中东地区的政治和宗教潮流

根据 Yilmaz Özcan 的课程改编。

Languages

Deutsch English Español Français Italiano 日本語

Português

当代中东：国家、民族和社区

中东的概念 ● 中东地区的语言、宗教和文化 ● 中东地区的帝国和国家 ● 中东地区的政治和宗教潮流

中东是一个复杂迷人且具有相当重要战略意义的地区，是古代文明的摇篮，也是世界上几种最伟大宗教的汇聚地。从埃及到伊朗，从土耳其到也门，这一地理区域通常以边界为界，是一个文化、民族和信仰的大熔炉，几千年来，这些文化、民族和信仰相互交织，不断演变。在这种多样性的核心中，政治和宗教潮流发挥着核心作用，不仅影响着人们的日常生活，也影响着国际关系和全球地缘政治。

这些思潮深深植根于历史，受到帝国兴衰、征服、革命和改革运动等事件的影响。从 7 世纪伊斯兰教的兴起到现代国家的形成，每个历史时期都在该地区的政治和宗教结构上留下了印记。今天，中东是一个由传统君主制、共和国、新生民主政体和独裁政权组成的活生生的舞台，所有这些都与对伊斯兰教和其他宗教信仰（包括犹太教和基督教）的不同解释交织在一起。

阿拉伯民族主义

阿拉伯民族主义的兴起和基础

阿拉伯民族主义是 20 世纪初在奥斯曼帝国和欧洲帝国统治的背景下出现的一种意识形态，它极大地影响了中东的政治和文化历史。这种意识形态基于这样一种信念，即阿拉伯人是一个统一的民族，拥有共同的历史、文化和语言，他们应该在政治上统一为一个单一的实体，或者是一个紧密联系的实体，其边界应与他们的文化和种族特征相符。阿拉伯民族主义的起源可以追溯到阿拉伯文艺复兴时期（Nahda），这是一个文化和知识复兴的时期，阿拉伯知识分子对自己的身份和未来进行了深入思考。这一时期为政治觉醒奠定了基础，随着奥斯曼帝国的解体和欧洲列强的介入，尤其是第一次世界大战之后，政治觉醒愈演愈烈。

埃及的贾迈勒-阿卜杜勒-纳赛尔等标志性人物在促进阿拉伯民族主义方面发挥了至关重要的作用。特别是纳赛尔，他的反帝言论和对阿拉伯统一的倡导成为了这一意识形态的象征。他在 1956 年苏伊士运河国有化中扮演的角色，以及埃及和叙利亚之间的政治联盟--阿拉伯联合共和国（1958-1961 年）的短暂成立，都是试图实现阿拉伯民族主义理想的具体例子。阿拉伯民族主义也受到了其他意识形态思潮的影响，特别是社会主义和世俗主义，叙利亚和伊拉克出现的复兴党就证明了这一点。该党由米歇尔-阿夫拉克（Michel Aflaq）和萨拉赫丁-比塔尔（Salah al-Din al-Bitar）创建，主张阿拉伯世界的统一、自由和社会主义。然而，阿拉伯统一的梦想遇到了重重障碍。内部分歧、不同的国家利益以及阿拉伯联合共和国等统一项目的失败逐渐削弱了阿拉伯民族主义。此外，相互竞争的意识形态运动，特别是伊斯兰主义的兴起，也转移了该地区的政治重心。

在政治理论方面，阿拉伯民族主义说明了在民族解放运动中建立身份认同和实现自决愿望的重要性。它还凸显了泛民族主义意识形态在具有巨大种族、宗教和文化多样性的地区所面临的挑战。今天，尽管阿拉伯民族主义已不再是二十世纪五六十年代的主导力量，但其遗产仍在影响着中东的政治和文化。它仍然是该地区现代史上的重要篇章，也是理解当前政治和文化动态的关键因素。

对阿拉伯民族主义的挑战始于 20 世纪初奥斯曼帝国的灭亡，这一事件深刻地重新定义了中东的政治格局。这一时期出现了各种意识形态和民族主义运动，其中复兴主义和纳赛尔主义是阿拉伯民族主义的两种显著诠释。以复兴党为代表的复兴主义由米歇尔-阿夫拉克和萨拉赫丁-比塔尔在叙利亚创立。它是阿拉伯民族主义的草根代表，强调阿拉伯团结、自由和社会主义。该运动旨在通过一种超越传统国界的泛阿拉伯意识形态来动员群众。复兴党不仅在叙利亚，而且在伊拉克也获得了重大影响力，并在萨达姆-侯赛因等人的领导下掌权。另一方面，以埃及总统贾迈勒-阿卜杜勒-纳赛尔命名的纳赛尔主义代表了一种 "自上而下 "的阿拉伯民族主义，其目标更多是政治和机构精英。纳赛尔是一位富有魅力的军事领导人，他提倡阿拉伯团结、独立于西方以及经济和社会发展。他最具象征意义的行动--1956 年苏伊士运河国有化--被视为反抗西方帝国主义的行为，巩固了他作为阿拉伯世界英雄人物的地位。

尽管这两场运动采取了不同的方式，但它们有着共同的目标，尤其是渴望阿拉伯团结一致，从殖民主义和帝国主义中解放出来。然而，它们的发展轨迹都面临着内部和外部的挑战。纳赛尔主义尽管最初很有号召力，但由于阿拉伯联合共和国的失败以及在 1967 年六日战争中的失败而备受打击。至于复兴党，尽管最初在叙利亚和伊拉克取得了成功，但最终还是面临着内部矛盾和地区冲突。这些运动说明了阿拉伯民族主义的多样性和复杂性，也凸显了泛民族主义意识形态所面临的挑战。它们的历史发展为了解 20 世纪中东的政治动态以及阿拉伯民族主义作为一种团结和解放力量的局限性和潜力提供了宝贵的见解。

历史背景和奥斯曼帝国的转变

如果不了解阿拉伯民族主义产生和形成之前漫长而复杂的历史背景，就无法充分理解阿拉伯民族主义的起源。以下关键事件在这段历史中发挥了重要作用。1517 年奥斯曼帝国征服埃及，占领开罗，1533 年占领巴格达，巩固了奥斯曼帝国对阿拉伯世界广大地区的控制。这些征服不仅扩大了奥斯曼帝国的统治，还为这些领土引入了新的行政、军事和社会结构。几个世纪以来，虽然这些地区是奥斯曼帝国的一部分，但它们保持了一定的文化和语言自治，为独特的阿拉伯身份奠定了基础。1798 年拿破仑-波拿巴远征埃及是另一个转折点。法国的这次军事干预不仅对埃及，而且对整个阿拉伯世界都产生了深远影响。它暴露了奥斯曼帝国在现代欧洲面前军事和技术上的弱点，并引发了旨在使帝国现代化的内部改革进程，即所谓的 "坦齐马特"（Tanzimat）。这次远征也标志着欧洲列强开始对该地区日益增长的兴趣，为外国影响和干预的时代铺平了道路。

在此背景下，1916 年的阿拉伯起义通常被视为阿拉伯民族主义兴起的决定性时刻。在第一次世界大战期间，英国为削弱奥斯曼帝国的力量而鼓励起义，起义由麦加的谢里夫-侯赛因和他的儿子费萨尔等人领导，起义的动机是渴望独立和建立一个独立的阿拉伯国家。虽然起义的结果并没有完全满足这些愿望--主要是由于 1916 年的赛克斯-皮科协定将该地区划分为法国和英国的势力范围--但它还是为现代阿拉伯民族主义奠定了基础。这些历史事件塑造了阿拉伯人的政治意识，唤醒了他们对自治和自决的渴望。它们还凸显了当地愿望与外来干涉之间的紧张关系，这些主题与当代中东政治仍然息息相关。

1908 年的 "青年土耳其革命 "以及随后在 1909 年的专制夺权是阿拉伯民族主义兴起的关键因素。这场运动最初旨在实现奥斯曼帝国的现代化和改革，但很快演变成一种专制主义和排他性的土耳其民族主义，加剧了土耳其精英与帝国内各民族（尤其是阿拉伯人）之间的紧张关系。青年土耳其人的专制转向在 1915 年对亚美尼亚人的大屠杀中悲惨地表现了出来，这一事件不仅是一场可怕的人类悲剧，也为帝国内的其他种族和民族群体敲响了警钟。土耳其化政策旨在将土耳其语言和文化作为帝国机构的核心要素强加于人，被视为对阿拉伯社区身份和自治的直接威胁。在此背景下，一些阿拉伯知识分子受到西方思想的影响，意识到需要捍卫自己的文化和政治身份，开始组织反抗。1913 年在巴黎召开的第一届阿拉伯大会是这一进程中的一个重要时刻。这次大会汇集了来自不同阿拉伯地区的代表，讨论了阿拉伯人在奥斯曼帝国内的未来，并提出了更大自治权的要求。

值得注意的是埃及在这一背景下的特殊立场。参加巴黎大会的埃及代表以观察员的身份出现，这反映了埃及的独特身份，在当时的政治背景下，埃及并不一定将自己视为 "阿拉伯人"。这种区别部分是由于文化和历史原因--埃及有着悠久的历史和有别于其他阿拉伯地区的文明特征--部分是由于当时在英国统治下的埃及的政治局势。这段历史说明了阿拉伯民族主义形成过程的复杂性，凸显了阿拉伯世界内部的各种影响以及不同的政治和文化轨迹。它还显示了奥斯曼帝国的内部动态以及欧洲列强的干预和影响如何在塑造该地区的身份认同和政治运动方面发挥了决定性作用。

第一次世界大战和《赛克斯-皮科协定》的影响

第一次世界大战期间，阿拉伯人虽然在文化和历史上相互联系，但在地理和政治上却处于分裂状态。1916 年签订的《赛克斯-皮科协定》加剧了这种分裂，在该协定中，欧洲列强（主要是法国和英国）瓜分了中东的势力范围，重新划定了边界，而没有考虑种族和文化现实。此外，1917 年的《贝尔福宣言》承诺在巴勒斯坦建立 "犹太民族家园"，这给该地区增添了另一层复杂性和紧张局势。泛阿拉伯主义作为一种统一的意识形态，在这种四分五裂的背景下大行其道。泛阿拉伯主义认为，阿拉伯人作为一个民族必须超越殖民边界，团结起来实现自治和繁荣。第二次世界大战期间，纳粹试图影响该地区反对英法盟国的宣传，以及阿拉伯知识分子在欧洲接触民族主义和反殖民主义思想，都强化了这一思想。

然而，泛阿拉伯主义的梦想遇到了许多挑战。各国的政治野心和现实、阿拉伯世界内部的文化和宗教差异以及地区和国际势力之间的利益冲突阻碍了阿拉伯的团结。1961年埃及和叙利亚解体阿拉伯联合共和国等显著失败标志着泛阿拉伯理想的局限性。泛阿拉伯主义的失败在该地区留下了一个意识形态真空，逐渐被伊斯兰主义所填补。这一运动旨在根据伊斯兰原则组织社会，在世俗主义和民族主义意识形态日益幻灭的背景下获得了发展。在随后的几十年里，各种伊斯兰运动兴起，它们利用人们的失望情绪和寻求认同的心理，提出了基于宗教和传统的替代方案。

泛阿拉伯运动

最初的承诺与欺骗： 谢里夫-侯赛因的联盟与英国委任统治

麦加的谢里夫-侯赛因（Sherif Hussein）等名人作为当地领导人和阿拉伯人与殖民国家之间的中间人发挥了至关重要的作用。就侯赛因而言，他作为伊斯兰圣地守护者的身份赋予了他重要的宗教和政治权威。第一次世界大战期间，他寻求与英国结盟，因为英国承诺支持他在战后建立一个独立的阿拉伯王国，以换取他对奥斯曼帝国的帮助。这一联盟体现了该地区传统名流的战略，他们试图在地方利益和外国势力的野心之间游刃有余。然而，英国人向侯赛因做出的承诺（即侯赛因-麦克马洪书信）是模棱两可的，最终被证明与英国人做出的其他承诺相矛盾，特别是《赛克斯-皮科协定》和《贝尔福宣言》。

事实证明，这些外交谈判的结果令阿拉伯的愿望大失所望。战后，国际联盟在该地区建立了几个委任统治地，将领土置于英国和法国的管理之下，而不是承诺的独立。侯赛因建立一个统一的阿拉伯王国的设想破灭了，该地区被分割成几个国家，这些国家的边界往往是人为划定的，没有反映民族和文化的现实。这一时期，阿拉伯人的背叛感和幻灭感与日俱增，他们看到独立和统一的希望破灭了。这种失望情绪为对西方列强的不满情绪奠定了基础，并在随后的几十年里助长了民族主义和反殖民运动。侯赛因的形象和他建立一个独立的阿拉伯王国的失败尝试，仍然是阿拉伯人争取自决的斗争和20世纪初中东与西方列强之间复杂关系的有力象征。

阿拉伯民族主义理论家和领袖的出现

第一次世界大战结束后，麦加谢里夫-侯赛因的儿子之一费萨尔成为阿拉伯民族主义形成过程中的关键人物。费萨尔在阿拉伯人反抗奥斯曼帝国的起义中发挥了领导作用，成为阿拉伯人自决愿望的象征。他的同伴和顾问萨提-胡斯里对阿拉伯民族主义的理论化产生了相当大的影响。后来成为教育部长的萨提-胡斯里通常被视为阿拉伯民族主义的第一位主要理论家。他的研究方法深受德国民族概念的影响，强调语言和文化是民族认同的基础。对胡斯里来说，阿拉伯语是阿拉伯人身份认同的核心要素，是超越阿拉伯世界宗教、地区或部落差异的纽带。

将语言和文化作为国家认同的决定性要素，在一定程度上是为了应对阿拉伯世界多样性带来的挑战。通过强调这些共同要素，胡斯里试图在阿拉伯人中建立一种统一和团结的意识，而不考虑其个体差异。他的方法在随后的几十年里帮助塑造了阿拉伯民族主义的意识形态，影响了一些阿拉伯国家的教育和文化政策。因此，战后时期，费萨尔等人的努力和胡斯里的理论对阿拉伯民族主义的形成至关重要。尽管战后的政治现实和国际协议挫败了阿拉伯统一的愿望，但以语言和文化为基础的阿拉伯共同身份的理念继续对中东的政治和社会产生深远影响。

两次大战之间的阿拉伯民族主义：背叛和外部影响

二战期间是阿拉伯民族主义发展的关键时期，这主要是受第一次世界大战期间对阿拉伯人的承诺未能兑现的影响。1916 年签订的《赛克斯-皮科协定》在法国和英国之间秘密瓜分了中东，成为阿拉伯人独立和自决愿望遭到背叛的象征。这些协议在战后被揭露出来，极大地削弱了阿拉伯人对西方列强的信心，助长了他们的不信任和怨恨情绪。

