The Israel-Palestine difference
Territorial disputes are more topical than ever, especially given the current crises between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Palestine. Nevertheless, existing scholarship tends to carefully neglect the fact that these disputes are theorized and evaluated through unidimensional lenses, focusing invariably, for example, either only on scientific disciplines such as law or political science and neglecting the non-legal, non-political or non-disciplinary angles like rationality, emotion, nationalism, prejudice and perspectives. This monograph argues such unidimensional approaches need integration. More precisely, an only disciplinary—e.g. only legal or only political—approach is not enough to fully capture the complexity of these disputes. There is a pressing need for a multidimensional approach that moves away from disciplinary unidimensionality, taking into consideration other elements and factors as they are hedged around issues that are cross-disciplinary or non-disciplinary.[1]
Israelis and Palestinians have both common and conflicting interests.[2] In turn, each of these claiming parties is formed by many different groups and, therefore, individuals with different groups and individual interests. All the solutions that explicitly or implicitly suggested partition have been discarded. In part, these proposed remedies have failed to permanently and peacefully solve the difference because they are unidimensional—i.e. in the particular case of the Israel-Palestine dispute because they focus only on a legally based solution and on some of the involved agents. For example, although there are studies that seek to explore what people want, including a joint poll in 2018, they center on Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in the area. Often overlooked, in addition to Israelis and Palestinians in the area, there are other societal groups, i.e. diaspora, refugees and settlers. Moreover, there are several political parties in Israel and in Palestine and, consequently, internal divisions are highly likely.
Assuming there were negotiations about the sovereignty over the disputed territories, the arguably obvious two parties in the dispute resolution procedure would be Israel and Palestine. A closer review of the situation shows that there are several reasons why this particular territorial dispute is more complex in terms of agents. To illustrate the different types of agents using the Israel-Palestine case as an example, there are 8,852,180 Israelis and 4,816,503 Palestinians (2,935,368 in the West Bank, 1,881,135 in the Gaza strip, 426,533 in Jerusalem, and the remaining in other areas). There are several political parties in Israel and in Palestine and, consequently, internal divisions are highly likely.
More precisely, in terms of population, it is possible to distinguish in the Israeli-Palestinian difference the following groups: people living in Israel (a de jure and de facto sovereign state); people living in Palestine (a de facto state); diaspora; refugees; and settlers in contested lands. In terms of people living in Israel, on Israel’s 70th birthday in April of 2018, Israel’s population stood at 8,842,000─the Jewish population makes up 6,589,000 (74.5%); 1,849,000 (20.9%) are Arabs; and those identified as “others” (non-Arab Christians, Baha’i, etc.) make up 4.6% of the population (404,000 people). In addition to these numbers, there are approximately 169,000 people living in Israel who are neither citizens nor permanent residents. Out of the 14.3 million Jewish people in the world, 43% reside in Israel. Of Israeli Jews, 44% self-identify as secular, 11% simply as religious and 9% as ultra-Orthodox. According to the Israel Democracy Institute, the percentage of ultra-Orthodox is slightly higher. In turn, of the 4,816,503 people living in Palestine, 2,935,368 reside in the West Bank, 1,881,135 in the Gaza strip, 426, 533 in Jerusalem and the rest in other areas.
Although there may be two potential agents that could take part in dispute resolution procedures, the Israel-Palestine difference clearly demonstrates sovereign states (de facto or de jure), communities and individuals with different interests. Furthermore, a deeper evaluation of these agents displays sociologically and legally different sub-categories of each.
Any territorial dispute in which at least two agents argue over the sovereignty of the same territory offers several elements and features of different kinds that can take place in diverse contexts and realms. For instance, the Israel-Palestine difference characterizes by reference to the domestic relationship between Israelites and Palestinian settlers. A factual understanding of this difference would seek to explore the historical and sociological roots behind the conflict as well as the acknowledgment of different interests such as leaders’ prestige, Hamas and other subgroups. In turn, a normative understanding of the difference would immediately recognize the existence of Israel as the one sovereign state. Axiologically, however, the legitimacy of Palestine and their acceptance as a sovereign agent may deserve further exploration. This dispute combines several objects─metaphysically, both claiming parties assume they have the unquestionable right to the land given by their respective God; and culturally, both claiming parties have conducted acts in the area for generations with the sole intention to secure their standing to the claim; and in terms of natural objects, the geographical characteristics of areas in question coupled with human action have resulted in a lack of access to basic rights such as the right to water, food and shelter, often to the settlers.
