open Democracy News Analysis - Annapolis and absurdity, Khaled Hroub - Comments

eric_5 on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

eric_5 — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:00:54 +0000

I'm afraid your perception is clouded by irrational prejudice whose source, I would guess, is pro-Semitic racism. In any case, I find it discreditable that 'hatred' should be so facilely brought up to explain opposition to Israel's crimes. No just solution can succeed because the US, with all its economic, military and diplomatic power is blocking the path to peace and fostering Israel's colonization of Palestine. In the long term, I would foresee two possiblities. Firstly, a nuclear incident might concentrate minds sufficiently for the survivors, if any, to review their priorities. More hopefully, the Jewish state may simply evolve, through the weight of non-Jewish immigrants, the exodus of Jews to other homelands and the sheer commonsense of economic union with the rest of Palestine into a normal, democratic state.

Kataphraktes on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

Kataphraktes — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:29:46 +0000

This question is for eric_5: Your position is clear on Israel (you hate it). What do you propose be done? This website is thought-provoking and interesting but it never ceases to amaze me with the characters it hosts. I would venture a guess that the majority here are from Western nations, as is evidenced by all the anti-americanism, anti-defence postures and good old-fashioned post-WW2 self-loathing. What would you propose be done? A return to the Age of Aquarius that was the pre-1948 Middle East? Just give the Arabs what they want and everything will go away? My good sir, it's not that easy in the real world. Were you to give the Palestinians everything they wanted, Hamas or Hizbullah or the current terrorist flavor of the month would focus its attention on the next intractable problem--say, the Kurds or Coptic Christians in Egypt. There are places in this world where history is a living burden for its occupants...

eric_5 on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

eric_5 — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:00:49 +0000

This is a slight inconvenience which is can be addressed by getting some tame Palestinian 'statesmen' to sign away the Palestinian territory on which the Wall is built.

Alexandra Lamb on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

Alexandra Lamb — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:25:43 +0000

You are right in saying that we are claiming this conference a success before it has even started, and it is true that the multiple conferences of the past have hardly brought many fruitful results, but the fact that this conference is taking place at all is certainly something to be pleased about. It is a conference long overdue. Now with the Wall built and the Palestinian territories squeezed into what can only be described as a prison, there is urgent need for talks and action. No one, no State condones this Wall, and I hope that the negotiations may bring some results that makes this impossible situation- for it is seriously impossible, somehwat better. While the conferences of the past have only been followed by increasing violence and oppression, they have set certain things in motion: the creation of the Palestinian Authority, the recognition of Israel and the increasingy potency of the 2-state solution, wheels have been set in motion. I may be optimistic, but it is the only thing one can be. I may be far removed (physically, geographically) from this situation, but everyone in the world is now embroiled in what seems to be a factory of hatred, distrust and outrage. We all need to be working towards a pacific solution.

eric_5 on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

eric_5 — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:42:04 +0000

The concentration camps to which Israel has confined the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank are places of hellish oppression where even minimum conditions for a normal life are lacking and advanced scholarship would be a miracle.

eric_5 on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

eric_5 — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:36:24 +0000

Obviously, the Jewish state is the apple of your eye and you are blind to everything else. The UN resolution was for an Arab State a Jewish State and a separate Jerusalem. It was not a licence for a unilateral declaration of independence by Zionists with permission to ethnically cleanse Arabs.

Michael T Sager on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

Michael T Sager — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:12:56 +0000

Re:The article seems to me to be characteristic of an almost stereotypical Arab, often Palestinean, who (from a comfortable position, usually academc or media in the West) Am I I not fantastic! I posted the above a couple of days ago. Only today I thought to check on the author. Here he is 'Khaled Hroub is director of the Cambridge Arab Media Project in association with the Centre of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies at the University of Cambridge. ' Nailed him!!!

Michael T Sager on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

Michael T Sager — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:55:24 +0000

Re The UN resolution was a package This is a strange comment. The UN says there shoudl be a Jewish state when the British leave. Then the British leave. Then Israel declares itself a Jewish state. Then it is admitted to the UN. Sounds kosher (if you'll excuse the pun) to me! I've reread 181 and did not see anything about prerequisites or corequisites. Perhaps you could show me where such conditions are written in the text?

eric_5 on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

eric_5 — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:35:25 +0000

The process of Israel's colonization of Palestine continues and so it is misleading to talk of an impasse.

eric_5 on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

eric_5 — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:33:12 +0000

The UN resolution was a package, including a Jewish, Arab state and separate Jerusalem. By unilaterally declaring independence and ethnically cleansing Arabs, the Zionist movement. violated the UN process. The United States, as a veto power can, and does, pre-empt or block any Security Council measure intended to bring Israel into compliance with international law.