在此背景下，其他因素加速了阿拉伯民族主义的崛起。法西斯和纳粹的宣传引起了阿拉伯社会某些阶层的共鸣，特别是因为他们共同反对英国和法国的殖民主义。纳粹政权为了扩大其在该地区的影响力，利用了阿拉伯人对殖民国家的不满。1941 年在巴格达发生的亲纳粹政变（即拉希德-阿里-吉拉尼政变）将这一切推向了高潮，政变在伊拉克短暂建立了亲德政府，随后被英军推翻。与此同时，关于阿拉伯独立的争论持续升温。阿拉伯世界的知识分子、政治家和舆论领袖积极讨论如何实现政治自治和抵制外国影响。在这一时期，出现了一些民族主义运动，组建了一些政党，这些政党在该地区后殖民历史上发挥了重要作用。二战期间是中东政治剧变的时期。第一次世界大战期间做出的承诺未能兑现、法西斯和纳粹意识形态的影响以及关于独立的内部辩论，这些因素共同塑造了该地区的政治格局，并为随后几十年发生的事件和运动奠定了基础。

复兴党运动

复兴党的起源和背景： 亚历山大港桑贾克的吞并

1939 年土耳其吞并亚历山德勒特桑贾克这一事件通常被视为复兴党出现的重要催化剂，复兴党这一政治运动将在当代中东历史上发挥重要作用。

亚历山大桑贾克是现代叙利亚西北部的一个地区，土耳其在与当时的叙利亚委任统治国法国达成协议后吞并了该地区。这次吞并被视为阿拉伯人耻辱性的领土损失，加剧了该地区的民族主义情绪。对许多人来说，这表明阿拉伯国家在外国和地区大国的利益面前不堪一击。在这种沮丧和渴望反抗的背景下，复兴党或 "阿拉伯复活 "应运而生。复兴党由米歇尔-阿夫拉克和萨拉赫-丁-比塔尔这两位叙利亚知识分子创立，宣扬以阿拉伯民族主义、社会主义和世俗主义为基础的意识形态。复兴党运动旨在统一阿拉伯世界，促进经济和社会发展，抵制帝国主义和殖民主义。

因此，吞并亚历山大沙克推动了这一意识形态的发展，该意识形态寻求应对阿拉伯国家面临的挑战。它强化了一种感觉，即需要集体行动和阿拉伯团结来对抗外国对该地区的影响和干预。作为一种政治和意识形态力量，复兴党随后在一些阿拉伯国家，特别是叙利亚和伊拉克的政治中发挥了核心作用。尽管多年来复兴党运动不断发展并面临许多挑战，但它在 20 世纪 40 年代的出现仍然是阿拉伯民族主义历史上的一个关键时刻，并继续影响着中东的政治。

阿拉伯复兴社会党的成立和理念： 1947 年第一次代表大会

1947 年举行的复兴党第一次代表大会在确定该运动的意识形态和目标方面发挥了至关重要的作用。这次大会标志着复兴党对阿拉伯世界未来愿景的具体化进入了一个重要阶段，该愿景基于三个基本支柱：统一、独立和阿拉伯社会主义。对统一的强调反映了建立一个统一的阿拉伯国家或阿拉伯国家联盟的愿望，超越了既定的殖民地和国家边界。这种领土统一的思想植根于阿拉伯民族主义，旨在对抗西方和地区大国在该地区的影响。

独立是另一个核心支柱，强调阿拉伯国家需要实现完全的政治和经济自治。这不仅涉及从殖民主义中解放出来，还涉及发展独立的政治和经济结构和制度。复兴党所倡导的阿拉伯社会主义旨在实现阿拉伯社会的现代化和改革。它不是苏联社会主义的翻版，而是根据阿拉伯的现实和需求对社会主义原则进行调整，重点是土地改革、工业化和社会公正。

除这三大支柱外，复兴党还具有世俗化和非宗教化的特点。在一个宗教和教派高度多元化的地区，这种世俗化取向意义重大。复兴党提倡所有宗教和种族社区都应融入阿拉伯民族特性，从而建立一个跨越教派鸿沟的统一社会。最后，反犹太复国主义是该党意识形态的一个突出要素。这一立场反映了对犹太复国主义运动和建立以色列国的反对，因为以色列被视为殖民定居点，是对阿拉伯世界统一和自治愿望的威胁。因此，复兴党第一次代表大会确定了这一运动的轮廓，而这一运动在随后的几十年中对中东政治产生了深远的影响。复兴党的遗产错综复杂，有时还会引起争议，但它仍在影响着该地区的政治和社会。

米歇尔-阿弗拉克与复兴党意识形态的形成

米歇尔-阿弗拉克 1910 年出生于大马士革，是复兴党创立和发展的核心人物。阿弗拉克出生于一个希腊东正教家庭，在塑造阿拉伯民族主义和世俗思想方面发挥了决定性作用，这也是复兴党运动的特点。1943 年，阿弗拉克与萨拉赫丁-比塔尔（Salah al-Din al-Bitar）和其他知识分子一起创建了复兴党，全名为 "阿拉伯社会主义复兴党"。该党是在阿拉伯世界民族主义觉醒的背景下成立的，旨在应对殖民主义和该地区内部分裂带来的挑战。

阿弗拉克曾担任复兴党秘书长，对该党的思想和政治方向产生了重大影响。他对阿拉伯民族主义的看法是包容性的，超越了宗教和教派分歧，这反映在他本人的阿拉伯基督徒背景上。他坚信阿拉伯团结、社会进步和世俗主义是实现阿拉伯社会现代化和抵御外国影响的必要手段。在他的领导下，复兴党试图在包括伊拉克在内的几个阿拉伯国家建立支部。特别是在第二次世界大战后，随着民族主义在该地区的兴起和反对殖民国家的独立斗争，复兴党的理念获得了影响力。然而，阿弗拉克对复兴党的愿景及其对阿拉伯民族主义的诠释却受到了各种不同的解读和调整，尤其是在该党掌权的叙利亚和伊拉克。在伊拉克，特别是在萨达姆-侯赛因执政时期，复兴党明显变得更加专制，背离了阿弗拉克最初倡导的一些原则。米歇尔-阿弗拉克一生大部分时间都在为复兴党运动和促进阿拉伯统一而工作，于 1989 年去世。在中东的历史和当代背景下，他对阿拉伯政治思想的贡献仍然是一个重要的研究和辩论主题。

复兴党在阿拉伯世界的演变及其与各国政权的联系揭示了一段复杂的历史，其中既有改革和进步，也有冲突和镇压。复兴党由米歇尔-阿弗拉克和他的同事们创建后，试图在阿拉伯各国建立国家部门。复兴党的意识形态以阿拉伯团结、社会主义和世俗主义为核心，在其中许多国家引起了共鸣，尤其是在 20 世纪 50 年代和 60 年代，这一时期的特点是反殖民斗争以及对现代化和独立的渴望。例如，在叙利亚和伊拉克，复兴党分别于 1963 年和 1968 年掌权。这些复兴党政权发起了多项改革，尤其是在教育、工业和农业领域，旨在实现经济现代化，减少不平等现象。他们还提倡政教分离，试图减少宗教在国家事务中的影响，此举打破了该地区许多国家的政治传统。

然而，伴随复兴党上台的还有各种形式的暴力和镇压。在伊拉克，在萨达姆-侯赛因的领导下，复兴党政权推行独裁政策，镇压持不同政见者，并引发了内外冲突，如两伊战争（1980-1988 年）和 1990 年入侵科威特。在叙利亚，哈菲兹-阿萨德（Hafez al-Assad）和他的儿子巴沙尔-阿萨德（Bashar al-Assad）执政期间，政权的特点也是权力高度集中、对社会严密监控和镇压不同政见者。作为一种意识形态和一种权力实践，复兴党的这一复杂历史凸显了在种族、宗教和政治多样性背景下实施民族主义和社会主义理想的困难。一方面，复兴党政权为其统治的国家带来了重大变革和改革，但另一方面，他们又经常诉诸暴力和镇压来维持其控制，从而导致了深刻影响中东近代史的分裂和冲突。

阿拉伯联合共和国的失败及其影响

1958 年成立的阿拉伯联合共和国（UAR）是阿拉伯民族主义，特别是复兴党运动史上的一个重要时刻。这一雄心勃勃的计划旨在具体实现阿拉伯统一的理想，这是复兴党意识形态的核心原则。阿拉伯联盟是埃及和叙利亚之间的政治联盟。它在很大程度上是由阿拉伯民族主义的领军人物埃及总统贾迈勒-阿卜杜勒-纳赛尔激励和推动的。纳赛尔虽然不是复兴党成员，但与复兴党有许多共同目标，特别是在阿拉伯团结、社会主义和抵抗帝国主义方面。

该联盟被视为实现阿拉伯大统一的第一步，这是该地区许多民族主义者梦寐以求的目标。它在那些渴望看到阿拉伯世界在政治和经济上联合起来，形成一支重要的地区和全球力量的人们中间激起了巨大的热情和希望。然而，事实证明阿拉伯联合共和国是短命的。1961 年，联盟成立仅三年后，就因多种因素而解体。埃及和叙利亚之间的政治和经济分歧、埃及的中央集权以及叙利亚国内对埃及统治的不满情绪日益增长，这些都是导致联盟解体的原因。阿拉伯团结联盟的失败是对阿拉伯统一运动的一次打击，也说明了在这样一个多样化的地区建立这样一个联盟所固有的挑战。尽管失败了，但阿拉伯团结联盟仍是阿拉伯民族主义历史上的重要篇章，并作为阿拉伯世界政治统一尝试的重要范例继续被研究。

复兴党掌权： 叙利亚的改革与镇压

1963 年 3 月，复兴党在叙利亚掌权，这标志着叙利亚政治史和整个复兴党运动的一个重要转折点。这次夺权是通过军事政变实现的，反映了复兴党作为地区政治力量的崛起。在复兴党的领导下，叙利亚按照阿拉伯民族主义、社会主义和世俗主义的理想进行了一系列激进改革。这些改革包括工业国有化、土地改革以及教育和基础设施的现代化。其目的是将叙利亚改造成一个现代化、社会主义和统一的国家，打破过去的政治和经济结构。然而，叙利亚复兴党政权的另一个特点是权力更加集中，政治压迫更加严重。这一时期，一小撮精英阶层的权力得到了巩固，他们往往由什叶派的一个分支阿拉维派成员主导。权力集中在少数教派手中导致教派关系紧张，叙利亚政治出现了某种教派化。

教派化，或者说宗教和教派身份在政治中日益重要，与复兴党的世俗意识形态格格不入。然而，它已成为叙利亚治理的一个特点，助长了内部分裂和不稳定。复兴党的政策加剧了这种态势，尽管这些政策是官方世俗化的，但有时却偏袒某些信仰团体，导致叙利亚各阶层民众感到边缘化和不满。复兴党在叙利亚的执政经历，包括最初在社会和经济改革方面取得的成功和后来的失败，尤其是在宗派治理和政治压迫方面的失败，对叙利亚的发展产生了深远影响，并继续影响着叙利亚的政治和社会。

纳赛尔运动

纳赛尔主义的基础和愿望

纳赛尔主义是一种阿拉伯政治意识形态，其名称来源于埃及总统贾迈勒-阿卜杜勒-纳赛尔，他在位期间（1956-1970 年）是阿拉伯世界发生剧变的时期。这种意识形态的特点是追求阿拉伯统一，渴望阿拉伯国家完全独立，并对适合阿拉伯国情的社会主义形式感兴趣。

纳赛尔作为一个有魅力的人物和有影响力的领导人，通过他的政策和演讲来体现和宣传纳赛尔主义。1956 年苏伊士运河国有化是这一意识形态在行动中最突出的例子之一，这一行为不仅挑战了西方在该地区的利益，也象征着阿拉伯国家对主权和自决的要求。这一决定引发了一场国际危机，最终巩固了纳赛尔作为面对西方帝国主义的阿拉伯独立卫士的地位。纳赛尔主义还旨在加强阿拉伯国家之间的团结，其前提是这些国家尽管存在差异，但拥有共同的历史、语言和愿望。1958 年，埃及和叙利亚组建了政治联盟阿拉伯联合共和国，尽管时间短暂，但这一愿景得以实现。虽然这个联盟在1961年失败了，但它仍然是纳赛尔努力将阿拉伯世界团结在一面旗帜下的历史典范。

纳赛尔主义的影响和改革

在经济和社会方面，纳赛尔主义导致了一系列社会主义改革。纳赛尔发起了国有化和土地改革计划，旨在重新分配财富和减少不平等。这些措施虽然不同于苏联社会主义，但反映了纳赛尔希望使社会主义原则适应阿拉伯现实，强调经济自主和社会公正。从理论角度看，纳赛尔主义可以通过依附理论和后殖民民族主义的棱镜来解释。作为对殖民统治和新殖民统治的回应，纳赛尔主义寻求为阿拉伯国家建立一条独立的发展和解放道路。这种做法反映了一种打破经济和政治依赖枷锁、建立独特的民族和地区身份的愿望。

纳赛尔主义与复兴党不同，它主要是在加迈勒-阿卜杜勒-纳赛尔掌权埃及之后发展和具体化的一种意识形态。这一特点标志着这两种意识形态在阿拉伯政治格局中的发展轨迹存在根本差异。由米歇尔-阿夫拉克（Michel Aflaq）和萨拉赫丁-比塔尔（Salah al-Din al-Bitar）发起的复兴主义，在复兴党在叙利亚和伊拉克掌权之前，就已经作为一种政治意识形态确立下来。这一运动早在成为主导性政治力量之前，就在阿拉伯统一、社会主义和世俗主义方面建立了坚实的理论基础和明确的目标。另一方面，纳赛尔主义的出现是与纳赛尔作为埃及领导人的崛起和行动直接相关的一套思想和实践。纳赛尔最初并不是传统意义上的思想家，他的思想和政策是在其统治期间形成和完善的。1952 年，自由军官运动推翻了埃及君主制，纳赛尔是这一运动的重要成员，此后他逐渐形成了对埃及和阿拉伯世界的愿景，这就是后来的纳赛尔主义。这一愿景在苏伊士运河国有化和促进阿拉伯统一等行动中逐渐成形，这些行动是纳赛尔主义定义的决定性时刻。此外，纳赛尔在埃及进行的社会经济改革，如土地改革和工业国有化，也反映了他的思想原则。

纳赛尔主义、复兴党和阿拉伯联合共和国

1958 年成立的阿拉伯联合共和国（UAR）是纳赛尔思想最重要的体现之一。这一联盟将埃及和叙利亚联合在一起，其动机是贾迈勒-阿卜杜勒-纳赛尔实现阿拉伯统一的雄心，这是他的意识形态的核心支柱之一。纳赛尔对阿拉伯联盟的愿景不仅仅是一个政治联盟，而是要建立一个统一的政治和经济实体，作为该地区发展和力量的引擎。对纳赛尔来说，阿拉伯区域联盟是实现泛阿拉伯梦想的一步，在这个梦想中，阿拉伯国家可以超越殖民地和历史边界，形成一个更大、更强大的联盟。然而，阿拉伯联盟在实践中面临着许多挑战。其中最具争议的一点是，尤其是在叙利亚，人们认为联盟导致了一种埃及统治。从理论上讲，叙利亚阿拉伯联盟本应是一个平等的联盟，但在实践中却常常被视为埃及，尤其是纳赛尔试图控制或影响叙利亚的政治。开罗的集权和叙利亚政治声音的边缘化加剧了这种看法。

