Customer Reviews

Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations" by M.A. Muqtedar Khan (2004), English, hardback, 238 pgs. The author had taught at Adrian College in Michigan, and, he has apparently taken several classes regarding relationship theory. The author noted that Arabist "John Espositio, [is] my friend and mentor" (p. x). The author is concerned about the `ontological foundations of theoretical orthodoxy - rational-choice assumptions" and believes that "the struggle for paradigmatic domination has...taken an ugly turn in the area of comparative politics." Ugliness indeed. In the first several pages he starts discussing "IR", but, amazingly, he does NOT define what "IR" is! A reader has to guess that "IR" is related to the subtitle in his book: "International Relations"! Or, it could be maybe about "Identity" or "Interest" or "Interpretivist", as they are other "I" topics he is interested in.... Ugly thinking indeed. Anyway, he deduces that "The failure of IR theory, the rationalist as well as interpretivist, to anticipate the structural transformations in world politics." Whatever; he is going to write about this topic. To discuss his ideas, the author constructs a box-chart with low-medium-high aspects of rationality, identity, scientific, narrative, interpretive, structuralist, positivism, relativism, predictive- potential, as offered by scholars A. Wendt, N. Onuf, & F. Kratoschwil. Okay, you ask, `what does this have to do with Jerusalem?' - Fair question. Oh, this must be an `intellectual' book - the author has just quoted something from Immanuel Kant. A third of the way into his book that author starts discussing `epistemological pluralism'....now, `strong and weak identities'... now Joseph Nye and `soft power'... hegemony ... Machiavelli... strategic versus symbolic choices... and author cautions: "Recall the Melian dialogue as reported by Thucydides" (p.92) [I must confess I have forgotten that dialogue!]. The author is rather myopic in his vision regarding military campaigns. The author noted that after the Muslim prophet Muhammad revealed Islam to the public: "Islam expanded beyond Arabia" (p. 109) [but nothing about Muslim military da'wa missions are mentioned], but regarding the birth of Israel the author opined that the Zionists fought "a bloody war that drove many Palestinians into exile" (p. 106). The "good Muslims, bad Jews" analysis - you developing the picture where this book is going? The author discusses "Typology of Actors in International Politics" and develops another grid/chart-box of "strong & weak causal powers" and after comparing the number of tanks, submarines, armed helicopters, `suspected' biological and chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons, the author proudly reveals that the threat to peace in Palestine is ranked as: Israel is "The Tiger" , Iran is "The Cub", Saudi Arabia is "The Paper Tiger" and Jordan is "The Mouse" (p. 207). I'm glad we had that Melian dialogue discussion earlier. The author maintains that if Israel returns to the 1967 cease-fire borders, the benefit of its action "may" procure a lasting peace for Israel (p. 138) - only, `may' - not `certainly'? and there would be "less" danger of guerilla attacks (p. 139)! So the author is concerned about whether or not "The Jewish state chooses identity over rationality" with its "colonization of Jerusalem" (p. 141). The author is not concerned about the possible `colonialization' of Israel by its Muslim neighbors because the Zionist state has no legitimate reason to exist - as the Zionists stole much of the Palestine lands away from its rightful owners: the Muslim Palestinians. The author discusses the military impotence of Iran as a threat to other Middle East countries; however, the author does not discuss the theological hatred between Shia-Iran and Sunni-Arabia - a factor that does not endear Iran to its neighbors. Regarding Jordan, the author discusses King Hussain's 1994 speech regarding Jordan's "religious tolerance" in East Jerusalem (p. 195), but failed to note that the Jordanians would not allow Jews to visit atop the Temple Mount - `diversity' indeed! The author describes Arafat's Palestinian coup against King Hussain as merely a PLO effort to "flourish" its identity (p. 197), and then acts surprised that Hussain wasn't any longer interested in fighting against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. The author explains the religious significance of Jerusalem to Judaism, Christianity & Islam; he noted that the failure of Muslims to "regain sovereignty over Jerusalem...is indicative of the decline of Islamic civilization and the failure of Palestinian aspirations to decolonize their land" (p. 114). Although the author's "Regional Balance of Power" chart (p. 133) reveals that the Muslim military has 5 or 6 times more military forces than Israel, and that they have a 4:1 more aircraft and 3:1 more ships than Israel, and they have all the oil -- nonetheless, the author argues: "the might of Israel" (p. 196) threatens the other hapless Middle East Muslim `governments'. The author just can't figure out why all of the more populous and armed Muslim nations haven't been able to unite in destroying the tiny country of Israel. The author concluded that Israel is a "Tiger" because it has "strong actors with strong identify". He claims that his theory is correct because it was "tested empirically" (p. 206) - but he doesn't provide such `evidence', besides his own proclamations of such. To resolve the dispute over who should control Jerusalem, the author contends that Israel is not opposed by the Christian West because they have a shared Judeo-Christian religious heritage. The author opined that if the Jews and Christians would instead accept the concept that all three religions (including Islam) have a shared "Abrahamic Tradition"...then "Jerusalem will truly be one city of one great religious tradition" and conflict will disappear. However, the author failed to discuss why this split exists: Abraham let his son Issac (the Jewish lineage) occupy Israel/Palestine, while his expelled his other son, Ishmael (the future Muslim lineage), to Arabia. Muslims believe that Abraham was a Muslim, Jews & Christians do not. The author pines for the disestablishment of Israel, but is perplexed that the Muslim god Allah has not willed it to occur. The author uses the first third of his book in setting up his "IR" theories, but he does not objectively use them in building his main contention that the Middle East Muslim countries don't have good "Actor Agents" in defeating Israel. But at least the author recalled the Melian dialogue as reported by Thucydides.