Summary

The decisions adopted by international actors have had a determining influence on the configuration and persistence of various armed conflicts. In this context, this article analyzes the role played by the main global powers in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, with emphasis on their geostrategic, economic and diplomatic interests. The study employs a systematic literature review, based on official sources and specialized literature. The findings show that the United States (US), Russia and China have implemented policies aimed at defending their own interests, which, far from contributing to a peaceful solution, have intensified and prolonged the confrontation. This dynamic highlights the dissonance between the diplomatic discourse of the powers and their actions on the ground, which hinders the achievement of a lasting peace in the Middle East region.

Keywords: Palestine, Israel, U.S., international powers, geopolitical influence, foreign intervention, armed conflict.

Introduction

The Palestinian-Israeli armed conflict has been going on for almost a century and, in recent years, has gained considerable prominence in international politics. This situation responds to the growing awareness of the regional conjuncture, driven by the wide dissemination of information through various social networks, which has made it possible to observe the significant increase in violence in the area of dispute and in nearby populations. As a consequence, the confrontation directly and indirectly affects the peaceful relationship between the nations involved.

In this context, it is relevant to refer to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which highlights the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), aimed at improving various social areas to achieve a prosperous future.^[1] Specifically, SDG 16, which is part of the 2030 Agenda, addresses the need for States to have strong institutions, as well as peace and justice in the societies that comprise them. However, the problem studied, which threatens peace in the Middle East, involves several world powers, including the USA, China and the European Union (EU), as well as influencing the international relations of both neighboring countries and other global actors, which hinders stable coexistence among those involved.

The countries with the greatest authority in the international arena have played a key role in the course of the confrontation, as their policies and actions have an impact on the evolution of the dispute and its possible solutions. The US, for example, adopted a supportive stance towards Israel, providing it with large-scale military, economic and political aid. For its part, the EU has managed the situation by maintaining a balanced position, not applying sanctions to the Israeli invasion, but providing humanitarian support to Palestine.^[2] In the case of Russia and China,^[3] Seale points out that these states maintain historical relations with the Arab nations, intervening with support in the conflicts they maintain with Israel; however, this strategy of collaboration responds mainly to the intention of securing their influence in the Arab territories. Therefore, the following research question arises: What is the role of world powers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

As part of the background, it is relevant to note that the U.S., as a power, has played a fundamental role in several international conflicts, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict being one of the scenarios in which it has been involved. In this sense, U.S. representatives have publicly declared specific amounts of collaboration with Israel; however, this economic assistance is usually used for the acquisition of military weapons from the donor country itself, and currently it has been agreed that the aid w ill continue at least until the year 2028. ^[4]

Another aspect to consider is the diplomatic influence on the peace process. Garcia^[5] argues that there are agreements in place between Israel and the US, in which mutual protection and support is agreed upon in the event that either side becomes involved in wars or smaller scale international conflicts. This places the US as a provider of war assistance to Israel, which, however, delays the possibility of engaging in a dialogue for the end of the conflict. Khalidi^[6] argues that mutual defense agreements allow Israel to maintain its occupation in Palestinian territories, given that the US maintains constant military aid to the Israeli state, which shows that these actions on the part of the power hinder a prompt solution to the armed confrontation.

Based on the above, this article evaluates the role played by the most influential nations in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. A qualitative methodology was employed for the research, in order to distinguish, through the position of the main actors, the reality in which they find themselves.^[7] Likewise, grounded theory is resorted to, which allows delving into the central aspects of the case to obtain a new perspective on what was investigated. Interpretive theory is also incorporated, which facilitates a better interpretation of theoretical sources and the identification of trends in the actors analyzed.^[8] All of this is applied to the research setting, where the problem is primarily located.^[9] Likewise, the epistemology adopted corresponds to a critical interpretivism, recognizing the influence of power structures and social constructions in the configuration of the actors and their actions in this context.

Finally, the purpose of the article is to delve into the power that large international entities exert in the dispute and the way in which this power is manifested. It is hoped that the research will contribute to the awareness of the significance of the influences of these countries with respect to the less developed states, so that the resolution or prolongation of the conflict depends on the power nations, whose collaborative actions shape the course of the confrontation. Consequently, it is posited that those involved in the contest, both internal and external, must renounce their particular interests in the area; otherwise, the confrontation will persist for a longer period of time.

