Abstract
The conflict between Israel and Palestine may be regarded as one of the most challenging and long-lasting multidimensional conflicts of the 21st century which resolution is currently unreachable. Since 1948, Israel and Palestine are involved into deadly confrontations, even if of the two-state approach is in the heart of the negotiations for peace. The international community, including the United States, undertakes all efforts to promote stability in this region. At the same time, the political decisions of the United states in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be defined as unstable as the approach to this issue was constantly changing. In the present day, regardless of the official support for peace in the region, Trump’s administration contributed to the escalation of the conflict recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the subsequent relocation of its embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem being aware of a great importance of this city for the Palestinian state as well. On the basis of previous research dedicated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this research seeks to investigate what social impact the Trump Administration’s decision will have on Palestinians and Israelis, especially in terms of the two sides’ access to territories and water.
Introduction to the Study
Introduction
The long-lasting conflict between Israel and Palestine continues to escalate, widening the gap of finding a stable solution to create a permanent peace. Since 1948 when the violent hostilities between Israel and Palestine broke out into deadly confrontations, the prospects of stability and peace remain a distant dream (Amal, 2020). Israel-Palestine is one of the most persistent conflicts in history that has remained unsolvable despite the involvement of the international community. The commitment of both sides to solve the conflict is confronted with hardliners from both sides of the divide, creating a stalemate on the mediation efforts. The conflict is multidimensional, involving political-economic, social, and religious dimensions that further complicate resolution efforts. At the heart of the negotiations for peace is the favor of the two-state approach, which proposes that both Israel and Palestine exist side-by-side independently (Amal, 2020). However, it is not as simple as it sounds since several elements need consideration, including security, border divisions, resources, the fate of refugees, the occupation of Palestinian territories, and the security of the Israeli people. This introductory section of the study presents background information on the conflict to understand the origins of the conflict, essential issues, timeline of events, and the road to peace. Additionally, the section outlines the problem statement, the significance of the study, and the research question.
Background
History of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Violence erupted between Israel and Palestine in 1948 following the official establishment of the state of Israel. Before 1948 tensions had been arising between Arabs and Jews because of the proliferation of the Zionism movement, calling for the establishment of an Israeli nation in Palestine (Adenyi, 2019). On the other hand, Arabs were against the settlement of Jews into the Arab land referred to as Mandatory Palestine at the time. The Zionist movement considered the land the rightful inheritance of Jews on the notion that their ancestors first inhabited the land before they were driven away by historical events (Cordesman, 2018). As a result, the Zionists encouraged the immigration of Jews from Europe, which was further precipitated by the growing hostilities in the region. The Holocaust heightened the decision to permanently settle Jews into the land, primarily supported by most Western countries. In 1947, the United Nations (UN) Resolution 181 established a partition plan to split Mandatory Palestine into Israel and Palestine states (Cho, 2020). However, the official declaration of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, sparked an outbreak of violence between Arabs and Jews, lasting more than 1 year. The outcome of the war was the establishment of three territories: the Gaza strip, the State of Israel, and the West Bank. Moreover, 750,000 Palestinians were displaced from their land, as the Israelis occupied territories assigned to Palestinians.
Following the war, the enmity between Jews and Arabs continued drawing Israel into violent confrontations with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. In 1956, Israel waged an invasion into the Sinai Peninsula, which further heightened regional hostilities. Consequently, in 1967, Israel initiated an attack on the Arab countries marking the Six-Day War, ending in Israel claiming the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Sinai Peninsula, and Gaza Strip held by Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, respectively. According to Zilberfarb (2018), the Six-Day War was a major turning point in the conflict because of open support for the Israeli invasion by Western countries such as France, which applauded the move. This gave Israel confidence to continue settling its citizens in the West Bank, territory originally dedicated to Palestine in UN Resolution 181. Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack, known as the Yom Kippur War, to regain lost territories. Nevertheless, both sides did not reap significant gains from the war (Reliefweb, 2021). Following this occupation, the UN released Resolution 242, directing Israel to withdraw from these territories returning to those declared to the state in 1947 (Zanotti, 2020). The back-and-forth wars between Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Israel finally ended with signing a peace treaty, Camp David Accords, in September 1978.
Even though Camp David peace negotiations ended Israel’s confrontations with Egypt, they failed to address the dominant question of Palestinian self-determination, which was among the root causes of these hostilities (Amal, 2020). As such, tensions between the established state of Israel and Palestine persisted as Israel continued to settle its citizens into Palestinian territory in the West Bank. Subsequently, the ‘first intifada’ that started in 1987 and finished in 1993 broke out where Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip territories waged an uprising against the state of Israel. The war necessitated the formation of the Palestinian authority to allow Palestinians to govern themselves in the Gaza Strip and West Bank territories. The decision was arrived at during the negotiations that created the Oslo I Accords in 1993 (Reliefweb, 2021). Similarly, in 1995, Oslo II Accord further called for Israel’s withdrawal from six cities in the West Bank and several towns designated for Palestine (Reliefweb, 2021).
Palestinians continued to reel over Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, which led to the second intifada from 2000 to 2005. The Israeli government reacted by erecting a wall around the West Bank to control the movement of Palestinians into Israeli territory. While the decision was condemned by the international community, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), Israel completed the wall, which still stand today (Amal, 2020). Another important event that has shaped the conflict was the emergence of Hamas during this period. By 2013, Hamas had forged a coalition with the Palestinian Authority’s ruling party giving the group significant power to influence important decisions in Palestine (Davis et al., 2017). Israel and the United States consider Hamas a terrorist group with the agenda to work with Iran, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and other terrorist factions to make the entire Middle East one Islamic State under Sharia Law. Hamas has received funding from several sources, with the main donor being Iran, while such countries as Syria, Iraq, and Sudan are also involved in funding (English, 2019). It is noteworthy that open collaboration (for example, financial) between Hamas and the countries mentioned above is not publicized.
Hamas pushed for confrontations with the Islamic government; for example, in 2014, the group launched rocket attacks into Israel, instigating retaliatory attacks by the Israeli soldiers. The skirmishes in 2014 ended after Egypt brokered a deal between the two groups. However, this decision resulted in massive loss of lives, over 2,200 Palestinians and 73 Israelis (Lewin & Berge, 2016). Following these attacks and other minor skirmishes, the Palestinian Authority withdrew its agreement to the Oslo Accord on territorial divisions. Another major violence broke out in 2018 through weekly demonstrations by Palestinians along the Gaza Strip-Israel border. These demonstrations also coincided with Nakba, marking the 17th anniversary since Palestinians were driven from their land as Israel gained independence (Reliefweb, 2021). According to a report by the UN, the protest resulted in the deaths of over 180 demonstrators and approximately 6,000 wounded (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2019). Still, in 2018, Hamas launched another attack against Israeli soldiers by firing over 100 rockets into Israel’s territory. Consequently, the Israeli soldiers retaliated these attacks striking targets in Gaza. Finally, the outbreak of this conflict ended in a cease-fire agreement between the two groups (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2019). Nevertheless, the sporadic attacks have continued to the current outbreak of violence, illuminating a worsening situation and dimming any prospects of peace. Moreover, analysts fear that the problem may deteriorate into a third intifada.
Jerusalem
Jerusalem is a holy city sitting on the Judean plateau located between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Jerusalem is an old city with spiritual significance to the three major world religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The history of Jerusalem explains why one of the oldest cities in the world is important for the three religions. Jerusalem dates back to the 4th millennium BCE, evident from the nomadic shepherds’ encampments in Camp David (Arieli, 2020). Similarly, Egyptian tablets reveal the history of Jerusalem during the Canaanite period in the 14th century BCE, at the time named Urusalim. During its existence, Jerusalem has been attacked 52 times, besieged 23 times, recaptured times, and destroyed twice (Moment, 2008). These attacks show just how important the city is and has been throughout history.
Followers of the three religions have a history with Jerusalem because of people’s ancestries, which have all controlled the city at some point. For example, in 1,000 BCE, King David ruled over Jerusalem and established it as the capital of Israel (Amal, 2020). Solomon, King David’s son, also built his temple in Jerusalem. At some point, the city was also ruled by the Ottoman Caliphate. Other times in ancient history, Muslim and Christian factions have jointly ruled over the city, leaving a mark of its religious significance. In Jews, Jerusalem enjoys prominent mention in the Hebrew Bible, include as an Old Testament in the Christian Bible (Lewin & Berge, 2016). Additionally, Abraham, the father of Judaism and a prominent figure in other religions, including Christianity and Islam, offered his son, Isaac, for sacrifice in Jerusalem. Another important history of Jerusalem to Jews is the significance of Judah’s rule over the territory. He was, however, overthrown and the Jewish Temple destroyed, exiling Jews in Babylonia from 597 to 539 BC. The place once again became the heart of Judaism, leading to the rebuilding of the temple, but this was again destroyed and the Jews driven out of place.
On the other hand, Jerusalem matters to Muslims because it was the dwelling place of important Messengers and Prophets of God. For instance, Prophets David, Solomon, and Jesus are associated with Jerusalem. Additionally, Prophet Mohammed visited heaven during one night from Jerusalem, making it a holy site for Muslims. The place also holds some of the most important and oldest buildings in Islam, such as the al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock built by the Umayyad caliph in the 17th century (El-Awaisi & Yavuz, 2020). Inscriptions of the earliest Quran adorned the walls of the Dome of Rock. During this same time period, Muslims purchased and developed land surrounding the Dome to build hospitals, religious centers, and other important institutions to serve the population. Before the question of Palestine, Jerusalem under Muslim rule, was tolerant to other faiths, as Muslims recognized and respected the rights of Jews and Christians and the religious significance of Jerusalem to these faiths (Amal, 2020). Christian and Jewish communities who lived in the place even had significant influence in the place owing to its sacredness to the groups.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917, which declared the British support for establishing a Jewish state in Ara land, marked the beginning of hostilities between the Jews and Arabs and the struggle over the occupation of Jerusalem. While declaring the state of Israel in 1948, the UN declared Jerusalem corpus separatum given its important status to both Jews and Muslims (Zilberfarb, 2018). Initially, Israel occupied East Jerusalem after driving away Jordan. However, the UN Resolution of 1967 mandated that East Jerusalem should belong to Palestine while access to the holy sites should not be restricted and freedom of worship (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2019). After the 1967 Resolution, Palestine sought to establish Jerusalem as its capital city while Israel objected. Israel had made Jerusalem its administrative city hosting important government offices and residences (Leaders, 2021). For example, the Knesset, the Supreme Court, and the residence of the Prime Minister, among others. By 1980 Israel had passed a law, making Jerusalem the united capital of Israel, thereby affirming its intentions to control the entire Jerusalem, including Old City and East Jerusalem (Lagerwall, 2018). Additionally, Israel restricts Muslims from accessing parts of the holy sites such as Joseph’s Tomb (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 2013). The holy sites are manned by Israeli security forces, which restrict access and also arrest Palestinians suspected of launching attacks on the sites. Scorned Palestinians have attacked the holy site protected by Israeli forces several times despite the tight security (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 2013). Palestinians are concerned over the welfare and security of Christians and Muslims who visit the holy sites.
The international community is against Israel’s occupation of Jerusalem, making it the undivided Israeli capital (Lagerwall, 2018). However, in December 2017, the state of Israel received support over its annexation of East Jerusalem and making the holy city its capital, when former United States President Donald Trump and the Trump Administration formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (Arieli, 2020). The announcement was followed by the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. Critics argue that the move by the Trump Administration implies cements America’s unwavering support for Israel, which also compromises the peace efforts since the United States is the chief mediator and should maintain neutrality (Arieli, 2020). Trump Administration’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was isolated. Earlier on, other presidential administrations had hinted at doing the same. While running for the presidency in 1992, Bill Clinton stated that Jerusalem remains the undivided capital of Israel and is accessible to both Palestinians and Jews (Moten, 2018). Likewise, in 2000 George Bush Jr. had plans of relocating the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Finally, former President Obama in 2008, stressed that Israel is the capital of Israel and should not be divided.
Gaza Strip and West Bank
Gaza Strip is located on the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea, where it borders Israel to the north and east and Egypt to the southwest. Gaza Strip is an exclusive Palestinian territory and a self-governing land. Both Gaza and West Bank are under Palestinian Authority and separated from each other by Israel territory (Lewin & Berge, 2016). This separateness is another element creating complexities in finding a resolution to the conflict because Palestine territories are fragmented, making it challenging to integrate them under one authority. Gaza Strip has also been under Hamas’ rule since 2007 after elections in 2006 (Hannase, 2019). This group is responsible for the rising insurgency in the region, which prompted the United States and Israel to declare economic and political sanctions on Gaza Strip. For example, the group has fired nearly 3,000 rockets into Israel and constantly wages war with Israeli soldiers (Reliefweb, 2021). Additionally, it applies unpopular laws based on Sharia law, ancient British codes, Ottoman laws, and Palestinian Authority laws. The presence of Hamas has also created a breeding ground for other militant groups, which are sometimes in coalition with Hamas, thus, threatening the security and stability of the territory and the wider Middle East and Mediterranean regions (Reliefweb, 2021). These factions are Popular Resistance Committees, the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, and the Army of Islam.
Despite the occupation and control of the Gaza Strip by Hamas, Israel still holds great influence over the territory. The international community believes it is violating the rights of the people through various restrictions. According to O’Malley (2017), Israel controls Gaza’s people’s lives by controlling six of its seven land crossings, air, and maritime space. Additionally, Israel has a buffer zone in Gaza, which Palestinians are not allowed in. Finally, Gaza is dependent on Israel for water, telecommunications, electricity, and other essential utilities (Weinthal & Sowers, 2019). After the beginning of the occupation, the Israeli government invested heavily in the development of the infrastructure to support Jewish settlements. Agricultural, energy, and water supply infrastructure were integrated into the Israeli overall infrastructure. As of now, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip receive vital resources (such as water and electricity) supporting the life of settlers as well as infrastructure in the territory from Israel. Palestinians and Israeli people find themselves in an overt conflict based on access to resources. In essence, analysts emphasize that Gaza Strip is not an independent de facto state as purported but is indirectly occupied and controlled by Israel (Moten, 2018). This means that achieving a lasting peace will require the complete removal of Israeli control over Gaza and allowing Palestine full independence and sovereignty. Likewise, in West Bank, even though the territory belongs to Palestine following UN Resolutions on territorial divisions, much of it has been annexed by Israel, creating fragmented Palestine territories.
