Is alternative notion of "state" emerging (or already exists) in the Middle East?

Question

Various national liberation movements usually aim at statehood in Western terms: recognition by the major powers, UN membership, accepting the international accords (like the Geneva Conventions and nuclear non-proliferation treaty), etc. Such recognition is often seen as a prerequisite for achieving and maintaining national independence.

However, there are notorious examples of movements that aim at statehood on non-western terms - notably the Islamic State and Hamas (both militant off-shoots of the Muslim Brotherhood). Both openly defy any adherence to Western politics and values. E.g., 1988 Hamas charter states:

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

whereas softer 2017 charter (which however does not annul the previous one) says:

The agreements reached in the Oslo Accords are criticized and rejected as incompatible with international law. The state of Israel, created with the help of Western nations, is still regarded as "completely illegal" (bâtil in Arabic, a word that also has religious connotations).

The latter appears more conciliatory, but it is to my knowledge the furthest that Hamas has even gone towards accepting Western values in either words or deeds.

The Islamic State's confrontational stance led to its quick demise... but after attracting significant support from all over the globe - in terms of fighters and families joining the movement. Hamas has been doing much better until recently. Is there an "eco-system" that such anti-western movements count upon in their bid to survive and win independence? Some alternative to "western order"? It is easy to dismiss these movements as religious fanatics committed to medieval notions of the Caliphate, but this doesn't seem to do justice to Muslims.

Answer 1

The definition of a 'state' is fairly pragmatic: a state is government that can effectively defend its sovereignty by controlling and maintaining territorial borders. Recognition by other states or international actors is a formality (with some practical consequences, obviously). Formal recognition by others is an acknowledgement (sometimes grudging) that the government in question has sufficient power and structure to make invading 'their' territory costly and difficult. Such recognition is aimed mainly at preventing border squabbles from turning into full-scale wars.

Middle-Eastern political actors are not interested in challenging the definition of the state; they merely object to the Western hegemony over formal recognition. The Islamic State was actually close to achieving pragmatic statehood: they had a significant military force (for the region) and were in the process of establishing institutional structures for governance. If it hadn't been for the intervention of major world powers it's conceivable they would have deposed Assad or carved off a significant territory they could effectively control, and then they would have been a de facto state, regardless of what anyone said. Recognition would have (eventually) followed. Hamas was nowhere near pragmatic statehood, as we can see by the ease in which the IDF penetrated their borders and took over their territory. While the UN could have granted them formal statehood, that would merely have been paper; it would not have stopped Israel from invading, but merely turned it into a proper war between states. The Palestinians are a stateless people, concentrated into a small area of land that surrounding nations (Israel and Egypt) have studiously avoid claiming as their own territory, specifically to prevent Palestinians from claiming rights within those established states. It's a cruel mess, and I understand why Arabs are angry about it, but no one is trying to change the essential nature of statehood.