U.S. Influence on the Development and Resolution of the Conflict

To explore this point further, it is pertinent to analyze how the US began to exert influence on the international scene. After the Cold War, the US nation consolidated itself as the main world power, especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union (USSR), which allowed it to exercise significant dominance in global politics.^[10] From this context, the US assumed an active role in several subsequent conflicts, including the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, where its intervention has been relevant. It would be expected that its participation would reflect a balanced stance, without favoring one side only; however, since the creation of the State of Israel, the US has shown affinity with this state, relegating Palestine. As a result, the US provides military and economic support to Israel, which gives the latter a considerable advantage over Palestine.

In relation to its intervention in the dispute, Mearsheimer and Walt^[11] explain that the armament provided by the US to Israel corresponds to state-of-the-art technology, placing the Israeli state in a superior position vis-à-vis its adversaries. Likewise, Sharp points out that, in terms of economic support, Israel receives approximately one- fifth of the total US foreign aid budget, which amounts to about $140 billion, mainly for missile defense and military assistance. In the realm of attempted peace treaties, while the US supports these processes, there is clear favoritism towards Israel. For example, during the Trump administration, agreements were promoted that included the recognition of Jerusalem as part of Israel, which generated distrust among the Palestinian population and called into question U.S. impartiality as mediator.^[12]

In summary, the influence exerted by the US in the development of the conflict, both through the supply of armaments and economic assistance, is undeniable. Contrary to expectations, its contribution has not been impartial, as it has marginalized Palestine and has generated a marked inequality of conditions. The following is a more in-depth analysis of the relevant aspects of the U.S. role in the Palestinian-Israeli war, ranging from its policy of military and economic support to its role as mediator in the peace processes.

Inequality in U.S. Foreign Policy towards Israel and Palestine

Foreign policy represents a key element in the development of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as it defines the nature and scope of the assistance that can be provided in the different areas of the dispute. However, the US has adopted a pro-Israel stance, influenced by various factors ranging from political interests to cultural considerations, which has generated tensions between the Arab territories and undermined peaceful coexistence in the region.

Torres argues that U.S. diplomacy is conditioned by multiple elements, including the influence of the Jewish community residing in the country and the active participation of large interest groups. The author explains that, given the open nature of U.S. policy, various associations manage to incorporate their objectives into the State’s international agenda. In addition, U.S. foreign policy responds to its own benefits, such as access to energy resources in the conflict zone and the implementation of geopolitical strategies, factors that have a direct impact on its positioning with respect to the war. Along these lines, Urqueta (2011) adds that the US perceives the conflict as an opportunity to test its military weapons, taking advantage of the geographical distance from its own territory. Thus, the assistance provided would be motivated mainly by the strategic advantages derived from its intervention.

A relevant example is the so-called “deal of the century”, promoted during the Trump administration between 2017 and 2021. Although the treaty was presented as a viable solution for both parties, various specialists have pointed out that it significantly favors Israel. Levin^[13] notes that the agreement grants Israel a considerable portion of Palestinian territory, including the West Bank, which would leave Palestine with a fragmented space. For his part, Martinelli^[14] interprets the pact as a strategy of regional domination, by consolidating Israeli hegemony to the detriment of Palestinian aspirations.

In short, there is evidence of a clear inclination of U.S. foreign policy towards Israel, manifested since the beginning of the bilateral relationship. During the Trump administration, there was a setback in peace proposals by excluding Palestinian leaders from negotiation processes, revealing the scant recognition accorded to the Palestinian state. In addition, US foreign policy tends to be modified according to its own interests in the region, relegating the humanitarian component and perpetuating inequality between the parties involved.

U.S. Military and Economic Aid to Israel

US intervention in the international arena has been characterized by its persistence and scope, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no exception. For the US power, participation in armed disputes responds to the protection of strategic interests, especially economic ones, which contribute to regional stability and strengthen alliances with its partners.^[15] The diplomatic relationship between the US and Israel, established since the 1960s, has brought multiple benefits for the Israeli state, among which economic and military support, a constant in US foreign policy, stands out. This support has materialized through significant financial assistance; Horton^[16] notes that such aid amounts to billions of dollars annually, enabling Israel to maintain an advanced weapons capability in the region. In addition, the U.S. government supplies state-of-the-art defense technologies, including anti-missile systems such as the Iron Dome. In this way, U.S. military collaboration strengthens Israel’s security and military power, while highlighting Washington’s strategic interests in the region.

