The track two diplomacy and its contribution to the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo peace process

  • Fouad Nohra Paris Cité University, 5 Rue Thomas Mann, Paris 75013, France

Abstract

Track two diplomacy is designed to deal with conflicts that are deemed to be intractable, because the rational calculation of the antagonists leads to a zero-sum game. Track two diplomacy is non-official, it acts on the perceptions and beliefs and is expected to change the way each actor perceives their strategic interests and threats to their core values. We apply the conceptual frames derived from track two diplomacy theories to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it was a typical case of an intractable conflict transformed with track two diplomacy initiatives. Successful track two diplomacy initiatives were initiated by a third party that socialised the antagonistic elites – i. e. US official and non-official actors, or think tanks. They were combined with track one-and-a-half diplomacy, with an effect on the track one, i. e. the official diplomatic negotiations on peace. Nevertheless, that did not lead to the in-depth transformation on the grassroots level advocated by peace and conflict resolution organisations.

Author Biography

Fouad Nohra, Paris Cité University, 5 Rue Thomas Mann, Paris 75013, France

doctor of science (political philosophy), professor (Maître de conférences HDR-HC) in political science; professor at the department of law, economics and management, faculty of societies and humanities

References

  1. Nohra F. Le conflit israélo-palestinien a la lumière des élections de 2006. Enjeux Diplomatiques et Stratégiques. 2007;3(1):83–99.
  2. Davidson W, Montville J. Foreign policy according to Freud. Foreign Policy. 1981;45(4):145–157.
  3. Walter B. Explaining the intractability of territorial conflict. International Studies Review. 2003;5(4):137–153.
  4. As’ad Razzouk. The greater Israel: a study of expansionist thought. Beirut: PLO Research Centre; 1968. 663 p. Arabic.
  5. Melamid A. The Shatt al-‘Arab doundary dispute. Middle East Journal. 1968;3:350–357.
  6. Collier P, Hoeffler A. Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers. 2004;56(4):563–595.
  7. Etienne B, Sraïeb N. Bourguiba et Israël. Annuaire de l’Afrique du Nord. 1966;4:151–162.
  8. Raz A. The generous peace offer that was never offered: the Israeli cabinet resolution of June 19, 1967. Diplomatic History. 2013;37(1):85–108. DOI: 10.1093/dh/dhs004.
  9. Schelling TC. The strategy of conflict: with a new preface by the author. Harvard: Harvard University Press; 1980. 309 p.
  10. Zartmann W, Touva S. International mediation: conflict resolution and power politics. Social Issues. 1985;41(2):27–45.
  11. Seale P. La Syrie et le processus de paix. Politique étrangère. 1992;57(4):785–796.
  12. Behrendt S. The secret Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in Oslo: their success and why the process ultimately failed. London: Routledge; 2007. 157 p.
  13. Nohra F. Stratégie Américaines pour le Moyen-Orient. Paris: Al Bouraq; 1999. 145 p.
  14. Nohra F, Kamal MM. The decision-making process in European Union and the Euro-Arab relations. Beirut: Centre for Arab Unity Studies; 2001. 280 p. Arabic.
  15. Coleman P. Intractable conflicts. In: Deutch M, Coleman P, Marcus E, editors. The handbook of conflict resolution. New Jersey: Jossey Bass; 2006. p. 533–560
  16. Darwaza M. Izzat Palestine’s tragedy. Beirut: Dar al-Yaqza al-‘Arabiya li al-Tarjama wa al-Nashr; 1959. 132 p. Arabic.
  17. Asch SE. Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied. 1956;70(9):1–70.
  18. Kogan N, Wallach M. Risky-shift phenomenon in small decision-making groups: a test of the information-exchange hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1967;3(1):75–84.
  19. Herman E, Chomsky N. Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the mass media. New York: Random House; 2010. 716 p.
  20. Della Porta D. Causal mechanisms in civil wars. In: Della Porta D, Donker TH, Hall B. Social movements and civil war: when protests for democratisation fail. London: Routledge; 2017. p. 23–40.
  21. Zielińska K. Israel’s periphery doctrine: prospects for defining and studying a foreign policy practice. Politické vedy. 2020;20(2):219–245.
  22. Arian A, Arian A. Security threatened: surveying Israeli opinion on peace and war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995. 308 p.
  23. Hirschfeld YP. Track two diplomacy toward an Israeli-Palestinian solution, 1978–2014. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Centre Press; 2014. 470 p.
  24. Nan SA. Track one-and-a-half diplomacy: contributions to Georgia-South Ossetian peacemaking. In: Fisher RJ, editor. Paving the way. Lanham: Lexington Books; 2005. p. 161–173.
