Arab foreign ministers agree on establishing a joint Arab military force !!

[Saif al-Arab]

Next page.

Just one point, are you (KSA/GCC etc.) ready for something like "We are born in our homes, and we die at the battlefields"....

I don't know what you are blabbering about but you are speaking to people who created 3 of the 11 largest empires in human history (more than any other ethnic group in history) and who ruled several caliphates, empires, kingdoms, sultanates, emirates, sheikdoms, imamates etc. on 3 continents (Asia, Africa and Europe) and who were behind 90% of all Islamic conquests and whose ancestors and military heroes are admired, outright worshipped and respected by enemies and foes alike.

Turks here openly say that you are a Pakistani troll while Pakistanis the opposite. I am not sure what your agenda in this thread is or what you have to do with the topic of this thread as a non-Arab, but your one-liners and blabbering is not interesting let alone relevant for those few Arabs who remain on PDF and who are discussing this topic. No disrespect but play the "history card" and "Islam card" to some Kazakhs, Chechens, Malaysians, Nigerians or what not "who need to prove themselves". It's not working for Arabs, Arabians in particular.

The Arabized Ottomans (Arabic alphabet, Ottoman language being more Arabic than Turkic, the Caliphate being taken/stolen from the Arabs who ruled it for 1000 years prior, Arabic titles (Sultan, Caliph), lands (most Arab), people (2/3 of all Ottomans were Arabs) have long ended. Just like the Rashidun, Umayyad, Fatimid and Abbasid caliphates ended. I suggest waking up and smelling the coffee. It's year 2018. You are living in La La Land, I have noticed.

The thing that cemented the "Arab world" after Fall of Empires...Is the Common "enemy" that is Israel.
Every Nation whatsoever, put Israel as a cornerstone of our mutual "complicity" across the region.

The Drastic partition of The Arab ideology came to an End, When EGY signed the Final peace treaty with Israel and the Beginning of the Palestinian conflict. Added to that The bipolar Global front (Soviets/US)...

At that Moment, Each Dictator/President/King started to go back to his original "Job", You've got those who wanted to acquire more Lands, others more Power, others Allies etc... But the Israeli Problem was and IS still the Cornerstone on how you judge another Arab Nation.

You've got the Anti, The Neutrals and The "Semi" Pro... So, When you have Arab nation who don't elevate their voices or Act against Israel or Those who Do, Then you've got a reshuffle of the chessboard...

Per Exemple in TN, You are an Ally if you are Anti-Israel, That's Why The Gov didn't Put Hezb on the Terro list back when Many GCC+Others did so. Or not Having a Direct anti-iranian Stance or willing to join an anti-Iranian front.

But it doesn't mean they are Pro-X or Y...

Same for Turkey, With her Anti-Israel stance in the last Decade. Prior to that stance, TR wasn't in TN radar, not as it is today.

Israel has nothing to do with the fact that the Arab world shares millennia long shared history on every front, that people share language, culture, religion (s), geography, ancestry, DNA, climate, cuisine, symbols, music, mutual interests, similar fate, economic relations, people to people relations etc.

The Arab League predates the UN for a reason. It predates the birth of Israel.

Reducing common interests to Israel (pro or anti despite 99% of all Arabs having negative views of Israel) is with all due respect incredibly simplistic and inaccurate.

I don't know about your ideology (Arabs like any people have different views and nationalism, history, shared features etc. is irrelevant for many people like those shared features are for millions of non-Arabs) but I know that most Arabs agree with me because I see it every single day on every media and in person. I am quite sure (all the Maghrebis that I know at least share the same wish) that most people of the Maghreb wish for closer ties in the Maghreb (governmental) region and with the Arab world as whole. If that was not the case all those pan-Arab organizations (political to grassroots) would cease to exist as their existence would have no purpose. Literally 1000's upon 1000's of news channels, newspapers, economic, political, religious, historical, cultural etc. organizations would cease to exist. From Morocco to Oman.

We two would have nothing in common either expect religion (Islam) which we might interpret differently, just like Islam in Niger is different from Islam in Malaysia. We would not be discussing historical, political, cultural, linguistic etc. topics that we have done numerous times on PDF. Just like I don't do that with the regular Indian, Chinese, Bangladeshi etc. user here.

Maybe I have misunderstood your initial comment and sentences. Might have.

Yes, Israel remains the main grievance, in particular the older generation, but when it comes to the youth it is changing in favor of regional conflicts. Not talking about "replacement" here but focus. Case in point the Syrian conflict....Or the Yemeni one.

