Architectures of Terror

Abstract

International Relations theory, in spite of having undergone several epistemic iterations, continues to analyze urban warfare via outdated perspectives. This is exemplified in the state-centric analyses that dominate the literature on the history of Israel-Palestine. There is an overwhelming concentration on policy and belligerent behaviors and little to no consideration of anthropocentric perspectives. This results in a near-total exclusion of human suffering from discussions of the conflict and its impacts on everyday civilian life, which in turn heavily alters the socio-political foundations. The academic domains of critical theory and human geography have, however, made good progress in capturing the severity of these discourses, enabling a nuanced understanding of the manner in which conflict management takes place. This paper aims to unify these perspectives and in so doing, expand the grammar of realpolitik – identifying it as a competent domain of IR that primarily focuses on conflict and its modalities. Making use of diffractive reading and analysis, this paper showcases the impact of realpolitik from the perspective of those affected. The aim is to inject empathy into contemporary mainstream discussions that deal with complex geopolitical situations such as Israel-Palestine. To that end, post-structuralist perspectives from continental philosophy, human and critical geography and affect theory are employed. Additionally, the philosophy of realism is theorized to be the epistemic foundation of realpolitik, and is subsequently dissected. The paper concludes by arguing for interdisciplinary approaches into the existing subject matter of realpolitik, a re-evaluation of the epistemic foundations and reflections on practical novelties. Note that this paper in no way aims to suggest political solutions, legal interventions or strategic shifts, but rather interprets the methods of urban warfare used by the Israeli Defense Forces, which defies traditional operational logic.