various conflicts in Causasus in russia - where caucasians were bankrolled and brainwashed via gulf money (dagestan and chechnya)
Iran during Shah times was relatively open politically, although it was monarchy.
Egypt before the brotherhood took over.
Turkey was relatively sectarian, but with Erdogan it became more and more islamist.
Iraq after occupation was relatively open, yet ISIS ideology took off
Iran was a brutal autocracy.
Egypt was a brutal military dictatorship.
Turkey is a great example, tbh. The level of radicals and terrorism there is far less than anything else we've described because it has open democracy. If anything, the big terrorists in Turkey are separatists which every nation, even European ones, has to fight.
Iraq after brutal military occupation? All of what you're talking about about are scenarios where brutal authoritarianism led to extremists gaining popularity because they are an excellent alternative to brutal one-man repression of an entire people.
Generally only undemocratic/oppressive countries have to do that. e.g. violence in the Basque country, Northern Ireland etc. was solved by giving the local people a voice and stopping previous abuses. Escalation of violence was always the outcome of failures by the state rather than started by the "separatists".
Also Turkey only had or has "open democracy" to a very limited state. It was never more than a deeply flawed democracy at best.
> Iraq after brutal military occupation?
I don't think the occupation was even remotely more brutal than Saddam's reign in the 80s and 90s. Most of the casualties were the result of the civil war/conflict between Shia/Sunnis/other factions and general lawlessness. Much of that could have been prevented had the occupation actually been more brutal/oppressive (of course far from ideal either..).
Coincidentally in both cases the administrations propped up by US/USSR were thoroughly corrupted, incompetent and abusive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi) so that even the Taliban became relatively appealing to most people.
> Iraq after occupation was relatively open, yet ISIS ideology took off
That was to a large degree just the extension of the whole Shia vs Sunni conflict/civil war which began immediately after the invasion.
Also I'm not sure what do you mean by "open" in all of the cases (besides post 2001 Afghanistan) the countries we ran by semi-secular authoritarian dictatorships which kept the Islamists in check. Most of the population would have (and eventually did) supported them if they were given a choice (like in Egypt).
Oh, and before you note that they have hijacked the elections and killed their opponents, hence it’s not an open political system anymore — that's exactly the point.
My entire point was that closed political systems embolden radicals, Gaza makes that point extremely well. When you have zero chance of having a say in the government that controls all your borders, any and all food allowed into your area, any and all job prospects you have, etc. that's fertile ground for radicals.
If Israel were a democracy (e.g. open political system) instead of having the majority of its subjects unable to vote or move freely within the land, it's obvious there would be no Hamas.
The point is, it's as closed a political system as it gets. No matter what the polity does, their situation cannot change because they have no rights in the government that controls their lives (Israel)
That's not true at all, Israel doesn't operate any courts in Gaza.
> Nothing can go into or out of Gaza, not even food, not even collected rainwater, without Israeli permission.
As I already explained, that's not true either — Gaza has a border with Egypt, too. But regardless, that's how borders between countries work: both parties have to agree over what can cross.
If you're making an argument about one country having a lot of economic and geopolitical influence on another, then you would have to make the same argument about any country on Earth and United States, and conclude that US is the only open political system.
No country in the world has total control of any other country's electricity, food rationing, water rationing, import / export, ability to work, ability to depart and arrive from the country.
You constantly mention Egypt as if it somehow makes all the facts I've stated false. But it does not. If they cooperate to create the same situation the situation does not change. There are still 2 million stateless people whose electricity, food, water, internet, and basically all access to the outside world is controlled by governments they are not citizens of.
Right - the people there are under martial law, which is even worse.
Gaza has a border with Egypt
Which Israel has seized control of.
You may not believe in democracy, but I do. Democracies lead to progress in nations and balance in political systems around the world. Closed political systems lead to the rise of revolutionaries and in the Muslim world those are Islamic and often extreme
No it doesn't. Provide one example where this has happened?