In a world where ideological divides typically shape alliances, an unlikely partnership has emerged between leftists and conservative Islamists, united in their opposition to war. This unexpected collaboration, writes Firuze Simay Sezgin, raises questions about the potential for dialogue and peace between seemingly irreconcilable worldviews
Leftists and conservative Islamists, despite their contrasting beliefs and inherent disparities, have recently found common ground in their shared opposition to the Israel-Gaza war.
Leftists typically advocate for progressive social change, emphasising equality, social justice, and human rights. They are driven by secular, humanitarian concerns. For conservative Islamists, it is traditional religious values and communal loyalty which are their principal motivations. Islamists may even seek to establish states governed by religious principles.
Despite this, their shared opposition to certain aspects of global politics has led these groups to collaborate in unexpected ways. For example, leftists and conservative Islamists stand united in their criticism of imperialism, interventionist foreign policies, and perceived injustices.
Despite stark differences, the Israel-Gaza conflict has brought Islamists and leftists together in their calls for peace
But is this unlikely alliance merely tactical – or a sign of a deeper convergence of values? Could these groups find common ground on major global issues beyond the current conflict?
The two groups may stand together temporarily in protest, but I believe their alliance is inherently fragile, rooted more in the exigencies of the moment than an enduring commonality. Their visions for the future remain fundamentally distinct.
In their shared urgency for a peaceful resolution, leftists and conservative Islamists have set aside ideological differences to rally against a common adversary: war. People from both camps stand shoulder to shoulder in protest demonstrations, driven by a commitment to peace.
Yet as the smoke clears from shared protest grounds, the solidarity between leftists and conservative Islamists is revealing underlying ideological rifts, such as their views on governance, and the role of religion in public life. The fundamental discord between these two groups means the partnership is likely to be temporary.
The collaboration of Islamists and Leftists against war highlights their shared values but also underscores deep-seated differences
While it lasts, however, their delicate alliance presents a unique opportunity for fostering dialogue and achieving transformative collaboration. In the quest for peace, we should encourage a collective effort to overcome such seemingly irreconcilable ideologies, building a world where common goals transcend identity politics, and triumph over conflict.
The most suitable environments for such potential alliances are advanced democracies with diverse communities, such as the US, France and Sweden. In these countries, all citizens are free to engage in peaceful protest. Islamists and leftists can pursue a common goal of peace through dialogue and mutual understanding.
For instance, in the US, these groups have united against policies like the travel ban on Muslim-majority countries, while in France, they have joined forces in the gilets jaunes protests. In Sweden, leftist and Islamist groups have sometimes aligned on issues like anti-discrimination and immigrant rights, both advocating for the protection and inclusion of Muslim communities in Swedish society. However, tensions frequently arise over issues like LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality, and secularism, leading to fractures within these alliances.
The dynamic is different in other countries, such as Turkey and Egypt. What might appear to be genuine, constructive collaboration often devolves into insincere displays of unity, driven by political expediency rather than genuine efforts toward peace.
In Turkey, for example, initial solidarity during the Gezi Park protests quickly gave way to power struggles, while in Egypt, post-Arab Spring alliances between leftists and Islamists dissolved as soon as political goals diverged. These examples highlight the fragile and often superficial nature of such partnerships in different political contexts.
Do Islamists and leftists genuinely seek the same outcome when they 'call for peace'? In the case of Palestine, they appear to be aligned. But Islamist voices tend fall quieter when it comes to Ukraine. This discrepancy suggests that Islamist support for peace is context-specific. It is driven by a antagonism towards common adversary like Israel or a sense of solidarity with fellow Muslims, rather than a broader, universal peace agenda.
If the momentum generated for Palestine is to contribute to sustainable peace, it must extend to other contexts, too
The motivations behind calls for peace are crucial to understanding this alliance. If we are to translate the momentum generated for Palestine into sustainable peace, that momentum must extend to other contexts, too. The selective focus on conflicts risks undermining the broader quest for lasting peace.
The fragile alliance between leftists and conservative Islamists offers a glimpse into a future in which shared values and a commitment to peace could serve as unifying forces. In a world increasingly defined by division, this alliance offers hope that the pursuit of peace as a common goal could indeed transcend ideological boundaries.