Treaties and Accords
Over the years as the conflict endures, there have been many attempts at peace resulting in treaties and peace accords with the hope of creating lasting peace. However, none of these have been close to ringing the conflict to an end. Nevertheless, it is important to understand these peace treaties and their significance for a deeper engagement with the conflict’s journey and core issues. The first attempt to bring peace between Arabs and Jews was a peace deal in 1956 between Egypt and Israel, following a fight over the control of the Sue Canal (Amal, 2020). The deal was negotiated by the Soviet Union and the United States. The second peace deal occurred in 1978, the Camp David Accords, which ended the war between Israel and Egypt on and off (Cohen-Almagor, 2018). The peace deal was brokered by President Jimmy Carter and signed by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat representing their respective countries.
The Declaration of Principles was the first peace deal signed between Palestine and Israel without the involvement of the other Ara countries in war with Israel. The deal was signed between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel and declared a five-year interim period that Palestine would practice self-rule (Davis et al., 2017). Part of the agreement was for Israel to transfer power and responsibilities to Palestinian Authority in Gaza and West Bank to allow self-governance. The Declaration of Principles, also known as the Oslo I Accords, was negotiated after a series of attacks and protests by Palestinians against the Israeli government (Nusseibeh et al., 2019). In 1995, the Oslo II Accords followed the first accord and negotiated for the withdrawal of Israel from several cities in the West Bank that it had occupied illegally (Leaders, 2021). However, Israel failed to adhere to the mandate of this accord, and with no rational solution, the conflict continued. The recent talks have focused on peace agreements based either on the two-state structure or the one-state solution. However, the discussions are at an impasse because of a lack of consensus on various issues.
Two-State and One-State Solutions
The two-state solution is one of the current proposals for a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine is the formation of a two-state system. The two-state framework notes that Palestine and Israel will exist side-by-side as two independent states: Jewish and Arab states. The two-state solution originated from the Oslo Accords following a plan to establish a permanent independent Jewish state (UN, 2020a). However, for years, the two sides have disagreed on the proposed elements of the two-state solution. While the talks are at a stalemate, the situation worsens y day, calling for urgency to find a lasting solution. As Djerejian et al. (2018) stated, “the case for a two-state solution for two peoples has not radically changed in the many years it has been made, but today the urgency is higher” (p. 5). According to Amal (2020), a lasting solution proposed by the two-state framework requires the leaders from both sides to make pragmatic proposals and difficult decisions. The two-state solution has several contents which are the subjects for negotiations.
The first content of the two-state solution is the international framework. The international framework postulates the territorial divisions for the proposed two states. According to the framework, the territorial divisions that would work for the two states should be based on UN resolutions 242 and 238. The following are the principles of these resolutions: Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. (Djerejian et al., 2018, p. 6)
Further, the framework recommends that the parties maintain order agreements declared by the UN in 1947 and any modifications to be negotiated upon by the two parties. Fulfilling this requirement of the two-state solution has been challenging because Israel annexed West Bank territories belonging to Palestine (Amir, 2021). Israel has established structures and permanent residents in these territories, so abandoning these developments is not an option. The second content of the two-state framework is the question of refugees. The two-state framework postulates that the two sides should negotiate and find a mutual solution to the issue of refugees. Additionally, it acknowledges that assistance will be required to support refugees regardless of the outcome of the negotiations (Reliefweb, 2021). Once again, the fate of refugees is causing a stalemate because of Palestine’s insistence on the right of return of refugees. At the same time, Israel argues that such a move is not possible as it will upset the demographic make-up of Israel-Palestine.
Thirdly, the two-state solution proposes that Jerusalem becomes home to the capital of the two states, just as outlined in the 1947 territorial resolution. Additionally, the holy sites would be accessible to all religions (Amal, 2020). However, as noted in an earlier discussion, Israel has gotten old of the entire Jerusalem and insisted that it remain undivided. The lack of willingness to share Jerusalem with Palestine is a significant contributor to the impasse of the two-state negotiations. The fourth issue is the security arrangement for the proposed two independent states. The framework indicates that the two sides should agree upon the withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from the Gaza Strip and the non-militarization of Palestine (Djerejian et al., 2018). Fifth, the resolution calls for equitable distribution of resources between the two countries. Since Palestine is dependent on Israel for utilities and other resources, it would be important to ensure an equitable sharing of transboundary resources to ensure self-sufficiency.
Additionally, the two-state proposal state that the countries shall have good state-to-state relations based on respect for the sovereignty of each state. The conditions shall be supportive of a good neighborhood as forms exist side-by-side. Another issue in the two-state framework is infrastructural development. The framework indicated that Palestine would receive significant support to ensure infrastructural and institutional developments (Djerejian et al., 2018). The aim of this developmental support is to ensure that Palestine is stable, secure, prosperous, and becomes democratic to promote the welfare and wellbeing of its citizens. Finally, the two-state solution would also improve regional relations by creating peace between Israel and other Arab nations for a peaceful and stable Middle East and Mediterranean regions (Djerejian et al., 2018). While other issues are addressed by the two-state peace plan, the above are the core issues and the most contentious; thus, creating a standoff in the peace negotiations.
Israel and Palestine have been having talks for a possible resolution and formation of two states existing in the contested territory for over forty years. However, the failure to reach a consensus has created pessimism on whether the two-state dream will ever be realized. Some analysts argue that with the stalemate on the two-state solution, the only plausible solution is creating a peaceful one-state for both Arabs and Jews (Amal, 2020). With the declining hope in the possibility of a two-state solution, public support for an alternative one-state solution is steadily growing. A one-state framework is a proposal that both Arabs and Jews should form a joint government. In this case, the two would form a confederate, unitary, or federal system governing the entire territory from the Gaza Strip, West Bank, Jerusalem, and the parts currently occupied by the State of Israel. A one-state solution requires everyone to live and move freely in the Israel-Palestine territory and enjoy equal rights regardless of ethnicity or religion (Zilberfarb, 2018). In addition, the one-state framework mandates that all people have the right to vote and elect a government consisting of both Israelites and Palestinians.
The one-state solution is threatened by the national identity of each of the parties. One of the elements motivating the conflict is the desire for national identity. Israel wishes to preserve Jewish identity based on the notions of Zionism, while Palestine also wishes to experience a sense of national identity as an Arab nation (Amal, 2020). Having a combined state will not give the two parties room for fulfilling their desire and passion for preserving national identity. The second issue is Israel’s self-definition, where the states insist that the laws, policies, and policies do not favor the Jews over Arabs. According to Pressman (2021), the system discriminates against Palestinians in any way, including political rights, employment, security organs, housing, and immigration. Thus, if allowed to continue, it will not guarantee equality for both Palestinians and Israelites. Yet, Israel seems unwilling to modify its self-definition and change the system to accommodate the needs and rights of Palestinians.
US Foreign Policies on Israel-Palestine
The United States is an active participant in the Israel-Palestine conflict in several ways. First, Israel is a U. S. ally, and the state enjoys a close relationship with America. Consequently, America has an obligation to protect its ally, which it does by providing security support to Israel (Cordesman, 2018). Moreover, shared economic and security interests cemented the enduring relationship between the United States and Israel. Secondly, the U. S. is involved in the conflict to promote peace and stability in the Middle East region, which is the primary producer and supplier of oil. Instability and other disruptions caused by insurgency in the region would threaten the oil supply, leading to a shortage and, eventually, a global crisis (Lewin & Berge, 2016). Thirdly, the U. S. is the primary mediator between the two parties in talks to bring lasting peace and stability. Finally, because of its commitment to upholding and promoting human rights, the U. S. is involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict to restore Palestine’s violated rights and others in Israel. For instance, the U. S. provides humanitarian assistance and pushes for a solution that would lead to the self-determination of Palestinians and the security and dignity of the people (Amal, 2020). As such, U. S. foreign policies focus on finding a solution to the conflict. The country has taken part in the peace process and attempts to revive it whenever the negotiations are neglected for too long.
The U. S. has unwavering and unconditional support for Israel, which is a significant issue in the peace process because the relationship may influence the ability to attain a fair outcome. Thus, to understand factors that influence the outcome of peace negotiation, it is essential to conceive why the U. S. shares a strong relationship with Israel. First, Israel is strategic to America as it provides a platform for introducing pro-American democracy in the Middle East (Amal, 2020). America has tried for years to encourage the adoption of democratic forms of government by the Arab countries in vain. On the other hand, Israel benefits from the strategic relationship through support for Zionism and access to the biggest echelons in the U. S. government (Zanotti, 2020). For example, Benjamin Netanyahu has maintained a close relationship with Washington in exchange for political support for a long time. Additionally, Israel is a key U. S. ally in the counterterrorism war. Counterterrorism efforts ring together western countries in the fight against extremism and terrorist activities against western countries.
The second reason the U. S. shows overwhelming support for Israel is based on moral underpinning. For instance, having suffered Holocaust, Americans are empathetic to the suffering experienced by Jews during this period. Similarly, America being a strongly Christian country sees the need to protect the holy land, and the rationale way to do so is to support Israel (Dobers et al., 2018). Further, America supports Israel because being the only democracy in the Middle East, it resonates with western values and faces a constant threat from hostile Arab countries and terrorists against western values. This notion of the vulnerability of Israel is sometimes misleading. According to Schewe (2021), it justifies Israel’s hostile actions on the argument that the Arab countries threaten it and, thus, act in self-defense.
The U. S. foreign policy on the Palestine-Israel conflict has been evolving since the onset of the conflict. First, the involvement of the United States in Israel-Palestine relations started with President Truman in 1947, whose administration supported the UN resolution on the Partition Plan for the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The foreign policy at the time pushed for the creation of a Jewish state and the right to self-determination of Israel (Moten, 2018). However, the support disregarded the plight of Arabs who later emerged stateless in their own land. The second administration involved in the Israel-Palestine peace process was the Eisenhower Administration, which had a contrasting approach compared to the previous administration. Eisenhower’s administration was more concerned with gaining favor from the Arab nations to block the Soviet Union from penetrating the region (Zanotti, 2020). As such, U. S. foreign policy expressed disapproval for Israel’s conduct, including the offensiveness of Israel’s military. Consequently, the administration supported an arms embargo against Israel and other western countries and the repatriation of Palestinian refugees displaced during the 1948 war.
In the 1960s, the United States made a U-turn to cement its relationship and support for Israel. President John F. Kennedy affirmed that America’s relationship with Israel was a commitment. His main intention was to appeal to the American Jewish population for votes, and he succeeded in getting 80% of their votes. Consequently, the foreign policy by Kennedy’s administration downplayed the right of return of Palestinian refugees because Israel was against the idea (Cohen-Almagor, 2018). Moreover, the administration reaching the existing arms embargo participated in the Middle East arms race supplying Israel as the Soviet Union armed Egypt. From the onset of Nixon’s presidency, he had no debt, with Israelites having received low support from the Jewish population (Darnton, 2020). Therefore, he started by playing a balanced position in supporting Israel while condemning actions that violated international human rights; for example, his administration called on Israel to return the territories forcibly occupied (Zanotti, 2020). Later on, through Henry Kissinger, the administration took a turn to support Israel, making the Nixon administration’s foreign policy the most pro-Israeli in the early years.
Moving on, President Jimmy Carter joined the scene and picked from where his predecessor had left. During 1978-79, his administration hosted the Israeli Prime Minister and Egypt’s President to negotiate peace, which gave birth to the Camp David Accords. The framework for peace developed by the administration involved a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and a mandate for Palestinian autonomy (Schewe, 2021). Following Carter, Reagan’s administration showed strong support for Israel while rejecting attempts to make Israel relinquish illegal occupations. On the other hand, the George H.W. Bush administration set the stage for peace negotiations between Palestine and Israel, leading to the Oslo Accords (Hsiu-Ping, 2018). Additionally, this administration prompted Israel to halt its annexation and construction in the West Bank. President Clinton’s administration also initiated peace talks that involved Israel and the PLO leadership. However, the foreign policy of Clinton’s administration failed to bear any fruits towards a solution for peace (Dobers et al., 2018). However, during this era, Palestinians were given control over some parts of the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel later deployed its troops to these places. Clinton also led the Camp David negotiations in 2000 and Egypt in 2001, but these negotiations were unsuccessful.
President George W. Bush Administration entered the scene after Clinton but took time to resume the peace negotiations in the Middle East because of preoccupation with the 9/11 attack and the rising terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, in 2003, the Bush administration introduced the Roadmap For Peace, which outlined a framework to form a two-state system (Kamrava, 2018). Bush administration acknowledged Palestine’s right to self-determination; its support still leaned ore towards Israel. Likewise, the Obama administration’s foreign policy approach was primarily an extension of the proposals introduced by the previous administrations. Obama administration revived the peace talks in 2013, but these were interrupted when the Palestinian Authority formed a coalition government with Hamas, a group designated as terrorist by America and Israel (Hannase, 2019). Obama also met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestine’s authorities several times to negotiate peace. Like the previous attempts, these failed to create progress.