在阿拉伯联盟的框架内，叙利亚往往被视为埃及的一个省，而不是一个平等的合作伙伴。这种态势加剧了叙利亚国内日益增长的不满情绪，许多政治家和公民感到自己被边缘化，并受到埃及的支配。这种情况最终导致了 RAU 于 1961 年解体，叙利亚退出了该联盟。尽管叙利亚阿拉伯联盟存在的时间不长，但它仍然是阿拉伯民族主义和纳赛尔思想史上的重要篇章。它象征着阿拉伯统一的愿望，以及在一个政治、文化和社会差异巨大的地区实现这一理念所面临的挑战。阿拉伯团结联盟的经验也凸显了纳赛尔以中央集权和领导主义方式实现阿拉伯统一的局限性。

地区和全球背景下的纳赛尔主义

埃及和以色列于1979年签署的《戴维营协议》是中东历史上的一个重要转折点，经常被认为标志着泛阿拉伯主义时代的结束。这些协议促成了埃及和以色列之间的和平条约，被许多阿拉伯国家视为对泛阿拉伯主义和阿拉伯团结原则的背叛。泛阿拉伯主义作为一种政治和意识形态运动，长期以来一直倡导阿拉伯团结一致反对外国影响和干涉，特别是反对被视为在阿拉伯土地上植入殖民地的以色列国。由埃及总统安瓦尔-萨达特谈判并签署的《戴维营协议》打破了这一思路，在埃及和以色列之间建立了正式外交关系并相互承认。

这些协议的签署产生了相当大的影响。埃及是阿拉伯世界的历史领袖之一，也是纳赛尔领导下的泛阿拉伯主义的狂热支持者，但却在阿拉伯世界陷入孤立。作为对与以色列关系正常化的回应，阿拉伯联盟暂停了埃及的成员资格，并将其总部迁出开罗。这种排斥象征着其他阿拉伯国家对埃及单方面决定的强烈不满和反对。

因此，20 世纪 70 年代末和 80 年代初标志着阿拉伯政治的转型期，泛阿拉伯主义作为团结力量的影响力下降，国家政治和单个国家利益的重要性上升。戴维营协议》不仅重新界定了埃及和以色列之间的关系，还对地区动态和阿拉伯团结的观念产生了持久的影响。这些事态发展反映了中东政治的复杂性，意识形态愿望往往与政治和地缘政治现实发生冲突。从泛阿拉伯主义到更加务实的国家政策的转变说明了该地区联盟和优先事项性质的变化。

The League of Arab States (Arab League)

The Beginnings of Arab Cooperation and the Concepts of Union

In 1944, Egypt, under the reign of King Farouk, played a leading role in discussions aimed at establishing some form of cooperation or union between Arab countries. This period marked an important stage in efforts at regional collaboration, preceding the formation of the Arab League in 1945. At that time, several ideas and projects concerning Arab unity or cooperation were under discussion. One of the key concepts was Greater Syria, which envisaged a union of the Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Palestinian territories. This idea, rooted in the region's shared history and culture, was seen by some as a natural way of bringing together these peoples who share close ties.

Another concept was that of the "Fertile Crescent", which included Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. This idea was based on geographical and economic considerations, the Fertile Crescent being a historically rich and fertile region, considered to be the cradle of several ancient civilisations. The idea of creating a league or federation of Arab countries was also gaining ground. This proposal aimed to establish a formal structure for political, economic and cultural cooperation between the Arab states, enabling more effective coordination of their common policies and interests.

The Formation and Challenges of the League of Arab States

These discussions led to the formation of the Arab League in 1945, a regional organisation designed to foster cooperation between member states and promote Arab interests and identity. The creation of the Arab League was a decisive moment in the modern history of the Middle East, symbolising the recognition of the importance of regional cooperation and Arab unity. These different proposals reflect the diversity of approaches and visions of Arab unity at that time. They also show how, even before the rise of Nasserism and Baathism, efforts were already underway to establish political structures and regional alliances among Arab countries.

The Alexandria Protocol, signed in 1944, laid the foundations for what was to become the League of Arab States. This crucial step marked a concerted effort by Arab nations to formalise a structure for regional cooperation, an initiative that reflected the growing aspirations for unity and collaboration within the Arab world. On 22 March 1945, the League of Arab States was officially formed. Its founding members, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan (then Transjordan), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and North Yemen, represented a broad cross-section of the political, cultural and economic diversity of the Arab world. The aim of the League was to promote the political, economic, cultural and social interests of the Arab countries, and to coordinate their efforts in areas of common interest.

However, the internal workings of the League of Arab States proved complex. Its structure, requiring a consensus among its members for major decisions, often made it difficult to take quick and effective decisions. This difficulty was exacerbated by the great diversity of political systems, ideological orientations and national interests of the member states. In addition, despite their common cultural and historical identity, the Arab countries showed little economic integration. Trade between member states was relatively limited, and their economies were often oriented towards relations with non-Arab partners. This situation reflected the challenges posed by borders and economic structures inherited from the colonial era, as well as disparities in terms of natural resources and industrial development. Despite these challenges, the League of Arab States represented an important step towards the recognition and affirmation of Arab identity on the international stage. However, the achievement of its goals of unity and cooperation has often been hampered by the complex political and economic realities of the Arab world.

Attempts at regional unity: Union of Arab Republics and the Maghreb

The attempt to create the Union of Arab Republics in 1971 is another example of efforts to strengthen unity and cooperation in the Arab world, although it did not lead to concrete results. This initiative, which aimed to unite Egypt, Libya and Syria in a federation, reflected the pursuit of the ideal of Arab unity that had been at the heart of many regional policies since the 1950s. However, despite its announcement with great fanfare, the Union of Arab Republics suffered from internal disagreements and a lack of practical coordination between the member countries. Ideological differences, divergent national interests and the strong personalities of their leaders hampered any meaningful political or economic integration. This experience has highlighted the challenges inherent in creating a political union in such a diverse region.

In the Maghreb, too, various attempts to bring the states of the region together have failed. Despite shared cultural and historical links, the Maghreb countries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Mauritania) have experienced different political trajectories, making it difficult to establish close regional cooperation. Attempts to create organisations or unions have often been hampered by political rivalries, differences in ideological orientation and economic problems.

The Gulf Cooperation Council and the New Regional Dynamics

After the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, the Gulf states, faced with a new regional dynamic, attempted to form a consultation council. The aim of this initiative was to coordinate policies and strengthen collective security in the face of what was perceived as a growing threat from Iran. Once again, however, concrete results were limited. Although the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was formed in 1981, bringing together Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, it has faced its own internal challenges, particularly in terms of foreign and security policy.

These various attempts underline the complexity of unification and cooperation efforts in a region marked by deep political, economic and ideological divisions. They also reflect the limits of regional initiatives in the context of an ever-changing Middle East and Maghreb.

The pan-Islamic movement

The Wahhabism

Wahhabism, a religious doctrine and a form of Islamic movement, has had a significant influence in certain regions of the Arab world, but its link with Arabism or Arab nationalism is complex and needs to be clarified.

Wahhabism, founded by Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the 18th century in the Arabian Peninsula, advocates a strict and puritanical interpretation of Islam. It focuses on a return to the practices of the "salaf" or first generations of Muslims, considered to be models of piety and Islamic practice. This approach insists on strict adherence to sharia (Islamic law) and rejects innovations (bid'ah) in religious practice. However, the link between Wahhabism and Arabism or Arab nationalism is indirect. Arab nationalism, as a political and ideological movement, emphasises the unity and independence of Arabs as a people, often focusing on common cultural, linguistic and historical aspects. Although Wahhabism is an influential force in the Arabian Peninsula, particularly in Saudi Arabia, it is primarily a religious reform rather than a nationalist movement.

Wahhabism has, however, played a role in shaping political and religious identity in some parts of the Arab world, particularly Saudi Arabia. The alliance between Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the House of Saud was crucial in the formation of the modern Saudi state. This alliance integrated elements of Wahhabism into the political and social structures of Saudi Arabia, but this should not be confused with Arab nationalism as such. It is also important to note that Arab nationalism and Wahhabism may even be in tension. Arab nationalism, with its secular tendencies and emphasis on political and cultural unity, can come into conflict with the conservative and sometimes sectarian religious approach of Wahhabism. In short, although Wahhabism has influenced the history and politics of certain Arab regions, it represents a distinct and sometimes even contradictory trend in relation to the principles of Arab nationalism.

The relationship between Mohammed Ben Abdelwahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, and Mohammed Ibn Saud, the head of the House of Saud, is crucial to understanding the genesis of modern Saudi Arabia and the influence of Wahhabism in the region. Mohammed Ben Abdelwahhab, born in 1703, preached a form of Islamic reform that aimed to purify religious practice of what he considered to be the innovations and superstitions that had crept into Islam over time. His teaching focused on a strict return to the teachings of the Koran and the Sunna, following the example of the first generations of Muslims (salaf).

His meeting and alliance with Mohammed Ibn Saud in the mid-eighteenth century marked a decisive turning point. Ibn Saud, ruler of the Najd region of the Arabian Peninsula, adopted Abdelwahhab's teachings and incorporated his principles into the governance of his territory. This alliance combined Wahhabi religious reform with Saud political and military ambition, creating a powerful force in the region. Together, they challenged the authority of the Ottoman Caliphate, dominant in the region at the time, and sought to extend their influence. Their movement was not only religious, but also political, seeking to establish a new order based on Wahhabi principles. This combination of religious reform and political ambition led to an increasing politicisation of religion in the region. The result of this alliance was the creation of the first Saudi Emirate, with its capital in Dariya. This Emirate was the predecessor of modern Saudi Arabia and laid the foundations for Wahhabi influence in Saudi governance and society. The alliance between the Sauds and Abdelwahhab thus played a key role in the formation of the Saudi state and had a lasting influence on politics and religious practice in the Gulf region.

The agreement between Mohammed Ben Abdelwahhab and Mohammed Ibn Saud is often described as a pact of power-sharing and mutual support that laid the foundations of the modern Saudi state. The pact, which dates back to the mid-18th century, established a division of responsibilities between the two parties: Ben Abdelwahhab focused on religious matters, preaching and establishing the Wahhabi foundations of Islam, while Ibn Saud took care of the political and military aspects, extending his power over the region. This unique partnership between religious and political power was essential to the foundation and expansion of the Saudi Emirate, the political entity that would eventually become Saudi Arabia. Ben Abdelwahhab provided religious legitimacy, insisting on a puritanical and strict interpretation of Islam, while Ibn Saud used this legitimacy to unify and extend his power over the tribes and territories of the Arabian Peninsula.

The pact between the two men established a symbiotic relationship between the House of Saud and the religious descendants of Ben Abdelwahhab (often referred to as the "Al ash-Sheikh"), which persisted for almost 300 years. This relationship was characterised by mutual support, with the Saud protecting and promoting Wahhabism, while Wahhabi religious leaders legitimised the Saud's political power. This alliance provided the ideological and political impetus for Saudi expansion in the Arabian Peninsula. It also established a model of governance in which religion and state are closely intertwined, with Wahhabism becoming a defining feature of Saudi national identity. The original agreement between Ben Abdelwahhab and Ibn Saud therefore played a fundamental role in the formation of Saudi Arabia and continues to influence the country's political and religious structure. This unique relationship between religious and political power remains central to Saudi society and politics.

Arab modernism or 'nahda

The Nahda, or Arab Renaissance, was a crucial period in the intellectual and cultural history of the Arab world, and Egypt played a central role in this movement. Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897) is often cited as one of the leading theorists of this period. His influence and ideas were decisive in shaping Arab modernism and Islamic modernism.

Al-Afghani, a thinker and political activist, moved to Egypt in his thirties. His time in Egypt was marked by close collaboration with Mohammed Abduh, who was to become Mufti of Egypt. Together they set about reforming and modernising Islamic thought and institutions, seeking to respond to the challenges posed by European expansion and colonial rule. Their approach, often referred to as Islamic modernism, aimed to reconcile Islamic principles with modern ideas and scientific advances. They advocated an interpretation of the Koran and Islamic traditions that was both faithful to the sources and open to new interpretations and adaptations to contemporary realities. This vision sought to revitalise Muslim society and promote education, rationality and scientific progress as a means of resisting Western influence and revitalising Arab-Muslim culture.

The Islamic modernism of Al-Afghani and Abduh had a significant impact on the Arab world, influencing many later intellectuals and reformers. Their work contributed to the Nahda by encouraging a spirit of questioning and reform in the fields of religion, philosophy, literature and politics. The Nahda, as a movement, represented a decisive turning point for the Arab world, marking a period of intellectual, cultural and political renaissance. The influence of thinkers such as Al-Afghani and Abduh was crucial in shaping a vision of the Arab world that was both rooted in its heritage and forward-looking, seeking to strike a balance between tradition and modernity.

The Nahda process led to a remarkable cultural upsurge in the Arab world, characterised by a rediscovery and reappraisal of Arab historical and cultural heritage. This movement marked a period of intellectual and artistic awakening, during which Arab intellectuals, writers, poets and artists explored and celebrated Arab history and culture, while integrating them into a modern context. The cultural Arabism of this period was marked by a renewed interest in the Arabic language, literature, history and the arts. The intellectuals of the Nahda sought to revitalise the Arabic language, modernising it while preserving its rich and complex heritage. This period saw the emergence of new literary forms, such as the novel and the short story, as well as the revival of classical forms such as poetry.

The rediscovery of the historical and glorious heritage of the Arab world was another key component of the cultural Arabism of the Nahda. Historians and thinkers revisited periods of greatness in Arab-Muslim civilisation, such as the Islamic Golden Age, and looked for ways to reconnect with this heritage in the context of contemporary challenges. This approach aimed to strengthen a sense of Arab pride and identity while providing a framework for modernisation and progress. In addition, the cultural rise of the Nahda was also characterised by increased dialogue with Western cultures and ideas. Nahda intellectuals often advocated a balanced approach, embracing Western scientific and intellectual advances while preserving Arab values and traditions. The Nahda as a whole therefore represented a crucial moment in the cultural history of the Arab world, marking a period of renewal, reflection and innovation. The impact of this movement is still felt today, both in the field of culture and in political and social thought in the Arab world.

The Nahda movement, characterised by its inclusive approach and its emphasis on the Arabic language, transcended denominational distinctions, uniting Arabs of different faiths around a common cultural and linguistic heritage. By emphasising Arabic as the language of literature, education and public discourse, this movement fostered a sense of pan-Arab identity that went beyond religious or sectarian divisions. The Nahda encouraged a renaissance in all aspects of intellectual and cultural life. It saw the creation of political parties, associations, leagues and organisations that promoted various aspects of education, social reform and modernisation. These groups were often driven by the idea that cultural and linguistic renaissance was essential to the political and social renewal of the Arab world.

The political parties formed during this period sought to channel national and regional aspirations into political programmes. These parties, although diverse in their ideological orientations, often shared a commitment to strengthening Arab identity and modernising society. The associations and leagues created during the Nahda played a key role in disseminating new ideas, organising cultural activities and promoting education and research. They were places where intellectuals and artists could meet, exchange ideas and collaborate on cultural and educational projects. This period also saw the emergence of new forms of media, such as newspapers and magazines, which played a crucial role in spreading the ideas of the Nahda. These publications provided a platform for debates on reform, politics, literature and culture, and were essential for reaching a wider audience.