  25. Mapendere J. Track one-and-a-half diplomacy and the complementarity of tracks [Internet; cited 2022 February 9]. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Track-One-and-a-Half-Diplomacy-and-the-of-Tracks-Mapendere/4ed0f69423fe5651611f44210f1411b659ecf022.
  26. Diamond L, McDonald J. Multi-track diplomacy: a systems guide and analysis. Iowa: Peace Institute; 1991. 182 p.
  27. Wallensteen P. Understanding conflict resolution. Newbury Park: Sage; 2018. 320 p.
  28. Kaye DD. Talking to the enemy: track two diplomacy in the Middle East and South Asia. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation; 2007. 167 p.
  29. Fisher R. Analysing successful transfer effects in interactive conflict resolution. In: Fisher R, editor. Paving the way: contribution of interactive conflict resolution. New York: Lexington; 2005. p. 3–20.
  30. Chamberlin PT. Shuttle diplomacy and its impact on the Middle East. In: Macmahon RJ, Zeiler TW, editors. Guide to US foreign policy: a diplomatic history. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 2012. p. 260–280.
  31. Mearsheimer J, Walt S. The Israel lobby and US foreign policy. Middle East Policy. 2006;13(3):29–87. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4967.2006.00260.x.
  32. Cuhadar E. Assessing transfer from track two diplomacy: the cases of water and Jerusalem. Journal of Peace Research. 2009;46(5):641–658. DOI: 10.1177/0022343309336706.
  33. Lederach JP. Building peace: sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington: United States Institute of Peace; 1997. 197 p.
  34. Gross O. Mending walls: the economic aspects of Israeli-Palestinian peace. American University International Law Review. 1999;15:1539–1626.
  35. Gidron B, Katz S, Hasenfeld Y. Mobilising for peace: conflict resolution in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine and South Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002. 290 p.
  36. Hermann T. The sour taste of success: the Israeli peace movement, 1967–1998. In: Gidron B, Katz S, Hasenfeld Y. Mobilising for peace: conflict resolution in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, and South Africa Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002. p. 94–129.
  37. Li D. The Gaza strip as laboratory: notes in the wake of disengagement. Journal of Palestine Studies. 2006;35(2):38–55. DOI: 10.1525/jps.2006.35.2.38.
  38. Nohra F. The Arab world between the dismantlement process and the culture of the dismantlement. In: Research and Strategic Studies Centre. Conflict and transformation contraditions: 7th Regional congress. Beirut: [s. n.]; 2017. p. 286–306. Arabic.
  39. Liga A. Israel and Iraqi Kurds in a transforming Middle East [Internet; cited 2022 Febrary 9]. Available from: https://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iaiwp1634.pdf.
  40. Wehrey F, Thaler DE, Bensahel N, Cragin K, Green JD. Dangerous but not omnipotent: exploring the reach and limitations of Iranian power in the Middle East. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation; 2009. 223 p.
  41. Sawâni Y. The Arab public opinion trend toward the question of Arab unity. Beyrouth: Centre for Arab Unity Study; 2014. 254 p. Arabic.
Published
2022-06-23
Keywords: track two diplomacy, multitrack diplomacy, track one-and-a-half diplomacy, peace and conflict resolution organisations, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, transfer effect
How to Cite
Nohra, F. (2022). The track two diplomacy and its contribution to the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo peace process. Journal of the Belarusian State University. International Relations, 1, 19-30. Retrieved from https://journals.bsu.by/index.php/internationalRelations/article/view/4716
Issue
No 1 (2022): Journal of the Belarusian State University. International Relations
Section
International relations

Copyright (c) 2022 Journal of the Belarusian State University. International Relations

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The authors who are published in this journal agree to the following:

  1. The authors retain copyright on the work and provide the journal with the right of first publication of the work on condition of license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
  2. The authors retain the right to enter into certain contractual agreements relating to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g. post it on the institutional repository, publication in the book), with the reference to its original publication in this journal.
  3. The authors have the right to post their work on the Internet (e.g. on the institutional store or personal website) prior to and during the review process, conducted by the journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion and a large number of references to this work. (See The Effect of Open Access.)