Religious Tribalism: Middle East History

Understanding the modern Middle East requires stepping back to the time before nation-states. While discussing Israel/Palestine, Westerners assume the nation state paradigm and project this onto any conflicts in the Middle East. For centuries under the Ottoman Empire, the Middle East was organized not by centralized nationalism but by religious, tribal, and local affiliations.

This historical reality still shapes political identity across the Middle East today — and misunderstanding it often leads Western observers to misread regional dynamics. The Kurds are a nation of people, unlike most of the religious tribalists in the Middle East. My favorite part of Kurdish culture is their dancing.

Life Under the Ottoman Empire: A Mosaic, Not a Nation-State

For roughly 400 years, most of the Middle East lived under Ottoman rule. The empire allowed a degree of local autonomy through a system known as the millet system, which recognized religious communities—Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others—as largely self-governing units. To simplify, they lived as religious tribalists. They identified by religion, not nation states.

People identified primarily with:

• their tribe or clan

• their religious community

• their local region or village

There was no single “Iraqi,” “Syrian,” or “Jordanian” identity in the modern sense. Instead, daily life was shaped by local customs, religious schools, tribal networks, and community leaders. These identities were deep-rooted and often more important than any imperial affiliation.

The Arrival of European Borders

After World War I, European powers—mainly Britain and France—redrew the Middle East according to strategic interests rather than social or cultural realities. New states were created with borders that often combined rival sects, tribes, and ethnic groups into a single “country.”

Some states ended up more stable than others. For example:

• Jordan, with a population more religiously and tribally aligned and ruled by the Hashemite monarchy, developed relative stability.

• Iraq, by contrast, contained Sunni Arabs, Shi’a Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, Assyrians, and others—groups with long-standing distinct identities. Unsurprisingly, Iraq has experienced repeated instability and conflict.

Westerners often assume that national identity emerges naturally. But in the Middle East these states did not form organically. Their modern borders were imposed from the outside — and many communities inside them still think in religious or tribal terms today, not in the Western concept of a unified nation-state.

Why Kurds Represent a Different Case

The Kurds are one of the oldest continuous ethnic groups in the Middle East, united by:

• a distinct language

• a shared cultural history

• geographic continuity

• a political identity not defined by religion

In many ways, Kurdish identity resembles that of Western nation-states and Israel:
a people with a historic homeland, cultural cohesion, and functional self-government where allowed.

In autonomous Kurdish regions, such as in Iraqi Kurdistan, there are:

• democratic institutions

• relative religious pluralism

• a modernizing, market-based economy

• political stability compared to surrounding areas

The Kurds have also played a major role in defending the region from extremist groups like ISIS, often with limited international support and while split across four countries — Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria — due to colonial-era borders.

This has led many to argue that “Free Kurdistan” is a nation-building project grounded in historical, cultural, and political continuity.

What About Palestine?

When discussing nationalism in the Middle East, two things are true:

1. Palestinians are shaped heavily by 20th-century history and regional conflict. Pilgrims traveling to Israel before the 20th century never met a “Palestinian.” The name Palestine is the name the roman emporer Hadrian gave to the area, 2000 years ago. There is no “P” in Arabic for the name “Palestine” to organically evolve as an organic nation.

2. National identity is a relatively modern concept in the middle east.

Palestinian nationalism, like many in the region, did not originate as an ancient nation-state identity but grew in response to modern political events.

The key point is to understand how Palestinians differ from groups like Kurds, whose ethnic cohesion long predates colonial borders.

Why Western Misunderstanding Matters

Western political understanding is shaped by countries that developed organically over centuries — nations unified by shared:

• language

• culture

• economy

• traditions

• historical continuity of people and governance

Israel is one of the few Middle Eastern states with a similarly long historical narrative of peoplehood.

Many Middle Eastern states, on the other hand, were constructed rapidly by European colonial powers, often without regard for the religious or tribal identities of the people who lived within them. This mismatch between borders and identities remains a source of conflict, instability, and competing nation-building projects.

Conclusion: History Matters

To understand modern Middle Eastern politics — from debates over Palestinian statehood to Kurdish aspirations for independence — it’s essential to recognize that the region’s borders are young, its identities are ancient, and the Western model of the nation-state does not always apply.

Western audiences often ask, “Why can’t these countries just get along?”
The answer is simple: many of them were never cohesive countries to begin with.

A clear-eyed look at history helps us see why some communities seek autonomy, why some states struggle to stabilize, and why understanding tribal, ethnic, and religious identity is essential to understanding the Middle East at all.