The pan-Islamism promoted by the Ottoman sultan Abdülhamid II (reigned 1876-1909) represented a particular political approach that influenced Arab nationalism, although it was distinct from the latter. Abdülhamid II's pan-Islamism aimed to consolidate Ottoman authority and unify the empire's diverse Muslim peoples around Islam, in response to the internal and external pressures facing the Ottoman Empire at the time.

Faced with challenges such as the rise of nationalism in various parts of the empire and pressure from European powers, Abdülhamid II adopted a strategy of political and administrative centralisation. He sought to strengthen the Empire's central control over its territories, including the Arab regions, by putting in place procedures for centralisation, investigation and repression. Abdülhamid's emphasis on Islam as a unifying element was intended to counter separatist tendencies and maintain the cohesion of the empire. However, this strategy often had the opposite effect in Arab regions, where centralisation and repression created resentment and fuelled Arab nationalist sentiments.

Many Arab activists and intellectuals, in response to Abdülhamid II's repressive policies, sought refuge in Egypt, which was then perceived as a centre of liberal thought and relative autonomy from Ottoman rule. Egypt became a hotbed of Arab nationalist thought and the Nahda, where exiles could express themselves more freely and participate in intellectual and political debate. Although Abdülhamid's pan-Islamism was conceived as a means of strengthening the Ottoman Empire, it had a significant impact on the development of Arab nationalism. The Sultan's policies contributed, paradoxically, to the awakening of a national consciousness among the Arabs, who began to seek ways of achieving their own political and cultural autonomy.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Historical origins of the name "Palestine

The notion of "Palestine" dates back long before the Ottoman Empire, with its origins in antiquity. The name "Palestine" itself has historical roots stretching back several millennia.

The term "Palestine" is derived from "Philistia" or "Peleshet" in Hebrew, which referred to a region inhabited by the Philistines around the 12th century BC. The Philistines were a people of the Aegean Sea who settled along the south-eastern coast of the Mediterranean, in the region that today includes the Gaza Strip and its environs. The term "Palestina" was first used officially by the Roman emperor Hadrian after the Jewish revolt of Bar Kokhba in 135 AD. In an effort to erase the Jewish connection to the land of Israel following the revolt, Hadrian renamed the province of Judea "Syria Palaestina", a name that subsequently became commonplace in literature and historical documents.

Over the centuries, the region has experienced various dominations and influences, including the Byzantines, the Arab Muslims, the Crusaders, the Mamluks and finally the Ottomans, each leaving their own cultural and historical imprint. However, the term "Palestine" has continued to be used throughout these periods to designate this geographical region. It is important to note that the modern conception of Palestine as a distinct political and national entity took shape more recently in history, in particular with the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War and the establishment of the British Mandate over Palestine. The contemporary notion of Palestine as a territory and a national identity is therefore partly the result of twentieth-century political developments.

During the first centuries of Islamic expansion, after the Arab conquest of the region in the 7th century, the "holy land" was often included in larger administrative entities under the Islamic caliphate. However, the term "Palestine" was used in various contexts to refer to the region, although it was not an official administrative entity under Islamic rule. The term was used both by the local population and by foreigners to refer to the geographical region that included Judea, Samaria, Galilee and other areas. With the European conquests, particularly during the Crusades, the term "Palestine" began to be used more frequently to refer to this region. The Crusaders, seeking to control the holy places of Christianity, used the term in their descriptions and maps.

Over time, and particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, as European interest in the region grew and the Ottoman Empire declined, the term "Palestine" was increasingly used to describe the region specifically. This change coincided with the emergence of Arab nationalism and Zionism, with both movements claiming historical and cultural links with Palestine. The Arab inhabitants of this region began to adopt the term "Palestine" to designate the territory on which they envisaged the creation of a future Arab state. This use was reinforced by the British Mandate over Palestine after the First World War, when Palestine was officially recognised as a separate territorial unit.

Palestine under Ottoman Influence and the British Mandate

In the 19th century, Jerusalem and other parts of what was then known as Palestine were the scene of intense and complex rivalries involving churches, states and foreign powers.These tensions were particularly acute in Jerusalem, a place of great religious importance for Christians, Muslims and Jews. The "Holy Places" in and around Jerusalem were at the centre of struggles for influence between different Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Armenian, etc.) as well as between European powers, each seeking to extend or protect its influence in the region.This competition was often linked to the imperialist ambitions of the European powers, notably France, Russia and the United Kingdom, each of which used the protection of Christian communities as a pretext to intervene in Ottoman affairs.

Faced with these tensions and growing foreign interference, the Ottoman Empire took steps to strengthen its direct control over Jerusalem.Placing the city under the direct authority of Constantinople (now Istanbul) was a way for the Ottoman government to maintain order and assert its sovereignty over this strategically and symbolically important territory. This decision also reflected the need to manage the delicate relations between the different religious communities and to respond to pressure from foreign powers.This period saw the application of the Statu quo, a set of rules and conventions established to regulate the rights and privileges of the different religious communities in the Holy Places.The Statu quo was intended to maintain a balance between the different communities and prevent conflict, although tensions persisted.

The period following the demise of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War was one of profound political and territorial change in the Middle East, including the area we know today as Palestine. With the end of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine came under British mandate, in accordance with the League of Nations agreements.The British continued to use the term "Palestine" to refer to this territory, although the expression "Southern Syria" was also sometimes used to refer to the region, reflecting its geographical and historical proximity to Syria.

On the Zionist side, the term "Arab state" was sometimes used to refer to the part of the British Mandate of Palestine envisaged for the Arab majority in the 1947 UN partition proposal.This proposal envisaged the creation of two separate states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem under a special international regime.However, the Arab state envisaged in the partition plan was never established, partly due to the rejection of the plan by Arab leaders and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

The Emergence of Palestinian Nationalism and the Conflicts of the 20th Century

The process of Arab nationalism in the region of Mandate Palestine was complex and influenced by a variety of factors. Waves of migration, both of Jews fleeing persecution in Europe and of Arabs from other parts of the Middle East, altered the demographic composition of the region. In addition, politico-religious issues, linked to both the rise of Zionism and Arab nationalism, played a key role in defining identities and territorial claims. For Arab nationalists in Mandate Palestine and elsewhere, the defence of land was often expressed in terms of Arabism, an ideology that emphasised Arab identity and unity. This sentiment was reinforced by a perceived threat to Arab identity and the rights of Arab populations in the face of Jewish immigration and Zionist aspirations in the region.

During the period of the British Mandate in Palestine, tensions between the Jewish and Arab communities led to a series of acts of violence, including massacres, assassinations and bombings. The Great Arab Revolt of 1936-1939 in Palestine was a key moment in this period. It was triggered by growing frustration among the Arab population over Jewish immigration and the policies of the British Mandate. The revolt saw attacks on Jewish and British targets and was marked by severe British repression. In response to the revolt and rising tensions, the British government appealed to the League of Nations, which set up the Peel Commission in 1937. The Peel Commission proposed the first partition plan for Palestine, envisaging the creation of two separate states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem under international control. This plan was rejected by the majority of Arab leaders, who were opposed to any form of territorial division and to the idea of a Jewish state. It was also rejected by Jewish revisionist groups, who demanded a larger territory for the Jewish state.

Tensions continued to rise until 1947, when the British, exhausted by the difficulties of governance and unable to keep the peace, decided to hand over their mandate over Palestine to the United Nations (UN). The UN then proposed a second partition plan in 1947, which also provided for the creation of two states. This plan was accepted by the majority of Jewish representatives, but rejected by the Palestinian Arabs and neighbouring Arab states. The period that followed saw the escalation of hostilities and led to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, following the declaration of independence of the State of Israel. This war and the events surrounding it were instrumental in shaping the modern Arab-Israeli conflict, with lasting consequences for the region.

Nakba and Formation of the Palestinian Diaspora

The 1948 Palestinian exodus, commonly known as the Nakba (which means "catastrophe" in Arabic), is a central event in Palestinian history and in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It refers to the flight and expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Arab Palestinians from their homes and lands during the 1948 war that followed the creation of the State of Israel. The Nakba began in the context of the civil war in the British Mandate of Palestine, exacerbated by the UN partition plan in 1947, and intensified with the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. During this period, many Arab towns and villages were emptied of their inhabitants due to fighting, expulsions, fears of massacres and psychological pressure. This period saw massive population displacements, leading to a humanitarian crisis and the formation of a large Palestinian refugee population.

The Palestinian refugee question has become one of the most complex and enduring issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Many of these refugees and their descendants now live in refugee camps in neighbouring countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, as well as in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The right of return of Palestinian refugees is a key issue in the peace negotiations, but remains a major point of contention. The Nakba was also a determining factor in the formation of the Palestinian diaspora. Palestinians who were displaced from their homes and settled in other countries have continued to maintain their cultural and national identity, contributing to the Palestinian cause in different ways. The annual commemoration of the Nakba is an important moment for the Palestinian community, both in the Palestinian territories and in the diaspora, symbolising their shared experience of loss, resistance and hope for return.

The Palestinian Liberation Movement: From the PLO to Hamas

The Palestinian nationalist movement underwent a significant evolution in the late 1950s and early 1960s, marked by a refocusing on specific Palestinian identity, partly in response to the perception that Palestinian interests were not sufficiently represented or defended by regional Arab leaders. This period saw the emergence of new Palestinian political organisations and movements, the most notable of which was the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), founded in 1964. Yasser Arafat, who became a leading figure in the Palestinian movement, played a crucial role in this development. Arafat and his colleagues within the PLO structure and particularly within the Fatah movement began to articulate a vision that emphasised the struggle for an independent Palestinian state, distinct from the broader pan-Arab objectives that had dominated earlier discourses on Palestine.

This redefinition of the Palestinian movement was accompanied by a strategy of armed struggle, seen as a means of liberation and claiming rights to Palestinian land. The PLO and other Palestinian groups carried out various military operations and attacks against Israeli targets, both inside and outside Israel. This period was also marked by tensions and conflicts with neighbouring Arab states, some of which supported the Palestinian movement while others opposed its methods or political objectives. The years 1958-59 marked a turning point in the Palestinian nationalist movement, with a shift from a pan-Arab orientation to a focus on Palestinian national identity and aspirations. Under the leadership of figures such as Yasser Arafat, the movement began to call more explicitly for the creation of a Palestinian state, using armed struggle as a means to achieve its goals.

As early as 1963, military operations led by Palestinian groups, notably Fatah led by Yasser Arafat, began operating from Jordan against Israeli targets. These actions helped to establish Arafat as a central figure in the Palestinian movement, gaining popular support among Arabs through these military initiatives. However, Israeli responses to these attacks put Jordan in a delicate position. In 1970, after a series of escalating tensions and conflicts known as Black September, King Hussein of Jordan ordered military action that led to the expulsion of Palestinian fighters from the country. These fighters then largely resettled in Lebanon. In Lebanon, the presence of Palestinian armed groups had considerable repercussions. They became involved in the Lebanese civil war, further complicating the situation. In 1982, after an assassination attempt on the Israeli ambassador in London, Israel launched Operation Peace in Galilee, a major invasion of Lebanon. The declared aim was to destroy the bases of the Palestinian fighters and push back the Syrian army. This invasion had dramatic consequences, both for Lebanon and for the Palestinians.

During this period, the perception of the Palestinians in Lebanon suffered, and the PLO headquarters finally moved to North Africa. Yasser Arafat and the PLO began to review their objectives, even considering acceptance of a two-state solution. The intifada, which began in 1987 in the Palestinian territories, reinvigorated the Palestinian nationalist movement. This popular uprising drew international attention to the Palestinian cause and helped to change the dynamics of the conflict. This period of turmoil and realignments eventually led to the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, when the PLO, under Arafat's leadership, officially recognised the State of Israel and accepted the principle of Palestinian autonomy in exchange for peace. These agreements marked a significant moment in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, paving the way for a new era of negotiations and dialogue, although the peace process remains complex and unfinished.

Ongoing conflict and the current political divide

Negotiations between the PLO under the leadership of Yasser Arafat and Israel, although marking a historic turning point with the Oslo Accords, have failed, particularly on sensitive issues such as Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories and the right of return of Palestinian refugees. These issues have remained major points of contention, hampering progress towards a lasting solution to the conflict. At the same time, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have faced internal criticism, particularly from nationalist and Islamist groups such as Hamas. Arafat was accused of incompetence, corruption and nepotism, which contributed to a loss of confidence and legitimacy among certain sections of the Palestinian population.

Hamas, a Palestinian Islamist movement, gained political influence during this period. Founded in 1987, Hamas advocated a more Islamic approach to the Palestinian movement, distinguishing itself from the PLO in its ideological stance and tactics. Hamas rejected the Oslo Accords and maintained a position of armed resistance against Israel, seeing armed struggle as an essential means of achieving Palestinian goals. The rise of Hamas and other Islamist groups marked a third phase in the Palestinian movement, where the fault lines between different Palestinian factions deepened. This phase was characterised by a diversification of approaches and strategies within the Palestinian movement, reflecting a wider range of views and tactics regarding the achievement of Palestinian goals. This period also saw growing tensions between the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority and Hamas, particularly after the latter won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. These tensions led to internal conflicts and a political division between the Gaza Strip, controlled by Hamas, and the West Bank, under the authority of the Palestinian Authority.

The resumption of armed struggle and intifada-style actions by Hamas in the Palestinian territories is marked by a rhetoric of jihad against Israel. Founded in 1987, Hamas has both a political and an armed wing, and has played an important role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2006, Hamas won a significant victory in the Palestinian legislative elections. However, Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by several countries, including the United States and members of the European Union. This designation is due to Hamas' use of armed struggle tactics, including suicide bombings and the firing of rockets against Israeli civilian targets.

Hamas's electoral victory led to a major political division within the Palestinian territories. Two separate governments emerged: one controlled by Fatah in the West Bank and the other by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. This division has exacerbated the political and economic difficulties in the Palestinian territories. The Palestinian territory remains fragmented, and challenges such as unemployment, poverty and corruption have made the political and economic situation even more precarious. Both the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Hamas government in Gaza face significant internal and external challenges in their management of Palestinian affairs.

The Kurdish case

Background to the Kurdish Movement

The Kurdish movement, with its aspirations for self-determination, is rooted in the complex and tumultuous history of the Middle East, particularly in the context of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War. The Kurdish people, scattered mainly between Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, have constantly sought to assert their identity and claim their political and cultural rights in a region marked by borders often drawn without regard for ethnic and cultural realities.

After the First World War, the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres envisaged the creation of a Kurdish state. However, this treaty was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which redefined the borders of modern Turkey without granting the Kurds an independent state. This was a watershed moment, leaving the Kurds without a nation-state, despite their distinct ethnic and cultural identity. In Iraq, the Kurdish movement has gone through several phases of rebellion and negotiations with the central government. The Iraqi Kurdistan Region, after decades of conflict, gained substantial autonomy following the Gulf War in 1991, and its position was strengthened after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Kurdistan Regional Government, led by figures such as Massoud Barzani, has established a semi-autonomous entity with its own administration and security forces. In Turkey, the Kurdish conflict has been largely dominated by the struggle of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), led by Abdullah Öcalan. Founded in the 1970s, the PKK has waged a guerrilla war for Kurdish rights and autonomy, a conflict that has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. Despite several attempts at peace, the situation in Turkey remains tense, with periods of conflict and reconciliation.

