Introduction
Is the Middle East crisis the result of "ancient hatreds"? In his analysis, Naważ A. Georges rejects this myth, arguing that the region's instability is a systemic product rather than a cultural one.
The reader will discover how the intersection of external interventions and internal authoritarianism created the architecture of the Great Betrayal. The text explains why religious identities became weapons in the hands of elites and global powers.
The article traces the path from colonial maps to modern security states, pointing to citizenship as the only alternative to the cycle of violence.
Regional Crisis as a Systemic, Not Cultural, Product
Traditional explanations regarding the "nature" of the region are flawed because they ignore specific institutions of violence. Instability does not stem from culture, but from a systemic architecture of false promises and external interference.
The rise of religious radicalism and the emergence of ISIS are not returns to the Middle Ages. They are modern products of state collapse, proxy wars, and the crushing of peaceful politics by regimes.
Sectarianism here is a technology of power, not a legacy of hatred. Elites exploit religious divisions to mask corruption and eliminate opponents, creating the illusion that security can only be guaranteed by one's clan or sect.
The Colonial Founding Act as Systemic Betrayal
Colonial powers influenced the region through an original sin—the imposition of borders without the consent of the inhabitants. The Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration laid the foundations for a lack of political legitimacy.
The artificiality of these borders is a problem deeper than geography; it is an act of epistemic violence. People were reduced to geopolitical functions, and their right to self-determination was replaced by the mandate system.
Colonial promises were a technique of ruling through ambiguity. This model taught societies that the state is an alien apparatus of surveillance, destroying civic agency from the very start.
Local Elites as Heirs to Colonial Techniques
After the colonizers departed, local elites adopted "divide and rule" techniques. Anti-colonial movements often devolved into dictatorships because collective emancipation was equated with the monopolization of power by the military or a strongman.
This gave rise to the security state (daw lat al-mukhabarat), where the law protects the regime from the citizen. Authoritarianism does not cure extremism; rather, it co-produces it, creating a vacuum that jihadists eventually fill.
Economically, the system relies on crony capitalism. Wealth from natural resources serves to reproduce power networks rather than foster prosperity. This ensures the region remains poor despite its immense potential and young population.
Conclusion
The Great Betrayal is a symbiosis of foreign interference and internal cynicism. When global powers and dictators build peace on fear, sectarianism becomes the most effective way to wash away responsibility.
The belief in "ancient hatreds" serves only to stop us from questioning the fortunes of ministers and the blood on their hands. The only way forward is a transition from the logic of the sect to the idea of equal citizenship.
The question remains: can we unlearn this hatred before the last bastion of civic dignity is turned into a barricade of memory?
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are traditional explanations for the instability of the Middle East wrong, and how should we view this region?
Traditional explanations are wrong because they rely on cultural essentialism or reduce everything solely to the role of dictators and imperialism. The region should be viewed through the prism of specific institutions, external interventions, and the perspective of ordinary people, treating instability as a product of political-economic arrangements rather than a cultural trait.
How did colonial powers influence the political instability of the Middle East?
Colonial powers influenced the region's instability by drawing unnatural borders in the Sykes-Picot Agreement and employing contradictory political promises. Instead of building self-governance and citizenship, they introduced a mandate system based on paternalism and the support of loyal elites, leading to a lasting sense of betrayal and a lack of legitimacy of power.
How did local elites in the Middle East maintain power after the colonizers left?
Local elites adopted and refined colonial governing techniques, applying the principle of 'divide, intimidate, and make them grateful for order,' while using state institutions as instruments for their own survival. They maintained power through party or family monopolies, centralization of resources, control over the army and security services, as well as the use of torture, censorship, and economic clientelism.
Does the instability of the Middle East and the rise of religious radicalism stem from the nature of the region, or are they the result of political and economic actions?
Instability and radicalism in the Middle East are not natural characteristics of the region, but rather the effect of political and economic actions. They result from state violence, the collapse of institutions, civic exclusion, as well as crony capitalism and corruption.
Why does the region's wealth not translate into the prosperity of its citizens, and how do the geopolitical conflicts of great powers fit into this mechanism?
The region's wealth does not translate into citizen prosperity due to institutionalized corruption and the conversion of public goods into private resources by those in power. This mechanism is amplified by the conflicts of great powers, who treat the region as a space for implementing strategies of dominance and proxy wars, shifting the costs of these actions onto local societies and economies.
What is the essence of the 'great betrayal,' and why is the artificiality of borders in the Middle East a deeper problem than just a geographical issue?
The essence of the 'great betrayal' lies in an architecture of false promises, where the region's inhabitants were promised self-determination and freedom, but were in reality imposed with mandates and supervision. The artificiality of borders is a deeper problem than geography because it is linked to a lack of legitimacy, administrative violence, and the treatment of people as geopolitical matter, stripping them of their status as interlocutors in their own region.
How did colonial promises and the mandate system influence the current nature of power and the lack of civic agency in the region?
Colonial promises based on ambiguity and the mandate system transformed the state into an external apparatus of control rather than a common property of its citizens. This created a structure of foundational inequality and fostered elites acting as brokers of domination, meaning that after decolonization, local autocrats adopted colonial methods of governing their own citizens.
