Al-Quds Divided: The Politics of Hatred

Feroze K

I agree with your analysis. America follows the Woodrow Wilson principle only in name... it follows a most Machiavellian course not just metternichian realism in reality.

Yasser

A well written article on a forgotten issue on Chowk. Please dear Madam, also comment on the possible repercussions of announcing a Palestinian state at this point in time.

Thankyou

Yasser Latif Hamdani

Miss Ammara Durrani:

Welcome to the Chowk! Permit me to first react in light of the following passage. You wrote:

``As Fred Halliday points out, the Arab-Israeli conflict is multi-dimensional. It involves conflicts of confession, settler-native antagonism, territorial claims, nationalistic rivalries, theological differences and finally interstate tensions. Because of these complexities it would be too simplistic to see it in the context of a universal conflict on the lines of Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations’ or the Islam vs. the West theory. Rather it needs to be studied within a broader structure of international processes.``

In this passage, it is not clear where Professor Halliday`s views end and your own start. If the entire passage represents Halliday`s views, I really wonder why he would limit the study of Palestinian-Israeli conflict to only broader structure of international processes. I wonder if a global-local dialectical analysis would have much relevance to the issue at hand. Am I trying to create an unnecessary tension in your/his analysis?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. I must admit, I have not yet read your entire (short) article.

Dear Ms. Durrani,

I think Middle East peace process is on right tracks. Both parties understand that the process is now irreversible. The hurdles and a string of impasse that you mentioned in your article are a part of a process to reach a mutually agreed final Social Contract.

So far Mr. Arafat has been using the Palestinian State card very wisely, which I think, is the only political card that he has other than the street power. The good thing is that he will always have this card.

Your concerns about peace without justice are notable. Logically, there wont and there cant be peace without justice. So it does not matter if US is a impartial broker or not. It is just as simple as that.

Re: Ammara

First of all welcome to Chowk!

I detected a note of anguish in your article as if you really wanted fairness to win over injustice!

American self interests are closely tied with Israeli security interests and American will never compromise the physical security of Israel to appease some Arab nations. I think that Temporal is right and if a person understands American foreign policy egoism, the ebb and flow of weltpolitik makes perfect sense. American foreign policy is dedicated to the proposition that America is primius inter pares in IR and UN not withstanding, Washington is the place where the rules of the game are decided!

Before you cry, ``murder most foul`` please remember that United States, though it may preach Wilsonian democracy in its foreign affairs, practices Metternichian realism.

This will never change and the American interests will always come before the welfare of the world!

Ciao!

My Dear Ms. Durrani:

You undercut your own argument by making Rabbi Kahane your `evidence` of Israeli intolerance. He was regarded by most Israeli`s as a dangerous lunatic and did not, I believe, function in any official capacity in the Israeli government. For every one of his rants against Arabs, I am sure that Zionists can find a hundred by various Arab Imams, Sheikhs and what-nots.

Israel`s is not a particularly tolerant or enlightened colonialism but then its track record on such things is much better than that of the regional Arab (and non-Arab) powers. Ask the Kurds about how `nice` are the various regional governments. Or the Bahais. Why do Druze serve in the Israeli Army? Or how about the Copts in Egypt? The list is endless! Why is it that all the Muslim/Pakistani commentators (I assume you are Pakistani) are the firt to cast stones at the Israelis and the West and conveniently ignore our own, much worse, sins?

But enough about this. On to the issue at hand. The US was never an impartial peace-broker so its role cannot seriously be said to have been undermined. The issue is very simple actually: given the complete weakness of the Palestinian position, what can Arafat hope to walk away with from the bargaining table?

Not a whole heck of a lot. He will have to be content with whatever scraps the Israelis throw his way. The only `solution` is for him to declare another Intifada, accept several hundred if not thousand Palestinian casualties, and wait for the West to, finally, put the squeeze on the Israelis. This will eventually happen as their policy makers feel more and more guilty about the daily beatings and shootings they will see on their TV screens. Its kind of rough on the dead and beaten Palestinians, but hey so is life in the Occupied West Bank and other territories (including the ``liberated`` ones). Nothing else is going to work.

So why doesn`t Arafat do this? Because he realized that if he condones such a move, he will be the first casualty of it. Hamas and the other fundamentalist-extremist groups will take over control of the Intifada and Arafat and all his corrupt cronies will be out. So he prefers to try to beg and plead his way into a deal that will allow him to save himself. The Israelis realize this and think they can use him to crush Hamas and the other beardos because it is as much to his benefit to do so as it is to theirs. They are not willing to give him much in exchange for it, so the issue is really one of bargaining over the going wage rate.

Lets face it. There is nothing `fair` about this world and even less about interstate relations. Power is all that anyone cares about--although the West will, eventually, reluctantly, kicking and screaming and trying its best to weasel out of it, do something that at a long distance and through not very clean lenses, look like the right thing. But hey, thats still much better than what we would do. So they are still better than us! How about that!

Ammara:

Welcome to Chowk.

You almost echo Edward Said. Though, lately due to his illness perhaps he is more brutally frank. And eloquent and passionate as always.

In conclusion you say, “But what is certain is that Israel’s continuous and unchecked flouting of international law would be the biggest IRONY in the face of the WORLD COMMUNITY’s ambitious agendas in the name of peace for the next millenium.” (my caps)

Reality check:

Irony? What irony? Read ‘fact’ ----jis ki laathi oos ki bhaiNs.

World Community should be read as Hazrat Amreeka.

And ‘ambitious agenda’ should become crystal clear if we read THEIR self interest. And tread accordingly.

Success in the present uni-polar world --- atleast till the dust settles in the Russian sphere -- and the China/Japan/Indian sphere in the next quarter century or so --- will depend on how well the ROW (rest of the world) reads Hazrat’s lips ---- and adjusts their interests.

Till then we should get used to knots in our stomachs and the utter despair and helplessness caused by images such as that young child dying in the sniper fire by those who claim moral superiority and the laathi in the name of the same Lord. Aye Khuda, kahaN hay tou?!


Over to you Feroz, our resident IR fellow...

regards,

temporal