# The unification of the Arabian Peninsula?



## al-Hasani

Let's start a discussion regarding the topic of the GCC or the Arabian Peninsula unifying into 1 big country. Notice that there is a difference between the actual political borders of the Arabian Peninsula and the geographical borders which also consists of Jordan, Southern Iraq and parts of Syria.

How foreseeable is it and what is needed in order for it to become a reality?

I will give my own opinion later if this discussion evolves into something serious or interesting. For now I will just leave it to others to comment on. I am mostly interested in hearing users from the Arabian Peninsula and their opinion regarding this. Which on PDF translates to users from KSA mainly as there are not many active Arab users on PDF to begin with let alone users from Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Yemen etc. I actually think that there is none.

In the meantime I will just write some short facts. Only based on the current POLITICAL borders of the Arabian Peninsula mind you.

Area:
*3,200,937 km2*

If a country it would be the 7th biggest in the world.

Population:
*Around 80,000,000 million as of 2014.*

If a country it would be the 16th most populous country.

Economy:
*GDP (nominal) $1,800-1,900 billion as of late 2014.
*
If a country it would have around the 10th biggest economy (GDP nominal)

GDP per capita as of late 2014:
*Around $35,000 excluding impoverished Yemen.*

If a country, excluding impoverished Yemen, it would be in the top 30 and among the richest considering size and population.

Let's not even discuss oil and gas reserves, natural riches in general, the strategic location, access to the Red Sea, Gulf, Arabian Sea and wider Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea through the nearby Suez Canal.

Let's not forget the economic prognosis that consistently place GCC economies as among the fastest growing and their GDP per capita as among the highest in the world a long time into the future.

Or the endless potential on almost all areas that are yet to even remotely be fulfilled due to political and social reasons mainly.





​Try to look at this scenario not necessarily from the current glasses as of 2014 but in 10-20 years time for instance where political regimes, laws etc. can have changed tremendously.

This could also lead to regional unifications elsewhere in the Arab world. I think that this will be the way forward.

No trolling please as that's not the propose of this thread.

@Arabian Legend @Yzd Khalifa @JUBA @BLACKEAGLE @Hazzy997 @Mosamania @Bubblegum Crisis @Awadd @Full Moon @Tihamah @Mootaz-khelifi @MooshMoosh @Mahmoud_EGY @Halimi @Hadbani @Haitham @burning_phoneix @FARSOLDIER @farag @Altamimi @Arabi @agentny17 @Chai @Tunisian Marine Corps @1000 @Algeria @Dino @fahd tamimi @Frogman @Hechmi Seif @Naifov @Andalusi Knight @thefreesyrian @Rakan.SA @tyrant @Ahmed Jo @ebray etc.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
25


----------



## HRK

'Need of the day' but won't happen till sometime

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## al-Hasani

HRK said:


> 'Need of the day' but won't happen till sometime



Yes, although the GCC has already shown the light and on many areas the GCC already acts like 1 country. So the process has already begun and it could include countries like Jordan that geographically are also part of the Arabian Peninsula and historically as well.

I think that if the Arabian Peninsula united into 1 country in let's say 20-30 years time this could lead to other regional unifications in the Arab world and maybe ultimately an Arab world in the light of the EU. I personally think that this is the future. By then necessary political changes would also have occurred (with all due probability) to implement such "projects".

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## TSA321

Yeah it should happen but won't for a while.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

al-Hasani said:


> Yes, although the GCC has already shown the light and on many areas the GCC already acts like 1 country. So the process has already begun and it could include countries like Jordan that geographically are also part of the Arabian Peninsula and historically as well.
> 
> I think that if the Arabian Peninsula united into 1 country in let's say 20-30 years time this could lead to other regional unifications in the Arab world and maybe ultimately an Arab world in the light of the EU. I personally think that this is the future. By then necessary political changes would also have occurred (with all due probability) to implement such "projects".



Rather a 'single country' I believe a an Arabian Peninsula *Union *with a 'unified defense and economic system' would be more practical & efforts should be made in that direction even if it takes next 50 or so years.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JonAsad

Nice idea- but which tribe will the "King" come from?-
thats as much hard and complicated as looking for a "Caliph"-

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## al-Hasani

HRK said:


> Rather a 'single country' I believe a an Arabian Peninsula *Union *with a 'unified defense and economic system' would be more practical & efforts should be made in that direction even if it takes next 50 or so years.



Mate, that's where the GCC comes into the place. I was thinking more in the light of the US. A federal state.



JonAsad said:


> Nice idea- but which tribe will the "King" come from?-
> thats as much hard and complicated as looking for a "Caliph"-



Well, all options are available. In 20-30 years time most countries will probably be governed by a constitutional monarchy with much lesser political powers than today. Who knows, maybe republics will emerge? I mean Yemen has been a republic for instance for almost 50 years. After being ruled by monarchs for 3500 years.

Also even if we say that nothing will change politically in the next 20-25 years (highly unrealistic) a single federal state governed by monarchs could still become a reality. In this case, as it would be a federal state, each head of state of federal state x or y could rotate as the head of state just like for instance the Presidency of the Council of the European Union rotates every six months.

There are already rotations in the GCC. "Secretary General" and "Supreme Council Presidency".

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HRK

al-Hasani said:


> Mate, that's where the GCC comes into the place. I was thinking more in the light of the US. A federal state.



and for that one or more 'states' of the region having more power than the less powerful 'states' will have to defeat them ...

That's why I purposed EU Model... GCC is limited in its scope ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

HRK said:


> Rather a 'single country' I believe a an Arabian Peninsula *Union *with a 'unified defense and economic system' would be more practical & efforts should be made in that direction even if it takes next 50 or so years.



80 million people combined.....damn my province (Punjab) has more people ! 

Either we breed like rabbits or the Arabs don't like babies !

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## al-Hasani

HRK said:


> and for that one or more 'states' of the region having more power 'states' will have to defeat less powerful 'states' ...
> 
> That's why I purposed EU Model... GCC is limited in its scope ...



Hence the federal option bro. In the US you also have states that are much more powerful. It's the same in the GCC. It should not be a problem. If it was a big problem the GCC would not even exist.



Armstrong said:


> 80 million people combined.....damn my province (Punjab) has more people !
> 
> Either we breed like rabbits or the Arabs don't like babies !



But are there about 450 million Punjabis across the world like there are Arabs? Don't forget that we are second only to the Han Chinese. We can't catch up with them though.

Well, the populations on the Arabian Peninsula are some of the fastest growing. It's just that our populations were rather small just like all over the ME 100 years ago. In fact they were lower than 1000 years ago!

80 million is more than fine Buttstrong. Those numbers will quickly grow in the foreseeable future and I am not sure if that's a positive thing in a constantly more resource challenged world!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HRK

Armstrong said:


> 80 million people combined.....damn my province (Punjab) has more people !
> 
> Either we breed like rabbits or the Arabs don't like babies !



yara we belong to a conutry having population around 200+ million .... 

phir bi haar dewar paar "Nauska-e-Khas" ka poster hai ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

until now GCC are doing great and a good example in the middle east what i think the challenges are in the future 
1 yeman( houthis al qaida north and south) 
2 the different policys between some GCC states qatar

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PurpleButcher

Well the first phase should be a unified currency.... like euro... but if i am not wrong there was this suggestion of a single currency but the dispute arose between bahrain and dubai as to who will host the hq of the unified finacial center... the foreign policy is already unified except for qatar. and defence is also contracted to usa... so there u go foreign/finance and defence , the fundamentals of unification.

Next thing is a unified visa which already exists for locals, the can travel and get on arrival visa but such facilities are not extended to exapts of gcc who want to come to KSA cause of umrah and hajj issues....

if these things get sorted out than GU like EU is very much possible in next decade but will require a political will and some compromises to be made for the greater good of the region.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

ArabPakistani said:


> You need to unite with your Arab brothers in Pakistan!



@Horus looks like another Indian troll.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

It depends on how good of a political system you can create. A GCC federation technically can work but it would come at a peril of all not so powerful monarchies and they are not going to commit to it. Economy, defense, geopolitics, energy etc it makes complete sense but working out a fair federal model which works for conservative saudi arabia and liberal Bahrain and moderate UAE would not be easy.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## KingMamba

Armstrong said:


> 80 million people combined.....damn my province (Punjab) has more people !
> 
> Either we breed like rabbits or the Arabs don't like babies !



Arabs breed just like us South Asians but there lands cannot support as much people as the plains of the Punjab. 

@al-Hasani no love for the Yemenis? smh

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farhan_9909

Should be done,KSA has everything but they lack population.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Would be a powerful country. Three strong blocks with Arabs, Turks, and Iranians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arya Desa

KingMamba said:


> Arabs breed just like us South Asians but there lands cannot support as much people as the plains of the Punjab.
> 
> @al-Hasani no love for the Yemenis? smh



Speak for yourself. Our Punjab has one of the lowest fertility rates in India at 1.7 TFR.


----------



## Kabira

Poor Yemenis are left out because god was not kind to them when it comes to oil? Pathetic


----------



## KingMamba

Arya Desa said:


> Speak for yourself. Our Punjab has one of the lowest fertility rates in India at 1.7 TFR.



Your punjab also kills your young women, no women no breeding.  What you are left with is imported brides from Bihar and Bihari sardars.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## al-Hasani

Horus said:


> It depends on how good of a political system you can create. A GCC federation technically can work but it would come at a peril of all not so powerful monarchies and they are not going to commit to it. Economy, defense, geopolitics, energy etc it makes complete sense but working out a fair federal model which works for conservative saudi arabia and liberal Bahrain and moderate UAE would not be easy.



Actually I hoped that this thread could kickstart a discussion about constitutional monarchies in the GCC as well with a similar role to those seen in Western Europe and with parliaments/real elections at the same time. So in other words real democracies.

I also think that federalism is the only way forward in such a nation as the Arabian Peninsula just like the Arab world as a whole is quite diverse.



KingMamba said:


> Arabs breed just like us South Asians but there lands cannot support as much people as the plains of the Punjab.
> 
> @al-Hasani no love for the Yemenis? smh



Yemenis would be included as Yemen is a corner stone of the Arabian Peninsula historically, culturally and geographically. I have included them here and I hope that they will join the GCC at some point. Same with Jordan.



save_ghenda said:


> Poor Yemenis are left out because god was not kind to them when it comes to oil? Pathetic



They would be included in my vision and they might not be rich in terms of economy but they are one of the richest countries in terms of history, culture and natural beauty. You can't buy that with any money! Yemen actually has oil but not much compared to its neighbors and the population is also quite big. 25-30 million by now and one of the fastest growing in the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FaujHistorian

al-Hasani said:


> Let's start a discussion regarding the topic of the GCC or the Arabian Peninsula unifying into 1 big country. Notice that there is a difference between the actual political borders of the Arabian Peninsula and the geographical borders which also consists of Jordan, Southern Iraq and parts of Syria.
> 
> How foreseeable is it and what is needed in order for it to become a reality?
> 
> I will give my own opinion later if this discussion evolves into something serious or interesting. For now I will just leave it to others to comment on. I am mostly interested in hearing users from the Arabian Peninsula and their opinion regarding this. Which on PDF translates to users from KSA mainly as there are not many active Arab users on PDF to begin with let alone users from Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Yemen etc. I actually think that there is none.
> 
> In the meantime I will just write some short facts. Only based on the current POLITICAL borders of the Arabian Peninsula mind you.
> 
> Area:
> *3,200,937 km2*
> 
> If a country it would be the 7th biggest in the world.
> 
> Population:
> *Around 80,000,000 million as of 2014.*
> 
> If a country it would be the 16th most populous country.
> 
> Economy:
> *GDP (nominal) $1,800-1,900 billion as of late 2014.
> *
> If a country it would have around the 10th biggest economy (GDP nominal)
> 
> GDP per capita as of late 2014:
> *Around $35,000 excluding impoverished Yemen.*
> 
> If a country, excluding impoverished Yemen, it would be in the top 30 and among the richest considering size and population.
> 
> Let's not even discuss oil and gas reserves, natural riches in general, the strategic location, access to the Red Sea, Gulf, Arabian Sea and wider Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea through the nearby Suez Canal.
> 
> Let's not forget the economic prognosis that consistently place GCC economies as among the fastest growing and their GDP per capita as among the highest in the world a long time into the future.
> 
> Or the endless potential on almost all areas that are yet to even remotely be fulfilled due to political and social reasons mainly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​Try to look at this scenario not necessarily from the current glasses as of 2014 but in 10-20 years time for instance where political regimes, laws etc. can have changed tremendously.
> 
> This could also lead to regional unifications elsewhere in the Arab world. I think that this will be the way forward.
> 
> No trolling please as that's not the propose of this thread.
> 
> @Arabian Legend @Yzd Khalifa @JUBA @BLACKEAGLE @Hazzy997 @Mosamania @Bubblegum Crisis @Awadd @Full Moon @Tihamah @Mootaz-khelifi @MooshMoosh @Mahmoud_EGY @Halimi @Hadbani @Haitham @burning_phoneix @FARSOLDIER @farag @Altamimi @Arabi @agentny17 @Chai @Tunisian Marine Corps @1000 @Algeria @Dino @fahd tamimi @Frogman @Hechmi Seif @Naifov @Andalusi Knight @thefreesyrian @Rakan.SA @tyrant @Ahmed Jo @ebray etc.





This may result in Qatari Emirs displacing Sauds.

I doubt Saudi youth will like that.


----------



## al-Hasani

FaujHistorian said:


> This may result in Qatari Emirs displacing Sauds.
> 
> I doubt Saudi youth will like that.



Please don't troll this thread mate and reread the topic from the beginning to the end. I don't care about any leaders. All I ask for is that they do a good job. Whatever their sect, family, social status, ethnicity, skin color etc. may be.


----------



## FaujHistorian

al-Hasani said:


> Please don't troll this thread mate and reread the topic from the beginning to the end. I don't care about any leaders. All I ask for is that they do a good job. Whatever their sect, family, social status, ethnicity, skin color etc. may be.



no trolling my dear. 

Such threads lack serious introspection.


----------



## al-Hasani

FaujHistorian said:


> no trolling my dear.
> 
> Such threads lack serious introspection.



Don't get what you mean by that and don't understand your first comment here either. Let's stick to the topic here and make a serious thread. Nobody forces anybody here to participate.

Personally I also believe that there should be closer relations with neighboring countries like Iraq.

I also believe that a united Arabian Peninsula could serve as bridge to nearby Egypt and Horn of Africa/Eastern Africa. All potentially big and emerging markets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FaujHistorian

al-Hasani said:


> Don't get what you mean by that and don't understand your first comment here either. Let's stick to the topic here and make a serious thread. Nobody forces anybody here to participate.
> 
> Personally I also believe that there should be closer relations with neighboring countries like Iraq.
> 
> I also believe that a united Arabian Peninsula could serve as bridge to nearby Egypt and Horn of Africa/Eastern Africa. All potentially big and emerging markets.



Do the introspection brother, find all the faults and weaknesses that KSA has. 

Address them first, only then a union can happen. 

EU happened because of an industrial power house like Germany. 

your thread assumes that a country like Greece can form a big union. 

not happening. 

Greece can only follow and not lead.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jaanbaz

@al-Hasani You have your work cut out, not many Arabs here to discuss this topic. But anyway I'll give my views.

The current borders of Arabian Peninsula was drawn mostly by colonial powers. As we can currently see that these borders are not working. There could be a union between the GCC. I'm still not sure how they would unite like US style federation though.



Hasan Uz-Zaman said:


> *Option or Opportunity or Right for the People of Pakistan to Live under Imran Khan’s Leadership
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normally Bangladeshi writers do not write anything of Pakistan-pro, because Bangladesh-Pakistan relationship is a very controversial issue. But as a writer I have wish to write when I found a concept of writing. I have been connected to the Dawn through facebook and sometimes I get opportunity to read the news paper online version, when I logged in facebook. I found Dawn is an International Standard news paper and source.
> 
> I also write column for Modern Ghana since 2009. When I started writing here, after few days later they assigned me as Operations Manager and South Asian Representative. I felt proud of their honor and value added to me that inspired me to continue write into there – indeed in future.
> 
> Anyway, I am not famed and wise experienced writer or a responsive journalist. But also I write sometimes whatever I found to write.
> 
> I have liked to write something about a world’s famous and great cricket celebrity Imran Khan. According to my prediction, I would write about his leadership for Pakistan.
> 
> After retirement from cricket, Imran Khan delivered his aim to become a great leader for his nation – Pakistan. It was not easy to rose in such power, popularity, and famous in the political platform.
> 
> I found, Many a people may said, his existing popularity in cricket background made his path easy, to become a cultivated politician.
> 
> It resembles the cited as Mayor in the story of Pied Piper of Hamelin; Then the Mayor said, “If the River of Weser could not remain so near of the Hamelin city, how you would solve the problem?”
> 
> I have to give another example that Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus also tried to become a politician in Bangladesh after he won the Nobel Peace Prize. But very effetely he failed and people did not accept him, though Bangladesh’s political flow is something different then India and Pakistan.
> 
> Imran Khan formed his political part namely Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. Then quickly he was able to come in front of leadership and gather lot of people in his campaigns. Very quickly Pakistan and world’s media received it positively that he arrive to focus.
> 
> It is not the crated by third parties but he have been showing his qualification and continue straggling to build a better Pakistan and so he have to rise in government formation power, either he become a President or Prime Minister.
> 
> Pakistan has to uncover practice of real democracy in the form of capitalism, federalism, communism or any other form they also may newly develop as the Russia delivered communism after a democracy form released in the United States.
> 
> But why Pakistan would pursue to Imran Khan’s leadership? Whenever, Mamnoon Hussain, Mian Nawaz Sharif, Nasir-ul-Mulk, Nayyar Hussain Bukhari and Ayaz Sadiq are very happily and strongly handling Pakistan.
> 
> I think, Imran Khan holds good leadership skills of Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya. Though Gaddafi’s military career and experiences made him dictator. That Gaddafi knew people do not accept a military officer as their leader through democracy, so he became dictator. Military officers always like to perform command & force and not capable to understand and realize public emotion and sentiment because of their most important time of life passed in the military customs and tradition.
> 
> But Imran Khan is now growing through an accepting platform. He becomes familiar and popular in the public platform. Pakistani people have love and faith on him. It is very important for a good leadership.
> 
> When people could trust him and love him then people may perform their activities whatever guide by the leader - Imran Khan. And by this way Imran Khan will capable to build a new Pakistan and sustainable educational & economical development will grow faster. Wherever, nuclear super power Pakistan will have available access to education in everywhere – all villages to remote areas. The misguided people do not involve to the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and any other terrorist group.
> 
> The world is growing very faster, economy, technology, education, agriculture and in every sector but still now lot of Pakistan’s children and women is obsessed in the educational rights, medical treatment facilities and other fundamental rights. Could you guess which way Pakistan is going forward?
> 
> Whoever leader(s) Pakistan requires right now, Pakistan cannot create yet but in this time, Imran Khan is the one of bests and more specifically – probably he is the best one right now.
> 
> So, it is right time to choose their leader for Pakistan’s people. This people do not mean only whoever are farmers and small businessmen but for everybody; government officers and employees, teachers, professors, doctors, engineers, scientists and everybody and also whoever hold the wealth’s and power.
> 
> There have a Proverbs; For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers.
> 
> So, Imran Khan presented himself, delivered himself to the people of Pakistan and now choice is depend upon people everybody. He is not come from military background; he is not come from existing political background that people know whoever is involved to practice dirty politics. He comes from fully different and new background that is cricket, was a great celebrity, was and remains in the heart of people of Pakistan.
> 
> It is also subject to remember that Imran Khan has very good popularity and acceptance all over the world. So, International relationship of Pakistan should work rightly that is very important for development of Pakistan.
> 
> Man cannot leave alone, so, you may say to your partner; If you seek my cooperation, please send me your favorite one to whom I may like and love and s/he also would capable to create his/her acceptance.
> 
> In the Global village, every nation is not out of the behavior.
> 
> People may not confuse to pick-up him as their leader as President or Prime Minister. It is not option, but opportunity to select him.
> 
> Author:
> Hasanuzzaman Talukdar Shemul
> Columnist and South Asian Representative of Modern Ghana Media Group
> Student of Master of Disaster and Human Security Management program at Bangladesh University of Professionals
> 
> Dated: 27th October 2014, Monday, Dhaka - Bangladesh*



Babu Ji wrong thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## al-Hasani

Jaanbaz said:


> @al-Hasani You have your work cut out, not many Arabs here to discuss this topic. But anyway I'll give my views.
> 
> The current borders of Arabian Peninsula was drawn mostly by colonial powers. As we can currently see that these borders are not working. There could be a union between the GCC. I'm still not sure how they would unite like US style federation though.
> 
> 
> 
> Babu Ji Wrong thread.



Actually the borders of Yemen, Oman, Bahrain are as they always were mostly. The current borders of Yemen for instance correspondent almost fully with 3500 years old Yemeni kingdoms. KSA is basically a confederation of the historical regions of Hijaz, Najd and Eastern Arabian (Al-Ahsa) while the North is partially a part of the Levant and the Southeast is the Rub' al-Khali. Half of the Arabian Peninsula was never colonized for instance by any outsiders outside of Arabs and Semites which are all native to the Arabian Peninsula. The only "new" states are Kuwait, Qatar (a peninsula itself) and UAE. All small states. The British rule was very short-lived and they did not change any historical borders really. Besides the Arabian Peninsula remains the Arabian Peninsula. Same with Arabia.

It's a bit different in other parts of the ME and especially Africa.

GCC itself is already a big step towards unification.

Yes, there are about 40-50 of us Arab users here but only like 10 of us are active and not even always active. There are none Arab users from any country on the Arabian Peninsula outside of KSA. Well we had a Omani lady @Chai and she has not been active for months (sadly) and I think that we have a Kuwaiti user who is rarely active too. That's it. Rest are from KSA. There might be 450-500 million of us Arabs but not many of us have discovered PDF yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jaanbaz

al-Hasani said:


> Actually the borders of Yemen, Oman, Bahrain are as they always were mostly. The current borders of Yemen for instance correspondent almost fully with 3500 years old Yemeni kingdoms. KSA is basically a confederation of the historical regions of Hijaz, Najd and Eastern Arabian (Al-Ahsa) while the North is partially a part of the Levant and the Southeast is the Rub' al-Khali. Half of the Arabian Peninsula was never colonized for instance by any outsiders outside of Arabs and Semites which are all native to the Arabian Peninsula. The only "new" states are Kuwait, Qatar (a peninsula itself) and UAE. All small states. The British rule was very short-lived and they did not change any historical borders really. Besides the Arabian Peninsula remains the Arabian Peninsula. Same with Arabia.
> 
> It's a bit different in other parts of the ME and especially Africa.
> 
> GCC itself is already a big step towards unification.
> 
> Yes, there are about 40-50 of us Arab users here but only like 10 of us are active and not even always active. There are none Arab users from any country on the Arabian Peninsula outside of KSA. Well we had a Omani lady @Chai and she has not been active for months (sadly) and I think that we have a Kuwaiti user who is rarely active too. That's it. Rest are from KSA. There might be 450-500 million of us Arabs but not many of us have discovered PDF yet.



one question wouldn't the poor countries like Yemen be a burden? Unless richer ones could help the poorer ones out. I mean EU gets dragged down even in one country performs poorly. And you are talking about a federation of many nations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmed Jo

HRK said:


> Rather a 'single country' I believe a an Arabian Peninsula *Union *with a 'unified defense and economic system' would be more practical & efforts should be made in that direction even if it takes next 50 or so years.


That's a much more pragmatic solution and it should also ensure domestic autonomy for each country in this proposed Union.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## al-Hasani

Jaanbaz said:


> one question wouldn't the poor countries like Yemen be a burden? Unless richer ones could help the poorer ones out. I mean EU gets dragged down even in one country performs poorly. And you are talking about a federation of many nations.



Well, there is only one poor country on the Arabian Peninsula if we just look at its political borders. That country is called Yemen.

Initially Yemen would be an economic burden but at the other hand the population of a unified Arabian Peninsula (political one) would be greatly enlarged if Yemen joined which itself has many positives, the land area and coastline as well. Also it would ensure control of the Bab el Mandeb (the southern version of the Suez Canal) and after all 25% of the world's sea traffic goes through the Red Sea so it has a very big geopolitical importance.

Lastly just the sheer population of Yemen (one of the fastest growing) is itself an asset IF they would become a part of a very powerful and rich union such as the GCC as those rich and prosperous countries could invest heavily in Yemen and help solve many of the problems that keep Yemen from progressing.



Ahmed Jo said:


> That's a much more pragmatic solution and it should also ensure domestic autonomy for each country in this proposed Union.



The key for my proposed union is federalism, democracy and cooperation. GCC is already a union that deals with economy, regional politics, military etc. Becoming a united federal state (like the US for instance) is the next natural step. That would be much better and make the region much more stronger.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jaanbaz

al-Hasani said:


> Well, there is only one poor country on the Arabian Peninsula if we just look at the political borders.
> Initially Yemen would be an economic burden but at the other hand the population of a unified Arabian Peninsula (political one) would be greatly enlarged if Yemen joined which itself has many positives, the land area and coastline as well. Also it would ensure control of the Bab el Mandeb (the southern version of the Suez Canal) and after all 25% of the world's sea traffic goes through the Red Sea so it has a very big geopolitical importance.
> Lastly just the sheer population of Yemen (one of the fastest growing) is itself an asset IF they would become a part of a very powerful and rich union such as the GCC as those rich and prosperous countries could invest heavily in Yemen and help solve many of the problems that keep Yemen from progressing.



How will USA view this union and most of all their little friend Israel?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## al-Hasani

Jaanbaz said:


> How will USA view this union and most of all their little friend Israel?



They would probably be against it just like every other regional player and the same goes for any future plan of creating regional political blocs in the Arab world which ultimately could result in an united federal Arab world which would be a world power without a doubt. But we should not care about them as this is a decision well within our reach. It depends on the people and you can only oppress the political will of a people for a certain period of time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmed Jo

How does the GCC function exactly? I mean how much control does it as an entity have over its member states? And would it be renamed to something like the "Arabian Peninsula Union" or would it stay as it is?

Such a "project" will take many years to perfect and honestly, it probably has a 50/50 chance of succeeding. It would be be wise to not attempt uniting all of the Arab countries at once, rather sticking to specific regions and working from there.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jaanbaz

al-Hasani said:


> They would probably be against it just like every other regional player and the same goes for any future plan of creating regional political blocs in the Arab world which ultimately could result in an united federal Arab world. But we should not care about them as this is a decision well within our reach. It depends on the people and you can only oppress the political will of a people for a certain period of time.



