Uluslararası teorilerin Filistin'i anlama başarısızlığı: Post-teorik bir eleştiri

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Filistin meselesinin uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininde hâkim olan teorik yaklaşımlar tarafından ne ölçüde açıklanabildiğini sorgulamakta ve bu teorik çerçevelerin Filistin gerçekliğini nasıl kavramsallaştırdığını eleştirel bir bakışla incelemektedir. Makale, Filistin’i ana akım teorilere uyarlanması gereken istisnai bir vaka olarak değil, realizm, liberalizm ve ana akım konstrüktivizm gibi yaklaşımların epistemolojik ve ontolojik sınırlarını görünür kılan tarihsel-siyasal bir örnek olarak ele almaktadır. Post-teori yaklaşımından hareketle teorilerin nötr ve evrensel açıklama araçları olmadığı; aksine belirli iktidar ilişkileri içinde üretilen, siyasal anlamlar kuran ve belirli pratikleri meşrulaştıran söylemsel yapılar olduğu ileri sürülmektedir. Filistin bağlamında devlet-merkezli ontolojilerin, kolonyal süreklilikler, yapısal şiddet ve gündelik siyasal pratikleri kavramakta yetersiz kaldığı ortaya konulmaktadır. Sonuç olarak çalışma, Filistin’i teorinin sınırlarını açığa çıkaran post-teorik bir sınama alanı olarak ele almanın gerekliliğini savunmaktadır

Keywords

• Filistin
• Post-teori
• Uluslararası teoriler

Supporting Institution

Destekleyen kurum yoktur

Ethical Statement

Etik kurul izni GEREKMEMEKTEDİR

The Failure of International Relations Theories to Understand Palestine: A Post-Theoretical Critique

Abstract

This study questions the extent to which the Palestinian issue can be explained by the dominant theoretical approaches in the discipline of International Relations and critically examines how these theoretical frameworks conceptualize Palestinian reality. Rather than treating Palestine as an exceptional case that must be fitted into mainstream theories, the article approaches it as a historical-political case that renders visible the epistemological and ontological limits of approaches such as realism, liberalism, and mainstream constructivism. Drawing on a post-theoretical perspective, the study argues that theories are not neutral and universal explanatory tools; instead, they are discursive structures produced within specific power relations that generate political meanings and legitimize particular practices. In the Palestinian context, the study demonstrates that state-centric ontologies remain insufficient to account for colonial continuities, structural violence, and everyday political practices. Ultimately, the article contends that Palestine should be understood as a post-theoretical testing ground that exposes the limits of International Relations theory

Keywords

• Palestine
• Post-theory
• International theories

References

1. Abu-Lughod, L. (1998). Remaking women: Feminism and modernity in the Middle East. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2. Abu-Lughod, L. (2001). “Orientalism” and Middle East Feminist Studies. Feminist Studies, 27(1), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178451
3. Abu-Lughod, L. (2006). [Landscape of hope and despair: Palestinian refugee camps (J. Peteet) kitabının değerlendirmesi]. Journal of Palestine Studies, 36(1), 84–85. https://doi.org/10.1525/jps.2006.36.1.84.
4. Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2010). Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. London: Routledge.
5. Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2019). The Making of Global International Relations: Origins and Evolution of IR at its Centenary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (2011). International Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (D. Heller-Roazen, çev.). California: Stanford University Press.
8. Anderson, L. (1987). The State in the Middle East and North Africa. Comparative Politics, 20(1), 1-25, https://doi.org/10.2307/421917

