
“[…]
leaders were typically constrained by domestic political forces to be very
cautious in moving toward a compromise settlement, since popular and elite
opinion, and often the military, was opposed to such a policy. [...] In most
situations the leader’s position of domestic power and authority was better
served by continuing confrontation […]”
Huth, Paul K. 2001. Standing Your Ground.
Territorial Disputes and International Conflict. The University of Michigan
Press.
There is another option: to think about
how to solve this dispute. This series TERRITORIAL DISPUTES intends to offer a
platform for discussion.
With all this in mind, I introduced the
overall idea I call EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY. I develop this approach in
full in Núñez, Jorge Emilio. 2017. “Sovereignty Conflicts and
International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue.” London and New
York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Briefly, all parties share
sovereignty in equal ideal terms.
To get to that, these parties go into
negotiations themselves (not UN or any other party alien to the conflict). If
it is of interest to the reader, we can explore the
Israel-Palestine difference through the lens of the EGALITARIAN SHARED
SOVEREIGNTY and see how cooperation between Israel and Palestine can result in
a peaceful and permanent settlement materialised by joint institutions. This
series is always open to comments and suggestions.
NOTE:
This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Territorial Disputes and State
Sovereignty: International Law and Politics,” London and New York: Routledge,
Taylor and Francis Group, 2020 (forthcoming)
Previous
published research monograph about territorial disputes and sovereignty by the
author, Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and
Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue,” London and New York: Routledge, Taylor
and Francis Group, 2017.
NEXT
POST: The Israel-Palestine difference and the conflicting interests
Friday 10th January 2020
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701
No comments:
Post a Comment