Scurity Studies Essay

Blaga Ioana-Iulia, SD II

Security Studies` concepts in Israeli - Palestinian conflict

The Israeli Palestinian on-going war is one of world`s most refractory clashes and
nowadays it`s keeping the newspapers` front pages on a daily basis. With its roots in the late
19th and early 20th centuries, the struggle between the two states has reached a major point in
the begging of the 2014`s summer, when the long term peace process failed. After the
terrorist organization Hamas (recognised so by Australia, Canada, Egypt, the European
Union, Israel, Japan, the United Kingdom, the US and Jordan), has abducted and killed three
Israeli teenagers on 8 July 2014 (they only admitted it on 21th August), the escalation of the
GazaIsrael conflict began when Israel launched Operation Protective Edge to stop rocket
attacks coming from the Gaza Strip area. According to Israel Defense Forces the main aims
were restoring security to Israeli civilians living under Hamas rocket fire and dismantling
the Hamas tunnel network used to infiltrate Israel1. After 50 days of conflict and failed
attempts to reach a peace solution, Israeli and Palestinian officials have signed a truce in
Egypt, where all the negotiations were held during the war. The truce implies: the multilateral
ceasefire, Israel engages to open more of its Gaza crossings, Egypt accepted to open Rafah,
the Palestinian Authority to take over Gaza's borders, the Palestinian Authority to lead
rebuilding efforts, Israel to reduce security buffer inside Gaza, from 300m to 100m, Israel to
extend fishing limit off Gaza's coast from three to six miles, with the possibility of extending
it further2. From summer until now, Palestine has once again violated the truce, firing rockets
to southern Israel.
This is a very complex subject and can be analysed from many perspectives from the
historical one to the intelligence one as part of a new war. The perspective I chose to analyse
in this essay is the conceptual one, identifying the Security Studies` concepts present in this
conflict.
The State and Sovereignty concepts are the first concepts I chose to analyze because there is a
debate about Palestine, if it is a state (from the point of view of the balance between theory
and reality). There are many theories of a state, but they can be divided in two categories. The
1 Source: http://www.idfblog.com/operationgaza2014/#Genralinformation
2 Official Cease-fire Agreement in Gaza, Cairo 26 August 2014, signed by Israel and Palestine
1

Scurity Studies Essay

Blaga Ioana-Iulia, SD II

principal are known as liberal or conservative hypotheses, which treat private enterprise
as a given, and afterward focus on the capacity of states in industrialist society. These
hypotheses have a tendency to see the state as an impartial element differentiated from
society and the economy. A Marxist hypothesis then again, sees legislative issues as
personally tied in with monetary relations, and underscore the connection between financial
force and political force. The state is seen as a divided instrument that basically serves the
diversions of the privileged. No matter what theory you apply, concerning Israel, the things
are simple and clear: State of Israel is recognized by most of world`s state as an independent
and sovereign state since the independence from former British Mandatory Palestine
(declared on 14th May 1948 and recognized on 1 st May 1949) and maintains diplomatic
relations with 157 states and has 100 diplomatic missions around the globe as a de jure and
de facto state, existing both in law and reality. Indeed, is a state born out of war and
continued this path of spectacle and new wars throughout its history. Palestinian case is
debatable. The Palestine State was a de jure state with an independence declared by the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) on 15 th November 1988 and with a government-inexile in Algiers, Algeria. Claiming sovereignty over the Palestinian territories with a
designated capital at Jerusalem, most of these areas are administrated by Israel since 1967,
when the Six Day War occurred, but one of the aftermaths of the war is the socio-political
administration exercised by Palestinian Authority beginning from 1993 in limited territories.
Since 27th September 2013, only 134 of the 193 member states of the United Nations
have recognized the State of Palestine. Many of the countries that do not recognize the State
of Palestine nevertheless recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.
The PLO's Executive Committee is enabled by the Palestinian National Council to perform
the functions of government of the State of Palestine, but even though in April 2011, the
leading Palestinian parties consented to an arrangement of compromise, the unity
government wasn`t formed until 2nd June 2014. Thus, with a newly formed government, with
an erratic and long history behind, Palestine is still not widely considered a state. But, as
Max Weber (1948) famously noted that there is no activity that states always perform and
none that they have never performed3 is quite difficult to draw a line and say from this
point forward, Palestine is a state because it has people, territory, sovereignty, independence,
government and administration, a constitution and an army when in reality all of these are
debatable and under an enormous question mark. For a state, one of the main functions is
3 Bob Jessop, The State and state building in The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions edited by R. A. W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder,
Bert A. Rockman , p. 16, OUP Oxford, Jun 12, 2008

