While the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has raged for decades, in all of its ramifications there has never been a totally structured or scientific approach to the conflict with all of its details. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approaches the problem along these lines. There are a plethora of reasons why the traditional face to face negotiations have broken down over the years. This paper identifies a significant number of those impediments and indicates how the AHP can productively address them. A summary of the highlights of the AHP approach precedes how it has been applied to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. To date, the participants, significant members of both communities, have derived and agreed upon a solution that includes all the major issues, except for the refugee problem. That problem is currently being worked on, but will take an extended period because of the unique factors involved. What has been provided is an agreed upon solution to virtually all of the issues impeding past negotiations, including borders, settlements, the status of Jerusalem, the Holy Places, security and expectations of each side.
A great deal of international attention and funding was given to reform and training of the Palestinian Authority Security Forces (PASF), starting with the Oslo Accords process in 1993 and accelerating with the advent of Fayyadism and the expulsion of the Palestinian Authority government from Gaza in 2007. Many donors and other supporters in the US, the EU, and Israel claimed this process as a success story, and indeed from 2008–2010 local conditions looked hopeful in the fragile, post-conflict West Bank proto-state. But soon unresolved political conflicts inside the West Bank encouraged patronage-based violence to reemerge within the security forces, and the fractured approach of the international community aggravated the situation. By 2013 reform had stalled. This article explores the history of patronage politics in the PASF and uses the Palestinian example to highlight the tensions inherent in contested visions of security, when international donors define success in terms of anti-terrorism rather than genuine domestic security governance.