Hezbollah was put on a terrorist list (post 2006 moreover, years after 2006 Hezbollah members lived in GCC freely and engaged in money laundering, in particular in UAE (Dubai) openly) because that organization is a proxy of the IRGC and along with the Dawa Islamic Party in Iraq (which conducted the first suicide bombing in the Muslim world back in 1981 when they targeted the Iraqi embassy in Beirut) used to attack targets in various Arab states, including GCC (mostly Kuwait but not only). Yet that did not prevent the people from supporting them back in 2006 if you look at all surveys and even if you remember how the internet worked back then.

Today, post-Syria, that would not necessarily be the case and this goes for many Arabs.

Well, if Tunisians are really looking up to Erdogan as some kind of anti-Western anti-Israel (despite Turkey being a NATO member state, hosting Israeli embassies and consulates and doing business with Israel, military included, more than any other Muslim nation) then I am afraid to say, that there is little hope (in the next decade at least) for the Arab world to change the status quo if people in a relatively free country (for Muslim standards), Tunisia, are having such simplistic/populistic/unrealistic/absurd views......

BTW, it is not much different from blind regime supporters in the Muslim world as a whole. I am not singling out anyone here but I was hoping for Tunisians being a bit smarter on this front seeing that you guys no longer live in a dictatorship and even the most impoverished Tunisian somewhere in Sahara or rural areas, has access to free media and the internet which is not censored (I believe). Disappointing.

Your agenda is perfectly clear - to be the perfect stooge of Lawrence the Homosexual....

What a great one-liner. Of course I did not expect you to argue against my historical facts or points, false-flagger.

Yes, instead the homosexual Germans (Wilhelm II) and Austro-Hungarians (Franz Joseph and Charles I) should have been followed. The great Muslim jihad led by some half Caucasian/Slavic (for generations upon generations) Western-dressed "Caliph" that never visited Makkah or Madinah once and whose descendants today (those that did not marry with Arab royal dynasties that is or the South Indian Nizam dynasty) are indistinguishable from your average Brit since they all intermarried them. Speaking about Lawrence...

Very "Turkic" looking.





Genetically those guys are maybe 0,5% Turkic. Rest is European with the only exception of a Turkified Arabic surname (Osmanoglu) or forename but not even always. Look at those forenames. "Cosmo" Tarik, "Maximilian" Ali etc. Never seen Arab-Western offspring with such strange name combinations.

Great joke. Good luck trying to pursue the hordes of illiterate Muslim masses from Dakar to Jakarta about your great and "very realistic" plan of putting those people in power again. Maybe in an alternative universe.

Good luck.

Or better back to worshipping your Erdogan on PDF. Just keep your nonsense away from the peaceful Arab section. We are not interested in this nonsense. Try to convince fellow Pakistanis or I don't know who. They might buy it. Most Arabs here and elsewhere won't buy it. Far from it. Thanks.

 

[HannibalBarca]

I don't know what you are blabbering about but you are speaking to people who created 3 of the 11 largest empires in human history (more than any other ethnic group in history) and who ruled several caliphates, empires, kingdoms, sultanates, emirates, sheikdoms, imamates etc. on 3 continents (Asia, Africa and Europe) and who were behind 90% of all Islamic conquests and whose ancestors and military heroes are admired, outright worshipped and respected by enemies and foes alike.

Turks here openly say that you are a Pakistani troll while Pakistanis the opposite. I am not sure what your agenda in this thread is or what you have to do with the topic of this thread as a non-Arab, but your one-liners and blabbering is not interesting let alone relevant for those few Arabs who remain on PDF and who are discussing this topic. No disrespect but play the "history card" and "Islam card" to some Kazakhs, Chechens, Malaysians, Nigerians or what not "who need to prove themselves". It's not working for Arabs, Arabians in particular.

The Arabized Ottomans (Arabic alphabet, Ottoman language being more Arabic than Turkic, the Caliphate being taken/stolen from the Arabs who ruled it for 1000 years prior, Arabic titles (Sultan, Caliph), lands (most Arab), people (2/3 of all Ottomans were Arabs) have long ended. Just like the Rashidun, Umayyad, Fatimid and Abbasid caliphates ended. I suggest waking up and smelling the coffee. It's year 2018. You are living in La La Land, I have noticed.



Israel has nothing to do with the fact that the Arab world shares millennia long shared history on every front, that people share language, culture, religion (s), geography, ancestry, DNA, climate, cuisine, symbols, music, mutual interests, similar fate, economic relations, people to people relations etc.

