The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not an interstate conflict. This is its difference from the relations of Israel with the Arab countries. Entopolitical and territorial component are fundamental for this conflict. Leaders of the conflict demonstrate their intention not to back down from their principles under any pressure. In such circumstances, negotiations are an extremely inefficient way to solve problems. As a rule, they are imposed on the parties by third parties.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict laid the foundations of the contradictions associated with Arab-Israeli relations. It is still one of the structural elements of this complex relationship. The mutual claims of the two peoples on the territory of Palestine, their history and cultural heritage, language - all this became the foundation on which the Palestinian-Israeli conflict grew. Two peoples are struggling to prove that one of them has more land rights than the other. When peaceful arguments end, military power comes into play.
The structure of the conflict is asymmetric. Its parties are at different levels of military power, influence and mobilization capabilities. A manifestation of this asymmetry is the involvement of irregular formations in the conflict, which, in fact, are part of national movements. Such detachments do not feel responsible for the actions taken and, not possessing military equipment, resort to terrorist methods.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been going on for many years. Today it seems completely pointless, since the UN General Assembly back in 1947 proposed the creation of two states. But this simple solution has never been implemented. The reason lies in the events of 60 years ago. Then relations between Arabs and Jews escalated, Great Britain began political maneuvers, and confrontations began in the Arab camp. This explains why this resolution was not implemented in 1948.
At its very beginning, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a struggle not only for land, but also for history, traditions, myths, religious beliefs. In Palestine, it seems as if the national identity of the Jews and Arabs was concentrated, that is, each of them will cease to exist if it loses this land. In this conflict, not the mind and logic play a big role, but emotions and symbols. Therefore, it, like any ethno-political conflict, is so difficult to bring to a reasonable resolution.
The radical Islamist organizations Hamas and Islamic Jihad will never accept the idea of creating two states. For them, Israel has no right to exist. At the same time, Israeli right-wing radicals fundamentally disagree with this idea, since for them it means the need to leave the lands of Palestine.
Any alternative solutions also lead to a deadlock conflict. The creation of one state for two nations does not suit Israel, since in this case another ethno-religious group will dominate, that is, this new state will not be Jewish in nature.
In 2007, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict entered a new stage. Negotiations between the leaders of the parties were resumed. The American president made optimistic forecasts about an agreement in a year. But these measures did not produce a particular result. The parties continued to bomb each other.
Many attempts were made to stop mutual shelling and terrorist operations, but all of them did not lead to anything. Even the coming to power of an energetic Barack Obama, determined to improve relations with the Muslim world, did not lead to practically anything. Today, the situation in Israel remains tense, and there is still no way out of this situation.