The civil war in Syria has created a new dynamic for the Kurds in the region. Kurdish forces, notably the People's Protection Units (YPG), have taken control of large parts of north-eastern Syria, establishing a de facto autonomous administration in these areas. This has added a new layer of complexity to regional geopolitics, particularly with the Kurds' involvement in the fight against the Islamic State (EI). The Kurdish movement, in its quest for recognition and rights, continues to shape the politics of the Middle East. Their situation, often referred to as the "Kurdish problem", remains one of the thorniest challenges in the region, involving a mosaic of local, regional and international interests. The Kurds, while seeking to preserve their unique identity, are fighting for a place in an ever-changing Middle East, where questions of autonomy and independence are at the heart of political and social debates.

History and meaning of the word 'Kurdistan

The term "Kurdistan", literally meaning "the land of the Kurds", has been in use for several centuries, with references dating back to at least the 12th century. This historical geographical term refers to the region inhabited mainly by the Kurds, an ethnic group indigenous to the mountainous region straddling modern Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. In historical texts, the term "Kurdistan" has been used to describe the regions inhabited by the Kurds, but it is important to note that the precise delimitation and extent of this region has varied over time, depending on political dynamics, border changes and population movements. Throughout history, this region has been part of various empires and states, including the Persian, Arab, Turkish and Ottoman empires. The Kurds, while retaining their distinct cultural and linguistic identity, have often been subject to external rule and have rarely enjoyed autonomy or an independent nation state.

The notion of Kurdistan as a distinct political entity gained prominence in the early 20th century, particularly after the First World War and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, when Kurds began to aspire to greater autonomy or independence. However, aspirations for an independent or autonomous Kurdistan clashed with the political realities of the region's modern nation-states. Today, although Kurdistan as a sovereign state does not exist, the term is widely used to refer to Kurdish-majority regions, particularly Iraqi Kurdistan, which enjoys a significant degree of autonomy within Iraq.

Impact of the Ottoman-Seville War on the Kurds

The war between the Iranian Sefevids and the Ottomans in 1514, marked by the emblematic battle of Chaldoran, was a defining moment in the history of the Middle East and is of particular importance to the Kurdish people. This confrontation between two great powers of the time, the Sunni Ottoman Empire under the reign of Selim I and the Shiite Sefavid Empire led by Shah Ismail I, resulted in an Ottoman victory that redefined the geopolitical balance in the region. The Kurdish region, which straddles the border between these two empires, was profoundly affected by this conflict. The Battle of Chaldoran was not only a struggle for territorial power but also an ideological clash between Shiism and Sunnism, which had a direct impact on the Kurdish population. Kurdish territories were divided, with some coming under Ottoman control and others under Sefevid influence.

In this context, Kurdish leaders were faced with difficult choices. Some chose to ally themselves with the Ottomans, hoping for autonomy or political advantages, while others saw the alliance with the Sefevids as a similar opportunity. These decisions were often influenced by local considerations, including tribal rivalries and political and economic interests. The consequences of the Battle of Chaldoran and the subsequent Ottoman-Sevid wars on the Kurds were significant. They led to political and territorial fragmentation that lasted for centuries. The Kurds, divided between different empires and later nation states, struggled to maintain their unique cultural and linguistic identity and to preserve their autonomy.

This period laid the foundations for Kurdish political challenges and autonomous aspirations in the centuries that followed. Their geographical position at the crossroads of empires made the Kurds key players in regional dynamics, while often placing them in a position of vulnerability to the ambitions of neighbouring powers. The Battle of Chaldoran and its repercussions are therefore crucial to understanding the complexity of Kurdish history and the challenges faced by this people in their quest for autonomy and recognition in an ever-changing region.

Treaty of Qasr-e Shirin and its consequences for the Kurds

The Treaty of Qasr-e Shirin, also known as the Treaty of Zuhab, signed in 1639 between the Ottoman Empire and the Sephardic dynasty of Persia, established the borders between these two empires, de facto affecting the Kurdish territories. This treaty marked the end of a series of Ottoman-Persian wars and established borders which, to a large extent, remained stable for several centuries and prefigured the modern borders of the region. However, it is important to note that although the 1639 treaty established borders between the Ottoman and Sephardic empires, these borders were not always clearly defined or administered, especially in the mountainous regions inhabited by the Kurds. The Kurds themselves did not have their own nation-state and were spread out on either side of this border, living under Ottoman or Persian (later Iranian) sovereignty depending on the region.

It was not until the 20th century, particularly after the First World War and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, that the borders of the modern states of the Middle East began to be shaped and administered more rigidly. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, followed by the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 and the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, redefined borders in the region, resulting in the division of Kurdish territories between several new nation states, including Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. These developments in the 1940s formalised the existing borders and had a profound impact on the Kurdish question. The division of Kurdish territories between different states posed unique challenges for the Kurdish people in terms of cultural, political and linguistic rights, and shaped their struggle for autonomy and recognition throughout the 20th century and to the present day.

Post-First World War consequences for the Kurds

In the period following the First World War, the Middle East witnessed considerable political and territorial transformations, significantly influencing the situation of the Kurds. The fall of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of pan-Islamism, as well as the creation of new nation states, marked the beginning of a new era for the Kurdish people. After the war, Kurdish aspirations for autonomy were largely set aside in the context of the formation of new nation states. In Turkey, for example, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a policy of turquification was put in place, aimed at creating a unified national identity centred on the Turkish identity. This policy had a negative impact on the linguistic and cultural rights of the Kurds, exacerbating tensions and fuelling autonomist aspirations. In Iraq and Syria, under the British and French mandates respectively, the situation of the Kurds has been complex and fluctuating. Despite certain measures aimed at recognising Kurdish rights, particularly in terms of social benefits, these efforts were often insufficient to fully meet their political and cultural aspirations. These policies were often marked by periods of repression and marginalisation.

During this period, relations between the Kurds and other ethnic groups in the region, such as the Armenians, were strained. Conflicts in eastern Anatolia and the border regions between Turkey and Armenia were exacerbated by state policies and social upheaval. The Armenian genocide, for example, led to major population displacements and inter-community tensions. The post-Ottoman geopolitical context has had a profound effect on the lives of the Kurds. Caught between the nationalist ambitions of the new states and regional dynamics, the Kurds found themselves in a difficult position, seeking to preserve their identity and their rights in an unstable and often hostile political environment. This era laid the foundations for contemporary struggles for Kurdish self-determination, underlining the persistent challenges faced by this people in gaining recognition and autonomy.

Creation of the First Kurdish Political Organisation

The year 1919 marked a turning point in the history of the Kurdish people, with the creation of the first Kurdish political organisation, signifying the emergence of a structured Kurdish nationalist movement. This period, in the aftermath of the First World War and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, opened up unprecedented opportunities and challenges for Kurdish aspirations.

The Kurdish political organisation created in 1919 was a concrete expression of the growing desire among Kurds to take their political destiny into their own hands. Its aim was to unite the various Kurdish tribes and communities under a common banner and to articulate demands for autonomy and even independence. The Treaty of Sèvres, signed in 1920, seemed to pave the way for the realisation of these aspirations. This treaty, which redrew the borders of the region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, included provisions for autonomy for Kurdish territory, and the possibility of future independence if the Kurdish communities so wished. This formal recognition of Kurdish autonomy in the Treaty of Sèvres was seen as a significant victory for the Kurdish nationalist movement. However, the hopes raised by the Treaty of Sèvres quickly evaporated. The treaty was never ratified by the new Turkish Republic, led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and was replaced in 1923 by the Treaty of Lausanne. The Treaty of Lausanne made no mention of an autonomous Kurdistan, leaving Kurdish aspirations without international support. The period following the First World War was therefore one of both opportunity and frustration for the Kurds. Despite the emergence of an organised Kurdish nationalism and the initial recognition of their rights in the Treaty of Sèvres, hopes of autonomy and independence came up against the reality of new political balances and national interests in the reconfigured Middle East.

Challenges of establishing a Kurdish state

In the period following the First World War, the Middle East was redrawn by the victorious powers, profoundly affecting the aspirations of the peoples of the region, including those of the Kurds. The Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, which promised a degree of autonomy for the Kurds, raised hopes of an independent Kurdish state. However, this hope was short-lived due to a number of key factors. The geographical distribution of Kurdish populations, scattered between the spheres of influence of France, Great Britain and Russia, hampered the formation of a unified Kurdish state. This territorial division complicated any attempt to create a coherent Kurdish political entity, as each area was subject to different policies and influences. In addition, the allied powers, mainly Britain and France, who had redrawn the map of the Middle East, were reluctant to change their plans to accommodate a Kurdish state. These powers, preoccupied with their own strategic interests in the region, were not prepared to support the Kurdish cause to the detriment of their own geopolitical objectives.

The question of Armenian autonomy also played a role in the failure to establish a Kurdish state. The territories envisaged for Armenian autonomy overlapped with areas populated by Kurds, thus creating conflicts over territorial claims. These tensions exacerbated the complexity of the situation, making it even more difficult to reach a consensus on the Kurdish question. Another important factor was the relative weakness of Kurdish nationalism at the time. Unlike other national movements in the region, Kurdish nationalism had not yet developed a strong, unified base capable of effectively mobilising the masses. Internal divisions, tribal and regional differences, as well as differences of opinion on the strategy to adopt, limited the ability of the Kurds to present a united front. In addition, there was a debate within the Kurdish community on whether to accept or reject the Treaty of Sevres. Some Kurds were considering aligning themselves with Turkish nationalism in the hope of preserving some form of autonomy within a unified Turkish territory.

Ultimately, these challenges and obstacles led to the idea of an independent Kurdish state being abandoned in the years following the First World War. The political reality of the Middle East, shaped by the interests of colonial powers and complex internal dynamics, made the achievement of Kurdish autonomy extremely difficult, laying the foundations for Kurdish struggles for recognition and autonomy in the decades that followed.

Turkish Kurdistan

Turkey's Assimilation Policy and the Denial of Kurdish Identity

The early 1920s in Turkey, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, were marked by radical changes in the construction of the Turkish nation-state. One aspect of this transformation was the policy of assimilation and acculturation of ethnic minorities, particularly the Kurds. In 1924, as part of these efforts, the use of the terms "Kurd" and "Kurdistan" was officially banned in Turkey, symbolising an explicit denial of Kurdish identity.

This policy was part of a wider strategy of cultural and linguistic homogenisation aimed at forging a unified Turkish identity. The Turkish authorities implemented policies aimed at forcibly assimilating Kurdish populations, including the displacement of populations and the suppression of Kurdish cultural and linguistic expressions. Kurds were often described by the Turkish authorities as "mountain Turks", in an attempt to reinterpret and deny their distinct identity. This theorisation aimed to justify assimilation policies by asserting that linguistic and cultural differences were simply regional variations within the Turkish population.

These policies led to a context of permanent revolt within the Kurdish population. The Kurds, faced with the denial of their identity and the repression of their cultural and linguistic rights, resisted these efforts at assimilation. This resistance has taken various forms, from armed revolt to the clandestine preservation of Kurdish culture and language. The Kurdish revolts in Turkey, particularly those led by figures such as Sheikh Said in 1925, were moments of direct confrontation with the Turkish state. These rebellions, although suppressed, highlighted the deep tensions and disagreements between the Turkish government and its Kurdish population.

Kurdish Cultural Renaissance and Post-World War II Political Tensions

At the end of the Second World War, Turkey underwent a period of transformation and identity crisis that indirectly contributed to a renewed interest in Kurdish language, culture and history. This period marked a renaissance of Kurdish nationalism, although the circumstances were complex and often contradictory. The post-war period in Turkey was characterised by a relative openness and a questioning of Turkish national identity. This openness led to a certain rediscovery of Kurdish culture, which had previously been repressed under Kemalist assimilation policies. Kurdish and Turkish intellectuals began to explore Kurdish history and culture, contributing to a growing awareness of a distinct Kurdish identity. This cultural revival served as a catalyst for the development of Kurdish nationalism, with a new generation of Kurds demanding their cultural and political rights more openly.

However, this period was also marked by political instability in Turkey, with several military coups and increased repression. The military regimes that came to power in Turkey during the 1960s and 1980s, although sometimes open to certain reforms, maintained a hard line on ethnic policy, particularly with regard to the Kurdish question. The nationalist policies of these regimes often led to renewed repression of Kurdish cultural and political expression. The tension between the Kurdish cultural renaissance and state repression has led to a period of increased conflict. The Kurdish movement, increasingly organised and politicised, has faced major challenges, both from the Turkish state and from its own internal dynamics. The Kurdish question has become a central issue in Turkish politics, symbolising the limits of the nation-state model in Turkey and the challenges posed by the country's ethnic and cultural diversity.

PKK Armed Struggle and Impact on the Kurdish Question in Turkey

The armed struggle of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which began in 1984, represents a decisive turning point in the history of the Kurdish movement in Turkey. Founded by Abdullah Öcalan in 1978, the PKK emerged as a Marxist-Leninist movement, oriented towards class struggle and Kurdish independence. The PKK's decision to launch a guerrilla campaign against the Turkish state marked the beginning of a prolonged period of armed conflict that has had a profound effect on south-east Turkey and the Kurdish community.

The context in which the PKK began its armed struggle was complex. The 1980s in Turkey were a period of political tension and increased repression against dissident groups, including Kurdish movements. In response to what they perceived as systematic oppression and the denial of their cultural and linguistic rights, the PKK opted for armed struggle as a means of demanding Kurdish autonomy. In its early years, the PKK enjoyed a degree of support from countries aligned with the Soviet bloc. This support took the form of training, arms supplies and logistical support, although the exact extent and nature of this support was open to debate. This support was partly due to the dynamics of the Cold War, when the PKK was seen as a potential ally by NATO member Turkey's enemies. The Turkish government's response to the PKK insurgency was characterised by intense military repression. Massive security operations were launched in the Kurdish regions, with serious humanitarian consequences, including civilian and military casualties and the displacement of Kurdish populations.

Over time, the PKK's philosophy and objectives have evolved. While its roots were deeply rooted in Marxist-Leninist ideology, the movement gradually adapted its demands, moving from the demand for an independent Kurdish state to calls for greater autonomy and recognition of Kurdish cultural and linguistic rights. The PKK's armed struggle put the Kurdish question at the centre of national and international attention, highlighting the complexity and challenges of the Kurdish question in Turkey. It has also polarised opinion, both within Turkey and the Kurdish community, on the appropriate strategies and objectives in the quest for Kurdish autonomy and rights. The conflict between the PKK and the Turkish state remains a thorny issue, symbolising the tension between Kurdish aspirations for autonomy and Turkey's imperatives of security and national unity.