9. Arjona, A., Kasfir, N., & Mampilly, Z. (Eds.). (2015). Rebel Governance in Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Ashley, R. K. (1984). The Poverty of Neorealism. International Organization, 38(2), 225–286. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027712
11. Ashley, R. K. (1988). Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17(2), 227–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298880170020401
12. Avcı, Y., & Arslantaş, E. (2025). Pozitivizm ve Post-Pozitivizm Kıskacında Uluslararası İlişkiler. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (38), 156-183. https://doi.org/10.54600/igdirsosbilder.1494865
13. Ayoob, M. (1998). Subaltern Realism: International Relations Theory Meets the Third World. World Politics, 50(2), 218–240. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100008282.
14. Ayoob, M. (2004). Political Islam: Image and Reality. World Policy Journal, 21(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1215/07402775-2004-4011
15. Barkawi, T., & Laffey, M. (2006). The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies. Review of International Studies, 32(2), 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210506007110.
16. Barnett, M. (1998). Dialogues in Arab Politics: Negotiations in Regional Order. New York: Columbia University Press.
17. Bilgin, P. (2004). Whose ‘Middle East’? Geopolitical Inventions and Practices of Security. International Relations, 18(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117804040871.
18. Brown, C. (2003). Understanding International Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
19. Bucher, B., & Jasper, U. (2016). Revisiting ‘identity’ in International Relations: From Identity as Substance to Identifications in Action. European Journal of International Relations, 23(2), 391-415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066116644035
20. Bueger, C. (2014). Pathways to Practice: Praxiography and International Politics. European Political Science Review, 6(3), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000167.
21. Bueger, C., & Gadinger, F. (2015). The Play of International Practice. International Studies Quarterly, 59(3), 449-460.
22. Buzan B., Wæver, O. & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
23. Byman, D. (2005). Deadly Connections: States that Sponsor Terrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Campbell, D. (1998). Writing security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
25. Choueiri, Y. M. (2020). The Politics of Identity in the Middle East: Rereading Arab Nationalism. Sadiki, L. (ed). Routledge Handbook of Middle East Politics içinde (ss. 494-506), London: Routledge.
26. Cox, R. W. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501
27. Çoruk, A. Ş. (2007). Oryantalizm Üzerine Notlar, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 204-216.
28. Çukurova, M. (2023). Said / Goody / Lewis Kapsamında Oryantalizm ve Oryantalizme Kültürlerarasılık Perspektifinde Bir Bakış. Sosyal ve Kültürel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(19), 206–225. https://doi.org/10.25306/skad.1307297
29. Darby, P., & Paolini, A. J. (1994). Bridging International Relations and Postcolonialism. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 19(3), 371-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/030437549401900304
30. Derrida, J. (2001). Writing and Difference. (2. Baskı) London: Routledge Classics.
31. Doty, R. L. (1996). Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
32. Doyle, M. W. (1997). Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
33. Emeklier, B. (2011). Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplinininde Epistemolojik Paradigma Tartışmaları: Postpozitivist Kuramlar. Bilge Strateji, 3(4), 139-184.
34. Enloe, C. (2000). Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. California: University of California Press.
35. Erakat, N. (2019). Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine. California: Stanford University Press.
36. Fawcett, L. (Ed.). (2013). International Relations of the Middle East (3. baskı). London: Oxford University
37. Fedayee, M. J. (2023). Çağdaş Uluslararası İlişkilerde Postkolonyalizmin Önemi. Ortadoğu Etütleri, 14(4), 315-45. https://doi.org/10.47932/ortetut.1269861.
38. Florea, A. & Malejacq, R, (2024). The Supply and Demand of Rebel Governance, International Studies Review, 26(1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae004.
39. Fierke, K. M. (2007). Critical Approaches to International Security. Cambridge: Polity Press.
40. Foucault, M. (2019). Hapishanenin Doğuşu: Gözetlemek ve Cezalandırmak (M. A. Kılıçbay, Çev.). İstanbul: İmge Kitabevi.
41. Fromkin, D. (1989). A Peace to end all Peace: The fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Henry Holt and Company.
42. Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301.
43. Gause, F. G. (2010). The International Relations of the Persian Gulf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gelvin, J. L. (2016). The Modern Middle East: A history (5. baskı.). London: Routledge.
44. Gregory, D. (2004). The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
45. Guudle, M. O. (2021). Postcolonialism in International Relations Theory: Ethics, Knowledge and Orientalism. Akdeniz Havzası ve Afrika Medeniyetleri Dergisi, 3(2), 49-54.
46. Güdek-Gölçek, Ş. (2022). Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininin Postkolonyal Yapı-Sökümü. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 37(2), 296-317. https://doi.org/10.24988/ije.775107.
47. Halliday, F. (1993). “Orientalism” and Its Critics. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 20(2), 145–163.
48. Hansen, L. (2006). Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge.
49. Hasso, F. S. (2011). Consuming Desires: Family Crisis and the State in the Middle East. California: Stanford University Press.
50. Hinnebusch, R. (2003). The International Politics of the Middle East (3. baskı). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
51. Holmes, D. R. (2002). Review of Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference, by D. Chakrabarty. American Ethnologist, 29(1), 214–216. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3095053
52. Hopf, T. (1998). The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, 23(1), 171–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267.
53. Joseph, S. (1996). Gender and Citizenship in Middle Eastern States. Middle East Report, 198, 4–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/3012867
54. Kamel, L. (2017). The Frailty of Authority Borders, Non-State Actors and Power Vacuums in a Changing Middle East. Rome: Edizioni Nuova Cultura.
