On Sunday, violence broke
out between Palestinian protesters and Israeli law enforcement in
Jerusalem. The casualties are not nearly
on the scale of a war, with 100 Palestinians wounded and at least one death on
each side. However, these clashes are
still relevant to the study of international relations. The recent conflict in Jerusalem can be used
to understand an interstate war.
Contributing factors to the conflict are a loss of ontological security,
an abundance of misinformation, and the creation of an “other” in Israeli and
Palestinian minds. Of course, there are thousands
of contributing factors, many of which we will never know due to a lack of
information in this specific circumstance.
This analysis will not reflect the ideas of any one international
relations theory. It uses elements of
Constructivist theory and the Bargaining Theory of War. I use these theories only because they are,
in my opinion, the most applicable in this situation. Each theory has their merits and their
critiques, so I find it best to move in and out of the frameworks of each. This analysis simply aims to understand the
recent conflict and propose peaceful measures that target the root of the problem.
The site of the conflict
is important in understanding its cause.
Al-Aqsa Mosque in Old Jerusalem is the center of the violence. It holds a holy site, known as Temple Mount
to Jews and the Noble Sanctuary to Muslims.
Israel, being the more powerful entity, has reportedly blocked Muslim
access to the temple. However, Israel
claims that Muslims have the right to pray at this holy site. To combat this, Palestinian demonstrators
have barricaded themselves inside and thrown rocks at the police. Both Israel and Palestine want control of the
disputed site for reasons connected with their ontological security. Religion is a large part of identity. With the right to pray at the holy site being
disputed, Israelis and Palestinians alike feel that their sense of identity is
being attacked. Tensions in the area
around the mosque continue to flare because of the ontological security hanging
in the balance.
As evident from the
discrepancy between the law and policy regarding access to the holy site, there
is a lack of reliable information surrounding the conflict in Jerusalem. A spark that caused the Palestinian riots was
the death of nineteen year-old Muhannad Halabi, whom Israeli authorities shot
on the account that he murdered a fifteen year-old Israeli citizen. However, some Palestinians claim that Halabi
was attacked by a group of Jews and then shot by police. There are other claims that Palestinians are
being attacked by Jews. There is an
overall lack of agreement on the facts of the situation. Misinformation on both sides could prompt
both parties to act rashly, forming an environment of mutual hatred. Violent times lend themselves to the spread
of hateful, untrue propaganda. A set of reliable
information needs to be established if any progress is to be made.
The spread of unreliable
accounts and propaganda is related to another cause of the violence, the
creation of the “other”. Palestinians
and Jews alike are separating their existence from each other. Israel denies the sovereignty of Palestine
and Palestine accuses Israel of injustice.
Neither side sees the common humanity between the two. If peace is to be established, at least two
thing must occur. A third party, perhaps
an international committee, should supply information from ground based
sources. This would reveal facts and
hold members of demonstrations and police accountable for their actions. Also, both Israeli and Palestinian sides must
remove the rhetoric that frames the problem in the terms of “self” and “other”. This would relieve stress on their
ontological security. One method to
accomplish this is to hold peaceful local meetings that determine rules for
usage of the holy site. A keen observer
can see that the causes of the violence in Jerusalem can be explained within
the context of international relations theory.
Hopefully measures will be taken to mitigate the violence in the area by
targeting the roots of the problem.
Jake,
ReplyDeleteI really like how you explained a plausible solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict and tie it into the Bargaining Theory of War. Clearly, war is never the ideal situation, because it is costly in terms of lives lost, in a fiscal sense, and on many other accounts. Therefore, it would be optimal for Israel and Palestine to avoid a war with each other for their own sake and also due to the fact that their economies are tied to the US' economy in the globalized international economy.
In the case of the US waging war against Iraq, there was many reasons that the Bush administration had that inclined them towards war, even with its costly nature. One was because the US thought of ourselves as the "self" and Iraq as the "other", another was because of the rhetoric used by Bush in claiming we had to defeat the evil that was Iraq, and another was the simple misinformation regarding whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. These and many other reasons led to a fruitless war, so we need to look back at our history and prevent the same mistakes from occurring again with Israel and Palestine. I share the same belief as you and can only hope that war does not break out in the Middle East.
I think you make an excellent point about the use of misinformation in a conflict and the power it has to sway the public's opinion. In this case, the public can clearly tell that neither side is giving a true account based on the fact that each side blames the violence completely on the other side. This creation of an "other" entity is the cause for so much of the violence in the world on a whole because it allows each side to see themselves as better and more rational to than the other. As a result I agree with your point about the simple solution of finding a way for a third party to search out the facts and hold each side accountable for their actions. While this does create two definite sides, it at least allows for each side justice. If after this is done, one side or both still continue to commit injustices, then would be the time to take further action to find a resolution that stops violence through some kind of third party.
ReplyDelete