The Israel-Palestine difference and the conflicting
interests
The
Israel-Palestine difference presents a conflict of interests. I mean by that
the following:
“there is an
identity of interests since social cooperation makes possible a better life for
all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts. There
is conflict of interests since persons are not indifferent as to how the
greater benefits produced by their collaboration are distributed, for in order
to pursue their ends they each prefer a larger to a lesser share …”
John Rawls, A
Theory of Justice, Revised Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
Israelis and
Palestinians have both common and conflicting interests. Although each claiming
party is formed by many different individuals with different interests, each of
these claiming parties has as a collective group a common interest for the
purpose of this series: EXCLUSIVE sovereignty over the disputes territories
(Jerusalem, Gaza, West Bank). Thus, this same element (the disputed
territories) is the centre of this particular conflict of interest.
If
things were different, we would see Israelis or Palestinians living in peace on
their land. It is a fact the region is volatile because of the dispute. We do
not need to assume or demonstrate this. It is self-evident. I am going to
assume both Israel and Palestine finally want to achieve a PEACEFUL and
PERMANENT solution to the Israel-Palestine difference. I am going to assume
Israel does not recognise sovereignty (de
jure and de facto) over the
disputed territories. I am too going to assume Palestine does not recognize sovereignty
(de jure and de facto) over the disputed territories to Israel. I include these
assumptions intentionally in order to avoid tangential criticism.
With this picture in mind, we would need to
determine:
- Who can take part in the negotiations?
- What do we do with PEOPLE living in the disputed territories?
- Which party has sovereignty over the disputed TERRITORY?
- What kind of arrangements do we need in terms of GOVERNMENT and LAW for the disputed territories?
It
is crucial to answer question 1 first, before we move into the actual
negotiations (questions 2, 3, and 4), in particular in the case of the
Israel-Palestinian difference. That is because this dispute has local, regional
and international issues at stake. As a direct consequence, people may think of
Israelis and Palestinians being the only parties concerned about (and
interested in) a solution. This is over-simplistic (and over-optimistic, even
naïve).
There
are many powers alien to the dispute with a variety of interests. Moreover,
they are more interested in keeping the dispute on a status quo (ongoing) basis than achieving a solution because this
situation offers them a better return, a higher payoff (for example, arm
trafficking, terrorism, prestige).
The
next post will assess question 1 having in mind the concept of “colorable
claim” previously introduced with this series. After we answer question 1, the
attention will shift to population, territory, government and law (questions 2,
3, and 4). I am going to assume Israel and Palestine conducted negotiations and
decided to settle the difference by means of the Egalitarian Shared
Sovereignty.
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 “Who can take part in the
negotiations?”
Monday 13th January 2020
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701
No comments:
Post a Comment