The Arab League predates the UN for a reason. It predates the birth of Israel.

Reducing common interests to Israel (pro or anti despite 99% of all Arabs having negative views of Israel) is with all due respect incredibly simplistic and inaccurate.

I don't know about your ideology (Arabs like any people have different views and nationalism, history, shared features etc. is irrelevant for many people like those shared features are for millions of non-Arabs) but I know that most Arabs agree with me because I see it every single day on every media and in person. I am quite sure (all the Maghrebis that I know at least share the same wish) that most people of the Maghreb wish for closer ties in the Maghreb (governmental) region and with the Arab world as whole. If that was not the case all those pan-Arab organizations (political to grassroots) would cease to exist as their existence would have no purpose. Literally 1000's upon 1000's of news channels, newspapers, economic, political, religious, historical, cultural etc. organizations would cease to exist. From Morocco to Oman.

We two would have nothing in common either expect religion (Islam) which we might interpret differently, just like Islam in Niger is different from Islam in Malaysia. We would not be discussing historical, political, cultural, linguistic etc. topics that we have done numerous times on PDF. Just like I don't do that with the regular Indian, Chinese, Bangladeshi etc. user here.

Maybe I have misunderstood your initial comment and sentences. Might have.

Yes, Israel remains the main grievance, in particular the older generation, but when it comes to the youth it is changing in favor of regional conflicts. Not talking about "replacement" here but focus. Case in point the Syrian conflict....Or the Yemeni one.

Hezbollah was put on a terrorist list (post 2006 moreover, years after 2006 Hezbollah members lived in GCC freely and engaged in money laundering, in particular in UAE (Dubai) openly) because that organization is a proxy of the IRGC and along with the Dawa Islamic Party in Iraq (which conducted the first suicide bombing in the Muslim world back in 1981 when they targeted the Iraqi embassy in Beirut) used to attack targets in various Arab states, including GCC (mostly Kuwait but not only). Yet that did not prevent the people from supporting them back in 2006 if you look at all surveys and even if you remember how the internet worked back then.

Today, post-Syria, that would not necessarily be the case and this goes for many Arabs.

Well, if Tunisians are really looking up to Erdogan as some kind of anti-Western anti-Israel (despite Turkey being a NATO member state, hosting Israeli embassies and consulates and doing business with Israel, military included, more than any other Muslim nation) then I am afraid to say, that there is little hope (in the next decade at least) for the Arab world to change the status quo if people in a relatively free country (for Muslim standards), Tunisia, are having such simplistic/populistic/unrealistic/absurd views......

BTW, it is not much different from blind regime supporters in the Muslim world as a whole. I am not singling out anyone here but I was hoping for Tunisians being a bit smarter on this front seeing that you guys no longer live in a dictatorship and even the most impoverished Tunisian somewhere in Sahara or rural areas, has access to free media and the internet which is not censored (I believe).

See. You always take History as granted... Most Ppl don't take History as a mean for X or Y alliances...
Whatever Arab got a League or land before Israel isn't the subject... But Why we share X or Y ideology/Links etc...

Never I said, TN doesn't want to be closer to the Arab world or any other Nations... But just wanted you to give you a view on How a good part of Arab society see their alliance with each others...

And no need to put words in my mouth... I Didn't say "Erdogan" I said Turkey...It's Different. And Yes Turkey image is stronger than GCC ones per exemple, But Less than Algerian ones etc...

As for Whoever view you impose on others... and the Arab Unity... But I don't see any Arab coalition/Group who is condemning/Fighting ASSad? even though 500K died in those 7 years? But quite the opposite for some Arab nations... Same When KSA refused to hand over Ben Ali... or When "Brother NAtions" are supporting X and Y in Libya and destabilising our neighborhood without seeking agreements but instead Arming each of their supporters to the teeth...While Innocents Die... And so on.

You don't put the blame of a view, When you are not ready to blame yours.

All Arab societies are emotional driven... That's the reality... Same as any Nation in this world Nowadays...Whatever they have or not Free press...

It's like When other Brotherly Nations see the KSA/UAE/Qatar/Turkey conflict... Where Childish/Stupid is the most common word used... Meanwhile Biz Btw TR and GCC is normal... Same goes with EGY-TR... That's the double speech/Hypocrisy that is pushing ppl to not believe that unity is possible/useless... Everyone on their side speak about war/Invasion/Blocus... And couldn't push the diplomatic channels instead... And then you want ppl to follow which "Exemple"?

