Peace, Conflicts, and Justice - Essay Example

?(Add (Add (Add Peace and Justice Conflicts can be of different nature and degree. They arise between persons, persons and society, between societies, and so on. This work intends to look into one of the world most explosive and long term conflicts: the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The conflict is the result of the return of Jews to their homeland after many years of exile and suffering. In fact, Jews had to leave their country by 70th century B.C. as Emperor Titus managed to suppress the revolt against the Roman rule. Since then, Jews had to run away from their homeland. However, the escaped Jews had to face even tougher situations in the burgeoning Europe. There were mass killings and tortures. Thus, by the 1880s, Jews from Russia and rest of Eastern Europe returned to Palestine and started settling there. Soon, the Jews started movements to establish a nation state for the Jewish people in Palestine. Jews claimed that the land was their historical homeland and Arabs were against it. It took very little time for violence to emerge. As Tessler points out, though Jews were allowed an independent nation thereafter, Arabs still opposed the Jewish nation, thus, Israel remains in constant conflict with Palestine and other Arab nations (67). A lot has been done to solve the conflict; though the steps were hardly successful. The first effective step came from the United Nations through the recommendation that Palestine should be split into three parts; the one with Jewish nation, the second with Arab state, and an International zone that would comprise equal numbers of Jews and Arabs. However, the problem with the plan was that the proposed Jewish land would contain a large number of Arabs, and the proposed Arab state would contain a small number of Jews. Moreover, Jerusalem and Bethlehem were to come under the control of the United Nations. Both of the sides were against the proposed division because Jews disliked the idea of losing Bethlehem and Arabs were against the idea of an independent Jewish nation-state. Moreover, Arabs were worried about the large numbers of Arabs who would get trapped in the proposed Israel state. Soon, the Partition Plan was put on vote in the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947. While 33 nations supported the division, 13 nations were against the plan. Another 10 nations preferred not to vote. However, Palestine and other Arab nations in the near vicinity were strongly against the plan. So, they approached the International Court of Justice with the claim that the United Nations’ decision to proceed with partition was against the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants of the troubled area. However, International Court of Justice made a decision against the appeal. Soon, violence erupted and grew uncontrollable; and no other nation resorted to intervene. Regardless all this violence, on May 14, 1948, the independent State of Israel was declared. Since then, violence goes on disturbing the peace of the land. However, this does not mean that efforts were not made to ensure peace in the area. Another set of serious talks began in the beginning of 1990s when Israel and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) started negotiations in Oslo, Norway. As a result of the talks, Palestine officially recognized the existence of Israel. Also, it was decided that the Palestinian Authority (PA) would be the official governing institution for Palestinian communities. Also, Israel allowed PA to administer various regions of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In addition, Palestine was helped in developing its own social structure with a police force, legislature, and other governmental institutions. In return, Palestine Authority was supposed to develop tolerance for Israel within the Arab community. However, the mere fact is that there is terrorism that grows in Palestine, and a consequent rise in intolerance towards Palestine in Israeli population. As a result, attacks and deaths have become a common factor even now. According to Bercovitch and Jackson, there are various methods which are usually adopted in handling international conflicts; and some of them are negotiation and bargaining, mediation, and legal proceedings (56). When the mediation method is taken into consideration, there are various approaches like anecdotal approach, third party consultation approach and contingency approach. The anecdotal approach claims that all cases of conflicts are different in nature and hence, nothing can be derived by looking into the past negotiations and resolutions. According to Bercovitch and Jackson, the third party consultation approach is of the notion that no conflict is too complicated in nature and hence, experienced third party intervention results in successful resolution (56). Admittedly, the most effective approach is the contingency approach, which holds that mediation can be effective in conflict resolution but there are environmental and behavioral factors that influence the outcome of mediation. That means, while some conflicts can be resolved through mediation, some cannot be resolved. According to Wall, Stark and Standifer the involved parties’ motivation to seek assistance and the third parties’ motivation to mediate are dependent on expected payoffs. Admittedly, both the parties in the present case; that is, Israel and Palestine had their own expectations of payoff. First of all, it was necessary for the Jews to have their nation established and recognized. Also, they wanted to have control of religiously important places like Bethlehem. Similarly, Arabs too had their own expected payoffs. They wanted to point out that their homeland should not be divided as outsiders do not have the right to develop their own