Palestine: Realism, Pragmatism and Middle East

Palestine, Israel, 2 state, solution, middle east, peace, question,

William James and John Dewey were both critical of the US Foreign policy.

They never supported or endorsed the US in 1898 the capturing of the Philippines.

Even though they both their enormous impact on the philosophical and political realm, their writings and influences in politics and international relations were never fully endorsed or acknowledged.

They were the two who gave a dynamic shape to Pragmatism in International relations but were never acknowledged. 

The presence of Realism challenges Pragmatism in International relations.

Look alike but different

The two, Realism and Pragmatism, are taken more or less synonymously. They are very different from each other.

Also Read: BRICS expansion; from unipolarity to multipolarity

The anarchic nature of world politics gives more room to Realism than the philosophy of Pragmatism.  While Realism is harsh, more calculated and mathematical caring nothing for anything else other than its interests.

Pragmatism is more flexible, looking for its interests and discerning between black, white and even grey areas.

After Cold War

Following sometimes good values for its pragmatic approach.

The end of the Cold War marked the rebirth of Pragmatism in a post-positivist period challenging the previous notions of empiricism, calculation, and objectivity of the earlier Cold War positivist period based on the defeat and annihilation of the enemy.

Giving place to norms, beliefs, and personal idiosyncrasies in the Pragmatism of the post-positivist period. 

Coming to the Point

UN decided to partition the British-mandated Palestinian territory between the two states of Israel and Palestine by allotting 56 per cent of the land to Israel and 43 per cent to the newly proposed state of Palestine.

Keeping in view the above paradigms common in contemporary International relations, what could be the possibilities to reduce and resolve the Middle East hostilities? 

The limitations of epistemology and the availability of research methods enhance the Scope of Abduction in international relations.

Present Scenario

The present situation and power balance which in all spheres are in the favour of the West. 

Dry-hard following of epistemology or, normativity, empiricism, or naturalism, call it by whatever name you like it, could not be applied to the present scale. 

The eight theories of globalization, Eclecticism being one of these theories, are an example of this dynamic and flexible approach.

Herbert Mead’s symbolic interaction or constructivism in international relations by Nicholas Onuf is a double-edged sword.

If one side pushes the other side, the other side will surely thrust them too.  Thus, creating a chain of action and reaction!

In any given paradigm and parameter, if the two sides operate according to the game rules, there would be a better scenario for them.

A foundational Paradigm

This parameter (structure), individual or agency (identity), and paradigm (what, when, and why to do this?) is the foundational base of Pragmatism in international relations. 

Hence, the creation and solution of the two-state theory for the peace and tranquility of the region (two-state solution for peace in the Middle East) with principles of Pragmatism and Eclecticism is a must. 

The theory ought to be applied in letter and spirit instead of a mere assumption!  

Palestine: Realism, Pragmatism and Middle East

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to top