The root causes of enduring conflict: Can Israel and Palestine co-exist?
Jeffry A. Frieden
Harvard University
December 2015
, The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most enduring, and apparently
intractable, in all of modern international politics. In the face of nearly a hundred years
of bitter controversy, both before and after the creation of the state of Israel, many
observers have come to despair that a resolution can be found. As the other papers in
this volume attest, many participants have turned in frustration to strategies that had
long been off the table. One of the more striking, again as represented in this volume, is
to accept “one state, from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.” Although there are
different variants of this approach, all of them assume a common sovereign state to
include Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. There might be some form of
confederation, or other guarantees to the various communities. But what ties all the
“one state” proposals together is the hope that bringing all the protagonists together in
one sovereign entity would facilitate resolution of the conflict.
In this essay, I address the issue from a purely analytical standpoint: that is, I
attempt to demonstrate how scholarship in International Relations can help illuminate
the problem in question. 1 Specifically, I draw upon the extensive theoretical literature
1
I should make clear from the outset that my only qualification for this task is my
knowledge of International Relations. Although I have followed Israeli-Palestinian
relations closely for years, I am no expert on the subject. This is why my discussion of
the conflict itself remains at the level of abstraction, about the possibility of applying
what we know about enduring conflicts to this particular instance.
2
, that analyzes the sources of enduring conflicts, both international and domestic,
including the sorts of ethnic conflicts of which the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is an
instance. In this case, the basic elements of a potential bargain have been clear for some
time, and yet no agreement has been reached. One must wonder what the obstacle is,
especially in the contemporary context, in which developments in the region are
increasingly threatening to both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides.
The scholarly literature on conflict emphasizes that the principal theoretically
grounded source of such protracted conflict, given its very high costs, is the inability of
the sides to credibly commit to carry out the terms of an agreement. This is, it seems to
me, clearly the case here, and this provides important insights on the debate over one or
two states. The two sides may agree upon an ultimate settlement, but each side lacks
confidence in the willingness and ability of the other side to follow through on its
promises. The analysis suggests, in particular, that whether the two peoples are in two
separate states or one state, the core question will continue to be whether commitments
they make to compromise are believable.
Why do conflicts endure?
It is common to ascribe militarized disputes to conflicts of interest. This, however,
is a superficial error. The world is full of conflicts of interest, some of them quite major:
the territorial integrity of Spain, the United Kingdom, or Belgium; indigenous rights in
Latin America; economic inequities in most developing countries. Yet very few of these
3
Jeffry A. Frieden
Harvard University
December 2015
, The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most enduring, and apparently
intractable, in all of modern international politics. In the face of nearly a hundred years
of bitter controversy, both before and after the creation of the state of Israel, many
observers have come to despair that a resolution can be found. As the other papers in
this volume attest, many participants have turned in frustration to strategies that had
long been off the table. One of the more striking, again as represented in this volume, is
to accept “one state, from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.” Although there are
different variants of this approach, all of them assume a common sovereign state to
include Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. There might be some form of
confederation, or other guarantees to the various communities. But what ties all the
“one state” proposals together is the hope that bringing all the protagonists together in
one sovereign entity would facilitate resolution of the conflict.
In this essay, I address the issue from a purely analytical standpoint: that is, I
attempt to demonstrate how scholarship in International Relations can help illuminate
the problem in question. 1 Specifically, I draw upon the extensive theoretical literature
1
I should make clear from the outset that my only qualification for this task is my
knowledge of International Relations. Although I have followed Israeli-Palestinian
relations closely for years, I am no expert on the subject. This is why my discussion of
the conflict itself remains at the level of abstraction, about the possibility of applying
what we know about enduring conflicts to this particular instance.
2
, that analyzes the sources of enduring conflicts, both international and domestic,
including the sorts of ethnic conflicts of which the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is an
instance. In this case, the basic elements of a potential bargain have been clear for some
time, and yet no agreement has been reached. One must wonder what the obstacle is,
especially in the contemporary context, in which developments in the region are
increasingly threatening to both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides.
The scholarly literature on conflict emphasizes that the principal theoretically
grounded source of such protracted conflict, given its very high costs, is the inability of
the sides to credibly commit to carry out the terms of an agreement. This is, it seems to
me, clearly the case here, and this provides important insights on the debate over one or
two states. The two sides may agree upon an ultimate settlement, but each side lacks
confidence in the willingness and ability of the other side to follow through on its
promises. The analysis suggests, in particular, that whether the two peoples are in two
separate states or one state, the core question will continue to be whether commitments
they make to compromise are believable.
Why do conflicts endure?
It is common to ascribe militarized disputes to conflicts of interest. This, however,
is a superficial error. The world is full of conflicts of interest, some of them quite major:
the territorial integrity of Spain, the United Kingdom, or Belgium; indigenous rights in
Latin America; economic inequities in most developing countries. Yet very few of these
3