Evidently, the account has referred to far to the domestic context, that of the challenger and the challenged agents. Certainly, the evaluation would be partial because of its incompleteness if it did not include the Middle Eastern region. It should be self-evident that any decision about, for example, Jerusalem and other territories under dispute in the area is important to the geopolitics of neighboring states. Moreover, the ongoing direct and indirect presence and influence in law and in fact of alien states to regions such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia are reason enough to include the international context in a comprehensive analysis. Without incorporating the regional and international contexts in the analysis of the Israel-Palestine dispute is to naively (arguably, even intentionally) leave aside factors that can plainly change the bargaining power of any of the claiming agents.
The previous paragraphs presented a few hallmarks pertaining this case. In brief, the territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine may be explored according to its linear vertical dimension, leading to an evaluation of different agents in their individuality, such as the de jure and de facto state of Israel and the de facto state of Palestine. In addition, the different communities and implicating factors such as diaspora and Hamas; individuals that play or have played key roles; their respective domestic, regional and international presence and sphere of influence; their respective applicable laws; factual situations; interests and opinions; and their historical changes. This is of but one of many dimensions of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The evaluation could refer, instead, to the linear horizontal or nonlinear dimensions. In regard to the former, it would mean the inclusion of elements and factors that cut across both claimant and claiming agents (and all other pluralities). For the latter, it would result in the inclusion of, for example, reasons for the dispute to remain in legal and political limbo, i.e. a nonlinear self-referred dimension would acknowledge that political prestige is a deterrent to a peaceful and permanent solution because in Israel and Palestine, the ongoing conflict may be more beneficial to those in power.
A new paradigm
If and when current models fail or consistently fall short of addressing global changes and crises, a requisite paradigm shift should be implemented. The Israel-Palestine difference is one of several indicators that prove mankind as a whole needs to reframe crises, reassess situations and discard the frames of past paradigms. The outcomes of current fragmented and unidimensional analyses and responses to crises (as a result of the science of reference and its methodology and the agent in question, such as individuals, communities and states) cannot but have a limited significance in theory and practice.
This monograph entitled Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group 2023/24) introduces a multidimensional analysis that assesses the phenomena of pluralism of pluralisms. A pluralism of pluralism means the acknowledgment of a variety of agents (individuals, communities and states) that may play different roles in their interrelations (host, participant, attendees and viewers), and hence, the recognition of the plurality of subjects at play. Furthermore, these agents and players may act within several contexts (local, regional and international) and their interrelations simultaneously exist in three realms (rational, empirical and axiological). To add to this intricacy, the many views (law, politics, philosophy and non-scientific theories) about agents, players, contexts and realms contain both a horizontal and vertical dimension that should take into account the two variables of time and space.
In its predecessor, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group 2020), the author used this multidimensional view to assess and explain several territorial disputes, including those in the Middle East. In Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group 2020), the author includes in the analysis relevant references and several case studies: the challenges for the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Israel-Palestine difference.
Undoubtedly, it may be the case that a particular agent, their role, a context, a realm or a mode of existence is more significant than the other pluralities or their subgroups with regard to a singular case that compromises sovereignty and cosmopolitanism. Nevertheless, it is in the multidimensional understanding as multi-agent, multi-contextual, multi-realm and multi-existence nature of these issues that a more robust account of their intricacies can be achieved. Therefore, by having a more robust account of their intricacies, it may be possible to reimagine in theory, and hopefully, in practice, a way of dealing with them peacefully and permanently.
[1] For details about dimensional understanding including uni- and multidimenstionality see Jorge E. Núñez, Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty, International Law and Politics: A Theory (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2023).
[2] For details about the Israel-Palestine difference including partition solutions, poll results and different societal groups see Jorge E. Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2020), Chapter 8.
ORDERS
VIA AMAZON: AMAZON LINK
VIA ROUTLEDGE: ROUTLEDGE LINK
Friday 20th October 2023
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World
No comments:
Post a Comment