Due to unjust political regimes, many people have lost their lives or their families/loved ones, have been displaced from their homes, forced to flee elsewhere, or will never see their ancestors’ homeland again as long as they live. This may account for a significant proportion of human communities on our planet.
The concept of war, however terrible it may be, is related to humanity’s territorial nature. Territoriality means being attached to a piece of land and viewing that region as a security and existential precondition. From prehistoric times to today, this is perhaps one of the least changed aspects of human nature. Therefore, when it comes to the phenomenon of war, which is undoubtedly built upon territoriality, one should be very careful when passing judgment as “inhuman.” Of course, I understand the meaning of the term “human.” But if it is used in the context of human-specific, war, a collective and institutionalized act of extermination, unfortunately, is still considered a legitimate phenomenon. Despite living in the 21st century, the human species has not been able to leave behind the primitiveness of defining its identity through this territorial feature I mentioned above.
Conquering regions inhabited by other human communities is one of the most common patterns in history, if we can speak of such a thing. Not calling it “human nature” in the empirical sense is not easy.
Collective and mass organized acts of killing, i.e., war, thus remain the ultimate method of resolving political disagreements. The deaths and destruction caused by these acts of politically sanctioned hostility are ethically unacceptable but, in practice, they come with a practice that has been carried out by all societies.
The world of the 21st century, with a population approaching eight billion and the demographic, economic, cultural, social, and political complications it brings, is a world where inter-group conflicts occur frequently. In this environment, we observe various forms and manifestations of mass/collective violent actions or behaviors such as wars, civil wars, terrorism, low-intensity conflicts, ethnic clashes, genocides, and deportations. Moreover, the chronology and reconstruction of these mass/collective violent actions are often taught in schools as “history.” These lessons are based on territoriality.
From the perspective of results that can be seen as changing hands, wars are like a mixer. Seizing another community’s land through war brings about not only many problems but also a transformation and change in terms of culture, religion, language, and identity, among many others. However, this “change of hands” and “social/identity transformation” takes a long time and is painful. Often, at the end of this process, parallel societies – often in the form of a majority/minority relationship – emerge, and this dynamic results in prolonged but toxic conflicts and conflict potentials in that territory.
Unfortunately, the Middle East is not free from the negativity I briefly summarized theoretically above. On the contrary, in this region, which is one of the oldest settlement areas in history, perhaps the most intense version of the picture above is evident. Historical practice, I think, contains many events that would provide support for this assumption. Transferred lands, countless and frequently redrawn borders, displaced people, religious, cultural, and linguistic assimilation processes and disruptions, genocides, and mass migrations – the Middle East provides plenty of examples of every kind of negative outcome you can think of.
As Max Weber pointed out, power (in English) and Macht (in German) is the basis of politics, and this applies not only to domestic politics but also to international politics, and perhaps even more openly in the latter. The relationship between land and power is an equation related to being a state. To be a state, you need a piece of land on which you must be the sole power. Usually, you need to “acquire” (conquer) this land from another community or state. Or you need to protect your own land from the conquest (occupation/plunder) of other societies. Today, in terms of international politics, the principles are not much different from the 15th or 18th century in this sense. As Kenneth Waltz said, states find themselves in an international environment where they are responsible for their own security, meaning that they cannot rely on others for security, and therefore, they are often – perhaps rightly – very paranoid when it comes to their security. The highest point of security concerns is maintaining their existence. Just like a living organism, “survival” is the most important of their goals.
Today, the Middle East grapples with numerous chronic and acute problems. It is not only the region where the oldest civilizations are found but also, in fact, the birthplace of civilization, the Middle East hosts many communities that struggle the most to adapt to modern civilization. Resistance to change, preserving traditional structures, perceiving politics as a black-and-white or zero-sum game, not giving others a chance to live, classifying different people into a lower category than themselves – these create a toxic environment that fuels, revives, and magnifies wars, and these are the harsh realities of the Middle East!
However, conflict prevention is possible. Compromise can replace maximalism, and shades of gray can replace rigid black-and-white distinctions. But for this, people in the Middle East must learn to love their children more than their political agendas. They should value making this world a paradise (meaning peace and tranquility) more than the paradise in the afterlife, perhaps even more or at least as much as that.
