Analyzing the Israel–Palestine Conflict: Management & Escalation
Explore an academic analysis of the Israel–Palestine conflict, focusing on credible commitment problems, escalation cycles, and mediation efforts.
COM 3084 | Baruch College
Escalation, Credible Commitment, and Conflict Management
The Israel–Palestine Conflict
Daniel Gelman | Professor De Ycaza | April 2026
INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT ANALYSIS
CENTRAL QUESTION
How can international conflict management strategies address cycles of escalation and credible commitment problems in the ongoing Israel–Palestine conflict?
THESIS ARGUMENT
Asymmetric power perceptions and credible commitment issues undermine trust in negotiated agreements — making compromise feel dangerous for both sides.
Long-term resolution requires institutional systems that improve transparency, security guarantees, and accountability for violations.
COM 3084 | Baruch College
CONFLICT ANALYSIS
TYPE: INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT
THE CONFLICTING PARTIES
NATURE OF THE CONFLICT
State of Israel, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), right-wing and centrist political coalitions
Palestinian Authority (West Bank), Hamas (Gaza Strip), Palestinian civilian population
United States, Egypt, United Nations, Arab League, regional powers
Territorial disputes over Gaza, West Bank, Jerusalem
National identity & self-determination claims
Security concerns & asymmetric military power
Conflicting historical narratives
Humanitarian crisis (civilian casualties, displacement)
COM 3084 | Baruch College
ESCALATION DYNAMICS
A repeating cycle of violence and temporary ceasefire
Trigger Event
Rocket attacks, military operations, political provocations
Escalation
Military strikes, civilian casualties, international outcry
International Pressure
UN resolutions, US mediation, Arab League calls
Ceasefire / Pause
Temporary halt, humanitarian corridors
Breakdown
Trust collapse, renewed violence → back to Step 1
Rather than being fully resolved, the conflict cycles between active violence and brief ceasefires — a pattern known as conflict management, not conflict resolution.
COM 3084 | Baruch College
MEDIATION EFFORTS
Third-party interventions and their limitations
United States
Primary peace broker
Oslo Accords, Camp David 2000, Abraham Accords 2020
Perceived pro-Israel bias
Egypt
Ceasefire negotiator
2012, 2021, 2023 ceasefire deals
Limited leverage over Hamas
United Nations
Humanitarian aid & resolutions
UNRWA, Security Council resolutions
US veto blocks binding action
Arab League / Qatar
Regional diplomatic pressure
Arab Peace Initiative 2002
Divergent member interests
COM 3084 | Baruch College
NEGOTIATION & CREDIBLE COMMITMENT
Why agreements collapse before implementation
THE CREDIBLE COMMITMENT PROBLEM
Both sides fear concessions will be exploited before reciprocal actions occur
Asymmetric power makes Palestinian compromises feel existential
Israeli domestic politics punish leaders who make territorial concessions
Neither side can reliably bind future governments to current agreements
KEY NEGOTIATION FAILURES
1993
Oslo Accords
framework agreed, implementation failed
2000
Camp David
final status issues unresolved
2008
Annapolis Process
collapsed with Gaza war
2014
Kerry Initiative
broke down over settlements
2023–Present
Post-October 7
hostage/ceasefire talks stalled
COM 3084 | Baruch College
RESOLUTION PROCESSES UNDERWAY
Current conflict management strategies in practice
Ceasefire Negotiations
Qatar & Egypt brokering hostage-for-ceasefire deal
Temporary humanitarian pauses for aid delivery
No permanent ceasefire as of 2025
Two-State Solution Framework
International consensus supports Palestinian statehood
Settlement expansion undermines viability
Palestinian Authority governance reform required
International Legal & Humanitarian Pressure
ICJ proceedings on Gaza
ICC warrants issued
UNRWA operations and humanitarian corridors ongoing
These are conflict MANAGEMENT tools — they reduce violence temporarily but do not address structural root causes.
COM 3084 | Baruch College
CONCLUSION & PATH FORWARD
Conflict Management ≠ Resolution
Ceasefires and pauses manage violence but don't address root structural causes
Institutional Solutions Needed
Transparency, security guarantees, and accountability mechanisms are essential for durable peace
Trust-Building First
Third-party enforcement and incremental confidence-building are needed to overcome credible commitment fears
The path to peace requires not just political will — but structural systems that make keeping agreements safer than breaking them.
Daniel Gelman, COM 3084
Baruch College | COM 3084 | Professor De Ycaza | April 2026
- international-relations
- conflict-management
- peace-negotiations
- israel-palestine
- credible-commitment
- political-science
- academic-presentation