The Israel-Palestine Conflict

THEME: Mediation and International Politics

This article is authored by Aatmik Jain and Istela Jameel from NUJS, Kolkata.


The Israel-Palestine conflict remains unresolved even after decades. The cost of this conflict has been exuberant and draining for both sides. The conflict cuts across religious, geographical, ethnic and racial lines. The complex nature of the conflict has increased through the years and has led to various new disputes. There is a pressing and urgent need to resolve this conflict as there are various new disputes budding of it. Although, multiple attempts have been made in the past for its resolution, none have been successful in creating a final resolution to the issue. This paper suggests mediation as the most viable mechanism to reach a solution. The paper begins with understanding the importance of adopting mediation in international disputes. Then we understand the nature of the Israel Palestine conflict and the various negotiations and talks that have happened in the past by delving into the history of the conflict. The paper critiques these efforts and tries to find out what went wrong where. We move onto focus on the more pressing issues in the conflict that need to be addressed as a priority, and lastly the paper discusses the requirements needed in a mediator for the present conflict. Certain countries which roughly meet the criteria are suggested. Needless to say, any effective solution will only be a result of the belief and faith of the parties at stake, in the process.

Mediation as an Effective Mechanism of International Dispute Resolution

Mediation as a mechanism for conflict resolution has existed for centuries.[1] Resolving disputes with the help of a neutral third party is perceived as measure to convey the interests and concerns to the opposite party in an amicable and non-confrontational manner. This method gains even more importance in the present day when countries possess refined technology and military prowess. Further, in all international conflicts, a state will act in its own personal interests thus increasing the chances of a confrontation which is harmful to both sides. The harm brought would not solely be physical but also economical and emotional. Learning from the numerous wars between nations and more so from the scars of the two World Wars, the global community is now steadfastly pushing for mediation in international disputes.[2]

The presence of a third party not only brings neutrality but also prevents escalation of conflict. Further, the third party is chosen by the nations at conflict and thus, acceptability also leads to a respect for the resolution that comes at the end of the process. The process also offers a degree of autonomy to the parties since they can choose the procedure through mutual agreement. This flexibility is perfect for international dispute resolution since each setup for dispute settlement can be structured according to the particular needs of the parties as well as taking into account the socio-cultural and economic makeup of the region in conflict.[3] The solution in the end thus, garners acceptability not just amongst the governments but also among the populace of the nations. Thus, mediation as a voluntary mechanism allows consensus building.

History of the Conflict

Even in the current age of trade wars and surgical strikes, there are hardly two countries which have as entwined and strained a relationship as that of Palestine and Israel. This conflict dates back to the early 20th century and is by nature unique and convoluted. The Israel Palestine feud has been subjected to aggression of all kinds – from proxy to cold war, guerrilla warfare to military and terrorist attacks. Thousands of people have been massacred and millions and lost their lives. Much effort has been made by international community to resolve this conflict diplomatically however, the ever changing geopolitical dynamics, vested interests of foreign stakeholder and growing antipathy between the conflicted parties has degraded diplomacy to hollow words with no final result. The conflict has seen both side of the spectrum, blood, war, crime and earnest steps towards peace and stability. Its continuance has been a drain on not only the resources of the countries and their allies, but also on the psychological and moral temperament of the citizens of the two nations and the world at large. The failure of the various mediations and other diplomatic mechanisms for dispute resolution is an indicator of the deep-rooted hostility and historic antagonism between the two states. The primary bones of contention in this conflict which has made it so belligerent and utterly irreconcilable are the Palestinian refugee crisis, the Jewish settlement and the control of Jerusalem.[4] The obstinacy of both nations on the aforementioned issues comes from the heavy reliance on history and past, of which exists multiple versions. The multiplicity of narratives and versions of history to legitimise the claims of both sides further severs their relationship.[5] In such a situation, finding a common ground for the settlement of the conflict becomes extremely onerous. However, a solution without the historical facts and accounts, if not impossible, will be entirely superficial, unreasonable and unjust. An account of the important events in the history of the conflict with special emphasis on the mediations will help us understand the drawbacks of the past mediations and what the possible solutions can be.