In the military sphere, U.S. assistance constitutes a recurrent element in the conflict, considering the situation of permanent tension in which Israel finds itself with respect to Palestine and other countries in the region. Bonilla^[17] argues that, in recent years, the tensions with Iran in arms and nuclear matters, as well as the conflicts with Palestine, have motivated the US to represent a fundamental support in the development of the Israeli arsenal, providing state-of-the-art war material. This support has allowed Israel to modernize its armament and enter the defense market, assuming an advantageous position in the Middle East vis-à-vis other states, thanks to the benefits derived from the alliance with the US.

On the economic level, US support has been a determining factor in the strengthening of Israel, constituting a strategy to consolidate bilateral relations and exert significant influence over Israeli territory. This long-standing financing has been the object of criticism due to the magnitude of the figures announced by US authorities and international media. According to BBC News and Horton,^[18] the US has committed thirty-eight billion dollars in aid to Israel in less than ten years, in addition to funds earmarked for the resettlement of migrants on Israeli territory. These sums, both those granted in the past and those planned for the future, represent a key factor in the development and consolidation of the Israeli state.

It is therefore relevant to point out the power and influence that the US exercises over the countries of the Middle East, the case of Israel being a paradigmatic example. The American power has become a decisive provider for the development of nations in similar situations, motivated by economic and diplomatic interests that underlie the assistance offered. Thus, the main objective of US policy is to strengthen its position in the Middle East, ensuring access to strategic benefits and consolidating its influence over the states of the region, even when the support is not direct.

U.S. Role as Mediator in Peace Processes

U.S. involvement in the Palestinian-Israeli peace processes has been the subject of criticism due to its unconditional support for Israel, which has generated imbalances and mistrust in the negotiations. For decades, a tilt towards Israeli interests has been observed, often to the detriment of the rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Canevari^[19] notes that while the future of the conservative sector in Israel is uncertain, it would not be surprising if a new US statement undermines international consensus. The systematic veto exercised by the US in the United Nations (UN) Security Council against resolutions critical of Israel, as well as the lack of significant pressure on the Israeli government to stop the expansion of illegal settlements in Palestinian territory, have weakened the credibility of the US as a neutral mediator in the conflict.

For his part, Aguirre^[20] argues that, in the name of the principle of achieving peace solely through negotiations, the principle of the UN Charter prohibiting the acquisition of territory by force is violated, thus allowing Israel to continue with a policy of fait accompli. This lack of impartiality has generated mistrust both among Palestinians and the international community, weakening efforts to achieve a just and lasting solution to the conflict. Bosemberg^[21] argues the need to end the US monopoly as “mediator” in the negotiations and to organize an international conference that includes all the actors involved. The absence of balance and neutrality has been a constant source of criticism, as the ability of the US to act as an impartial and effective mediator in the resolution of the conflict is questioned.

From this perspective, U.S. partiality and support for Israel have been determining factors in the debate over its role in the Palestinian-Israeli peace processes. Consequently, in order to achieve significant progress towards a sustainable and equitable peace in the region, it is imperative to promote a more balanced and objective US participation in the negotiations.

Impact of Global and Regional Powers on the Dynamics of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

In the complex armed conflict between Palestine and Israel, the role of global powers has been critical. The US, for example, has implemented interventionist methods, mainly through economic and military support, in order to exert control in the region. For its part, China has opted for a diplomatic approach, establishing international relations and defining strategies that prioritize political and economic influence.^[22] In this way, both powers have influenced the political, economic and military dynamics of the region. As the crisis deepens, various nations and regional blocs have adopted positions that reflect their strategic and geopolitical interests, acquiring prominence due to the influence they exert on the development of the conflict.

In this context, it is essential to understand how the powers of the eastern region, together with other global actors, have configured alliances and rivalries in the conflict. According to Martinelli,^[23] among the powers neighboring the countries in dispute, Turkey and Saudi Arabia stand out, nations that have experienced a notable development and increase in their regional influence, and that maintain a marked affinity with the U.S. On the other hand, Iran adopts a position of opposition to U.S. influence and, although it maintains a certain neutrality, it shows an inclination towards China. The decisions of these states have been decisive for the evolution of the conflict and its repercussions on regional stability, as they involve their own interests and take advantage of opportunities derived from the situation.

