An unlegitimate revolution?

In a world where the nation state has come to represent the most repressive form of cohesive authority, most left-libertarian and anarchist groups have taken a firm stance against statism and the establishment of states, most noticeably their criticism of national liberation movements. The main argument is that, far from strengthening the position of the working class in an independent nation, power is shifted from the imperialist warmongers to local elites who in turn exploit their own population and exercise a monopoly over the country’s wealth. This is certainly true to a certain degree. One only needs to look to the examples of Algeria and Vietnam who both led a vicious struggle against imperialism only to fall under the tyranny of a repressive state. Despite this, one has to ask himself under what conditions can and should anarchists support the self-determination of an oppressed people. Although the end result should be no borders, no states, the path to freedom is a long one and under the right circumstances, people may have to endure several changes within their country’s before a legitimate form of governance can exist.
Let’s consider the Palestinian case as an example. Most anarchists would oppose the efforts of national liberation movements such as Hamas or the popular front due to the corruption which ordinary Palestinians put up with under these groups. Hamas has been accused on forcibly shutting down trade unions as well as brutally silencing political opposition and same can be said about Fatah. Most would look to the solidarity between underclass Israelis and Palestinians and a long struggle to remove the state of Israel and a possible Palestinian state. While this is certainly a favourable solution, the problem is that is simply doesn’t consider the reality of the situation. The first problem is that while there is a growing Israeli underclass, only minority show sympathy with the Palestinians and even a smaller amount take part in any serious solidarity work. Israeli peace groups, often described as part of a “lunatic fringe” by mainstream Israeli media mainly campaign for a two-state solution. The Palestinian Liberation organisation rejected the possibility of a federalist solution, instead blinded the western myth that statehood is the only path to justice. There simply isn’t any motivation among ordinary Palestinians and Israelis for the favourable solution. More so, the situation in Palestine is that of apartheid and military occupation. Uri Gordon, an Israeli anarchist and activist presents two possible solutions in this situation. To oppose the possibility of an independent Palestinian state and work instead of overthrowing the Israeli state which would inevitably delay the end of the occupation until such a goal is achieved. Alternatively, anarchists could support a temporary state which would relieve Palestinians from the ruthless occupation while activists in both countries advocate the possibility of a fairer society.
Indeed, I was completely opposed to the idea of an independent Palestinian state, not only in opposition to the concept of statism but also considering the fact that Palestinian refugees would be denied any claim to their original homes in modern day Israel as well acknowledging the existence of a state based exclusively on religion. However, in a recent lecture by renowned political scientist and linguist, Noam Chomsky, entitled “Palestine and the region in the Obama era”, Chomsky provides an alternative to a push for a one state solution. While acknowledging that a Palestinian state would temporarily allow the Palestinians to recover from decades of brutal occupation, he highlighted that the process wouldn’t end two states living side by side. In fact, because the West bank, Gaza and Modern day Israel and so interconnected, geographically, economically and culturally, it will be virtually impossible to separate them. Over the years, cultural and economic ties will prompt both parties to move to federalism with the west bank and Gaza existing as autonomous areas as opposed to independent states. Whether this would then evolve to a one-state solution or even better, a no state solution is irrelevant at this point. The point is that national liberation for an oppressed people can sometimes be justified.
Another prominent example could include the efforts of the PKK (Kurdistan’s Workers Party) in the liberation of Kurdish people from the oppressive nature of the Turkish government. Indeed, Kurdish people in Turkey suffer widespread poverty due to neglect from both the nationalists and AKP. Until recently, the use of the Kurdish language was banned and even to identify as a Kurd was a form of treason. The Turkish military routinely carries out attacks on Kurdish areas, ethnically cleansing Kurdish villages, arresting hundreds of youths and detaining them without trial and brutally crushing any resistance to the racist policies of Turkish government. Similar policies in neighbouring countries mean that Kurds have formed the bulk on the underclass and even the wealthiest area of Kurdistan is the poorest of Iran. Imperial Britain, as always, had a hand in the repression of the Kurds, first offering the prospect of an independent Kurdistan in order to fight the Ottomans, then carrying out bombing campaigns in Kurdish villages to prevent a revolution that could threaten Britain’s monopoly of power in the region. For this reason, the PKK was formed to carry out an insurgency in Kurdistan, mainly against Turkish forces. The PKK is a grassroots, working class organisation fiercely opposed to the liberal independence movements in Iraq, led by tribal leaders and other elites seeking their share of power. A no state solution would simply be unrealistic at this time since it would require the overthrow of the Turkish, Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian governments. Could this neigh-impossible task ever be accomplished before another atrocity is committed against the Kurdish people?
The problem I see with most anarchists is they look upon the world from a euro-centric perspective, analysing political situations in the Middle East through the lens of western politics. This is a very dangerous way of approaching the world since anarchists will consistently fail to have an impact on the Middle East, and other cultures since they make little effort to understand the differences that exist. What is needed is a rethinking of common anarchist polices towards these issues and a serious effort to strive to understand different cultures and apply this knowledge to our political views.