In my view a united Arabian peninsula would definitely crush dangerous terrorist organisations like IS. It would be a serious contender in the world. No matter how big ally USA is of KSA's they would never want a united Arabia.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ahmed Jo

PurpleButcher said:


> Well the first phase should be a unified currency.... like euro... but if i am not wrong there was this suggestion of a single currency but the dispute arose between bahrain and dubai as to who will host the hq of the unified finacial center... the foreign policy is already unified except for qatar. and defence is also contracted to usa... so there u go foreign/finance and defence , the fundamentals of unification.
> 
> Next thing is a unified visa which already exists for locals, the can travel and get on arrival visa but such facilities are not extended to exapts of gcc who want to come to KSA cause of umrah and hajj issues....
> 
> if these things get sorted out than GU like EU is very much possible in next decade but will require a political will and some compromises to be made for the greater good of the region.


Actually, a unified currency should be the last phase not the first as we have learned from the EU experience.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani E

Don't think I'm trolling or anything but how are you going to control sectarian/ethnic/religious tensions? You can't get rid of these realities by just joining boundaries without a proper course of assimilation ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## al-Hasani

Ahmed Jo said:


> How does the GCC function exactly? I mean how much control does it as an entity have over its member states? And would it be renamed to something like the "Arabian Peninsula Union" or would it stay as it is?
> 
> Such a "project" will take many years to perfect and honestly, it probably has a 50/50 chance of succeeding. It would be be wise to not attempt uniting all of the Arab countries, rather sticking to specific regions and working from there.



The GCC is first and foremost a regional political and economic union that is composed of sovereign nations. Nowadays it has evolved into a military union too as the member states militaries work closely together. See Peninsula Sheild Force for instance. Each country still retains its own national laws but for instance citizens of GCC countries can freely travel to other GCC states without a visa, live there, work there, own property there and there is also talk of a unified currency one day. Basically it resembles the EU on many fronts in the sense that European countries are getting more exposed to laws deriving from the EU for each year. The GCC is just much smaller and at another level. I think that the end goal is also to have rather similar laws.

Actually in the case of the GCC as it is I don't think that it will take many years. It would be more difficult if Yemen had to be included but only due to the current unrest there and the economic situation. I touched upon this subject in my post number 33 in this thread if you want to take a look.



Jaanbaz said:


> In my view a united Arabian peninsula would definitely crush dangerous terrorist organisations like IS. It would be a serious contender in the world. No matter how big ally USA is of KSA's they would never want a united Arabia.



I have no doubt about that. Just imagine the immense natural riches that would come under the control of one single country with one single foreign policy etc. What if that country told the Americans that they are not allowed to have any military bases in Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar anymore if that country's interests were allied more with those of China for instance?



Pakistani Exile said:


> Don't think I'm trolling or anything but how are you going to control sectarian/ethnic/religious tensions? You can't get rid of these realities by just joining boundaries without a proper course of assimilation ?



There is hardly any sectarianism outside of Yemen and much less so Bahrain. The issue of Arab Shias in Eastern Arabia should be dealt with intelligently and fair political demands should be met. Also you have to remember that a unification of the Arabian Peninsula into 1 big federal state could for instance first happen in 20-25 years time and by then the political situation of the ME might be entirely different than it is now. See some of my earlier posts in this thread.

For instance there is no sectarianism in Oman (despite is great diversity), UAE, Qatar, Kuwait or KSA (outside tiny areas of the Eastern Province and I am reluctant to even use the word "sectarianism" there). Yemen is not really sectarian either outside of the AQAP retards and some elements among the Houthi's. It's more tribal/regional/North/South divide/economical etc. Religion is secondary but exploited to the masses. It's nothing like what we see in Iraq and saw long before 2003 for instance.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pakistani E

al-Hasani said:


> The GCC is first and foremost a regional political and economic union that is composed of sovereign nations. Nowadays it has evolved into a military union too as the member states militaries work closely together. See Peninsula Sheild Force for instance. Each country still retains its own national laws but for instance citizens of GCC countries can freely travel to other GCC states without a visa, live there, work there, own property there and there is also talk of a unified currency one day. Basically it resembles the EU on many fronts in the sense that European countries are getting more exposed to laws deriving from the EU for each year. The GCC is just much smaller and at another level. I think that the end goal is also to have rather similar laws.
> 
> Actually in the case of the GCC as it is I don't think that it will take many years. It would be more difficult if Yemen had to be included but only due to the current unrest there and the economic situation. I touched upon this subject in my post number 33 in this thread if you want to take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt about that. Just imagine the immense natural riches that would come under the control of one single country with one single foreign policy etc. What if that country told the Americans that they are not allowed to have any based in Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar anymore if that countries interests were allied more with those of China for instance?
> 
> 
> 
> There is hardly any sectarianism outside of Yemen and much less so Bahrain. The issue of Arab Shias in Eastern Arabia should be dealt with intelligently and fair political demands should be met. Also you have to remember that a unification of the Arabian Peninsula into 1 big federal state could for instance first happen in 20-25 years time and by then the political situation of the ME might be entirely different than it is now. See some of my earlier posts in this thread.
> 
> For instance there is no sectarianism in Oman (despite is great diversity), UAE, Qatar, Kuwait or KSA (outside tiny areas of the Eastern Province and I am reluctant to even use the word "sectarianism" there). Yemen is not really sectarian either outside of the AQAP retards and some elements among the Houthi's. It's more tribal/regional/North/South divide/economical etc. Religion is secondary but exploited to the masses.



This is all good to hear, one last policy that I like clarification on. Do you want their to be like a right of return for people with arab ancestry, like the jews? I mean if they can prove it through some sort testing? Would you welcome arab descendants?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## al-Hasani

Pakistani Exile said:


> This is all good to hear, one last policy that I like clarification on. Do you want their to be like a right of return for people with arab ancestry, like the jews? I mean if they can prove it through some sort testing? Would you welcome arab descendants?



Well, they don't need to prove anything as we know that 400.000 Yemeni Jews alone live in Israel. If they would want to return to their ancestral lands of their forefathers and are willing to contribute and stay loyal I don't see why not? I think that religion and ethnicity will play a much lesser role in the region and world as a whole. We see it constantly in the world of today. In fact in KSA alone I have noticed it when it comes to issues such as clan, social status, skin color, ethnicity (Afro-Arabs are getting much less stigmatized than before and are a much more active part of the society despite there still being some trouble), religion etc. Eventually all this will change. Same goes with Pakistan and other Muslim and non-Muslim states.

For each year the world becomes more and more similar on almost every front. I don't see why that development should suddenly change.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## livingdead

How many different ethnicities have you got and how do they get along?


----------



## Ahmed Jo

hinduguy said:


> How many different ethnicities have you got and how do they get along?


The issue is not so much about ethnicities but more about religious sects.


----------



## al-Hasani

hinduguy said:


> How many different ethnicities have you got and how do they get along?



Arabs are by far the biggest ethnicity. Then you have Afro-Arabs, people of Turkish (as in people from modern-day Turkey not any Central Asian states or Azerbaijan), people of various South Asian origins (mostly Baluch), people speaking Southern Semitic languages (native to Southern Arabia), people of South East Asian origin (mostly Indonesia and Malaysia), some people of Persian and Lur origin and then you also have people of European descent who are mostly descendants of slaves or traders that settled. Nowadays all of those identity is Arab, they speak Arabic and are not any different from the native people. Also many people in the Arabian Peninsula, especially people from the cities are of mixed origins if you look back a few decades. Yet their identity is the Arab one.

The Afro-Arabs come from all kind of backgrounds. Horn of Africa, Western Africa and areas South of Congo. Many have nothing to do with slavery but just settled on the Arabian Peninsula as it lies strategically between Africa, Europe and the remaining Asia and is surrounded by seas connecting the world. For instance Hijaz, due to the pilgrimage, was the "New York of the East" for centuries and you have basically people from all over the Muslim world that settled in Hijaz and who are now Saudi Arabian citizens.

Let alone the migrant population that is from diverse origins as well.



Ahmed Jo said:


> The issue is not so much about ethnicities but more about religious sects.



As I explained then that is not even an big issue really either. See post 40 in this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## al-Hasani

Let's put this very interesting thread to live again.

*Will The EU And GCC Ever Come Close?*​
*A EU-GCC Free Trade Agreement is highly beneficial but remains elusive, writes GCC-EU analyst Johann Weick.
*
By Johann Weick
January 7, 2014

Seeking improvement of bilateral trade and stability in one of the most strategic regions in the world, the EU began to develop relations with the GCC in the late 1980s with a EU-GCC Cooperation Agreement.

The mutually welcomed idea to sign a EU-GCC Free Trade Agreement providing progressive and reciprocal liberalisation of trade was expected to boost import and export, and offered chances in region-to-region cooperation.

Optimism over a deal-in-the-making had to be tempered every time it was expected that the long-awaited agreement was going to be concluded though.

GCC worries over the actual EU import duty level for jet fuel and the EU ending GCC assigned Generalized System of Preferences (GSP-rules), one of the lowest category of international trade rules permissible non-reciprocal trade preferences, have come to surface recently.

*Bilateral Deal Blocked*

In a period of economic and geopolitical re-alignment, countries and regional blocs have compelling reasons to seek and secure long-term preferential trade deals with partners who can guarantee them a steady supply of those goods which they themselves lack, or are unable to produce in self-sufficient quantities at a reasonable cost.

GCC states are short in foodstuffs but abundant in oil and natural-gas. EU member states remain, on the other hand, import dependent in terms of fossil fuels but have surpluses, and therefore export capacity in agricultural goods.

Talks over impediments to reciprocal market liberalisation have been subject to breakdowns though, with the GCC deciding to suspend the negotiations in 2008. Since then both parties, have, apart from a Joint Action Program in 2010, applied the brakes.

GCC states willing to retain the right to impose duties on their exports is not to the likening of the EU, which wants to be frank with an open discussion, even if there is difference in perspective, e.g. on popular participation in decision-making and human rights.

Despite negotiations on hold, trade thrives well. The 28-member state EU remains a significant trading-partner for the GCC, while the six nations large GCC still constitutes one of the top export markets of the EU.

EU exports include machinery, railway equipment, commercial aircraft, medical equipment, power generation plants and services, like engineering and education.

GCC exports are, on the other hand, apart from ship-loads of oil and natural-gas, limited to aluminium, petro-chemicals, port and facilities management and dates.

EU interests are, apart from seeking enhanced investment opportunities in GCC energy sectors, structured on taking a larger chunk of GCC tourism, telecom, transportation, construction, infrastructure, insurance and financial services markets.

GCC states, on the other hand, want the EU scrapping its six per cent import duty on aluminium along concessions on hydro-carbons, energy taxes and fuel distribution.

*Benefits Other Than Trade*

The EU and the GCC have vested interests in import/export, and accordingly have signed-up to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the international body which provides contractual obligations how governments should frame and implement their trade policies.

The passing and enforcement of domestic legislation to impose international standards related to WTO rules has implications for government policies in GCC states.

Moving away from guaranteed state employment and developing a flexible workforce for a diversified, competitive and modern economy capable to resist the downside of economic development are major challenges for GCC states.

From Western standards, GCC states are often viewed as undemocratic. It is, however, reasonable to say that the absolute, hereditary-ruled Gulf monarchies are responsibly run.

Stability and domestic calm have created economic confidence, attracting investments and businesses from both within and outside the GCC.

The road to economic diversification, international competitiveness, market liberalisation and the openness of the ever more economic and political interdependent world of today will put pressure on the entitlement economy GCC nationals have become accustomed to.

Finding viable government budget sources to eventually depleting revenues derived from oil and natural-gas exports means introduction of taxation systems, modifications in labor markets, like reductions in dependence on migrant labour and employability of ever more highly educated local populations, and cut-backs in subsidised utilities.

The EU should realise that GCC states are therefore not expected to let their oil/natural-gas, services, labour and investment markets become unrestricted.

GCC states are essentially not against conditionality, but oppose the idea of the EU holding the right to unilaterally suspend the EU-GCC Free Trade Agreement if it feels a violation on the GCC side on human rights.

A deal with the EU will acknowledge that their projects are taken seriously, and give the GCC states further status in the emerging multi-polar global political economy.

European companies will be able to root themselves more firmly in the Gulf once full ownership of businesses outside the designated free zones has become a reality.

The EU holds a considerable, unmatched expertise in regulatory reform related to customs unions, common markets and monetary integration, EU-styled concepts which have attracted GCC interest: a EU-GCC Free Trade Agreement is likely to assist GCC states in their drive to economic diversification, international competitiveness and other reforms.

The GCC, the economic and financial wealthy regional bloc on the Arabian-side of the Gulf, has come of age, and accordingly deserves more attention/priority in the external relations of the EU.

_Johann Weick analyses GCC-EU relations and teaches EU policy in Brussels, Belgium and Dubai, UAE._

Will The EU And GCC Ever Come Close? - Gulf Business


----------



## al-Hasani

I can recommend the videos posted on the Youtube profile of Chatham House. A lot of interesting videos dealing with politics, economy etc. Not your average Joe speaking either but professors and leading experts. As it should be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

What natural resources are we looking at except oil?
What about heavy industry?
KSA- assuming this is to be the major state needs to be a industrial giant like germany in EU to power this union.Otherwise the union's heavy industry will be largely dependant on outside sources and that will defeat its very purpose.
It is a viable plan but with significant economic and geopolitical obstacles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## al-Hasani

AUSTERLITZ said:


> What natural resources are we looking at except oil?
> What about heavy industry?
> KSA- assuming this is to be the major state needs to be a industrial giant like germany in EU to power this union.Otherwise the union's heavy industry will be largely dependant on outside sources and that will defeat its very purpose.
> It is a viable plan but with significant economic and geopolitical obstacles.



The oil and gas reserves on the Arabian Peninsula contain more worth than many regions overall resources combined.

KSA and the Arabian Peninsula as a whole has numerous natural riches outside of just oil and gas. Especially when it comes to minerals.
There is also presence of gold, diamonds and uranium.

In fact one of the oldest gold mines that have existed for straight 5000 years is found in Hijaz which is now part of modern-day Western KSA.

Mahd adh Dhahab - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There also exists a *very* big potential for alternative energy sources as well. Wind and solar in particular especially when the latter gets more developed and cheaper. For thousands of years the Arabian Peninsula had 3 of the most valuable commodities of the ancient world in abundance. Gold, incense and pearls.

Let alone when it comes to shale gas.

UPDATE 2-Saudi Arabia to join U.S. as shale gas producer| Reuters

In any case the economy is becoming less reliant on natural resources for each year and that's the only way forward. It's a long and hard process that all natural rich countries face to certain degrees.

The industrialization is an ongoing process in the entire GCC and a lot of work is needed on this front.

Not necessarily. You have forgot that all countries on the Arabian Peninsula are one of the richest on the planet (some are in fact the richest if you look at the GDP per capita) outside of Yemen and if the Arabian Peninsula becomes 1 country there will not be 1 party or region taking all the burden but everyone will do it together. Of course you will have more prosperous and valuable areas just like in every other country but the point of a unification is that all strengths (also weaknesses) become united.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gasoline

1- One language. 
2- More than 80% belongs to 1 religion. 
3- Most of the arabs belongs to same tribes. 
4- All of them face same enemies. 
5- There is no huge differences in cultures or opinions. 

So , why not. 

I think that will happen beginning by the GCC firstly. 

Then it will attract the other countries  gradually.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## al-Hasani

Gasoline said:


> 1- One language.
> 2- More than 80% belongs to 1 religion.
> 3- Most of the arabs belongs to same tribes.
> 4- All of them face same enemies.
> 5- There is no huge differences in cultures or opinions.
> 
> So , why not.
> 
> I think that will happen beginning by the GCC firstly.
> 
> Then it will attract the other countries gradually.



I see what you did in your second argument.

The only problem with that will be the political aspect and especially that involving the world powers (US, Russia and China). I am not sure that they would like to see such a potentially powerful country controlling most of the oil and gas in the world and major seas and points of trade etc.

Let's say that the GCC announced tomorrow that they would become 1 federal country and that no military bases (foreign) were to be allowed. Would US be happy about that? Of course not. So that's one of the obstacles.

This goes for the entire Arab world in terms of uniting. Not just the Arabian Peninsula as a whole.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sinnerman108

al-Hasani said:


> Let's start a discussion regarding the topic of the GCC or the Arabian Peninsula unifying into 1 big country. Notice that there is a difference between the actual political borders of the Arabian Peninsula and the geographical borders which also consists of Jordan, Southern Iraq and parts of Syria.
> 
> How foreseeable is it and what is needed in order for it to become a reality?
> 
> I will give my own opinion later if this discussion evolves into something serious or interesting. For now I will just leave it to others to comment on. I am mostly interested in hearing users from the Arabian Peninsula and their opinion regarding this. Which on PDF translates to users from KSA mainly as there are not many active Arab users on PDF to begin with let alone users from Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Yemen etc. I actually think that there is none.
> 
> In the meantime I will just write some short facts. Only based on the current POLITICAL borders of the Arabian Peninsula mind you.
> 
> Area:
> *3,200,937 km2*
> 
> If a country it would be the 7th biggest in the world.
> 
> Population:
> *Around 80,000,000 million as of 2014.*
> 
> If a country it would be the 16th most populous country.
> 
> Economy:
> *GDP (nominal) $1,800-1,900 billion as of late 2014.
> *
> If a country it would have around the 10th biggest economy (GDP nominal)
> 
> GDP per capita as of late 2014:
> *Around $35,000 excluding impoverished Yemen.*
> 
> If a country, excluding impoverished Yemen, it would be in the top 30 and among the richest considering size and population.
> 
> Let's not even discuss oil and gas reserves, natural riches in general, the strategic location, access to the Red Sea, Gulf, Arabian Sea and wider Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea through the nearby Suez Canal.
> 
> Let's not forget the economic prognosis that consistently place GCC economies as among the fastest growing and their GDP per capita as among the highest in the world a long time into the future.
> 
> Or the endless potential on almost all areas that are yet to even remotely be fulfilled due to political and social reasons mainly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​Try to look at this scenario not necessarily from the current glasses as of 2014 but in 10-20 years time for instance where political regimes, laws etc. can have changed tremendously.
> 
> This could also lead to regional unifications elsewhere in the Arab world. I think that this will be the way forward.
> 
> No trolling please as that's not the propose of this thread.
> 
> @Arabian Legend @Yzd Khalifa @JUBA @BLACKEAGLE @Hazzy997 @Mosamania @Bubblegum Crisis @Awadd @Full Moon @Tihamah @Mootaz-khelifi @MooshMoosh @Mahmoud_EGY @Halimi @Hadbani @Haitham @burning_phoneix @FARSOLDIER @farag @Altamimi @Arabi @agentny17 @Chai @Tunisian Marine Corps @1000 @Algeria @Dino @fahd tamimi @Frogman @Hechmi Seif @Naifov @Andalusi Knight @thefreesyrian @Rakan.SA @tyrant @Ahmed Jo @ebray etc.




Why ??

Why would the arabs unite ? 

You claim it is the need of the day; but please qualify your claim and present warrant.


----------



## SALMAN F

Nobody willing to give up his monarchy and join under one leadership

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## al-Hasani

@Hank Moody

Read my numerous posts on this topic. Most Arab users (vast majority in fact) agree with me as well as do most Arabs out there.



SALMAN AL-FARSI said:


> Nobody willing to give up his monarchy and join under one leadership



Who says that a federal state would happen under a monarchial system? Nor me nor you know what will happen in let's say 30 years time. Also if we are talking about a federal state each current monarchy can retain the power in the various federal states of the country.

Besides once again the monarchs of the Arabian Peninsula might by then only have a ceremonial role as they have in most European countries.

Yemen for instance was a monarchy for 3000 years and was ruled by 1 family for 1000 years (a branch of the Hashemites) until 50 years ago. Who in their sane minds would have believed that they would ever become a republic? Moreover at one point even becoming a communist ruled state (Southern Yemen)? The answer is almost nobody if anybody.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Targon

al-Hasani said:


> Arabs are by far the biggest ethnicity. Then you have Afro-Arabs, people of Turkish (as in people from modern-day Turkey not any Central Asian states or Azerbaijan), people of various South Asian origins (mostly Baluch), people speaking Southern Semitic languages (native to Southern Arabia), people of South East Asian origin (mostly Indonesia and Malaysia), some people of Persian and Lur origin and then you also have people of European descent who are mostly descendants of slaves or traders that settled. Nowadays all of those identity is Arab, they speak Arabic and are not any different from the native people. Also many people in the Arabian Peninsula, especially people from the cities are of mixed origins if you look back a few decades. Yet their identity is the Arab one.
> 
> The Afro-Arabs come from all kind of backgrounds. Horn of Africa, Western Africa and areas South of Congo. Many have nothing to do with slavery but just settled on the Arabian Peninsula as it lies strategically between Africa, Europe and the remaining Asia and is surrounded by seas connecting the world. For instance Hijaz, due to the pilgrimage, was the "New York of the East" for centuries and you have basically people from all over the Muslim world that settled in Hijaz and who are now Saudi Arabian citizens.
> 
> Let alone the migrant population that is from diverse origins as well.
> 
> 
> 
> As I explained then that is not even an big issue really either. See post 40 in this thread.



Are those people of Turkish origin keep their Turkish identity ? is name Turki, al-Turki related to them ? although if I remember correctly I saw a Saudi family member with this name, no idea why.

About the union, it isn't a huge problem, peninsula countries are already fine with each other with some exceptions, union wouldn't make much of a difference, they should just focus on building industry etc.

In my opinion its better to stay seperate but close, there is a saying in Turkish "Nerde çokluk, orda bokluk"(wherever there is crowd, shit there is).

Also it isn't a far sighted idea to breed like rabbits, as technology advances, need for manpower decrease, world is already too crowded and natural resources are getting insufficient. I sometimes dream of creating new viruses to decrease population.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## al-Hasani

Targon said:


> Are those people of Turkish origin keep their Turkish identity ? is name Turki, al-Turki related to them ? although if I remember correctly I saw a Saudi family member with this name, no idea why.
> 
> About the union, it isn't a huge problem, peninsula countries are already fine with each other with some exceptions, union wouldn't make much of a difference, they should just focus on building industry etc.
> 
> In my opinion its better to stay seperate but close, there is a saying in Turkish "Nerde çokluk, orda bokluk"(wherever there is crowd, shit there is).
> 
> Also it isn't a far sighted idea to breed like rabbits, as technology advances, need for manpower decrease, world is already too crowded and natural resources are getting insufficient. I sometimes dream of creating new viruses to decrease population.



Al-Turki basically means "The Turk". The eldest son of Ibn Saud was named Turki but he died young. Since then a few Al-Saud members have been named "Turki". Or more precisely a part of their often very long names contained the name. That name is rare in KSA outside of Najd.

Well, the newer generations probably do not speak a word of Turkish or very much. Some of the families of Turkish descent (read not Turkic here) have lived in Hijaz since time immortal almost. At least for a very long time. Those that probably settled shortly before modern-day KSA emerged might have closer ties with Turkey and the older generation might even speak Turkish still. They probably do.

Well, unions and all that are fine but I would prefer a real federal state to emerge. It would remove all possible rivalry once and for all and unity is strength in my book. It would make the Arabian Peninsula as a region much stronger. As much as we talk about unions, GCC etc. then those countries are still separate countries. When Qatar deals with Spain they talk with one voice etc.

Well, that's true but we already have that in KSA alone due to all the historical regions that often differ quite a lot on all fronts such as dialect, traditions, geography, cuisine, history etc.

Yet let's say that Turkey and Azerbaijan (the two most similar Turkic states IMO) for instance were direct neighbors on a peninsula moreover. Would you not put your differences aside (as big or small as they might be) and unite if you had the possibility? It's not to start a off-topic discussion just telling you a similar perspective.

Well, I am not for the breeding part either for the same reasons that you have mentioned but our South Asian friends were complaining about there "only" being 80 million people on the Arabian Peninsula. I think that this is more than enough and it's growing quite quickly moreover. Not sure if this is a good thing. I tend to think not but some people equal population with power. What can I say? Having said that then I cannot deny the fact that there are many Arabs out there and that the Arab populations are growing quickly or that having big families was traditionally seen as a good thing and as a symbol of status. Similarly with women conquests.But that can be said about every single culture some have just left it now for the exchange of 2 children, a Volvo and a dog.


----------



## Gasoline

al-Hasani said:


> I see what you did in your second argument.
> 
> The only problem with that will be the political aspect and especially that involving the world powers (US, Russia and China). I am not sure that they would like to see such a potentially powerful country controlling most of the oil and gas in the world and major seas and points of trade etc.
> 
> Let's say that the GCC announced tomorrow that they would become 1 federal country and that no military bases (foreign) were to be allowed. Would US be happy about that? Of course not. So that's one of the obstacles.
> 
> This goes for the entire Arab world in terms of uniting. Not just the Arabian Peninsula as a whole.



Actually , we need to choose 1 of those three countries . 

And I think you know which country can help us .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sinnerman108

al-Hasani said:


> @Hank Moody
> 
> Read my numerous posts on this topic. Most Arab users (vast majority in fact) agree with me as well as do most Arabs out there.
> 
> 
> 
> Who says that a federal state would happen under a monarchial system? Nor me nor you know what will happen in let's say 30 years time. Also if we are talking about a federal state each current monarchy can retain the power in the various federal states of the country.
> 
> Besides once again the monarchs of the Arabian Peninsula might by then only have a ceremonial role as they have in most European countries.
> 
> Yemen for instance was a monarchy for 3000 years and was ruled by 1 family for 1000 years (a branch of the Hashemites) until 50 years ago. Who in their sane minds would have believed that they would ever become a republic? Moreover at one point even becoming a communist ruled state (Southern Yemen)? The answer is almost nobody if anybody.



NO,

What you have listed in your posts are reasons why such an integration may work out very well, because of common language, traditions etc etc etc.

I want to know, what is the reason for arab countries to form a union ? or to integrate ?

If history tells us one thing, then it is that arabs have had abundant "nefaq" .

why would that trend change now ?


----------



## al-Hasani

Hank Moody said:


> NO,
> 
> What you have listed in your posts are reasons why such an integration may work out very well, because of common language, traditions etc etc etc.
> 
> I want to know, what is the reason for arab countries to form a union ? or to integrate ?
> 
> If history tells us one thing, then it is that arabs have had abundant "nefaq" .
> 
> why would that trend change now ?



I sense a bit of trolling. Nefaq is seen in every ethnicity and person. At least Arabs were united for centuries which not many ethnicities of this size (none in fact) can say.

No, I have also written extensively why it is needed for the future in order to have a common and strong voice. I am talking about the Arabian Peninsula specifically here.

You are welcome to reread this thread again and if you are not a fan of long posts you can take a look at post number 49 in this thread and once you have read that post you can combine those reasons with a stronger political voice, unified policy in practice, bigger independence on all fronts etc.

Or just read my first post in this thread where I give you some statistics regarding land area, population size, the size of the economy etc.

In fact I am specifically talking about a federal state.

The question that you should ask is why NOT to unify if everything tells us that there are more pros to gain this way around than NOT doing it? People of the GCC favor closer integration among each other as we know that our future is closely tied together so why not just unite now before it will be something of need in times of worry?