President Trump’s administration has been the most controversial in the history of American policy towards Israel-Palestine peace negotiations. When President Trump entered office, he promised that his administration would be the first to negotiate for a lasting peace successfully. Consequently, his administration released the Peace for Prosperity, a plan to resolve the longstanding conflict between Israel and Palestine (Arieli, 2020). The plan drew sharp reactions on the domestic front, Arab world, and the international community. The plan, as analysts say, shows clear support for Israel and a slap in the back for Palestine. Contrary to the title, opponents argue that it does not have Palestine’s interest at heart but is only concerned with fulfilling Israel’s demands. To worsen the situation, even before the release of the Trump administration’s plan, in 2017, the office formally recognized Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. It announced the relocation of the U. S. embassy to the holy city (Iriqat, 2021). Nevertheless, Trump left office too without achieving the goal of bringing peace between the conflicting territories. Finally, President Biden’s administration is expected to renew negotiations to find a lasting solution to the conflict (Labott, 2021). At the moment, the administration is concentrating on repairing its relationship with Palestine, which was bruised due to the Trump administration’s proposals.
The Question of Refugees/Humanitarian Crisis
An important social concern with the Palestine-Israel conflict is the deteriorated humanitarian conditions. The humanitarian situation is characterized by gross violation of international human rights. According to Hanifa and Seyam (2021), in many conflict situations, states often fail to conform to international human rights, which is evident in the case of Israel-Palestine. To start with, 80% of the Palestinian population depends on foreign aid, which the country has received since the early years of the conflict (Kamrava, 2018). The situation is characterized by a lack of essential needs, destruction of property, restriction of movement, and excessive use of force by the security organs. In society, morals and ethics are essential even in terms of war. This is the basis of international human rights, which seeks to control and regulate the actions of states during the war to limit the suffering caused by the battles. Some guidance provided by the UN Charter on the conduct of states during the war are below:
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purpose of the United Nations.” Similarly, Chapter VII talks about actions, stating “Actions with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression.”
The situation in Israel-Palestine, as evident, fails to observe these principles that promote international human rights. Arab-Israelis, though they are citizens, receive second-class treatment. For instance, while Israel justifies its reason for going into battle as self-defense, the country is engaged in violation of the human rights of Palestinians (Hanifa & Seyam, 2021). Furthermore, experts argue that Israel is protected by the western powers led by the United Nations, making it hard to consider it an aggressor going against the provisions of international human rights. According to Israel, it is in constant violation of jus in bello and jus ad bellum, in the process, sacrificing the jus ad bellum of Palestine. Jus ad bellum is the justification of going into war, whether for the protection of human rights or self-defense (UN Security Council, 2016). On the other hand, jus in bello is the conduct of states during the war in terms of hostilities and aggression.
International human rights bind Israel because it signed the Geneva Conventions in 1949 and subsequently ratified them in 1951. However, Israel’s actions contradict the principles of the Geneva Conventions. According to reports, Israel carries out a forced settlement of Jewish into Palestinian territories, assaults, forced transfers, collective punishments, inhuman treatment, wanton killings, and detention (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2019). According to the UN, Israel has a long list of human violations that utterly target Palestinian civilians, including destruction and disruption of medical transport, residences, public building, hospitals, water sources, schools, historical monuments, and other essential infrastructure (Human Rights Watch, 2020). In the end, the conflict manifests the anarchical nature of the world, where power wins over liberalism. The more powerful state gets away with human rights violations while the less powerful one is forced to bow to the bigger state.
Another dimension to the humanitarian issue is the fate of 750,000 refugees who have driven away from their lands during the 1948 battle between Jews and Arabs. The refugees and many other Palestine who have been displaced after that live in deplorable conditions because of the unrelenting war (Jamal, 2016). The repercussion of refugees is the question of whether they should permanently settle in the foreign lands or come back to their homelands. The United Nations guidance on the issue of refugees guarantees the right of return. Resolution 194 (III) of the UN states,
Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property that, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible. (Human Rights Watch, 2020, p.1)
While there is no agreement on the fate of Palestinian refugees, the continued war only means that more Palestinians become refugees each day because of displacements and deteriorating living conditions in the Gaza Strip and other parts of the Occupied Palestine Territory. Nevertheless, Palestine has also carried out significant brutalities causing harm and displacement to both Jews and Arabs (Cordesman, 2018). Hence, both sides are to blame for the grave human rights violations and making life in the regional living hell for the civilians. Hence, human security in both Israel and Palestine should be a central focus in any peace deal seeking to promote stability and lasting peace in the region.
Impact of Israel-Palestine Conflict in the Middle East Region
The Israel-Palestine conflict started because of hostilities between Arabs and Jews, meaning its impact goes beyond the contested territory to the Middle East and Mediterranean regions. First, the conflict has been going on for a long and threatens the peace and stability of the Middle East (Lahiry, 2019). The stability of the place is critical for the sustainability of oil that comes from the region. Thus, the Middle East is of strategic importance to the countries that depend on oil. The supply and demand of oil affect the economy of global markets; for example, a shortage in oil supply can lead to inflation and other economic issues in a country (Imam, 2019). Since the 2011 Arab Spring, the Middle East and North Africa have witnessed recurrent armed conflict making the regions the most vulnerable region to war (Cordesman, 2018). Thus, the international community fears that the conflict in Israel-Palestine could spread and merge with the insurgency in other parts of the Middle East and the Mediterranean regions, causing irreversible instability.
The polarity of armed conflict in the Middle East region has links with the rise in radical Islam pioneered by extremist groups of the jihadism movement. One of the major threats to the stability of Palestine and Israel, as well as neighboring countries, is the ISIS group operating in Syria and Iraq (Davis et al., 2017). Hamas operating in Gaza Strip is believed to have connections with ISIS and other militant groups. Another threat comes from Iran, which vowed to wipe Israel out of Arab land and establish an Islamic state in the region. Iran funds terrorism activities in Syria and supports Hamas (Kamrava, 2018). Similarly, other armed insurgencies are being experienced in Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen, among other countries. These groups have one thing in common, the vision to create an Islamic state governed by Sharia Law. The ideology is based on radical Islam that rejects westernization while embracing killing infidels to establish the desired Islamic State (Jamal, 2016). Thus, if the groups and Iran merge forces, any hopes of peace in the Middle East will wane instantly.
Problem Statement
The Israel-Palestine conflict created and continues to exacerbate social problems in the two countries and neighboring states. First, the main social problem created by the conflict is instability in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean regions. Instability in Palestine and Israel, as well as neighboring countries, is a threat to peace and security worldwide, as well as human security. The current issues arising from the conflict include the Israeli government’s restrictions related to Palestinians’ rights, humanitarian issues in Palestine, and the involvement of other countries (such as Egypt or Iran) in the conflict. The Israeli government imposes strict conditions that restrict the movement of Palestinians in and out of the Gaza Strip and Israeli security forces disperse demonstrators using live ammunition (Council on Foreign Relations [CFR], 2021). Similarly, the Israeli government has encouraged illegal settlements in the West Bank thereby violating international humanitarian law. Moreover, given the years of violent conflicts, the region especially Palestine is in a dire humanitarian situation. For example, Palestine is highly dependent on humanitarian aid because of a lack of development. Further, the people experience limited access to education, medical care, economic opportunities, clean water, and electricity (CFR, 2021). Instability will likely worsen these conditions, and hence, deepen the social problems related to human security, as well as a threat to global security.
Second, the presence of Hamas, a terrorist group operating in the Gaza Strip may escalate the conflict because of its connection with terrorism. Tehran already made it clear that it would not hesitate to wipe Israel out of the Arab world (UN Security Council, 2019). Given that Iran is a known supporter of terrorist groups and devotees of Shia Islam, which advocates for the formation of an Islamic State and the elimination of infidels; Hamas’s insurgency presents an opportunity to fund terrorism in Israel-Palestine, which will cause insecurity and instability of the people of both countries. Moreover, the likely eruption of the conflict combined with other ongoing civil unrests and terrorism in the Middle East region such as in Yemen, Syria, among others is a risk to the stability of the already volatile Middle East (Amal, 2020). Thus, social decline leading to worsened humanitarian conditions and insecurity is imminent as the hopes of success with the two-state peace talks dampen (Brown et al., 2018).
As a complex and multidimensional conflict between Israel and Palestine lead to negative long-lasting consequences for multiple countries in the Middle East region and outside it, it is obvious that third parties try to suggest solutions for the mitigation of this issue. However, not all decision within the framework of other countries’ foreign policies contribute to the de-escalation of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Thus, the endorsement of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel made by the American government led to the escalation of this conflict and creation of multiple political, social, and economic long-lasting consequences.
Purpose of the Study
In order to examine the consequences of Trump Administration’s endorsement of Jerusalem on social life in the Middle East and Mediterranean regions, it is necessary to analyze the documents related to this decision. Publicly available documents contain valuable insights into the effects this decision had on such areas as people’s rights, Palestinians’ access to healthcare and educational services, humanitarian aid, exposure to violent attacks of radical groups (Mohamad, 2019). The issues have existed for years after the creation of the Palestinian state (Michaels, 2017). However, the situation is likely to change due to the American government’s endorsement of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as it can destroy the balance that has been achieved during the past decades (Mohammed, 2017). This decision can provoke protests and violence that can have detrimental effects on the social life in Palestine, Israel, and even other countries in the Mediterranean region.
The identification of these potential risks can be instrumental in finding practical solutions and reactions of the involved stakeholders. A deep analysis of these issues can also help in shaping the policies introduced by Israel, the USA, and Palestine state. The purpose of this qualitative study is to determine the social effects of the American’s government endorsement of Jerusalem on the stability in the Middle East and Mediterranean regions.
Research Question
In order to address the purpose of the study, it is important to narrow down the scope of issues to analyze. The focus is on the social impact of the decision of Trump’s Administration regarding Jerusalem affecting Palestinians and Israelis. Having in mind some political and economic implications, the exact causes of the social instability should be addressed. Jerusalem is one of the principal areas of dispute and the matter of conflict to a considerable extent, so any changes in the status of this place can have long-term effects. In this study, people’s security access to water and territories are seen as the central factors leading to destabilizing changes in the societies of the two countries. Based on these considerations, the research question guiding this study can be formulated as follows:
RQ: What are the social implications of U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel for Palestinians and Israelis in terms of the two sides’ access to territories and water?
Nature of the Study
This qualitative study is based on the use of document analysis as the guiding research design. The document analysis is a standard tool utilized in qualitative and mixed-method studies that implies the examination of published literature (Frey, 2018). This method is instrumental in gaining a deep understanding of diverse contexts of people’s lives based on the policies regulating these spheres (Karppinen & Moe, 2019). The focus of this study is to explore the social challenges people of Palestine and Israel encounter, so the analysis of publicly available documents related to existing policies is justified (Wood et al., 2020). These documents shape people’s behaviors and relationships between different groups and individuals. Instead of analyzing people’s attitudes and opinions, it is vital to consider the documents that are the result of these concerns and the basis for people’s particular actions.
The documents included in this study are policy papers, scholarly articles, public records, organizational reports, and magazines related to the social aspects of life in Palestine and Israel after 2016. The information is retrieved from JSTOR, PROQUEST, government databases, the SAGE publication database, as well as the websites of the following organizations and institutions: Council for Foreign Relations, UN, Carnegie Foundation, Crisis Group, and Reliefweb. The documents published between 2016 and 2022 are under analysis. The changes took place during Trump’s presidency (2017-2021), but it is also essential to pay attention to the pre-Trump situation in the two countries and the current implications of the decisions made by Trump’s Administration.
The data analysis method that is the most appropriate for this research is thematic analysis. This instrument enables researchers to identify the significant themes and topics recurrent in the analyzed materials (Frey, 2018). MAXQDA software is utilized to analyze the content of the documents, which makes the analysis process more effective and reliable. This software is helpful in analyzing and presenting data in an appropriate form (tabulated or graphic).
Definitions
The following terms and concepts are utilized in this study:
The Middle East region, also referred to as Near East, includes the countries of southwestern Asia, the Mediterranean region, and a part of North Africa (UN, 2020b).
United Nations (UN) is an international organization founded in 1945 that played a central role in the creation of the Israel state and the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (UN, 2019).
Hamas is a militant group that emerged as an opposition to Israel’s influence on Palestine but gained considerable political power in 2006 (Michaels, 2017). This organization is involved in some social programs, but its most immense impact is associated with military activities and multiple attacks on Israelis.
Assumptions
The assumptions guiding this research are formulated and justified below:
- It is assumed that social tension in both states is caused by the conflict and the inability of the two countries to settle disputes regarding territories. The conflict between the two states is closely related to the two sides’ claims on territories that are essential for accessing vital resources such as water and food (Dobers et al., 2018). For instance, Palestinians have to rely on humanitarian aid due to their low access to technology and limited availability of fertile lands to sustain the population of the country (Cho, 2020).
- The endorsement of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has adverse negative effects on social life in two states. The disputes regarding Jerusalem as well as other territories have often led to the start of military activities, destructions, and social instability (Amal, 2020). Hence, it is likely that the American government’s changed position over one of the principal aspects of the current agreements between Israel and Palestine can disrupt the balance that has existed up to this period.
- Document analysis is chosen as the research design due to its effectiveness in exploring the social aspects of people’s lives. The analysis of documents sheds light on the way social aspects of people’s lives inform the creation of policies that, in turn, shape the relationships between people involved in the conflict (Karppinen & Moe, 2019). It is crucial to evaluate particular actions taken by people to achieve their goals and meet their needs.
Scope and Delimitations
In order to attain the goals of this research, several delimitations are present in this study. For instance, the social issues under analysis are confined to people’s security, access to water, agricultural lands, food, healthcare and educational services access, and the use of technology. Although the conflict between Palestine and Israel has multiple implications, social issues raise most questions in the international arena and domestically, as the mentioned social criteria define the social and political situation in the countries (Michaels, 2017). Another delimitation is the focus on a particular event associated with the changes that have taken place in the two states, which is the endorsement of Jerusalem as Israelis’ capital by the American government. This particular decision led to increased instability in the region as the involved stakeholders raised concerns as to the potential of conflict resolution (Amal, 2020). The abovementioned scope and delimitations make this study’s objectives attainable.
