of 15
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
    Human Security and the Israel-Palestine Conflict: External vs. Internal Perspectives  Nadia Baranovich & Ravichandran Moorthy  Abstract The formation of the State of Israel in 1948 has led to bloody course of events, which continues to this day, as to who has the right to claim the land home; the Palestinian-Arabs (mostly Muslim) or the Jewish (mostly non-Arab residents). The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most violent and bloodiest protracted conflict in the post World War II era, which has resulted in massive human casualties and human rights abuses  for decades. The numerous wars in conjunction with the rise of militant  groups like Hezbollah and Hamas have led to the development of a human security dilemma in Palestine and Israel. Decades of violence and destruction have resulted in massive human casualties, political chaos and disruption to the way of life of the people in the region. The concept of human security began to enter mainstream human rights,  security and international politics debate, more prominently, after the release of the 1994 report United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report on Human Development. The report is essentially explicit manifestations of the human rights principles enshrined in the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Humans Rights (UNDHR). Human  security pushes for intense promotion and greater respect for human life in all spheres of human endeavors. This article inspects the human  security dimension present in the Israel-Palestine conflict. This article encompasses two major parts. The first part provides an external understanding of how human security principles can be applied to Israel- Palestine conflict and how it affects the possibility of peace. Secondly, the article addresses the question on how people ‘inside’ the conflict view human security and the possibility of peace. Keywords : Human Security, Peace, Violence, Terrorism, Israel-Palestine conflict   Human Security and the Israel-Palestine Conflict:  External vs. Internal Perspectives 83 Introduction Wars, conflicts and destructions have become synonym with the history of man. The last century has witnessed two world wars and numerous bloody conflicts fought over ideologies, beliefs, ethnicity, territory and resources. These conflicts have resulted in massive human casualties. The inability of the states and the international systems to address this situation prompted human rights thinkers and analysts to device concepts and instruments for the promotion of a safer world for humans. This eventually gave birth to the concept of human security. The Israel-Palestinian conflict is perhaps one of the  bloodiest and longest conflicts known to humans. It is caused by a wide variety of factors ranging from the historical memory of violence, disputes over the control of land, contradictory historical accounts, religious animosity and continuous mistrust with one and another. These factors have resulted in massive human security dilemmas in this region. The conflict has been further exacerbated by terror activities by militant groups like the Hezbollah and Hamas in support of the Palestinians. As a reactionary measure, the Israelis engage in massive counter strikes targeting both military installations and civilian populations, which bring about disruption and destruction to Palestinian lives and  properties. Decades of violence have left the Palestinian community devastated with massive civilian casualties, restriction on free movement of people and denied access to  basic necessities and international humanitarian aid. On the other hand, for the Israelis, they have found themselves having to live their lives, go to school, commute to work, and raise families in the shadow of terror (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2001). Thus combating terrorism has become their primary national security concern. Acts of terror are being fought at all fronts. Human Security Debate Human security is an emerging paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities whose  proponents challenge the traditional notion of national security by arguing that the proper referent for security should be the individual rather than the state. Human security holds that a people-centered view of security is necessary for national, regional, and global stability. Human security pushes for intense promotion and greater respect for human life in all spheres of human endeavors. Although, this concept began to manifest occasionally in the nine decades of the 20 th  century, it was only after the release of the 1994 United  Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report on Human Development that the concept began to enter mainstreams human rights, security and in international political debates, more prominently. This report expanded the focus coverage of the concept to include seven aspects namely economic security, food security, environmental security,  personal security, community security, political security, and health security (Acharya, 2008). In addition, human security also includes safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease, and repression, as well as protections from sudden and harmful disruptions in the pattern of daily lives. Further, in more recent scholarship, the concept has been stretched to include economy, health and environmental concerns. The present classification of human security now includes a radically expanded coverage of issues,   Nadia Baranovich & Ravichandran Moorthy   84 far surpassing the limited coverage in the post Cold War period. The concept of human security also captures and further clarifies the spirit of the major principles of human rights that are enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR). Faber (2008) notes that there are two competing schools of human security. The first one is focused on “freedom from want” which is about addressing the basic needs of humans as highlighted by the United Nations seven areas of focus for human security. The second school of human security addresses “freedom from fear”, i.e.  removing the use of threat, of force and violence from the everyday lives of communities. All proponents of human security agree that the primary goal is the protection of