Gasoline said:


> Actually , we need to choose 1 of those three countries .
> 
> And I think you know which country can help us .



Yes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guys I was thinking about something.

Look at a map of the Arabian Peninsula and the world for a second. You have the world's biggest peninsula that is connected to several major seas and oceans and major sea trade routes. You got Africa to the West and South. Europe to the Northwest and the remaining Asia to your East. In short you are surrounded by the 3 most populous continents aside from having amble access to major sea trade routes. For instance 25% of the world's entire sea trade is going through the Red Sea which KSA has a 3000 (almost) tropical sea border with.

Now for instance in the future what stops us from making underwater pipelines that connect Oman with Pakistan/India across the Arabian Sea and from their the remaining South Asian, Central Asian and Chinese market if we want to bypass Iran? It's only about 1000 km away.






Hell, in the future what stops the region from building a land-bridge or tunnel across the tiny Strait of Hurmuz (39 km)?

With the ongoing GCC railway projects (that are being constructed while we speak) the entire Arabian Peninsula will be connected with each other. From next to the Levant (well some parts of Northern KSA are already traditional Levant but that's another discussion), Iraq, West, East and South.





What about the plans of connecting the Arabian Peninsula (Yemen) and Africa (Horn of Africa) with a land bridge or tunnel? Remember that Africa might be in shambles right now by large but we are talking about a continent of well over 1 billion people, undiscovered markets, some of the most mineral rich countries on the planet and some of the fastest growth rates. From the Horn of Africa you will have direct access to the entire Sub-Saharan Africa.

Al Noor City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






Moreover from KSA you can easily make a land bridge or tunnel to Egypt (there has already been talk about that) and that would connect us with the entire North Africa and Western Africa. All of North Africa is Arab so cooperation should not be a problem once the are calms down (which is again the key question here).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi–Egypt_Causeway






Then you could have a railway connection and trade routes that go all the way from the ME/Arabian Peninsula (with again are connected with the trades routes in the remaining Asia) to Tangier in Northern Morocco and potential across the Strait of Gibraltar and then to Spain and the entire Western Europe. Such a railway/trade route would be entirely land-based outside of the small Strait of Gibraltar (14 km).

Simiarily you could connect with Southeastern Europe (Greece, Balkans and from there Central and Eastern Europe) not necessarily through Turkey but through the sea as is already happening. Or you could enter Russian markets by going through Iraq.

It's also very possible to built underwater gas pipelines connecting Sinai for instance with Greece or Italy. Look no further than the Langeled pipeline which is 1200 km long.

I know that such pipelines already exist (Green Stream).

We only talk about trade with Asia and Europe but we totally forget a Africa in this equation.

Of course when looking at such projects I tend to include history to see whether something similar already existed a long ago and no wonder it did. The Arabian Peninsula was a essential part of all ancient trading routes.





Incense Route - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indian Ocean trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia







The New Web of World Trade

This is from 2011. Look at Africa. A unexplored continent trade wise. Totally.

I suggest reading this interesting report as well.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/c...onomist_intelligence_unit_the_gcc_in_2020.pdf

There is a lot more to tell but I am afraid I write too long posts for anyone to bother reading them. Just got 10 minutes (damn chemical engineering exams) of free time to write this in order to start a discussion.

EDIT: Why the hell is my post not separate but connected to an almost 1 month old post?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AbidM

Saudi Arabia needs to become less of a dictatorship before anyone will be willing to join, it's got so many backwards laws and orders, it's pretty unbelievable but if this otherworldly 'Arab Unification' you speak of, allows democracy than why not? But I don't think UAE would want to join or any other country making money from tourism.Cause you best believe whatever happens in the real paradise on earth aint going to happen in SA under this leadership.


----------



## al-Hasani

AbidM said:


> Saudi Arabia needs to become less of a dictatorship before anyone will be willing to join, it's got so many backwards laws and orders, it's pretty unbelievable but if this otherworldly 'Arab Unification' you speak of, allows democracy than why not? But I don't think UAE would want to join or any other country making money from tourism.Cause you best believe whatever happens in the real paradise on earth aint going to happen in SA under this leadership.



What the hell are you blabbering about? You are a Bangladeshi that has no clue about this region of the world or its politicies. Nor did you bother to read this thread. In short you are a clueless obviously.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dr.Thrax

While unification sounds like a good Idea, but as always, I'll go with religion, and the Mahdi will unite the MidEast. Nowadays most of the leaders are either dictators, incompetent, or both. And we don't have many leaders in the civilian population b/c those governments would find them to be a threat to their own rule. The situation is just like that in Syria. We don't have anyone that has any experience being a leader besides the dictator and his thugs. Anyways, the hadith says that will happen, but after that, crazy stuff will start happening such as a giant war (probably what we would call "World War 3"), and I'm not being crazy here, there are ahadith that state that Muslims and Christians will unite against Romans (quick history lesson, when the Roman Empire split into East and West, the Western portion fell quickly. When the Byzantine (eastern) portion fell, their leaders fled to the Holy Roman Empire. When that fell, those leaders fled to the Russian Empire. You with me here?). But after that, Muslims and Christians will fight each other. And then the Dajjal.
Anyways, back to politics. Is reunification possible? Yes. Will it happen? Probably not under this current leadership/situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## al-Hasani

Dr.Thrax said:


> While unification sounds like a good Idea, but as always, I'll go with religion, and the Mahdi will unite the MidEast. Nowadays most of the leaders are either dictators, incompetent, or both. And we don't have many leaders in the civilian population b/c those governments would find them to be a threat to their own rule. The situation is just like that in Syria. We don't have anyone that has any experience being a leader besides the dictator and his thugs. Anyways, the hadith says that will happen, but after that, crazy stuff will start happening such as a giant war (probably what we would call "World War 3"), and I'm not being crazy here, there are ahadith that state that Muslims and Christians will unite against Romans (quick history lesson, when the Roman Empire split into East and West, the Western portion fell quickly. When the Byzantine (eastern) portion fell, their leaders fled to the Holy Roman Empire. When that fell, those leaders fled to the Russian Empire. You with me here?). But after that, Muslims and Christians will fight each other. And then the Dajjal.
> Anyways, back to politics. Is reunification possible? Yes. Will it happen? Probably not under this current leadership/situation.



Bro, if we look past religion, then all that such initiatives require is wise leadership and a will from the people. Of course I have no illusions and I do believe that it was not a coincidence that the Arab world was divided as it was by the imperial powers of the time but this happened a long time ago.

But ask yourself. Can any outside power really stop the GCC from uniting if the vast majority of people wanted this and there was a consensus and they could not be usually divided? Let alone other regions of the Arab world? What stops Syria from uniting with Lebanon for instance?

The problem with us Arabs is that we do not know how great we could potentially be. We have wrong priorities. Let's admit it.

I agree that there are few good leaders but not all of them are comparable to Al-Assad my friend. Of course all of them are looking after their thrones first but they are also not stupid. They need the support of people in the year 2014 to be safe of not losing their power. In the GCC this is actually done by serving the people and improving the countries on most fields. I have few bad things to say other than the social and political limitations and sometimes foreign policy. Yet no country is perfect.

If people are not thinking about such projects, are unable to see their benefits let alone the leaders then this current unfortunate situation will continue I am afraid. Nor will praying safe us.

Too many times people in the ME are letting their faith in the hands of God or external powers. Why not grab the opportunities yourselves? Europeans stopped this thinking a long time ago and look at them for the past 500 years?

This is not an attack on religion (I am Muslim) but I hope that you get what I mean. I see this on many areas and it is counterproductive.

Nobody but yourself is going to change your situation. Nobody but yourself is going to excel academically etc. Dedication, a goal and admitting errors is the way. All this can be combined with religion. Why not? What made the Muslim Caliphates great was not that kind of logic although it ultimately prevailed among the masses.

Would the Arab world and you Syrians have struggled with removing Al-Assad if we were a military power? No.

A believe in God (solely) will not remove poverty, improve literacy, improve scientific output, create jobs, a strong military etc. etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dr.Thrax

al-Hasani said:


> Bro, if we look past religion, then all that such initiatives require is wise leadership and a will from the people. Of course I have no illusions and I do believe that it was not a coincidence that the Arab world was divided as it was by the imperial powers of the time but this happened a long time ago.
> 
> But ask yourself. Can any outside power really stop the GCC from uniting if the vast majority of people wanted this and there was a consensus and they could not be usually divided? Let alone other regions of the Arab world? What stops Syria from uniting with Lebanon for instance?
> 
> The problem with us Arabs is that we do not know how great we could potentially be. We have wrong priorities. Let's admit it.
> 
> I agree that there are few good leaders but not all of them are comparable to Al-Assad my friend. Of course all of them are looking after their thrones first but they are also not stupid. They need the support of people in the year 2014 to be safe of not losing their power. In the GCC this is actually done by serving the people and improving the countries on most fields. I have few bad things to say other than the social and political limitations and sometimes foreign policy. Yet no country is perfect.
> 
> If people are not thinking about such projects, are unable to see their benefits let alone the leaders then this current unfortunate situation will continue I am afraid. Nor will praying safe us.
> 
> Too many times people in the ME are letting their faith in the hands of God or external powers. Why not grab the opportunities yourselves? Europeans stopped this thinking a long time ago and look at them for the past 500 years?
> 
> This is not an attack on religion (I am Muslim) but I hope that you get what I mean. I see this on many areas and it is counterproductive.
> 
> Nobody but yourself is going to change your situation. Nobody but yourself is going to excel academically etc. Dedication, a goal and admitting errors is the way. All this can be combined with religion. Why not? What made the Muslim Caliphates great was not that kind of logic although it ultimately prevailed among the masses.
> 
> Would the Arab world and you Syrians have struggled with removing Al-Assad if we were a military power? No.
> 
> A believe in God (solely) will not remove poverty, improve literacy, improve scientific output, create jobs, a strong military etc. etc.


I get exactly what you mean. I'm just saying Allah is preventing it from happening. That's why Israel exists in the first place, for example. Most Arab nations were united against it when it first came into existence and it still won over all of us combined. This was back when it was weak, too. Both groups had equal skill, funding, and military equipment, Yet we still lost. That is the will of Allah.
I'm not saying that reunification won't happen. But for some countries (such as Syria and Lebanon), it won't happen politically. Syria would need to invade for there to be reunification. But then it wouldn't be reunification, it would be annexation. You see, we tried this unification thing. There was the Federation of Arab Republics, that consisted of Syria, Egypt, and Libya, and Sudan was thinking about joining, but of course, it fell apart. There was the United Arab Republic (Syria, Egypt), and the Arab Federation (Iraq, Jordan.)
Anyways, while the situation now is different, it will still fail in my opinion. The leaders cling to their chairs too much, and losing their authority would devastate them. Besides, all the GCC states rely on foreign support for a military, and a country that big would need it's own Military Industrial Complex. Yugoslavia, which was a smaller country, needed it. All I'm saying is the current countries are too dependent on oil and foreign support for there to be a stable country.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## al-Hasani

@Dr.Thrax

For the past 200 years I would say that the Arab world has been weaker than in any other period in Islamic history and even for large parts of pre-Islamic times. Of course comparable to each time period of that time.

Israel was created because we were in our weakest position back then and because Britain broke their promises. The wars are a study for itself but we know why they ended as they did. Most Arab countries (actually 80% or so) were not involved directly other than sending some volunteers as most of our militaries were very poor back then let alone modernized. The communication structure in the militaries were weak and the armies were led by dictators. etc etc. Israel on the other hand fought for their very own survival. The situations are not entirely comparable in my humble opinion.

All this happened under dictatorships. Under failed Ba'athists that hijacked what I call common Arab brotherhood that every single Arab has. Which means that we hope for the best for fellow Arabs and Arab countries and work for similar wider goals and acknowledge all the things that bind us together (religion (s), culture, language, Islamic history, ancient Semitic pre-Islamic history), similar sufferings and ground realities, cuisine etc. - the list is long). What we saw under all of those leaders in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's were in my eyes absurdities. Movements shaped by a bipolar world where capitalism (USA and the West) and communism and socialism (USSR) were against each other.

The Arab countries ruled by monarchies were in the US/Western wagon and the secular republics in the USSR wagon mainly.

I am talking about a movement that is coming from within the people. I simply do not believe that most Arabs are unaware of the problems that we are discussing now (ordinary people behind our computers) and the problems that a blind man can even see on the ground. We need to work together in order to change this reality. Find what binds us together.

We know that GCC should become much more self-reliant which is also a work in progress but you also need to understand that the opportunities to start earlier were not taken (for whatever reasons) and also the pressure from the world powers to buy the best of the best weapons. Of course the US and the West are very much interested in selling weapons in billion worths of deals to the GCC. They probably pressure the rulers too. Goes for all Arab states.

The US/West can remove any ruler almost everywhere on the planet if they really want. I am not anti-West by any means I am just saying the reality as we live in a cold world were power is the supreme deity for most.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A final comment here before I leave.

Also what I hope is that we leave our silly sectarian divisions away for a while although I know it is very difficult when we look at what is going on in the Arab world were almost everyone is taking sides and sticking with his "side". Whether Sunni, Shia, Christian etc. we should not engage in this senseless cycle of violence. Why kill brother or sister based on something like this? The people that are the closest to you of anyone and the very few people (if not only) that you might could trust in a worst case scenario.

It is my hope that Syrians and everyone else (Yemenis, Iraqis, Lebanese etc.) once the conflicts end that were on opposite sides of the wars will learn to make peace and from there on work for the betterment of their countries, regions etc. It is very easy for me to say so when so much blood as been shed but what is the alternative? Eternal revenge? An eternal cycle of violence?

My hope is that you and @Syrian Lion for instance will be able to unite one day. This is exactly what foreigners want to see. Us fighting over stupid silly things instead of progressing.

In fact this was always my viewpoint and what I was brought up with but since I joined PDF the hostile climate and the constant attacks on Arabs, KSA, Sunni Muslims etc. made me go in a defensive mode. Now outside of counter trolling on PDF I am a changed man on this front. I realized that creating silly differences is wrong even if you are attacked by people who want to create such differences. They want you to fall in their trap. This goes not only for Arab-Arab relations but for every relation.

I can as a a Sunni Muslim (Shafi'i) have theological differences with a Saudi Arabian Ismaili, Zaydi or Shia Twelver but that's also it. Outside of those small differences I will treat him as I treat any other and want to be treated. If we all had this kind of outlook we would be much better off.

This is how things work in the West and the US by large. You know this as well.

Can you fell me bro?

We should always think what we can do for our community and the world/humanity. I believe that this is very much in accordance to how I interpret some of the core values of Islam.

Anyway thanks for the discussion. Always interesting to exchange opinions and be challenged on them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## black-hawk_101

They should concentrate more on a single type of Military having similar equipment being co-produced with EU-US (NATO).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sheikh Rauf

United arabian peninsula sounds really good.. one united arab army with one command a control center. same traffic laws, one visa system, more or less like EU
But there are Hundred flows its gonna be extremly difficult for Arabs to be united atleast for next 50 years
unless someone attack.
even if they did look for example of iraq and syria, i have no doubt if isis attack on jordan that united arab will come to rescue, situation is not like 1967 war.
we also have example of UAE united under one leadership..
i really wish we united as muslim not arab or somthing els.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indos

What I can see is that only Muslim Brotherhood can make it happen. Democratizing Arab world is the first step to realize it, and then all MB branch become a winner in Arab politics, this is the moment where the possibility become so real. Too bad that MB in Egypt is doom now. It can only be taken by Islamist power, nationalist power will prevent it to happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rmi5

My 2 cents:
-If you mean unification in form of a 1 single country, it will not happen.
-If you mean a more strong union, with common currency, ... Yes, it will gradually happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Thəorətic Muslim

al-Hasani said:


> Who says that a federal state would happen under a monarchial system? Nor me nor you know what will happen in let's say 30 years time. Also if we are talking about a federal state each current monarchy can retain the power in the various federal states of the country.



Sheikh walk me through this.

GGC; Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE. (Alphabetical order). All are run by Monarchies, albeit, all are related family members of each-other.

Currently there's the unification of the GCC Military and Foreign Relations. Lets say, hypothetically, the governments of all 4 unify, what would be the organization? Would the Monarchies control their Provinces and elect a federal government? Confederacy? Or the EU model?

Whats the talk on the streets and media?

I see you have not understated the strong foreign opposition to any potential unification of the states. Appreciate it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Selous

al-Hasani said:


> Population:
> *Around 80,000,000 million as of 2014.*



Subhanallah...there aren't that many people in the world bro...I think you meant 80 million.

In order for any unification to happen among Muslims the requirement is leaders with Taqwa...this is lacking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## al-Hasani

black-hawk_101 said:


> They should concentrate more on a single type of Military having similar equipment being co-produced with EU-US (NATO).



Which is actually a work in progress bro but this is not done overnight. It takes a long time to built up a strong and somewhat independent military sector.



Sheikh Rauf said:


> United arabian peninsula sounds really good.. one united arab army with one command a control center. same traffic laws, one visa system, more or less like EU
> But there are Hundred flows its gonna be extremly difficult for Arabs to be united atleast for next 50 years
> unless someone attack.
> even if they did look for example of iraq and syria, i have no doubt if isis attack on jordan that united arab will come to rescue, situation is not like 1967 war.
> we also have example of UAE united under one leadership..
> i really wish we united as muslim not arab or somthing els.



Brother, I can sense from your posts that you are a sensible man and a good Muslim. At least this is my opinion. 

My philosophy on this department (Arab vs Muslim vs humanity etc.) is that all 3 are connected but you should always try to clean your own house first and unite before calling for greater projects. There cannot be any other solution. Please understand that this topic is a topic made for discussion and with this perspective in mind.



Indos said:


> What I can see is that only Muslim Brotherhood can make it happen. Democratizing Arab world is the first step to realize it, and then all MB branch become a winner in Arab politics, this is the moment where the possibility become so real. Too bad that MB in Egypt is doom now. It can only be taken by Islamist power, nationalist power will prevent it to happen.



I have to politely disagree here mate. I do not believe that replacing absolute or semi-absolute monarchies with MB like rulers is the solution. Neither nationalism nor islamism is needed here. It's about mutual interests. The locals are by far mostly Muslims and basically a similar people. So neither nationalism or islamism is in question here if you ask me.



rmi5 said:


> My 2 cents:
> -If you mean unification in form of a 1 single country, it will not happen.
> -If you mean a more strong union, with common currency, ... Yes, it will gradually happen.



Bro, I was actually more thinking about a federal state with federalism and largely intact independence for each federal state (which would just be the current states already existing). Also such a union (of course a long way in the future) could be a democratic union with the monarchies only blaming a ceremonial role like in Europe or maybe they won't even be there? For instance ancient Yemen and Islamic Yemen was a kingdom all the time and that lasted for about 3000 years but suddenly abruptly ended 50 years ago when the last Imam of Yemen was removed in 1962 (Northern Yemen) and the other rulers (various) in Southern Yemen. In fact Southern Yemen even became a communist country at one point.

Not many know it but Southern Yemen was communistic from 1967-1990.

South Yemen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your second point I fully agree with and we see this for each year that goes by. I think that all GCC countries understand that their faith and future is interconnected.



Thəorətic Muslim said:


> Sheikh walk me through this.
> 
> GGC; Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE. (Alphabetical order). All are run by Monarchies, albeit, all are related family members of each-other.
> 
> Currently there's the unification of the GCC Military and Foreign Relations. Lets say, hypothetically, the governments of all 4 unify, what would be the organization? Would the Monarchies control their Provinces and elect a federal government? Confederacy? Or the EU model?
> 
> Whats the talk on the streets and media?
> 
> I see you have not understated the strong foreign opposition to any potential unification of the states. Appreciate it.



I am not a Sheikh bro.

You forgot Oman my friend. Many people forget that lovely country. It has a very sane leadership and policy.

As I wrote earlier in this thread (I do understand that not all bother to read my long rants, lol) then I personally would prefer federalism. Monarchies could either still have a say in politics or be plainly ceremonial. I of course hope for a more active populace and thus a "people's rule", real elections etc.

The EU is a good model although GCC is much, much smaller and less complex.

Well, people have discussed such issues but so far most people are satisfied with GCC as it is. My feeling is that most would like more unity in the GCC to make it even more easier for people.

Well, that's evident. I have no illusions.



Selous said:


> Subhanallah...there aren't that many people in the world bro...I think you meant 80 million.
> 
> In order for any unification to happen among Muslims the requirement is leaders with Taqwa...this is lacking.





Yes, I just went berserk there. Yes, I meant 80 million. In fact I noticed it yesterday but I cannot edit it now so.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Takaavar

Oman won't join, it's a completely different country. The same thing will be true about Yemen sooner or later.


----------



## Hassan Al-Somal

I don't know about a secular unity and how it will come about, but I know one unity that has been promised and coming: The advent of Imamul Mahdi (ra). Due to the huge tribulation (fitna) within Umma today, particularly the on-going tragedy in greater Sham (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Western Iraq, and perhaps Jordan) it is clear his imminence is very near. Therefore, unity among the people of the Arabian Peninsula and in the larger Umma is coming.


----------



## al-Hasani

Hassan Al-Somal said:


> I don't know about a secular unity and how it will come about, but I know one unity that has been promised and coming: The advent of Imamul Mahdi (ra). Due to the huge tribulation (fitna) within Umma today, particularly the on-going tragedy in greater Sham (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Western Iraq, and perhaps Jordan) it is clear his imminence is very near. Therefore, unity among the people of the Arabian Peninsula and in the larger Umma is coming.



While it is easy to just look at the current events in a religious light we must also remember that changes must come from within. What is happening in the Muslim world is largely self-made. What you see in Syria, Iraq etc. is a combination of dozens factors all ranging from genocidal dictators unwilling to step down from their thrones at any cost, regional and international meddling that has proved in many cases to be harmful, people misusing Islam and creating terrorism under the disguise of Islam, mistrust, frustration, neglect etc.

For each day that goes by I believe that democracy is the solution to most of the problems. I believe that Islam and democracy are compatible. How so? Well you got millions upon millions of Muslims living in democratic states yet they are perfectly free to practice their religion.

Anyway welcome to the forum. From your name I gather that you are a Somali. Good to see a Somalian brother. We once had one here called @Dino but he has disappeared.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hassan Al-Somal

Thanks Akhi Al-Hasani for welcoming me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## XenoEnsi-14

Off topic but where did you get this picture? It looks cool.


al-Hasani said:


>

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Metanoia

I will wholeheartedly support the notion of unification of GCC _ONLY IF_ the decision making power (economic + social) will go to the Emirates


----------



## al-Hasani

XenoEnsi-14 said:


> Off topic but where did you get this picture? It looks cool.



From this thread;

The Arabian Peninsula and Arab world in photos | Page 38

Don't recall if I posted it initially or another user. In any case you can google the image.



Metanoia said:


> I will wholeheartedly support the notion of unification of GCC _ONLY IF_ the decision making power (economic + social) will go to the Emirates



In a federal state, which it would most likely be would a unification take place, the power would switch hands in a similar manner to how it does in the EU. Besides we can't talk about the quality of future imaginary leaders.

BTW, it's not the GCC. It's the unification of the Arabian Peninsula as a whole

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Metanoia

al-Hasani said:


> In a federal state, which it would most likely be would a unification take place, the power would switch hands in a similar manner to how it does in the EU. Besides we can't talk about the quality of future imaginary leaders.
> 
> BTW, it's not the GCC. It's the unification of the Arabian Peninsula as a whole



Yup...I was just saying 

Anyways I believe the current GCC model is working very well...seriously. GCC is very very similar to EU (barring few things). 

Yemen is also included in Arabian Peninsula and in my opinion they will not be able to achieve the criteria in order to "assimilate with it's immediate neighbours"...unfortunately it is a liability to be honest.

My opinion is that unification will just sow discord and spell a disaster for the region.


----------



## al-Hasani

Metanoia said:


> Yup...I was just saying
> 
> Anyways I believe the current GCC model is working very well...seriously. GCC is very very similar to EU (barring few things).
> 
> Yemen is also included in Arabian Peninsula and in my opinion they will not be able to achieve the criteria in order to "assimilate with it's immediate neighbours"...unfortunately it is a liability to be honest.
> 
> My opinion is that unification will just sow discord and spell a disaster for the region.



I know.

True but further integration never hurts. The thing is that when we Arabs thing about it then we would be so much stronger if we united in the various regions of the Arab world. The difference between people are really almost non-existent in the wider picture. Before most of those states appeared on the map in a formal way people of Najd, Northern and Eastern KSA and Southern Iraq, Kuwait etc. for instance were identical. No difference. Same with Eastern Syria and Western Iraq. Just to name two examples.

It would be very wrong to omit Yemen. Most Arabs have a love-hate relationship when it comes to Yemen. They love Yemen for being an ancient civilization (one of the oldest) and the people mostly but at the same time they hate Yemen for the problems Yemen causes for the GCC. Many people in the GCC are of recent Yemeni origin let alone those with ancient ancestral ties to Yemen.

Yemen is strategically located with access to the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea and wider Indian Ocean. It has strategic ports and almost a landmass directly with Horn of Africa and the entire African continent. So there is tremendous potential for trade.

Let alone population here. Yemen is projected to become one of the most populous Arab states in a not so distant future.

This means;

>a greater domestic market
>attracting investors and multinational companies
>stimulating investment in knowledge
>generating more new ideas which improve productivity
>market size stimulates innovative activity
>increasing learning-by-doing due to pressures of increased production volume
>more workers
>more young people energizing the economy
>increased consumption driving manufacturing and services
>increased national savings
>a big home market that is an attractive prize for successful new products
>greater economies of scale (less cost in production per unit with increase of volume)
>an absolutely larger number of outstanding, highly effective people

All it takes is for a political solution to occur in Yemen and real stability. Easier said than done obviously. The rest will follow as Yemenis are very successful people elsewhere. Especially when it comes to trade and business. Be it the 10 million big Arab diaspora in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore (almost all exclusively of Yemeni backgrounds). Or that of East Africa, GCC or elsewhere.

It would be a crime to not help Yemen when we are tied to Yemen whether we want it or not. We can't just cut it off and let it sail for itself until it reaches Antarctica. So the GCC should do much more to help Yemen so it can become a success story once again like it was for millenniums when it was one of the richest civilizations! Besides we all know that Yemeni people are lovely especially the girls, lol. I should really troll the family and go to Israel and marry a rich Yemeni Jew.






