Constructivism states that individuals and indentities themselves shape international relations, and this perspective can be applied to every conflict and perhaps every relation, including Israel-Palestine. The American-brokered Oslo Accords, signed by Rabin and Arafat, exemplify the individual aspect, their recognition of each other set the stage for an incremental process to achieve an independent Palestinian state and got hopes up for a two-state solution. Furthermore, it was in Clinton’s term that the plan for a two-state solution began to peek its eyes over the horizon. However, perhaps the reason this solution never materialized was, in part, due to the impact shared beliefs- religion has on identity.
Constructivist Alexander Wendt states that “the structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces,” and that “the identities and interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature.” Highlighting the significance of shared ideas, Wendt underscores how critical belief systems are in shaping the structure of human association, international relations, and our world. Likewise, Martin Indyk, who was Ambassador to Israel under Clinton’s administration, wrote in Foreign Affairs this March that “neither side was ready to compromise on the highly emotional question of who would control Jerusalem.” This corroborates Wendt’s view that shared ideas and belief systems are critical in shaping relations and have been critical in Israel/Palestine.
However, the criticality Jerusalem plays in the conflict goes deeper than just that. As Wendt argues, a “fundamental principle of constructivist social theory is that people act towards objects, including other actors, based on the meanings that the objects have for them.” If we consider, perhaps slightly inappropriately, land, and thus Jerusalem, as an object, it’s clear that the meanings the PLO and Israel attached to Jerusalem defined their ability to agree on an adequate two-state solution, as Indyk connotes. In fact, the meanings assigned, by religion, to all the land Israel/Palestine lies on affects the conflict and the region. The attempt to create unity among these lands after the Oslo Accords has led to Palestinian uprisings due to rightful distrust and oppression from Israel, and further Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and no US president since has been able to revive the possibility of a two-state solution. This shift from hope for a solution to complete unwillingness from either side epitomizes the constructivist idea that shared ideas, not material forces, determine international relations, and how the identity of a region can evolve and change.
While the current situation in the region seems somber, constructivism’s long-term view gives possibility for a positive path forward. Constructivists would argue that conflicts that seem to have no hope can undergo identity shifts and transformations. What happens today could change tomorrow, albeit unlikely. However, constructivism reveals that identity and interest consist of shared ideas and material forces in the system, and identities shape how countries act.
Where I begin to struggle with constructivism’s applicability is that it seems too obvious while not providing any solid plan or framework for the future, although that may not be the purpose of international relations theories. Nevertheless, constructivism does offer insight into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by emphasizing the roles of individuals, identity, and interactions. Its strength lies in highlighting the fluid and socially constructed nature of the world we are living in, and its this fluidity that allows for change through deliberate efforts and evolving narratives. As Professor Gallemore mentioned in Theory of Action’s episode on Constructivism, if we all believe some abstract idea, a country, for example, doesn’t exist, it doesn’t. However, I struggle to grapple with parts of this idea: its emphasis on the malleability of identities and the potential for positive interactions can be seen as overly optimistic, especially given the deep-rooted and complex nature of so many conflicts, including Israel/Palestine.
Therefore, Constructivism applies to Israel/Palestine relations when focusing on the roles of individuals, the construction of identities - the impact of shared beliefs, and the impact of interaction
留言