 

[Saif al-Arab]

See. You always take History as granted... Most Ppl don't take History as a mean for X or Y alliances...
Whatever Arab got a League or land before Israel isn't the subject... But Why we share X or Y ideology/Links etc...

Never I said, TN doesn't want to be closer to the Arab world or any other Nations... But just wanted you to give you a view on How a good part of Arab society see their alliance with each others...

And no need to put words in my mouth... I Didn't say "Erdogan" I said Turkey...It's Different. And Yes Turkey image is stronger than GCC ones per exemple, But Less than Algerian ones etc...

As for Whoever view you impose on others... and the Arab Unity... But I don't see any Arab coalition/Group who is condemning/Fighting ASSad? even though 500K died in those 7 years? But quite the opposite for some Arab nations... Same When KSA refused to hand over Ben Ali... or When "Brother NAtions" are supporting X and Y in Libya and destabilising our neighborhood without seeking agreements but instead Arming each of their supporters to the teeth...While Innocents Die... And so on.

You don't put the blame of a view, When you are not ready to blame yours.

I am not taking anything for granted. Just stating a wide ranch of facts that are undeniable regardless of whether for instance KSA and UAE decide to go to war against each other or KSA and Iraq tomorrow morning. None of what I wrote will change due to that.

It has nothing to do with ideology. You are putting too much emphasis on that due to personal beliefs (I imagine). I have no problem admitting that I share much more in common with an Jordanian Christian Arab next door than I do with an Muslim Indian from Bihar. Following the same religion (which is not even followed similarly in every Muslim-majority country) is not going to change that. Or I could mention some British Jamaican or ethnic British convert to Islam which are not lacking. Or a French one.

As I wrote we cannot speak about any alliance (people to people) when 95% of all Arab countries are ruled by regimes in power whose actions collide (most often than not) with the will of the ruled and the Arab population as a whole.

When we speak about KSA, Algeria, Egypt etc. nowadays we don't speak about people here. You wrote that yourself initially and I did the same thing in my initial post.

So image here or lack thereof has little to do with people. Moroccans and Saudi Arabians have more in common with each other (on almost every front) than a Moroccan has with an Muslim Nepalese or Muslim Uighur and vice versa.

Just like I have more in common with some hardcore Atheist Saudi Arabian Stalinist (if even such an individual exists out there) than I have with the most conservative Mongol-looking Tartar Muslim from Kazan in Northern Russia. If we exclude religion and ideology, which I understand is the key component of many people and how they view the world but that's not natural for me to look solely at. That would be like if I read the title of a book without reading even page 1 and now thought I knew what the books was about or what the point/conclusion of the book was. I value the 100's of other aspects that bind people, ethnic groups, cultures, nations etc. together more overall.

As for Syria, no (it should not come as a secret that Arabs are not content with that) but that includes Tunisia as well. Are you to blame for that or me? Or 99% of all the 500 million + Arabs when both you and I know that most Arabs (let's say 75% or at least 2/3) would have acted ages ago if they had any power? We are back to countries (regimes in power) being equaled with their people.

Realistically speaking which neighboring Arab country could have saved/done something that changed the conflict in Syria? Tiny Lebanon which is a divided country in 3 parts (Hezbollah controlled South, Christian/Maronite dominated Central Mountainous part) and Sunni-dominated coastal/northern part. A Lebanon with a weaker army than Hezbollah which is pro-Al-Assad for natural reasons? War-torn Iraq that was overrun by ISIS and in internal conflict not MUCH better than Syria itself? Small economically struggling Jordan that hosts millions of Palestinian, Iraqi and Syrian refugees? Nobody else is there. You could argue Egypt but they had their own "Arab Spring" and KSA was/is busy with the Mullah regime proxy war, Yemen war, internal problems, containing ISIS from the North (Iraq) to the South (Yemen) etc.

Only KSA and Egypt had/have military capabilities to change anything (potentially) on the ground to begin with. Maybe you could argue that Algeria has that as well but the military regime is pro-Al-Assad, located too far away and would never do such a thing due to Russian pressure and ideological differences. Who else is there? You tell.

As for Libya, the main blame lies with the Libyans. It was Western involvement that was crucial in the removal of Gaddafi (Qatar was the only exception - Hamad did not hesitate to betray his "good friend" Gaddafi the second he got the opportunity - shows the nature of most of those regimes, sadly)

which most Libyans (supposedly) supported. Afterwards the warring factions started fighting in a lawless country (naturally) and the likes of Algeria and Egypt (main Arab players) supported their parties with UAE onboard. KSA (to the regime's credit) had and have very little involvement in Libya.

