1

Various national liberation movements usually aim at statehood in Western terms: recognition by the major powers, UN membership, accepting the international accords (like the Geneva Conventions and nuclear non-proliferation treaty), etc. Such recognition is often seen as a prerequisite for achieving and maintaining national independence.

However, there are notorious examples of movements that aim at statehood on non-western terms - notably the Islamic State and Hamas (both militant off-shoots of the Muslim Brotherhood). Both openly defy any adherence to Western politics and values. E.g., 1988 Hamas charter states:

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

whereas softer 2017 charter (which however does not annul the previous one) says:

The agreements reached in the Oslo Accords are criticized and rejected as incompatible with international law. The state of Israel, created with the help of Western nations, is still regarded as "completely illegal" (bâtil in Arabic, a word that also has religious connotations).

The latter appears more conciliatory, but it is to my knowledge the furthest that Hamas has even gone towards accepting Western values in either words or deeds.

The Islamic State's confrontational stance led to its quick demise... but after attracting significant support from all over the globe - in terms of fighters and families joining the movement. Hamas has been doing much better until recently. Is there an "eco-system" that such anti-western movements count upon in their bid to survive and win independence? Some alternative to "western order"? It is easy to dismiss these movements as religious fanatics committed to medieval notions of the Caliphate, but this doesn't seem to do justice to Muslims.

Roger V.
  • 20,106
  • 3
  • 39
  • 114
  • What do you mean by "modern Muslim"? – C.F.G Dec 11 '23 at 10:35
  • @C.F.G there have been Muslims through the century - I am talking about those living today, who understand the advantages and the disadvantages of joining the western system. Their views have certainly evolved from medieval notions, even IF they are depicted like this by the media. – Roger V. Dec 11 '23 at 10:44
  • 4
    The question conflates diplomatic recognition and participation to international treaties with "adherence to western politics and values", obviously these are not the same. For example China doesn't share most of the "western politics and values", but participates in international treaties. Additionally Hamas is a poor example since it;s very far from the stage of actual state-building, and without it there is only one example left for this new kind of state. – Erwan Dec 11 '23 at 10:58
  • @Erwan Oslo accords are intended for state-building, and Hamas explicitly rejects for nearly 30 years already. In not for Hamas refusal (and Arafat's and Abbas' fears of Hamas-like extremists) there would be already peace and Palestinian state. – Roger V. Dec 11 '23 at 11:02
  • 2
    It's also worth noting that both organizations use the non-recognition of a Palestinian state by Western countries and their support of Israel as evidence that the West is corrupted and unfair, hence the rejection of western politics and values. – Erwan Dec 11 '23 at 11:02
  • @Erwan I don't see how this rejectionist attitude helps the Palestinians - although I do see how it helps Hamas' leaders to remain in power and enjoy luxurious life, while their people die by thousands. – Roger V. Dec 11 '23 at 11:04
  • 2
    @RogerV. I agree that Hamas rejectionist attitude doesn't help Palestinians. However it's very convenient for Netanyahu's government, as he admitted himself, since this justifies their lack of effort towards peace and a Palestinian state. – Erwan Dec 11 '23 at 11:11
  • @Erwan Netanyahu came to power a decade ago, after two decades of peace negotiations had failed to produce a result. So you exchange the cause and the consequences: Hamas has a very convenient opponent in Netanyahu, after having sabotaged any peace efforts of the previous governments, as well as John Kerry's efforts during the Netanyahu's tenure. – Roger V. Dec 11 '23 at 11:15
  • 3
    @RogerV. It is the western system that divides everything into modern and non-modern. Muslims were leaders in various sciences, civilization, economic, etc before the beginning of Western colonization. For example, Ibn Sina. Khayyam, Al-Biruni and many others. See also Islamic Golden Age. – C.F.G Dec 11 '23 at 11:26
  • @C.F.G it's all true, but you are harming the very cause that you pretend to defend. My point was not to dismiss Muslims as illiterate and ignorant. If you want to suggest a better wording - I am open to ideas. – Roger V. Dec 11 '23 at 11:43
  • @RogerV. Thanks for consideration. I think it is better to use just "Muslims" instead. Anyway, In regard to the title question, what is wrong with Iran? (If I understand the question correctly). – C.F.G Dec 11 '23 at 16:33
  • @C.F.G Iran is likely a part of the answer, but can we say that there already exist in the ME a system parallel to the UN, and that a state can survive politically, economically, etc. without integrating into the western structures? After all, Iran and Saudis do play western game, even if they do not agree with its principles. – Roger V. Dec 11 '23 at 17:03
  • @RogerV. (Your comments and question confused me a little). Iran has been under Western sanctions for 45 years. 15 years (from 2009 until now) is under banking sanctions. Saudis do play western game but Iran (almost) Not. – C.F.G Dec 11 '23 at 17:13
  • @C.F.G Iran is still a part of UN and other organizations. Their membership in the NPT is a source of many debates. And they do a lot of trade worldwide - hence the sanctions in the form of freezing Iranian assets. Iranian self-determination is not in question - I suppose you mean that Hamas may survive long time with Iranian support... but not forever - alliances change, what if Iran makes peace with Israel in quarter century? – Roger V. Dec 11 '23 at 17:56
  • @RogerV. Your last question is easy to answer. It will never happen. Never. Iran goal and road is clear. Iran ideology (and constitution) is based on Quran. In the Quran 8:72 it has been noted that ... if they seek help from you in the matter of religion then it is your duty to help (them) except against a folk between whom and you there is a treaty. Allah is Seer of what ye do. . In regard to the economic. You expect that economic to be completely independent from other countries? No country can be like this. But in agriculture yes. it is possible. – C.F.G Dec 11 '23 at 18:11
  • @C.F.G you correctly understood my point about the economy - being excluded from western world means being exclude from most of the world economy. As for Iran - I mean that the regime may change. The USSR was even more formidable and lasted for 80 years... but it is no more. – Roger V. Dec 11 '23 at 19:24
  • @RogerV. The probability (after October 7) for "the regime may change" became close to zero but it is not zero. Remember that all western politicians and officials said that "Assad must go" but only Iran leader said that "Asad will remain" and which one become a reality? – C.F.G Dec 11 '23 at 19:36

1 Answers1

4

The definition of a 'state' is fairly pragmatic: a state is government that can effectively defend its sovereignty by controlling and maintaining territorial borders. Recognition by other states or international actors is a formality (with some practical consequences, obviously). Formal recognition by others is an acknowledgement (sometimes grudging) that the government in question has sufficient power and structure to make invading 'their' territory costly and difficult. Such recognition is aimed mainly at preventing border squabbles from turning into full-scale wars.

Middle-Eastern political actors are not interested in challenging the definition of the state; they merely object to the Western hegemony over formal recognition. The Islamic State was actually close to achieving pragmatic statehood: they had a significant military force (for the region) and were in the process of establishing institutional structures for governance. If it hadn't been for the intervention of major world powers it's conceivable they would have deposed Assad or carved off a significant territory they could effectively control, and then they would have been a de facto state, regardless of what anyone said. Recognition would have (eventually) followed. Hamas was nowhere near pragmatic statehood, as we can see by the ease in which the IDF penetrated their borders and took over their territory. While the UN could have granted them formal statehood, that would merely have been paper; it would not have stopped Israel from invading, but merely turned it into a proper war between states. The Palestinians are a stateless people, concentrated into a small area of land that surrounding nations (Israel and Egypt) have studiously avoid claiming as their own territory, specifically to prevent Palestinians from claiming rights within those established states. It's a cruel mess, and I understand why Arabs are angry about it, but no one is trying to change the essential nature of statehood.

Ted Wrigley
  • 69,144
  • 23
  • 179
  • 235
  • 1
    Your start was good. :)- Which countries do you mean by If it hadn't been for the intervention of major world powers? – C.F.G Dec 11 '23 at 19:13
  • 2
    Your answer seems to exclude completely West bank and Jordan (with significant Palestinian population.) – Roger V. Dec 11 '23 at 19:16
  • 1
    @C.F.G: The US-led coalition fighting directly agains IS, Russia supporting Assad… I exclude Turkey and other mid-East states since IS presented a direct threat to their own sovereignty, but I have doubts whether those states by themselves could have done more than contain IS from expanding it's territory. – Ted Wrigley Dec 11 '23 at 19:46
  • 2
    @RogerV.: The West Bank is occupied territory, and thus clearly not a state in any sense. Jordan is an established state, Palestinians are a sateless people residing with in it. I suppose we could argue that Hezbollah has sufficient political power in Jordan that it's become a mixed Palestinian/Jordanian state; that's an interesting (if problematic) line of thought. But in any case, neither of those poses a challenge to the concept of 'state' per se; just an assertion that Israel is an illegitimate state. – Ted Wrigley Dec 11 '23 at 19:55
  • @C.F.G: First, don't assume I generically approve of US international actions. The US has its own jaded agenda, and sometimes the enemy of its enemy is also its enemy. Understanding it doesn't imply liking it. From the US perspective both IS and Iran were stalking horses for domestic political gambits, and people rarely care whether stalking horses are philosophically consistent. – Ted Wrigley Dec 11 '23 at 20:10
  • @TedWrigley: Your comment is correct, but I mean why do you read/tell history wrongly? because of influence of propaganda? – C.F.G Dec 11 '23 at 20:17
  • 2
    @C.F.G: Well, you'll have to tell me how this history is 'wrong'. The US Coalition against IS — with Turkey, England, Germany, France, etc. — certainly existed. Iran also opposed IS, but through its support of Assad, not as part of the US coalition. Iran and the US have their own long-standing antagonisms, leading to the US assassination of Soleimani for rationales entirely unrelated to the issue of IS. Call it amoral realpolitik and I'll happily agree, but it isn't fiction. – Ted Wrigley Dec 11 '23 at 21:29
  • 1
    Hezbollah is in Lebanon, which has no border with Jordan. They are not Palestinians btw. On the other hand, Jordan had a significant Palestinian population, and renounced its claims to the WB to avoid having Palestinian majority. Indeed, Palestinians already tried to overthrow the king in the events known as Black September. Palestinians in WB enjoy significant autonomy - controlling part of the territory, own police force, etc. - as per Oslo accords. Still, there are some good general points in your answer. Thanks. – Roger V. Dec 12 '23 at 06:22
  • @RogerV. You are talking about Palestinians refugees or lands? Anyway, read this Wiki article about Lebenon – C.F.G Dec 12 '23 at 06:41
  • @TedWrigley: What West propaganda wants you to believe is exactly what you said. Its cover is almost reasonable. But this is not the truth. You have to think about why US (as Clinton said) and its allies brought up ISIS. One of the reasons was the destruction of Assad. Do you know why? Because the EU and the US (in 2000) planned to transfer Qatar's gas to the EU through a pipeline, and one of the places that the pipeline would pass through was Syria, and Assad was strongly disagree. So now you see why US officials kept repeating "Assad must go"? – C.F.G Dec 12 '23 at 06:45
  • 1
    @C.F.G indeed, after the Black September that I mentioned above, the Palestinian refugees moved from Jordan to Lebanon. But there's still significant Palestinian population indigenous to Jordan, which is ruled by a Hashemite King - representing another ethnic group. – Roger V. Dec 12 '23 at 06:46
  • 1
    @RogerV.: Ok, I totally screwed that up. Apologies. I need more presence when I answer comment, obviously. Thanks for correcting me. – Ted Wrigley Dec 12 '23 at 07:22
  • 3
    @C.F.G: If you're trying to convince me that US foreign policy is short-sighted, selfish, and manipulative, don't bother. I already know that. But let's not be simplistic. The US had ample opportunity to promote regime change during the Arab Spring (including deposing Assad) years before the IS reared its head. In fact, I could argue that the only reason IS rose is because Obama backed away from the Arab insurgencies after Gaddafi fell, and IS stepped into the power vacuum. Being blindly cynical is just as bad as being naïve, if you follow me… – Ted Wrigley Dec 12 '23 at 07:40
  • @TedWrigley: Your arguments/thoughts all are correct but you ignore small important issues. Have you seen Charlie Rose's interview about this? – C.F.G Dec 12 '23 at 08:01
  • @C.F.G: That video link isn't playing for some reason. Do you have another? – Ted Wrigley Dec 12 '23 at 22:27
  • @C.F.G: I really don't know what point you're trying to make, aside from noting that US foreign policy is Machiavellian and amoral. And its worth noting that this interview is from mid-2017, which was Trump-era, and particularly demented foreign-policy-wise… – Ted Wrigley Dec 13 '23 at 16:10
  • @TedWrigley: He implicitly say that "we (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, US, UAE, etc.) supported same group. (IS)." I don't know why you believe that US foreign policy is Machiavellian and amoral, you still say that the US coalition stopped ISIS! – C.F.G Dec 13 '23 at 18:52