Thus, the influence of the powers and surrounding countries, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as global players such as the US, China and the UK, is a decisive factor in the armed conflict between Palestine and Israel. This influence has affected both the development of the confrontation and the search for peaceful solutions or alternatives for amelioration. Therefore, analyzing the role played by other nations in foreign situations is essential to understand the current context and the various prospects for the future in the Middle East region.

Russia’s Political, Economic and Strategic Motivations in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Since the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the Russian Federation has sought to reassert its influence on the international scene, considering the Middle East as a strategic space for its global projection. Moscow’s presence in this region is key due to its impact on international relations and the configuration of regional alliances. Through its support for Middle Eastern countries, the Russian government seeks to position itself as a relevant actor in Arab politics, both through diplomacy and through military interventions, with the aim of counteracting US influence in the area.^[24] This approach allows it to strengthen ties with Arab countries and consolidate its role as a mediator in regional conflicts.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict also becomes important from an economic perspective, as regional stability is essential for securing investments and maintaining trade relations. By supporting Palestine and other disputed states, Russia seeks to open opportunities for advantageous trade agreements, especially in a context of global competition for resources and markets. Rullansky^[25] emphasizes that this strategy includes the establishment of bases in the Mediterranean, which strengthens the Russian presence in the region. At the strategic level, Moscow’s position in the conflict allows it to expand its military and political influence in the Middle East. Its support for Palestine and interaction with groups such as Hamas are ways to counter its adversaries, including Israel, which, according to Martinelli,^[26] maintains a greater affinity with the US. In addition, the Kremlin seeks to strengthen alliances with countries that oppose Western hegemony, which gives it greater control over regional dynamics.

In view of the above, Russia’s motivations in the Palestinian-Israeli dispute are articulated around diplomatic, strategic and economic interests. By supporting the Palestinian cause, the Russian state not only seeks to reaffirm its political and economic influence in the region, but also to consolidate its strategic position vis-à-vis other global players. Its actions in this regional contest reflect geopolitical ambitions and the purpose of regaining a leading role in the international arena, as Waltz points out, cited by Rullansky.^[27]

China’s Interests and Diplomacy in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.

China, as an emerging power with a growing global presence, has adopted a strategic approach regarding the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. Its intervention is distinguished by the defense of economic interests and active diplomacy aimed at regional stability. Beijing’s interest in this geopolitical area responds to the need to secure energy resources and expand its trade network. This geographic space is crucial for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), an ambitious infrastructure and connectivity project that seeks to strengthen economic ties with countries in Asia, Europe and other areas.^[28] In this sense, stability in the Middle East is vital to guarantee the supply of oil and gas, as well as to facilitate global trade.

At the same time, the Asian giant seeks to consolidate its political influence by supporting the Abraham Accords, which normalize relations between Arab states and Israel,^[29] reinforcing its profile as a regional mediator. By expressing its support for Palestine, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) strengthens its ties with developing nations and projects an image as a defender of the self-determination of peoples. Beijing’s diplomatic strategy in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute has been characterized by the promotion of a multilateral and balanced approach. China has consistently advocated dialogue and negotiation as legitimate avenues for the resolution of the dispute.^[30] Through its participation in multilateral forums such as the UN, it has taken an active role in defending the rights of the Palestinian people, promoting resolutions aimed at condemning violence and occupation. This attitude projects an image of strategic impartiality, which is particularly important in a context where the U.S. is perceived as sympathetic to Israeli interests.

China’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is therefore driven by economic priorities and active diplomacy. As it seeks to expand its influence in the Middle East, its balanced approach and commitment to regional development enable it to strengthen ties with Arab countries, while promoting a framework of international cooperation aimed at stability and peace. This attitude contrasts with the image projected by other powers, positioning China as a reliable actor and strategic ally in the region.

EU Contribution to the Promotion of Peace

The EU has established itself as a key player in international peace processes, playing mediation roles in various scenarios and promoting stability in regions affected by violence. Since its creation, the EU has promoted economic and political integration among its member states, as well as the extension of principles of cooperation and dialogue beyond its borders. In addition, its focus on diplomacy, development and humanitarian assistance has enabled the organization to position itself as a benchmark in dispute resolution, from the Balkans to the Middle East and Africa.