International context and Soviet interest in the Kurdish Regions

Since 1946, the Soviet Union has shown a growing interest in the Middle East, particularly in regions with a high concentration of Kurds and Azeris. This Soviet involvement is part of the wider context of the Cold War and the USSR's strategy to extend its influence in strategically important regions. One of the most significant examples of this policy was Soviet support for the Iranian Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan. In 1945, at the end of the Second World War, the Soviet Union, which had occupied northern Iran during the war, encouraged and supported the creation of the Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan, as well as the Republic of Kurdistan, in Iran. These autonomous entities were established with the support of local communists and the Soviets, and represented a direct challenge to the authority of the central Iranian government, then led by Reza Shah Pahlavi. The creation of these autonomous republics was seen by the USSR as an opportunity to extend its influence in the region and counter the British and American presence.

However, the ensuing Iranian-Soviet conflict led to international pressure on the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops from Iran. In 1946, under pressure from the international community and the United States in particular, the USSR withdrew its support for the autonomous republics, which were quickly taken over by Iranian forces. This period was significant for international relations in the region, showing how the dynamics of the Cold War influenced regional policies. Soviet support for autonomous movements in Iran not only reflected the geopolitical interests of the USSR, but also highlighted the aspirations of ethnic minorities in the region, including the Kurds and Azeris, for greater autonomy and recognition.

Religious and political tensions among Kurds in Iran

Since the early 2000s, the situation of the Kurds in Iran has been characterised by growing tension due to religious and political differences. Iran, a predominantly Shia state, has seen its relations with its predominantly Sunni Kurdish population strained by religious, cultural and political factors. The sectarian difference between Iran's Shia majority and the Sunni Kurdish minority is a key aspect of this tension. While Iran has consolidated its Shia identity since the Islamic revolution of 1979, Iranian Kurds have often felt marginalised because of their Sunni religious affiliation. This situation is exacerbated by issues of cultural and linguistic rights, with Kurds demanding greater recognition of their ethnic and cultural identity.

Political tensions between Iranian Kurds and the central government have intensified due to perceptions of marginalisation and economic neglect. Kurds in Iran have long fought for greater regional autonomy and recognition of their linguistic and cultural rights, including the right to education and media in their mother tongue. The Iranian government's response to these demands has often been repression. Kurdish political movements in Iran have been closely monitored and sometimes repressed. Armed clashes have broken out on several occasions between the Iranian security forces and armed Kurdish groups, the latter seeking to defend Kurdish rights and autonomy.

The situation of the Kurds in Iran is also influenced by regional dynamics. Developments concerning the Kurds in Iraq, notably the creation of an autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan, have had an impact on the aspirations of the Kurds in Iran. At the same time, Iran's foreign policy, in particular its involvement in regional conflicts such as Syria and Iraq, is having an impact on its domestic policy towards its own Kurdish population. In conclusion, the tensions between the Kurds and the Iranian government since the 2000s are the result of a complex mix of religious, cultural and political factors. These tensions reflect the challenges of governance in a multi-ethnic and multi-faith society and underline the persistent difficulties of minorities in the region to gain greater recognition and autonomy.

Iraqi Kurdistan

The Origins of Iraqi Kurdistan and the Vilayet of Mosul

The history of Iraqi Kurdistan and its relationship with the vilayet of Mosul during the British Mandate is crucial to understanding the political and ethnic dynamics of the region. After the First World War and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the Ottoman province of Mosul vilayet became a central issue in the redrawing of the borders of the Middle East.

The Mosul vilayet was rich in ethnic diversity and included a significant Kurdish population, as well as other groups such as Arabs, Assyrians and Turkmen. At the time of the establishment of the British mandate over Mesopotamia, which was to become Iraq, the future of this province was widely debated. The British, keen to control the region's oil resources, argued for its inclusion in Iraq, despite Turkey's territorial claims. In 1925, after a long process of negotiation and deliberation, the League of Nations decided in favour of annexing the vilayet of Mosul to Iraq. This decision was crucial in defining Iraq's northern borders and had a significant impact on the region's Kurdish population. The League's decision placed a large number of Kurds under Iraqi administration, changing the political and ethnic landscape of the new state.

The Struggle for Kurdish Autonomy in the 20th Century

The integration of the Mosul vilayet into Iraq has influenced the Kurdish movement in the country. The Kurds, seeking to preserve their cultural and linguistic identity and achieve greater political autonomy, have faced a variety of challenges under successive governments in Baghdad. The struggle for Kurdish autonomy intensified throughout the 20th century, culminating in the creation of an autonomous Kurdistan region in the 1990s, after decades of conflict and negotiations. The development of Iraqi Kurdistan as an autonomous region was reinforced after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, establishing the region as a key player in Iraqi politics. The history of the vilayet of Mosul and its integration into modern Iraq are therefore essential to understanding the current dynamics of Iraqi Kurdistan, highlighting the historical and political complexities of nation-state formation in the region and the persistent challenges of ethnic and cultural diversity.

The League of Nations' decision in 1925 to annex the vilayet of Mosul to the British mandate of Iraq was a crucial step in the formation of the modern Iraqi state and had profound implications for the Kurdish nationalist movement in the region. The decision incorporated a territory with a sizeable Kurdish population into Iraq, laying the foundations for an ongoing Kurdish struggle for recognition and autonomy. The Kurdish nationalist movement in Iraq has been characterised by remarkable resilience and continuity, despite political challenges and obstacles. The struggle of the Kurds in Iraq for autonomy and recognition of their rights has been punctuated by rebellions, negotiations and sometimes violent repression. This perseverance reflects the specific nature of Kurdish nationalism in Iraq, where aspirations for regional autonomy and the preservation of Kurdish cultural identity have been constant themes.

Attempts at negotiations and agreements between the Kurdish leadership and the Iraqi government have often been unsuccessful, marked by broken promises and violated agreements. One of the factors contributing to these failures has been the lack of consistent international support for the Kurdish cause. In particular, Iran's withdrawal of support for Kurdish nationalism has been a significant setback. Iran, which has its own Kurdish populations and concerns about Kurdish autonomy within its borders, has often wavered in its support for the Kurds in Iraq, depending on its own geopolitical and security interests. The situation of the Kurds in Iraq has continued to evolve over the course of the 20th century, with periods of severe repression under regimes such as that of Saddam Hussein, as well as significant advances, such as the establishment of an autonomous Kurdistan region in the 1990s. These developments have been influenced by a variety of regional and international factors, reflecting the complexity of the Kurdish question in the region.

The Emergence of Kurdish Autonomy in the 1990s

1991 was a defining moment for the Kurdish movement in Iraq, particularly following the Gulf War and the weakening of Saddam Hussein's regime. The end of this war created an unprecedented opportunity for the Iraqi Kurds to establish a form of de facto autonomy in their regions.

Following Iraq's defeat in the Gulf War, a popular uprising broke out in the north of the country, mainly among the Kurds. This uprising was brutally put down by Saddam Hussein's regime, leading to a serious humanitarian crisis and massive population displacement. In response, the United States, the United Kingdom and France set up a no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel, allowing the Kurds to gain a significant degree of autonomy. This de facto autonomy enabled the Kurds to develop their own political and administrative institutions, a major step forward for Kurdish nationalism in Iraq. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) was formed, with its own administrative, legislative and security structures. Although this autonomy was not officially recognised by the Iraqi government at the time, it represented a turning point in Kurdish history in Iraq.

Iraqi Kurdistan in the New Post-2003 Political Context

The situation changed significantly after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. The new Iraqi constitution, adopted in 2005, officially recognised Iraqi Kurdistan as a federal entity within Iraq. This constitutional recognition legalised Kurdish autonomy and was a major step towards realising Kurdish political aspirations. The inclusion of Kurdish autonomy in the Iraqi constitution also symbolised an important evolution in Iraqi politics, marking a break with the centralised and repressive policies of previous regimes. It also reflected changes in the political dynamics of the post-Saddam Middle East, where issues of ethnic and regional identity have become increasingly prominent.

The withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in 2009 and subsequent events had a significant impact on the situation of the Kurds in Iraq, exacerbating tensions between the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and the central government in Baghdad. After the US withdrawal, relations between Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, and Baghdad deteriorated. The Kurds often expressed concerns about increasing marginalisation by the central Iraqi government. These tensions centred on a range of issues, including the sharing of oil revenues, the status of disputed areas (such as oil-rich Kirkuk), and the political and administrative autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan.

The referendum on the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan, held in September 2017, marked a high point in these tensions. The referendum, which saw an overwhelming majority vote in favour of independence, was organised by the KRG despite strong opposition from Baghdad as well as international warnings. The Iraqi government, as well as several neighbouring countries and the international community, considered the referendum illegal and a threat to Iraq's territorial integrity. In response to the referendum, the Iraqi central government took severe measures, including the military takeover of some disputed areas, such as Kirkuk, and the imposition of economic and transport restrictions on Iraqi Kurdistan. These actions underlined the fragility of Kurdish autonomy in Iraq and highlighted the political and security challenges facing the region. The referendum and its aftermath also revealed the internal divisions within the Iraqi Kurdish movement, as well as the complexities of regional politics. While some Kurdish leaders saw the referendum as a step towards long-awaited independence, others expressed concerns about its timing and potential implications.

Syrian Kurdistan

The creation of the 'Arab Belt' and its repercussions

In the 1960s, the situation of the Kurds in Syria was profoundly affected by the policies of the Syrian nationalist government. During this period, Syria, under the influence of the Ba'ath party, adopted an Arab nationalist approach which exacerbated ethnic divisions, particularly among the Kurdish community. One of the most notable and controversial policies of this period was the creation of the "Arab Belt". This initiative aimed to change the demographic composition of the regions with a high concentration of Kurds along the border with Turkey. The government encouraged Arabs to settle in these areas, often by forcibly displacing Kurdish populations. This policy was partly justified by development projects, such as the construction of a railway line, but was clearly politically motivated in order to dilute the Kurdish presence.

These actions led to forced displacement and increased economic and social marginalisation of the Kurds in Syria. The 'Arab Belt' not only caused demographic upheaval, but also fuelled a sense of injustice and exclusion among Syrian Kurds. These policies have heightened ethnic tensions in the region and contributed to a growing sense of mistrust towards central government. The consequences of these policies have been long-lasting. Kurds in Syria have continued to struggle for recognition of their cultural and political rights, as well as for autonomy. These tensions were exacerbated during the Syrian civil war that broke out in 2011, in which the Kurds played a significant role, seeking to establish some form of autonomy in north-eastern Syria.

The Kurds in Syria and the Struggle for Autonomy

In the 2000s, and particularly with the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the Kurds of Syria began to demonstrate more visibly for autonomy. This period marked a turning point in the Syrian Kurds' struggle for recognition and self-determination.

Before the civil war, Kurds in Syria were often marginalised and deprived of basic rights. The regime of Bashar al-Assad, like that of his father Hafez al-Assad, maintained a policy of repression towards Kurdish culture and Kurdish political aspirations. However, with the outbreak of the civil war, central power in Damascus weakened, giving the Kurds an unprecedented opportunity to claim autonomy. Taking advantage of the power vacuum created by the conflict, Kurdish groups, principally the People's Protection Units (YPG) and the Democratic Union Party (PYD), took control of large areas of northern Syria. These groups have established a form of autonomous governance in these areas, including aspects such as civil administration, defence and education.

This de facto autonomy has been reinforced by the crucial role played by Kurdish forces in the fight against the Islamic State (EI), attracting the support and recognition of the international community, particularly the United States. The Kurds have managed to establish relatively stable areas of autonomy, known as the Northern and Eastern Syrian Autonomous Administration, despite continuing challenges, including tensions with the Syrian government and threats from neighbouring Turkey. However, the situation remains precarious. Official recognition of Kurdish autonomy in Syria by the government in Damascus remains uncertain, and regional tensions continue to threaten the stability of the Kurdish regions. The Syrian Kurds' quest for autonomy is therefore an ongoing process, deeply linked to the complex political and security developments in Syria and the wider region.

The Questioning of Nation-States in the Middle East

Since the Anglo-American intervention in Iraq in 2003, followed by the Iraqi civil war and the Syrian crisis from 2011 onwards, the concept of stable nation-states in the Middle East has been profoundly challenged. The invasion of Iraq, aimed at overthrowing Saddam Hussein, triggered a series of unforeseen consequences, sending the country into a spiral of sectarian violence and political instability. The situation was further complicated by the emergence of the Islamic State, which exploited the chaos in Iraq and Syria to establish a cross-border caliphate, challenging the legitimacy of national borders and governments.

The Syrian civil war, which began with the popular uprising against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in 2011, further exacerbated regional instability. The conflict has attracted a multitude of regional and international actors, each pursuing its own strategic objectives. The repercussions of these conflicts have extended beyond national borders, exacerbating sectarian and ethnic tensions and triggering large-scale refugee flows. These events have exposed the flaws in the Middle East's nation-states, whose borders were drawn by the colonial powers after the First World War. These borders, often established without regard for the ethnic, cultural and religious realities on the ground, have given rise to persistent tensions and conflicts.

Despite these challenges, the borders established in the Middle East have shown remarkable resilience. They remain key elements of the regional political order, despite being the scene of incessant conflict. The states of the region, though weakened, continue to struggle to maintain their sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of secessionist movements and foreign interference. The future of nation-states in the Middle East remains uncertain. The conflicts in Iraq and Syria have revealed deep divisions and raised fundamental questions about the legitimacy and viability of existing state structures. Against this backdrop, new political and territorial configurations could emerge, redefining the political landscape of the Middle East in the years to come.

Controversial Perspectives on Middle East Borders and the Syrian Civil War

Ralph Peters, a former US Army officer and commentator on geopolitical issues, has presented a controversial perspective on the borders of the Middle East. In his writings, he argues that the region's current borders, largely inherited from the colonial and post-First World War era, do not reflect the political, cultural and religious reality on the ground. Peters argues that these artificial borders have contributed to many conflicts by failing to reflect the national, ethnic and religious identities of local societies. His vision, sometimes illustrated by redrawn maps of the Middle East, proposes a reconfiguration of borders to better reflect these realities. For example, he suggests the creation of an independent Kurdish state encompassing parts of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey, where large Kurdish populations live. It also envisages territorial adjustments for other ethnic and religious groups, with the aim of creating more homogenous states.

This proposal has provoked heated debate and widespread criticism, including within NATO and other international circles. Critics point out that redrawing borders along ethnic and religious lines is extremely complex and risky. They point to the dangers of aggravating existing tensions and creating new conflicts. Moreover, redefining national borders raises questions about sovereignty, self-determination and international intervention. Peters' ideas reflect a wider challenge facing the Middle East: how to manage ethnic and religious diversity in nation-states formed along lines drawn by foreign powers. While his proposals may seem logical from a simplified geopolitical perspective, they fail to take into account the complexity of national identities, historical relationships between groups, and political realities on the ground.

The Syrian civil war, which broke out in 2011, has brought about fundamental changes in the structure and composition of the Syrian nation, calling into question the viability of the nation-state model in the context of the Middle East. While Bashar Al-Assad's regime appears to be gaining ground, the reality on the ground has profoundly altered the very nature of the Syrian nation. The conflict in Syria has exposed the deep-seated flaws of a state built on heterogeneous foundations, in which the various ethnic and religious communities, including Kurds, Alawites, Sunnis, Christians and others, have been integrated in a precarious manner. The war has exacerbated these divisions, destroying the social fabric and causing a major humanitarian crisis. Historic cities such as Aleppo and Homs have been devastated, while millions of Syrians have been displaced within the country or have fled abroad, forming large diaspora communities.