Limitations
Limitations associated with the study should also be considered to ensure the validity and reliability of findings and conclusions. One of the limitations is the focus on documents published in English and available online. However, some policies and regulations can exist and be published in Arabic and Hebrew. Although these documents can have an impact on social aspects, they are unlikely to have a considerable effect on the main agenda and the scope of activities in the states. It is also critical to analyze official documents that are authorized by the authorities of the two states to avoid any mistakes, so the focus on publicly available documents in English is justified. The effectiveness of the policies and the level of people’s compliance is also related to the limitations of the study. Although some policies can be enacted, they can be improperly implemented, so the effects of exact regulations can be challenging to estimate as their actual implementation can remain obscure.
Significance
The study will fill a gap in identifying the social implications of the conflict on peace between Israel and Palestine. The results of the study will give acumens to contribute to policy development for a viable policy approach for the peace process towards solving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Solving the conflict and attaining peace would resolve the social problem of instability in both countries and their neighborhood.
Summary
In conclusion, Israel is reluctant to give equity and release the annexed territories and other compromises that would allow the warring factions to settle for peace. Equally, Palestine is also unrelenting on its demands and not ready to compromise. As such, the two-state solution is at a stalemate because of a lack of consensus on various issues, including Jerusalem’s occupation, the fate of Palestinian refugees, security, resources, and territorial divisions. As the standoff persists, violence erupts with greater hostilities, violence, and aftermath than the previous ones. Currently, the latest confrontations that erupted in May 2021 are more intense than the previous ones. Human costs of the conflict are high because of massive loss of lives, displacements, injuries, disruption of education, land lack of essentials. Apart from the physical consequences, Israelites and Palestinians alike suffer anxiety and other mental wounds. While these are experienced on both sides, 90% of those affected are Palestinians. The main players in the Israel-Palestine conflict are Israel, Palestinian Authority, Hamas, the United States, Arab countries, and the international community. The U. S. has been involved in the conflict from its inception and continues to influence peace negotiations with its foreign policies. However, the hope for lasting peace and stability is waning slowly because of negotiations failures and deteriorating social conditions.
The study is composed of five chapters. Chapter one is the introduction which sets the context for understanding key issues in the Israel-Palestine conflict. The background information is essential for developing a critical lens for examining the topic of interest. The second chapter is the literature review, which comprehensively examines studies that have attempted to analyze the phenomenon. The literature review helps identify the variables relevant to the study’s topic to answer the research question. Additionally, the literature review identifies the theoretical framework and research gap. Chapter three is the methodology, which will describe the data collection approaches, data sources, tools, and analysis techniques. Chapter four will present the results from data collection process. Finally, chapter five will entail discussion, conclusions, and recommendations; the section will provide a recap of the key issues, findings, and recommendations for future studies. The following section is the literature review, which examines credible sources for a deeper understanding of the issue and what has been written about it by scholars.
Literature Review
Introduction
Peace in Israel-Palestine remains bleak as the impasse in peace negotiations persists. Though in 2020 the U. S. released a peace plan dabbed “Peace to Prosperity,” which ignited mixed reactions from the domestic front, Palestine, Israel, and the international community. Thus, the future of peace negotiations remains uncertain. Scholars have written expansively on the issue and all its dynamics. Most arguments focus on the feasibility of the two state-solution and the challenges causing the stalemate of the peace talks. This literature review will present the arguments and concepts presented in literature discussing the Israel-Palestine conflict. The review will also outlay the theoretical framework grounding the study and theories of conflict to help understand the character and dynamics of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Search Strategy
The sources for the literature review were retrieved electronically from three main databases. Google Scholar, PROQUEST, SAGE, and JSTOR. The literature search approach was multidisciplinary, considering the varied dimensions of the Israel-Palestine conflict leading to its discussion in psychology, sociology, public administration, international relations, terrorism, international security, history, political science, humanitarian and human rights issues. The multidisciplinary approach is valuable in providing a deeper exploration of the issue through diverse perspectives. The following keywords were used in the search: Israel-Palestine conflict, two-state solution, one-state solution, Israel-Palestine impasse, peace to prosperity, deal of the century, Palestinian refugees, conflict over Jerusalem, theories of conflict, humanitarian conditions of Israel-Palestine conflict, and international relations theories and conflict.
Theoretical Framework
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory conceptualized by Karl Marx purports that society is always in perpetual conflict due to resource limitations, leading to constant competition among groups (Hamon, 2016). The theory has been widely applied in international relations and peace and conflict studies to understand how the dynamics of power and domination control society. The theory is based on three tenets: division of resources, social inequality, and conflicts between different socioeconomic classes. Conflict theory stress that social inequality manifests in an unequal division of resources across groups, and such division is likely to trigger social change (Hamon, 2016). Apart from the scarcity of resources, other theory assumptions are that humans are self-centered, and conflicts are pervasive and inevitable in a society with different social groups. Thus, society is always in a state of conflict due to the differences between the rich and the poor. As conceived by Marxists, conflict theory calls for an ideal society where resources are distributed equally between the rich and the poor to promote equity.
While explaining the nature of the conflict between two primary groups, Marx named one side bourgeoisie and the other proletariat to mean minority with wealth and the majority poor respectively (Therborn, 2018). The minority wealthy individuals would use their position to influence and exploit the poor. To support their dominance, the bourgeoisie would set up societal structures, laws, and traditions favoring them and forcing the proletariat to accept them. However, the theory suggests that when the poor are subjected to worsening conditions, they begin to develop collective consciousness and awareness, leading to revolt. When such revolt occurs, it promotes social change to address societal socioeconomic problems (Hamon, 2016). The theory operates on four main assumptions. The first assumption relates to competition, where the adherents of this theory believe that competition is a constant and dominant element in interactions and relationships (Moshiri, 2019). Competition occurs because of the scarcity of resources. The second assumption is a revolution, which the proponents of this theory believe is the result of a conflict between social classes. The third assumption is structural inequality, which suggests that inequalities of power exist in relationships and social structures. Individuals with power work hard to retain and magnify their powers at the expense of the less powerful (Ree, 2019). The final assumption is war, which is seen as the unifying factor in a conflict owing to the accumulation and escalation of differences between primary groups.
The conflict is useful in understanding the social dynamics of society because it provides concepts about the interaction between classes. For example, the theory provides the basis for understanding the Israel-Palestine conflict dynamics. The main agenda in the conflict that is also causing a stalemate to the two-state solution is disagreements over resources such as territories, water, and energy (Dobers et al., 2018). Jerusalem is one of the contested resources in addition to other territories in the West Bank, as well as water and other natural resources. From the conflict theory perspective, it can be argued that Israel is the dominant group that has amassed vast resources. At the same time, Palestine, as the minority class, is deprived of resources due to unequal distribution. Therefore, the main source of conflict is resource division, the land occupied by Palestinians and Israelites. Additionally, the United States is also a hegemon in the conflict whose interest is attaining and maintaining dominance in the Middle East.
Several authors have applied the conflict theory to interpret the various phenomenon of the Israel-Palestine conflict. For example, Adenyi (2019) used conflict theory to identify the factors worsening the conflict and the role of the superpowers in fueling and sustaining the conflict. Rinker and Lawler (2018) explored historical trauma as a reason for conflict and methods used to resolve it. The authors concentrated on the conflict between Palestine and Israel and applied the Strategies for Trauma Awareness and Resilience (STAR) Model. Finally, Jamal (2016) employed the conflict theory to examine the phenomenon of time and how it played out in the Israel-Palestine conflict to shape decisions, national identities, and peace negotiations.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework used in the study is the human security paradigm as this model is instrumental in the implementation of a deep analysis of social aspects of conflicts. The human security framework developed by Tanaka (2015) contains seven dimensions: health, food, personal, economic, community, political, and environmental. This model ensures proper focus on the central elements of humans’ wellbeing, which will help in identifying the major social issues arising from conflicts. This framework will be utilized to identify the exact implications of the conflict between Palestine and Israel that are measurable.
Conflict and International Relations Theories
Conflict occurs when there is an opposition or differences in needs, values, or interests between individuals or groups. Nevertheless, the conflict has varied definitions that depend on the context of its application. Conflict in the international relation context refers to disagreements in needs, values, and interests leading to wars, struggles, and verbal altercations, among other manifestations compromising peaceful coexistence (Lahiry, 2019). Despite the increasing call for peace, particularly by the United Nations since World War II, conflicts and wars persist as part of the society, but with differences in characteristics and manifestations (Therborn, 2018). Given the pervasiveness of conflicts in the world, it makes up an important topic in international relations. Thus, theories of international relations are used to conceive the idea of conflict, including causes, actors, processes, implications, and resolutions. The mainstream IR theories are realism, liberalism, and Marxism.
Realist Perspective on Conflict
Realists believe that a lasting IR is an impossibility because of the perennial struggle for power among states. According to realism, the world is in a state of constant chaos, with many actors (states) possessing military powers that make them dangerous to one another (Aggestam, 2014). Moreover, the states do not trust one another; instead, they continue to live in suspicion and struggle to amass power and dominance. Thus, states make strategic decisions whose objective is survival since they lack trust in the intentions of one another. Further, realists believe cooperation among states is impossible because people who govern these states are naturally selfish and aggressive (Lahiry, 2019). Thus, their goal is only to amass power at the expense of another state. Regarding peace and security, neo-realists contend that international institutions have no particular importance in preventing conflict as their role focuses on power distribution and survival (Lahiry, 2019). This suggests that the UN, according to neo-realist, does not play an important role in the prevention of war or provision of peace but is only concerned with power distribution and survival.
Moreover, realists suggest that the world operates without a sovereign authority to enforce laws that lead to agreements. Rather the state actors are independent with constant suspicion towards one another. Without the authority to keep watch and control states, the powerful states exploit the less powerful ones to maximize their power. Thus, cooperation between countries is almost impossible unless they form allies. As Lahiry (2019) notes, the formation of allies is a strategic move to reinforce a state’s power to shield it from another perceived powerful country. The fear, which is based on a perceived increase in a country’s military power, is referred to as a security dilemma. According to Majeed and Hossain (2021), a security dilemma causes a spiral of fear and suspicions based on the perceived military powers of countries. In the context of Israel-Palestine, realists would argue that the conflict is caused, worsened, and sustained by the power struggles between Israel and Palestine (Lahiry, 2019). Further, the failure to achieve a peaceful solution is because of a lack of cooperation between the two states who trade suspicion against one another.
Liberalism Perspective on Conflict
The liberal perspective of international relations is based on the belief that humans are good and, thus, capable of promoting the good of society. The liberalist conception of a society is that individuals form groups that transform into states. Liberalists fall into three groups with distinct beliefs on conflict, peace, and security. First, liberal idealists support the establishment of international organizations to provide order because states cannot settle disputes on their own (Lahiry, 2019). Idealism agrees with realism that conflict between states is inevitable but can be resolved through an established international order. The states are bound by rules and policies that govern conduct to maintain international order. Of importance to liberal idealists are collective security, national determination, and peace (Mingst et al., 2018). In context, liberal idealists support an international organization that promotes peace and security in the continent, such as the United Nations. The liberal idealist perspective gives hope to the possibility of finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict through the involvement of the international community and international organizations whose objectives are to promote peace, prosperity, and security.
The second liberal group is internationalists represented by Emmanuel Kant. The people who prescribe this perspective believe that people and states should enjoy personal freedom, free trade, interdependence, and prosperity. The society aims to promote these elements to achieve peace and security (Lahiry, 2019). Liberal institutionalists, on the other hand, stress the importance of international institutions. Institutionalists call for the formation of transnational non-governmental institutions instead of governmental institutions. Liberalist believes that a conflict such as Israel-Palestine can be solved by adopting international laws that call for arms control and greater involvement of international institutions in promoting democracy (Lahiry, 2019). Such institutions promote cooperation and the establishment of democratic states that coexist peacefully with one another. Moreover, since liberalist believe that human nature is good, they note that the states in conflict, such as Israel and Palestine, can withdraw their aggression and choose peace (Williams, 2018). Finally, in the liberalist view, non-liberal states are the ones that cause conflict while democratic states promote observing personal liberties and human rights.
Marxism Perspective on Conflict
Marxism argues that the international system is made of a capitalist structure. The capitalist structure controls the socioeconomic system by creating social classes (Lahiry, 2019). The upper class controls the economy and exploits the lower class who work for them. Marxists show that in a capitalist society, the poor work hard, but instead, the minority wealthy capitalist reaps all the benefits (Lahiry, 2019). Karl Marx, the founder of Marxism, argued that capitalism has no place in the modern world. Instead, society needs to adopt the socialist theory, which advocates for cooperative rather than private property ownership. The Socialist approach emphasizes satisfying human needs instead of amassing personal profit, as in the case of capitalism (Crotty, 2019). Thus, the international system should bring together societies that work to ensure that human needs are met.
Regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, Marxists would argue that the conflict is due to the implications of capitalism. For instance, Israel is the capitalist system exploiting Palestine, which has lesser economic and military power. Regarding conflict resolution, Marxists would argue that the peace process should adopt a socialist approach where the international system focuses on addressing the needs of the people affected by the conflict (Zilberfarb, 2018). Poverty and struggle for resources are the primary causes of conflict; hence, ensuring equity in resource distribution and access to basic needs for everyone as envisioned by socialists will promote peaceful coexistence.