ai_1 on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

ai_1 — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:00:28 +0000

There is long tradition of using history in national conflicts, choosing-and-picking convenient facts not to illuminate but to spin. We can see here ample examples, in a nasty manner, laced with underlying racist overtones, more characteristic of Guardian's "Comment is Free" than of OpenDemocracy. It will not help any professional hater and any extremist, bigot and fundamentalist: Both Israelis and Palestinians exist, as nations and as national projects. No amount of gritted teeth or hate are going to change it. neither Israelis nor Palestinians can be wished away and neither (I hope) can be exterminated. Which leaves two and only two options. Either the continuation of present impasse, in which Israelis suffer to some extent, Palestinians suffer a great deal and both polities are blighted and brutalised, or to seek lasting accommodation. And anybody with any knowledge of the situation on the ground and of the limits of both sides to meet the aspirations of the other side mid-way knows what are the outlines of the only possible solution. Regardless of the presence or absence of "the" in 242. Anybody arguing against the only possible compromise, anybody spinning history to further their own prejudice, is an enemy of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Michael T Sager on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

Michael T Sager — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:17:12 +0000

Re: Israel was a proposal for a state, not a state. Armies can't invade a proposal. Apparently, a proposal can be admitted to the UN, if the Americans are in favour. I just do not understand what you are refererring to by a 'proposal'. Resolution 181 said 'Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.' Nor by your comment about the US alone deciding. Regarding admission of Israel to the UN - the General Assembly voted, 37 to 12.. Regarding the original resolution 181, the Soviet Union, its allies, and many others also voted for it. The voting was as follows: In favour: 33 Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela. Against: 13 Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen. Abstained: 10 Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

abdulksaida on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

abdulksaida — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:10:08 +0000

israelis leaves only some of arab lands and still their are many living and that israel encourage them to travel as to colonize palestine and give them more land and israel gave them money to leave and discuss that with them in arab states. till now they are encouraging any person whom his mother is jewish to go to israel and settle their even if he never heard or live their or even born, while we are the refugees whom even born in palestine till now are forbidden to go to our homelands and live their in dignity as also palestinians now in gaza are surrenderd and yesterday 2 men was shot to dead in cold blood and also one old man 60 years was beaten to death in one wall. Is that a democratic and respectable state ?

Michael T Sager on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

Michael T Sager — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:55:49 +0000

Re; The same situation where with Jews from Arab countries. They were terrorised by their own people. Jewish terrorist organizations bomb their houses in Bagdad for example, but it's easier to say that bad Arabs did that. I find it very hard to believe that all the approximately 600,000 Jews who left Arab lands in the 1950s did so because of Jewish terrorism against their own people. I've heard these allegations from pro-Palestinean sources before, but have never seen any evidence. Do you have any independant, verifiable proof for this statement? like a few specific instances?

eric_5 on "Annapolis, or the absurdity of postmodern politics "

eric_5 — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:48:21 +0000

Israel was a proposal for a state, not a state. Armies can't invade a proposal. Apparently, a proposal can be admitted to the UN, if the Americans are in favour. Decisions favoured by America take precedence. A Palestinian state could have been admitted to the UN long ago, if the Americans had wanted one.

Annapolis and absurdity, Khaled Hroub

Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:36:16 +0000

It is not really difficult to discern what the United States hopes to achieve by hosting the conference in Annapolis, Maryland, now scheduled (after much uncertainty over the date) for 27 November 2007. In the same way it is rather easy to figure out what Israel will gain from the fact of this meeting and its own attendance. In a sentence: both Americans and Israelis want this conference to take place for its own sake, without any agreements or declarations having to emerge from it.

In their eyes, simply to hold the meeting is the objective and counts as a success - one that serves several agendas, but not the one that really counts: resolving the historical conflict between the Palestinians and Israel's Zionist project. The key to understanding Annapolis, as so many comparable events in the middle east, can be expressed in Henry Kissinger's "classical" (and ingenuous) formulation: a "peace process" is a substitute for peace itself, and it could take for ever. Annapolis is part of this "process".

In this light, it is really difficult to understand why the Palestinian side is prepared to participate in this surreal event. After all, there is next to total agreement before the event not only among the two main contending sides, but among almost every interested party - that the conference will fail to promote peace. It is a moment for black humour when organisers as well as participants are at pains to curb ambitions, lower expectations and warn against excessive optimism regarding Annapolis - as if anybody who is following events on the ground were to raise ambitions or express any optimism. The misjudgment here seems total. Still, the preparations are underway - for the conference, once declared, cannot be undone. In times like these, traditional criteria of success and failure no longer apply.

Khaled Hroub is director of the Cambridge Arab Media Project in association with the Centre of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies at the University of Cambridge. He is the author of Hamas: Political Thought and Practice (Institute for Palestine Studies, 2000), and Hamas: a Beginner's Guide (Pluto Press, 2006).He is a frequent author for major Arab newspapers such as al-Hayat, as well as openDemocracy

Also by Khaled Hroub in openDemocracy:

"Hamas's path to reinvention" (9 October 2006)

"Palestine's argument: Mecca and beyond" (6 March 2007)

This article is being simultaneously published in the journal of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, by mutual cooperation and kind agreement of the author

A visual triumph

Annapolis thus represents - consciously or unconsciously - one of the great surreal signatures of postmodern politics: a world where images, language and symbols take preference over meaning, content and results. It is an example of how powerful modern states, in their presumptuous handling of the political issues of "others", abandon real politics and adopt what may be describes as postmodern (non-)politics.