Post-war Syria will face enormous challenges in rebuilding not only its infrastructure, but also its society. Assad's centralised and often authoritarian governance will have to adapt to a reality where different communities aspire to greater recognition and representation. These communities, although geographically delimited by Syria's national borders, are intrinsically linked by confessional, cultural and historical ties that transcend these borders. The concept of diaspora has become particularly relevant for Syria. Syrians abroad maintain close links with their homeland, playing a key role in the preservation of cultural identity and in the potential reconstruction of the country. The Syrian diaspora represents a diversity of opinions and experiences, reflecting the complexity of Syrian society as a whole.

The Persian Gulf

The Persian Gulf: History, Importance and Debates on Terminology

The region known as the Persian Gulf is often at the centre of debate over its name. Indeed, some states, particularly those in the Arab world, prefer to use the term "Arab Gulf". This debate over terminology reflects the tensions and political dynamics in the region, where history, culture and national identity play a key role in how places are named. The Gulf, whether called the "Persian Gulf" or the "Arab Gulf", is a region of great strategic, economic and cultural importance. It is bordered by several key countries, including Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia. The region is known for its vast reserves of oil and natural gas, making it one of the richest and most strategically important areas in the world.

In recent decades, the Gulf has become synonymous with prosperity and luxury, particularly in the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which includes Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia. These countries have used their oil wealth to develop modern, diversified economies, investing heavily in urban development, tourism, education and infrastructure. Cities such as Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and Doha in Qatar have become symbols of this prosperity, attracting international investment and tourists from all over the world. These states have also sought to play a greater role on the international stage, whether through diplomacy, economic investment or the organisation of world-class events.

Prosperity and Transformation in the Persian Gulf States

The political and economic history of the Persian Gulf is closely linked to British influence in the region, which began to manifest itself significantly in the 19th century. At that time, the British Empire, seeking to secure the sea routes to India, its colonial jewel, began to establish a presence in the Persian Gulf. This influence took the form of protectorate agreements with the local emirates, giving Britain significant control over the political and economic affairs of the region. British interest in the Gulf increased with the discovery of oil in the early 20th century. The British played a crucial role in the development of the oil industry, notably by establishing companies such as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (which later became British Petroleum, or BP). This period saw a transformation of the region from a primarily maritime strategic importance to a centre of the global oil economy.

The British withdrawal from the region in the 1960s and 1970s marked a new era for the Gulf States. This period of decolonisation coincided with a significant rise in global demand for oil, propelling these newly independent states towards unprecedented economic prosperity. Independence also led to the formation of state-specific political structures, often in the form of monarchies, which continue to characterise governance in the region. However, the British legacy in the Persian Gulf has left lasting traces. The borders drawn during the colonial period, and the political and economic alliances established, have continued to influence the international relations and domestic politics of the Gulf States. The close relationship between these states and the Western powers, particularly the United States after the British withdrawal, has played a crucial role in the region's security and economic policy.

Throughout its history, the Persian Gulf has been closely linked to Mesopotamia, thanks in part to its rich pearl trade, a predominant economic activity long before the advent of the oil era. Important centres of this trade were established in Bahrain and Oman, where pearl fishing was an essential source of income for the local populations. Since ancient times, the waters of the Persian Gulf have been renowned for their rich pearl deposits. The region of Bahrain, in particular, was known as a major centre for pearl farming, attracting traders and merchants from various parts of the ancient world. In Oman, the long coastline also favoured the development of an active maritime trade, including the pearl trade. These activities were crucial to local economies, especially in regions otherwise limited in natural resources.

The economic and cultural boom under the Abbasids, from the 8th century onwards, contributed to the expansion of trade in the Persian Gulf. This period saw a flourishing development of trade, with the Gulf ports serving as important hubs for regional and international commerce. Trade in pearls, as well as other goods, flourished under the Abbasid administration, which effectively integrated the region into an extended empire. However, the decline of the Abbasid caliphate in the 13th century marked the beginning of a more difficult period for the region. Invasions, political unrest and the fragmentation of the empire disrupted trade and weakened the regional economy. Despite these challenges, the pearl trade continued to play a significant economic role until the 20th century.

From the 15th century onwards, a new era began for the Persian Gulf with the arrival of the European powers, motivated by the spice trade and the mastery of maritime routes. The Portuguese, led by navigators such as Vasco da Gama, were the first to establish a presence in the region in the early 16th century, seeking to control the trade routes to India and gain direct access to the lucrative sources of spices. Maritime trade became the main means of European influence in the Gulf. The Portuguese established several bases, such as Hormuz, which enabled them to control trade routes and influence local politics. This presence paved the way for other European powers, notably the British and the Dutch, who also sought to establish their influence in the region.

The impact of Europe's arrival in the Gulf was profound. It not only altered existing power structures, but also introduced new maritime and military technologies. Local states have had to navigate this new geopolitical environment, often forming alliances with or against these foreign powers. European involvement has significantly changed the regional dynamics of the Gulf. Rivalry between European powers for control of trade routes and strategic points has had a significant impact on the history of the region. For example, competition between the Portuguese and the British eventually led to more established British domination of the Gulf in the 19th century. This period thus marks a turning point in the history of the Persian Gulf, where the region moved from being a relatively autonomous commercial and cultural centre to a theatre of international rivalry and foreign domination. These events laid the foundations for future relations between the Gulf and the West, and influenced the political, economic and social development of the region until modern times.

British influence in the Persian Gulf

British involvement in the Persian Gulf evolved significantly from the 18th century onwards, marked by an increase in trade and the emergence of security challenges. The main reason for the British presence in the region was to protect the maritime trade routes to India, a jewel in the crown of the British colonial empire. Trade with India was intensified under British influence, transforming the Gulf into a vital commercial crossroads. However, this period was also marked by security challenges. The region was troubled by piracy and conflicts between various local chieftains, which threatened the free flow of goods and the safety of shipping routes. The British were therefore faced with the need to stabilise the region in order to maintain and secure their commercial interests.

With French expansion in the region, particularly following Napoleon Bonaparte's Egyptian campaign at the end of the 18th century, the British felt an increased threat to their interests. In response, they established pacts with local actors, such as the treaty with Oman, aimed at containing French expansionism. These agreements were essential to establishing friendly relations and guaranteeing a degree of stability in the region. In addition to external threats, the British had to deal with piracy activities in the Gulf. They adopted a negotiating approach with the pirates, seeking to end their raids on maritime trade. These agreements played a key role in securing the sea lanes and allowing trade to flow more smoothly in the region.

In the 19th century, these treaties determined Britain's economic and strategic policy in the Gulf. Not only did they secure the region, they also laid the foundations for future relations between Britain and the Gulf States. Although the region has been marked by instability, the growing commitment of local leaders to refrain from war has contributed to relative stabilisation, allowing the British to maintain considerable influence. These historical developments were crucial in shaping the politics and economy of the Persian Gulf, foreshadowing the modern dynamics of the region. The period of British influence laid the foundations for the political structures and alliances that still characterise the Gulf States today.

The Persian Gulf during the First World War

When the First World War broke out, it created a new geopolitical dynamic in the Persian Gulf, a region already marked by the growing influence of the European powers. Kuwait, strategically located at the entrance to the Gulf, played a crucial role in this new configuration. Led at the time by Sheikh Mubarak Al-Sabah, Kuwait sought to strengthen its position by aligning itself more closely with Great Britain. Already under a protectorate agreement signed in 1899, in which Sheikh Mubarak Al-Sabah had undertaken not to cede, lease or sell territory without British consent in return for British protection, Kuwait saw the war as an opportunity to consolidate this relationship. The rise of the Ottoman Empire as a threat during the war accentuated Kuwait's need for security and support. In response to these circumstances, Kuwait and Britain strengthened their protectorate agreement. This renewed agreement provided stronger protection for Kuwait against Ottoman ambitions and strengthened political and economic ties with Britain. For Britain, securing Kuwait was essential to protect its shipping routes to India and to maintain its influence in the oil-rich Gulf region.

The First World War thus had a significant impact on the Persian Gulf, redefining relations between local states and European powers. The agreements reached during this period between states such as Kuwait and Great Britain shaped the geopolitical future of the region, laying the foundations for the political and economic structure that would prevail for decades to come. This historic period also underlined the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf, not only for regional powers, but also for global players. The decisions taken and alliances formed during the First World War had lasting repercussions, influencing the politics, economies and societies of this key region.

British withdrawal and the emergence of the modern Gulf States

The 1960s were a pivotal period for the Persian Gulf, characterised by a fundamental change in the region's international relations. This change was mainly driven by the United Kingdom's decision to withdraw from its strategic positions east of Suez, including the Persian Gulf. This decision, announced in 1968, came at a time when Britain, affected by economic constraints and a change in political paradigm, was reassessing its imperial role around the world. Britain's gradual withdrawal from the Gulf coincided with a period of geopolitical realignment. The independence of India and Pakistan in 1947 had already marked the beginning of the end of the British Empire, and the loss of these key colonies influenced the decision to reduce the British military presence in other regions. In the Gulf, this withdrawal left a power vacuum that had major implications for the states of the region.

The Gulf States, which had long been under British influence or protection, found themselves in a position where they had to navigate autonomously in a complex international environment. This accelerated the process of the formation of modern nation states in the region and gave rise to the creation of new political structures and alliances, such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) founded in 1981. The British withdrawal also opened the door to other international influences, in particular that of the United States. In the context of the Cold War and the growing strategic importance of oil, the United States strengthened its presence in the Gulf, establishing close relations with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. This new configuration has redefined the balance of power in the region and had a significant impact on regional and international policies.

Oil discovery and the Second Wave of Independence

Following the British withdrawal from the Persian Gulf in the 1960s, local princes and rulers, who had previously established alliances with the UK, were faced with crucial decisions about the future of their territories. This period was characterised by profound political change, marking the formation of modern nation states in the Gulf region. British withdrawal left a power vacuum and paved the way for full sovereignty for the Gulf States. Notable examples include the independence of Bahrain and Qatar in 1971, followed shortly afterwards by the formation of the United Arab Emirates, a federation of seven emirates. These events were crucial steps in defining the political boundaries and governmental structures of these nations.

The leaders of these new states have had to navigate a complex landscape, balancing the need to develop stable government institutions and manage international relations, while exploiting abundant natural resources, particularly oil and gas. The post-British era has also been marked by efforts to modernise and develop these countries, as witnessed by the reign of Sultan Qaboos bin Said in Oman, who initiated a series of reforms to transform his country. This period of transition has also seen an increase in the influence of the United States in the region. The Gulf States, rich in oil resources, became important strategic allies for the United States, particularly in the context of the Cold War and energy interests. The British withdrawal marked an era of significant transformation for the Gulf States. The decisions taken by local leaders during this period not only shaped the political and economic structures of their countries, but also had a profound impact on regional and international dynamics. The story of this period illustrates how geopolitical changes can influence the formation and development of nation states, as well as the complexity of international relations in a resource-rich region.

The discovery of oil in the Persian Gulf radically transformed the region, attracting significant renewed interest from Western powers. This hydrocarbon wealth coincided with a period of major political transition, leading to a second wave of independence for several states in the region in the 1970s. Oil, first discovered in the Gulf in the early 20th century, began to play a crucial role in the global economy, particularly after the Second World War. With some of the world's largest oil reserves, the Gulf countries quickly became key players in the global energy market. This wealth attracted the attention of Western powers keen to secure access to these vital resources.

In the 1970s, with the end of the British protectorate and the British withdrawal from the region, the Gulf States began a process of asserting their sovereignty and political independence. This period saw the emergence of independent and sovereign nations such as the United Arab Emirates in 1971, which united the Trucial Emirates under a single federation. Bahrain and Qatar also gained independence during this period. The oil-driven economic boom enabled these young nations to invest massively in development and modernisation. Oil revenues transformed societies that had previously focused primarily on fishing and the pearl trade into modern states with advanced infrastructures, social services and diversified economies. However, increased Western interest in the region was not without geopolitical implications. Relations between the oil-producing countries of the Gulf and the Western powers, particularly the United States, became a central aspect of international politics. These relations have been marked by complex dynamics of cooperation, economic dependence and political tensions.

Political Islam

The Emergence and Foundations of Political Islam

Political Islam is an ideology that gained ground during the 20th century, significantly influencing politics and society in Muslim-majority countries. This ideology aims to structure society and the state according to the principles and laws of Islam, based on a specific interpretation of religious texts such as the Koran and the Sunna. The emergence of political Islam can be seen as a response to the challenges posed by colonialism, modernisation and social change. Figures such as Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928, and Sayyid Qutb, an influential theoretician of the same movement, were pioneers in formulating and promoting the ideology of political Islam. Their teachings and writings laid the foundations for a vision of society in which Islamic principles are integrated into all aspects of life, including governance.

Political Islam manifests itself in different forms, ranging from moderate reformist movements to more radical groups. Some groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, have sought to achieve their goals through political and social means, while others, such as al-Qaeda or the Islamic State, have adopted extremist and violent methods. A striking example of the impact of political Islam is the Iranian Revolution of 1979, led by Ayatollah Khomeini. This revolution led to the establishment of an Islamic republic in Iran, where laws and governance are based on specific interpretations of Shia Islam.

Political Islam also played a significant role in the Arab Spring events of 2011, where several Islamist movements emerged as key political actors in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. However, political Islam is a subject of controversy and debate. Its critics point to the risks of restricting individual freedoms, particularly as regards the rights of women and minorities. On the other hand, its supporters see it as a means of preserving cultural values and resisting Western influence. The rise of political Islam in the Arab world can largely be attributed to the failure of pan-Arabism, a political movement that advocated unity and cooperation between Arab countries while opposing Western domination. This ideology, which reached its peak in the 1950s and 1960s under leaders such as Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, began to decline in the 1970s, leaving an ideological vacuum that political Islam began to fill.

The year 1979 is often seen as a turning point in the history of political Islam, marked by two major events. Firstly, the Iranian Revolution saw the fall of the Shah of Iran and the emergence of an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Khomeini, a development that had a profound impact throughout the region. Secondly, the signing of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, known as the Camp David Accords, was seen by many Arabs as a betrayal of the Arab cause and a capitulation to Israel. The normalisation of relations between Egypt and Israel came as a shock to many Arabs, reinforcing feelings of antagonism towards Israel, which was seen as a symbol of Western influence and intervention in the region. This perception fuelled the imagination of political Islam, where the fight against Israel and opposition to Western interference became central themes.

Against this backdrop, Islamist movements gained in popularity by presenting themselves as credible alternatives to failed pan-Arabism and promising to restore the dignity and autonomy of Muslim societies through the implementation of Islamic principles. These movements varied in their approaches, some advocating gradual political and social reform, while others adopted more radical positions. The failure of pan-Arabism and the events of 1979 created fertile ground for the rise of political Islam, an ideology that has since played a major role in Middle Eastern politics. The rise of this ideology has been a response to the political disillusionment, socio-economic challenges and aspirations of many Muslim societies, redefining the political landscape of the region.