A Balqees twin, the Queen of Sheba, lol.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Metanoia

al-Hasani said:


> I know.
> 
> True but further integration never hurts. The thing is that when we Arabs thing about it then we would be so much stronger if we united in the various regions of the Arab world. The difference between people are really almost non-existent in the wider picture. Before most of those states appeared on the map in a formal way people of Najd, Northern and Eastern KSA and Southern Iraq, Kuwait etc. for instance were identical. No difference. Same with Eastern Syria and Western Iraq. Just to name two examples.
> 
> It would be very wrong to omit Yemen. Most Arabs have a love-hate relationship when it comes to Yemen. They love Yemen for being an ancient civilization (one of the oldest) and the people mostly but at the same time they hate Yemen for the problems Yemen causes for the GCC. Many people in the GCC are of recent Yemeni origin let alone those with ancient ancestral ties to Yemen.
> 
> Yemen is strategically located with access to the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea and wider Indian Ocean. It has strategic ports and almost a landmass directly with Horn of Africa and the entire African continent. So there is tremendous potential for trade.
> 
> Let alone population here. Yemen is projected to become one of the most populous Arab states in a not so distant future.
> 
> This means;
> 
> >a greater domestic market
> >attracting investors and multinational companies
> >stimulating investment in knowledge
> >generating more new ideas which improve productivity
> >market size stimulates innovative activity
> >increasing learning-by-doing due to pressures of increased production volume
> >more workers
> >more young people energizing the economy
> >increased consumption driving manufacturing and services
> >increased national savings
> >a big home market that is an attractive prize for successful new products
> >greater economies of scale (less cost in production per unit with increase of volume)
> >an absolutely larger number of outstanding, highly effective people
> 
> All it takes is for a political solution to occur in Yemen and real stability. Easier said than done obviously. The rest will follow as Yemenis are very successful people elsewhere. Especially when it comes to trade and business. Be it the 10 million big Arab diaspora in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore (almost all exclusively of Yemeni backgrounds). Or that of East Africa, GCC or elsewhere.
> 
> It would be a crime to not help Yemen when we are tied to Yemen whether we want it or not. We can't just cut it off and let it sail for itself until it reaches Antarctica. So the GCC should do much more to help Yemen so it can become a success story once again like it was for millenniums when it was one of the richest civilizations!




I completely understand what you are on about...and I agree with 90% of the things. 

There are a couple of things in which I differ from you (due to my understanding of the world)...I might be wrong though, who knows.

1) As long as people keep a certain distance from each other the respect amongst them increases (and I believe same goes for the nation states...case in point is Europe). 

2) Yemen is a beauty in every aspect...just like Pakistan...but I believe it is HIGH TIME that the fcuking people and the governments of these countries start taking responsibilities...seriously. For instance I am ready to work and apply my skills in Pakistan if the people are worth it or the government is half-decent. Like show something...some sort of promise or progress which restores confidence. 


Contrary to the general belief that Arab people lack opinions, diversity etc. it is my understanding, my truth states otherwise. One "Arab nation" would be a disaster. Practically and pragmatically a better solution is to make GCC and Arab League a much leaner and meaner machines. 

GCC can set a requirement or criteria for membership and see what other Arab countries step up and take the membership...then they can change the term GCC altogether I suppose. Criteria/standard can be based on multiple factors like Education, Economy, Law and Order etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sine Nomine

When western babies are visiting Arab sheikh castle regularly for giving them body massage and mental tips of ruling,also arch enemies of Muslims will never let it happen.Arab Peninsula is only part of world were peoples live,die,speak,eat and worship same but still there are boundaries guarded by there western masters,the only hope for reunification is rise of strong person in KSA and destruction of fake nationalism and western RCP(remotely controlled person's)let's hope


----------



## al-Hasani

Metanoia said:


> I completely understand what you are on about...and I agree with 90% of the things.
> 
> There are a couple of things in which I differ from you (due to my understanding of the world)...I might be wrong though, who knows.
> 
> 1) As long as people keep a certain distance from each other the respect amongst them increases (and I believe same goes for the nation states...case in point is Europe).
> 
> 2) Yemen is a beauty in every aspect...just like Pakistan...but I believe it is HIGH TIME that the fcuking people and the governments of these countries start taking responsibilities...seriously. For instance I am ready to work and apply my skills in Pakistan if the people are worth it or the government is half-decent. Like show something...some sort of promise or progress which restores confidence.
> 
> 
> Contrary to the general belief that Arab people lack opinions, diversity etc. it is my understanding, my truth states otherwise. One "Arab nation" would be a disaster. Practically and pragmatically a better solution is to make GCC and Arab League a much leaner and meaner machines.
> 
> GCC can set a requirement or criteria for membership and see what other Arab countries step up and take the membership...then they can change the term GCC altogether I suppose. Criteria/standard can be based on multiple factors like Education, Economy, Law and Order etc.



You raise some very good points there brother. You nailed it as hard as those TV evangelists in this video. Give it a look and have a free laugh.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Metanoia

al-Hasani said:


> You raise some very good points there brother. You nailed it as hard as those TV evangelists in this video. Give it a look and have a free laugh.



I am teary eyed....seriously...almost chocked on the kit kat I was eating...had to gulp down on arabic coffee I am having

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## al-Hasani

Metanoia said:


> I am teary eyed....seriously...almost chocked on the kit kat I was eating...had to gulp down on arabic coffee I am having





I crack up every time I see that video. It's so hilarious. I will use it actively on PDF whenever I encounter trolls. Drinking Arabic coffee in the middle of the day? You are not turning into an Arab are you?

I read your post as not a kit kat but a cat initially. I don't like cats.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Metanoia

al-Hasani said:


> I crack up every time I see that video. It's so hilarious. I will use it actively on PDF whenever I encounter trolls. Drinking Arabic coffee in the middle of the day? You are not turning into an Arab are you?
> 
> I read your post as not a kit kat but a cat initially. I don't like cats.



In my book of blasphemy...adding sugar or milk to the the coffee or tea is a big blasphemy...

The rest is all kosher

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rakan.SA

al-Hasani said:


> I crack up every time I see that video. It's so hilarious. I will use it actively on PDF whenever I encounter trolls. Drinking Arabic coffee in the middle of the day? You are not turning into an Arab are you?
> 
> I read your post as not a kit kat but a cat initially. I don't like cats.


unfortunately we got a soufi version of them... i guess they report to the same devil

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Metanoia

50 Shades of Crazy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## al-Hasani

Rakan.SA said:


> unfortunately we got a soufi version of them... i guess they report to the same devil





As long as it is harmless and they don't bother anyone it will not bother me either. It's very good entertainment though. Haha it is like the other wants to beat his rival in acting most insane. Hillarious stuff. Absolutely hilarious.

I should give it a try just for the laughs.



Metanoia said:


> 50 Shades of Crazy.





This is actually nothing. I have seen much stranger and more "extreme" Sufi gatherings out there. Anyway Sufis are harmless people and the vast majority do not engage in such nonsense with all due respect.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 474474

@al-Hasani and other saudi members 
Emirati Naturalization : UAE what do you think of this person's views? I feel bad for him, he gets a better deal than the expats yet he's so..negative?


----------



## Rakan.SA

al-Hasani said:


> As long as it is harmless and they don't bother anyone it will not bother me either. It's very good entertainment though. Haha it is like the other wants to beat his rival in acting most insane. Hillarious stuff. Absolutely hilarious.
> 
> I should give it a try just for the laughs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually nothing. I have seen much stranger and more "extreme" Sufi gatherings out there. Anyway Sufis are harmless people and the vast majority do not engage in such nonsense with all due respect.



yes its true sufi are harmless... but america and the west are using them i hope they are aware of that.
if you ever had a look at the RAND report written by jewish Cheryl Benard called "civil democratic islam".
. you will see how they are defining the new islam. the islam they want. and how to achieve those goals. it was written years ago. and from what i see today they are accomplishing their goals. btw shes the wife of Zalmay Khalilzad

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## al-Hasani

Rakan.SA said:


> yes its true sufi are harmless... but america and the west are using them i hope they are aware of that.
> if you ever had a look at the RAND report written by jewish Cheryl Benard called "civil democratic islam".
> . you will see how they are defining the new islam. the islam they want. and how to achieve those goals. it was written years ago. and from what i see today they are accomplishing their goals. btw shes the wife of Zalmay Khalilzad



I have no idea about that bro. I just know that the Sufis in the Arab world, including those in KSA, Yemen, Iraq etc. are a harmless lot who love Islam and Prophet Muhammad (saws). If that is true then they will fail as they cannot decide how Muslims shall follow their religion.

We are a bit off-topic too but never mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Metanoia

I am not religious or anything but I believe that Sufism (barring the nutters like disco-maulvi) is a vital counterbalance when it comes to spirituality.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Al-Andalus

On the day of the unification of Hijaz and Najd.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khanate

Al-Andalus said:


> On the day of the unification of Hijaz and Najd.




If the states of Arabian peninsula did 'unite', they have a much better chance of succeeding than EU. However, the elephant in the room is system of governance and the distribution of power. "Elections" are not a silver bullet. Going by "elections" doctrine, Arabian peninsula becomes "tyranny of the majority". I'm looking at you Saudi guy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

It exists already and it is called the GCC, it is like some confederation of states..it is the best form that could be found due to the many existing royalties.. and it is working quite good..


----------



## Al-Andalus

The SC said:


> It exists already and it is called the GCC, it is like some confederation of states..it is the best form that could be found due to the many existing royalties.. and it is working quite good..



Are you sure? Where is Yemen? The 50th largest country in the world with a population exceeding 30 million. One of the oldest nation states in the world and a country home to some of the oldest civilizations in the world. A key country in Arabia historically and on most other fronts.

Did you know that Yemen is expected to become one of the most populous countries in the MENA region not far from now (2-3 generations)? In the top 30 worldwide. How can we ignore such a country?

Likewise where is Jordan which is geographically a part of the Arabian Peninsula as well as most of Iraq, in particular Southern Iraq? Or even parts of Southern Sham (modern-day Syria, Palestine and occupied lands of Palestine).

The GCC might be a close-knitted unit compared to most other regional political and economic unions not located in the West, however much more could be done in order to make the countries of the GCC even closer with each other. Economically, politically and militarily. Or something relatively simple such as a shared currency and better business regulations.

There is also the question, which has been raised in this thread, of the system of governance and other challenges.

However the most likely region to unite into a federal state, arguably in the entire world, is the Arabian Peninsula if you ask me. Which, if it was 1 country/federal state, would be the 7th biggest, one of the most populous and with one of the biggest economies so it would be no small feat. However the potential of such an union outweighs the eventual negatives. At least if you ask me. However I would likely think differently if I was, say, the Emir of Qatar.



Khanate said:


> If the states of Arabian peninsula did 'unite', they have a much better chance of succeeding than EU. However, the elephant in the room is system of governance and the distribution of power. "Elections" are not a silver bullet. Going by "elections" doctrine, Arabian peninsula becomes "tyranny of the majority". I'm looking at you Saudi guy.



Eloquently put. Short and precise.

Yes, the system of governance and the distribution of power is definitely a key question and a future challenge. Actually the fear of Saudi Arabian dominance is a legitimate one and something that at times is even a challenge today. However in my ideal federal state, based on a constitution that all (or at least most) inhabitants have voiced their agreement for, that should not be an issue. It might be an constitutional monarchic federal state or a republican federation. That would be up to the people.

Of course in a federal state, which I believe is the most realistic outcome, each federal state, would have significant self-rule. Think about the US for instance. Or even the UK.

Also in a perfect world the entire Arab world, from Morocco in the West near the Atlantic Ocean to Oman in the East near the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean would become one federal state. It would, if ruled correctly, give many more benefits for the people and countries than the opposite. I believe in unity rather than fragmentation. I for instance see no reason why the Slavic countries in the Balkans could not unite again into a federal state. Would probably give them more benefits than currently. Make them stronger and give them a bigger say in the region. Today, what can a small Macedonia, Bosnia or Slovenia accomplish alone? Nothing. When Yugoslavia existed they had a much bigger clout. Same story with Scandinavia that I know well personally. I mean if Denmark, Sweden and Norway became an federal state. It would give them a much bigger say and not much would change for the negative.

Anyway most people are too dumb for such projects to take place anywhere in the world currently. We need to reach a higher level of intelligence and sophistication as a species. Even the EU is falling apart. Who would have thought so, so shortly (relatively) after the horrors of WW1 and WW2 that killed almost 100 million people and devastated much of Europe? Not many, I guess. What are our conflicts in the MENA compared to that? Really not much. Let alone in the Peninsula where there are no conflicts expect for Yemen.

Anyway eventually the people of the region will decide their own future, sooner rather than later. As everywhere else eventually. For good and bad.

From this:







to eventually reaching this, Insha'Allah.


















15 million views!





There will only be one real USA. The United Arab States. USA, USA, USA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Penguin

Al-Andalus said:


> There will only be one real USA. The United Arab States. USA, USA, USA.


USA > United States of Arabia. (Otherwise is is UAS)


----------



## KediKesenFare3

This is just dreaming. It will never happen. For instance, Qataris don't like Saudis at all. One of the reason why they let Turkey & USA build a huge military base in Qatar is because they fear both neighbors, Iran *and *Saudi Arabia. 

Besides, Qataris are more elitist and secular. They would not accept any kind of clerical regime. In fact, the Qatari governmental decision-making process is the most secular one in the GCC. It is more similar to Turkey than to Saudi Arabia. Many people don't know this.

However, Qataris also don't emphasize the Saudi version of Wahhabism. 


(...) Qataris privately distinguish between their “*Wahhabism of the sea*” as opposed to Saudi Arabia’s “*Wahhabism of the land*,” a reference to the fact that the Saudi government has less control of an empowered clergy compared to *Qatar that has no indigenous clergy* with a social base to speak of; a Saudi history of tribal strife over oases as opposed to one of communal life in Qatar, and* Qatar’s outward looking maritime trade history.* Political scientists Birol Baskan and Steven Wright argue that* on a political level, Qatar has a secular character similar to Turkey and in sharp contrast to Saudi Arabia*, which they attribute to Qatar’s lack of a class of Muslim legal scholars.[2] (...)
​*Wahhabism vs. Wahhabism: Qatar Challenges Saudi Arabia*

*Plus:

Qatari-Bahraini War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari–Bahraini_War*
Territorial disputes in the Persian Gulf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_Persian_Gulf

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Al-Andalus

KediKesenFare said:


> This is just dreaming. It will never happen. For instance, Qataris don't like Saudis at all. One of the reason why they let Turkey & USA build a huge military base in Qatar is because they fear both neighbors, Iran *and *Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Besides, Qataris are more elitist and secular. They would not accept any kind of clerical regime. In fact, the Qatari governmental decision-making process is the most secular one in the GCC. It is more similar to Turkey than to Saudi Arabia. Many people don't know this.
> 
> However, Qataris also don't emphasize the Saudi version of Wahhabism.
> 
> 
> (...) Qataris privately distinguish between their “*Wahhabism of the sea*” as opposed to Saudi Arabia’s “*Wahhabism of the land*,” a reference to the fact that the Saudi government has less control of an empowered clergy compared to *Qatar that has no indigenous clergy* with a social base to speak of; a Saudi history of tribal strife over oases as opposed to one of communal life in Qatar, and* Qatar’s outward looking maritime trade history.* Political scientists Birol Baskan and Steven Wright argue that* on a political level, Qatar has a secular character similar to Turkey and in sharp contrast to Saudi Arabia*, which they attribute to Qatar’s lack of a class of Muslim legal scholars.[2] (...)​*Wahhabism vs. Wahhabism: Qatar Challenges Saudi Arabia*
> 
> *Plus:
> 
> Qatari-Bahraini War
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari–Bahraini_War*
> Territorial disputes in the Persian Gulf
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_Persian_Gulf





You are an Zaza Kurd who, with all due respect, has absolutely no clue about the Arab world let alone the Arabian Peninsula. What you are saying makes as much sense as the birth of an independent homeland for your 3 million Zaza Kurds somewhere in Turkey.

I am absolutely certain that you have never met a single Qatari in your life let alone a single Saudi Arabian. Nor even visited this part of the world. Arabic? Forgot about it. It would be if I started blabbering about some supposed regional hatred in Turkey.

If KSA and Qatar (including the people) "hated" each other they would not be key allies nor part of the GCC which is the most comprehensive and effective regional alliance in the Muslim world.

There is no difference between Saudi Arabians living in the Eastern Province next door and the approximately 350.000 native Qataris. Both are Arabs belonging to the same ancient Arab tribes. There are no problems whatsoever between Saudi Arabians and Qatari people to people. Besides there are 25 times as many people in Riyadh as native Qataris in comparison so how exactly should 350.000 Qataris derail/decide the feature of a region home to 80 million people?

Qatar is not a secular state. Not even close. Most of the laws in Qatar derive from Sharia Law although there is a civil law as in KSA and all GCC states. There is also a clerical class in Qatar.

There is nothing called Wahhabism as nobody calls himself a "Wahhabi". If he does he has misunderstood something. It is merely the Hanbali fiqh which is 1 of the 4 recognized *Sunni *madahib. The other 3 being the Hanafi, Maliki and Shafi'i. There is more or less a full consensus about this among religious scholars and objective observers.

Qatar's population is almost exclusively Hanbali (the exact same Hanbalis as in KSA) unlike KSA which is very diverse in this regard.
Modern-day KSA is the cradle of Islam and where all major sects of Islam originated from, whether it be Sunni Islam, Shia Islam, Sufism or Islam as a whole. Which is also why you can find all major Islamic sects indigenously in KSA. I do not know a single majority-Muslim country where you can find significant indigenous communities of Sunni Shafi'is, Hanbalis (including Salafis), Malikis, Hanafis, Sufis, Shia Twelvers, Ismailis and Zaydis in the various provinces and historical regions of KSA.

Go troll somewhere else and mind your own business. This is an internal Arab matter and a thread for informed people not complete and utter ignorants that want their 2 minutes of fame by engaging in trolling or writing outright absurdities.

I am tired of non-Arabs barking about topics that they have no clue about whatsoever, basically. Is it attention that you guys want from us or what?

Check this out guys @alarabi @azzo @Bubblegum Crisis @Full Moon @الأعرابي

Esteemed brothers, please educate the visiting Zaza here.

Better should we give him some links to some of the largest Arab forums, military and non-military alike and show him the Saudi Arabian-Qatari hostiles displayed by Saudi Arabians and the few Qataris (a rare species after all)?

No wonder that almost every Arab left this forum. Dealing with such geniuses on a daily basis can't be easy. When I of all people am starting to tire out, the challenges can best be described as monumental.


----------



## KediKesenFare3

Wow, your super emotional reaction proves me right, I guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mamluk

Are you guys considering an union of all Arabic speaking countries as well? As the next step after unification of peninsula?


----------



## KediKesenFare3

Some scientific papers I recommend on this issue:


* SEEDS OF CHANGE: COMPARING STATE-RELIGION RELATIONS IN QATAR AND SAUDI ARABIA *
Birol Baskan and Steven Wright
Arab Studies Quarterly
Vol. 33, No. 2 (Spring 2011), pp. 96-111
Published by: Pluto Journals
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41858653
Page Count: 16 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41858653?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

*Royal Factionalism and Political Liberalization in Qatar *
*Author: *Kamrava, Mehran
*Source:* The Middle East Journal, Volume 63, Number 3, Summer 2009, pp. 401-420(20)
*Publisher: *Middle East Institute
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mei/mei/2009/00000063/00000003/art00004


*Political reform and the prospects for democratic transition in the gulf*
By Jill Crystal (08/07/2005) Working Paper
http://fride.org/publication/220/po...ospects-for-democratic-transition-in-the-gulf

Dorsey, James M., Wahhabism vs. Wahhabism: Qatar Challenges Saudi Arabia* (July 3, 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2305485 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2305485


----------



## Al-Andalus

KediKesenFare said:


> Wow, your super emotional reaction proves me right, I guess.



Your inability to counter my factual post proves me right, not the other way around.

I am not the least emotional. Do you think that your absurd post on some Pakistan forum will change the ground realities or anything for that matter?
I am just shocked about the utter stupidity of your post. A 20 something year old Zaza who lives in Germany and who has never met a single Qatari let alone a single Saudi Arabian in his life, never visited that region of the world, who is as fluent in Arabic as in Papuan sign language and who is as well-read about the Arab world and its history as leading Arabist scholars and professors in the world.

Anyway I am sorry to break this to you but the GCC is already the most comprehensive economic, military and political regional union in the Muslim world. All leaders of the GCC, none of which are elected and thus cannot fully speak for the peoples of the region, are working actively for more regional integration within the GCC. The citizens, according to all pools in the GCC, are heavily in support of further integration. Such a thing would be and is a logical outcome and the need of the hour. If it was mission impossible, such as the establishment of something simple as an Turkic League in comparison, the GCC would not exist and it would not have achieved what it has.

Anyway as I said, I am not going to waste my time on ignorants, who moreover have nothing to do with internal Arab matters (as relevant as Papuans and Eskimos) however its difficult not to counter nonsense in an otherwise very serious and informative thread.

Your presence here is only aimed at trolling and posting nonsense. Don't take people here for idiots. I know very well what your agenda is. Since when are 7 year old articles written by some Turk and an American worthy of anything? I prefer to actually look at the ground realities.



[USER=25628]@xxx[/USER][{::::::::::::::::::> said:


> Are you guys considering an union of all Arabic speaking countries as well? As the next step after unification of peninsula?



There is the Arab League for that which will likely evolve into something along the likes of the EU once the necessary social and political changes in the Arab world arrive, which they eventually will. Several pan-Arab grassroots groups operate in all Arab countries. However this thread is about the Arabian Peninsula specifically. There are other regional blocs in the Arab world but none as powerful or effective as the GCC. None as likely to unite into a federal state (for instance) or integrate further profoundly in the near future.


----------



## Mamluk

Al-Andalus said:


> There is the Arab League for that which will likely evolve into something along the likes of the EU once the necessary social and political changes in the Arab world arrive, which they eventually will. Several pan-Arab grassroots groups operate in all Arab countries. However this thread is about the Arabian Peninsula specifically. There are other regional blocs in the Arab world but none as powerful or effective as the GCC. None as likely to unite into a federal state (for instance) or integrate further profoundly in the near future.



Just looked at the map for Arab league. Odd that it has countries like Djibouti and Somalia which have a majority of non-Arab speakers. Anyways that's off-topic.


----------



## Al-Andalus

[USER=25628]@xxx[/USER][{::::::::::::::::::> said:


> Just looked at the map for Arab league. Odd that it has countries like Djibouti and Somalia which have a majority of non-Arab speakers. Anyways that's off-topic.



It is indeed off-topic, however I will reply to your post nevertheless.

Djibouti is a small Horn of Africa country that borders the Red Sea. With a population numbering some 850.000 people. You are actually wrong as Arabic is an official language of Djibouti along with French. There are no other official languages than those two.

However the locals in Djibouti are mostly Somali and Afar. Arabs contribute about 5-10% of the population. Moreover there have been long-standing Arab migrations and ties to that part of Horn of Africa and Horn of Africa/East Africa in general. As well as the Sahel which is why you can even find Arab minorities as far Southwest as Nigeria or why Chad's second largest ethnic group are Arabs.

Same story with Somalia. The two only official languages of Somalia are Somali and Arabic. Somalia too is home to a significant Arab minority and many Somalians have Arab ancestry. Several Arab dynasties ruled modern-day Somalia and Djibouti. Arab presence in Horn of Africa is also almost 3 millennia old in fact. Arabic was and remains the language of business, learning and the liturgic language of Islam in those two countries. So I guess those are the reasons for them being a part of the Arab League. Another more exotic example is the Comoros which is a island nation in the Southern Indian Ocean that Arabs first discovered and settled. The locals are a mixture of Arabs and local Africans from mainly the Swahili (itself an Arabic name) coast which itself has an ancient connection to the Arab world. The Omani Empire had a very long presence in that part of Africa. For instance Zanzibar was owned by Oman until 1964.









There once were an Chinese Arabist on PDF ( @Wholegrain ) who had an extensive knowledge about the Arab world and Arabs.

He created this informative thread that contains at least 50 references to books and articles.

https://defence.pk/threads/arabs-in-sub-saharan-africa.285301/

Anyway here is the former Royal Omani residence and palace complex of the Sultan on Zanzibar:




the sultans palace by _pollux, on Flickr















Stone Town from Beit el-Ajaib by khowaga1, on Flickr







The Stone Town of Zanzibar was founded by Arabs and is today a World UNESCO Heritage Site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Town

The current Omani Royal dynasty in power has intermarried with locals from Swahili. The current Omani Sultan (the only remaining sovereign reigning Sultan in the world) is a descendent.

Another "curiosity" is the fact that most of our Afro-Arabs are originally from Horn of Africa (Habesha people mainly) and the Swahili coastline. So I am actually content about the addition of those 2 countries that you have mentioned as there are plenty of reasons for them being a part of the Arab League. I believe that Eritrea and Chad should join in the future due to even much larger Arab minorities and similar close historical ties. I for once consider everyone, regardless of what their ancestry might be, for an Arab if they identify as one. I mean how otherwise should I treat for instance 10% of the Saudi Arabian population who happens to be Afro-Arabs? As lesser Arabs because they are not full-blooded, whatever that means? There is no such thing in the first place as we are all mixed especially in the Arab world which is literally the center of the planet.

Besides, some Afro-Arab girls are seriously good-looking. Another plus, if you ask me. Google Habesha girls, you likely won't regret it.

Feel free to ask further questions. I will try to answer them as best as I can. Maybe other Arabs (a dying breed here) will answer as well. I am currently bed-ridden (thanks to European autumn weather) so I have plenty of time.

EDIT: Gwadar was formally owned by Oman until 1958. Anyway Oman and Southern Pakistan (Sindh, Baluchistan) have had historically very close ties. Dating back to ancient times (the time of Magan and IVC). As did much of geographic Arabia from Southern Iraq (Sumer), Dilmun, Gerha etc. (in Eastern Arabia) down to Magan in Oman. No wonder that this close relationship continues to this day in the form of migration and other ties. Although today it is a one-way highway however that was not the case previously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Arabia#History

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Khanate

Al-Andalus said:


> Eloquently put. Short and precise.
> 
> Yes, the system of governance and the distribution of power is definitely a key question and a future challenge. Actually the fear of Saudi Arabian dominance is a legitimate one and something that at times is even a challenge today. However in my ideal federal state, based on a constitution that all (or at least most) inhabitants have voiced their agreement for, that should not be an issue. It might be an constitutional monarchic federal state or a republican federation. That would be up to the people.
> 
> Of course in a federal state, which I believe is the most realistic outcome, each federal state, would have significant self-rule. Think about the US for instance. Or even the UK.
> 
> Also in a perfect world the entire Arab world, from Morocco in the West near the Atlantic Ocean to Oman in the East near the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean would become one federal state. It would, if ruled correctly, give many more benefits for the people and countries than the opposite. I believe in unity rather than fragmentation. I for instance see no reason why the Slavic countries in the Balkans could not unite again into a federal state. Would probably give them more benefits than currently. Make them stronger and give them a bigger say in the region. Today, what can a small Macedonia, Bosnia or Slovenia accomplish alone? Nothing. When Yugoslavia existed they had a much bigger clout. Same story with Scandinavia that I know well personally. I mean if Denmark, Sweden and Norway became an federal state. It would give them a much bigger say and not much would change for the negative.
> 
> Anyway most people are too dumb for such projects to take place anywhere in the world currently. We need to reach a higher level of intelligence and sophistication as a species. Even the EU is falling apart. Who would have thought so, so shortly (relatively) after the horrors of WW1 and WW2 that killed almost 100 million people and devastated much of Europe? Not many, I guess. What are our conflicts in the MENA compared to that? Really not much. Let alone in the Peninsula where there are no conflicts expect for Yemen.
> 
> Anyway eventually the people of the region will decide their own future, sooner rather than later. As everywhere else eventually. For good and bad.
> 
> From this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to eventually reaching this, Insha'Allah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 million views!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will only be one real USA. The United Arab States. USA, USA, USA.