According to Iñarritu,^[31] through policies that integrate the promotion of human rights, support for democracy and the promotion of sustainable development, the European bloc has sought to address the structural causes of conflict and facilitate the construction of a peaceful global order. This commitment to peace and security is reflected in its active participation in negotiations, its support for peacekeeping missions and its ability to influence key players in the international system, underscoring the relevance of the EU entity in current peace processes.

In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, the EU has adopted an active position as a facilitator of dialogue and promoter of initiatives aimed at a peaceful solution to the problem. Gonzalo^[32] highlights that its influence is sustained by the economic weight of the bloc, its adherence to fundamental principles and its interest in preserving geopolitical stability in the Middle East. Among the most relevant contributions of its participation, the humanitarian and financial support destined to the Palestinian territories stands out. Through various international cooperation programs, the organization seeks to improve the social and economic conditions of the Palestinian population, while promoting the strengthening of its institutions.

EU Position on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The EU’s position on the Palestinian-Israeli armed conflict has historically been complex and multidimensional, reflecting the diversity of views among its member states, as well as its aspiration to play a constructive role in the search for peace. Over time, the organization has maintained a firm commitment to the two-state solution, supporting both the right of the Palestinian people to form an independent state and the right of Israel to live in peace and security. However, this position has faced challenges and criticism both internally and externally.

The European bloc has distinguished itself for its defense of dialogue and negotiation, considering that a lasting peace can only be achieved through an inclusive process. According to Alvarez,^[33] this approach translates into consistent support for diplomatic initiatives, such as peace conferences and mediation efforts. The EU has urged Israel to halt the expansion of settlements in occupied territories, considering these actions an obstacle to peace and contrary to international law. In addressing these violations, the EU seeks to send a clear message: respect for human rights and UN resolutions is essential to any viable solution.

Despite the above, the EU’s position has been criticized for its lack of forcefulness. Although it condemns certain Israeli policies, it maintains trade and political ties with the state, which various sectors consider incongruent with its stated commitment to justice and equity. In this regard, Jones,^[34] in an interview with the UN Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese, warns that the EU’s inaction in the face of Israeli transgressions contributes to perpetuating impunity and reflects a “disconnect” between European leaders and broad sectors of the public, who have repeatedly demanded a ceasefire in Gaza.

Moreover, the diversity of views among member states further complicates the formulation of a unified foreign policy. Some countries maintain close ties with Israel and may be reluctant to support decisions that are perceived as hostile.^[35] This internal division weakens the EU’s ability to act decisively and effectively, limiting its influence on the peace process.

EU Humanitarian Aid Mechanisms and Diplomatic Initiatives.

The EU plays a fundamental role as a mediator in the promotion of peace both among its member countries and with its strategic partners. A relevant example is the relationship it maintains with Israel, a nation that, although not part of the EU, has trade agreements with its member states. This relationship explains the EU’s interest in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, despite relations with the Israeli state, EU support policies are mainly oriented towards the Palestinian population, considering Israeli actions in Palestinian territories as a violation of the human rights of the affected inhabitants.^[36]

The European Council^[37] reports that the EU has allocated €1.1 billion in assistance to the Palestinian people, enabling the coverage of essential needs. This amount represents an approximation of the financial assistance provided since 2000. However, as of 2023, the EU established a specific spending plan of approximately €941 million for the Palestinian population, ensuring continuity of support in the region.

Regarding the nature of the assistance, the EU focuses its efforts mainly on the provision of food, water, medical care and shelter, crucial elements for the protection of the civilian population from attacks. In addition, as of October this year, the EU has coordinated flights with humanitarian cargo destined for the conflict zone.^[38] With regard to child protection, the European Commission^[39] notes that approximately 34 million euros have been allocated to safeguard the rights and welfare of Palestinian children. These actions are essential, as the escalation of violence resulting from the occupation increases the vulnerability of the population, which reaffirms the importance of European intervention.

Consequently, the EU maintains a constant support to the Palestinian population, contributing to partially balance the development of the conflict. However, the absence of a unified foreign policy among all its members makes it difficult to adopt a fully neutral stance or to focus exclusively on humanitarian considerations. On the other hand, Israel enjoys the almost unconditional backing of the US, which reinforces the relevance of the EU in the context of the war. Thanks to its diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives, the Palestinian population has managed to resist the growing violence. Although the EU’s approach favors the search for a peaceful and equitable solution, the escalation of the conflict has led it to assume a more defined position in defense of human rights and the protection of civilians.