nation. Admittedly, both the ‘expected payoffs’ were, and still are, highly contradictory in nature. Another important factor that affects the effectiveness of mediation, according to Bercovitch and Jackson, is the identity, experience, and skills of the mediator (129). When this point is elaborated, it becomes evident that the mediators should have qualities like intelligence, tact, skills in drafting formal proposals, and a sense of humor along with a deep understanding of the problem at hand. Admittedly, the UN, as a mediator in the present case, did not give adequate attention to the complexity of the problem. As a result, the proposed solution was rather troublesome and unacceptable for both the conflicting parties. It is pointed out by Bode, Diez and Da Costa that there are various motivational factors that affect the outcome of a resolution effort; and the first one is the explicit and implicit interests of the parties involved (73). For example, even though a party engages in negotiation, it will not take any such steps that will adversely affect its own political interest. A government may hesitate to take such steps that will result in widespread criticism within the nation. Admittedly, in the case of Israel-Palestine conflict, the authorities of both the parties were incapable of moving ahead with peace process due to the pressure from religious radicals from within their own nation. It was the peace efforts that took the life of former Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Also, the same efforts towards peace makes PA face criticism and attack from organizations like Hamas. So, they are unable to take effective steps or are unable to accommodate the demands of the other party. That means, a party may be interested in resolution efforts due to various reasons other than the resolution itself: to illustrate, only to control the escalating violence for that time period; on the belief that the mediator will be more sympathetic to their own causes than to their opponents; as a way of publicly exhibiting ones commitment to conflict resolution; on the belief that the mediator would engage in observation and intervention if the resolution effort fails; and to make it public that the opponent is to blame for the trouble. Thus, it becomes evident that the result of negotiation is reliant on a number of motivational factors. Hauss says that there are a large number of structural factors; and some such factors are the relative power of the opposing parties; the presence of ideological, religions, and cultural factors; the inclusion or exclusion of the nature or previous relationship between the parties in the negotiation and so on (98). However, two most powerful structural factors are the timing of mediation and the intensity of the conflict at the time of mediation. In fact, in the case of Israel and Palestine, none of the parties is ready to give in because both are equally powerful. While Israel gains indirect support from Europe and America, Palestine enjoys the support of the Arab population of the whole Middle East. The second important thing that makes this conflict resolution less effective is the presence of religions and cultural contradictions that began somewhere Before Christ. In addition, both the Jews and Arabs have their places of religious importance in the places in dispute. The problem got worsened when the UN failed to take such differences into consideration when a partition plan was developed. Thirdly, there are interactional factors which affect the effectiveness of mediation. For example, it is necessary to consider the degree of openness between the parties. If the parties are not open to each other, negotiation becomes difficult. The second issue is the degree of trust the parties show on each other. From all these points, one can see that the resolution effort was destined to fail in the case of Israel and Palestine. The way the negotiation takes place too has its own effect. According to Vasquez, Johnson, Jaffe and Stamato, the mediation strategies can be either reflexive (identifying issues and facilitating better interaction); nondirective (Producing a favorable climate for mediation); and directive (promoting specific outcomes) (141). The first effort by the UN was a failure because it was mainly directive in nature. The decision was taken without properly identifying the issues. Nor did the parties get a chance to mediate in a constructive atmosphere. So, the directive mediation failed to yield any positive results. Rather, it deteriorated the situation further. However, the Oslo negotiation and the period thereafter were totally different in nature. It was rather nondirective in nature. As a result of the talks, the situation improved significantly. However, it is still necessary to address the key issues by facilitating better interaction in order to solve the problems for good. Works Cited Bercovitch, Jacob, and Richard Jackson. Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-First Century: Principles, Methods, and Approaches. USA: University of Michigan Press, 2009. Print. Diez, Thomas, Bode, Ingvild and Aleksandra Fernandes Da Costa,. Key Concepts in International Relations. London: SAGE Publications, 2011. Print. Hauss, Charles. International Conflict Resolution. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc, 2010. Print. Tessler, Mark. A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. USA: Indiana University Press, 1994. Print. Vasquez, John, Johnson, James Turner, Jaffe, Sanford, and Linda Stamato. Beyond Confrontation: Learning Conflict Resolution in the Post-Cold War Era.USA: University of Michigan Press, 1996. Print. Wall, James, Stark, John, and Rhetta L. Standifer. “Mediation: A Current Review and Theory Development.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45.3 (2001): 370-391. Print. Read More