The Israel-Palestine conflict remains one of the most protracted and contentious issues in global politics. Its persistence highlights the intersection of historical grievances, structural inequalities, and geopolitical strategies. Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent economist and global affairs commentator, has emerged as a significant voice critiquing the role of U.S. foreign policy in perpetuating the conflict. His analysis emphasizes the importance of contextualizing policy decisions within broader ethical and historical frameworks, urging a shift from unilateral support for Israel to a more balanced approach.
the Ethical Dimensions of Global Governance
Jeffrey Sachs has long been recognized for his contributions to economic development and global poverty alleviation. His work frequently underscores the interconnectedness of global challenges, advocating for holistic approaches to policy-making (Sachs, 2005). In the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Sachs critiques U.S. foreign policy for failing to address the asymmetrical power dynamics between Israel and Palestine, arguing that historical injustices and systemic inequality must inform policy directions (Sachs, 2021). This critique aligns with broader ethical theories in IR, particularly those that stress justice, human rights, and moral responsibility in international governance (Beitz, 1999).
Israel’s Isolationism and International Scrutiny
Structural Realism and Israel’s Strategic Predicament
From a structural realist perspective, Israel’s increasing isolation on the global stage reflects a shift in the international balance of power. Historically, Israel’s foreign policy has relied on its strategic alliance with the United States to counterbalance its regional adversaries (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007). However, as global norms shift toward greater emphasis on human rights and international law, Israel’s policies, particularly in the occupied Palestinian territories, have drawn heightened scrutiny. The United Nations and other international organizations have increasingly condemned Israeli actions, citing violations of international law, including settlement expansion and the blockade of Gaza (UNGA, 2023).
Constructivism and Evolving Global Norms
Constructivist IR theory provides a useful lens to understand the growing international criticism of Israel. This perspective emphasizes the role of global norms and shared values in shaping state behavior (Wendt, 1999). The rise of transnational advocacy networks, grassroots movements, and public opinion shifts has created a normative environment that challenges Israel’s narrative. The apartheid analogy, employed by Sachs and other analysts, has gained traction, framing the Israeli occupation as a system of institutionalized discrimination (Carter, 2006). This normative shift has implications for Israel’s soft power, limiting its ability to secure broad international support.
The Role of U.S. Foreign Policy: A Neoliberal Critique
Hegemony and the Israeli Lobby
U.S. foreign policy toward Israel is deeply influenced by domestic political factors, particularly the role of the Israeli lobby. Neoliberal institutionalism, which focuses on the interplay between domestic and international politics, highlights how lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) shape U.S. foreign policy (Keohane & Nye, 1989). The disproportionate financial and political influence of AIPAC ensures unwavering U.S. support for Israel, often at the expense of Palestinian rights and international law. This dynamic perpetuates structural violence, wherein institutional practices sustain inequality and marginalization (Galtung, 1969).
The Ethical Implications of U.S. Support
From a normative standpoint, the U.S. role in enabling Israeli policies raises ethical concerns. By providing military aid and diplomatic cover, the U.S. undermines efforts to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law. Sachs argues that this uncritical support not only perpetuates the conflict but also erodes U.S. credibility as a proponent of democracy and human rights (Sachs, 2021). A realist critique might counter that U.S. support for Israel serves strategic interests in the Middle East, but this rationale becomes increasingly tenuous as regional dynamics evolve and U.S. interests shift.
Conflict Theory and the Structural Dynamics of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Historical Materialism and the Occupation
Conflict Theory, particularly its historical materialist strand, provides a framework for understanding the structural inequalities underpinning the Israel-Palestine conflict. The occupation of Palestinian territories is not merely a geopolitical issue but also an economic one, where control over land, resources, and labor reinforces asymmetrical power relations (Harvey, 2003). Israeli settlement expansion, enabled by military dominance and U.S. backing, perpetuates a system of economic exploitation that marginalizes Palestinians and deepens resentment.
The Apartheid Analogy
The comparison between Israel’s policies and apartheid South Africa, advanced by Sachs and others, highlights the systemic nature of Palestinian oppression. This analogy draws on Conflict Theory’s emphasis on institutionalized inequality, pointing to practices such as restricted movement, segregated infrastructure, and unequal access to resources as evidence of apartheid-like conditions (Pappé, 2020). While the apartheid comparison is contested, its growing acceptance in international discourse underscores the need for structural solutions that address the root causes of the conflict.
The Two-State Solution: Challenges and Prospects
Liberal Internationalism and Mediation
The two-state solution, long endorsed by the international community, represents a liberal internationalist approach to conflict resolution. This framework emphasizes the role of diplomacy, international law, and multilateral institutions in achieving peace (Ikenberry, 2011). However, the feasibility of the two-state solution has diminished due to Israeli settlement expansion, political fragmentation within Palestine, and the absence of meaningful negotiations. Sachs argues that renewed international mediation, coupled with pressure on Israel to comply with international law, is essential for reviving the two-state framework (Sachs, 2021).
The Role of Power Asymmetry
A critical obstacle to the two-state solution is the asymmetry of power between Israel and Palestine. Realist theories of conflict resolution suggest that peace agreements are unlikely to succeed without a balance of power between the parties (Zartman, 2001). For Palestinians, achieving such balance requires international support, including recognition of statehood and enforcement of legal obligations on Israel. Without addressing this imbalance, the two-state solution risks becoming a rhetorical tool rather than a viable pathway to peace.
Netanyahu’s Policies and Regional Instability
Offensive Realism and Expansionist Strategies
Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership has been characterized by an expansionist approach that prioritizes territorial control over diplomatic engagement. Offensive realism, which posits that states seek to maximize power to ensure security, provides a framework for understanding Netanyahu’s policies (Mearsheimer, 2001). However, this strategy has exacerbated regional instability, alienating Arab neighbors and undermining prospects for broader Middle Eastern cooperation.
Implications for Israel’s Long-Term Security
Netanyahu’s hardline policies also pose long-term security risks for Israel. By prioritizing military solutions over political compromise, his approach has deepened Palestinian resentment and fueled cycles of violence. Moreover, Israel’s growing international isolation, coupled with shifting U.S. public opinion, threatens its strategic position. Sachs warns that without a fundamental shift in leadership and policy, Israel’s security landscape will remain precarious (Sachs, 2021).
Toward a Just Resolution
The Israel-Palestine conflict exemplifies an intricate asymmetrical conflict and the challenges of achieving justice in international relations. Jeffrey Sachs’ critique underscores the ethical and structural dimensions of the conflict, highlighting the need for a paradigm shift in U.S. foreign policy. Drawing on Conflict Theory and IR frameworks, this article has examined the historical, geopolitical, and normative dynamics of the conflict, emphasizing the importance of addressing power asymmetries and structural inequalities. A just resolution requires not only diplomatic efforts but also a commitment to upholding international law and human rights. As global norms evolve, the international community must seize the opportunity to advocate for a sustainable and equitable peace.
References
- Beitz, C. R. (1999). Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton University Press.
- Carter, J. (2006). Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Simon & Schuster.
- Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.
- Harvey, D. (2003). The New Imperialism. Oxford University Press.
- Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton University Press.
- Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1989). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Little, Brown.
- Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton.
- Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2007). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Pappé, I. (2020). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications.
- Sachs, J. (2005). The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. Penguin Books.
- Sachs, J. (2021). The Case for Palestinian Rights. Project Syndicate.
- UNGA. (2023). Resolutions on Palestine. United Nations General Assembly.
- Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.
- Zartman, I. W. (2001). Preventing Deadly Conflict. Rowman & Littlefield.
Discover more from Dotly
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.