The conflict dates back to the early 20th century with the start of the Jewish immigration to Palestine. This migration and settlement in the Promised Land accelerated in the later years due to the rising anti-Semitic persecutions in Europe, the Zionist movement and ultimately the Holocaust.[6] The Jews had the ambition of creating a nation for all Jews across the world, to provide a safe haven against anti-Semitism and establish a Jewish stronghold.[7] The land best suited for this was Palestine which was the land promised to Prophet Abraham and his descendants by God.[8] However, this religio-national ambition of getting Statehood sowed the seed of dispute as Palestine was already inhabited by the Arabs whose claim over the land was by virtue of continued residence. Hence, the conflict that we read about in the newspapers even today is more than a 100 years old.

During the World War I, the wedge between the Arabs and the Jews became distinct only to deepen in the coming years. The Arab felt betrayed by their British allies who failed to fulfil their promise of providing support and stability to the Arabs in exchange of their support to overthrow Germany’s ally, the Ottoman Empire.[9] The Balfour Declaration passed in 1917 was seen as a further betrayal of the Arabs. The White Paper Declaration of 1930[10] which limited the entry of the Jews into Palestine infuriated the Jews as it was happening at a time when Hitler was rising to power and they saw it as a violation of the Balfour declaration.[11] Hence, the feeling of betrayal is deeply entrenched in both sides and this resulted in their scepticism to participate in and accept third party resolution of conflict.

The first Arab-Israel war happened in 1949 after the Arab countries rejected the UNGA Resolution 181which partitioned Israel (57%) and Palestine (43%) into two nations.[12] The war divided the former country of Palestine into three zones, not envisaged by the UN resolution. The West Bank was under Jordon’s control, the Gaza strip under Egypt’s and the new State of Israel controlling more than 77% of the entire area.[13] As a result of the overreaching territorial control of Israel, the major issues the Palestinian refugee crisis was commenced as a result of this war.

The region remained a hotbed as the level of hostility was soaring fanned by the belligerent cold war politics. Preemptive measures driven by misinformation and enmity led to the second major war in the area in 1967.[14] This war is of extreme consequence as it shapes the dynamic of the region for years to come. The defeat of Egypt, Jordon and Syria by Israel established its military superiority in the area. Israel occupied West Bank, Gaza, Sinie Peninsula and Golan Heights. [15] The Palestinian Liberation Organisation was born as a result of the merger of various Palestinian organisations, to become the face of Palestine, after the 6-day war.[16] The UN Resolution 242, which directed the withdrawal of territory occupied by force, remained unenforceable due to interpretative complications and rejection by Palestinians.[17] Following this war there was a subsequent blockade of an Israeli port and a surprise attack by Egypt.[18] All these made the need for a peaceful resolution apparent to both sides. This commenced the first mediation to resolve the middle-eastern conflict.

The Camp David negotiation in 1978 between Egypt and Israel was mediated by the US.[19] The twofold negotiations were successful to the extent of the establishing peaceful bilateral relations between Israel and Egypt but it was not fruitful in solving the Israel Palestine issue. The demands raised by Egypt for Palestine were, right to return to the Arab territories occupied in 1967, recognition of their rights including the right to self-determination and establishment of an autonomous regime in West Bank and Gaza.[20] These demands were rejected by Israel and little effort was made to convince them otherwise. The only agreement reached to in Camp David dealt with a future tri-phased elaborate negotiation which would include representatives from Jordon and Palestinian in the later two stages. Events which happened in the aftermath of Camp David made the failure of the negotiations apparent. The Israel behaviour towards Palestine kept worsening, conflict with the other Arabian countries did not decrease and the domestic turbulence in Egypt made the Egyptians disfavour their president who was later assassinated inter alia for his participation in Camp David.[21] The failure of Camp David was due to several factors. Firstly, Egypt’s importance and influence amongst the Arabs was conspicuously overestimated and the differences in stance and opinions were not considered.[22] Nothing was done or agreed upon that would make the negotiations conducive for the Palestinians to want to participate. [23] Israel was not pressurized to deter from its uncompromising and adamant stance of non-compliance with all demands for Palestine.[24] Lastly, instead of concluding on plans for future negations had the formulation of a general set of rules and objectives been prioritized the negotiation would have borne more success.[25] Although, prima facie the Camp David summit appears to be a complete failure, it served as an important stepping stone for the future of mediation of the conflict. In fact, the name of the agreements, “Framework for Peace in the Middle East” and “Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel (Camp David Accords)”[26], shows that it did initiate the process of mediating for peace.

