Israel-Palestine Conflict Theoretical Framework

Order 100% Plagiarism free Essay Now

The dissertation examines central concerns and occurrences that have transpired during the Israel-Palestine persistent antagonism. Essentially, the paper adopts the Marxist and realist theory as the scaffold to shed more light into Israel-Palestine conflict that span the twentieth and twenty first century. Although certain religious variables have created to the environment for political action, this dissertation uses the Realist and Marxist interpretations to present explanatory strategies in terms of power relations, state actions, and how the economic global hierarchy plays out in international relations.

The realist concept is adapted to present explanations for occurrences and circumstance in the global sphere between state actors, while the Marxist concept is simply the materialistic interpretation of history. One would argue that realism is the most applicable concept used to explain international system. Realism has roots in the ancient Greek and also evident in Peloponnesian Wars. As the first dialogue, the victorious Athenians narrated to Melians that what is right is an issue of equals in power. Thus the weak cannot stand the wrath of the might. The impression here is that the world is orchestrated around power relations and self-interest. Hierarchical structures within states curtail the indecisive, deceitful, weak and the acquisitive nature of man from independence of thought.

Israel-Palestine Conflict Theoretical Framework

Nonetheless, when it comes to the international space, this character is also applied to states, the central players in the model. According to realists, there is virtually no predominant power that leads to political showground of disorder. As such, the functional disparities of states are diminished, while the only defining feature of variance are the distribution of capabilities and power, as no outward player can intervene against perceived danger. At that point, a poise of power is struck amid supremacy desires of nations and the stability of the system. Although Marxism may not be a concept in the purview of International Relations in its entirety, it is easy to argue that the subsistence of international relations presents the worst anomaly to Marxism.

While realism is largely anchored on the equilibrium of state predominance and security, Marxism is the materialistic explanation of human history, emphasis of the global splitting up of labour under the capitalist system and the progression of human transformation are mirrored in the economic growth of society. A subordinate characteristic of Marxism is class, where the history of all previous societies is characterised by class competition and the liberating the working class from the owners of capital. Consequently, when evaluating any concept of international relations, it is pertinent to have a comprehension of the central players that present the structure in which the schemas of the concept can work.

Israel-Palestine Conflict Theoretical Framework

Realists’ contend that the state is not just the legal representative of the peoples’ will, but rather where power is exercised within its national boundaries. In the Israel-Palestinian antagonism, it could be affirmed that the aspect of authentic statehood and the actions by different players around the world is essentially what has protracted the conflict. Subsequent to UN resolution 181, Israel became recognized internationally as an authentic state. Again, since realism submits that states can utilize their military prowess owing to the seeming danger of the determination of other states, this was apparently evident in 1948 when a league of Arab nations such as Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt invaded Palestine to wage war against Israel.

However, towards the brink of war, Israel did not just emerge as a victor but had also occupied three quarters of Palestine, two times more than what the UN had promised. At that point, one can conceptualize what Kenneth Waltz pronounces to be the representation of international relations in which the global structure of anarchy instigates the basis of war. Many independent states without legal systems that are enforceable amongst themselves are more likely to slide into some conflict of sorts, especially if each state is determined to judge and push its grievances.

Israel-Palestine Conflict Theoretical Framework

And yet, without exterior power to execute severe authority to completely halt the progression of the original conflict, the determination of the Jewish and the reactive response from the Arab League, the UN partition could not have achieved any meaningful progress to cease fire owing to the self-determination of states.

From the Marxist point of view, the main players are known as the ‘bourgeoisie’ and ‘proletariat’, where class affairs between the two reinforce Marxism in terms of capitalist production and manipulation.  In the end, this dissertation will utilize realism because it offers a comprehensive way in which to interpret the Israel-Palestine conflict. Themes of statehood, safety and boundaries are more tangible in modern existence and also in the events of 1948. While Marxism may offer an optional analysis of the circumstances, such as understanding of the jagged labour arrangements, it may not be appropriate to interpret the dynamics surrounding the Israel- Palestine conflict owing to the state and ethnic divides and international players embroiled in this war.

Israel-Palestine Conflict Theoretical Framework

Order 100% Plagiarism free Essay Now