Lessons of the "Flood" and its Repercussions (3) The Exposure of the Arab "State"

The results of the "flood" revealed the fragility and emptiness of the Arab "state" (this was not the case for the resistance movements). Therefore, the question of the "state" was one of the most important questions highlighted by that major event, as it was no longer possible to ignore the "alienation" and total absence from the scene that the state practiced in relation to what happened and is happening in this context. In the rare cases in which the state interacted with the event and its alienation was not total, this was strange and perhaps even suspicious, whether it stood by Palestine, played the role of mediator, or clearly sided with Israel, roles played by an Arab state that "decided" to be "active" in this field.

The contemporary Arab state, thanks to the “flood,” appeared to be in a state of maximum exposure, and its question became more urgent, as it appears to be the cornerstone of the entire scene. The mind must be more daring and more expansive in going to contemplate the essence and nature of that, from the birth of that state, through its colonization, then its “independence,” and the form of its subsequent development.

What is in the interest of the researcher today on the subject of the contemporary Arab state is that his sources are not limited to those historical references, whether written or oral, only. He is a living witness to the birth of states or the like, which constitute a model for studying the case that may be generalized, perhaps with the most precise details.

Contrary to the logic of things, the contemporary Arab state was not created and then colonized, but rather it was colonized and then created. This may seem strange, but it is what happened. We are talking here about that Arab state that emerged after the First World War as a result of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, where the victorious imperialists were establishing a "state" with every "scrap" they tore from the "page" of that empire.

This is not a position on the Ottomans, but rather a description of what happened. However, the most important thing here is to realize that the Western countries that were victorious in that war, while establishing the Arab state, were not only dismantling the Ottoman Empire, but also dismantling the “nation,” whether Islamic or Arab, it does not matter. The dismantling was taking place on everything that connected this “group of people” existing between the Arabian Gulf and the Atlantic Ocean... I say this in order to “disengage” from those who are “waiting” to delve into the accuracy of our use of the term “nation,” for the essence of the matter lies in the dismantling, not in the identity of those who were dismantled.

So the establishment of the contemporary Arab state in that period was not within a healthy context, nor was it the result of self-initiated interactions, such that the state emerged from the nation. Rather, that state was “created” within the framework of tearing apart and dismantling the nation, with the aim of ensuring that it would not be reconstituted and dominated. In the same context and for the same goals, work was done to establish the State of Israel.

The picture here is clear and does not require much contemplation, as the context in which the contemporary Arab state emerged is the same as the one in which the State of Israel emerged. Perhaps it is “academic” injustice to refer the relationship between the Arab state and Israel to the context of the emergence of each one only, but ignoring that context is no less unjust.

The emerging Arab state was not “natural” like other states, in terms of the existence of a specific people living in a specific geography for a period of time sufficient to crystallize relations between them and their elites that would produce a social contract between an “authority” and a people in the form of a state. Rather, that state was the result of a security-service contract between some elites and the colonizer, to which the people were not a party in any way.

On this basis, the relationship between the state and the colonizer in the Arab world arose, and on this basis also arose the relationship between it and its “people.” This state does not feel embarrassed, nor does it see itself forced to do so, regarding its relationship with the colonizer, for it is its “daughter” in a sense. The people are not a party to the equation, and therefore they are only seen to the extent required by the context of the relationship with that colonizer.

Certainly there are those who do not like these relations between the state and the colonizer and between it and its people, and there are also many who call for changing this relationship and even work to do so, but the presence of those who “disapprove” of this relationship and are surprised by it only indicates a lack of knowledge of recent history and its complications, and it is the problem of those who see this and not the problem of the state in any way.

In this context, we can understand the "independence" of the state in a way that is closer to reality than to wishes. The state that was established by the colonizer and his sponsorship by separating it (stripping it) from the nation, its independence is through the success of that separation and the disengagement from the nation, not through its departure from the colonizer and the disengagement from him, as the "public" understood. Therefore, the state's "real" pride in its independence is practically what keeps it separate from the nation, and keeps the nation divided and subordinate. Consequently, what threatens the independence of the state and is considered its real enemy in reality is not colonialism, but rather the nation that poses the only danger to the state. Perhaps this explains this extremism that seems illogical at first glance in the issue of entry visas for Arab citizens to another Arab country, but when you "understand" the fears of that state and the sources of its threat, you come back to realize how "logical" that extremism is.

This also explains the special meaning of sovereignty for the Arab state, as its sovereignty is not related to the interference of the colonizer in its decisions, but rather to the interference of its “brothers,” because it understands that the “only” threat to its existence comes from those who call for rapprochement with its brothers, as this constitutes an introduction to the call to return to the nation (to unity).

This understanding of the Arab state’s situation is what answers the questions of its political alignments, its developmental choices, and its position on “things.” It is what determines its own concept of sovereignty and independence, its relationship with the “foreigner” and the brotherly, and its position on Israel, a position that does not come only from its compliance with the will of the colonizer who created it, but from the fact that Israel constitutes the greatest “guarantor” of its existence as a state by confronting any attempt to unify it with the nation.