Scurity Studies Essay

Blaga Ioana-Iulia, SD II

security and this is why we gave up part of our natural freedom in exchange of protection 4
as a philosophy of Human Rights. Chiefly considering the fact that Palestine can`t provide
security to its people and is governed by a political body considered a terrorist group, is even
harder to see it as a state by its full means. With Weber`s considerations that the State the
social institution that has monopoly of legitimate violence on a given territory and that
Legitimacy is given by social acceptance of the government, we can say that Palestine is a
state. The political party was democratically elected and recognized as a ruler by its people
and Hamas army is using violence as a legitimate way of defense. There is still a lack of
power to impose the central authority5, so we can also say that this is an anarchical system.
Gabriella Slomp explains that even though there are different schools of thought on the
origins of sovereignty as with any other International Relations` concept, there are some
common aspects: Sovereignty has both political and legal justification. Legal or de jure
sovereignty is based on the right to command and the political sovereignty or de facto is
based on the power to ensure compliance, Sovereignty has both internal and external
dimensions, none of the scholars consider that sovereign power as an arbitrary one, for Bodin
and Hobbes the function of state sovereignty and its justification is protection of the wellbeing of the commonwealth6. The question remains if Palestine is a sovereign state or not.
Already considered a de facto state, it implies that there is a political sovereignty and that is
based on the power to ensure compliance, it has more internal dimensions because it still has
occupied territories by another sovereign state which is internationally recognized so, and it
seems rather arbitrary with the incapability of fulfilling the protection of the well-being of its
commonwealth. Also, Palestine has for the moment only internal sovereignty. The state has
the supreme power, decision-making and enforcement authority over its citizens, within its
own borders, but it lacks the external sovereignty. There are territories that Palestine claims
that they have the right to rule over, but they are administered by Israel, as a supreme
international authority. There is a huge debate, mostly from the legal point of view, whether

4 Idem, p. 112

5 Bull, Henry, The Anarchical Society A Study of Order in World Politics, Palgrave Macmillan 2002, p. 102
6 Gabriella Slomp On sovereignty in

Issues In International Relations edited by Trevor C. Salmon, Mark F. Imber, p.44, Routledge, Jun

6, 2008

Scurity Studies Essay

Blaga Ioana-Iulia, SD II

the commitment of both Israel and Palestine to Human Rights interfere with the sovereignty
of the other.
The concept of National Security is also present in this prolonged conflict and it may have its
core within these theories. Starting from the analogy between national interest and national
security7 that Arnold Wolfers makes, it`s easy to explain this conflict as a matter of conflict of
(national) interests. Each country wants what it believes is rightful to have. Both Israel and
Palestine claim that the other is the aggressor that intercedes with its national interest. And
it`s a logical claim. But, in this particular case, when one is a state and the other is a quasistate that has public policies about destroying the other one, its national interest being to
eradicate a state from Earth, not its own security, independence and sovereignty, logic has no
place. The status of security, as defined by Walter Lippann, a nation is secure to the extent to
which it is not in danger of having to sacrifice core values, if it wishes to avoid war, and is
able, if challenged, to maintain them by victory in such a war 8. There is an obvious stage of
insecurity in both countries, because they feel threaten and they have to respond accordingly,
of course, with subjectivity and retaliation. Naked force shall be used for security in reaction
only to violent attack, not for preventive war. Hans Morgenthau.
While Israel is showing that it has what it takes to sustain pure power politics, subordinating
all other values to maximizing their security, being one of the strongest military forces in the
Middle East, Palestine has no notion of military power or national security. Their so-called
military force comes from the not quite trifling presences on their territory of some terrorist
groups (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic State, Al-Qaeda). None of these states enjoy a security
status, meaning the absence of threats. It`s a subjective issue, but both countries attack at least
on a monthly basis. I will not further engage myself in the discussion about legitimacy and
self-defense.
There is, without question, a matter of security dilemma. Israel is always
consolidating its security, its own existence depending on it, having a great army and a big
military arsenal (both maritime and air), including the Iron Dome and being suspected of
having nuclear weapons, while Palestine consolidates its relationship with terrorists, because
7 Arnold Wolfers, "National Security" as an Ambiguous Symbol, Academy of political Science, 1952, p. 71
8 Barry Buzan, People, States & Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, ECPR Press, Mar 1, 2008,
p. 36