1. Federation is the gold standard of integration but its also not easy to forge, or manage for that reason. For Khaleej, a more pragmatic solution would be an economic union while leaving individual state structures in place. There is already defence cooperation in the form of Peninsula Shield Force. Essentially, the aim should be to ensure peace and continuity on the Arabian peninsula. If you can manage that for another 200 years, a federation would emerge naturally as a by product.

2. Admire your idealism for Arab unity however every time I hear it, I'm reminded of Nasser and we all know how that experiment ended. Look I grew up in KSA, about 18 years, so I can see GCC leading into an economic union, similar to how EU started out as EEC, but Arab unity is a different kind of fishbowl altogether. Accounting for generational shifts alone makes the marriage a non-starter. You have to help yourself first before you help the Arab world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Al-Andalus

Khanate said:


> 1. Federation is the gold standard of integration but its also not easy to forge, or manage for that reason. For Khaleej, a more pragmatic solution would be an economic union while leaving individual state structures in place. There is already defence cooperation in the form of Peninsula Shield Force. Essentially, the aim should be to ensure peace and continuity on the Arabian peninsula. If you can manage that for another 200 years, a federation would emerge naturally as a by product.
> 
> 2. Admire your idealism for Arab unity however every time I hear it, I'm reminded of Nasser and we all know how that experiment ended. Look I grew up in KSA, about 18 years, so I can see GCC leading into an economic union, similar to how EU started out as EEC, but Arab unity is a different kind of fishbowl altogether. Accounting for generational shifts alone makes the marriage a non-starter. You have to help yourself first before you help the Arab world.



A federation would definitely be the most sensible and realistic solution. However such a federation should cover the entire Arabian Peninsula and possibly neighboring Arab states that have large areas of their territory within the geographical and historical region of Arabia. Such as Jordan (entire territory) and Iraq (half of the territory). However it should start with the existing GCC and afterwards incorporate Yemen before possibly moving further to incorporate Jordan or and Iraq.

In my perfect world such a federation should have a large degree of local autonomy however the federal government should be modeled after the US model.

The model would thus not only be economic, political and military in nature as today but incorporate all societal fields as in any state. By the way the proclamation of such a federation would multiply the economic, political, military etc. bonds at least tenfold.

However I fully agree that regardless of what will happen the GCC, including Yemen and Jordan, Iraq etc. will emerge naturally by product. In particular the GCC and Yemen.

However the people should be consulted and preferably decide their own future. In say 30 years or 50 years, I suspect, that absolute monarchy will be a thing of the past and that the GCC states would become constitutional monarchies or even republics. Giving the people a much bigger say. The people all across the GCC, according to all polls and opinions on the street, favor much closer integration. So if people had anything to say, I suspect that we would have seen such a federation today even.

Many laws would also look differently.

Anyway I find the topic very interesting as I consider such a federation as an actual realistic option rather than utopia.

As for a united Arab federation (United Arab States for instance), I do not see this as a realistic option currently or in the near future. However the Arab League turning into something alike the EU (with an military aspect as well) in say 1-2 generations, is something rather likely to happen given the moves towards that even today when much of the Arab world is in its worse state in years and autocracies dominate. Once the necessary social and political reforms emerge in the Arab world, which they naturally will eventually, the entire discussion will look very different but we the people of the Arab world, should already be working towards such goals. Especially the youth. There are over 250 million Arabs (if I am not wrong) below the age 35. This number will only grow as the populations in the Arab world will continue to grow significantly in the next, at least 100 years. Not to forget immigration to the Arab world, in particular the GCC. We are a vibrant component although we lack the decision power for now. We will after all shape the future.

Anyway, I do not know if you are familiar with the Saudi Vision 2030, I suspect so given your past in KSA, but this is a very ambitious and necessary project that I personally hail. It would transform KSA greatly. This time around they appear to mean business as aspects of the vision have already been incorporated here less than 6 months after. In fact KSA is transforming below the surface. Today most citizens (youth in particular which makes up 2/3 of the population) call for people of non-Saudi Arabian background (Arabs as non-Arab) who have been born in KSA and lived in KSA all their lives, to become citizens. This is an example of how times are changing. KSA is a very different country under the surface in particular, from what it was just 2 decades ago and the changes will occur at an only faster rate by each year. You won't hear much about this in the Western media of course, except the occasional serious in-depth article that the average Joe has no time reading or will not understand of course. Today there is a propaganda campaign aimed at KSA but I personally do not care about this as long as that propaganda campaign will help kickstart changes faster in KSA.











Anyway a pleasure meeting you here.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Khanate

I should clarify the comment I made and provide some context.

One reason why Middle East is in turmoil is because there is no strong Arab state that can shape the region and enforce a Pax Americana. Prior to the rise of US, Europe was fragmented into feuding states always on the cusp of all out war. Case in point, WW2. The rise of US as a strong Western state provided order to the chaos and shaped Europe into what it is now, a peaceful entity with robust economic growth.

Keeping in mind the above paradigm, if GCC, with or without Yemen, can forge peace and continuity for another 100 years, it can possibly emerge as a state that transforms MENA. Imagine MENA with no armed groups, like Hezbollah, territorial disputes or foreign interference. This is far more important for the region than Arab unity. Ergo, I stated that in order to help your fellow Arabs, you first have to help yourself become a strong state capable of enforcing Pax Khaleejiya. This is for the greater good of MENA. Arab unity, from Morocco to Oman, would come about organically as a by product of this paradigm.

Observe how a natural force creates order from chaos







Credit for this insight goes to @Kaptaan, I assumed more people would know about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Al-Andalus

Khanate said:


> I should clarify the comment I made and provide some context.
> 
> One reason why Middle East is in turmoil is because there is no strong Arab state that can shape the region and enforce a Pax Americana. Prior to the rise of US, Europe was fragmented into feuding states always on the cusp of all out war. Case in point, WW2. The rise of US as a strong Western state provided order to the chaos and shaped Europe into what it is now, a peaceful entity with robust economic growth.
> 
> Keeping in mind the above paradigm, if GCC, with or without Yemen, can forge peace and continuity for another 100 years, it can possibly emerge as a state that transforms MENA. Imagine MENA with no armed groups, like Hezbollah, territorial disputes or foreign interference. This is far more important for the region than Arab unity. Ergo, I stated that in order to help your fellow Arabs, you first have to help yourself become a strong state capable of enforcing Pax Khaleejiya. This is for the greater good of MENA. Arab unity, from Morocco to Oman, would come about organically as a by product of this paradigm.
> 
> Observe how a natural force creates order from chaos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Credit for this insight goes to @Kaptaan, I assumed more people would know about it.



Well, I don't agree about there not being a strong Arab country in the MENA region. I would dare to claim that KSA is a regional power (there is a consensus about that at least) with just as much political clout and influence, if not arguably more, than anyone in the MENA region. Not to forget the GCC block itself which is likewise arguably the strongest regional bloc in the MENA. Well, it definitely is as I cannot think of any other.

The problem should rather be found in ineffective and outdated political systems and regimes as nobody has ever questioned the human potential of the Arab world if the right environment is provided for them. Nor is the Arab world a poor region in terms of resources. Rather the opposite, it is one of the richest in the entire world. Nor is the strategic location of the Arab world a problem as it is basically the center of the world connection/bridging the 3 main continents in the world (historically and economically wise) in the form of Asia, Europe and Africa. it's previous success as being the home of the oldest civilizations in the world and the leading center (or one of the centers in lesser dominant periods) of the world for millennia (most of the recorded history in fact) can neither be questioned.

The above (main reason and not something that is solved overnight but something that will take generations - a process that neighboring Europe underwent themselves not that long and other developing regions of the world will go through) and more recently the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and most recently the "Arab Spring" are obviously very big challenges that require time in order to be changed for the better. However I am hopeful.

Anyway the Arab world and South Asia face similar problems so we should IMO work much closer on solving common challenges. At least the GCC and Pakistan as neighbors. Well, we are practically neighbors across the Arabian Sea. 

I do not disagree and my main focus is likewise on the GCC and the most immediate sphere as explained previously in post 97. Starting with KSA itself. Much is needed on this field.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Saif al-Arab

When people talk about a possible unification of the GCC/Arabian Peninsula into a single federal state, a great and relatively recent example, is the proclamation of the UAE which was/is composed of 7 emirates. Prior to 1971 those 7 emirates were independent. Nowadays nobody in the UAE let alone the GCC is doubting the logic/sanity of such a decision. I think that this could/should/will eventually be copied just on a much larger scale this time around (GCC/Arabian Peninsula).

A nice report about this event:

https://www.uaeinteract.com/uaeint_misc/pdf/perspectives/06.pdf

*GCC states can unite to become the sixth largest economy: Mohammed bin Salman*​
Wam/Riyadh
Filed on November 11, 2016





Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz
(AFP)​
*The UAE's delegation, led by Shaikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Presidential Affairs, attended the meeting.*



GCC countries as one bloc have the opportunity to become the sixth largest economy in the world if they worked properly in the coming years, said Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz, Second Deputy Premier and Minister of Defence, at the first meeting of the GCC Economic and Development Affairs Authority in Riyadh on Thursday.

"Today we are trying to take advantage of these opportunities, especially as we are in an era marred by a lot of economic fluctuations in the world. Therefore, we need to work together in the era of blocs," the deputy crown prince, who chaired the meeting, said.

The UAE's delegation, led by Shaikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Presidential Affairs, attended the meeting.

The meeting discussed the latest economic and developmental trends regionally and globally and reviewed the progress in implementation of resolutions, recommendations and agreements regarding these two areas.

The authority was set up at the 16th GCC Summit, held in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, with the mandate to expedite work towards co-ordination and integration among the GCC countries in the economic and development areas.

"It is time to make a paradigm shift in the economic development of the GCC countries that will improve quality of life, energise the GCC economy and sharpen its competitive and negotiating power, and increase its role in the global economy," a statement issued at the end of the meeting said.

The statement stressed the need for empowering existing economic sectors so as to stimulate growth.

"The oil sector must be highly flexible and attractive to woo more investment and become more competitive," the statement added.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/nation/...the-sixth-largest-economy-mohammed-bin-salman

@Khafee


----------



## Solomon2

Saif al-Arab said:


> When people talk about a possible unification of the GCC/Arabian Peninsula into a single federal state, a great and relatively recent example, is the proclamation of the UAE which was/is composed of 7 emirates. Prior to 1971 those 7 emirates were independent.


Umm, depends what you mean by "independent". They were British protectorates. The Brits announced in 1968 that Britain would abrogate their treaties with them as part of Britain's withdrawal from "East of Suez". One can argue that rather than opt for individual independence the Trucial States chose to remain united much as before, but without the Brits on top.


----------



## Saif al-Arab

Solomon2 said:


> Umm, depends what you mean by "independent". They were British protectorates. The Brits announced in 1968 that Britain would abrogate their treaties with them as part of Britain's withdrawal from "East of Suez". Once can argue that rather than opt for individual independence the Trucial States chose to remain united much as before, but without the Brits on top.



British presence in the UAE lasted between 1820-1971 (Trucial States) but the history of today's UAE began millennia before. All the 7 current emirates that are composed of UAE and their ruling families ruled those territories *BEFORE *British presence in the region. Which is the case with *ALL *ruling dynasties in the GCC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trucial_States


Abu Dhabi (1820–1971)
Ajman (1820–1971)
Dubai (1835–1971)
Fujairah (1952–1971)
Kalba (1936–1951)
Ras al-Khaimah (1820–1971)
Sharjah (1820–1971)
Umm al-Quwain (1820–1971)
Anyway none of that changes what I wrote or renders it inaccurate. Those emirates were self-governing but under British protectorate. Before British presence they were independent emirates. The point should/can not be missed.

Aha, just saw that you have edited your post. Fair enough.


----------



## Saif al-Arab

“We can create a unified Arabian Peninsula, an elected Shoura Council, a unified armed force with a unified defense industry. We can also achieve an economic system with a unified currency, set up a unified space agency, a unified IT industry, a unified aerospace industry, an automotive industry, an educational system with a unified curriculum, a unified energy and petrochemical industry and a unified justice system,” Prince Turki was quoted as saying by the Arab News.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/12/06/181050.html











*Economic Reform in the GCC: A Vision for the Future*

May 3, 2017
Ihsan Ali Bu-Hulaiga, Fahad Al-Kuwari, Omar Al-Ubaydli, Karen E. Young (Moderator)

The past 50 years have seen unprecedented modernization and growth among the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council countries, which today rank among the world leaders in per capita income. However, GCC leaders recognize that oil resources alone cannot sustain economic prosperity over the long term, and are thus seeking to create diversified economies that generate income from a variety of thriving industries.

What are the major challenges and roadblocks facing Gulf policymakers as they seek to diversify their economies away from oil revenue? What are the most promising opportunities for private sector growth and innovation? Are the GCC countries able to create a national workforce to meet the needs of a diversified economy? How does the introduction of new taxes and fees, however incremental, change the relationship between citizen and state in the GCC?

This AGSIW panel addressed these issues and more, with a distinguished group of experts from across the GCC.

*



*
*Iraq and the GCC: New Realities in Gulf Security*

February 14, 2017
Dlawer Ala’Aldeen, Luay al-Khatteeb, Denise Natali, Mohammed Alyahya, Toby Dodge, and Hussein Ibish

As part of its Gulf Rising series, AGSIW hosted a panel discussion on the state of relations between the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and Iraq. How do Gulf countries view Iraq’s evolving regional role? What role might they play in reshaping Iraq’s domestic landscape, particularly the crucial struggle against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, and bolstering its political stability? Besides counterterrorism and trade, what other opportunities for cooperation and strengthened ties can be explored? Can Iraq reassure GCC states regarding its relationship with Iran, or even use them as a counterweight to Iranian pressure? Could Baghdad help mediate between Tehran and its GCC rivals? What is the Gulf interest in the Kurdish question, and its impact on other regional concerns, including Syria? How does American policy factor into these and other questions?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Saif al-Arab

A quite amazing fact.
*
Out of global sovereign wealth fund assets worth $6.5tn, GCC SWFs have assets worth over $3tn.*

http://www.gulf-times.com/story/545326/Doha-Bank-knowledge-session-dwells-on-GCC-global-e

This is *excluding *the historic and record-breaking upcoming Saudi Arabian IPO.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/01/saudi-aramco-listing-who-will-win-the-worlds-biggest-ipo.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

Sharif al-Hijaz said:


> A quite amazing fact.
> *
> Out of global sovereign wealth fund assets worth $6.5tn, GCC SWFs have assets worth over $3tn.*
> 
> http://www.gulf-times.com/story/545326/Doha-Bank-knowledge-session-dwells-on-GCC-global-e
> 
> This is *excluding *the historic and record-breaking upcoming Saudi Arabian IPO.
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/01/saudi-aramco-listing-who-will-win-the-worlds-biggest-ipo.html


So much money...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Saif al-Arab

Here 14 months later, with the "Qatar crisis" (although I consider it temporary for natural and obvious reasons) continuing (albeit with lesser dynamism) it once again became plainly obvious that a unification process can only occur democratically (populations actually having a direct say - in such a case a federal state would be realistic) or if met by an truly existential threat from the outside that would require a genuine full-scale unification process led by the modern-day regimes and bureaucracies.

I believe that the GCC should reform and incorporate neighboring nations like Iraq (which should and would have been a member state today if not for being a republic after the monarchy was abolished in 1958, at least this is my clear conviction), Jordan, Yemen and why not neighboring Egypt as well?

Naturally from then on Syria, Palestine and Lebanon would be natural steps in case of an enlargement. Basically creating a historical bloc that has always been intervened very closely for the past 12.000 + years (Neolithic period). Supposedly this would have also been the fully independent Arab nation that Sharif Hussein and Arab nationalists back in the day (100+ years ago) were envisioning and dreaming about until the powers of the world back then (UK and France) wanted it differently.

*



*

*

*






Current day rulers are not doing what is in the best interests of the region and the people. This has been the case for way too long (decades) regardless of ideologies pursued. This is completely idiotic and unnecessary behavior that only leads to negativity, meddling from the outside and internal meddling.
*
Is it really so hard to take the good elements of the European Union next door (common market, free movement of people, easier exchanges of goods, investments, pan-Arab cooperation when it comes to security, military, economy, environment, science, education etc.) and implement it? The Arab League while older than the UN (!) has achieved very little in comparison (not that the UN is perfect) due to those reasons above.

The GCC has done a lot of those things well but it's not perfect and it needs to expand and become more than a club of monarchies. Neighboring Arab countries cannot be ignored. It's not in the interest of the GCC countries nor those neighboring Arab countries.*

Democracy (in this region of the world) has its faults as well. Not sure what the perfect solution is.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

The small GCC states have no long-term future as truly independent states or even semi-independent states. Their fate will be that of living in a united/semi-united Arabian entity like throughout millennia.

Bahrain is de facto the 15th province already. Should be incorporated at one point in time. Make the Al-Khalifa family vassals and governors of Bahrain. They are from Najd anyway. Similarly with the Al-Thani's in Qatar. Exact same story. The current rulers can stay and potential federalism as well, but the strongest and biggest (KSA) should naturally take the lead for the benefit of all.

Either that or just unify everything in a post-monarchy era.

Should continue in all other regions of the Arab world as well in order for large and powerful regional Arab entities to emerge.

As of 2019, the economy of the GCC is larger than that of all Russia. GDP (nominal). Food for thought.


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

Praying for the region to heat up and for a point of no return to occur in order to correct recent historical ills.

The current status quo is far from optimal and I see no need for those useless borders that are dividing brotherly and sisterly nations and people that share ancient civilizational, ancestral, cultural, linguistic, religious, geographic etc. ties apart from customs, family/clan/tribal ties. Basically everything.

Not only dividing but preventing the rise of the sleeping giant that is the Arab world.

Imagine what we could accomplish with everything that we have been blessed with whether it be resources, population, landmass, geography (one of the most strategic locations in the world), economy, potential etc.

What a travesty when you think about it.

Only a big war against the enemy with drastic changes following suit will give rise to what is needed which is genuine unity. We could become a potential superpower, yet we are divided into 20 + nation states all lead by regimes/leaderships/elites whose most important goal is to remain in power even at the expense of the common good.

Yet you have superpowers/powers of today (USA, China and Russia) 100 times more diverse yet we have idiots within us (teenagers that have never ventured out of say Riyadh and nearby areas) who look at say Yemenis as if they were aliens, lol.

It is all in our hands, we were united/tied for millennia and part of the same ancient civilizations, cultures, empires, caliphates, kingdoms, sultanates, emirates, sheikdoms, imamates etc. We should look towards the EU as something to follow. The Arab League predates NATO, UN and EU, yet what have the regimes since that period accomplished in terms of greater integration, other than GCC, which also occurred due to similar ideology (monarchies) working together with Yemen and Iraq left out.

People without historical knowledge, foresight and ambition yet isolationism and blind country worship, will continue to waive their little country flags (with all due respect) thinking that they can achieve something truly great (for the common good of the Arab world) all on their own without uniting the region as was always done in the past by the strongest party. lol.


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> Praying for the region to heat up and for a point of no return to occur in order to correct recent historical ills.
> 
> The current status quo is far from optimal and I see no need for those useless borders that are dividing brotherly and sisterly nations and people that share ancient civilizational, ancestral, cultural, linguistic, religious, geographic etc. ties apart from customs, family/clan/tribal ties. Basically everything.
> 
> Not only dividing but preventing the rise of the sleeping giant that is the Arab world.
> 
> Imagine what we could accomplish with everything that we have been blessed with whether it be resources, population, landmass, geography (one of the most strategic locations in the world), economy, potential etc.
> 
> What a travesty when you think about it.
> 
> Only a big war against the enemy with drastic changes following suit will give rise to what is needed which is genuine unity. We could become a potential superpower, yet we are divided into 20 + nation states all lead by regimes/leaderships/elites whose most important goal is to remain in power even at the expense of the common good.
> 
> Yet you have superpowers/powers of today (USA, China and Russia) 100 times more diverse yet we have idiots within us (teenagers that have never ventured out of say Riyadh and nearby areas) who look at say Yemenis as if they were aliens, lol.
> 
> It is all in our hands, we were united/tied for millennia and part of the same ancient civilizations, cultures, empires, caliphates, kingdoms, sultanates, emirates, sheikdoms, imamates etc. We should look towards the EU as something to follow. The Arab League predates NATO, UN and EU, yet what have the regimes since that period accomplished in terms of greater integration, other than GCC, which also occurred due to similar ideology (monarchies) working together with Yemen and Iraq left out.
> 
> People without historical knowledge, foresight and ambition yet isolationism and blind country worship, will continue to waive their little country flags (with all due respect) thinking that they can achieve something truly great (for the common good of the Arab world) all on their own without uniting the region as was always done in the past by the strongest party. lol.


----------



## aziqbal

Arab unity ?

they are only good at one thing, killing each other in large numbers

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Saddam Hussein

aziqbal said:


> Arab unity ?
> 
> they are only good at one thing, killing each other in large numbers



We will enforce pan Arabism

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## aziqbal

camelguy said:


> We will enforce pan Arabism



yes then you have a chance 

this was the strategy of Saladin


----------



## Gangetic

This is the best thing for Muslims across the world - a strong, rich Arab state with a large population.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Old School

Secular Arab nationalism has failed and it will fail again. It has to deal with the strong tribal culture in the region which has been in force since the ancient time. Specifically, secular nationalism will certainly fail as in the past. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was aware of this fact millenium and a half ago. Therefore, he proposed Islam as the bonding force to unite all tribes and he did succeeded. Secular Arab nationalism is a creation of the west to weaken Islam which is seen as West's biggest challenger towards global domination and hegemony. If you become a secular nationalist by abondonning Islam, you are doomed as a loser for life. Examples are all around us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Saddam Hussein

Old School said:


> Secular Arab nationalism has failed and it will fail again. It has to deal with the strong tribal culture in the region which has been in force since the ancient time. Specifically, secular nationalism will certainly fail as in the past. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was aware of this fact millenium and a half ago. Therefore, he proposed Islam as the bonding force to unite all tribes and he did succeeded. Secular Arab nationalism is a creation of the west to weaken Islam which is seen as West's biggest challenger towards global domination and hegemony. If you become a seckar nationalist by abondonning Islam, you are doomed as a loser for life. Examples are all around us.



The secularists need to be punished as well

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Old School

camelguy said:


> The secularists need to be punished as well


The best way to punish the secularists is to ignore them altogether.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stryker1982

You might see the smaller Arab states join into a Federation but Iraq nor Syria will ever join such a federation. Many Arabs in the GCC are far to racist oddly enough to Yemenis and Omani's for them to want to join. I could see Bahrain or UAE joining within 20 years provided their is enough incentive to do so. As of yet their is zero incentive. At least not for many decades.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Philosopher

Don't forget, most of these people being called "Arabs" are not even arabs. Minus the dialect they share, they're different genetically. The real Arabs are the yemenites.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

Philosopher. said:


> Don't forget, most of these people being called "Arabs" are not even arabs. Minus the dialect they share, they're different genetically. The real Arabs are the yemenites.



Some kind of IQ test need to be made in order to prevent Arabized Farsi trolls from obsessing and trolling in Arab-related topics. 

Expect for the fact that all Arabs share the same geography, the same culture, language, the same DNA (clustering with each other very closely) and haplogroups (paternal and maternal), the same ancient Semitic past, have been part of the same ancient civilizations, empires, cultures, caliphates, kingdoms, emirates, sheikdoms, sultanates etc. since recorded time, cuisine, tribal and clan ties and basically everything that makes up an ethnic group.

No such thing as "real Arabs" either. All Arabs are fellow Semites and the first Arabs originated in Hejaz, Northern Arabia, Southern Sham and Southern Mesopotamia, not Yemen. Arabic is also a Central Semitic language not a Southern Semitic language. Moreover most of Yemen did not speak Arabic prior to Islam and was likewise Arabized.


----------



## Philosopher

ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> Some kind of IQ test need to be made in order to prevent Arabized Farsi trolls from obsessing and trolling in Arab-related topics.
> 
> Expect for the fact that all Arabs share the same geography, the same culture, language, the same DNA (clustering with each other very closely) and haplogroups (paternal and maternal), the same ancient Semitic past, have been part of the same ancient civilizations, empires, cultures, caliphates, kingdoms, emirates, sheikdoms, sultanates etc. since recorded time, cuisine, tribal and clan ties and basically everything that makes up an ethnic group.
> 
> No such thing as "real Arabs" either. All Arabs are fellow Semites and the first Arabs originated in Hejaz, Northern Arabia, Southern Sham and Southern Mesopotamia, not Yemen. Arabic is also a Central Semitic language not a Southern Semitic language. Moreover most of Yemen did not speak Arabic prior to Islam and was likewise Arabized.



IQ tests would be needed I think to prevent you from making your 100th fake account.


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

Stryker1982 said:


> You might see the smaller Arab states join into a Federation but Iraq nor Syria will ever join such a federation. Many Arabs in the GCC are far to racist oddly enough to Yemenis and Omani's for them to want to join. I could see Bahrain or UAE joining within 20 years provided their is enough incentive to do so. As of yet their is zero incentive. At least not for many decades.



More Farsi nonsense. I gotta love the fact that some clueless Iranians are talking on behalf of 500 million + Arabs while not being able to count to 10 in Arabic (despite Farsi being almost an Arabic dialect and Arabic being obligatory in schools and universities in Iran). What kind of nonsense is that?

Everything that you wrote is utter nonsense from start to end.

Why don't you worry about your own ethnically diverse country before blabbering about homogenous Arab countries?



Indus Valley said:


> This is the best thing for Muslims across the world - a strong, rich Arab state with a large population.



Expect for a few tiny (in comparison to Arabs on all fronts) regional entities. For them it would be terrible news given their meddling in the Arab world (only able to do so in war torn Arab countries - no wonder) and for the West as well. I could see the EU wanting it to happen in order to have a strong Arab world as a buffer zone against the future hordes of Sub-Saharan African migrants/refugees wanting to reach Europe but even that is doubtful given the historical (last 200 years at least) meddling of European powers like Italy, UK and France in the Maghreb and other regions of the Arab world. USA and suffice to say their child (Israel) would be against it as well.

