The case for Arab-Israeli normalization during conflict

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the normalization procedures that have been practiced in the Arab-Israeli conflict since the 1990s and to challenge the role ‘normalization’ has played in the field of conflict resolution. We argue that western theories of conflict resolution are mainly based on dyadic sequential processes that do not fully take into account the political-socio-cultural reality of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Moreover, during the past generation the Arab-Israeli conflict has been constructed through at least four multi-dyadic conflicts that have been in a constant state of transformation. The paper shows that, in the context of the Middle East, complete normalization is also not a necessary condition for a peace settlement In this paper we examine the different channels of normalization that have been developed between Israel and the Gulf and Maghreb countries which operate on diplomatic, economic, cultural and even military levels without the existence of a formal peace settlement Finally, we argue that both normalization and reconciliation can take place before, during and after a peace settlement, if this happens at all, has been achieved. Normalization is a tool that can build trust and shared interests and can ultimately contribute to the chances of signing peace agreements.