Conflict Resolution
Conflict resolution in international relations is the process of erasing tension between two conflicting states to restore peace and security. Different conflict resolution styles and approaches are applied to solve problems between conflicting parties, particularly states or a state and rebels. According to Rochester (2019), conflict-management styles in IR fall into three approaches: political, legal, and diplomatic. The diplomatic approach involves negotiation between the conflicting parties. The first form of negotiation occurs when the states want to solve the conflict independently without seeking a third party’s assistance. The second form of negotiation is mediation, where the entities involve a third party (mediator) to help them resolve their differences (Rochester, 2019). For example, in the Israel-Palestine conflict, the United States is the mediator in the peace talks to find a peaceful and lasting solution to the conflict.
In the legal approach to conflict management, states resort to submitting the conflict to international courts such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) (Darnton, 2020). This occurs mostly when the entities are not ready to accept responsibility for the conflict and thus, failed to keep it under control. Finally, the third political option entails forming international organizations whose agenda is to promote peace (Rochester, 2019). The UN is a good example of such an institution, which provides the resources and means to solve a conflict and bring peace. For example, the UN provides humanitarian help and also deploys soldiers where necessary to bring peace. In the Israel-Palestine conflict, the UN has been a major player in bringing peace in the region. For example, the border divisions of 1967 were UN declarations and the 1947 partitions, which led to the creation of the state of Israel (Darnton, 2020). However, this only ignited an outbreak of the first war between the Arabs and Jews. Given the persistence of the conflict, the role of the UN has not been sufficient in addressing the core issues. According to Reich and Holland (2000), UN Resolution 242, among others, has failed to consider and address the question of Palestinian rights.
Stern (2016) also gave insight into the nature of international conflicts and the traditional conflict resolution approaches military, diplomacy, and economic tactics. The military approach is similar to what is described by Rochester (2019), which involves the conflicting states coming together to negotiate and reach a mutual agreement or using a mediator to bring the two countries together to forge a peaceful solution (Stern, 2016). Using military tactics to solve conflicts means using power/violence/war so that the country with military might wins while the weaker one surrenders. Using an economic approach refers to economic sanctions or withdrawal of economic support, agreements, or trade (Stern, 2016). For example, the United States has for the longest time had a trade embargo against Cuba. A country’s economy is its driving force, and thus, any action that has negative implications on the economy cripples a state. For example, sanctions on Iran have limited its ability to export oil and generate enough revenue to sustain the country. Consequently, this has created inflation, among other economic problems in the country.
Humanitarian Issues
As the standoff continues on the Israel-Palestine peace negotiations, sporadic violence persists, causing a huge social problem in the region. The social dimension of the Israel-Palestine conflict manifests in various elements, including displacement and refugee crisis, deaths and injuries, humanitarian conditions, human rights violations, and instability of the region. The humanitarian situation in Palestine is dire; the nation relies 80% on foreign aid. According to Shearer (2014), 3,5 million Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank receive $300 each, which is the highest aid ever given in a conflict situation since World War II. Cho (2020) noted that the region had many social problems, including unemployment, poverty, and food insecurity. The ongoing violence is also making the situation worse because of injury, destruction of property, and loss of lives. Thousands of people lack clean water and schools have been damaged, causing over 600,000 students to miss classes.
For 12 years now, Israel has closed its border with Gaza, thus restricting the movement of people and goods into and out of Gaza. To worsen the situation, Egypt also has restricted movement on its side of the border with Gaza. Thus, Gaza remains locked from access to food, economic opportunities, and even medication and treatment. According to Human Rights Watch (2020), Palestinians are only allowed into Gaza on “exceptional humanitarian cases,” for which they must get a permit (Human Rights Watch, 2020). Additionally, the Israeli soldiers continue to throw live ammunition on Palestinians and other forms of violent attacks amounting to human rights violations. In 2019, 34 Palestinians succumbed while 1,883 got injured with live ammunition. Apart from violence emanating from Israeli security forces, Hamas is also engaging in violent attacks against Israelites. The atrocities committed by Hamas amounts to a war crime; for example, they have fired over 3,000 rockets in Israeli cities.
The latest wave of attacks erupted in May following a peaceful demonstration in East Jerusalem, which was met with a violent police response. The situation prompted Hamas to fire rockets at Israel and Israel in retaliatory attacks also mounted airstrikes. Reliefweb (2021) reported that by May 14th, 830 Palestinians had been injured and 119 killed, 31 of them children from the airstrikes. In Lod/Al-Lid, Palestinians set police cars on fire and burnt down a synagogue, which signals that the violence may be taking a religious dimension (Reliefweb, 2021). The situation has worsened to the government imposing a night curfew and declaring a state of emergency for the first time since 1966. Further, Israeli ultra-nationalists also attacked Al-Lid’s Al-Omari prompting the declaration of a state of the civil war by mayor Yair Revivo (Reliefweb, 2021). The wave of violence is replicated in several towns across the region, with Israelites and Palestinians engaged in retaliatory attacks. According to Reliefweb (2021), the cycle of violence displays the continued violation of Palestinians right to freedom by the Israeli authority. For example, the violence was fueled when Israeli policy banned residents of East Jerusalem from gathering at the Old City at the Damascus Gate (UN Security Council, 2019). The place has served as a social platform for the Palestinians for both cultural and civic gatherings.
Although highly politicized, the issue of refugees is a serious social problem as one of the ugly impacts of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The first refugees resulted from the 1947-1949 war, which displaced approximately 800,000 Palestinians. Over the years, owing to the persistent conflict, the number has grown to over 4 million refugees scattered in various countries. Still, people continue to be displaced by the violent exchanges between the Israeli security forces, Hamas, and Palestinians. According to Human Rights Watch (2020), the ongoing construction in the West Bank and forced settlement of Jews in the region. The article not that 32.9% of Palestinians have changed residence due to the violence, 17.3% of these due to the ongoing construction barrier in Jerusalem (United Nations, 2019). A recent demolition in East Jerusalem on July 22nd alone resulted in the displacement of 24 Palestinians and the destruction of over 66 structures that affected over 300 livelihoods, including children (Reliefweb, 2021). As the evictions and constructions continue, more refugees, more Palestinians who find a chance to flee, do so, leading to a high number of refugees that need international attention to address.
The continued unlawful Israeli settlements have changed the character of Palestine with social and economic repercussions. According to Tannira (2021), the actions have dismembered Palestine’s society and economy, leading to a humanitarian crisis, a poor economy, and social decline. Tannira (2021) also examined the social effects of the conflict on society and argue that it is detrimental to the well-being of both Palestinians and Israelites. Furthermore, the health and psychological consequences are adverse beyond the usual psychiatric disorders such as posttraumatic disorders (Tannira, 2021). These arguments and evidence of the social impacts confirm that the conflict is a big social problem in the region.
The instability in Israel and Palestine is another social problem causing concern in the neighboring countries and internationally. According to Siegal (2017), the greatest threat to the Israel-Palestine conflict is the unstable regional surrounding inhabited by Arabs who are hostile towards Israel. The Middle East and Mediterranean regions are already volatile owing to the aftermaths of the Arab Spring, whose remnants of civil war and insurgencies continue in several countries, including Yemen, Libya, and Lebanon. Additionally, the Syrian war and instability in Iran are severe threats to the stability and prospects of peace in the Israel-Palestine region. According to UN Security Council (2019), Tehran is pushing for a war to evict all Jewish from the Arab land where the state of Israel is currently located. This would lead to the spread of the Shia Islam Salafi movement, which advocates for forming an Islamic state governed by the Sharia Laws and the removal of infidels (non-believers). Thus, the spread of terrorism into the territories of Palestine and Israel, as well as the Middle East, is imminent with the continued conflict. Furthermore, Hamas is already operating in the Gaza Strip, which creates a loophole for the insurgent group to forge an alliance with ISIS and Iran, which would give them access to funding and resources to fight Israeli. The outcome could be the whole Middle East and Mediterranean regions plunging into instability like Syria and Yemen.
The Two-State Solution
The mediation and negotiation efforts towards the Israel-Palestine conflict have focused on two proposals: a two-state solution or a one-state solution. In a two-state solution, each entity gains self-governing powers with its own sovereignty as they exist side-by-side with distinct territorial boundaries based on the June 4th, 1967 declarations (Djerejian et al., 2018). On the other hand, a one-state solution refers to creating a unitary, federal Israeli-Palestine state where all the territories East Jerusalem, West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and other parts of Israel fall under one governing rule (Amir, 2021). However, the two-state solution is seen as the fairest to both sides and feasible, making it gain popularity over the one-state solution. The two-state system originated from the Oslo accords of 1993, one of the many attempts at peace talks to find a lasting solution to one of the oldest post-Cold War conflicts. The goal of the two-state was to make Israel a thriving democracy and haven for Jews, while for Palestine, the benefit would be attaining an independent state under self-rule (Leaders, 2021). While some of these talks favoring the two-state solution have been close to attaining the long-desired people, recrimination often erases such hopes. Currently, the negotiation for two-state solutions is at an impasse because of a lack of agreement on the proposals. The issues at the center of the two-state solution include the “right of return” for Palestinians, occupation of the Holy land (Jerusalem), Gaza Strip, and West Bank, security guarantees, use of land swamps, and other territorial issues (Djerejian et al., 2018).
The Two-State Solution: Support, Issues, Challenges
The two-state solution is the internationally accepted approach to solving the belligerency between Palestine and Israel. Miller (2016) evaluated the prospects of the one-state and two-state solutions and stresses that the two-state was the most workable approach because of the nature of the conflict. The author rejected the perspectives reported by literature that the conflict is religious, colonial, class, and realist in character. Instead, he argued the conflict was ethno-nationalist, causing a state-nation imbalance, making two-state the best approach to solving the conflict. In support, Nusseibeh et al. (2019) conceived the two-state solution as the only option for achieving the national aspirations of the two entities. The authors stressed the need for shared objectives and strategic leadership from both sides, coupled with step-by-step implementation to enable the success of the two-state solution. Additionally, Amal (2020) argued that only the two-state solution can support a coexistence framework that would see both entities living side-by-side with one another peacefully in the face of ideational liberalism.
According to Walles (2019), even though peace talks have stalled because of the deadlock between the two entities, the two-state solution remains the most viable and logical approach. The two states remain the most feasible basis for peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict because it accommodates the fundamental interests of both parties, making it acceptable to the two conflicting sides. The call preference for a two-state solution is backed up by empirical evidence from a survey of both Israelis and Palestinians. According to survey results on whether Palestinians deserve an independent state, 94% of Arab-Israelis support the move with overwhelming support from Palestinians (Cohen-Almagor, 2018). On the other hand, Jewish-Israelites support an independent Palestine state but note that Palestinians must first come to terms with the fact that the Jews are part of the land and Israel will forever exist as a nation-state (Cohen-Almagor, 2018).
Contrary to popular belief that the two-state solution remains the best solution, other scholars argue that the approach is misguided. According to O’Malley (2017), the two-state option is no longer viable given that some things have changed both on the ground and in mind 50 years later following the 1967 declarations. O’Malley (2017) gave several reasons why the two-state solution was not feasible in the current environment. For instance, the changes in the geopolitical environment, Israel’s increasing religiosity, the Gaza wars, and the regional instability such as ISIS, the aftermath of Arab Spring, and the city in Syria (Human Rights Watch, 2020). Amir (2021) also stressed that changes in geopolitical dynamics and the realities on the ground cast doubt on whether the two-state solution is still attainable.
Another challenge to the two-state solution is the growing number of settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. According to Djerejian et al. (2018), this limits the chances of having a geographically contiguous Palestine. Moreover, a disintegrated Palestinian state may prove complicated to govern. According to Weinthal and Sowers (2019), the continued appropriation of land in the West Bank manifesting Israel’s rhetorical stance on the issue complicates genuine negotiations. Another complication with the conflict is that both Israelis and Palestinians believe that the land occupied by Israelites is rightful theirs based on historical accounts (Nusseibeh et al., 2019). Thus, they each reject one another’s narrative because they both have national rights to the land, which has created a crossroad over the two-state solution.
Like any other proposal, the two-state solution has opponents who believe the best approach to solving the conflict is forming a one-state that incorporates Palestinians and Israelites. Hsiu-Ping (2018) argued that the Israel-Palestine conflict was worsening despite years of talks to form a two-state system. The persistence and worsening of the conflict are manifested by the domination of Hamas, major strikes on Gaza in 2009, 2012, and 2014, Al-Aqsa Intifada (2000-2006), and the numerous territorial fragments at the West Bank (Hsiu-Ping, 2018). Thus, the one-state popularized by western scholars is becoming the probable alternative to the two-state solution.
The Status of Jerusalem
Jerusalem, also known as the Holy City, is the most contested city in the Israel-Palestine conflict because of its holy sites deemed sacred by Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Historically, the oldest city has witnessed sieges, conquests, attacks, and catastrophes that have rendered it turbulent since its existence. Initially, Israel was allocated the western part of Jerusalem. Still, during the 1967 Six Days war, it expanded its occupation to east Jerusalem and, over the years, continue to illegally annex parts of east Jerusalem designated to Palestine (Hussain, 2021). With the most massive one being in 2011, these settlements have changed the city’s legal status. Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel, approximated to be 125km. At the same time, East Jerusalem, which is the center of contention because of the holy site, is 70km, of which 10km represent the holy site.
Jerusalem is important to the conflict because of its religious, social, and economic implications. The sacred site, Temple Mount, is located on a hill in the Old City and hosts the Al-Aqsa temple, which is important to Muslims. Muslims believe the Mount is a location for three other mosques making it the third holiest site after Mecca and Al-Masjid an-Nabawi in Medina (El-Awaisi & Yavuz, 2020). Moreover, Muslims believe that Mohammed ascended to heaven from the same holy site. Equally, the Jewish believe King Solomon built the first temple in that location, the second by Kind David, and a third temple is to be built in the holy site oncoming of the Messiah (El-Awaisi & Yavuz, 2020). While the site is under the management of Muslims through Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, the Israeli security forces control the area and sometimes impose a ban on prayers and other related religious activities.