The Palestinians rejected the agreements of the Camp David as it failed to address their demands of complete withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories.[27] The rising oppression and violence against the Palestinians and desire for nationalism was building. Triggered by the death of four Palestinians by the Israeli defence forces, the first people’s uprising or the Intifada started.[28] In retaliation to the stone pelting, graffiti and Molotov cocktails, Israel used appallingly disproportionate force and under the directions of the then defence minister Rabin the Israeli forces were “breaking bones of the demonstrators”.[29] In a matter of three-four years, thousands of Palestinians were killed, crippled and jailed in this uprising.[30] The cold blooded violence and human rights violations made the international fraternity realise the urgency of peacefully resolving this conflict.

The US convinced Israel to negotiate with the representatives from Palestine and other Arabic countries to resolve this conflict. However, the Palestinian representative did not come from the PLO as Israel objected to the same.[31] The Madrid Conference held in the October of 1991, although not a success was a significant learning experience as it re-established the grounds for negotiations and this time specifically and directly with Palestine.[32] The failure of the Madrid conference was almost inevitable. The absence of PLO from the negotiation did not restrict their influence over the Palestinian delegates. They were still acting according to the direction of the PLO, whose exiled leader Yasser Arafat refused to comply with any negotiation unless PLO was recognised as the sole representative of Palestine.[33] There was lack of engagement amongst the delegations from both sides, because of the large number of delegates on each side, separate accommodations and press conferences which restricted the opportunity for engagement to the formal negotiation sessions.[34] Hence, the possibility of reaching to a compromise by understanding the other side’s reasonable demands was diminished.

Conferences held in Washington as an extension of the Madrid conference failed due to the disinterest of the parties to negotiate.[35] Israel’s plan was to stall negotiating in order to get time to successfully annex the West Bank while, the increased human rights violation and bloodshed in the occupied territories disillusioned Palestine and led to the resignation of several of its delegates.[36]

The Oslo Accord in 1993 began as a result of the changing geopolitical dynamic. Palestine was losing support from its conventional eastern European allies due to internal conflicts or differing stances and the increased brutality and disproportionate use of force by the Israeli army caused its traditional supporters to shift.[37] Hence, a secret process of negotiations began between Arafat representing PLO and Rabin, president of Israel. The negotiations were a private affair without the external vitiating factors, there was ample pre-negotiation engagement between the representatives from both sides and the third party’s involvement was restricted to that of facilitators.[38] A declaration of peace was signed by both parties. The key points of the agreement were that Israel would withdraw from Gaza and certain areas of the West Bank gradually and Palestine would get self governance, with the establishment of an interim self government.[39] There was a mutual recognition of rights and legitimacy and they agreed to put an end to the age old confrontation.[40] The discussions regarding the key issues like extent of Israeli retraction, status of Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugee crisis, future of Israeli settlement and settlers were to be discussed later in the final talks.[41] In the long hiatus between the agreement and subsequent discussions, the government of Israel changed and the new president Netanyahu strongly opposed the Oslo negotiations.[42] The inaction of Israeli to withdraw, the increased settlement of Israelis in occupied territories and the construction of barriers in the occupied territories between Palestinian majority localities and Israeli settlements disenchanted the Palestinians who perceived this as a failure of the Oslo peace talks.[43] Although, the Oslo Negotiations were not successful in operation, it was a major diplomatic achievement and highlighted the extent of resolution that can be reached by skilled mediation and negotiation.

Several negotiations were held to speed up Israel’s withdrawal and creation of Palestinian self-government.[44] Ultimately Palestine controlled large portions of West Bank and Gaza but were surrounded by the Israel to the extent that their entry and exit was regulated by them.[45] The failure of Oslo Accord left the most significant issues of conflict unresolved. US took these up in second Camp David, 2000. Discussions happened over the issue of Jerusalem, Israeli settlement and Palestinian refugee crisis[46]. The fundamental reason why the talks failed was because the most Israel could offer was less than the least Palestine could accept.[47] Hence, although what was offered was more than ever in the history of negotiations, it was unacceptable to Palestine.

