Annapolis and the absurdity of post-modern politics
It is not really difficult to discern what the United States hope to achieve by hosting the Annapolis conference at the end of this month. Likewise it is rather easy to figure out what Israel will gain from this meeting being held, and by attending it. Both Americans and Israelis want this conference simply to take place, for the sake of itself, and without any agreements or declarations emerging from it. Simply holding the meeting is the objective and a success per se – a success that serves several agendas, but not that of resolving the historical conflict between the Palestinians and the Zionist project. Bottom line, if you are looking for a key to understand what has happened to peace in the Middle East, go back to Henry Kissinger’s “classical” and (dis)ingenious idea: a “peace process” is a substitute of peace itself. The process, however, could take for ever. Annapolis is part of this ‘process’.
On the other hand, what is really difficult to understand is why the Palestinian side is prepared to participate in this surreal event. Curiously enough, there is next to total agreement, even before the fact, that the conference will fail to promote peace – not only among the two sides concerned, but also among virtually everybody else. Sarcastically enough, organizers as well as participants are at pains to curb ambitions, lower expectations and warn against excessive optimism – as if anybody who is following events on the ground were to raise ambitions or express any optimism. On the contrary, whatever you hear from any quarter predicts failure. And still the preparations are on their way – not because this conference is supposed to achieve anything with regard to its purported purpose but, once again, simply to have a conference. In times like these, traditional criteria for success and failure do no longer apply. Success is in the form, i.e. holding the conference, and not in its content, i.e. results that would benefit the stated objective.
Consciously or unconsciously, Annapolis thus represents one of the surreal signatures of postmodern politics: images, language and symbols take preference over meaning, content and results. It shows us how great powers, in their presumptuous handling of the political issues of “others”, abandon real politics and adopt what we may describe as post-modern (non-)politics. In other words, how the “peace process”, which emerged from a rigorously pragmatic political mind, was voided of all structure, meaning and definition. Most manifestations of post-modernity, be theym political as well as cultural, literary or social, are characterized by such a temptation to escape from the strictures of sequence and logic that are foundational of modern thought: After A follows B and then C – how tedious! How restrictive of 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 propelled 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 post-modernism leads to a constant and transparent denial of reality. Thus it becomes possible to declare Annapolis a success already at this point in time – and in stark contrast to the overwhelming majority of observers, who still apply the standards of “conventional” modern politics – precisely because Annapolis is 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 and caught in a downward spiral of destruction, with Washington at the heart of it, both as a reason for and a perpetrator of destruction. Annapolis is about peddling an image of American diplomacy that is committed to addressing the root cause for all the troubles in the Middle East, the Palestinian issue, while the political, military and economic efforts are focused on completely different issues: Iraq, Iran, oil, Sudan, etc. Annapolis convenes “negotiating” parties, Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, who have nothing to negotiate about, but who are capable to keep smiling and handshaking for the cameras, and to hold meeting to no ends and no results, which is, in and by itself, a ‘creative effort’. Parties who differ in everything and are unable to agree on a common statement, but who resemble each other in their domestic weakness, in their inability to deliver anything. Annapolis is the genius of visual media performance that we will see on our screens over the next days, and which disguises a total void of political performance. It is the genius of performance without substance, of entrusting the image with the task of forming international opinion, at the expense of a myriad of issues on the ground.
The post-modern absurdity of Annapolis would be incomplete without enlisting the Palestinians, who are goaded along like a herd of cattle. The sheer magnitude of the event and its setup make the Palestinians feel that they would carry another “historical” responsibility towards the world if they were to say what is really on their mind: that they will not go to a conference that is a failure even before it started, and which is anyway more concerned with regional objectives than with the Palestinian cause. Yet, 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! 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 normalize relations with them, and to create the impression that what happens “over there” in the Middle East, between Israelis and Palestinians, is but a small diversion on a long and laborious regional agenda, and still the Palestinians are going.
Olmert has said a lot over the past weeks, confirming the image of the conference rather than its content: that the conference will restart the negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. That reaching a comprehensive solution of the conflict may take a long time, possibly thirty to forty years. That the conflict is complicated and should not be expected to be resolved in one conference or in within a definite timeframe. The foreign minister went to more extreme ends and right-wing litanies, in hopes to carry populist favor for future elections. All of it is in amazing harmony with the post-modern signature of Annapolis and the lack of any content. Even more amazing, all of it in the form of statements geared to “clarify” Israel’s position towards the conference! Why do Israelis and Palestinians need a global conference to restart negotiations, if that is what Olmert wants? What are Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas meeting for in Jerusalem, on a regular (and televised) basis, if not to keep the ‘peace process’ going?
There is only one way out of this post-modern daze: a clear Palestinian refusal to attend a conference devoid of any content. 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.
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 a frequent author for major Arab newspapers such as Al-Hayat and the project Open Democracy.