Ironically a strong and united Arab world would suit most of the world (economically and security wise). If that was the case there would be no unstable Libya, no unstable Syria no unstable Iraq, no unstable Yemen etc. to deal with and millions of refugees and rise of extremist groups that threaten the safety of not only locals but the world.











Problem is lack of qualified, courageous, dedicated and visionary leadership. People like Ibn Saud was a visionary for his time. Without his conquest and unification of what is modern-day KSA, we would have some 5-6 (potentially) more Arab states and even more disunity/weakness.


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

A quick on top of my head calculation of the giant possibilities that a single federal Arab state (once again) would result in as of today:

_1) Second largest landmass in the world after Russia

2) Third largest population in the world after China and India

3) Largest (by far) hydrocarbon wealth and mineral wealth in the world

4) Longest coastline in the world and control of some of the most strategic waters in the world

5) Fourth largest economy in the world with amble potential for growth

6) One of the fastest growing and youngest populations in the world
_
_7) Largest sovereign wealth funds with some the biggest investment __portfolios__ in the world_
_
8) Second largest standing active army in the world after China_

Despite being much more ethnically and culturally diverse (not to mention climatic differences) the likes of India, Russia, China and USA are living examples of the necessity of the adoption of large nation states. India prior to 1947 was divided into 1000 different entities. Russia is the result of Russian conquest of non-Russians. 90% of the Russian territory was originally non-Russian. Similarly in China (Tibet, Xinjiang). The US is the biggest melting pot divided into over 50 states. All somehow manage to survive so the prospect of 1 single federal Arab state is objectively speaking (at least solely looking at history geography, culture, ethnic harmony, language etc.) should very much be possible eventually once again

We need Arab leaders who openly pursue such policies and openly work towards regional Arab cooperation and integration. More visionaries. Few such leaders occurred in the past 100 years. Can only think of Ibn Saud who managed to unite a large Arab territory into a single state that otherwise would have been further fragmented.
Insha'Allah this will change in the future and Arabs should all work towards that goal actively in whatever means that we have. Starting with regional Arab cooperation.

In many ways it could not be any different after 400 years of darkness (Ottoman period) in half of the Arab world and after/before that Western meddling. In some cases like Algeria this lasted almost 150 years. In the past few decades we have been trying to find our feet again despite largely useless leadership (by large), foreign meddling/invasions of superpowers and divisions as a consequence of all this. Even to this day we have 4 main unrest hotspots in the Arab world (Yemen, Libya, Syria and Iraq to a degree due to political instability). *All those problems and challenges can only be solved jointly and it is time for people to wake up to this reality and stop waving their small little flags. Nation states and borders have been changing since the first human appeared on the planet. It will be no different in the future. Better join hands and create a strong entity rather than the current status quo.
*
@Slav Defence 

Permission to change the thread title to "The unification of the Arabian Peninsula/Arab world?"

Thank you.


----------



## vishwambhar

ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> A quick on top of my head calculation of the giant possibilities that a single federal Arab state (once again) would result in as of today:
> 
> _1) Second largest landmass in the world after Russia
> 
> 2) Third largest population in the world after China and India
> 
> 3) Largest (by far) hydrocarbon wealth and mineral wealth in the world
> 
> 4) Longest coastline in the world and control of some of the most strategic waters in the world_



If you are talking about unification of only Arabian peninsula then how come this country will become second largest land mass???

Arabia peninsula has Saudi with roughly 22 lacs sq km territory, Oman around 3 lacs sq km, Yemen around 5.5 lacs sq km, UAE around 84k sq km, Qatar and Bahrain 13k sq km put together gives you a landmass equal to India and bigger than Argentina... if you add Iraq, Jordan,Syria and Lebanon as a part of peninsula then you get additional territory roughly equal to Egypt.... still this country will be smaller than Brazil and Australia let alone very large countries like China, Russia, Canada.... and coastal lines will still be smaller to Australia, Russia, Canada not the longest in the world.... I think you should change the title from Arabia peninsula to entire Arabian world which is from Arabian peninsula till Morocco... in that case certainly your country will be second largest and yes most powerful after USA, Russia my friend...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Only the _Zulfiker_, currently taking _Teshrif_ at the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, can do that unification!! The last time Yavuz Sultan Selim practically showed it...


----------



## Yankee-stani

I think the only region to achieve unity in the Arab world is the GCC at this point

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

Hakikat ve Hikmet said:


> Only the _Zulfiker_, currently taking _Teshrif_ at the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, can do that unification!! The last time Yavuz Sultan Selim practically showed it...



With all due respect you must be high on something or trolling heavily. Only 1/3 of the Arab world was ever a part of the thoroughly Arabized Ottoman entity either in name only or de facto.

Prior to that most of the Arab world was united for centuries and various regions in the Arab world were part of the same ancient indigenous civilizations, caliphates, empires, kingdoms, sultanates, emirates, sheikdoms, imamates for millennia.

This thread is not intended for ridiculous troll posts of that nature.


----------



## Yankee-stani

Neo-Ottoman freaks thinking of uniting the Arab world are just lunatics frankly as Turkey has shown it rather piss off Arabs by thinking they are the bosses of the region

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

OsmanAli98 said:


> I think the only region to achieve unity in the Arab world is the GCC at this point



You could claim so indeed however the current rift with MB-ruled and MB-sponsoring Qatar (with the aid of Erdogan controlled Turkey) has put a stop to this but I don't see that succeeding in the long-term. The tiny size and population of Qatar as well as its geography will ensure this. There are already signs of normalization emerging soon. In any case, the GCC should be a beginning regardless of who will be in power (monarchies or not) if you ask me and that is a sentiment shared by most Arabs of the region.



OsmanAli98 said:


> Neo-Ottoman freaks thinking of uniting the Arab world are just lunatics frankly as Turkey has shown it rather piss off Arabs by thinking they are the bosses



In particular when those same "freaks" don't know elementary history. Anyway let those phantasts be. They are the equivalents of Indian Hindu nationalists dreaming about some utopian Greater Bharat stretching from Afghanistan to Indonesia. Anyway let us stick to the topic before this thread gets hijacked.


----------



## Yankee-stani

ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> You could claim so indeed however the current rift with MB-ruled and MB-sponsoring Qatar (with the aid of Erdogan controlled Turkey) has put a stop to this but I don't see that succeeding in the long-term. The tiny size and population of Qatar as well as its geography will ensure this. There are already signs of normalization emerging soon. In any case, the GCC should be a beginning regardless of who will be in power (monarchies or not) if you ask me and that is a sentiment shared by most Arabs of the region.



Turkey really screwed up 10 years ago they could have been actual regional power with all the Arab world fawning over but I think they got high headed and clouded mind you Saudi has made errors but, if there is one thing Turkey has been boxed in, Russia and Iran have made them fools in front of regional nations and other world powers.For the most part anyways in the ideal world Pan-Arabism should be lead by Gaddafism, Nasserism or Baathism but sadly those ideologies are not much in vouge sigh


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

OsmanAli98 said:


> Turkey really screwed up 10 years ago they could have been actual regional power with all the Arab world fawning over but I think they got high headed and clouded mind you Saudi has made errors but, if there is one thing Turkey has been boxed in for the most part anyways in the ideal world Pan-Arabism should be lead by Gaddafism, Nasserism or Baathism but sadly those ideologies are not much in vouge sigh



I don't see Turkey as a relevant player in the Arab world (in the past 10 years or in the future) so I won't comment on this part of your post as it is not related to Arabs nor the topic of this thread. My view of our relations with the neighborhood as Arabs (read my view) is that we should try to have cordial and mutually beneficial ties with everyone be it neighboring Israel, Iran or Turkey, Africa, Europe, South Asia etc. if possible. As good as a relationship between nation states can get.

_As for the short-lived ideologies that you mention (Al-Assad ruled Syria excluded), if you ask me (I am not motivated by a political ideology just by the objective fact of Arab unity being beneficial to all Arabs and all Arabs states - aside from the historical, ethnic, clan, tribal, genetic, religious, economic, cultural, linguistic, geographic etc. reasons that I already mentioned in this thread that bind us together as Arabs) a particular ideologic is not needed just common sense to emerge among Arab governments and for those governments to reflect the will of the Arab street which is that of greater Arab integration on every field which could eventually culminate into 2-3 strong regional federal Arab states emerging and possibly a single Arab federal state in the future or at least the Arab League being transformed into a EU like (the good elements of EU) organization._

The worst case scenario are relations like those that Morocco and Algeria enjoy. That is pure lunacy and the people in both countries have nothing to do with that insane state to state relationship. Another one was KSA and Iraq's relationship (although that was far more understandable as a bunch of incompetent puppets and mostly traitors from abroad gained power on the bandwagon of the illegal US invasion in 2003- later their failures have been proven for all to see so KSA was right, the lack of relations however did not benefit anyone and harmed both countries) post-2003 until 2014 or so. Although even back then it was never as bad as the Morocco-Algeria nonsense.

And who can forget the political nonsense that emerged between Algeria and Egypt after that World Cup qualifier game? Laughable stuff and once again it has nothing to do with the people in those countries.

Anyway it is worth noticing, like almost any political ideology, that elements of Ba'athism are praiseworthy as well as elements of Nasserism and whatever Gaddafi was high on at various points in his almost 45 years of rule. I just feel that adopting a single political ideology is madness and that does not usually end well and it requires force (USSR) and usually it tends to collapse. Probably the only withstanding (so far) political ideology that most states in the world have been hooked on, is capitalism, but that has more to do with human nature and its superior economic model than anything else and it has its many drawbacks as well. My two quick cents and obviously each Arab will have his/her arguments for why greater Arab unity is needed and some will be influenced by mainly Islamist arguments (read the religious angle which is legitimate - most Islamists in the Arab world are in favor of Arab unity by default as well - even terrorists like ISIS wanted to erase the current day borders and unite the lands - this included majority Muslim areas of the world as well) others by certain political ideologies and others (like me) cold objective facts or all the elements that I have mentioned. Others prefer to waive their own country flags and call it a day.


----------



## Yankee-stani

ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> I don't see Turkey as a relevant player in the Arab world (in the past 10 years or in the future) so I won't comment on this part of your post as it is not related to Arabs nor the topic of this thread. My view of our relations with the neighborhood as Arabs (read my view) is that we should try to have cordial and mutually beneficial ties with everyone be it neighboring Israel, Iran or Turkey, Africa, Europe, South Asia etc. if possible. As good as a relationship between nation states can get.
> 
> _As for the short-lived ideologies that you mention (Al-Assad ruled Syria excluded), if you ask me (I am not motivated by a political ideology just by the objective fact of Arab unity being beneficial to all Arabs and all Arabs states - aside from the historical, ethnic, clan, tribal, genetic, religious, economic, cultural, linguistic, geographic etc. reasons that I already mentioned in this thread that bind us together as Arabs) a particular ideologic is not needed just common sense to emerge among Arab governments and for those governments to reflect the will of the Arab street which is that of greater Arab integration on every field which could eventually culminate into 2-3 strong regional federal Arab states emerging and possibly a single Arab federal state in the future or at least the Arab League being transformed into a EU like (the good elements of EU) organization._
> 
> The worst case scenario are relations like those that Morocco and Algeria enjoy. That is pure lunacy and the people in both countries have nothing to do with that insane state to state relationship. Another one was KSA and Iraq's relationship (although that was far more understandable as a bunch of incompetent puppets and mostly traitors from abroad gained power on the bandwagon of the illegal US invasion in 2003- later their failures have been proven for all to see so KSA was right, the lack of relations however did not benefit anyone and harmed both countries) post-2003 until 2014 or so. Although even back then it was never as bad as the Morocco-Algeria nonsense.
> 
> And who can forget the political nonsense that emerged between Algeria and Egypt after that World Cup qualifier game? Laughable stuff and once again it has nothing to do with the people in those countries.
> 
> Anyway it is worth noticing, like almost any political ideology, that elements of Ba'athism are praiseworthy as well as elements of Nasserism and whatever Gaddafi was high on at various points in his almost 45 years of rule. I just feel that adopting a single political ideology is madness and that does not usually end well and it requires force (USSR) and usually it tends to collapse. Probably the only withstanding (so far) political ideology that most states in the world have been hooked on, is capitalism, but that has more to do with human nature and its superior economic model than anything else and it has its many drawbacks as well.



Capitalism and Communism are just "meh" ideologies not denying both Adam Smith and Karl Marx made valid points on society,economics and politics for the Arab world it needs something unique to unite it all under one banner the issue during the cold war that prevented such unions was frankly foreign meddling and alliances KSA,Gulf States were pro US, Baathist States like Iraq, and Syria, Gaddafist Libya, and Nasserists Egypt had lean to the Soviet Union or at times were neutral so I really blame the Cold War for the mess

Going to Algeria and Maroc I think Maroc should just give the Sahwahris autonomy or independence have a open border tear down that mine slash wall(which is the largest in the world) and restore ties with Algeria

Also another issues that prevent such unity is lack of "standardization" of the Arabic language yes there is MSA but that's very little effort and more needs to be done on that front also societal values vary you being Saudi understand that way the Lebanese,and folks from the Levent, Tunisians and Egyptians have varrying degrees of societal differences and mindsets to reconcile also

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

OsmanAli98 said:


> \
> 
> Capitalism and Communism are just "meh" ideologies not denying both Adam Smith and Karl Marx made valid points on society,economics and politics for the Arab world it needs something unique to unite it all under one banner the issue during the cold war that prevented such unions was frankly foreign meddling and alliances KSA,Gulf States were pro US, Baathist States like Iraq, and Syria, Gaddafist Libya, and Nasserists Libya had lean to the Soviet Union or at times were neutral so I really blame the Cold War for the mess



You are right and remember all this "conflict" was the creation of regimes in power. People just played along as they had no other choice. The Cold War also gave rise to a fusion between Hanbalism and MB when King Faisal welcomed exiled MB members from Egypt, Syria (mainly) and Iraq. Later those same teachers, clerics etc. gained tremendous influence in the education system of KSA and state institutions (religious too) and created the (in my eyes) Sahwa period that the late King Abdullah began to erode and King Salman/MBS have eroded/almost destroyed further. In between that (1960's, 1970's when that MB trend in KSA began) you had what culminated the decision of King Khalid to "capitulate" to those elements in the form of the Grand Mosque seizure in 1979, shortly after the "Islamic Revolution" in Iran next door which was actually a mostly socialistic/communistic/nationalistic/protest against the Shah movement that was hijacked by the Mullah element (although that was strong as most of Iran was impoverished, high number of illiterate people, most villagers were deeply religious like anywhere in the region back then) with the "charismatic" Khomeini that arrived on a plane from France. Shortly afterwards you had the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan where Pakistan played a key role (KSA unfortunately had a role in this mess as well - I would have preferred to be neutral although the Afghans were well in their right to fight the opposers, it just came at a huge cost for KSA's society and further strengthened the Sahwa era). Rest is history.

In between all this mess you had the invasion of Iraq (1991 and 2003) which due to the close ties to Iraq that people in KSA have (historical, ethnic, tribal, clan, geography, people to people even dialect), further strengthened the Sahwa element with calls to fight the Western/American Kafir invader (all while the House of Saud was a main US ally - they had to navigate between the hugely influential clergy that they helped gain this much power after 1979 so internal power struggles started until Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula began targeting KSA increasingly (when the Iraq mess was ongoing, we are talking mid 00's) which forced the state to combat the most radical clerics at home and slowly help erode the Sahwa era (small steps at a time naturally) with King Abdullah started - hence I will always be grateful to him as most Saudi Arabians are) creating a new Afghanistan in the backyard. In between that you had the emerging KSA/GCC-Iran proxy war in the region, lol, that has not yet ended. So things are not always this simplistic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CrazyZ

Regional integration at any level is desperately needed. Germany and Spain have less in common than Egypt and Pakistan for example. A larger Arab or Islamic bloc would be immensely powerful and why various external actors will not allow it to happen. Divide and conquer is working well in the middle east... unfortunately. Look at the bickering at this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yankee-stani

ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> You are right and remember all this "conflict" was the creation of regimes in power. People just played along as they had no other choice. The Cold War also gave rise to a fusion between Hanbalism and MB when King Faisal welcomed exiled MB members from Egypt, Syria (mainly) and Iraq. Later those same teachers, clerics etc. gained tremendous influence in the education system of KSA and state institutions (religious too) and created the (in my eyes) Sahwa period that the late King Abdullah began to erode and King Salman/MBS have eroded/almost destroyed further. In between that (1960's, 1970's when that MB trend in KSA began) you had what culminated the decision of King Khalid to "capitulate" to those elements in the form of the Grand Mosque seizure in 1979, shortly after the "Islamic Revolution" in Iran next door which was actually a mostly socialistic/communistic/nationalistic/protest against the Shah movement that was hijacked by the Mullah element (although that was strong as most of Iran was impoverished, high number of illiterate people, most villagers were deeply religious like anywhere in the region back then) with the "charismatic" Khomeini that arrived on a plane from France. Shortly afterwards you had the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan where Pakistan played a key role (KSA unfortunately had a role in this mess as well - I would have preferred to be neutral although the Afghans were well in their right to fight the opposers, it just came at a huge cost for KSA's society and further strengthened the Sahwa era). Rest is history.


MB was "always" a puppet for someone western lackeys tho in WW2 they got support from the Axis and Nazis for a bit but once the Americans wanted to go have a match with the Soviets during the Cold War they bought MB under their wing again I know you are Saudi and you will defend your nations actions most of the times but Saudi has been under goodie two shoes with Yankee for 7 decades at this point you guys broke up ties with Moscow in 1938 only to restore ties in 1992 once the USSR was gone, as for the regional dynamics had it not been an Israel or Cold War meddling by the Americans and Soviets things would be radically different in the Mid East for sure

Revolution" in Iran next door which was actually a mostly socialistic/communistic/nationalistic/protest against the Shah movement that was hijacked by the Mullah element (although that was strong as most of Iran was impoverished, high number of illiterate people, most villagers were deeply religious like anywhere in the region back then) with the "charismatic" Khomeini that arrived on a plane from France. Shortly afterwards you had the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan where Pakistan played a key role (KSA unfortunately had a role in this mess as well - I would have preferred to be neutral although the Afghans were well in their right to fight the opposers, it just came at a huge cost for KSA's society and further strengthened the Sahwa era). Rest is history.

In between all this mess you had the invasion of Iraq (1991 and 2003) which due to the close ties to Iraq that people in KSA have (historical, ethnic, tribal, clan, geography, people to people even dialect), further strengthens the Sahwa element and urge to fight the Western/American Kafir invader creating a new Afghanistan in the backyard. In between that you had the emerging KSA/GCC-Iran proxy war in the region, lol, that has not yet ended. So things are not always this simplistic.[/QUOTE]

The Iranian Revolution was the last great "revolution" of the 20th century after the Russian and Chinese ones yes it was not perfect but then again it was in back drop of great power competition, and as for Afghanistan I blame Leonid Breznev for being stupid to support the Kabul "communists" who were moochers should have stayed away from that s...thole Iraq other mistake conflict with Iran in the 80s and going after Kuwait like that should have been settled differently tho I agree things are not simple as it is but I am a cautious optimist KSA-Iran will reconcile we seeing hopes in Yemen, in Syria Riyadh has started to lean neutral and low key support Assad which would have been unthinkble in the early 2010s Russia/China are moving big last thing they want is to be dragged into the sandpit that would make the Americans glee



CrazyZ said:


> Regional integration at any level is desperately needed. Germany and Spain have less in common than Egypt and Pakistan for example. A larger Arab or Islamic bloc would be immensely powerful and why various external actors will not allow it to happen. Divide and conquer is working well in the middle east... unfortunately. Look at the bickering at this forum.



The problem is most "Muslim regional powers" are in for national interests be it Turkey,Iran, and GCC Pakistanis have this weird "worship" complex first it was the Saudis for some Iranians and now is the Turks and Erdogan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

OsmanAli98 said:


> MB was "always" a puppet for someone western lackeys tho in WW2 they got support from the Axis and Nazis for a bit but once the Americans wanted to go have a match with the Soviets during the Cold War they bought MB under their wing again I know you are Saudi and you will defend your nations actions most of the times but Saudi has been under goodie two shoes with Yankee for 7 decades at this point you guys broke up ties with Moscow in 1938 only to restore ties in 1992 once the USSR was gone, as for the regional dynamics had it not been an Israel or Cold War meddling by the Americans and Soviets things would be radically different in the Mid East for sure



Honestly speaking no Muslim nation post-WW2 had any ability to create their own independent policy and shape the region and at the same time combating the West (that was firmly ingrained in the Arab and Muslim world -remember when the WW2 ended there was not even a Pakistan yet - the second largest Arab nation, geographically, Algeria was still a French colony etc.) so all Muslim nations, KSA included (which was one of the few Muslim nations not to be colonized by the West directly - Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan being the few if not only ones that I can think of) had to make a choice between the West or USSR like all other developing/third world countries back then, including all of Europe except for the powers that be back then (UK and France, excluding Franco ruled Spain and Portugal which had a similar story - neutrals under WW2 now ruled by right-wing rulers naturally anti-communistic later to turn US allies rest is history) and choosing the West was in hindsight a great decision by KSA. There can be no doubt about this judging from the track record of USSR-allied Arab states. Basically the House of Saud bet on the right horse that eventually won that battle. Not much different from Turkey that joined NATO to safe itself from being swallowed up by the USSR and this fact also served the West's interests (naturally) so they played along much like they did everything in their power to prevent communism/socialism from emerging in pro-US Arab states (KSA included).

So you need to have all this in mind. KSA has done really well in this regard, whether you agree with the policies or not. I might be Saudi Arabian (albeit I have ancestral ties to other Arab states and countries down the line) but that does not mean that I blindly follow whatever the leadership is doing, that could not be more wrong. In fact I am visible critical on PDF and there are many policies that I disagree or disagreed with (like most people - there is no perfect government anymore) but overall it would be selfish and foolish for me to complain about the status quo in KSA or GCC (in particular the great internal changes in KSA on every front and progress) when I compare what has otherwise happened in the neighborhood. Even in similarly resource rich/mineral rich nations.

Anyway this is an interesting discussion on topics that I have had the pleasure to discuss with family, friends, compatriots, Arabs, non-Arabs etc. alike. When you look at history, much of it is decided by small details. Often insignificant at large. Often circumstances that nobody could predict too. What is most interesting however, is that all this is a part of a never ending story. What is the reality today is not going to be the reality in 10 years (let alone much further away) so whatever we discuss, we can be certain about one thing, namely that changes WILL occur. How, when, how profound, only the future will tell.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ansu fati

OsmanAli98 said:


> Turkey really screwed up 10 years ago they could have been actual regional power with all the Arab world fawning over but I think they got high headed and clouded mind you Saudi has made errors but, if there is one thing Turkey has been boxed in, Russia and Iran have made them fools in front of regional nations and other world powers.For the most part anyways in the ideal world Pan-Arabism should be lead by Gaddafism, Nasserism or Baathism but sadly those ideologies are not much in vouge sigh


Turkey is regional power that’s a fact you just have to do objective scan of all the developments in the last decade

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

OsmanAli98 said:


> The problem is most "Muslim regional powers" are in for national interests be it Turkey,Iran, and GCC Pakistanis have this weird "worship" complex first it was the Saudis for some Iranians and now is the Turks and Erdogan



It is normal given the historically close ties (cultural, religious, geographic, people to people) not much different from Muslims taking sides in conflict zones far away from their own backyards. For instance it would be fair to say that most Muslims have reservations about US imperialism similar to the widespread complains of the average Muslim ruler/regime. To whatever you can think about.

Anyway I have noticed this but I think that regardless of regimes or not, most Pakistanis have always had favorable views of Arabs (people) even for sentimental/religious/cultural/historical/ancient/ancestral reasons alone. Millions of Pakistanis would not proudly proclaim/claim/have Arab ancestry if that was not the case. From what I know of such an origin is the most "prestigious" one, at least among the religiously inclined and even among Baloch people you have them (Baloch people) claiming origins in Syria if I am not wrong. I guess similarly with Iranians in the case of Pakistanis. Turks (Anatolians), I believe, is mostly a political thing nowadays and nostalgia (Ottoman) blended with religious elements here. The actual Turkic influence that occurred in Pakistan had its origins in Central Asia next door after all. I am sure that you and the average educated Pakistani can attest to this. Also modern-day Turks are less similar to Pakistanis in look, culture, language than say the average Arab and Iranian so this probably also have a say I feel. But all this plays no role in people to people relations, Israel is in many ways an "Arab country", yet there is great hate (politically motivated and by some religious) against Israel from us Arabs and vice versa........even though 2/3 of all Israeli Jews are Arab Jews/Jews from Arab countries and look identical to us.






Transport those Israeli Jews to the US and the stereotypical American White person would call them "Arab" immediately due to look alone. You know what I mean. Similar to Whites in the US attacking Punjabi Sikhs thinking that they are Arabs/Muslims after 9/11 due the the skin color and beards.

When that terrorist killed those Muslims in Christchurch (mainly Arabs and Pakistanis), for him, those people were all Brown Muslims that needed to die. Some Iranians (mostly diaspora) attempts of distancing themselves from Arabs/Muslims, will always (no matter what they do) be confused for Arabs just due to their look. So what we should do is work together and leave the silly rivalry alone as for our enemies, we are all the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yankee-stani

ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> It is normal given the historically close ties (cultural, religious, geographic, people to people) not much different from Muslims taking sides in conflict zones far away from their own backyards. For instance it would be fair to say that most Muslims have reservations about US imperialism similar to the widespread complains of the average Muslim ruler/regime. To whatever you can think about.
> 
> Anyway I have noticed this but I think that regardless of regimes or not, most Pakistanis have always had favorable views of Arabs (people) even for sentimental/religious/cultural/historical/ancient/ancestral reasons alone. I guess similarly with Iranians. Turks (Anatolians), I believe, is mostly a political thing nowadays and nostalgia (Ottoman) blended with religious elements here. The actual Turkic influence that occurred in Pakistan had its origins in Central Asia next door after all. I am sure that you and the average educated Pakistani can attest to this.