55. Karabulut, B. (2021). Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramlarının Güvenlik Yaklaşımları: Karşılaştırmalı bir Analiz. Uluslararası Küresel Stratejiler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 123–145. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/uksad/issue/62621/889731
56. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown.
57. Khalidi, R. (1997). Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. New York: Columbia University Press.
58. Khalili, L. (2007). Heroes and Martyrs of Palestine: The Politics of National Commemoration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press..
59. Little, R. (2007). The Balance of Power in International Relations: Metaphors, Myths and Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816635
60. Lockman, Z. (2004). Contending Visions of the Middle East: The History and Politics of Orientalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. Mandaville, P. (2007). Global Political Islam. London: Routledge.
62. Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-15-1-11.
63. Miş, N. (2011). Güvenlikleştirme Teorisi ve Siyasal Olanın Güvenlikleştirilmesi. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 5(1), 1–22. https://nek.istanbul.edu.tr/ekos/TEZ/ET004057.pdf
64. Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking Preferences Seriously: a Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513–553. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081897550447
65. Norton, A. R. (2007). Hezbollah: A short History (2. baskı). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
66. Onuf, N. G. (1989). World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press
67. Övsan Çakaş, C. (2018). Batı’nın bir Hegemonya Kurma Aracı Olarak Oryantalist Bilgi ve Söylem Üretim Sürecinin Analizi. Research Studies Anatolia Journal, 1(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.33723/rs.422629.
68. Pappé, I. (2006). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
69. Peteet, J. (2005). Landscape of Hope and Despair: Palestinian Refugee Camps. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
70. Peters, J. (2004). The European Union and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process: The case of the Palestinians. London: I.B. Tauris.
71. Philipose, E. (2009). Feminism, International Law, and the Spectacular Violence of the ‘Other’: Decolonizing the Laws of War. London: Routledge.
72. Pouliot, V. (2008). The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities. International Organization, 62(2), 257–288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818308080090
73. Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100007814.
74. Russett, B., & Oneal, J. R. (2001). Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
75. Sadowski, Y. (1993). The New Orientalism and the Democracy Debate. Middle East Report, 183, 14-21.
76. Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
77. Said, E. W. (2001). The Clash of Ignorance. The Nation, 18 Ekim 2025 tarihinde https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/clash-ignorance adresinden erişildi.
78. Salamey, I. (2017). The Decline of Nation-States after the Arab Spring: The Rise of Communitocracy. London: Routledge.
79. Sasley, Brent E. (2011). Studying Middle Eastern International Relations Through IR Theory. Ortadoğu Etütleri, 2(2), 9-32.
80. Sjoberg, L., & Gentry, C. E. (2007). Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women’s Violence in Global Politics. London: Zed Books.
81. Smith, S. (1996). Positivism and Beyond. S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond içinde (ss. 11–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
82. Stein, E. (2012). Beyond Arabism vs. Sovereignty: Relocating Ideas in the International Relations of the Middle East. Review of International Studies, 38(4), 881–905. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210511000465.
83. Sylvester, C. (1994). Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era. Cambridge University Press.
84. Şen, O., & Açıkgöz, C. (2007). Securitization: Teori ve Güncel Tartışmalar. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 4(15), 45–67. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/3259317
85. Tepeciklioğlu, A. G. E. E. (2013). Postkolonyal Kuram Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplinini Dekolonize Etmek. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(2), 80-97. https://doi.org/10.18354/esam.81725.
86. Teti, A. (2009). The Middle East and the Disciplinary (Re)Production of Knowledge. Fırat, B.Ö., De Mul, S., van Wichelen, S. (eds) Commitment and Complicity in Cultural Theory and Practice içinde. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230236967_5.
87. Tickner, A. B. (2003). Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 32(2), 295-324. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298030320020301
88. Tickner, J. A. (1992). Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York: Columbia University Press.
89. Tickner, J. A. (2001). Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era. New York: Columbia University Press.
90. Tucker, A. (2018). Unraveling Coloniality in International Relations: Knowledge, Relationality, and Strategies for Engagement. International Political Sociology, 12(3), 215–233.
91. Turanlı, G. (2017). Edward Said’in Oryantalist Söylem Analizi. Şarkiyat Mecmuası, 30, 101–119.
92. Ulus, S. (2025). Orta Doğu’da Devlet Dışı Silahlı Aktörler: Vekalet Savaşları ve Stratejik Hedeflenme Dinamikleri. International Politics Journal, 12(1), 45–68.
93. Wæver, O. (1995). Securitization and Desecuritization. R. D. Lipschutz (Ed.), On Security içinde (ss. 46-87). New York: Columbia University Press.
94. Walker, R. B. J. (1992). Inside/outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
95. Walt, S. M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. New York: Cornell University Press.
96. Walt, S. M. (2018). The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of US Primacy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
97. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
98. Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
99. Williams, J. (1995). The Posttheory Generation. Symplokē, 3(1), 55–76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40550363
100. Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240.
101. Yeşiltaş, M., Kardaş, T. (2018). Introduction: The Phenomenon of Non-state Armed Actors and Patterns of Violent Geopolitics in the Middle East. Yeşiltaş, M., Kardaş, T. (eds) Non-State Armed Actors in the Middle East içinde. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55287-3_1.
102. Yeşiltaş, M., & Karakuş, M. (2025). The Logic of Non-State Armed Groups Survival in Syria: A Contemporary Framework of Analysis . Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 48(2), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2022.2095700.