What is the biggest barrier to peace in the conflict between Israel and Palestine?

The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most enduring and complex disputes in modern international relations. Despite numerous peace initiatives and negotiations, a sustainable resolution remains elusive.

Source - Mohammed Ibrahim

This article looks at, arguably, one of the biggest barriers to peace – the asymmetry of power between the Israel and Palestine, which influences every aspect of the conflict. While many analyses focus on the breakdowns of specific peace agreements, this article seeks to understand why these agreements continue to fail by examining the broader structural inequality that exists between the two sides.

This article is divided into three sections. First, it examines the international backing of Israel, particularly the military and diplomatic support from the United States, and how this has contributed to the asymmetry of power. Second, it explores the fragmentation and weakness of Palestinian leadership, which further hinders meaningful negotiation. Finally, this article considers the different perceptions on the conflict held by both the population and the wider international community, and how this reinforces the status quo. Together, these sections show that the lack of peace is not just about failed diplomacy, but about a deeply rooted and ongoing imbalance that must be addressed to move forward.

Israel and Its Support from the International Community

Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has received unprecedented support from the West, more specifically, from the United States. Even before the formal establishment of the state of Israel, Jews had support from a Western nation: during the years of the British mandate (1922-1948), even though both Jews and Arabs were living under British power, Jews were recognised as a nation whose rights were guaranteed by the Mandate, while the Palestinians were not. This legal asymmetry continued to persist post-1948; Israel had internationally recognised borders, its own territory, a clear political agenda, a defined foreign policy, and a powerful army, whilst Palestinians still had to fight to be recognised as a nation. And unlike Israel, which was receiving support from Britain, military equipment from France and economic support from the United States after 1948, Palestine was left to fend for itself, not with an army but with mere militant groups that had formed.

The United States (US) has been the biggest financial supporter of Israel since World War 2. The data collected from the fiscal year 1946 – 2020 shows that the US has given $146,265.110 billion worth of aid to Israel. This aid can be separated into military, economic and missile defence aid, with military assistance accounting for the largest portion. Interestingly, the amount given during the first half of this period was relatively small: the US offered limited economic and military support to Israel, averaging around $63 million annually. It wasn’t until US President Lyndon Johnson saw the potential for Israel to be a pro-Western barrier against the advances of the Soviet Union in the Middle East that the US invested heavily to make Israel become a strategic ally. Israel’s military capabilities were seen as a valuable asset that could be used to further the American agenda in the Middle East; US support skyrocketed around this period (from $30 million in 1970 to $545 million in 1971).

Alongside this financial support, the US has diplomatically supported Israel through its permanent membership in the United Nations Security Council, where it has blocked resolutions against Israel on numerous occasions. Since the start of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, which began on October 7^th, 2023, the US has blocked resolutions for a permanent ceasefire at least three times.

Not only has this diplomatic and financial support prevented Israel from being scrutinised by one of the leading international organisations and allowed Israel to become a major player in the global economic and international system. But it has also affected the US’s position as an impartial mediator between the two countries. In the quest for peace between countries, it is common for a third-party country to mediate peace agreement talks; in the case of Israel and Palestine, this has been mostly the US. But, with the countless agreements between Israel and the US, and the shared interests, it is fair to assume that the US may not have been as impartial as it should have been in these discussions. For instance, the talks held by the US President, Bill Clinton, between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at Camp David in 2000 failed, and the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, and President Bill Clinton blamed the Palestinian Authority chairman, Yasser Arafat, claiming that Arafat lacked the capability to conclude a permanent deal, refusing to acknowledge the difficult terms which Israel had offered. Thus, this has negatively affected the peace process between Palestine and Israel.

However, since the most recent conflict began on October 7^th, 2023, both the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice have opened cases regarding the Israel and Palestine conflict. The International Criminal Court has since put out a warrant for the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Hence, Israel has begun to receive scrutiny from key players in the international system.