Embittered by the failing peace talks, continued oppression, increasing Israeli settlement and persistent second-class citizenship, unrest was already stirring in Palestine.[48] An Israeli politician Ariel Sharon’s provocative move of entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem with heavy guards sparked the second Intifada which was bloodier than the previous one.[49] The extremist Islamic organisation in Palestine, Hamas provided crude weapons urged the Palestinians to “rage” against the Israelis.[50] Israel used heavy ammunitions like tanks, airstrikes, shells and bomb against the protestors who lacked all such resources.[51]

Even after the failure of the second Camp David talk, US under Bill Clinton wanted to resolve the conflict and thus the presidents of Israel and Palestine, Barak and Arafat met in Taba in 2001.[52] Although there was greater flexibility in the offers and demands no agreement could be reached. After this round of negotiation it was realised that there can never be a situation where all the issues of this conflict are resolved as the demands of both sides are extremely divergent.[53]

Sharon replaced Barak as the president of Israel after the 2001 elections.[54] Although all the Israeli settlements in Gaza were withdrawn, Israel still had effective control of the region as the entire strip was landlocked and entry exit was possible only through Israel regulated checkpoints.[55]

A roadmap for the procedure of dispute resolution was given by the UN, US, EU and Russia, the quartet in 2003.[56] This roadmap was updated to prioritise political agreement and include the different compromises agreeable to the both sides, in the Geneva Accord, 2003.[57]

Secret negotiation and USA facilitated talks were conducted between President Olmert and Abbas in 2006-08.[58] These talks had the potential of being successful as the gap between the demands was significantly narrowed. The complete demilitarization of the Palestinian states, nearly complete control and habitation over the West Bank, return of a few Palestinian refugees and remunerations to the rest and sharing of Jerusalem were some of the key points negotiated.[59] However, the negotiations ended due to the start of the Gaza War 2008.

After the disastrous military engagement with Lebanon in 2006 war, Israel directed its attention and effort towards annihilating Hamas which it alleged to be the backbone of Islamic extremism in Gaza.[60] Towards the end of 2008, Israel launched its “Operation Cast Lead” against Hamas in the Gaza strip.[61] This operation marked the expiration of the cease fire and was a retaliatory measure against the rockets fired by the Hamas from Gaza which has endangered Israelis.[62] Using the technologically superior and advance heavy ammunitions, Israel unrelentingly attacked Hamas. The level of casualty in Gaza was grotesque. Thousands were killed and at least half were civilians.[63]

President Obama soon after coming to power restarted negotiations between Israel and Palestine. The mechanism of this negation involved direct negotiations hence were hard bargains and convincing required on both side.[64] This talk led to a freeze in the construction of Israeli settlement in West Bank for ten months.[65] The mediator was very optimistic about reaching a final solution within a year however that did not hold true. The ten month freeze came to an expiry before any solution could be concretised taking resulting is reversal of diplomatic progress.

Although the dynamic between Israel, US and Palestine has undergone notable changes it has not been conducive for diplomatic dispute resolution. USA’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is one of the indicators of USA’s bias towards Israel.[66] Palestine’s reaction to this development in US-Israel relations is justifiably hostile; making it reluctant to participate in any further US conducted peace talk.[67] The peace plan for middle-east which is to be released in the next couple of days has already been rejected by Palestine.[68] This is primarily because of the recent visit by President Netanyahu and Presidential Candidate Gantz to USA for discussing of the Israel-Palestine issue.[69] No such discussion was held with Palestinian representative hence, the pre-emptive rejection of the peace plan is justified on grounds of bias.

Stakes of parties in the current situation

While the biggest claim for Israeli people is their right over their Promised Land, the Palestinian people’s concerns are more on the lines of basic human existence. Their issues are centred around shelter and basic resources.[70] Palestinian refuges are dispersed throughout the territory and these are people who have been uprooted from their residence and made refugee in their own homeland. Resettlement of these refugees is the foremost concern of the Palestinian authorities.[71] These are the people who used to live in the current Israel during the Mandatory Palestine regime of the British as well as people such as those of East Jerusalem.[72] Due to the complexities of land division and presence of exclaves and enclaves, especially in the West Bank, there is a constant refugee problem. The biggest difficulty for these Palestinian refugees is the absence of a concrete nation state to seek resort too. Palestine itself does not have a continuous and conclusive territory of land and merely exists in pockets of land having been given self governance power by the Oslo Accords. Due to inexistence of a solidified government and nation, the refugees do not have any authority to fall back upon and more or less depend on the Israeli authorities to decide their fate.