The uncertainty over the fate of Jerusalem is one of the primary reasons making the conflict intractable. According to Hussain (2021), Palestine wants to make East Jerusalem the capital of the state of Palestine while Israel wants the entire Jerusalem, both east and west, to be the capital of the state of Israel. Though the 1967 declarations created clear boundaries for the two entities, Israel has continued to alter the city’s legal boundaries by infiltrating Palestine territory to settle Jews. According to the two-state proposal, Jerusalem is supposed to host states’ capitals with full freedom and access to the holy sites (Djerejian et al., 2018). These recommendations are based on the United Nation’s declarations of 1967 borders. However, since 2000, Israel has been actively promoting the settlement of Jews in the Old City and West Bank, which are part of East Jerusalem, the contested region. According to Weinthal and Sowers (2019), Jewish activities and settlements around the Old City and generally East Jerusalem have crept into the Palestine population. Some Jewish even took over Palestine properties through forged documents.
The case of Jerusalem was further complicated by the United States’ recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the subsequent relocation of its embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem (Arieli, 2020). Part of the stalemate to actualizing the proposals of the two-state solution is Palestine’s insistence on making East Jerusalem its capital and likewise Israel’s decision to make Jerusalem its capital. Jerusalem is strategic in the conflict because of its Holy sites that hold religious significance to Muslims, Christians, and Jews (Mohammed, 2017). Given the ongoing efforts to bring peace into the region, and America’s dominant role as the main mediator in the conflict, the endorsement may likely exacerbate the deteriorating social conditions in the region, as well as undermine the prospects of the two-state solution (Ross, 2016). For instance, the repercussions of the endorsement include broken trust and mutual fear between Israel and Palestine, which may cripple the negotiation efforts towards building a two-state system. Also, at stake are the cultural and religious values including the national narratives, which differ between the two groups creating a challenge for prospects of an agreement.
The declaration made by Trump’s administration was condemned by the Muslim world and a significant section of the international community. As Moten (2018) explained, the move adversely affected Americans’ position in the negotiations for peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict. As some scholars argue, the US has demonstrated impartiality throughout the negotiations because of siding with Israel. US and Israel share a strong relationship demonstrated by military, economic, and political support (Moten, 2018). Thus, the United States has been unwilling to exert the pressure needed for Israel to accept Palestine as an independent state with its government and military. The declaration is an indication that the United States is working together with Israel to unilaterally dictate who occupies Jerusalem as well as other core issues in the Israel-Palestine conflict (“Ramifications of the US Middle East plan,” 2020).
The Fate of Palestinian Refugees
Abu Shakrah defined a Palestinian refugee as, “A Palestinian refugee is any Palestinian who fled, was expelled or was forced into exile from his/her home in the area of historic Palestine or who has been refused re-entry to their home in historic Palestine after having traveled abroad during the period between 1948 and today” (2000, p. 3). During the 1948 war, over 750,000 Palestinian refugees were displaced from their homes as they fled from the hostilities to other countries. Moreover, over the years, subsequent violent confrontations have seen the displacement of even more Palestinians, leading to approximately 7 million refugees worldwide. The displaced Palestinians have never been allowed to return to their ancestral homes. Given the huge number of Palestinian refugees, their fate makes a significant consideration in the peace negotiations (Brynen, 2018). Thus, the right of return of Palestinian refugees is one of the conditions in the two-state proposal causing a stalemate because of the lack of consensus between Israel and Palestine on the fate of these refugees.
The two-state solution state that the two entities shall agree on how to handle the refugee problem, including international assistance, rehabilitation, and resettlement options (Djerejian et al., 2018). Palestine’s stance on the issue of refugees is to grant all displaced Palestine the right to return to their homeland. However, Israel is against this proposal noting that the Palestine population would overcome the Jew majority, making the place a threat to the existence of Jews. Israel believes the “right of return” is a plan to destroy the character of Israel, while Palestine’s insistence on the issue is to seek recognition of its national identity (Scheindlin, 2020). Palestine’s demand on the right of return is based on the UN’s resolution of 1948, which stated,
Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible (Khalidi, 1997, p. 12)
The realities on the ground further complicate the fate of refugees. According to Reliefweb (2021), since 1948, the population has grown with little room to accommodate the resettlement of over 7 million refugees. Similarly, Miller (2016) argued that the attitude adopted by the international community towards the issue of Palestinian refugees also obscures any genuine resolution towards the issue. The international community has treated it as a political issue rather than a humanitarian issue, limiting it to the peace process, yet assisting the refugees resettle should not be a matter of negotiation. Given this position, most refugees have become extremists because of poverty and desperation in the camps, making them a security threat (Djerejian et al., 2018). Thus, their return must be treated cautiously because it could open the door for insurgency into Israel and combine with the problematic Hamas extremism. At the same time, the issue needs to be reviewed from a humanitarian perspective to find the best approach to settling refugees (Mason, 2019).
Gaza Strip and West Bank
Another important parameter of the two-state solution that dominates the literature is territorial issues concerning settlements, especially in Gaza and the West Bank. According to the provision of the two-state approach, territorial and border divisions would follow the 1967 border recommendations (Cohen-Almagor, 2018). Any modifications would be agreed upon and negotiated to ensure equitable divisions considering the needs of both parties, contiguity, and demographic considerations. The proposal also declared a freeze on new settlements. Israel continues to expand its settlements in the West Bank on the territories designated to Palestinians (Djerejian et al., 2018). According to Lewin & Berge (2016), Israel contradicts the ongoing commitments to attain peace because it annexes parts of the West Bank that belong to Palestine. Following the 1967 border agreements recommended by the two-state option would mean dismantling Israel’s infrastructure and settlements in the West Bank to create room for Palestinians (Lewin & Berge, 2016). The West Bank and Gaza are legally designated for Palestine. Allowing the settlements to remain as they are today under a two-state system would mean some parts of Palestine are integrated into Israel, which will create complications in governance and control.
Security
Security is a thorny issue with the Israel-Palestine peace negotiations for an establishment of a two-state system. The two-state solution recommends the demilitarization of Palestine. A survey conducted on the public’s opinion on the demilitarization issue shows that more than half of the respondents, 55% support the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip (Djerejian et al., 2018). Israel argues that a militarized Palestine is a security threat as the state would attempt to wage war against Israel. Instead of Palestine having its military, the alternative proposal is to create a multinational force to oversee security in Palestine and Israel. The challenge with this proposal is that the security forces would predominantly be made up of Jews-Israelis. Another security suggestion by Palestine is for Israel to withdraw its troops from the West Bank and Gaza Strip; however, Israeli security forces in these regions are still evident (Lewin & Berge, 2016).
Similarly, Hamas, a radical group operating in the Gaza Strip, adds another dimension to the security parameter. Hamas has caused insurgency in the region with direct attacks on Israel. Moreover, the terrorist group that prescribes the ideologies of Sunni Islam has infiltrated the Palestine government and taken control of major institutions and important decision-making functions (Hannase, 2019). Israel and the United States consider the group a terrorist threat not only to the region but far beyond. One of the conditions stressed by Israel is that Palestine should eliminate Hamas and reject its rule and involvement in national affairs. According to UN Security Council (2016), if Palestine becomes an independent state, Hamas may become a bigger threat because they would control the government and augment its sporadic attacks on Israel.
Trump Administration’s “Peace to Prosperity” (“Deal of the Century”)
Trump administration’s “Peace to Prosperity,” also referred to as the “Deal of the Century,” was unveiled on January 28th, 2020. The proposal, as Trump puts it, “a vision to improve the lives of Israelites and Palestinians,” has attracted controversy more than the proposals by the previous administrations (United Nations, 2020a). The Peace to Prosperity gives a detailed account of the political, economic, and state relations that would see the two entities attain lasting peace. According to the plan, the US and international community would support economic, infrastructural, and institutional development in Palestine if they agree to the conditions of the proposal. While the proposal allows Palestine to form an independent self-governing state, it also suggests that limiting some of its sovereign powers is necessary to protect Israel. Thus, ensuring the security of the rejoin becomes the responsibility of Israel, meaning Palestine must be demilitarized. Additionally, Palestine must reject terrorism, especially Hamas, and promote peaceful coexistence with Israel.
The plan raises particular concerns in relation to the issue of refugees as well. According to it, Palestinians who previously settled elsewhere have no right to return even in Palestine (Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS), 2020). In turn, they are proposed to move to Individual Organization of Islamic Conference member countries if they agree to accept them. This policy not only violates the human rights of the Palestinian but place economic, social, political, and public health burdens on other countries. In addition, the plan actually presupposes the control over the Palestinian state’s sea, airspace, crossing points, and borders by Israel (Sher & Cohen, 2020). This decision may substantially impact the solution of public health issues in the region, including water and food safety, the prevention of disease, and preparing for emergencies.
The predominant reaction towards the peace deal is that it favors Israel while giving Palestine a raw deal. According to Klug (2020), the deal of the century, in reality, is about establishing Israeli’s rule and dominance over Palestine indefinitely, which has negative implications for the region. For instance, the plan diminishes Palestinians hope of regaining complete independence from Israel. A poll released immediately after the announcement of the Peace to Prosperity revealed that 94% of Palestinians rejected the framework. Additionally, Iriqat (2021) noted that top Arab countries and western countries, including the European Union, also opposed the proposal, albeit praising the United States’ efforts to promote peace between the two nations. The framework released by Trump’s Administration also drew sharp reactions from Americans themselves. A section of Congress had mixed reactions noting that the proposals made on the peace deal favor Israel’s position and thus, deviate from addressing the core issues, causing a stalemate in the peace negotiations for a two-state solution (Zanotti, 2020). According to Arieli (2020), the proposal has no regard for Palestine’s national interest and thus only serves to exacerbate the challenges of attaining the two-state plan.
Liel (2020) likened the peace deal proposed by Trump’s administration to apartheid in South Africa; he stated, “On the political level, the plan is a declaration that the US president is co-opting the authority of the international community and is signaling that it is within his sole p The author stress that despite referring to an independent Palestinian state in the proposal numerous times, the framework is not crafted to support an independent Palestinian state” (2020, p. 76). Thus, the Deal of the Century is a huge setback from the progress achieved over the decades regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. Arieli (2020) agreed that the peace deal proposed by Trump’s administration reverts the progress to 100 years back, which would be difficult to recover from considering it took Palestine 71 years to join the international community and agree to participate in negotiations to end the conflict (Arieli, 2020). Similarly, Israel took 15 years before agreeing to the UN’s recommendations to serve as the foundation for negotiations (Arieli, 2020).
The overall perception created by the Trump administration is that the peace deal framework is fresh thinking, which is different from the frameworks created by the previous regimes, including the Roadmap for Peace. Golan (2020) argued that the peace deal lacked consideration of the past negotiations and efforts made so far towards achieving peace in the region, leading to failure to address the existing/contentious issues causing an impasse. In contrast, other scholars argue that the peace proposal is nothing but a revamp of the old frameworks. For example, Erdogan and Habash (2020) contended that the peace deal availed by Trump’s administration was only a revamp of the earlier proposals because it maintained America’s preference and support for Israel over Palestine. Similarly, Klug (2020) maintained that the claim that the peace deal was fresh thinking was deceitful because it was far from the win-win situation much publicized in the media. In reality, it is the age-old tendency of fulfilling the demands of the extreme right Israeli government (Klug, 2020).
The literature provides an in-depth understanding of the important elements of the Israel-Palestine conflict. These include the two-state solution and challenges barring the continuation of the peace negotiations and the one-state prospects. Other issues discussed include the “Peace for Prosperity” proposal, the humanitarian issues, refugees, and the fate of Jerusalem. Extensive literature has been written on the conflict. However, one thing noted from the literature is that viewing issues from a political lens is dominant. Thus, the literature misses adequate discussion on the social implications of the conflict, such as instability of the region, creating a gap in studies.
Research Method
Introduction
This qualitative study is based on the use of the document analysis method as it equips researchers with the necessary instruments to explore the outcomes of some political decisions. This method is widely utilized in case studies to explore the meanings behind the topic under consideration (Wood et al., 2020). This approach is instrumental in identifying the implications of policies as it bridges the link between different types of information, such as particular documents, empirical findings regarding the diverse outcomes of policies, and discourses that emerge in public (Bathmanathan et al., 2018). The focus of this study is on the consequences of the political decision of Trump’s administration, with the focus on the lasting conflict between Palestine and Israel. Therefore, multiple types of documents were analyzed to elicit meanings behind decisions and people’s perspectives. The most recurrent themes were identified and analyzed in terms of different groups’ attitudes towards the conflict, the decision of the American government, potential solutions of the conflict shaped by the decision. This chapter includes information regarding the sample, data collection, and data analysis methods that are employed to address the research question.
Systematic Approach
Document analysis is a common research approach that is instrumental in gaining insights into the contexts and agendas related to particular policies, as well as their direct outcomes (Karppinen & Moe, 2019). This method enables researchers to detect exact changes caused by a policy that has been formalized. While other types of qualitative research designs are concerned with people’s attitudes, document analysis is characterized by a slightly different focus. This method unveils people’s attitudes that are turned into particular actions and shifts in communities and entire societies (Wood et al., 2020). Instead of concentrating on people’s opinions and concerns, researchers can explore specific ways these ideas shape people’s actions through the development of rules, regulations, and norms. The purpose of this study was to explore the outcomes of a policy and the way it affected life in Israel, Palestine, as well as the United States. Therefore, such public documents as policies, policy manuals, and guidelines were central to the research. These documents uncovered people’s determination to implement change and the directions they chose to transform their communities.