Most manifestations of postmodernity - be they political, cultural, literary or social - are impelled by a temptation to escape from the strictures of sequence and logic that are foundational of modern thought. "If A follows B and then arrives at C" - all this can appear very tedious, restrictive of a human creativity which may want to arrive at C without having to pass through B, or may want to set out from A with no intention of even going to Z, ever.

This desire to break out of the prison of rigid logic into a wide open space of expression, a realm of floating meaning no longer concerned with ends and objectives, has catapulted human creativity to dazzling results - in the arts, in literature, in culture.

Not so in politics. Carried away by language and form, and with no regard to content and political realities, such political postmodernism leads to a constant and transparent denial of reality. Thus it becomes possible - in stark contrast to the overwhelming majority of observers, who still apply the standards of "conventional" modern politics - to declare Annapolis a success already, even before it has happened.

The reason such an astonishing act of intellectual legerdemain is possible is that Annapolis is emphatically not about making peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Annapolis is about the image and the representation of the United States in a middle east that is ablaze, locked in a downward spiral of destruction of which Washington is a central agent.

Annapolis is about peddling the image of an American diplomacy committed to addressing the root cause of all the troubles in the middle east - the Palestinian issue - even as the US's political, military and economic efforts are focused on completely different issues (Iraq, Iran, oil, Sudan...). Annapolis convenes "negotiating" parties, Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, who have nothing to negotiate about but who are capable of maintaining a smile and handshake for the cameras, and holding meetings to no ends and no results - which the media then reports as, in and by itself, a "creative effort".

Also in openDemocracy on the Palestinians, Israel and Annapolis:

David Mepham, "Hamas and political reform in the middle east" (1 February 2006)

Richard Youngs, "The European Union and Palestine: a new engagement" (28 March 2007)

Mient Jan Faber & Mary Kaldor, "Palestine's human insecurity: a Gaza report" (20 May 2007)

Pierre Schori, "Europe and the Arab world: divided souls" (30 May 2007)

Daniel Seidemann, "Annapolis and the ‘Jerusalem paradigm'" (30 October 2007)

Mariano Aguirre & Mark Taylor, "Annapolis: the conditions of failure" (12 October 2007)

These individuals differ on every substantial political matter and are unable even to agree on a common statement of the problem; but in their domestic weakness, their inability to deliver anything, they resemble each other. On this foundation, Annapolis will build an extravagant visual media performance whose profusion of hollow imagery disguises its evasion of and indifference to a myriad of issues on the ground.

A political choice

The postmodern absurdity of Annapolis would be incomplete without enlisting the Palestinians, who are being led along (and goaded) like a herd of cattle. The sheer magnitude of the event and its set-up has a cumulative psychological effect: it makes the Palestinians feel they would carry another great global and "historical" responsibility if they were to say what they really think - that they will not go to a conference which is a failure even before it starts, and which anyway is more concerned with regional objectives than with the Palestinian cause.

In the eyes of the world, any attempt to escape from this scenario will be turned into another "historical irresponsibility": once more, the Palestinians are the reason for the failure of peace in the middle east! But aside from any desire to deflect such accusations, what is the logic of the Palestinians' presence? After all:

* Israel declares openly that it will not discuss any of the essential issues at the conference; and yet the Palestinians are going

* Israel declares that it wants the conference to confirm that its security is more important than a Palestinian state (and of course than the Palestinian people); and yet the Palestinians are going

* Israel wants all Arab countries to be present in the conference, in a new bid to "normalise" relations with them and create the impression that what happens "over there" in the middle east is but a small diversion on a long and laborious regional agenda; and yet the Palestinians are going.

Ehud Olmert has said a lot over recent weeks to confirm the image of the conference projected to the world: that it will restart the negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, though reaching a comprehensive solution of the conflict may take a long time, perhaps thirty to forty years; and that the conflict is complicated and should not be expected to be resolved in one conference or within a definite timeframe. The Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni launched into more extreme, rightwing litanies, in hope to curry populist favour in future elections.

All of this is in striking harmony with the postmodern signature of Annapolis, its lack of any content. Even more amazing, all of it has come in the form of statements geared to "clarify" Israel's position towards the conference. But why do Israelis and Palestinians need a global conference to restart negotiations, if that is what Olmert wants? Why are Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas meeting in Jerusalem, on a regular (and televised) basis, if not to keep the "peace process" going?

There is only one way out of this postmodern daze: a clear Palestinian refusal to attend a conference devoid of any substance. The Palestinians need a courageous decision from their leadership that sets the record straight. The Palestinians cannot afford to lose time and effort in conferences that are just for show, while their situation deteriorates, their rights are lost, and their blood is spilled on a daily basis.

Average rating

(3 votes)