I think the whole thing with the Turks is more recent thanks to "Erdogan " sounding like he is the leader of the "ummah", mix in nostalgia



Ansu fati said:


> Turkey is regional power that’s a fact you just have to do objective scan of all the developments in the last decade



Albeit a very sub par "one" you have managed to piss every Arab neighbor you had and got boxed in by the Russians and Iranians


----------



## Ansu fati

OsmanAli98 said:


> Albeit a very sub par "one" you have managed to piss every Arab neighbor you had and got boxed in by the Russians and Iranians


Other than UAE(since 2016 failed coup in Turkey sponsored by emiratis) Egypt(post 2013 coup) and Saudi(since 2017 qatar rift accelerated after khasoggi 2018) i don’t see other arab countries being openly hostile towards Turkey 
boxed in by Russia and Iran is interesting claim if you follow only sputnik and hezbollah pages but if you see geopolitical challenges Turkey has faced and the outcomes I would say things are so far good enough for turks it could’ve been better if key allies such US didn’t supported terrosists but i guess in every crisis there’s opportunity that opportunity was tactical temporary partnership with russians 
if you start now with the February attack this isn’t geopolitical way of viewing things that would be a talk about who has killed more and it would turn into unnecessary conversation


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

Ansu fati said:


> Other than UAE(since 2016 failed coup in Turkey sponsored by emiratis) Egypt(post 2013 coup) and Saudi(since 2017 qatar rift accelerated after khasoggi 2018) i don’t see other arab countries being openly hostile towards Turkey
> boxed in by Russia and Iran is interesting claim if you follow only sputnik and hezbollah pages but if you see geopolitical challenges Turkey has faced and the outcomes I would say things are so far good enough for turks it could’ve been better if key allies such US didn’t supported terrosists but i guess in every crisis there’s opportunity that opportunity was tactical temporary partnership with russians
> if you start now with the February attack this isn’t geopolitical way of viewing things that would be a talk about who has killed more and it would turn into unnecessary conversation



Arabs and Turks (people) are not enemies and share a lot of common history, culture, ancestry (DNA), geography, religion etc. There are ancient Arab communities in Anatolia and Anatolia and its people have always had close historical, people to people ties to people of the Arab world (Arab Near East) which explains why the oldest Turkish cities are found near the border to Syria and Iraq. Turkish Arabs are one of the largest minorities in Turkey if not the largest after the Kurds. There are also Anatolian/Turkish minorities in the Arab world since a very long time (since 1000 + years ago already) from Yemen to Algeria, now intermarried. Turkmens in Iraq and Syria are basically a fusion between Arabs and Turks.

There would be no hostility among Erdogan ruled Turkey and Arab governments/regimes if not for Erdogan's MB agenda if you ask me. Just like there were no problems prior to Erdogan. Turkey might have had problems with Hafiz ruled Syria (based on the whole Hatay/Iskenderun controversy) but that was about it. However we can't deny, something that is also seen by some Turkish users on PDF, that there are elements in the Turkish elite that want to play the Neo-Ottoman card in the Arab world and that will obviously create hostility. Anyway we had this discussion in the Libya Civil War thread.

Honestly, I see no reason why Arabs and Turkey should be enemies. That is not the case even today despite some political disagreements. I am talking about people to people - minus the extremists/ultra-nationalists on both sides. Arabs are way low on the "Turkish list of historical enemies" similar to Turks being way low on the "Arab list of historical enemies" even within the region and vice versa.

My two cents, in a thread, where off-topic posts were doomed to occur eventually although I enjoyed my discussion with @OsmanAli98



OsmanAli98 said:


> I think the whole thing with the Turks is more recent thanks to "Erdogan " sounding like he is the leader of the "ummah", mix in nostalgia
> 
> 
> 
> Albeit a very sub par "one" you have managed to piss every Arab neighbor you had and got boxed in by the Russians and Iranians



I am curious do you think that the average Pakistani knows the historical, ethnic, cultural, geographic etc. difference between Turkey/Anatolia and Turkic nations in Central Asia next to Pakistan? Often I get the impression that many Pakistani users here think that Turkey = Central Asia. I don't want to offend any Turkish user here unnecessary (the whole DNA and Turkification stuff - I know identity has little to do with DNA/origin nowadays) but I often see posts where somehow Mughals, Mongols, Timur etc. is somehow tied to modern-day Turkey and Turkish people when they have nothing to do with each other.



vishwambhar said:


> If you are talking about unification of only Arabian peninsula then how come this country will become second largest land mass???
> 
> Arabia peninsula has Saudi with roughly 22 lacs sq km territory, Oman around 3 lacs sq km, Yemen around 5.5 lacs sq km, UAE around 84k sq km, Qatar and Bahrain 13k sq km put together gives you a landmass equal to India and bigger than Argentina... if you add Iraq, Jordan,Syria and Lebanon as a part of peninsula then you get additional territory roughly equal to Egypt.... still this country will be smaller than Brazil and Australia let alone very large countries like China, Russia, Canada.... and coastal lines will still be smaller to Australia, Russia, Canada not the longest in the world.... I think you should change the title from Arabia peninsula to entire Arabian world which is from Arabian peninsula till Morocco... in that case certainly your country will be second largest and yes most powerful after USA, Russia my friend...



My "single federal Arab state" comment in the beginning of my post should be a giveaway as well as me asking to rename the thread title to what I suggested it should be renamed to.

Otherwise you are obviously right.

However if the Arabian Peninsula (the definition of that is not unanimous either, historically/geographically it includes most of Jordan, most of Iraq, Sinai and Southern and Eastern Syria and if geologically you can include the entire Arabian Plate which would include large parts of Turkey and Iran even but that is just an example for the sake of it) was united into a single state, whether federal or not, it would be a formidable state on its own. The current definition of the Peninsula is mostly a political one. Have that in mind in the future.

Anyway a lot of historical events are based on timing. The conditions that enabled India to unite in 1947, where not present in the Arab world at that time. For instance do you believe (I am curious to hear your reply) it would be possible to unite modern-day India into a federal state if the pre-1947 borders of India (with the pre-1947 rulers in place) had existed today (2020)? My personal take is that it would be many times more difficult than an attempt to unite the 20 + Arab countries of today given the much greater racial, ethnic, religious etc. diversity in India/South Asia and the many times more states present in pre-1947 India.

So as an Indian I would just recommend you Indians (Russians, Americans, Chinese etc.) to cherish the current status quo albeit it might not be perfect. The alternative would have been far worse if the goal was/is to be a potentially world player and if the goal is/was unity. My two quick cents.

Similarly advice for all Pakistanis, do not allow yourself to be divided into ethnic groups, clans, tribes etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## vishwambhar

ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> You must be high on something. Only 1/3 of the Arab world was ever a part of the thoroughly Arabized Ottoman entity either in name only or de facto.
> 
> Prior to that most of the Arab world was united for centuries and various regions in the Arab world were part of the same ancient indigenous civilizations, caliphates, empires, kingdoms, sultanates, emirates, sheikdoms, imamates for millennia.
> 
> This thread is not intended for ridiculous troll posts of that nature.
> 
> 
> 
> My "single federal Arab state" comment in the beginning of my post should be a giveaway as well as me asking to rename the thread title to what I suggested it should be renamed to.
> 
> Otherwise you are obviously right.
> 
> However if the Arabian Peninsula (the definition of that is not unanimous either, historically/geographically it includes most of Jordan, most of Iraq, Sinai and Southern and Eastern Syria and if geologically you can include the entire Arabian Plate which would include large parts of Turkey and Iran even but that is just an example for the sake of it) was united into a single state, whether federal or not, it would be a formidable state on its own. The current definition of the Peninsula is mostly a political one. Have that in mind in the future.
> 
> Anyway a lot of historical events are based on timing. The conditions that enabled India to unite in 1947, where not present in the Arab world at that time. For instance do you believe (I am curious to hear your reply) it would be possible to unite modern-day India into a federal state if the pre-1947 borders of India (with the pre-1947 rulers in place) had existed today (2020)? My personal take is that it would be many times more difficult than an attempt to unite the 20 + Arab countries of today given the much greater racial, ethnic, religious etc. diversity in India/South Asia and the many times more states present in pre-1947 India.
> 
> So as an Indian I would just recommend you Indians (Russians, Americans, Chinese etc.) to cherish the current status quo albeit it might not be perfect. The alternative would have been far worse if the goal was/is to be a potentially world player and if the goal is/was unity. My two quick cents.



My friend.... it would have been next to impossible to establish today's Indian union in 2020 if pre 1947 borders and leaders of those princely states were existing today. India would not have been as large country as its today... we were lucky that situation in 1947 made many such states to join Indian union willingly but thanks to our national hero Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who took a strong stance against some states such as Junagadh, Hyderabad..... 

Goa (my native state) we had to militarily liberate from Portugal occupation.... Kashmir whole world knows.... but if Indian leadership of that time had failed to show courage what it could show that time under Vallabhbhai Patel then in today's modern world India map would have been totally different.... 

Btw you said that Arab peninsula consists of some parts of Turkey and Iran.... are you talking about Kurdish territory in these countries? Can Kurds be considered as arabs?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

vishwambhar said:


> My friend.... it would have been next to impossible to establish today's Indian union in 2020 if pre 1947 borders and leaders of those princely states were existing today. India would not have been as large country as its today... we were lucky that situation in 1947 made many such states to join Indian union willingly but thanks to our national hero Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who took a strong stance against some states such as Junagadh, Hyderabad.....
> 
> Goa (my native state) we had to militarily liberate from Portugal occupation.... Kashmir whole world knows.... but if Indian leadership of that time had failed to show courage what it could show that time under Vallabhbhai Patel then in today's modern world India map would have been totally different....
> 
> Btw you said that Arab peninsula consists of some parts of Turkey and Iran.... are you talking about Kurdish territory in these countries? Can Kurds be considered as arabs?



Thank you for your post and answer. I would appreciate if you could somehow elaborate on all those historical events as I find it interesting. Similarly with the Pakistani angle of course.

Kurds are a separate ethnic group although Kurds have been heavily influenced by Arabs (neighbors after all) and intermarriages have been taking place for many centuries as well as genetic closeness (I am talking about Kurds in Syria and Iraq - the two Arab countries were Kurds live). Relations have been cordial, good, complicate and bad at times depending on the time period. Mostly bad in recent years (Saddam, Syrian civil war).

No, I was referring to the Arabian Plate (tectonic place)







which some geologists use as regional definitions but I mentioned it for the fun of it and to show you that the modern day definition of the Arabian Peninsula is a political one not a historical/geographical/cultural/ethnic/tribal/clan etc. one. and that there are many definitions of the Arabian Peninsula as such.

Lastly, apropos the unification of modern-day India and the abolishment of all those kingdoms and princely states (I know mostly about the Nawab of Hyderabad - his family apparently claimed Arab ancestry and he used to employ Yemeni soldiers - apparently there is an Yemeni community in Hyderabad to this day), can we not say that this unification in many ways occurred through force and that few locals/people were consulted?

Was it the move of the founding fathers of India purely or did a push for one India (I mean the borders were fought over violently - many people have read about the unfortunate events that occurred and population transfers between Pakistan and India) have a massive local following?

Could we also consider this as some sort of uprising against the feudal/ruling elite by the masses? What role did Indian Muslims play in this? I am quite frankly not fully versed on the inner details of this but it could serve as an inspiration in the Arab context as I find it perplexing that one of the most diverse regions in the world (India) in terms of ethnic groups, languages, cultures, religions, clans, tribes etc. is somehow 1 single country and that occurring only in 1947. From my historical knowledge of the history of what is today India, much of the territory was always divided into many principalities and kingdoms and very rarely united completely if ever (as in today). Just a quick elaboration if you don't mind.

I remember there was an Indian historian on PDF once. @Joe Shearer if I recall. Maybe he can contribute here if he sees my post and bothers to read it.

@prashantazazel or any other Indian user around of potential help

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vishwambhar

ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> Thank you for your post and answer. I would appreciate if you could somehow elaborate on all those historical events as I find it interesting. Similarly with the Pakistani angle of course.
> 
> Kurds are a separate ethnic group although Kurds have been heavily influenced by Arabs (neighbors after all) and intermarriages have been taking place for many centuries as well as genetic closeness (I am talking about Kurds in Syria and Iraq - the two Arab countries were Kurds live). Relations have been cordial, good, complicate and bad at times depending on the time period. Mostly bad in recent years (Saddam, Syrian civil war).
> 
> No, I was referring to the Arabian Plate (tectonic place)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which some geologists use as regional definitions but I mentioned it for the fun of it and to show you that the modern day definition of the Arabian Peninsula is a political one not a historical/geographical/cultural/ethnic/tribal/clan etc. one. and that there are many definitions of the Arabian Peninsula as such.
> 
> Lastly, apropos the unification of modern-day India and the abolishment of all those kingdoms and princely states (I know mostly about the Nawab of Hyderabad - his family apparently claimed Arab ancestry and he used to employ Yemeni soldiers - apparently there is an Yemeni community in Hyderabad to this day), can we not say that this unification in many ways occurred through force and that few locals/people were consulted?
> 
> Was it the move of the founding fathers of India purely or did a push for one India (I mean the borders were fought over violently - many people have read about the unfortunate events that occurred and population transfers between Pakistan and India) have a massive local following?
> 
> Could we also consider this as some sort of uprising against the feudal/ruling elite by the masses? What role did Indian Muslims play in this? I am quite frankly not fully versed on the inner details of this but it could serve as an inspiration in the Arab context as I find it perplexing that one of the most diverse regions in the world (India) in terms of ethnic groups, languages, cultures, religions, clans, tribes etc. is somehow 1 single country and that occurring only in 1947. From my historical knowledge of the history of what is today India, much of the territory was always divided into many principalities and kingdoms and very rarely united completely if ever (as in today). Just a quick elaboration if you don't mind.
> 
> I remember there was an Indian historian on PDF once. @Joe Shearer if I recall. Maybe he can contribute here if he sees my post and bothers to read it.
> 
> @prashantazazel or any other Indian user around of potential help



Sure I will try to brief you on those historical events....

*Junagadh*: when British created India and Pakistan there were still many princely states in these countries who were neither part of India nor Pakistan.... they had their own kings or rulers... they had choice to either join India or Pakistan or remain a separate country.... some states willingly joined India some to Pakistan.... however some states such as Kashmir, junagadh, Hyderabad preferred to remain separate... Goa still was under Portuguese rule... however in later stage junagadh ruler Muhammad Khanji inclined to join Pakistan against the will of majority of people in state.... geographically too it wasn't sharing borders with Pakistan... ii would have been an exclave of Pakistan on mainland India had it joined Pakistan.... also in order to avoid further communal tensions in the region Sardar Patel ordered forcible annexation of junagadh and later plebiscite was conducted in which 99.95% people voted to join India over Pakistan....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Junagadh

*Hyderabad*:


> At the time of Partition in 1947, the princely states of India, who in principle had self-government within their own territories, were subject to subsidiary alliances with the British, giving them control of their external relations. In the Indian Independence Act 1947 the British abandoned all such alliances, leaving the states with the option of opting for full independence.[11][12] However, by 1948 almost all had acceded to either India or Pakistan. One major exception was that of the wealthiest and most powerful principality, Hyderabad, where the Nizam, Osman Ali Khan, Asaf Jah VII, a Muslim ruler who presided over a largely Hindu population, chose independence and hoped to maintain this with an irregular army recruited from the Muslim aristocracy, known as the Razakars.[13]:224 The Nizam was also beset by the Telangana uprising, which he was unable to subjugate.[13]:224
> 
> In November 1947, Hyderabad signed a standstill agreement with the dominion of India, continuing all previous arrangements except for the stationing of Indian troops in the state. However, with the rise of militant razakars, India found it necessary to station Indian troops and invaded the state in September 1948 to compel the Nizam.[14] Subsequently, the Nizam signed an instrument of accession, joining India.[15]



*Goa *:
After independence in 1947 till 1961 Goa was under Portuguese occupation... it was an exclave of Portugal thousands of miles away from them on India mainland which was utter nonsense on India's part to even tolerate even till 1961.... the land belonged to gomantak tribe of Hindus and by which authority Portugal was ruling Goa??? There were no signs of Portuguese handing it over to India and they continued to torture the locals... Finally in December 1961 India launched operation Vijay in which Indian forces attacked Goa with troops, air force and navy and Goa finally was merged to Indian union.....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa

About your question of how much local support was involved in such mergers and how much actual push was given by expansionist minds in Indian govt is debatable.... people who are against these mergers will come with their valid points and people in favor (including me) will counter that with our theories.... endless debate friend...

@Joeshearer if you can further shed some light on this it would be a great help...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## prashantazazel

ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> Thank you for your post and answer. I would appreciate if you could somehow elaborate on all those historical events as I find it interesting. Similarly with the Pakistani angle of course.
> 
> Kurds are a separate ethnic group although Kurds have been heavily influenced by Arabs (neighbors after all) and intermarriages have been taking place for many centuries as well as genetic closeness (I am talking about Kurds in Syria and Iraq - the two Arab countries were Kurds live). Relations have been cordial, good, complicate and bad at times depending on the time period. Mostly bad in recent years (Saddam, Syrian civil war).
> 
> No, I was referring to the Arabian Plate (tectonic place)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which some geologists use as regional definitions but I mentioned it for the fun of it and to show you that the modern day definition of the Arabian Peninsula is a political one not a historical/geographical/cultural/ethnic/tribal/clan etc. one. and that there are many definitions of the Arabian Peninsula as such.
> 
> Lastly, apropos the unification of modern-day India and the abolishment of all those kingdoms and princely states (I know mostly about the Nawab of Hyderabad - his family apparently claimed Arab ancestry and he used to employ Yemeni soldiers - apparently there is an Yemeni community in Hyderabad to this day), can we not say that this unification in many ways occurred through force and that few locals/people were consulted?
> 
> Was it the move of the founding fathers of India purely or did a push for one India (I mean the borders were fought over violently - many people have read about the unfortunate events that occurred and population transfers between Pakistan and India) have a massive local following?
> 
> Could we also consider this as some sort of uprising against the feudal/ruling elite by the masses? What role did Indian Muslims play in this? I am quite frankly not fully versed on the inner details of this but it could serve as an inspiration in the Arab context as I find it perplexing that one of the most diverse regions in the world (India) in terms of ethnic groups, languages, cultures, religions, clans, tribes etc. is somehow 1 single country and that occurring only in 1947. From my historical knowledge of the history of what is today India, much of the territory was always divided into many principalities and kingdoms and very rarely united completely if ever (as in today). Just a quick elaboration if you don't mind.
> 
> I remember there was an Indian historian on PDF once. @Joe Shearer if I recall. Maybe he can contribute here if he sees my post and bothers to read it.
> 
> @prashantazazel or any other Indian user around of potential help



I'm writing from memory (of the various articles I have read on this subject over time). 
An extremely small portion of what's is current day India was captured by force.
In Goa, daman and Diu, the fight was against the imperial forces, and there was no significant local opposition. 
In hyderabad, there was significant opposition from local Muslims. But Hyderabad is a small place. The resistance was quickly overwhelmed. 
There was a lot of fighting between the Hindus and Muslims during those times, and it is hard to place the blame on one side. 
Most of our annexations were fairly logical, since we captured areas which had geographical continuity with our main landmass.
We don't see significant separatist movements outside of Kashmir anymore. If a large community wants to govern themselves, they try to divide the state into two. For Eg- Andhra pradesh and Telangana. The idea of separation from the nation is not popular here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

vishwambhar said:


> Sure I will try to brief you on those historical events....
> 
> *Junagadh*: when British created India and Pakistan there were still many princely states in these countries who were neither part of India nor Pakistan.... they had their own kings or rulers... they had choice to either join India or Pakistan or remain a separate country.... some states willingly joined India some to Pakistan.... however some states such as Kashmir, junagadh, Hyderabad preferred to remain separate... Goa still was under Portuguese rule... however in later stage junagadh ruler Muhammad Khanji inclined to join Pakistan against the will of majority of people in state.... geographically too it wasn't sharing borders with Pakistan... ii would have been an exclave of Pakistan on mainland India had it joined Pakistan.... also in order to avoid further communal tensions in the region Sardar Patel ordered forcible annexation of junagadh and later plebiscite was conducted in which 99.95% people voted to join India over Pakistan....
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Junagadh
> 
> *Hyderabad*:
> 
> 
> *Goa *:
> After independence in 1947 till 1961 Goa was under Portuguese occupation... it was an exclave of Portugal thousands of miles away from them on India mainland which was utter nonsense on India's part to even tolerate even till 1961.... the land belonged to gomantak tribe of Hindus and by which authority Portugal was ruling Goa??? There were no signs of Portuguese handing it over to India and they continued to torture the locals... Finally in December 1961 India launched operation Vijay in which Indian forces attacked Goa with troops, air force and navy and Goa finally was merged to Indian union.....
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa
> 
> About your question of how much local support was involved in such mergers and how much actual push was given by expansionist minds in Indian govt is debatable.... people who are against these mergers will come with their valid points and people in favor (including me) will counter that with our theories.... endless debate friend...
> 
> @Joeshearer if you can further shed some light on this it would be a great help...





prashantazazel said:


> I'm writing from memory (of the various articles I have read on this subject over time).
> An extremely small portion of what's is current day India was captured by force.
> In Goa, daman and Diu, the fight was against the imperial forces, and there was no significant local opposition.
> In hyderabad, there was significant opposition from local Muslims. But Hyderabad is a small place. The resistance was quickly overwhelmed.
> There was a lot of fighting between the Hindus and Muslims during those times, and it is hard to place the blame on one side.
> Most of our annexations were fairly logical, since we captured areas which had geographical continuity with our main landmass.
> We don't see significant separatist movements outside of Kashmir anymore. If a large community wants to govern themselves, they try to divide the state into two. For Eg- Andhra pradesh and Telangana. The idea of separation from the nation is not popular here.



Thank you for the answers.

However there is a few things here that I can't get my head around.

Pre-1947 India (as in the modern-day Republic of India) was composed of literally 100's (if not 1000's) of independent states each with their own rulers. When the British were calling the shots, those rulers were all loyal subjects who retained their thrones as long as they did not cause any trouble for the British administration.

Now how does all this transform into what later became India in 1947? I mean which authorities did all the work to abolish all those independent states and put them under the same banner (uniting them?)

In one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse places on the planet. Was it all due to the ground work laid before by the likes of Gandhi and Sardar Patel (never knew about this person)?

From the outside it looks like an almost impossible job/some type of miracle.

What would you say was the defining feature of "Indian unity" pre-1947? The common dominator aside from living on the same Indian subcontinent? Hinduism I guess and an opposition to British rule/presence?
*
Help me out here.*


----------



## vishwambhar

ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> Thank you for the answers.
> 
> However there is a few things here that I can't get my head around.
> 
> Pre-1947 India (as in the modern-day Republic of India) was composed of literally 100's (if not 1000's) of independent states each with their own rulers. When the British were calling the shots, those rulers were all loyal subjects who retained their thrones as long as they did not cause any trouble for the British administration.
> 
> Now how does all this transform into what later became India in 1947? I mean which authorities did all the work to abolish all those independent states and put them under the same banner (uniting them?)
> 
> In one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse places on the planet. Was it all due to the ground work laid before by the likes of Gandhi and Sardar Patel (never knew about this person)?
> 
> From the outside it looks like an almost impossible job/some type of miracle.
> 
> What would you say was the defining feature of "Indian unity" pre-1947? The common dominator aside from living on the same Indian subcontinent? Hinduism I guess and an opposition to British rule/presence?
> *
> Help me out here.*



Yes actually I too used to wonder how all those states became one India... there were 565 princely states after independence of India and Pakistan.... but there were only few states who were enough big and powerful with a potential of becoming proper countries.... eg. Kashmir, Junagadh, Mysore, Travankor and Hyderabad in south India.... other states were weak, enclave type states within India or Pakistan who anyway would have been always on the mercy of India or Pakistan.... they were more like zameendari estates (land ownerships) than a countries... so most of them willingly joined India and Pakistan and in return we gave them their special title of king with royal treatments always.... these royal families were paid handsomely by government.... so except Junagadh, Hyderabad, Kashmir, Goa almost all states we got without firing even a single bullet and that too within a span of 10 years....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_state

By 1961 after merger of Goa India today which you see in map was almost formed.... in 1975 Sikkim which was separate country till 1975 was merged in India....

In 1986 Arunachal Pradesh which was again a separate territory (only territory not country) between India and China was taken over by Indian army.... this incident had threateningly brought India and China on the brink of war but fortunately nothing happened and today Arunachal is part of Indian union.... so this is how today's India got completed in 1986....

Btw friend you are from which Arab country? Saudi Arabia?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yankee-stani

ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> Arabs and Turks (people) are not enemies and share a lot of common history, culture, ancestry (DNA), geography, religion etc. There are ancient Arab communities in Anatolia and Anatolia and its people have always had close historical, people to people ties to people of the Arab world (Arab Near East) which explains why the oldest Turkish cities are found near the border to Syria and Iraq. Turkish Arabs are one of the largest minorities in Turkey if not the largest after the Kurds. There are also Anatolian/Turkish minorities in the Arab world since a very long time (since 1000 + years ago already) from Yemen to Algeria, now intermarried. Turkmens in Iraq and Syria are basically a fusion between Arabs and Turks.
> 
> There would be no hostility among Erdogan ruled Turkey and Arab governments/regimes if not for Erdogan's MB agenda if you ask me. Just like there were no problems prior to Erdogan. Turkey might have had problems with Hafiz ruled Syria (based on the whole Hatay/Iskenderun controversy) but that was about it. However we can't deny, something that is also seen by some Turkish users on PDF, that there are elements in the Turkish elite that want to play the Neo-Ottoman card in the Arab world and that will obviously create hostility. Anyway we had this discussion in the Libya Civil War thread.
> 
> Honestly, I see no reason why Arabs and Turkey should be enemies. That is not the case even today despite some political disagreements. I am talking about people to people - minus the extremists/ultra-nationalists on both sides. Arabs are way low on the "Turkish list of historical enemies" similar to Turks being way low on the "Arab list of historical enemies" even within the region and vice versa.
> 
> My two cents, in a thread, where off-topic posts were doomed to occur eventually although I enjoyed my discussion with @OsmanAli98
> Arabs and Turks should not be held hostage to a bunch of posturing by their leaders who at the end of day will go get foreign arms deal to fight each other and back to square one I think the lessons of the Cold War tho painful for the Arab World and Muslim world has not been felt so much in the elite and upper class circles while the masses have to suffer from this d..ck measuring contests
> 
> I am curious do you think that the average Pakistani knows the historical, ethnic, cultural, geographic etc. difference between Turkey/Anatolia and Turkic nations in Central Asia next to Pakistan? Often I get the impression that many Pakistani users here think that Turkey = Central Asia. I don't want to offend any Turkish user here unnecessary (the whole DNA and Turkification stuff - I know identity has little to do with DNA/origin nowadays) but I often see posts where somehow Mughals, Mongols, Timur etc. is somehow tied to modern-day Turkey and Turkish people when they have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> My "single federal Arab state" comment in the beginning of my post should be a giveaway as well as me asking to rename the thread title to what I suggested it should be renamed to.
> 
> Otherwise you are obviously right.
> 
> However if the Arabian Peninsula (the definition of that is not unanimous either, historically/geographically it includes most of Jordan, most of Iraq, Sinai and Southern and Eastern Syria and if geologically you can include the entire Arabian Plate which would include large parts of Turkey and Iran even but that is just an example for the sake of it) was united into a single state, whether federal or not, it would be a formidable state on its own. The current definition of the Peninsula is mostly a political one. Have that in mind in the future.
> 
> Anyway a lot of historical events are based on timing. The conditions that enabled India to unite in 1947, where not present in the Arab world at that time. For instance do you believe (I am curious to hear your reply) it would be possible to unite modern-day India into a federal state if the pre-1947 borders of India (with the pre-1947 rulers in place) had existed today (2020)? My personal take is that it would be many times more difficult than an attempt to unite the 20 + Arab countries of today given the much greater racial, ethnic, religious etc. diversity in India/South Asia and the many times more states present in pre-1947 India.
> 
> So as an Indian I would just recommend you Indians (Russians, Americans, Chinese etc.) to cherish the current status quo albeit it might not be perfect. The alternative would have been far worse if the goal was/is to be a potentially world player and if the goal is/was unity. My two quick cents.
> 
> Similarly advice for all Pakistanis, do not allow yourself to be divided into ethnic groups, clans, tribes etc.





ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> Thank you for your post and answer. I would appreciate if you could somehow elaborate on all those historical events as I find it interesting. Similarly with the Pakistani angle of course.
> 
> Kurds are a separate ethnic group although Kurds have been heavily influenced by Arabs (neighbors after all) and intermarriages have been taking place for many centuries as well as genetic closeness (I am talking about Kurds in Syria and Iraq - the two Arab countries were Kurds live). Relations have been cordial, good, complicate and bad at times depending on the time period. Mostly bad in recent years (Saddam, Syrian civil war).
> 
> No, I was referring to the Arabian Plate (tectonic place)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which some geologists use as regional definitions but I mentioned it for the fun of it and to show you that the modern day definition of the Arabian Peninsula is a political one not a historical/geographical/cultural/ethnic/tribal/clan etc. one. and that there are many definitions of the Arabian Peninsula as such.
> 
> Lastly, apropos the unification of modern-day India and the abolishment of all those kingdoms and princely states (I know mostly about the Nawab of Hyderabad - his family apparently claimed Arab ancestry and he used to employ Yemeni soldiers - apparently there is an Yemeni community in Hyderabad to this day), can we not say that this unification in many ways occurred through force and that few locals/people were consulted?
> 
> Was it the move of the founding fathers of India purely or did a push for one India (I mean the borders were fought over violently - many people have read about the unfortunate events that occurred and population transfers between Pakistan and India) have a massive local following?
> 
> Could we also consider this as some sort of uprising against the feudal/ruling elite by the masses? What role did Indian Muslims play in this? I am quite frankly not fully versed on the inner details of this but it could serve as an inspiration in the Arab context as I find it perplexing that one of the most diverse regions in the world (India) in terms of ethnic groups, languages, cultures, religions, clans, tribes etc. is somehow 1 single country and that occurring only in 1947. From my historical knowledge of the history of what is today India, much of the territory was always divided into many principalities and kingdoms and very rarely united completely if ever (as in today). Just a quick elaboration if you don't mind.
> 
> I remember there was an Indian historian on PDF once. @Joe Shearer if I recall. Maybe he can contribute here if he sees my post and bothers to read it.
> 
> @prashantazazel or any other Indian user around of potential help



I think there is confusion between Turkic and Turkish Anatolian and mix in confusion of identity of whats "to be Pakistani" or not leads to this type of nostalgia of the Ottomans which prior to the 2010s and the 2000s was mainly harping on being Arabs again I blame the Government for not placing a emphasis on local identities and what not

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ansu fati

@ArabianEmpires&Caliphates I appreciate our conversation but i have to correct you regarding Turkey-Arab states relations
First of all you should know that politics is very dirty game with lots of twists and by saying this we can conclude the same thing about politicians I usually try to choose the lesser evil of politicians but you know an evil no matter the size is stil a bad thing but there’s no third choice and this is going to stay for ever I don’t expect that an honest guy with great moral values will be allowed to become head of any state let alone a G20 state so I will here write strictly from geopolitical view how things happened from my perspective
As you know assad family which got into power by a coup in syria(backed by soviets) was an enemy against Turkey(US-backed during cold war) they had some clear hate for turks(I suspect because of fake history narrative when turks supposedly mistreated alawites) but the worst thing is that they had territorial claims against Turkey and supported a separatist group who did countless number of terror attacks against innocent civilians(i am excluding military sites and troops although they also have family but since they are soldiers whose duty is to protect the country i will talk only about civilian looses-40K) after the end of cold war when soviet union disintegrated itself assad was put into bad position because his main backer was gone he was exposed to possible war against superior opponent not to mention also the gulf war because he knew that Syria would be attacked jointly by turkish and american land&air forces so assad made a deal with turks it’s called adana agreement the deal is controversial since it was never published and now 20 years later when russia claimed that Turkey was allowed only 5km inside Syria TAF and TR government disputed the claim but let’s go back to 2000s to clarify more things
90s were extremely bad years for Turkey who had at that time 90% military dependence on US as you know we had war between azerbejain and armenia then bosnian&kosovo genocide almost war with greece over some islands potential conflict with assad’s syria and the fight against pkk
All of that happened at once so the turkish state had huge finansial crisis then a new party led by erdogan came to power at first his main target was economy and liberalism and after he turned the economic situation successfully the time was now for foreign policy
There were two options for him either stay under the radar with very quiet moves or have more direct role in the region and later in the world
He chose first option and it lasted until then famous 2008/2009 spat with israeli president perez
During this period Turkey and Syria had a good start for relations even erdogan was the intermediate between Syria and Israel for peaceful talks but these negotiations failed and after the davos forum “event” we can see gradual change from first option to the second one(active foreign policy)
Actually i think that this davos hot event was very warmly recieved from muslims around the world especially arabs and this was a catalyst for reorientation of turkish foreign policy(of course turkish series had important role too)
From 2010-13 Turkey literally did money laundering for Iran because US(obama administration) asked for this erdogan thought he will be awarded for this only to find several years later that he was used and backstabbed by americans in the worst possible way(regime change they tried twice first in 2013 and in 2016)
As you know arab spring happened(though some would say it still on) during this period we see that from early 2000s until 2012 relations between arab states( especially these 3-UAE KSA QATAR) and erdogan were excellent but when morsi came to power he started aggressively attacking other arab states especially monarchies and this was his biggest strategic mistake KSA UAE and other kingdoms saw this as an attempt to do regime change and from 2013 with the coup in Egypt(sisi) we enter gradually into bad relations between most wealthy&powerful arab states(KSA UAE and Egypt) and Turkey
We have already talked about Syria but i will try to summarize once again At first during early years turkish political establishment had pipe dream that they can remove assad and put pro-turkisn government in damascus but later as we had the opportunity to see there was actually serious internal crisis in Turkey(the fight between the elected government and feto organization) unfortunately because of these crisis Turkey intervened too late in 2016 but i guess better late than never right?!?!
From 2016 there’s a switch in policy thinking among turkish security apparatus&goverment they started doing realpolitik which should’ve done from the beginning
Since 2016 Turkey started (fake) temporary engagement with Russia and Iran to secure itself from terrorism&separatism
Of course Turkey is still anti assad but he’s not anymore first priority(basically that means if russians and iranians can keep him alive Turkey wouldn’t spare efforts to counter them) there’s certainly more to tell about syria but that’s off topic and would cover whole page for detailed explanation
From 2016-present all turkish foreign moves are made based on realpolitik for national interests
You might say backing Qatar in 2017 was because of ideological reasons i will say that this was done because Qatar backed Turkey during the coup plus they have invested heavily in the turkish economy now(since 2016) when we have clear two blocks Turkey&Qatar versus KSA&UAE&Egypt betraying Qatar is out of question because the other block backs all turkish enemies(pkk feto greece even tiny greek cyrpus haftar in libya) and it is delusional to think that if Turkey joins KSA&UAE everything would be like it used to be pre-2013
I agree with you that turks and arabs shouldn’t be enemies but there are efforts by foreigners as well as by domestic actors in ME to provoke hate
Take the khassogi case for example
MBS wanted to get rid of thim and then put the blame it on turkish authorities
By doing this he could’ve done pretty big damage on turkish economy(ruining the tourism sector which has just started recovering in 2018) but MIT(turkish national intelligence) outsmarted him and used khasoggi killing to destroy his PR image in the world
Now we have active state-sponsored anti turkish propaganda in saudi education system which can have long term consequences for relationship between ordinary arabs and turks
As i said before all moves after the coup are only for achieving national interests when someone replaces erdogan the policy will be same but you won’t hear dramatic ummah speeches  that would be the only notable difference
In short erdogan(Turkey) meddles in arab affairs and it’s natural to expect from an arab to say that erdogan is quilty for the current situation(i agree partially with this) but we have to mention what KSA UAE and Egypt are doing against Turkey and with this being said for a tango you need two dancers in other news there are culprits on both sides for the bad relations


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

@Ansu fati

The Khashoggi incident is one of the most strange incidents that I can think of. Firstly KSA has no history of killing critics abroad (there are literally 100's of prominent Saudi Arabian critics based in the West, Arab world and elsewhere - vast majority of them much more vocal than an "insider" like Khashoggi ever was whose biggest crime was to criticize some recent state policies - mainly as an old-MB sympathizer KSA's handling of MB/political Islamists - he always remained loyal to the end) so that whole accusation of trying to pin it on Turkey makes no sense. Nor killing Khashoggi. I firmly belief that some roque elements where behind this. Anything else makes no sense. The timing and everything. Khashoggi had been based in the US while writing for the Washington Post for well over 1 year when this occurred. His criticism became more and more famous. Al-Jazeera and other pro-MB media were broadcasting his views constantly. In case of a killing/abduction there would only ever be 1 suspect and that would be KSA.

So there are only two options. Either it was a botched operation or Khashoggi started working for foreign countries and being a traitor by telling foreign intelligences of whatever he knew (after all he was close to the old King Abdullah administration and had correspondence with powerful princes in KSA even when in exile in the US) or he was trying to attempt to overthrow MbS/King Salman alongside opposition groups in KSA.

So the angle of trying to "blame Turkey" is ridiculous. In fact Turkey (Erdogan) used this incident to do everything they could to malling KSA which is quite ironical (historically speaking) given how Turkey deals with traitors/regime critics/hostile journalists.

Which state-sponsored "anti-Turkey" education? Not aware of such a thing.

_The problem really originates in Erdogan betting on the failed MB horse (everywhere in the Arab world not named tiny Qatar) and playing alongside Qatar (long a bastion of MB in the Arab world - hosting Al-Qaradawi since ages - Al-Jazeera their main media weapon) in hope of gaining influence in the Arab world this way.

This strategy has failed and it will fail in the future too therefore it makes no sense for Turkey (cold calculated foreign policy) to stick with tiny Qatar while alienating all the most powerful Arab states in the region. On the long run this is a losing game.

BTW most Turkish users that I have engaged with on PDF on this matter have agreed with me. They might be a minority, I don't know, but I know how politics works. Not many weeks/months ago Turkey and Russia (alongside Iran) were best buddies (could be seen reflected here on PDF) and when thinks started to heat up in Syria, Turkey called for NATO (USA) that until not long ago had been criticized in the Turkish media constantly. Turkish users on PDF also changed their tunes. This is all normal and not exclusive to Turks, I am sure that if KSA/GCC/Arabs and Iran made up, we would see from both parties novels written about how much we share in common historically etc. and how we should have been working together from the beginning. You know the drill.

KSA/Egypt/UAE/Arab countries are not going to prevent Turkey from investing in the Arab world. Nor is Turkey going to conquer anything in the Arab world. The only non-regional entity in the world that can truly make drastic changes in the Arab world through military means is the US but even then we saw how they failed in Iraq and their inaction in Syria. Doubt that the Americans are interested in more foreign wars in the Muslim world.

I am not sure if I will be on PDF when this happens (or even alive, you too for that matter) by the time Erdogan will no longer rule Turkey, but I am quite sure that pre-2012 relations will emerge again. And even if they don't they will be like those during the Kemalist era which were mostly neutral and problem free outside of the Syrian example that I wrote about and you elaborate on in detail. That is my take on it at least.
_
Anyway let us return to the topic of this thread.



ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> A quick on top of my head calculation of the giant possibilities that a single federal Arab state (once again) would result in as of today:
> 
> _1) Second largest landmass in the world after Russia
> 
> 2) Third largest population in the world after China and India
> 
> 3) Largest (by far) hydrocarbon wealth and mineral wealth in the world
> 
> 4) Longest coastline in the world and control of some of the most strategic waters in the world
> 
> 5) Fourth largest economy in the world with amble potential for growth
> 
> 6) One of the fastest growing and youngest populations in the world
> _
> _7) Largest sovereign wealth funds with some the biggest investment __portfolios__ in the world_
> _
> 8) Second largest standing active army in the world after China_
> 
> Despite being much more ethnically and culturally diverse (not to mention climatic differences) the likes of India, Russia, China and USA are living examples of the necessity of the adoption of large nation states. India prior to 1947 was divided into 1000 different entities. Russia is the result of Russian conquest of non-Russians. 90% of the Russian territory was originally non-Russian. Similarly in China (Tibet, Xinjiang). The US is the biggest melting pot divided into over 50 states. All somehow manage to survive so the prospect of 1 single federal Arab state is objectively speaking (at least solely looking at history geography, culture, ethnic harmony, language etc.) should very much be possible eventually once again
> 
> We need Arab leaders who openly pursue such policies and openly work towards regional Arab cooperation and integration. More visionaries. Few such leaders occurred in the past 100 years. Can only think of Ibn Saud who managed to unite a large Arab territory into a single state that otherwise would have been further fragmented.
> Insha'Allah this will change in the future and Arabs should all work towards that goal actively in whatever means that we have. Starting with regional Arab cooperation.
> 
> In many ways it could not be any different after 400 years of darkness (Ottoman period) in half of the Arab world and after/before that Western meddling. In some cases like Algeria this lasted almost 150 years. In the past few decades we have been trying to find our feet again despite largely useless leadership (by large), foreign meddling/invasions of superpowers and divisions as a consequence of all this. Even to this day we have 4 main unrest hotspots in the Arab world (Yemen, Libya, Syria and Iraq to a degree due to political instability). *All those problems and challenges can only be solved jointly and it is time for people to wake up to this reality and stop waving their small little flags. Nation states and borders have been changing since the first human appeared on the planet. It will be no different in the future. Better join hands and create a strong entity rather than the current status quo.
> *
> @Slav Defence
> 
> Permission to change the thread title to "The unification of the Arabian Peninsula/Arab world?"
> 
> Thank you.



The more I read about our history and that of the world the more was6a (nepotism) appears. It is particularly harmful in the Arab world. Removing it/minimizing it might be our biggest challenge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> Thank you for your post and answer. I would appreciate if you could somehow elaborate on all those historical events as I find it interesting. Similarly with the Pakistani angle of course.
> 
> Kurds are a separate ethnic group although Kurds have been heavily influenced by Arabs (neighbors after all) and intermarriages have been taking place for many centuries as well as genetic closeness (I am talking about Kurds in Syria and Iraq - the two Arab countries were Kurds live). Relations have been cordial, good, complicate and bad at times depending on the time period. Mostly bad in recent years (Saddam, Syrian civil war).
> 
> No, I was referring to the Arabian Plate (tectonic place)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which some geologists use as regional definitions but I mentioned it for the fun of it and to show you that the modern day definition of the Arabian Peninsula is a political one not a historical/geographical/cultural/ethnic/tribal/clan etc. one. and that there are many definitions of the Arabian Peninsula as such.
> 
> Lastly, apropos the unification of modern-day India and the abolishment of all those kingdoms and princely states (I know mostly about the Nawab of Hyderabad - his family apparently claimed Arab ancestry and he used to employ Yemeni soldiers - apparently there is an Yemeni community in Hyderabad to this day), can we not say that this unification in many ways occurred through force and that few locals/people were consulted?
> 
> Was it the move of the founding fathers of India purely or did a push for one India (I mean the borders were fought over violently - many people have read about the unfortunate events that occurred and population transfers between Pakistan and India) have a massive local following?
> 
> Could we also consider this as some sort of uprising against the feudal/ruling elite by the masses? What role did Indian Muslims play in this? I am quite frankly not fully versed on the inner details of this but it could serve as an inspiration in the Arab context as I find it perplexing that one of the most diverse regions in the world (India) in terms of ethnic groups, languages, cultures, religions, clans, tribes etc. is somehow 1 single country and that occurring only in 1947. From my historical knowledge of the history of what is today India, much of the territory was always divided into many principalities and kingdoms and very rarely united completely if ever (as in today). Just a quick elaboration if you don't mind.
> 
> I remember there was an Indian historian on PDF once. @Joe Shearer if I recall. Maybe he can contribute here if he sees my post and bothers to read it.
> 
> @prashantazazel or any other Indian user around of potential help





vishwambhar said:


> My friend.... it would have been next to impossible to establish today's Indian union in 2020 if pre 1947 borders and leaders of those princely states were existing today. India would not have been as large country as its today... we were lucky that situation in 1947 made many such states to join Indian union willingly but thanks to our national hero Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who took a strong stance against some states such as Junagadh, Hyderabad.....
> 
> Goa (my native state) we had to militarily liberate from Portugal occupation.... Kashmir whole world knows.... but if Indian leadership of that time had failed to show courage what it could show that time under Vallabhbhai Patel then in today's modern world India map would have been totally different....
> 
> Btw you said that Arab peninsula consists of some parts of Turkey and Iran.... are you talking about Kurdish territory in these countries? Can Kurds be considered as arabs?





ArabianEmpires&Caliphates said:


> Thank you for your post and answer. I would appreciate if you could somehow elaborate on all those historical events as I find it interesting. Similarly with the Pakistani angle of course.
> 
> Kurds are a separate ethnic group although Kurds have been heavily influenced by Arabs (neighbors after all) and intermarriages have been taking place for many centuries as well as genetic closeness (I am talking about Kurds in Syria and Iraq - the two Arab countries were Kurds live). Relations have been cordial, good, complicate and bad at times depending on the time period. Mostly bad in recent years (Saddam, Syrian civil war).
> 
> No, I was referring to the Arabian Plate (tectonic place)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which some geologists use as regional definitions but I mentioned it for the fun of it and to show you that the modern day definition of the Arabian Peninsula is a political one not a historical/geographical/cultural/ethnic/tribal/clan etc. one. and that there are many definitions of the Arabian Peninsula as such.
> 
> Lastly, apropos the unification of modern-day India and the abolishment of all those kingdoms and princely states (I know mostly about the Nawab of Hyderabad - his family apparently claimed Arab ancestry and he used to employ Yemeni soldiers - apparently there is an Yemeni community in Hyderabad to this day), can we not say that this unification in many ways occurred through force and that few locals/people were consulted?
> 
> Was it the move of the founding fathers of India purely or did a push for one India (I mean the borders were fought over violently - many people have read about the unfortunate events that occurred and population transfers between Pakistan and India) have a massive local following?
> 
> Could we also consider this as some sort of uprising against the feudal/ruling elite by the masses? What role did Indian Muslims play in this? I am quite frankly not fully versed on the inner details of this but it could serve as an inspiration in the Arab context as I find it perplexing that one of the most diverse regions in the world (India) in terms of ethnic groups, languages, cultures, religions, clans, tribes etc. is somehow 1 single country and that occurring only in 1947. From my historical knowledge of the history of what is today India, much of the territory was always divided into many principalities and kingdoms and very rarely united completely if ever (as in today). Just a quick elaboration if you don't mind.
> 
> I remember there was an Indian historian on PDF once. @Joe Shearer if I recall. Maybe he can contribute here if he sees my post and bothers to read it.
> 
> @prashantazazel or any other Indian user around of potential help



There is a bit of background to this union of the Indian princely states with the Dominion of India in 1947 (these numbered 551, and another 17 joined the Dominion of Pakistan). Long story short: as early as the 1930s, the Indian (Indian and Pakistani; there were no distinctions those days, it was one entity, a Crown Colony and those nearly 570 princely states) princes had agreed to merge their states with the British-ruled portion of India. This was not a decision by belligerent Indian ministers in 1947; it was a realisation of a decision taken nearly two decades earlier. Even the document that was used to signify the 'accession' of the states to the existing democratically-ruled parts of India was an annexure to that earlier set of resolutions and papers.

What follows is optional reading, information does not directly bear on the question of the nature of the absorption of the states into the Dominion of India. Skip it if you wish; you will be none the worse for it.

_The conversion of the Crown Colony of India, ruled by a Governor-General re-designated Viceroy to denote the direct rule of the Crown, in place of the earlier ownership of large tracts of India by a joint stock company, the HEIC (Honourable East India Company), to the Dominions of India, and those tracts separated from it as the Dominion of Pakistan, did not happen overnight. 

There was, as early as 1857, a bloody mutiny against the British ruling organisation (at that time, the East India Company), which saw the most appalling brutality and slaughter of innocents by both sides in the conflict. The mutineer soldiers were soon joined by dis-satisfied feudal elements who had grievances against the previous decisions of the administration. One Governor-General, for instance, stopped East India Company recognition of the Indian personal law usage allowing a son-less ruler to adopt a son; the death of the last recognised incumbent meant that the Company took over the territory. The most noted example of this kind of rebellion was the case of the principality of Jhansi, a not very large princely state that was placed under a Company administration on the death of the last recognised ruler; his widow, step-mother of his adopted son, the ruler according to prevailing personal law, took to arms and fought a gallant series of actions against overwhelming forces of the Company tasked to quell the mutiny. 

Following this, there was a transformation in the way the British, now the Crown, with the assumption of direct reign by the Crown, the Kings of England, now titled the Emperor of India, looked at Indians. The Company had conquered the whole of what constituted its holdings in India on the strength of 'Madrasi' (largely Tamil and Deccani Muslims), Bombay-based (Mahars, Marathas, and western India Muslims) and 'Bengali' (largely Bihari and Awadhi Hindus, and Muslim elements who formed most of the cavalry) Indian troops. The number of British soldiers was a small portion of the entire military force. This composite force defeated the Nawab of the Carnatic, the Nizam of Hyderabad, the Sultan of Mysore, the Maratha Confederacy, including the Peshwa, the Maharajas of Gwalior, and Indore, and Nagpur and Baroda the Rajputs, the land-owners of Sindh, the Rohillas, the Nawab, later, the King of Oudh, the Mughal Emperor's very weak forces, and finally, the Sikh Empire. They failed, more or less, in extending their rule to Afghanistan; in a series of wars, they learnt a costly lesson: leave Afghanistan alone. 

After 1857, the British suddenly discovered that their former soldiers were not truly the warriors that represented India, and that the real soldiers should be drawn from the 'martial races'. This started the policy of favouring these martial races in their military recruitment, a decision that had its own dire effect on the future of the sub-continent.
_
Coming to the questions raised, here are my personal observations, for what they are worth.

1. Your question: 
Lastly, apropos the unification of modern-day India and the abolishment of all those kingdoms and princely states (I know mostly about the Nawab of Hyderabad - his family apparently claimed Arab ancestry and he used to employ Yemeni soldiers - apparently there is an Yemeni community in Hyderabad to this day), can we not say that this unification in many ways occurred through force and that few locals/people were consulted?

Answer: No, not so. This was a decision that was clearly popular with the residents of these states, and the understanding was that the princes would hand over communications, defence and foreign relations to the Dominion, and continue to rule with various degrees of autonomy. The princes agreed to this during the First Round Table Conference in London, in the 1930s. It was not through force; it was an implementation of a decision already taken. With variations, this held true of Hyderabad, Junagadh and Kashmir as well.

2: Your question:
Was it the move of the founding fathers of India purely or did a push for one India (I mean the borders were fought over violently - many people have read about the unfortunate events that occurred and population transfers between Pakistan and India) have a massive local following?

Answer: The Indian leaders led - that was one point to be kept firmly in mind. It was not a spontaneous movement initially; the idea was put into the minds of the citizens of the princely states, and they adopted those initiatives eagerly. There is no doubt that Gandhi's revolution of the 1920s, where he converted a genteel, upper-middle class movement based on petitions and representations to the British administration for better conditions of political and professional life for native Indians into a powerful, almost unstoppable mass movement, reaching right into the core of Indian society, not just the elite, British-educated urban dwellers, but the rural people as well. 

This revolution happened within the borders of the British-administered territory, but was reflected - and quelled - within the borders of the princely states as well. There were wide variations in the type and magnitude of the popular movements in the Indian states, but very broadly speaking, people wanted freedom and democracy.

3: Your question:
Could we also consider this as some sort of uprising against the feudal/ruling elite by the masses? What role did Indian Muslims play in this? I am quite frankly not fully versed on the inner details of this but it could serve as an inspiration in the Arab context as I find it perplexing that one of the most diverse regions in the world (India) in terms of ethnic groups, languages, cultures, religions, clans, tribes etc. is somehow 1 single country and that occurring only in 1947. From my historical knowledge of the history of what is today India, much of the territory was always divided into many principalities and kingdoms and very rarely united completely if ever (as in today). Just a quick elaboration if you don't mind.

Answer: These are three questions rolled into one. At this stage, I have to beg your indulgence to answer later; the present state of my health leads to my tiring very easily, and I can continue only with difficulty. 

I will also take up the very interesting observations by other members at that time, if you please.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ArabianEmpires&Caliphates

*Arab Integration: A 21st Century Development Imperative*





Download PDF

Symbol:
E/ESCWA/OES/2013/3
Issued in:
2014

Around the world, even the greatest powers have opted to be part of larger regional entities in order to manage globalization and the competition it brings. Meanwhile, Arab countries which share a common historical, cultural and spiritual heritage and are bound by one language remain fragmented and divided and try to face individually external pressures, domestic challenges and emerging risks, in a world growing more interconnected and complex each day.

This report calls for a comprehensive integration, which rests on three pillars: stronger political cooperation for good governance and effective external diplomacy; deeper economic integration to reap benefits for all Arab countries; and more extensive educational and cultural reform to root out lodged constraints and enable Arab knowledge societies to thrive. The report argues that nothing less will answer the awakened call of the Arab people for justice, opportunities and freedom as heard during the recent wave of popular protests across the region. It demonstrates that comprehensive integration, properly managed, can benefit all the Arab countries without creating winners and losers. It emphasizes, moreover, that an integrated Arab region will not close itself to the world but seek to consolidate relations with other regional groups and bring together the best achievements of its own history with those of other civilizations.

Download the Press Kit: English | Arabic | French

Download the Summary: English | Arabic | French

Keywords:
ARAB COUNTRIES
CIVIL SOCIETY
CULTURAL COOPERATION
ECONOMIC COOPERATION
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMIC INTEGRATION
HUMAN RIGHTS
NATIONALITY
PALESTINE QUESTION
POPULAR PARTICIPATION
PROGRAMMES OF ACTION
PROTEST MOVEMENTS
REVOLUTIONS
STATISTICAL DATA
TRADE LIBERALIZATION
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
Theme:
Economic Development and Integration
Regional & Country Programmes
Governance and Conflict Issues
Governance
Conflict Mitigation & Resilience
Palestine and Israeli Occupation
Civic Engagement and Participatory Development
Social Justice
Publication Type:
Reports and Studies

https://www.unescwa.org/publications/arab-integration-21st-century-development-imperative

Worth a read. Excellent stuff.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