This explains why in a country like Djibouti, for example, there are eight foreign military bases, not only American and French as usual, but also Chinese and even Japanese, and they have nothing to do with its security or sovereignty at all. This also explains why Trump threatened Saudi Arabia to remove the American base from it instead of that being its demand. We used to think that independence would be complete with the departure of the last foreign base from the country, but instead our countries practice the "hobby" of collecting military bases without that affecting their independence or threatening their sovereignty. The only enemy of the state in the case we are talking about is its nation, and anyone who reminds it that it is part of a nation, or was part of a nation at one time.

This understanding also shows the extent of our naivety when we attributed the division between the Arab countries during the Cold War to their different political alignments, but the matter continued even after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the unified alignment behind America because the division of these countries and their hostility to the nation is the secret of their existence.

This "state" is against everything that unites it or reminds it of what unites it with its sisters, as we said. It is not against America or Russia, it is with what maintains its division and diversity. Therefore, internally, it demonizes any thought, party or action that transcends the Qatari state, and stands against nationalist parties as well as Islamic ones because they call for a form of unity. As for Islam, this state is not against it as a religion or as a teaching, nor because it is a source of "extremism" or "backwardness", nor for any of the reasons that are being talked about, but rather it is against it because it, or Arabism, or any thought that could carry within it a unifying orientation, could constitute the basis for calling for unity and reminding of the nation.

This also explains the enthusiasm for normalization with Israel and distancing from Palestine. Israel “protects” the state from its nation, and Palestine is the “nation’s” issue that the state wants to erase and forget. Palestine is a constant source of concern for the state, not because it is “costly” if adopted, nor because it is an issue that does not deserve attention, but because it pushes the state toward the nation, which poses a threat to the state, so it went to “disavow” it and distance itself from it, and some even went so far as to stand openly with Israel and normalize with it publicly or “customarily.”

The role of the state

The state remained loyal to the goal for which it was established, which was to “confront” and dismantle the nation. It worked hard to eliminate the spirit of the nation in its people, and focused on the entity state and preserving it as an ultimate goal. It worked to reduce and eliminate collective consciousness and create an alternative consciousness that was “defective” in itself. The state sought ideological domination over its people to create that distorted consciousness of identity by focusing on “national” consciousness, not as an extension of a larger identity, but as an alternative to it. One of its concerns was to play with identity to transform it from an understanding of the self through belonging to the state as a homeland, to an understanding closer to the subjects who follow the ruler. Instead of the question of identity being who “we” so that people know their state (upon success in separating them from the extension of the nation in them), it became who we are, or who do we follow, so that they are known for their allegiance to the ruler of that state and not to the state itself, let alone belonging to the nation.

The basic function of the state has been reflected in its form and structure. Although it was established as a state mortgaged to the colonial West, its internal structure was such that it would be difficult for it to break away from that even if it wanted to. This type of state always ensures that a huge bureaucratic apparatus lives “parasitically” on a state that is not productive and is not allowed to be so. It is required to exert itself with the colonizer and with international political and economic institutions in order to provide the salaries of that huge apparatus, as the state, through its apparatus, is the primary employer of the workforce.

The people of this state are a burden on it, and their duties are limited to their loyalty to the state represented by the regime represented by its head, because that regime is the one who is credited with providing the “privileges” (not rights) that it provides to the people, and whoever does not appreciate the government’s efforts in this area will be a reason for forcing the state to stop those privileges from him.

Through this apparatus, most of the people are mortgaged to the state, and through the state’s constant and (embarrassing) attempts to provide for its financial requirements, it is mortgaged to the colonizer, and the army usually constitutes the largest part of the state’s bureaucratic apparatus, and thus it is the largest and most effective mortgagee that the colonizer can rely on.

We are facing a "state" that is mortgaged from head to toe, to a large part of the people, elites, parties and intellectuals. This situation is integrated with the context of the emergence of the state, making what is in its past and present a guarantee for the continuation of its mortgage, its "voluntary" alignment with the West and Israel, its insistence on delving into entityism, evading national issues, and persisting in killing the nation.

The solution is what the enemies brought

But this profound contradiction between the state and the nation is not completely intractable, so what has been said does not necessarily require a continuous confrontation between the state and the nation, nor is it a call to get rid of one for the sake of the other’s survival. The Qatari state, after all that has happened since its founding, has become part of reality on the one hand, and is no longer the “worst” scenario on the other.

If there are those among the peoples of the region who see that a “state” with these “specifications” is a burden on them, then Israel, Zionism, and influential circles in America and the West, through their efforts to achieve the “new Middle East,” see the state in this form as a burden as well and seek to divide it further or even eliminate it.

The colonizer's unlimited greed sometimes provides prospects for a solution. The state is no longer threatened only by its traditional enemies (some of its elites) but also by its traditional supporters (colonialism and Zionism). Here it is necessary to think about a new relationship between the state and the nation, one that does not assume an inevitable contradiction between the two sides, so that the state is reassured and awareness is created of the necessity and importance of the relationship with the nation through an inevitable realization of the common and existential interests of all parties. Perhaps in this talk there is a "selfish" call to reread my book "Liberating the East... Towards an Eastern Cultural Empire."