Based on what? The concept of nations is perhaps two centuries old at best. It is true that there are many differing groups of people living in that area, but they were often simply under the dominion of one imperial power or another. This pat caricature is the equivalent of shrugging one's shoulders and saying "well that's how it's always been."
> The concept of nations is perhaps two centuries old at best.
The modern model of statehood (which is probably what you are referring to) -- sometimes referred to as the "nation-state" model, but it is not actually particularly centered on the coextensiveness of the nations and states, and certainly orthogonal to states being ethnonationalist -- is at least ~300 years old (its often attributed to being ~400 years old and originating in the two peace settlements collectively known as the "Peace of Westphalia", but that's not really accurate.) OTOH, the concept of nations (which are basically the coextension of an ethnic community and a land) is much older.
But, in any case, it has not been the case at all that the history of the Levant is one of two local adjacent coexistent ethnonationalist polities, whether or not they look like modern states. That's just a simply false claim made upthread which needs no reference to the history of models of nations or states to rebut; before 1948, for a very long time, the Levant was more often either under one (multinational, imperial) polity or split between a couple of adjacent ones (often in the process of transitioning from unified control of one to the other), whether it was the British Empire, or the Ottoman Empire, a series of different Arab-led empires, the Eastern Roman Empire, the (pre-split) Roman Empire, various Greek-derived empires, the Babylonian and Assyrian empires, etc.
I was actually thinking of the idea of nationalism itself, which really got off the ground in the 1800s after the Napoleonic Wars. Though yeah, I miswrote the "concept of nations."
During the times there was an external security guarantor, conflict would by definition go down (assuming the external power was sufficiently potent and stable). So you can't say that both chaos and dominion were happening simultaneously at all times.
> One could argue this history of chaos goes back to the Hittites and Bronze Age collapse.
And one could claim that the history of chaos in Central Europe goes back to the dissolution of the Carolingian Empire, or the Ostsiedlung, or perhaps even before the Romans made contact with the Germani.
> you can't say that both chaos and dominion were happening simultaneously at all times
Nobody said this.
> one could claim that the history of chaos in Central Europe goes back to the dissolution of the Carolingian Empire, or the Ostsiedlung, or perhaps even before the Romans made contact with the Germani
Well, yes. It’s a nexus of navigable waterways. It has taken millennia of negotiating, atrocity and—ultimately—an external security guarantor twinned with mutual forgiveness to attain, for a short period, peace.
This is the history of the Levant going back millennia.