abstractThis thesis shows examination of the Israel-Palestine conflict. There are three central research questions of this thesis: From a constructivist perspective, what is the main obstacle to a just peace in Israel-Palestine? What is the mechanism through which the Israel-Palestine conflict can be resolved? What is required of the Palestinians in order to facilitate this process? In context of Islamic Studies, the aim of this thesis is to demonstrate why Palestinian non-violence would be more conducive to their liberation struggle than violent resistance. In the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, a just resolution has been obstructed by the competition that exists between the norms of self-determination (central to Palestinian claims) and self-defence (central to Israeli concerns). With the norm of self-defence predominant in the ‘peace process’, Palestinian use of violence has increasingly become detrimental to their struggle for self-determination. This reformulation, based on context and objectives, will make a critical contribution to generating the requisite international support for the norm of self-determination for the Palestinians, without compromising the norm of self-defence for the Israelis.

CONCLUSION The Israel-Palestine conflict has continue for almost a century now. Within the international community,the Israel-Palestine conflict is a critical issue.The main obstacle to a just peace in Israel-Palestine is that Europeans, Americans, and other Westerners acknowledge the importance of the Israel-Palestine conflict international relations. The main mechanism through which the Israel-Palestine conflict can be resolve by the issue of competing norms: self-determination, central to Palestinian aspirations, versus self-defence, central to Israeli concerns. This thesis has shown, however, that unlike the case of South Africa where a single international norm of racial equality was salient, a significant obstacle in the case of Israel-Palestine is the presence of competing norms. The Palestinians need in order to facilitate this process is that they needetohave guts and bravery in order to take back their country. They also need to be given the right to lead their own country back. In order to achieve peace between these two countries, they must be given many aspects of supports- money, soldiers, du’a and support from the UN countries.

What are Israel and Palestine

Israel is an officially Jewish country located in the Middle East. Palestine is a set of two physically separate, ethnically Arab and mostly Muslim territories alongside Israel: the West Bank, named for the western shore of the Jordan River, and Gaza. Those territories are not independent (more on this later). All together, Israel and the Palestinian territories are about as populous as Illinois and about half its size.Officially, there is no internationally recognized line between Israel and Palestine; the borders are considered to be disputed, and have been for decades. So is the status of Palestine: some countries consider Palestine to be an independent state, while others (like the US) consider Palestine to be territories under Israeli occupation. Both Israelis and Palestinians have claims to the land going back centuries, but the present-day states are relatively new.

How did this conflict start in the first place

Why does this violence keep happening

RESOLUTIONSThere are three ways the conflict could end. Only one of them is both viable and peaceful — the two-state solution — but it is also extremely difficult, and the more time goes on the harder it gets.There are three ways the conflict could end. Only one of them is both viable and peaceful — the two-state solution — but it is also extremely difficult, and the more time goes on the harder it gets.

One-state solutionThe first is to erase the borders and put Israelis and Palestinians together into one equal, pluralistic state, called the "one-state solution." Very few people think this could be viable for the simple reason of demographics; Arabs would very soon outnumber Jews. After generations of feeling disenfranchised and persecuted by Israel, the Arab majority would almost certainly vote to dismantle everything that makes Israel a Jewish state. Israelis, after everything they've done to finally achieve a Jewish state after thousands of years of their own persecution, would never surrender that state and willingly become a minority among a population they see as hostile.

Destruction of one side

The second way this could end is with one side outright vanquishing the other, in what would certainly be a catastrophic abuse of human rights. This is the option preferred by extremists such as Hamas and far-right Israeli settlers. In the Palestinian extremist version, Israel is abolished and replaced with a single Palestinian state; Jews become a minority, most likely replacing today's conflict with an inverse conflict. In the Israeli extremist version, Israel annexes the West Bank and Gaza entirely, either turning Palestinians into second-class citizens in the manner of apartheid South Africa or expelling them en masse.

Two-state solution

 The third option is for both Israelis and Palestinians to have their own independent states; that's called the "two-state solution" and it's advocated by most everyone as the only option that would create long-term peace. But it requires working out lots of details so thorny and difficult that it's not clear if it will, or can, happen. Eventually, the conflict will have dragged on for so long that this solution will become impossible.