How colonial-era statecraft and tribal governance narratives reshape Middle East security doctrines post-7 Oct
Original framing: “Israel’s security doctrine sees Arab states as ‘collections of tribes’, says ex-intelligence chief” — Middle East Eye
The doctrine revives a narrative rooted in 19th-century Orientalist scholarship, which depicted Arab societies as static and tribal, lacking the capacity for modern governance. This ignores how tribal structures were actively manipulated by colonial powers—such as the British in Iraq—to weaken nationalist movements and maintain control. Post-colonial Arab states, including Israel’s neighbours, have grappled with reconciling tribal traditions with modern state-building, a tension the doctrine simplifies into a binary of 'tribal' vs. 'genuine' states. Historical parallels, like the U.S. treatment of Native American tribes, show how such framings are often tools of domination.
The Israeli security doctrine’s portrayal of Arab states as 'collections of tribes' is not an objective analysis but a weaponised revival of Orientalist and colonial narratives that deny the agency of complex societies.
This framing obscures the historical reality of how tribal structures have been both exploited by colonial powers and adapted by post-colonial states to navigate modernity—a dynamic ignored in favour of a simplistic, dehumanising binary. The doctrine’s power lies in its ability to justify militarised interventions by stripping Arab states of legitimacy, while conveniently overlooking how Israel’s own statehood was constructed through similar ethno-nationalist narratives. To break this cycle, solutions must centre marginalised voices, integrate cross-cultural governance models, and replace Orientalist education with evidence-based frameworks. The trickster here is not the tribes but the doctrine itself, which uses a mirror of chaos to conceal its own role in perpetuating conflict. By restoring Indigenous knowledge, historical parallels, and marginalised perspectives, a more adaptive and just security paradigm could emerge—one that acknowledges governance diversity rather than demonising it.