Critical EU Position on the Israeli Occupation of Palestine

The EU has consistently expressed its rejection of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, due to the evident asymmetry of power between the two parties. This inequality is partly explained by the fact that Israel has a professionalized army, while Palestine relies mainly on its civilian population, which lacks the necessary training for national defense. The first element motivating the EU’s disapproval lies in the fact that, since 1967, Israel has occupied territories populated by Palestinians, specifically the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.^[40] However, Zeidan argues that these territories are also part of Israeli history, an argument used to justify the occupation. For this reason, the debate persists on the legality and legitimacy of the Israeli intervention in these territories. In this context, the EU positions itself in favor of the most affected party, i.e. Palestine.

In connection with its position, the EU calls the attention of the State of Israel for violating international law by expanding into Palestinian territory and transferring its civilian population to these settlements, in breach of the Geneva Convention, resulting in the creation of settlements considered illegal.^[41] In recent years, the community institution has urged Israel to cease expansion in the occupied territories, considering that this measure is the only way to achieve lasting peace in the region. Similarly, part of the international aid is hindered, putting the target communities at risk and aggravating the tension between the parties, with negative repercussions for the Palestinian population.^[42]

The blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip represents a prolongation of the humanitarian crisis affecting the Middle East. For this reason, the EU authorities qualify the consequences of this conflict as unsustainable and call for the lifting of the blockade as an indispensable condition for an adequate solution. However, the EU also directs criticism at the Palestinian authorities, whom it singles out for alleged acts of corruption and administrative shortcomings, which hinders bilateral negotiation and the effective representation of the interests of the Palestinian population.^[43] Despite these limitations, the EU maintains its support for the Palestinian population, both economically and diplomatically.

Consequently, the EU’s criticism is justified by the persistent violation of international norms and human rights affecting the civilian population in the context of the conflict and its prolongation. Although European efforts, both economic and humanitarian, are significant, their impact is limited by the lack of unity among the nations involved. It is worth noting, however, the EU’s continued commitment to the protection of the Palestinian population, in contrast to the military support provided by the US to Israel.

Conclusions

The analysis developed in the first chapter allows us to affirm that the role of the US in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is decisive. US influence, based on its status as a global power, has influenced the course of the war through military and economic support that favors one of the parties. However, US foreign policy, centered on the supply of arms and resources, has intensified the violence in the region, while restricting dialogue to only one of the actors involved. As a result, the supposed mediating role of the U.S. has been distorted, prioritizing its strategic interests over the search for sustainable peace. Therefore, there is a clear need for international governments to promote true inter-institutional compromise processes aimed at the welfare of the affected population.

With respect to the second chapter, it is concluded that the conflict between Palestine and Israel is of considerable geopolitical importance, as it attracts the intervention of various powers. China and Russia, important players on the international scene, have expressed their interest through diplomatic strategies that seek to strengthen their influence in the disputed territory. Both nations have modified the dynamics of the conflict through alliances and positioning that pursue strategic advantages and project an image of mediation and equity. However, the competition between these powers poses significant obstacles to reaching a lasting solution. Conflict transformation will therefore depend on the ability of the participating states to cooperate in building a peace that respects the rights and aspirations of both communities.

The third chapter shows that the EU has played a crucial role in the promotion of international peace, assuming functions of mediation and defense of democracy and human rights, with an emphasis on diplomacy. The EU has established itself as a relevant actor in the management of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; however, it faces both internal and external challenges, such as the absence of a unified foreign policy and ambiguity in its condemnation of Israeli actions. In this context, it is imperative that the EU adopts a more coherent and determined stance to consolidate itself as a legitimate mediator, maintaining its humanitarian and diplomatic support in order to improve the living conditions of the affected population and bring about a just and lasting solution. Only in this way can it emerge as an agent of change in promoting peace and stability in conflict- affected regions.

In general terms, the study confirms that the conflict between Palestine and Israel constitutes a central axis in contemporary geopolitics, as it involves both the actors directly affected and global powers interested in exerting regional influence. It confirms that the intervention of the United States has contributed to the prolongation of the violence and has diverted attention from the genuine search for a peaceful solution. At the same time, powers such as China and Russia, motivated by strategic interests, have made it difficult to reach a definitive resolution. For its part, the EU has not been able to consolidate itself as an effective mediator due to internal obstacles and the lack of a cohesive foreign policy, which limits its impact on the peace process. In this sense, it is clear that a sustainable resolution of the conflict requires that the powers adopt more coherent and committed approaches to the defense of human rights, relegating their particular interests in favor of regional stability.

