Introduction
This article analyzes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, deconstructing established patterns and highlighting the recurrence of historical errors. The key to resolving the dispute lies in acknowledging the perspectives of both sides and abandoning the illusion of "conflict management." An analysis of pivotal moments—from Oslo to 2025—proves that lasting peace requires real concessions and international engagement. You will learn how the geometry of resistance and shifts in regional power dynamics have shaped today's security architecture.
Conflict Law, Narratives, and the First Intifada
In the law of armed conflict, proportionality does not mean a symmetry of casualties, but rather the prohibition of causing civilian harm that is excessive in relation to the military advantage. It is a cold calculation, not a blood balance. This conflict is also a clash of two "liturgies" of memory: the Israeli Atzmaut (the heroism of regaining agency) and the Palestinian Nakba (the catastrophe of losing land). Understanding these narratives is a prerequisite for diplomatic "recognition."
The First Intifada (1987) was a turning point that changed the geometry of resistance. Thanks to global broadcasts, the occupation ceased to be an abstraction and became visible violence. Public opinion entered the stage, imposing a moral language for evaluating the conflict. In this context, the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist, leading to the Oslo Accords—a moment of "ripeness for negotiations" when the cost of the impasse outweighed the price of compromise.
From Oslo to the Rift: Hamas and Structural Failures
The Oslo Accords (1993-1995) introduced a transitional logic that proved to be a "suspended bridge." The peace process was destroyed by two factors: the expansion of Israeli settlements and Hamas attacks. The Camp David Summit (2000) ended in failure due to a lack of agreement on Jerusalem and refugees, triggering the Second Intifada and the construction of the security barrier.
The unilateral withdrawal from Gaza (2005) created a laboratory of dual interpretation: Israel declared an end to the occupation, while Palestinians experienced a blockade. Hamas's takeover in 2007 led to a Palestinian rift. The division between Gaza and the West Bank paralyzed negotiations, depriving leaders of a full mandate for talks. The conflict entered a phase of ritualistic wars, serving merely as a "reset of the clock" for deterrence.
Geopolitics, the Abraham Accords, and the Role of the ICJ
The Abraham Accords (2020) revolutionized the region—Arab states chose technology and security over traditional solidarity with Palestine. Powers stepped into this vacuum: the USA is losing its ability to dictate the agenda, Iran sponsors the "axis of resistance," and China and Russia position themselves as alternatives to the West. 2024 brought a legal offensive—the actions of the ICJ and ICC set new boundaries for the criminal liability of decision-makers.
The "frozen conflict 2.0" scenario involves administering collapse, which erodes humanitarian norms. An alternative is international trusteeship over Gaza, requiring Palestinian Authority reform and the participation of Arab states. Normalization with Saudi Arabia remains crucial; as a "geopolitical big bang," it could force a path toward Palestinian statehood in exchange for regional security guarantees.
Summary: Breaking the Cycle of Violence
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to lure successive generations into dead ends. The year 2025 shows that the illusion of conflict management has collapsed. Today's decision-makers must correct the mistakes of the past: ignoring demographics, making contradictory promises, and applying half-measures. Can we create a new geometry of peace? Perhaps the key is not a perfect solution, but the courage to ask ourselves what we are willing to sacrifice to break this vicious cycle of violence.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF