The nation states system is generally assumed to be the (by)product of the French Revolution whereby the praetorians-cum-revolutionaries questioned, challenged, physically confronted and replaced the prevalent feudal, clerical and religious order with a comparatively improved understating of human will, scriptures, agrarian relations and world politics. The old denominations of empires with their royal shenanigans started diminishing, though gradually. The concepts of territorial sovereignty, supremacy of the state and nation, military modernisation and industrialisation gained almost universal currency by the turn of the 19th century.
It is interestingly also the period whereby the old Ottoman Empire is no longer able to rejuvenate itself on account of intellectual, scientific, commercial and military deficiencies. The ideas and ideals of ethnicity, the sectarian divide, modernity and democracy were embraced by the majority of nation states in Europe and North America pre- and post-World War I. However, the states of the Middle East, i.e. Egypt, Syria and Libya, struggled in that transitional phase of transformation of fragile and ineffective empires into nation states. Progress was hindered by multiple variables including religion. The latter was invoked paradoxically by segments of civil society as a divider and decider between tradition and modernity, freedom and restraint, right and wrong, lawful and unlawful and, more importantly, nation state and caliphate.
Little wonder that the post-colonial states and societies of the Middle East, and (much of) Africa and Asia witnessed tough and often militarised contestation over state formation, identity construction, democracy, governance and economic structure. For example, Egypt under Nasser had a visible political, diplomatic, military and economic exchange with the USSR. In other words, the state of Egypt had no issue with socialism whereas (civil) society was increasingly hostile to the theory and practice of not only socialism/communism but also capitalism that, in the view of Syed Qutb who had the opportunity to live in the US, was shamefully exploitative, immoral and, hence, un-Islamic. Importantly, such ideologues and their followers launched organised campaigns against Middle Eastern states dubbing them pro-west, pro-capitalism and pro-democracy. The latter were deemed anti-Islam and therefore inadequate to base something on. In addition, the very conception and realisation of the nation state, be that Muslim or Hindu in terms of faith and population size, was directly attacked by, for example, members of the Muslim Brotherhood; the assassination of the Egyptian prime minister in the late 1940s is a case in point.
This was also the time when, under the auspices of the United Nations, the state of Israel was established (1948) on a territory that had been colonised by the British. Historically, of course, this region was ruled overwhelmingly by a variety of Muslim empires and subsequent dynasties. It is nevertheless to be noted that the European colonisers, especially the British, had taken a toll of much of the so-called Muslim land. Put differently, it is a fact that Umar the Great had the privilege of providing amaan (protection) to the non-Muslims, Jews in particular, of Jerusalem in 637. It is historically true that Saladin the Great conquered Jerusalem in 1187. Nevertheless, in the same vein, it is also a fact that the British took control of Palestine in the wake of the First World War. It is also a fact, though a bitter one for a majority of Muslims, that the state of Israel was formed through the UN by the custodians of a new world order.
Paradoxically, however, the post-colonial Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, formed on the basis of respective ethnicity, refused to recognise the newly established Zionist state of Israel. This non-recognition policy coincided with the already orthodox ideology of individuals such as Syed Qutb and Syed Mawdudi and organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami. Little wonder that the non-acceptance of Israel by Arab states and societies led to the military attack of the former in 1948 (the year of Israel’s birth), 1967 and 1973. Lo and behold, the five Arab states failed to defeat Israel. Partly the reason was the US and its allies’ strategic and military support of Israel. Largely, the reason was intra-Arab territorial differences over historical Palestine. For instance, Jordan joined these three wars to annex the West Bank, Egypt had an eye on Gaza, Syria viewed the Golan Heights as its atoot ang (unbreakable part). Had the Arab states been united in principle and practice over the problem of Palestine, Israel, in my view, would not have had the strategic, geographic and demographic space to expand the way it has since 1967.
Having bitterly realised the contours of international relations during and after the Cold War, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc, along with the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), thought it prudent to negotiate to normalise relations with Israel. The cost was paid by Anwar Sadaat, among others, since Muslim societies are still pretty much influenced by the ideas of Syed Qutb and company. The theological, if not political differences among the so-called fundamentalists, traditionalists and modernist Muslims have further blurred the already weakened discourse on right to self-determination, self-defence, terrorism and jihad.
Objectively, the state of Israel is a reality. Realistically, the people of Palestine do exist and have the moral and democratic right to not only return to their home but also determine their political and strategic fate. However, there is more than one view on how this can be achieved. The method being practiced so far by the Palestinians and their supporters is a military one. Militarily, however, the Israeli state is much more sophisticated. The Muslims led by a consensual authority must maintain, according to the Quran (9:3-5), a ratio of 1:2 (one Muslim is equal to two in warfare against oppression and injustice). Less than this, they must avoid war mongering based on base emotions and instead consciously endeavour to buy peace by not wasting meagre human and material resources in unneceassy conflicts and wars. Instead, the means of modern diplomacy can be invoked to enter into military and economic pacts with non-Muslim states to develop comprehensively during peacetime. Believe it or not, this is what the Europeans did after having been badly defeated by Muslim armies post-Crusades.
Comparatively, Pakistan, owing to its confused begging, also took a security view of its neighbourhood. Instead of relying on diplomacy, the war mentality led to her breakup. After 67 years, my country is facing existential challenges. What is happening today to state institutions and premises is but a glimpse. The Muslim world in general, and Palestine and Pakistan in particular, cannot overcome such challenges until they prefer peace to war.
The writer is a DAAD fellow. He holds a PhD in political science from Heidelberg University. He has authored Military Agency, Politics and the State in Pakistan (2013). Currently, he works as assistant professor at Iqra University, Islamabad. He tweets @ ejazbhatty