Endnotes

1. Unesco, “Education for Sustainable Development Goals: learning objectives”, 2017, UNESCO, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444 ↑
2. Ruth Hilary y Steven Ruth, “Israel, Europe and the academic boycott”, Race & Class 50, no. 1 (2008): 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396808093298; Elton Gjevori, “Israel-Gaza war: The EU’s rush to defend Israel ‘undermines its moral authority’”, Middle East Eye, October 24, 2023, https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-gaza-war-eu-rush-defend-undermines-moral-authority. ↑
3. Patrick Seale, Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), https://books.google.com.pe/books?id=Z_rlPwgezoUC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false. ↑
4. Jonathan Masters y William Merrow, “U.S. Aid to Israel in Four Charts”, Council on Foreign Relations, May 31, 2024, https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts. ↑
5. Carlos García, “EEUU e Israel: la fortaleza de una relación”, Real Instituto Elcano, November 14, 2023, https://media.realinstitutoelcano.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/eeuu-e-israel-la-fortaleza-de-una-relacion.pdf. ↑
6. Rashid Khalidi, Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. has Undermined Peace in the Middle East (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014), https://books.google.com.pe/books?id=LHYPnxwPnlwC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false. ↑
7. Joseph Maxwell, Diseño de investigación cualitativa (Barcelona: Editorial Gedisa, 2019), https://books.google.com.pe/books?hl=es&lr=&id=ZLewDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd. ↑
8. Carlos Kwan y María Alegre, “Teoría interpretativa y su relación con la investigación cualitativa”, Revista UNIDA Científica 7, no. 1 (2023): 46–52, https://revistacientifica.unida.edu.py/publicaciones/index.php/cientifica/article/view/139. ↑
9. Sharan Merriam y Elizabeth Tisdell, Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2016), https://books.google.com.pe/books/about/Qualitative_Research.html?id=JFN_BwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y. ↑
10. Daniel Goure, “The Measure of a Superpower: A Two Major Regional Contingency Military for the 21st Century”, The Heritage Foundation, January 25, 2023, https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-measure-superpower-two-major-regional-contingency-military-the-21st-century. ↑
11. John Mearsheimer y Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007), https://books.google.com.pe/books?id=2iUdyQs_NhYC&pg=PT26&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false. ↑
12. CNN en Español, “Plan de paz de Trump para Israel y Palestina, ¿‘acuerdo’ o ‘bofetada del siglo’?” YouTube video, January 28, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWtea9pVIHU. ↑
13. Karen Levin, “Algunos apuntes en torno al ‘Acuerdo del Siglo’ de Trump”, Anuario en Relaciones Internacionales del IRI (2020), https://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/117403. ↑
14. Mariana Martinelli, “Força e consentimento: Palestina, Estados Unidos e Israel”, Ciência & Trópico 47, no. 2 (2023): 13–28, https://doi.org/10.33148/CETROPv47n2(2023)art1. ↑
15. María Aguirre, “La mediación imposible de EE UU en el conflicto palestino-israelí”, Afkar/Ideas, December 21, 2014, https://www.iemed.org/publication/la-mediacion-imposible-de-estados-unidos-en-el-conflicto-palestino-israeli/. ↑
16. James Horton, “Conflicto israelí-palestino: cuánto dinero recibe realmente Israel de Estados Unidos”, BBC News Mundo, May 24, 2021, https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-57226981.amp. ↑
17. Brenda Bonilla, “Tensiones políticas, intereses estratégicos y realidades discursivas: el caso Israelí-Iraní y el tema nuclear” (tesis de maestría, FLACSO Ecuador, 2015), Repositorio Digital FLACSO Ecuador, http://hdl.handle.net/10469/10784. ↑
18. James Horton, “Conflicto israelí-palestino: cuánto dinero recibe realmente Israel de Estados Unidos”, BBC News Mundo, May 24, 2021, https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-57226981.amp. ↑
19. Guido Canevari, “¿Por una Trump Tower en los Altos del Golán?: los consensos internacionales en el conflicto palestino-israelí y la administración de Donald Trump”, Anuario en Relaciones Internacionales del IRI (2019), https://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/96389. ↑
