Discuss the use of distinction of “enduring rivalries” for the study of conflict and war. Given the definition, the conflict between Israel and Palestinians might not technically be an enduring rivalry, but we still call it one, and it seems to exhibit all of the other features of enduring rivalries. Why does this case warrant special treatment? Additionally, discuss the other conflicts examined from the perspective of enduring rivalries. Which ones clearly are enduring rivalries according to the definition, and which ones have some, but not all of the characteristic features? Does this change our ability to apply theories of conflict initiation, does it change our ability to use different levels of analysis, or does it simply mean that some theories or levels of analysis are more likely to explain more of the decision to initiate conflict because of the enduing rivalry status of the dyad? Be sure to fully explain what, if anything, is different in the use of level of analysis and the applicability of certain theories. Finally discuss what theory and level of analysis most clearly and fully explains each of the enduring rivalries and explain how being an enduring rivalry has impacted the application of the theory and the level of analysis.