This extensive and sustained support from powerful Western states – especially the United States – has not only provided Israel with significant military, economic, and diplomatic advantages but has also entrenched a fundamental imbalance in the peace process. While Palestinians struggle for international recognition and face severe constraints, Israel negotiates from a position of strength, often with the backing of its closest allies. This power disparity is not just military or financial, but institutional and political, shaping the terms of engagement and limiting the possibility of a truly equitable peace. Ultimately, the international backing of Israel reinforces the asymmetry of power that remains the central obstacle to a just and lasting resolution to the conflict.

Fragmentation and Weakness of Palestinian Political Leadership

The Palestinian leadership has historically lacked political cohesion and institutional strength, and the international support necessary to negotiate on an equal level with Israel. Unlike interstate conflicts, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an intergroup conflict by nature but continues to be treated with the traditional diplomatic frameworks, which are ill-suited to deal with the unique situation in this region. Within this structure, the absence of a unified political system from the Palestinian side has allowed others to frame their leadership as unwilling to cooperate in the peace processes.

The Oslo Accords, while at first sight seemed promising, ultimately highlighted this weakness. The power granted to the Palestinian Authority through the Oslo Accords was not properly utilised: the Palestinian Authority failed to deliver meaningful improvements to the lives of Palestinians, which led to growing frustrations and contributed to the start of the Second Intifada. Israel used the uprising as an opportunity to justify further restrictions and security measures, further weakening the Palestinian negotiating position. Moreover, Israel has been able to exploit and further internal Palestinian divisions between Palestinians in different regions of Palestine to prevent the formation of a cohesive front. 

The internal fragmentation has also decreased the legitimacy of the Palestinian leadership in the eyes of international observers and their own people. This, alongside the lack of a single, representative authority, has made it even harder for a peace agreement to be formed. In contrast, Israel continues to present itself as a stable actor, further distorting the balance of power in any diplomatic setting.

Thus, the weakness within the Palestinian leadership not only reflects the broader asymmetry of power but also deepens it, limiting the chance for a sustainable, just peace.

Israeli vs Palestinian Perceptions of the Conflict

Another significant, yet often overlooked, barrier to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict is the varying perceptions of the war held by both populations and by the wider international observers.

These perceptions are more than just a matter of differing narratives; they are rooted in the structural power imbalance that frames how the conflict is understood, represented and responded to. While many Israelis, particularly those aligned with right-wing politics, believe their country has made excessive concessions to Palestinians, Palestinians living under Israeli occupation often view these same actions as insufficient.

This disparity in perception creates widespread frustration among civilians on both sides. For Israelis, security remains a dominant concern, and concessions are widely seen as security risks. The assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, after his perceived compromises in the Oslo Accords (OA), is a clear example of how internal divisions over peace initiatives have obstructed progress. Yet for the Palestinians, the Oslo Accords were seen as inadequate, failing to deliver tangible improvements like the end of occupation, sovereignty, or enhanced living conditions. The disappointment and frustration that come from these unmet expectations have contributed to periodic uprisings such as the Second Intifada, which worsened tensions and undermined diplomatic initiatives.

The unequal power dynamic allows Israel to maintain control over key aspects of the conflict – borders, airspace, movement and natural resources – while still being able to frame itself as being committed to peace. Israeli governments and much of Israeli media, especially on the right, tend to portray the conflict as a security issue, focusing on threats from Palestine (and recently Hamas) and framing Palestinians as the main obstacle to peace. This narrative, largely accepted by Western allies, positions Israel as having repeatedly offered peace only to be rejected.

Comparatively, Palestinians view the conflict as one defined by structural violence and dispossession. However, due to their weaker diplomatic position and fragmented leadership, their perspective is often sidelined internationally. As a result, Palestinian demands, such as the right of return and the end of occupation, are frequently dismissed as radical or unrealistic. This imbalance in narrative control ensures that Israel faces limited international pressure to alter its approach, further embedding the asymmetry of power at the centre of the conflict.

Conclusion

Understanding this imbalance is essential to breaking the cycle of failed peace efforts. Too many lives have already been lost in a conflict that has spanned generations. It is therefore not a regional concern but a moral and political responsibility of the international community, especially those nations that played a role in the founding of Israel, to actively find a just and equal solution. Only by addressing the structural roots of the inequality can there be any hope of lasting peace.