To conduct the research, the READ approach was utilized as it best fits documentation analysis. This framework encompasses the division of the analysis process into the following four stages: ready the necessary materials, extract data, analyze the extracted data, and distill the findings (Dalglish et al., 2020). This approach was instrumental in ensuring consistency and the focus on an effective analysis process. The first phase of the process is preparing the materials to be analyzed. The process begins with choosing the most appropriate types of documents and inclusion criteria, as well as the sources to be utilized to get the necessary materials. Extracting data is the following stage that implies the choice of the most effective analysis tools that can ensure addressing the established research question. During the stage of the analysis of the themes and topics, common procedures for the extracted materials are conducted. The researcher addresses the established research questions and concludes the final stage. The utilization of this paradigm helped the researcher to remain concentrated and undertake all the necessary procedures. This precision contributed to the enhancement of the accuracy ad validity of the study.
Sample
To gain in-depth insights into the matter, it is necessary to analyze different types of documents. The document analysis method encompasses the examination of such sources as policy documents, reports and data from diverse institutions, peer-reviewed articles, news reports, and articles (Cardno, 2018). According to Frey (2018), this method includes the analysis of published literature. In some cases, social media texts can be considered to assess people’s views on certain phenomena discussed in the digital domain (Dziobczenski et al., 2018; Wood et al., 2020). For this study, the following types of literature were included: public documents, organizational and governmental reports, peer-reviewed journals, magazines. Since this study aims at exploring the implications of the American administration’s policy (recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel) on the conflict between Israel and Palestine, the focus was on literature regarding and/or published in these three countries.
Public documents include regulations, policies, statements, policy manuals, laws, guidelines, news releases produced by the governmental agencies of the three countries mentioned above (Peers, 2018). These sources provide insights into particular results and actions taken by the three stakeholders (the United States, Palestine, and Israel) during Trump’s presidency and up to this moment. Organizational and governmental reports equip the researcher with data on various aspects of social life in a country and particular industries (Rapley, 2018). Such sources of information shed light on the way the administrations of the three countries and different organizations responded to the changes. Notably, the analysis of the themes emerging in the documents rather than the exact data published in them was conducted. Although some information concerning the conflict was used in this study, the central goal was to explore the meanings behind the publication and aspects that gained momentum.
This qualitative study targets identifying the themes that have become a result of the decision made by President Trump. Peer-reviewed journals and magazines are instrumental in identifying the topics and themes explored in academia. Secondary data enabled the researcher to analyze the context created by the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by the American government. Scholarly articles shed light on the topics that have been found critical in different periods after the events. These dynamics enable the researcher to explore the fluctuations in people’s attitudes towards different stakeholders (such as the American, Israeli, and Palestinian governments) and researchers’ interest in the topic. The number of sources devoted to a particular area (energy shortage, access to water, conflicts) can suggest the primary concerns of researchers at a specific time.
The inclusion criteria for the documents are publication language, date, source, and topics discussed. Only sources published in English were included in this analysis. If a source was available in several languages, it was accepted if an English version was attainable. Since this study aims at identifying the outcomes of a policy enacted by Trump’s administration, the period of Donald Trump’s presidency up to the present moment (from 2016 to 2021) was considered. The American government recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in 2017 (Arieli, 2020). To understand the overall context surrounding this decision, it was critical to analyze documents dating back to 2016, the beginning of Donald Trump’s presidency. The events and opinions that prevailed in 2016 provided insights into the attitudes of Americans and the residents of Israel and Palestine, as well as the ideas regarding the possibility and expected outcomes of Jerusalem’s recognition as the capital of Israel. Since the focus was on the outcomes of this decision, the most recent sources were central to this study as the research aimed at identifying the consequences of the policy that are apparent these days.
The types of sources of documents under consideration were also important. Only reputable sources such as official websites of government agencies and organizations such as UN Council for Foreign Relations, UN, Carnegie Foundation, Crisis Group, Reliefweb, as well as scholarly articles, and professional magazines were included. The topics chosen as inclusion criteria were the recognition of Jerusalem by the American government, conflict situations between Palestine and Israel, humanitarian issues such as citizens’ access to water, food, energy resources, people’s safety, as well as threats to the security and stability in Israel, Palestine, and the neighboring countries.
Data Collection
The materials for this research were retrieved from electronic databases and websites. The following databases were used: SAGE publication database, JSTOR, and PROQUEST, government databases, the SAGE publication database, as well as the websites of the following organizations and institutions: Council for Foreign Relations, UN, Carnegie Foundation, Crisis Group, and Reliefweb. These databases contain a vast bulk of sources of different types, including the latest ones (or even pre-published versions) and the ones published decades ago. Peer-reviewed articles and reports were mainly located with the help of these databases. Books accessed through these databases were utilized for the review of the most widely used methods and the development of the methodology to address the research question. The keywords utilized in this study were instability in Palestine-Israel, Trump’s fresh thinking, two-state solution, Israel-Palestine conflict, the human cost in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Dead of the Century, effects of recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. These phrases were chosen as they are commonly utilized during the discussions of the conflict between Palestine and Israel, which was identified during preliminary research. The different word order in the phrases (Palestine-Israel and Israeli-Palestinian) was necessary to ensure the inclusion of the perspectives of both sides and people favoring one or another party.
In addition to these databases, public documents were retrieved from the official websites of the following entities: UN, UN Council of Foreign Relations, Reliefweb, Carnegie Foundation, and Crisis Group. The institutions have created a favorable image in the world, and the data they share is seen as reliable. These organizations pay much attention to human rights and diverse humanitarian issues, including the ones emerging during or after conflicts between states. This focus makes the organizations’ websites and published materials specifically valuable for the present study due to its subject matter and special attention to humanitarian aspects. Therefore, these sources of data were targeted to elicit the most relevant information regarding the well-being of people after the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by the American government. Certain preliminary research was conducted to identify the potential directions of the study that have received insufficient attention in academia.
After the preliminary review, the data collection and data analysis processes took place simultaneously. Once a source was estimated in terms of inclusion criteria, it was thematically analyzed. First, public documents related to the recognition of Jerusalem by the United States were considered, and after that, other types of sources were analyzed. Increased attention to public documents was justified by the need to detect exact outcomes of the event and factors that had or could have a considerable influence on people’s wellbeing. Saturation was reached when no new themes and topics were detected in the processed documents.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study is to identify the implications of the policy enacted by the U. S. government that are visible in Palestine and Israel in relation to the acceptance of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Thematic analysis was implemented to identify the most recurrent themes and topics in the sample documents. The documents were reread several times, and the themes and topics that emerged were coded. After that, the codes were grouped and analyzed in terms of the established research question. The groups were consistent with the domains mentioned in the research question, namely humanitarian issues, stability, and the situation in the conflict and neighboring countries. Parallels and links between the codes found in different documents and types of documents were considered as well. The comparison of the ways themes were discussed in different discourses (in the form of guidelines, empirical studies, or reports) was critical for the understanding of the ongoing changes and shifts that have been taken place in Israel and Palestine regarding the conflict between the two countries. The analysis of the ties between different topics was also important for the enhancement of the study’s validity and reliability, which will be discussed below in this section.
To make the analysis process more efficient and reliable, MAXQDA software was utilized. This software is widely employed in qualitative and mixed-method studies, as well as quantitative research (Consoli, 2021). The use of big data, statistical and analytical software is gaining momentum due to the considerable contribution of technology to ensuring the rigor of the research. Technology facilitates data collection and analysis processes helping researchers to minimize or eliminate errors and biases (Gibbs, 2018). MAXQDA is designed to analyze data with the help of codes and memos, which is instrumental in eliciting the major themes and topics that emerge in texts and are related to particular phenomena. MAXQDA interface is also instrumental in enhancing the validity of the qualitative study, which is specifically evident in documentation analysis. The software presents data in diverse forms, including tables and memos that are beneficial for a deeper analysis and more rigorous interpretations.
As far as the coding process is concerned, two types of coding exist and are used based on the goals to be attained. Deductive coding implies the development of codes based on concepts found during the literature review (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2019). This conceptual coding is a convenient approach as the researcher can locate particular data sets based on predetermined topics and themes. Inductive coding encompasses the creation of codes based on the thematic analysis of particular documents (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2019). MAXQDA can be used to facilitate both types of coding, but it is specifically helpful with inductive coding. The software generates codes and memos that are grounded in the thematic analysis of each document, as well as groups of documents. This approach can be seen as more reliable as minimal bias is apparent since the researcher (or software) does not search for predetermined codes but creates them based on the textual information in each document.
Both types of coding were utilized during this study to enhance the reliability and validity of data. First, inductive coding was implemented manually: while reading and rereading, codes were created for each document. After manual coding, MAXQDA software was employed to develop codes that were compared to the ones generated manually. The codes that coincided in the manual and electronic analyses and the most recurrent ones were chosen for further analysis. The least recurrent themes were excluded, although certain attention was paid to these aspects since they could shed light on more contexts and provide more meanings to the situation.
After the thematic analysis of all materials and the creation of codes, the codes were categorized. The categories were developed based on the research question and the purpose of the study. The focus was on humanitarian aspects, as well as particular political implications (new laws and regulations related to the recognition of Jerusalem by the U. S.). MAXQDA also enables the researcher to group several sources and compare the codes found in these sources (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2019). This feature was beneficial for the implementation of this study as the software highlighted the most recurrent themes and grouped the sources accordingly. The analysis of the links between different types of sources (such as official reports or policies and secondary sources) was instrumental in gaining insights into the extent to which those regulations and guidelines affected the academic discourse and people’s wellbeing in Palestine and Israel.
Validity, Reliability, and Generalizability
Reliability
Qualitative research design is often associated with a higher degree of subjectivity compared to quantitative studies. However, certain measures and strategies can ensure the necessary level of validity, reliability, and generalizability, although these methods differ from the ones used in quantitative studies. Reliability is associated with the consistency and stability of findings over time (Hayashi et al., 2019). In simple terms, reliability is the consistency that ensures that the same conclusions can be made after the use of the corresponding research procedures during several studies. According to Dalglish et al. (2020), reliability can be achieved by the use of diverse strategies, including but not confined to triangulation, proper sample size, and member checking. When implementing document analysis, triangulation can be enhanced by the use of different types of documents, which is the case with this study. The sample size is another feature affecting the reliability of qualitative research, and in this study, it was ensured. A large volume of documents of different types was analyzed and compared in terms of the topics and themes discussed as well as attention paid to these topics.
Validity
Validity is related to the assessment of the appropriateness of the chosen instruments. This concept implies the focus on the effectiveness of data collection, sampling, and data analysis instruments to elicit the data needed to address the research question (Gibbs, 2018). Validity is regarded as the most disputable aspect in qualitative studies, and researchers tend to compare validity to the same concept applied in quantitative research (Hayashi et al., 2019). Since the choice and assessment of the appropriateness of methods are subjective, validity can seem unattainable.
According to Hayashi et al. (2019), validity in quantitative studies is ensured by statistical tests, which is impossible in qualitative research. In qualitative studies, the understanding of the phenomenon or case is achieved by the researcher’s interpretation, reconstruction, and reflection, based on the analysis of numerous details. Hayashi et al. (2019) claimed that no protective measures that could ensure validity exist in qualitative research, so validation is a lasting and dynamic process that starts at the beginning of the research and cannot be terminated until the publication of the article.
Thus, some strategies to enhance the rigor of qualitative research have been developed (Gibbs, 2018). For instance, strategies used in data collection and analysis methods that can improve validity are first and second-tier triangulation, proper documentation of all processes and procedures, participant verification, and multidimensional analysis. For this study, multidimensional analysis and second-tier triangulation were employed to enhance validity. The second-tier triangulation was implemented through the use of diverse types of sources and two theories guiding the research. The multidimensional analysis encompassed the evaluation of different concepts linked to the event (the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by the USA) in such dimensions as political consequences, humanitarian outcomes, the overall stability in the two countries involved in the conflict, and neighboring countries. Rich descriptions and presentation of data in different forms (tables, memos, and mind maps) created manually and with the help of MAXQDA software also contributed to improving validity.
Generalizability
Generalizability in qualitative studies differs significantly from the concept used in quantitative research, where it can be tested with the help of statistical instruments. Generalizability in qualitative research cannot be assessed statistically, but according to Carminati (2018), it is not necessary. The focus of qualitative researchers is on meanings rather than empirical data, so interpretations and contexts are at the core of the analysis process. Carminati (2018) argued that the reader was the central evaluator of the generalizability of a study, so the reader was to evaluate the transferability of results to other contexts and domains. To ensure a high level of generalizability, researchers provide rich descriptions of contexts, research processes, and interpretations. This study can be characterized by a high degree of generalizability as it contains detailed descriptions of research processes, as well as interpretations. The context of the phenomenon is also described in detail, which helps readers estimate the degree to which the conclusions can be applied in other contexts as well.
Trustworthiness
During past decades, some researchers have started avoiding the use of such concepts like reliability, validity, and generalizability due to their incompatibility with the same terms when applied in quantitative studies (Hayashi et al., 2019). New concepts related to the validity and reliability of qualitative research have been introduced. The concept of trustworthiness can be employed to assess the reliability, validity, and generalizability of qualitative studies (Lincoln & Guba, 2016). Trustworthiness can be seen as a strategy to assess the rigor of a qualitative study that has certain similarities with reliability, validity, and generalizability. Although it can be linked to the framework considered above, the concept of trustworthiness is more appropriate for qualitative study and contains a detailed and concise description of the features of rigorous research.
According to Lincoln and Guba (2016), trustworthiness consists of credibility (as opposed to internal validity used earlier), transferability (as compared to external validity), dependability (contrasted with reliability), and confirmability (that can be compared to objectivity). To improve the rigor of this study, this framework was also applied and the corresponding strategies were utilized. Credibility is characterized by the richness of details and information as contrasted to the focus on the sample and the representation of all the key groups of participants. The methods to enhance credibility include data, methodology, investigator, and theoretical triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 2016). This study involved such types of triangulations as data (the analysis of different types of documents: public papers, peer-reviewed articles, reports), methodological (the use of manual and electronic thematic analysis and coding), and theoretical (the utilization of the conflict theory and human rights approach). The credibility of the study was ensured with the help of these strategies.
