This article offers a political science analysis of the culturally conditioned nature of Middle Eastern conflicts, with a particular focus on the Arab-Israeli confrontation and the failure of external regulatory models. The purpose of the study is to identify the core reasons behind the ineffectiveness of Western universalist approaches, which rely on assumptions of rationality, compromise, and democratic institutions but fail to resonate within the specific mentality and power structures characteristic of the Middle East. The analysis spans both historical episodes and contemporary developments, especially in the Gaza Strip, with particular attention given to the shifting international stance toward Hamas and the visible distancing of Arab regimes from Palestinian radicalism. The methodological framework combines comparative political analysis, case studies of conflict dynamics, and discourse analysis of official statements made by regional leaders and Western actors. A structural approach to political legitimacy and the conceptual lens of “mental incompatibility” are employed to reassess the causes of repeated diplomatic failures that stem from attempts to impose external norms without cultural adaptation. The theoretical contribution of this article lies in the elaboration of “pragmatic autocracy” as a legitimate and stable form of governance in Eastern political cultures—one that blends authoritarian rule with elements of social paternalism and religious legitimacy. Its practical relevance is grounded in the need for more realistic, adaptive strategies in foreign policy engagement with the region—strategies that acknowledge local perceptions of power, legitimacy, and the political utility of violence. The article demonstrates that rationalist Western models, rooted in liberal universalism, repeatedly collapse in the Middle Eastern context due to a deep mismatch in the understanding of authority, identity, and morality. Ignoring these cultural-political dimensions has weakened the West’s regional influence and facilitated the consolidation of hybrid governance systems. The conclusion calls for a shift from a moralistic-normative paradigm toward a more realistic and context-sensitive approach to diplomacy and peacebuilding in the Middle East.
Arab-Israeli conflict, political mentality, Middle East, Hamas, pragmatic autocracy, diplomacy, Western model
1. Akopyan A.R., Akopyan E.A. Arabo-izrail'skiy voennyy konflikt i ego vliyanie na obespechenie racional'nyh interesov i nacional'noy bezopasnosti RF // Aktual'nye problemy voenno-nauchnyh issledovaniy. - 2024 - № 1 (29). - S. 395-409. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QTDMKB
2. Batievskaya V.B., Sokolovskiy M.V. Arabo-izrail'skiy konflikt: prichiny, dinamika i sposoby razresheniya. Vestnik obschestv-yh i gumanit-yh nauk. - 2024, T. 5, № 3, S. 30-35.
3. Barber B. Dzhihad protiv McWorld. - M.: Novoe izdatel'stvo, 2004. - 400 s.
4. Budnickiy O.V. Terrorizm v Rossii: istoriya i mifologiya. - M.: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2011. - 352 s.
5. Fukuyama F. Konec istorii i posledniy chelovek. - M.: AST, 2004. - 592 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QOCIBD
6. Hanafi G. Vostochnaya polit. kul'tura. Centr strategicheskih issledovaniy Al'-Ahram. El.res.URL-adres. https://acpss.ahram.org.eg/ (data obrascheniya: 16.04.2025).
7. Bellin E. The Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Exceptionalism in Comparative Perspective // Comparative Politics. 2004. V. 36. № 2, pp. 139–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/4150140; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/GTEQNV
8. Carothers T. The End of the Transition Paradigm // Journal of Democracy. 2002. V. 13, No. 1. Available at: https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-end-of-the-transition-paradigm/ (Accessed: 16.04.2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0003; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/GXFYYH
9. Fuller G. The Future of Political Islam. - New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. - 336 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403978608
10. Hoffman B. Inside Terrorism. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7312/hoff17476-008 (Accessed: 16.04.2025).
11. Huntington S. The Clash of Civilizations? // Foreign Affairs. 1993. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1993-06-01/clash-civilizations (Accessed: 16.04.2025).
12. Kuran T. Institutional Roots of Authoritarian Rule in the Middle East: Political Legacies of the Islamic Waqf // Law & Society Review. 2011. V. 46. № 2. P. 283–312.
13. Levitsky S., Way L. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. - 384 p. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/competitive-authoritarianism/3A6A64CE (Accessed: 16.04.2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781353; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/USKLUP
