One conflict. This struggle for internal and external

One of the most long-drawn-out and continuous
struggles in the contemporary world is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This
struggle for internal and external authority by Israel and the struggle for control
of an Arab state by Palestine is perhaps the most evident example of the
conflict perspective in the field of International Relations. It is also one of
the most obvious examples of the use of economic, political, cultural or
religious pressures to control or influence other countries in today’s world. Frantz Fanon and Mahatma
Gandhi are two individuals who have developed a significant body of theoretical
work on the subject of colonization. Fanon’s viewpoints on violence and the mindset of the colonized can be significantly
applied to the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli
colonization in the region has caused and brought large-scale violence and
turmoil, and the ongoing war between the two sides, according to Fanon, is the
inevitable result of the political and social oppression of the Palestinians by
the European Jewish populations. Amidst this violent conflict, however, people
believe a Gandhi approach to the situation might be the solution: a
non-violence resistance.

            Fanon,
like Marx, uses logical arguments to present the inescapable contradiction that
the two classes of colonial society, the colonist and the colonized, have.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Fanon argues that the efforts at decolonization “set out to change the order of the world,” (Fanon, 1965) and therefore “are clearly an agenda of disorder” (ibid). The Palestinians have caused disorder by resisting and
attempting decolonization to Israeli’s attempts to control the regions of its West Bank and the Gaza Strip. To
add to it, the two sides were unsuccessful and failed to agree on the peace
agreements for the reason that the conflict and contradictions are not
resolvable within the current Israeli state. Even though the Oslo accords
required recognition of both groups and their states, the truth of the situation
is that neither one recognizes the other: “the Palestinians, have not, in fact recognized the legitimacy of the
national rights” of the Jewish state (Kuperwasser &
Lipner, 2011). Fanon writes that the only way for the colonized to overcome
their oppression is to have the determination “to smash every obstacle encountered” (Fanon, 1965). Therefore, the reason for failure for groups such as
Fatah, who support the two-state solution, is because they do not seek to solve
the conflicts and problems through violence and the dissolution of Israel.

            There
has been dissatisfaction with political groups such as Fatah for taking
moderate approaches. One example of such moderate approaches would be the rise
of Hamas, after the 2005 parliamentary elections, as the prominent governmental
body in the Gaza Strip. There has been a loss of power for “moderate” Palestinian political parties since they have not been able to form and
create an internationally recognized Palestinian state. This has led to the
resurgence of more radical parties such as the Palestinian Liberation
Organization (PLO), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP),
Hamas, and Hezbollah. The violence has only increased and intensified as the
Palestinian majority is continuously oppressed politically, socially, and
economically by the Israeli minority. The lack of representation of the
Palestinians in the Jewish Knesset denies the Palestinian constituency to have
a sufficient voice in Israeli politics. Similarly, during the Algerian
revolution, Fanon documented similar radicalization. Fanon observed that parliamentary
groups with more nationals were defeated by the popularity of radical groups
such as the National Liberation Front.

            Fanon
is different from Marx and his Marxist theory because Fanon believes that
violence is not only a “midwife of
history” (Kebede, 2001). To Fanon, violence
is not just a method to steer in the next social order, but he believes that
violence also serves as a catharsis for the suppressed, or the colonized. Fanon
believes that the masses suffer psychologically of inferiority when a gradual approach
is taken for the colonial situation. Fanon recommended violence for reasons
surpassing the necessity of self-defense or the removal of a rotten social
system. He sees violence as a necessary therapy for a cultural disease brought
about by colonial subjugation” (ibid). For
Fanon, violence against Israel is not only inevitable, but also therapeutic and
beneficial.