20. María Aguirre, “La mediación imposible de EE UU en el conflicto palestino-israelí”, Afkar/Ideas, December 21, 2014, https://www.iemed.org/publication/la-mediacion-imposible-de-estados-unidos-en-el-conflicto-palestino-israeli/. ↑
21. Lucía Bosemberg, “El conflicto palestino-israelí. Una propuesta para la negociación”, Colombia Internacional 69 (2009): 142–161, http://journals.openedition.org/colombiaint/17834. ↑
22. Mariana Martinelli, “La geopolítica euroasiática frente al imperialismo: China, Estados Unidos y Medio Oriente (s. XXI)”, XIV Jornadas de Sociología, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, 2021, https://www.aacademica.org/000-074/439. ↑
23. Ibid. ↑
24. Ignacio Rullansky, “La intervención militar de Rusia e Israel en el conflicto sirio en 2018: condiciones de una alianza compleja en un nuevo contexto”, Anuario en Relaciones Internacionales del IRI (2018), https://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/98510. ↑
25. Ibid. ↑
26. Mariana Martinelli, “Força e consentimento: Palestina, Estados Unidos e Israel”, Ciência & Trópico 47, no. 2 (2023): 13–28, https://doi.org/10.33148/CETROPv47n2(2023)art1. ↑
27. Ignacio Rullansky, “La intervención militar de Rusia e Israel en el conflicto sirio en 2018: condiciones de una alianza compleja en un nuevo contexto”, Anuario en Relaciones Internacionales del IRI (2018), https://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/98510. ↑
28. Ana De Silveira, “Los acuerdos de Abraham y la visión de China”, Anuario en Relaciones Internacionales del IRI (2022), https://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/145371. ↑
29. Ibid. ↑
30. Mariana Martinelli, “Força e consentimento: Palestina, Estados Unidos e Israel”, Ciência & Trópico 47, no. 2 (2023): 13–28, https://doi.org/10.33148/CETROPv47n2(2023)art1. ↑
31. Beatriz Iñarritu, “La actualidad institucional y económica de España en el marco de la Unión Europea”, Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto 69 (1997): 207–221, https://doi.org/10.18543/ced.2815. ↑
32. Alejandro Gonzalo, “¿Refugiados de primera o segunda clase?”, Relaciones Internacionales 36 (2017): 31–50, http://hdl.handle.net/10486/680177. ↑
33. Isabel Álvarez, “España, Israel y Palestina: encuentros y desencuentros”, Hispania 79, no. 261 (2019): 221–248, https://doi.org/10.3989/hispania.2019.008. ↑
34. Michael Jones, “La UE debe suspender lazos con Israel para detener el genocidio en Gaza’, según la relatora de la ONU”, Euronews, April 10, 2024, https://es.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/04/10/la-ue-debe-suspender-lazos-con-israel-para-detener-el-genocidio-en-gaza-segun-la-relatora-. ↑
35. Isabel Álvarez, “España, Israel y Palestina: encuentros y desencuentros”, Hispania 79, no. 261 (2019): 221–248, https://doi.org/10.3989/hispania.2019.008. ↑
36. Alicia Manero, “La Unión Europea y los asentamientos israelíes en Palestina”, Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo 54 (2016): 595–628, http://dx.doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rdce.54.05. ↑
37. Consejo Europeo, “Ayuda humanitaria de la UE a los palestinos”, October 11, 2024, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/es/policies/eu-humanitarian-support-to-palestinians/#0. ↑
38. Ibid. ↑
39. Comisión Europea, “EU increases humanitarian assistance for Palestine to over €34 million”, May 24, 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/it/ip_21_2670. ↑
40. FRANCE 24 Español, “Israel acelera la ocupación de territorios palestinos pese al rechazo internacional”, YouTube video, August14, 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpK3Rmit9zQ. ↑
41. Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos, “Convenio de Ginebra relativo a la protección debida a las personas civiles en tiempo de guerra”, August 12, 1949, https://www.ohchr.org/es/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/geneva-convention-relative-protection-civilian-persons-time-war. ↑
42. Parlamento Europeo, “Propuesta de resolución sobre las perspectivas de la solución de dos Estados para Israel y Palestina”, December 9, 2022, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2022-0556_ES.html. ↑
43. Reinoud Leenders, Spoils of Truce: Corruption and State-Building in Postwar Lebanon (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), https://books.google.com.pe/books?id=8KAiRCdzV_cC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false. ↑