Contradicting Peace Proposals in the Palestine Conflict

Kjell-Ã…ke Nordquist
Additional contact information
Kjell-Ã…ke Nordquist: Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University

Journal of Peace Research, 1985, vol. 22, issue 2, 159-173

Abstract: The article is an attempt to evaluate structurally different types of solution proposals to the Palestine conflict. These types are named 'Greater Israel', 'canton state', 'separate states' and 'Palestine'. The basic question concerns which of them is most likely to promote a durable settlement. Four hypotheses based on conflict research are applied as a gauge in the solution assessment. The hypotheses assume that a durable solution is more likely if (1) the parties' subjective conflict definitions are employed in a proposal, (2) if a proposal regulates basic and/or indivisible values, (3) if a proposal is realized at a low military level and (4) if a proposal promotes the realization of Human Rights. Of the solution proposals, the 'Separate states' proposal is most often in accordance with the assumptions of conditions for a durable settlement, and is thus the most promising proposal for a durable solution. 'Greater Israel', which is similar to the official Israeli interpretation of the Camp David Agreement, seems to have the lowest probability as a durable solution in comparison to the three others.

Date: 1985
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/159.abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:joupea:v:22:y:1985:i:2:p:159-173

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Peace Research from Peace Research Institute Oslo
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().