Political Islam Faced with the Failure of Pan-Arabism

Fundamentalism, a significant trend within political Islam, took root in the Muslim world as early as the 8th century, but it was with the emergence of Wahhabism in the 18th century that this trend gained significant influence. Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, advocated a return to the practices and beliefs of the first generations of Muslims, a rigorous interpretation of Islam that became the ideological basis of modern Saudi Arabia. Fundamentalism as such is characterised by a desire to transcend history and return to the original sources of religion. This approach manifests itself in a literal and uncompromising reading of the sacred texts, often rejecting contemporary or contextual interpretations. Fundamentalism frequently opposes Western cultural and political influences, which are perceived as threats to the authenticity and purity of the Islamic faith.

The colonial period had a profound impact on the political imagination of the Arab world. European domination and intervention in Middle Eastern affairs were perceived as a direct aggression against Muslim societies. This perception has fuelled a sense of resistance that has often been expressed through recourse to Islamic values and principles. The national liberation movement, which emerged as a reaction to Western penetration, was strongly imbued with the Islamic tradition. Struggles for independence, while seeking to free themselves from the colonial yoke, also sought to reaffirm Islamic identity as the basis of national sovereignty. In this context, Islamic fundamentalism evolved into a response not only to the internal challenges of Muslim societies, but also to foreign interference. The resulting Islamist movements have varied in their approaches and objectives, ranging from social and political reform to more radical forms of resistance. This complex dynamic between tradition, modernity and external influences continues to shape the political and social landscape in many Muslim-majority countries.

The Muslim Brotherhood movement, founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan Al-Banna, represents an important milestone in the history of political Islam in the 20th century. The organisation emerged as a response to the social, political and cultural challenges facing Egyptian society at the time. Hassan Al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood with the initial aim of Islamising Egyptian society, as a reaction to the rapid modernisation and growing Western influence in the country. Al-Banna's vision was to reform society based on Islamic principles, considering the Koran to be the ultimate and infallible constitution for social and political life. One of the distinctive features of the Muslim Brotherhood was its organisational structure, which included a paramilitary branch. This characteristic not only reflected the military tradition of Egyptian society, but was also a response to the British presence in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood's ability to mobilise both politically and militarily contributed to its growing influence.

The Muslim Brotherhood rapidly gained in popularity and influence, becoming one of the first and most important Islamist organisations of the 20th century. Their approach, combining social, political and sometimes militant activism, served as a model for other Islamist movements throughout the Muslim world. However, the movement was also subject to controversy and repression. Successive Egyptian governments have alternated between tolerance, cooperation and severe repression of the organisation. The Muslim Brotherhood has been involved in various political struggles in Egypt, including the overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi in 2013, who came from its ranks.

Since its creation in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood movement has gone through fluctuating periods, oscillating between significant political influence and severe repression. Although the organisation did not originally adopt armed action as its main tactic, it has found itself involved in major conflicts that have marked the history of the region. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, a conflict crucial to the future of Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood took part in the fighting. This involvement reflected their commitment to the Palestinian cause, seen as both a national and a religious struggle. Their involvement in this war illustrates the organisation's flexibility in the use of armed force for causes it considered just and in line with its Islamic objectives. In 1952, the Muslim Brotherhood played a role in the Egyptian revolution that overthrew the monarchy and led to the founding of the Egyptian Republic. Initially, they supported the free officers, hoping that the new regime would be favourable to their Islamic aspirations. However, relations between the Muslim Brotherhood and the revolutionary leader Gamal Abdel Nasser soon deteriorated, leading to a period of intense repression against the organisation.

The history of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is characterised by highs and lows, illustrating the complexity of its political positioning. Under different regimes, they have alternated between an influential political presence and periods when they were repressed and marginalised. This dynamic reflects the persistent tensions between Islamist movements and secular or secular governments in the region. The history of the Muslim Brotherhood is therefore that of an influential but often controversial organisation, whose role in key events such as the 1948 war and the 1952 revolution testifies to its importance in Middle Eastern politics. However, their path has also been marked by confrontations and conflicts with the powers that be, reflecting the complex and sometimes conflicting nature of political Islam.

Sayyid Qutb, born in 1906 and died in 1966, is an emblematic figure of political Islam. His thought and work have had a considerable impact on the vision of the Islamic State and on the Islamist movement in general. An eminent theorist, Qutb developed a radical critique of the Muslim societies of his time, which he judged to have strayed from the true path of Islam. Qutb was a virulent critic of Westernisation and pan-Arab nationalism, dominant in Egypt and other Arab countries in the mid-20th century. In his view, these societies had drifted away from the fundamental principles of Islam, falling into a state of "Jahiliya", an Islamic term traditionally used to describe the religious ignorance prevailing prior to the revelation of the Koran to the Prophet Muhammad. For Qutb, the modern Jahiliya was not just religious ignorance, but also a departure from Islamic laws and values in governance and social life.

His personal experience of repression also influenced his thinking. Arrested and tortured by Nasser's regime in Egypt for his dissident views and membership of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qutb became convinced that the regimes in place in the Arab world were corrupt and illegitimate. In his writings, he developed the idea that resistance, including the use of violence, was legitimate against these "jahili" governments. Sentenced to death for plotting against the Egyptian state, Qutb refused to appeal his conviction, choosing to become a martyr for his cause. His death in 1966 reinforced his status as an emblematic figure in radical Islamism, and his writings continue to influence Islamist movements around the world. Qutb thus played a central role in the development of political Islam, notably by justifying violent opposition to regimes deemed un-Islamic. His vision of Islam as a complete system of life, encompassing both governance and society, has had a profound impact on contemporary Islamist movements and the debate on the nature and future of the Islamic state.

Although initially marginal, Sayyid Qutb's thought gained in influence and relevance in the late 1970s, a period marked by several crucial events that redefined the political and ideological landscape of the Muslim world. In 1979, several major events changed the ideological context in the Middle East and beyond. Firstly, the failure of pan-Arabism, symbolised by the signing of the peace agreements between Egypt and Israel, left an ideological vacuum in the Arab world. The decision by Egypt, a major player in Arab nationalism, to normalise relations with Israel was seen as a betrayal by many Arabs and weakened the credibility of pan-Arabism as a unifying movement. At the same time, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 saw the emergence of the Islamic Republic of Iran, establishing a government based on Shia Islamic principles. This revolution had a considerable impact throughout the region, demonstrating the viability of political Islam as an alternative to secular or pro-Western regimes. On the other hand, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 triggered a ten-year war in which the Afghan Mujahideen, supported by various countries including the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, fought against the Soviet forces. This war attracted Islamist fighters from all over the Muslim world, galvanised by the call to defend a Muslim land against a non-Muslim foreign power. These events contributed to a revival and radicalisation of political Islam. Qutb's ideas, in particular his critique of modern Jahiliya and his legitimisation of armed struggle against regimes deemed un-Islamic, resonated with those who were disappointed by the failures of pan-Arabism and worried about foreign influence in the Muslim world. As a result, political Islam, in its various forms, became a major player in regional and global politics, influencing power dynamics and conflicts in the decades that followed.

The Notion of Martyr in Political Islam

The notion of martyrdom in political Islam gained greater significance and importance towards the end of the 20th century, particularly in conflicts pitting Islamist forces against various foreign powers. This conceptualisation of martyrdom, over and above its traditional religious meaning, has become a key element in the mobilisation and rhetoric of Islamist movements. In the context of conflicts such as the Soviet-Afghan war of 1979-1989, the figure of the martyr acquired a central dimension. Mujahideen fighters against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan were often celebrated as martyrs, heroes who sacrificed their lives in defence of Islam. This glorification of the martyr served to motivate fighters, attract international support and justify armed resistance against a superpower perceived as oppressive. The promotion of martyrdom in these contexts has become a powerful recruitment tool for Islamist movements, attracting fighters from various parts of the Muslim world. The promise of martyrdom, often interpreted as a path to paradise and honour, has been a key element in mobilising individuals ready to take part in armed struggles against enemies deemed unjust or anti-Islamic.

However, the notion of martyrdom in political Islam has given rise to much controversy and criticism. Many consider that the encouragement of martyrdom, particularly in the context of violent action, is a distortion of Islamic teachings and a source of conflict. This conception of martyrdom has been challenged both within the Muslim community and by outside observers. The figure of the martyr in political Islam symbolises the way in which religious concepts can be reinterpreted and used in political and conflictual settings. It reflects the complexity of Islamist movements and the way in which they integrate religious elements into their strategy and ideology. This approach has not only shaped the dynamics of Islamist movements, but has also had profound implications internationally, influencing policies and perceptions of political Islam around the world.

Political and Geopolitical Change

In the complex and sometimes unstable political landscape of the Muslim world, some states have responded to the rise of political Islam by incorporating Islamist policies, aimed at strengthening their authority and stabilising their government. This strategy has been adopted in a variety of contexts, in response to the internal and external challenges facing these countries. The adoption of Islamist policies by certain regimes has often been motivated by the desire to legitimise their power among predominantly Muslim populations. By aligning themselves with Islamic values and principles, these governments sought to present themselves as protectors and defenders of Islam, thereby winning popular support and countering opposition movements that might threaten their stability.

This approach has been particularly visible in contexts where governments have sought to counter the influence of radical Islamist groups or to respond to political and social crises. For example, Iran, following the Islamic Revolution of 1979, introduced a system of Islamic governance, with Ayatollah Khomeini as its emblematic figure, establishing an Islamic republic based on Shia principles. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and some Gulf States, Islamist elements have been incorporated into legislation and public policy, reflecting and reinforcing dominant religious values. However, this strategy is not without its risks and criticisms. The use of political Islam as a tool of governance can lead to internal tensions and contradictions, especially when the aspirations of the population differ from government policies. Moreover, the use of Islamism to consolidate power can lead to restrictions on civil liberties and human rights, raising concerns at both national and international level.

Transformation of Political Islam in the 1990s

During the 1990s, some scholars and observers concluded that political Islam had failed, partly because Islamist movements had failed to seize power in many countries. However, this analysis proved premature in the light of subsequent developments and the resurgence of Islamism in various forms. After the end of the war in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1989, the Islamist fighters, or mujahideen, who had waged jihad against the USSR, began to redirect their struggle towards new enemies. One of the most significant changes was the rise of jihad against the United States, perceived as a new imperialist force in the region, and its allies, including Israel. This reorientation of jihad was in part a response to the US presence in the Persian Gulf, particularly after the 1991 Gulf War, and the perceived alignment of the US with Israel and against the interests of Muslim populations.

This period also saw the emergence or consolidation of radical Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, who had previously fought in Afghanistan. Bin Laden and other Islamist leaders began to target the United States and its allies as the main enemy in their struggle to establish an Islamic order. The view that political Islam had failed was therefore contradicted by these later developments. Islamist movements may not have come to power in the conventional way, but they had managed to establish themselves as significant forces in regional and global politics. Their ability to mobilise, influence and carry out violent actions demonstrated that political Islam remained a dynamic and influential force, capable of adapting to new contexts and challenges.

From the 1990s onwards, there was a marked evolution in political Islam, with a significant transformation in the approaches and tactics employed by certain Islamist movements. This period saw the emergence of a form of violence that could be described as sacrificial, a radical departure from previous practices. This new phase of violence in political Islam was characterised by the use of suicide bombings and other forms of terrorism. These acts were no longer seen simply as a means of fighting an enemy, but also as acts of ultimate sacrifice. The perpetrators of these attacks were often celebrated as martyrs, an evolution of the traditional notion of martyrdom in Islam, where voluntary death in an act of violence became a glorified ideal. A striking example of this evolution was the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States, orchestrated by al-Qaeda under the leadership of Osama bin Laden. These attacks, carried out by suicide bombers, not only caused massive destruction and loss of life, but also changed the way in which political Islam was perceived and fought against on a global scale.

This period also saw the rise of groups such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, who used similar tactics in their fight against Western forces and the Afghan government. These groups justified the use of sacrificial violence with a radical interpretation of Islam that legitimised jihad against what they perceived as oppressive, anti-Islamic forces. The rise of this new form of violence in political Islam had far-reaching consequences. It led to an international response, with military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and sparked a global debate on the nature of political Islam and the appropriate response to its most extreme manifestations. These developments not only had an impact on the international scene, but also provoked debate and division within Muslim communities, between those who supported these tactics and those who condemned them. The transformation of political Islam in the 1990s and early 2000s was marked by a rise in sacrificial violence and terrorism. This has redefined the tactics and objectives of some Islamist movements, with lasting consequences for global politics and Muslim societies.

Political Islam in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq and the emergence of the Islamic State in 2014

At the beginning of the 21st century, the players in political Islam underwent significant changes, in particular with the emergence of al-Qaeda as a major player in the panorama of international terrorism. This period was also marked by a geographical relocation of these actors, particularly in Iraq, following the American intervention and the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. After the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iraq entered a period of political and social chaos. The Baath Party, which had long dominated Iraqi politics under Saddam Hussein, was banned, and a new power structure emerged in which the Shiite majority took a leadership position. This transformation created sectarian tensions and a feeling of marginalisation among the Sunni population, which had been dominant under Saddam Hussein's regime.

Al-Qaeda, led by figures such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, took advantage of this climate of instability to establish a presence in Iraq. Zarqawi, a Jordanian, founded the organisation "Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad", which later merged with al-Qaeda, becoming one of the most active and violent branches of the terrorist network. Under its leadership, al-Qa'ida in Iraq targeted not only US forces and their allies, but also the Shia population, whom they regarded as apostates and collaborators with the occupying forces. Al Qaeda's tactics in Iraq, including suicide bombings and mass killings, exacerbated sectarian tensions and plunged the country into a spiral of violence. Zarqawi's strategy, focused on provoking sectarian conflict, has turned Iraq into a battleground for regional and ideological power struggles, with profound repercussions for the region and the world. The evolution of political Islam in Iraq during this period reflects the complexity and fluidity of these movements. Al-Qa'ida in Iraq, although linked to the global al-Qa'ida network, developed its own objectives and strategies, rooted in the Iraqi political and social context. This period also highlighted the role of sectarian dynamics and political marginalisation in fuelling extremism and conflict.

In 2014, the group known as al-Qaeda in Iraq underwent a significant transformation, marking a turning point in the history of political Islam. The group, which had evolved and gained influence in the post-invasion context of Iraq, announced the formation of the Islamic State (IS), also known as Daech (Arabic acronym for al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham). The announcement of the creation of the Islamic State was made by its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. This declaration signified not only a change of name, but also an extended territorial and ideological ambition. The EI aimed to establish a caliphate, a political entity governed by sharia (Islamic law), encompassing not only Iraq but also Syria and potentially other regions. Under the banner of Islamic State, the group rapidly extended its control over vast areas of Iraq and Syria, exploiting the power vacuum created by the Syrian civil war and the weakness of the Iraqi government. The EI gained notoriety for its brutality, including mass executions, acts of ethnic cleansing, destruction of historical sites and terrorist attacks around the world. The proclamation of the Islamic State represented a major challenge to regional stability and international security. It led to international military intervention to contain and eventually reduce the territory controlled by the EI. The rise and fall of the Islamic State also sparked important debates about the causes of and appropriate responses to violent Islamist extremism, as well as how to deal with the humanitarian and security consequences of its expansion.