Scurity Studies Essay

Blaga Ioana-Iulia, SD II

they have the military power that the state lacks. Both countries see the other`s efforts as a
potential threat and don`t regard it as a self-defense measure. Thus, the solution for this
conflict might be in the answer for the security dilemma. They tried and still try to find a
solution for this dilemma and for the war itself. The first one is the alliance Israel has the
most powerful ally in the world, the USA; Palestine allies` are non-state actors, terrorist
groups not so powerful but far more unpredictable. As Snyder states, this is the primary
alliance security dilemma solution9. Once alliances have begun to form, the alliance security
dilemma takes on a different character. States move into the second phase of the alliance
dilemma, in which their choices are no longer whether to ally or not, but how firmly to
commit themselves to the proto-partner and how much support to give that partner in specific
conflict interactions with the adversary.10 The first alliance, between Israel and USA falls
under the horn of traditional cooperate (C) label because there a strong general
commitment and full support in specific adversary conflicts 11 USA is providing Israel with
military supplies and expertise, while the second one between Palestine and terrorist can be
considered as part of the defect (D) horn, because of the weak commitment and no support
in conflicts with the adversary12 (there is a tacit support, not a strong and publically one, it
depends on the temporary interests of the groups). The Israeli-American alliance is not new
and has proven the commitment, but it diminishes Israel to look for other allies. I am not
implying that it needs others, but there is a reservation (to put it mildly) towards West and
especially USA among the other states from Maghreb. Unfortunately this alliance is useful
just in case of an armed conflict. It has proven to be quite useless in terms of Diplomacy and
negotiation.
The Stag Hunt has also proven to be not effective as a solution, cooperation
between Israel and Palestine is now out of the question. Israel tried so many times to respect
the truces, without settling for self disarmament but requiring its adversary to do so.
Palestine failed to respect previous settlements, both countries are still very well armed and
9 Glenn H. Snyder, The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics,

World Politics Vol. 36, No. 4 (Jul., 1984), Cambridge University Press, p.

465

10 Idem p. 467
11 Ibid
12 Ibid
5

Scurity Studies Essay

Blaga Ioana-Iulia, SD II

they don`t even have a common goal: Israel wants peace and Palestine wants to eliminate
Israel from this world. According to Prisoner`s Dilemma, there is no solution that is in the
best interest of all the participants and this is a case where this statement is very true and
doesn`t have a solution yet.
The ongoing war between Israel and Palestine has its roots it the 6 Days War and has
even nowadays many reasons behind the brutal use of force. There is a difference of
perspectives about peace, which now is still there mostly because of the connection
between violent expression of the Islam in Palestine and their affinity to accept and welcome
terrorists among their Arab population. Engaging in this new war with a non-state actor,
Israel finds it hard to comply with the UN resolutions and Human Rights` activists. In
Clausewitz`s acceptance of the warfare, a war should be an act of violence intended to
compel the opponent to fulfill a political will, being rational, national and instrumental. It is
obvious that this armed conflict, as any other terrorist manifestation, can`t be considered a
Clausewitzian war, but a new one, adding the technology, nuclear and spatial dimension.
So far, all the solutions have failed. The one that keeps on failing over and over again
throughout history is the diplomatic one. The main problem why it doesn`t work can be found
in the definition of diplomacy stated by Adam Watson: this negotiation between political
entities that acknowledge each other`s independence is diplomacy 13 the political entities
that negotiate in this case are a political party which is considered by many states a terrorist
organization and a Prime Minister representing the only democracy in the Middle East. Even
if Israel believes in the two states solution, it does within some particular terms (Palestine to
liberate the territories that occupies, including Samaria, Judea, West Bank and Jerusalem and
that Israel advocates that are Jewish lands unrighteously occupied by Palestinians; and to
recognize Israel and its right to exist). On the other side, Palestine doesn`t want peace, the
role of oppressed victim suits them to cover for their government`s atrocities.
Bibliography

Adam Watson, Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States, Psychology Press;

Arnold Wolfers, "National Security" as an Ambiguous Symbol, Academy of political Science, 1952;
Barry Buzan, People, States & Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold
War Era, ECPR Press, Mar 1, 2008;

13 Adam Watson, Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States, Psychology Press, 1982, p. 78

Scurity Studies Essay

Blaga Ioana-Iulia, SD II

Bob Jessop, The State and state building in The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions edited by
R. A. W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder, Bert A. Rockman , OUP Oxford, Jun 12, 2008;
Bull, Henry, The Anarchical Society A Study of Order in World Politics, Palgrave Macmillan 2002;
Gabriella Slomp On sovereignty in Issues In International Relations edited by Trevor C. Salmon,
Mark F. Imber, Routledge, Jun 6, 2008;
Glenn H. Snyder, The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics, World Politics Vol. 36, No. 4 (Jul., 1984),
Cambridge University Press;
http://www.idfblog.com/operationgaza2014/#Genralinformation accessed on 8th of June 2015.