The Israeli-Palestinian conflict—or to put it more narrowly, the Palestinian Problem—constitutes one of the most complex international problems and most difficult to solve. Traditionally, the Middle East was at the epicenter of the interest of the great powers because of its strategic position at the periphery of Eurasia and due to its large oil reserves.
In a volatile Middle East torn apart by the Syrian Civil War and the cruel actions of the so-called Islamic State, the Palestinian problem constitutes another source of imminent conflict and instability. Everyone can imagine the devastating consequences that a new crisis between Hamas and Israel or a violent Third Intifada will bring about in the region.
China as a great power and permanent member of the United Nations Security Council must assume a greater role in the peace process. Traditionally China has been a fervent supporter of international ethics and human rights. Currently, China follows a balanced stance regarding the Palestinian Problem, although in the past Chinese leaders as Mao Zedong and Den Xiaoping supported the rule of self-determination for the Palestinian people by providing both funds and weaponry to the PLO. (1) However, in the 1990s China started to develop an advanced commercial activity with Israel. (2)
More specifically, China contributes to the construction of a US$2 billion, 300 kilometer freight link connecting Eilat on the Red Sea with Ashdod in the Mediterranean. (3) This project, called “Red-Med” shows the mutual economic interdependence between the two countries.
However, the good relations between China and Israel did not prevent the Chinese government from supporting the 67/19 resolution of the General Assembly of the UN that upgraded Palestine to a non-member state in the United Nations in November 2012.
Consequently, China is in a position to be an honest broker in any future negotiations in the Middle East. It is well known that China wants to join the Middle East Peace Quartet in order to support the peace-process between Israelis and Palestinians. (4) Obviously, if China joins the Quartet it will enhance its great power status and on the other hand it may induce the Quartet to assume a more active intervention to the conflict.
From a geopolitical perspective, China’s involvement in the Middle East is seen by many as a counterbalance to the American hegemonic attitudes in the region. According to the theory of International Politics, great powers tend to seek opportunities in order to maximize their aggregate power and balance rival great powers. (5) China is not an exception to this diachronic norm of international politics. As a great power with the second largest economy in the world it will seek to promote its influence in the Middle East.
A further involvement by China in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by supporting the peace process may help Israelis and Palestinians to reach a comprehensive agreement based on the two-state solution. Such a development would be of great strategic importance because it will restore the balance of power in the region in a way that will help great and regional powers to confront transnational terrorism and other threats for the the sub-system of Middle-East.
Footnotes:
1.Why China Must Pay Attention to the Israel-Palestine Conflict, July 19 2014, available from http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/why-china-must-pay-attention-to-the-israel-palestine-conflict/
2. Fred Halliday, The Middle East in International Relations: Power, Politics and Ideology, Cambridge, 2005
3. The algemeiner, Joshua Levitt, March 24, 2014
4. China Wants to Join Middle East Peace Quartet, January 15 2014, available from http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/china-wants-to-join-middle-east-peace-quartet/
5. John.J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, W.W. Norton & Company, New York 2003.
Nick Panayiotides the problem with calling it the Palestinian Problem is that it implies that the Palestinians are responsible for either the problem, or the solution, or both. And as long as that’s the framing, there cannot be a solution, because the solution is excluded from the frame. If, on the other hand, one calls it the struggle against Apartheid, or the Israeli problem, or the divided Palestine problem, then the solution lies within the framing, where people can see and feel it.
Richard Pearce With this logic, using the term The Cyprus Problem means that the only responsible for the problem are the natives Cypriots and not Turkey who invaded the island in 1974. In any case, bear in mind that the term " The Palestinian Problem" is an accepted term in the terminology of the IR field. Nothing more to say.
Nick Panayiotides and there again, the framing issue. ‘Invading’ a place to counter another ‘invasion’, to prevent one group of ‘natives’ from killing another group of ‘natives’, does, as you say, involve other actors, not just those who live on Cyprus, but in this case the solution lies in the hands of BOTH the Greek Cypriats and the Turkish Cypriats, if they were allowed to solve it. But the way you frame the problem is a reflection of the way you perceive the problem, and often perpetuates the problem. I once came across a situation where a guy’s bike was stuck partway into an interlocking comb style exit only gate. He was fustrated because he saw the problem as his bike being stuck in the gate that was designed not to turn backwards, which was the obvious solution (turning the gate backwards) from his frame. The maintenance guy saw the problem as his gate being blocked by the bike stuck in it, and was fustrated because the side of the gate prevented him from removing the bike from the bars of the gate. I saw the problem as a guy trying to get his bike through the gate, but not knowing how, so, with both their consents, pushed the bike further onto the bars of the gate, and walked it through. That’s the importance of not getting trapped inside a frame that excludes the solution.
With all due respect to the author, a comprehensive agreement based on the two-state solution would NOT be "of great strategic importance" and would NOT "restore the balance of power in the region" for a very simple reason:
Currently there are dozens of conflicts in the Middle East — cross-border wars, civil wars, rebellions, revolutions, massacres, etc. — that had nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Dear friend, the imbalance in the region was provoked because in 1947 the partition plan of the UN provided for two states, one Jewish and one Palestinian. Regardless whose fault was this, the Palestinian stated never established. The ensuing political reality provoked 5 Arab-israeli wars and other local crises with the involvement of other regional powers, hundreds of deaths, refugees, terrorism. Even Osama bin Laden invoked the Palestinian problem to justify his 9/11 attack. This in an open wound in the Middle East that it can burst out at any time.
Probably your mentioning the Jihadits of the " Islamic State". However they do not constitute a permanent force in the Middle East but a temporary that in a few months or one-two year will disappear…. Regarding the Syrian Civil War, its roots go back to the European colonialism.Divide and reule policies and etc. But these are akin roots that created the Israeli-palestinian conflict. In the end i would agree with you that the Israeli-palestinian conflict its not the sole problem in the Near East.