Adequate supply of resources is another issue that needs to be addressed. Resources such as water and agricultural land are unevenly divided among the parties.[73] Israeli authorities have been noted to strictly control the supply of water to Palestinian territories.[74] These fundamental resources of survival need to be distributed on per capita basis. Amenities such as schools and hospitals are also need to be pulled out of this divide. These basic amenities cannot be made a tool to leverage control over the other. Schools, hospitals, roads and other public facilities in East Jerusalem are often not provided adequate funds compared to there west Jerusalem counterparts merely because East Jerusalem is heavily Palestinian (due to being under Jordan before the war of 1967).[75] Principles of humanitarian law need to be appreciated here to understand that disputes should not be a reason for depriving people of absolute essentials.

Evidently, Israel has been a dominant party in the conflict. However, past domination cannot be a reason to prevent Israel from making its legitimate concerns be heard in a future mediation. Israel also has certain stakes which need to be addressed. After the massive Jewish settlement in the West Bank that began in 1967, a sizeable number of the Jewish population resides in the Palestinian claimed territories. Israel cannot overlook the needs of these citizens while negotiating any solution. Further, after the Oslo Accords almost 60 per cent of West Bank is under the total control of Israel while remaining is under Palestinian government. Out of the area under Palestinian government, there are still parts which are under Israeli security control. Hence, the arrangement is interwoven and will affect Israeli citizens in the West Bank, and thus, Israel will be cautious about any agreement which has the possibility of uprooting its populace.

Resultantly, an issue of mutual importance would be that of borders. This is especially important for a two state solution which has been agreed by both parties as a possible future solution and has also been supported by the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.[76] The issue of borders would bring certainty to other issues as well such as natural resources and the issue of settlements and further, would also offer political stability to the Palestine.

Finding a Perfect Mediator for the current Dispute?

In any mediation the foremost question to ask is, who will be the mediator? The choice of mediator is crucial to a successful mediation. Ideally, a mediator has to act as a complex mix of moderators, translators and facilitators of communication. They way they practice these responsibilities can make or break the proceedings. The mediator should have a genuine motivation to lead the mediation to a fruitful outcome. The outcome that he aims to guide the parties to, should also be one that does not leave room for future conflict. Needless to say, all these requisites point to a fundamental requirement that the mediator should be unbiased and neutral. it cannot align itself, expressly or in spirit with either of the parties. At the same time, it should empathise with the pains and concerns of each party throughout the process so that it is able to convey these concerns to the opposite party genuinely.

The conflict in question i.e. the Israel Palestine Conflict has been through various rounds of negotiations and mediations, but most have them been ineffective due to faith put in them by the parties. A recurring issue is that the third party initiating the peace is itself having a bias towards one party. The Quartet of Nations (which comprises of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia) has been seen as being dormant and often ignoring Palestinian interests.[77] A major issue of the Palestinians with this group is that it has not been supportive of Palestinians membership to the UN and its recognition internationally.[78] Thus, lack of faith by a party on a core vital issue dissolves this group from being an effective mediator in this dispute. Again, the United States has also offered its support in initiating conversation and becoming a mediator. However, the US has also been the biggest supporter of Israel and has recently recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.[79] Such actions by the US, especially on the cause of Jerusalem which has been one of the three main issues of contention, prevents it from becoming an effective mediator. Countries in the Arab World have shown consistent anti-Israel sentiment and thus, would not be seen as the perfect mediator by the Israelis. Even though Israeli government may maintain a diplomatic relation with these states, the mistrust in the population would mean that any solution reached would not reach its execution. Ultimately, the aim is to kindle a spirit of amend amongst the population on both sides of the conflict.