The transferability of this study was ensured by the provision of detailed descriptions of the context and interpretations. As mentioned above, the review of the described contexts ensures the transferability of the assumptions from the situation in the countries under consideration to other regions (Lincoln & Guba, 2016). Dependability refers to the repeatability of findings in similar studies, which is closely related to reliability. At that, Lincoln and Guba (2016) stated that for qualitative research this aspect was less relevant while the cohesiveness of arguments and consistency of the logic of the study were central. In this study, the methods were described in detail and the findings were presented in several forms with rich explanations and a detailed description of the associated interpretations.
Finally, confirmability is associated with the use of diverse types of documentation and analysis. To ensure a high degree of conformability, the researcher can use such strategies as analysis and process notes, as well as personal notes, synthesis products, and reconstruction (Lincoln & Guba, 2016). Preliminary developmental data can also be instrumental in ensuring the general objectivity of a qualitative study. This study is supported by the use of multiple sources and a deep analysis of the situation, as well as associated contexts. Therefore, the review of the elements of trustworthiness suggests that this study is based on a rigorous methodology.
Ethical Considerations
Since no human participants took part in the study, no permission from the Ethics Board was necessary (Cardno, 2018). Moreover, no permission from any organization or institution was needed since this research involved the analysis of publicly available documents. Nevertheless, all the ethical standards of research implementation were followed. Such principles as trustworthiness, accuracy, openness, originality, integrity and academic freedom were applied. The analysis of different points of view ensured minimal bias, which is also important for valid and ethical research.
Summary
In conclusion, this qualitative study was based on the document analysis method characterized by a high degree of trustworthiness. Several databases were utilized as the sources of documents of different types, such as policies, guidelines, norms, manuals, peer-reviewed articles, organizational reports, and data published by different institutions, among others. The chosen methodology was employed in other studies that addressed similar goals and referred to similar contexts. Thematic analysis implemented manually and electronically was utilized. The software supporting this research was MAXQDA, as it ensured the development of codes and categories as well as appropriate data presentation options, enhancing the trustworthiness of the research. The consistency of the chosen methodology with the goals of the study was supported by the provision of multiple details and reasons behind these choices. This transparency enables other researchers to estimate the validity of this research. Chapter 4 that follows includes a detailed description of obtained results that are presented in different forms.
References
Abu Shakrah, J. (2000). Palestinian refugees: A discussion paper. AFSC’s Middle East Program, 1-13.
Adenyi, T. O. (2019). Appraisal of the politics of the Israeli and Palestine conflict using intractable conflict theory. Conference: 6th Annual Conference of Nigeria Political Science Association South East Zone 2018. Web.
Aggestam, K. (2014). Conflict analysis and international relations. In P. Nesbitt-Larking et al. (Eds.)., The Palgrave Handbook of global political psychology. Palgrave Studies in political psychology series (pp. 148-164). London.
Amal, I. (2020). The future of Israel: Either one state or two-state. Global Strategies, 14(1).
Amir, M. (2021). Post-occupation Gaza: Israel’s war on Palestinian futures. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 1-18.
Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS) (2020). “Deal of the Century”: What is it and why now?
Arieli, S. (2020). Trump’s plan sets the conflict back 100 years. Israel-Palestine Journal, 25(1), 22-27.
Bathmanathan, V., Rajadurai, J., & Sohail, M. S. (2018). Generational consumer patterns: A document analysis method. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 10(4), 1-13.
Brown, N. J., Muasher, M., & Djerejian, E. (2018). Two states or one? Reappraising the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Brynen, R. (2018). Compensation for Palestinian refugees: Law, politics, and praxis. Israel Law Review, 51(1), 29-46.
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. (2013). International religious freedom report for 2013: Israel and the occupied territories – the occupied territories.
Cardno, C. (2018). Policy document analysis: A practical educational leadership tool and a qualitative research method. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 24(4), 623-640.
Carminati, L. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: A tale of two traditions. Qualitative Health Research, 28(13), 2094-2101.
Cho, C. (2020). Understanding the humanitarian crisis in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Novel Hand.
Cohen-Almagor, R. (2018). In support of a two-state solution. Youth Law Journal, 1-6.
Consoli, S. (2021). Uncovering the hidden face of narrative analysis: A reflexive perspective through MAXQDA. System, 102, 1-16.
Cordesman, A. H. (2018). Stability in the Middle East: The range of short and long-term causes. CSIS.
Council on Foreign Relations. (2021). Israeli-Palestinian conflict. CFR.
Crotty, J. (2019). Keynes against capitalism. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Dalglish, S. L., Khalid, H., & McMahon, S. A. (2020). Document analysis in health policy research: The READ approach. Health Policy and Planning, 35(10), 1424-1431.
Darnton, C. (2020). Public diplomacy and international conflict resolution: A cautionary case from Cold War South America. Foreign Policy Analysis, 16(1), 1–20.
Davis, I., Smith, D., & Wezeman, P. (2017). Armed conflict and instability in the Middle East and North Africa.
Djerejian, E. P., Muasher, M., & Brown, N. (2018). Two states or one? Reappraising the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Dobers, G. M., Ihle, R., Kachel, Y., & Liebe, U. (2018). Economic integration in the Middle East: Israeli‒Palestinian fresh food trade. Israel Affairs, 24(3), 421-441,
Dziobczenski, P. R. N., Person, O., & Meriläinen, S. (2018). Designing career paths in graphic design: A Document analysis of job advertisements for graphic design positions in Finland. The Design Journal, 21(3), 349-370.
El-Awaisi, K., & Yavuz, C. (2020). The future of Al-Aqsa Mosque in the light of Trump’s deal of the century. Transformation of Turkey’s Defense Industry: Causes, Context, and Consequences, 22, 215-235.
English, R. (2019). Does terrorism work?: A History. Oxford University Press.
Erdogan, A., & Habash, L. (2020). U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict under the Trump administration: Continuity or change? Insight Turkey, 22(1), 125-146.
Frey, B. (2018). The Sage encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation. Sage.
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data. Sage.
Golan, G. (2020). Trump’s plan ignores the past and offers a bleak future. Palestine-Israel Journal, 25(1), 94-99.
Hamon, R. R. (2016). Conflict theory. In R. R. Hamon (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies.
Hanifa, N. A., & Seyam, B. (2021). Opinion – Collapse of international humanitarian law in Israel-Palestine conflict. Anadolu Agency.
Hannase, M. (2019). Islamist ideology and its effect on the global conflict: Comparative study between Hamas and ISIS. Esencia, 20(2), 183-197.
Hayashi, P., Abib, G., & Hoppen, N. (2019). Validity in qualitative research: A processual approach. The Qualitative Report, 24(1), 98-112.
Hsiu-Ping, B. (2018). The one-state solution: An alternative approach to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? Asian Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, 12(3), 328-341.
Human Rights Watch. (2020). Israel and Palestine: Events of 2019.
Hussain, S. (2021). The US recognition of Jerusalem: Aspects and implications. Middle European Scientific Bulletin, 11, 1-11. Web.
Imam, M. (2019). United States foreign policy in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its implication on the two-state solution. Asian Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, 12(3), 371-386.
Iriqat, D. (2021). The “Deal of the Century” from a Palestinian Perspective. Israel-Palestine Journal, 25(1), 104-108.
Jamal, A. (2016). Conflict theory, temporality, and transformative temporariness: Lessons from Israel and Palestine. An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory.
Zanotti, J. (2020). Israel and the Palestinians: Background Memorandum on U.S. Peace Plan. Congressional Research Service, 1-19.
Kamrava, M. (2018). Multipolarity and instability in the Middle East. Orbis, 62(4), 598-616.
Karppinen, K., & Moe, H. (2019). Texts as data I: Document analysis. In H. Van den Bulck et al. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of methods for media policy research. Palgrave Macmillan.
Khalidi, W. (1997). Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution. The Journal of Palestine Studies, 27(1), 11-13.
Klug, T. (2020). Should Trump’s “vision” for Israeli-Palestinian peace be taken seriously? Palestine – Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture, 25(1), 37-43.
Kuckartz U., & Rädiker S. (2019). Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA. Springer.
Labott, E. (2021). Biden’s democracy agenda faces first big test in Gaza. Foreign Policy.
Lagerwall, A. (2018). The non-recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital: A condition for international law to remain relevant? QIL, Zoom-in, 50, 33-46.
Lahiry, S. (2019). Conflict, peace, and security: An international relations perspective with special reference to India. Millennial Asia, 10(1), 76-90.
Leaders. (2021). Two states or one? The Economist.
Lewin, E., & Berge, S. (2016). The inevitable dead end of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Congent Social Sciences, 1(2).
Liel, A. (2020). Trump’s “Deal of the Century” is modeled on South African Apartheid. Israel-Palestine Journal, 73-79.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2016). The constructivist credo. Routledge.
Majeed, H., & Hossain, I. (2021). Conflict dynamics in post-2003 Iraq: A security dilemma perspective. UKH Journal of Social Sciences, 5(1), 18-28.
Mason, V. (2019). The liminality of Palestinian refugees: Betwixt and between global politics and international law. Journal of Sociology, 56(1),
Michaels, J. (2017). Social forces sustaining the Israeli-Palestinian tensions: A dynamical psychology perspective. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 11(4), 1-14.
Miller, B. (2016). Israel–Palestine: One state or two: Why a two-state solution is desirable, necessary, and feasible. Ethnopolitics, 15(4), 438-452.
Mingst, K., McKibben, H., & Arreguín-Toft, I. (2018). Essentials of international relations (8th ed.). W.W. Norton & Company.
Mohamad, H. (2019). U.S. policy and Israeli-Palestinian relations. Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, 43(1). 26-56. Web.
Mohammed, A. (2017). Trump’s decision to announce Jerusalem as the capital of Israel: Motives, ramifications, and implications. Arab Center for Research and Policy Issues.
Moment. (2008). Do we divide the holiest holy city?
Moten, A. R. (2018). US embassy in Jerusalem: Reasons, implications and consequences. Intellectual Discourse, 26(1), 5–22.
Moshiri, F. (2019). Revolutionary conflict theory in an evolutionary perspective. In J. Goldstone et al. (Eds.), Revolutions of the late twentieth century (pp. 6-39). Routledge.
Nusseibeh, S., Wales, J., Arieli, S., Hulileh, S., Lynk, M., Levy, G., & Sabella, B. (2019). Palestinians and Israelis at a dangerous crossroads. Palestine-Israel Journal, 24(2).
O’Malley, P. (2017). Israel and Palestine: The demise of the two-state solution. New England Journal of Public Policy, 29(1).
Peers, C. (2018). Policy analysis and document research. In M. Fleer & B. van Oers (Eds.), International handbook of early childhood education (pp. 203-224). Springer.
Pressman, J. (2021). Assessing one-state and two-state proposals to solve the Israel-Palestine Conflict.
Ramifications of the US Middle East plan on the future of Jerusalem. (2020). Palestine – Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture, 25(1), 194-204.
Rapley, T. (2018). Doing conversation, discourse, and document analysis. SAGE.
Ree, E. V. (2019). Marx and Engels’s theory of history: Making sense of the race factor. Journal of Political Ideologies, 24(1), 54-73.
Reich, B., & Holland, R. (2000). The United Nations and Israel. In G. Berridge, & A. Jennings (Eds.), Diplomacy at the UN (pp. 204-221). Palgrave Macmillan.
Reliefweb. (2021). The enduring Palestine refugee crisis: From Nakba to Sheikh Jarrah to Gaza.
Reliefweb. (2021). The Israel-Palestine crisis: Causes, consequences, portents.
Rinker, J., & Lawler, J. (2018). Trauma as a collective disease and root cause of protracted social conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 24(2), 150–164.
Rochester, J. M. (2019). Fundamental principles of international relations. Routledge.
Ross, D. (2016). How Trump could surprise the world on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. The Washington Post.
Scheindlin, D. (2020). Neither intractable nor unique: A practical solution for the Palestinian right of return.
Schewe, E. (2021). Settlements and the Israel-Palestine conflict: Background reading. Daily.
Shearer, D. (2014). The humanitarian crisis in the occupied Palestinian territory: an overview. Web.
Sher, G., & Cohen, D. (2020). Is there a practical roadmap for Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” vision? [PDF document] Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Web.
Siegal, I. (2017). The economic, health, and psychological effects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Creative Commons.
Stern, P. C. (2016). International conflict resolution after the Cold War. National Academies Press.
Tanaka, A. (2015). Toward a Theory of human security. JICA Working Paper.
Therborn, G. (2018). From Marxism to post-Marxism? Verso Books.
UN Security Council. (2016). Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be separated from global terrorism threat, security council hears in a briefing on the Middle East.
UN Security Council. (2019). Israeli-Palestinian conflict ‘Locked in a dangerous paralysis’, Under-secretary-general warns Security Council, urging political will, leadership to change course.
United Nations Human Rights Council. (2019). Report of the UN Commission of inquiry on the 2018 protests in the OPT. United Nations.
Walles, J. (2019). The two-state solution remains the only pathway to a mutually agreed resolution of the conflict. Palestine-Israel Journal, 24(1), 8-13.
Weinthal, E., & Sowers, J. (2019). Targeting infrastructure and livelihoods in the West Bank and Gaza. International Affairs, 95(2), 319-340.
Williams, M. C. (2018). International relations in the age of the image. International Studies Quarterly, 62(4), 880-891.
Wood, L. M., Sebar, BB., Vecchio, N. (2020). Application of rigor and credibility in qualitative document analysis: Lessons learnt from a case study. The Qualitative Report, 25(2), 456-470.
Zilberfarb, B. Z. (2018). The short- and long-term effects of the Six-Day War on the Israeli economy. Israel Affairs, 24(5), 785-798.