Why did anti-colonial movements in the Middle East lead to the emergence of dictatorships instead of true freedom?
Anti-colonial movements often sought to rebuild collective agency through centralization and the cult of the leader, leading to the militarization of the state and the restriction of civil liberties in the name of unity. This process was deepened by Cold War geopolitics, which favored autocracies that guaranteed stability and access to resources at the expense of actual freedom.
How have the interventions of great powers affected the region's stability, and does the Middle East crisis stem from culture or politics?
Interventions by great powers destabilized the region by overthrowing democratic governments, supporting authoritarian regimes, and militarizing states in the name of strategic interests. The crisis results from politics and the intertwining of authoritarianism with foreign protection, rather than the nature of cultures, as societies' aspirations for democracy were systematically suppressed.
What exactly is the 'great betrayal,' and why is authoritarianism in the Middle East not a cure for extremism, but its co-producer?
The 'great betrayal' encompasses external betrayal (breaking promises of self-determination), internal betrayal (the state being seized by elites), economic betrayal (privatization of public wealth), as well as symbolic and analytical betrayal. Authoritarianism does not cure extremism but co-produces it, because systemic humiliation and a lack of justice create a vacuum that extremists fill.
Why did the process of liberation from colonialism in the Middle East lead to the creation of authoritarian systems instead of true democracy?
The emergence of authoritarian systems was the result of a combination of the colonial legacy of the security apparatus, Cold War militarization, and the weakness of representative institutions. This process was driven by local elites who seized power in the name of collective emancipation, equating it with the monopolization of control by the army, a party, or a ruling family.
How does the economic system in the Middle East serve to maintain the power of authoritarian elites?
The economic system is based on crony capitalism, where access to markets, licenses, and public procurement is granted only to those connected to the regime. As a result, the owning classes become a clientele dependent on the authorities, which prevents the emergence of an independent bourgeoisie and cements the authoritarian monopoly.
Why does the Middle East remain poor despite possessing vast natural resources and a young population?
The region's poverty results from the subordination of the state and economy to the interests of elites, who use natural resources to fund their own luxuries and the apparatus of power instead of investing in development. The lack of proper institutions means that the young population finds no jobs or prospects, while autocratic mechanisms lead to an upward redistribution of wealth and the marginalization of the majority of society.
How do authoritarian regimes in the Middle East utilize religious and ethnic divisions to maintain power?
Authoritarian regimes make access to employment, security, and contracts dependent on group affiliation, staffing administration and security services based on sectarian or clan loyalty. Simultaneously, they deliberately fragment society and sectarianize the state to later blackmail citizens with visions of chaos and civil war, presenting themselves as the only barrier against conflict.
How do local elites in the Middle East maintain power, and what is their role in relation to external interventions?
Local elites maintain power through a 'manorial state' system based on selective redistribution, clientelism, and the demobilization of society through fear and dependency. In relation to external interventions, they act as a filter: utilizing the support of great powers (e.g., weapons or diplomatic protection) and global processes to consolidate their own control and oppression of citizens.
Do conflicts in the Middle East result from ancient religious hatreds or other causes?
Conflicts in the Middle East do not stem from ancient religious hatreds, but are the effect of using identity differences as a technology of power. Sectarianism has been transformed into a tool of control and a mechanism for accessing state resources by colonial empires and local authoritarian regimes.
Why do people in the Middle East retreat into sectarian identities instead of building a civil society?
People seek protection in smaller sectarian communities when they cannot trust the state as a neutral arbiter. This happens because authoritarian regimes transform the state into an apparatus serving solely their own survival, leading to the collapse of civil society.
Why are religious conflicts in the Middle East, including the rise of ISIS, actually the result of state failure and political manipulation?
These conflicts stem from treating the state as loot and a tool for one group's dominance over another, which leads to the marginalization of communities and the destruction of citizenship. Religion here serves merely as a language of mobilization in a geopolitical struggle for influence and regime security. ISIS, on the other hand, grew out of the ruins of statehood, occupational violence, and a sense of exclusion, utilizing sectarianism to fill the void left by a collapsed system of law and justice.
Is sectarianism in the Middle East inevitable, or is there real evidence that it is possible to build a state above religious divisions?
There is evidence that building a state above religious divisions is possible, as exemplified by the Arab Spring and civil movements in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, and Lebanon. Protesters demanded dignity and justice, placing national and civic identity above affiliation with a specific sect.
How do elites use sectarianism to maintain power and hide corruption?
Sectarianism allows elites to mask class divisions and public plunder by constructing narratives of threat and inciting fear of other groups. As a result, citizens focused on identity conflicts are less likely to question the wealth of those in power and less likely to form anti-corruption coalitions.
Do conflicts in the Middle East stem from ancient religious hatreds, or are they a political construct?
These conflicts are a political construct in which modern states and militias use old religious differences as a tool for mobilizing violence. Presenting them as ancient hatreds is a lie intended to obscure the perpetrators' responsibility for their political decisions.
What is the solution to the crisis in the Middle East if sectarianism and the interventions of great powers are tools of control?
The solution is the introduction of citizenship as a political form that shifts differences from the battlefield to the field of law and strips identities of their function as weapons. This requires the rejection of sectarianism and power mechanisms that teach people to fear their neighbor more than those in power.