Keeping this in mind, it can also not be ignored that a mediating nation should also not be too distant from the conflict. The nation cannot be situated at another corner of the world, aloof from the conversation. The nation which is to act as a mediator has to be one which can understand the geo-political dynamics of the region and the complex history of the conflict. It has to be one which can understand the plight and suffering on both sides. Such a nation cannot exist very far from the region. However, as has been discussed, Arab nations do not look as promising candidates. Thus, options are limited. Yet they exist. Nations like Turkey and Jordan can be effective mediators in the current conflict. Turkey is a prime example because it sits on the juncture of the east and west and is a shared mix of both outlooks. It is close to the region of conflict and has shown neutrality. Jordan, is the next candidate in line. Although an Arab nation, Jordan as a neighbour has strengthened its relationship with Israel in the past especially after the Jordan Israel Peace Treaty of 1994. Further, Jordan had governed the region of West Bank prior to 1967 and would be able to better understand the suffering of the Palestinian people. The two nations offer hope as successful mediators. If they are not swayed by international pressure by lobbyists on either side, their help could be sought to reach an effective solution to the conflict.

Towards a Solution

Like any conflict the present conflict also has various dimensions. This conflict is not just limited to geographical or ethnic divisions but also stretches to clashes between leaders, religions and regions. Multiple reasons of contentions along several lines have become bitter over the years. Thus, a successful mediation will have to untie each knot bit by bit through a stage wise process. The foremost step for reaching an amicable solution would be to stop the acts of violence from both sides. Next would be to perceive the other party as an equal. No doubt, years of bad blood and violent conflict cannot be so easily solved or removed with rapidity. In fact, it should not be. Discussing and deliberating upon each issue is important and needed. However, as we have noted from the past, the change in government and political clashes between the liberal and the far-right parties within Israel and Palestine makes it necessary for a solution to be reached within Presidential term of the representatives. The most essential requirement for a successful resolution is the parties’ utmost sincerity and belief in the process.


The journey of Israel and Palestine has been a bloody one, pricking the conscience of humanity since the beginning. The horrors of the past and the brutality that each side has faced have made them experience the worst. It is from the fear of that experience that they find their unflinching obstinacy. Each side has its narratives, its logic, its religious beliefs, its history to support its demands hence, the polarisation is acute and the task of bridging the gap herculean. However, life has become difficult for both Isarelis and Palestinians due to this conflict and they have realised that war is never the solution. Stakes are high for both sides and a lot has been lost already. Mediation is the best mechanism of resolving this resolution according to us, because it has all the requisites needed, like the neutrality, facilitation, prevention of hostility and escalation and out of the box resolutions. However, besides the proactive participation of the disputed parties in the mediation what is extremely crucial is the relationship of the mediating country with the disputing parties. While neutrality and impartiality is appreciated, the mediating country needs to be empathetic towards the conflict and must be earnestly interested in its resolution. Hence, a correct mediator is extremely crucial for making peace talks conducive for both parties. In the current scenario ticking all the requirements for being the perfect mediator is nearly impossible. Hence, the compromise between the parties for conflict resolution starts from the first step itself.



[1] Jacob Bercovitch, Richard Jackson, Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-first Century: Principles, Methods, and Approaches, 132 (2009).

[2] Scott S. Gartner, Third-Party Mediation of Interstate Conflicts: Actors, Strategies, Selection, and Bias, 6 Y.B. Arb. & Mediation 269 (2014).

[3] Jacob Bercovitch, Richard Jackson, Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-first Century: Principles, Methods, and Approaches, 132 (2009).

[4] Valerie Rosoux, Israeli and Palestinian Stories. Can Mediators Reconfigure Incompatible Narratives? 10 Global Policy (2019).

[5] Id.

[6] Beinin, Joel and Lisa Hajjar, Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, Middle East Research and Information Project, (last visited Jan. 26, 2020).

[7] Id.

[8] Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, supra note 3.

[9]Michael Jansen, Betrayal of Arabs after first World War set stage for turbulent century, Irish Times (Jun. 21, 2014)

[10] British White Paper of 1939, Yale Law School The Avalon Project (1939)

[11] White Paper of 1930, Just Vision (1930)

[12] G. A. Res. 181 (Nov. 29, 1947).

[13] Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, supra note 3.

[14] Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, supra note 3.

[15]The Israel-Palestine conflict — 100 years of history, The Hindu (Oct. 31 2017),

[16] Winston P. Nagan & Aitza Haddad, Recognition of Palestinian Statehood: A Clarification of the Interests of the Concerned Parties, UF Law Faculty Publications, (2012).

[17] S. C. Res. 242, (Nov. 22, 1967).

[18] Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, supra note 3.