individuals; however, precisely what threats individuals should be protected from is where the consensus breaks down. The promotion of this concept has drawn mix reactions from states in different region of the world. There has been skepticism about the need for such concept in view of the continuing move in different parts of the world to improve democratic processes and expand the meaning of this concept, thus improving the overall human security. Secondly, views between East and the West on what this human security really means or should mean and in what sort of issues it should cover, appears to be divergent. In fact many in the East see human security as an alien Western centric model, which does not really take into account Eastern sentiments and values. Some even assert that the concept is a Western prescription for the lack democracy in the East. More intense debate began to take place in an attempt define and redefine ‘human security’ in the post Cold War era. However, much of the debate focused on the perennial problem of differing cultures and sometimes contradicting values embraced in the West and the East, which gave rise to the difficulty in coming up with some form of common explanation(s) to this concept. Current debates on human security issues have somewhat transcended the traditional realpolitik   perspective. However, this concept still draws different and rather varied interpretations, since it emerged on several occasions during historical changes, especially in the period after the Second World War. From the traditionalist perspective, the state is seen as the ‘central unit of analysis’ and ‘security commensurate with national survival within the world that is inherent contentious and anarchical’ (Tow & Trood, 2000). Thus, the core tenet of discussion from the traditionalist standpoint is that ‘security’ is very much related to ‘national security’. Thus, preserving national security seems to be the core principle of nation state, while human and his security, although important, remains an auxiliary prerequisite to further reinforce national security. While this may be true, there have been also calls to expand the scope of human security. For example, Kofi Annan, in his call for a broadening of ideas about peace and security, stresses that human security can no longer solely have a military meaning; it is also a matter of human rights, of good governance and must encompass economic development, social justice, environmental protection, democratization, disarmament, and respect for human rights and the rule of law (Annan, 2001). Human security prescribes a holistic notion of security as opposed to the traditional state centric notion of security. At the core, human security focuses on the welfare of the  people within a state society. Having established the goal, the next question is what are   Human Security and the Israel-Palestine Conflict:  External vs. Internal Perspectives 85 the proponents that can properly assist human security to achieve its rather expanded role. Unlike human rights, which have been based on correlative duties, the concept of human security is not necessarily been coupled with obligations. This is perhaps because there is no normative document that has come out from the debate, other than the 1994 report. Secondly, perhaps this is due to its non-state centric nature, where states become somewhat cautious in embracing its principles. However, the idea behind the human security approach is to transform traditional notions of security away from the focus of national and regional stability of political and economic systems to focus on human  beings. Thus, primary threats are seen as internal and no longer the exclusive domain of military forces. Such internal threats include economic failure, the violation of human rights, and political discrimination. Therefore, the guarantee of national security is in favorable social, political and economic conditions, the promotion of human development, and the protection of human rights as opposed to solely relying on military  power (Tadjbakkhsh, 2005). Methodology This article covers two main parts. The first part discusses the external perspective on how human security principles can be applied to Israel-Palestine conflict and how it affects the possibility of peace. While, the second part addresses how people ‘inside’ the conflict view human security and the possibility of peace. For the first part, the authors use document analysis and theoretical discussion based on the normative documents of human security, which includes discussion on the applicability of the seven principles in the conflict dynamics. For the second part, the authors utilized inputs from interviews and survey of relevant respondants from the conflict region. Essentially, this is to capture how  people involved in the conflict view human security and the possibility of peace in the region. While much research has been done analyzing the Israel-Palestine conflict, little of the research has directly explored the feelings and perceptions of those within the conflict zone itself. In addition to document analysis, the discussion in this section incorporates feedbacks and opinions from respondents based on interviews. In an effort to provide an internal perspective of the conflict, interviews were conducted with the Palestinian Ambassador attached to the Palestinian Consulate in Kuala Lumpur and with the Deputy Chief of Mission at the Israeli Embassy in Singapore. A questionnaire was also drafted and distributed to individuals from Palestine and Israel. The survey primarily deals with gathering perceptions and opinions about how ‘insiders’ view the human security dilemma and the proposed two-state solution, as well as the differences that may exist between the government and civilian perspectives. The survey consists of three different parts: a demographic section, a human security section, and a section regarding the opinions of the two-state solution proposal. The demographic portion of the survey included information such as the respondent’s gender, age, ethnicity, citizenship/residence, religion, and education level. The purpose of the demographic portion was to help provide information on the background of the respondents. The total number of Palestinian survey respondents was 32 with 78.1
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!