An interesting part international relations theory is game theory. One of game theory’s most interesting problems is the prisoner’s dilemma. Put very simply the prisoner’s dilemma is a scenario in which two prisoners have the choice to testify against their partner in crime or to stay silent. Based on how the rewards are set up it is most rational for the prisoner to testify against his partner. However, if the game is repeated it becomes beneficial to adopt a strategy of tit-for-tat. This strategy states that you will start by keeping silent but after that you will take whatever action the other prisoner took last time. The problem with this strategy is that it may end up leading to an endless cycle. This scenario can be applied, very generally, to what is happening between Israel and Palestine. Let’s say that Palestine tries to cooperate in the peace talks but Israel refuses to communicate and resorts to their tactic of “cutting the grass”. The next time peace talks come around Palestine remembers what happened before and thus, following the tit-for-tat strategy, refuses to communicate and Hamas (Note: Hamas is not the same as the Palestinian Authority but since they have the rockets they would most likely being the ones launching them.) launches rockets at Israel. Whether Israel tried to cooperate this time or not does not matter since either would lead to an endless cycle of either one side cooperating while the other doesn’t, or both sides constantly refusing to cooperate and just attacking each other. Obviously this is an over simplified scenario, but nonetheless it is still very apparent in the current situation. We see that Palestine in the past has tried to cooperate but, knowing that Israel has refused and constantly attacked them, the citizens grow frustrated and more and more start to back Hamas’ military approach. This was very apparent in the recent conflict. Many Palestinians supported Hamas; in fact support for Hamas grew after the conflict because people were tired of just letting Israel encroach on their territory (We see that the citizens are following a tit-for-tat approach).
The Israeli Palestinian conflict is one that is full of actions that support both the neo-realist and the neo-liberal viewpoints. First we will look at three things that support the neo-realist viewpoint. The first of these is Israel’s continual, and recently resumed, policy of grabbing lands they once set aside for Palestine. A neo-realist would see this as a very rational action. They would contend that obviously Israel is trying to expand and creating settlements in these areas is the easiest way to do this. Next, the ceasefires that both sides have backed out of strongly supports the neo-realist view. A neo-realist would contend that both sides back out when it ceases to be beneficial for them to stay in. They would contend that this is an example of agreements failing because there is nobody to enforce them, and there are no penalties for backing out. The last big event that supports the neo-realist view is the growing support for Hamas. This supports the neo-realist view because it shows that international agencies have failed to help the two sides reach an agreement, and that cooperation between the two states is not possible. The growing support for Hamas comes from Palestinians’ frustration with the Palestinian Authority’s failed attempts to have the UN stop Israeli occupation. This failure backs up the neo-realist opinion that international organizations don’t work as a place for states to settle disputes. Growing support for Hamas also signifies Palestinians’ growing unwillingness to cooperate with Israel.
While there are events that support the neo-realist view, the Israeli Palestinian conflict also has seen events that support the neo-liberal view. The first of these is Palestine and Israel continuously confronting each other at the UN. Even before Palestine was granted observer status the President of the Palestinian Authority often gave speeches to the general assembly. This past week both Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, and Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, gave speeches at the UN. This supports the neo-liberal view that international institutions are capable of providing a venue for states to discuss problems. Another event in this conflict that supports the neo-liberal view is Palestine using the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a threat. Earlier in the year Palestine has threatened to join the ICC and bring complaints against Israel (Palestine was not able to join the ICC until they gained observer status at the UN.). If the ICC was to find Israel guilty of war crimes, in addition to the formal penalties that the ICC can issue, it would greatly harm Israel’s reputation amongst other states. Palestine using this as a threat means that they, as well as possibly Israel, see the ICC as a legitimate institution that could reach a decision that would impact Israel. This supports the neo-liberal view that international institutions can exist and be effective.
Overall it seems that neither neo-realism nor neo-liberalism offer an adequate theoretical basis for this issue. This does not mean that they are both useless; both of them provide explanations of certain aspects of the conflict. It is my belief that together they provide an adequate framework to understand the conflict. Neo-realism helps to explain the continual wars between the two factions and why Hamas is able to gain support in Palestine. However, neo-liberalism helps to explain the steps that the Palestinian Authority is taking to get other nations to help, and to prevent Israel from creating new settlements. In conclusion you need a good basis in both neo-realism and neo-liberalism to understand the Palestinian Israeli conflict.
Adam's World Politics Blog on Israel and Palestine 