[19] William Quandt, Camp David and Peacemaking in the Middle East, 101 Pol. Science Quarterly 357-377 (1986).

[20] Id.

[21] Quandt, supra note 16.

[22] Quandt, supra note 16.

[23] Quandt, supra note 16.

[24] Quandt, supra note 16.

[25] Quandt, supra note 16.

[26] U.N. Peacemaker, Framework for Peace in the Middle East and Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel (Camp David Accords) (Sep. 17, 1978),

[27] Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, supra note 3.

[28] Alexander Mikaberidze, Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, 2011, pg. 399-400

[29] Id.

[30] Ben White, Facts about the first Intifada, Middle East Monitor (Dec 9, 2017),

[31] History of Mid-East peace talks, BBC World News (Jul. 29, 2013),

[32] Mona Juul, Israel and Palestine – Experiences on mediation and mediators in the Middle East, 53 Development Dialogue (2009).

[33] Id.

[34] Juul, supra note 29.

[35] Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, supra note 3.

[36] Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, supra note 3.

[37] Juul, supra note 29.

[38] Juul, supra note 29.

[39] History of Mid-East peace talks, supra note 28.

[40] History of Mid-East peace talks, supra note 28.

[41] Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, supra note 3.

[42] Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, supra note 3.

[43] Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, supra note 3.

[44] History of Mid-East peace talks, supra note 28.

[45] Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, supra note 3.

[46]History of Mid-East peace talks, supra note 28.

[47] History of Mid-East peace talks, supra note 28.

[48] The second Intifada, Al-Jazeera (Dec. 4, 2003)

[49] Id.

[50] The second Intifada, supra note 45.

[51] The second Intifada, supra note 45.

[52] History of Mid-East peace talks, supra note 28.

[53] History of Mid-East peace talks, supra note 28.

[54] Sharon claims victory in Israeli election, CNN, (Feb. 6, 2001)

[55] Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, supra note 3.

[56] History of Mid-East peace talks, supra note 28.

[57] History of Mid-East peace talks, supra note 28.

[58] Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, supra note 3.

[59] History of Mid-East peace talks, supra note 28.

[60] Chris Mcgreal, Why Israel went to war in Gaza, The Guardian, (Jan. 4, 2009),

[61] Jim Zanotti, Carol Migdalovitz, Jeremy L. Sharp, Casey Addis, Christopher M. Blanchard, Rosa Margesson, Cong. Research Serv., R 40101, Israel and Hamas: Conflict in Gaza (2008-2009), (2009).

[62] Id.

[63] Id.

[64] History of Mid-East peace talks, supra note 28.

[65] History of Mid-East peace talks, supra note 28.

[66] Palestine says US can’t mediate Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Al-Jazeera (Sep. 28, 2018),

[67] Id.

[68] Jihan Abdalla, What we know about Trump’s Middle East peace plan, Al-Jazeera (Jan. 25, 2020),

[69] Netanyahu, Gantz invited to US to talk ‘prospect of peace’: Pence, Al-Jazeera (Jan. 24, 2020),

[70] Question of Palestine: Legal Aspects (Doc. 1) A Compilation of Papers Presented at the United Nations Seminars on the Question of Palestine in 1980-1986, United Nations, The Question of Palestine,

[71] S.A. Waldman., Security, Conflict and Cooperation in the Contemporary World, 1948–51. (2015).

[72] S.A. Waldman., Security, Conflict and Cooperation in the Contemporary World, 1948–51. (2015).

[73] Miriam R. Lowi, Bridging the Divide: Transboundary Resource Disputes and the Case of West Bank Water, 18(1) Int. Sec., 113 (1993).

[74] Israel’s violations of human rights regarding water and sanitation in the OPT – Report by Al-Haq and EWASH to CESCR – Non-Un document, United Nations, The Question of Palestine,

[75]Separate and Unequal, Israel’s Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Human Rights Watch (December 19 2010),

[76]UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, United Nations, The Question of Palestine,

[77] Volker Perthes, Reviving the Quartet, The Guardian, (April 19, 2007),

[78] Matthew Kalman, Useless, useless, useless’: the Palestinian verdict on Tony Blair’s job, The Independent (Dec 16, 2012),

[79] Mark Landler, Trump Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital and Orders U.S. Embassy to Move, the Ney York times (Dec 6 2017),

Categories: Law/Legal Mediation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *