Decolonization as reconciliation: rethinking the national conflict paradigm in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

ABSTRACT

This paper argues that thinking about reconciliation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a paradigmatic shift in conflict analysis. The international community has approached the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a national conflict between Zionism, as the national movement of the Jewish people, and the Palestinian National Movement. The partition plans proposed from before 1947 until the recent “two-state solution” formula have all been based on this assumption. I argue that the premise of national conflict is fundamentally flawed, and, therefore, reaching a settlement based on partition – let alone reconciliation – is becoming increasingly unlikely. A new paradigm (in the Kuhnian sense) is needed that applies a settler-colonial framework to the conflict while also taking into consideration the national component. Reconciliation in this conflict is conceived as decolonization within a transitional justice framework. This approach overcomes major pitfalls in the hegemonic discourse on reconciliation in this conflict, including the symmetrical analysis and psychologizing the process.

KEYWORDS:

• Reconciliation
• Israel
• Palestine
• settler colonialism
• decolonization
• national conflict

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Note specifically that the author refers not to Israelis or Israeli Jews, but to Jews in general.