But this is not about regimes. As I wrote earlier, I will support greater mutually beneficial Arab cooperation if this serves the greater good better than the opposite REGARDLESS of having disagreements (political and ideological) with pretty much every Arab (Muslim included) regime out there and being highly critical of the lack of a common dominator/overall plan when there are so many things in common. Just to make it clear once again.

 

[HannibalBarca]

I am not taking anything for granted. Just stating a wide ranch of facts that are undeniable regardless of whether for instance KSA and UAE decide to go to war against each other or KSA and Iraq tomorrow morning. None of what I wrote will change due to that.

It has nothing to do with ideology. You are putting too much emphasis on that due to personal beliefs (I imagine). I have no problem admitting that I share much more in common with an Jordanian Christian Arab next door than I do with an Muslim Indian from Bihar. Following the same religion (which is not even followed similarly in every Muslim-majority country) is not going to change that. Or I could mention some British Jamaican or ethnic British convert to Islam which are not lacking. Or a French one.

As I wrote we cannot speak about any alliance (people to people) when 95% of all Arab countries are ruled by regimes in power whose actions collide (most often than not) with the will of the ruled and the Arab population as a whole.

When we speak about KSA, Algeria, Egypt etc. nowadays we don't speak about people here. You wrote that yourself initially and I did the same thing in my initial post.

So image here or lack thereof has little to do with people. Moroccans and Saudi Arabians have more in common with each other (on almost every front) than a Moroccan has with an Muslim Nepalese or Muslim Uighur and vice versa.

Just like I have more in common with some hardcore Atheist Saudi Arabian Stalinist (if even such an individual exists out there) than I have with the most conservative Mongol-looking Tartar Muslim from Kazan in Northern Russia. If we exclude religion and ideology, which I understand is the key component of many people and how they view the world but that's not natural for me to look solely at. That would be like if I read the title of a book without reading even page 1 and now thought I knew what the books was about or what the point/conclusion of the book was. I value the 100's of other aspects that bind people, ethnic groups, cultures, nations etc. together more overall.

As for Syria, no (it should not come as a secret that Arabs are not content with that) but that includes Tunisia as well. Are you to blame for that or me? Or 99% of all the 500 million + Arabs when both you and I know that most Arabs (let's say 75% or at least 2/3) would have acted ages ago if they had any power? We are back to countries (regimes in power) being equaled with their people.

Realistically speaking which neighboring Arab country could have saved/done something that changed the conflict in Syria? Tiny Lebanon which is a divided country in 3 parts (Hezbollah controlled South, Christian/Maronite dominated Central Mountainous part) and Sunni-dominated coastal/northern part. A Lebanon with a weaker army than Hezbollah which is pro-Al-Assad for natural reasons? War-torn Iraq that was overrun by ISIS and in internal conflict not MUCH better than Syria itself? Small economically struggling Jordan that hosts millions of Palestinian, Iraqi and Syrian refugees? Nobody else is there. You could argue Egypt but they had their own "Arab Spring" and KSA was/is busy with the Mullah regime proxy war, Yemen war, internal problems, containing ISIS from the North (Iraq) to the South (Yemen) etc.

Only KSA and Egypt had/have military capabilities to change anything (potentially) on the ground to begin with. Maybe you could argue that Algeria has that as well but the military regime is pro-Al-Assad, located too far away and would never do such a thing due to Russian pressure and ideological differences. Who else is there? You tell.

As for Libya, the main blame lies with the Libyans. It was Western involvement that was crucial in the removal of Gaddafi (Qatar was the only exception - Hamad did not hesitate to betray his "good friend" Gaddafi the second he got the opportunity - shows the nature of most of those regimes, sadly)

which most Libyans (supposedly) supported. Afterwards the warring factions started fighting in a lawless country (naturally) and the likes of Algeria and Egypt (main Arab players) supported their parties with UAE onboard. KSA (to the regime's credit) had and have very little involvement in Libya.

But this is not about regimes. As I wrote earlier, I will support greater mutually beneficial Arab cooperation if this serves the greater good better than the opposite REGARDLESS of having disagreements (political and ideological) with pretty much every Arab (Muslim included) regime out there and being highly critical of the lack of a common dominator/overall plan when there are so many things in common. Just to make it clear once again.

I Understand and Agree (most of it) with your POV.
But The reality is a bit Different, at least on the Ground, Many Arab countries play on both sides while asking others to not, Everyone Of them do, no exception, But some got a more deadly consequences out of it... and that's what make the balance tilt in the region.

As for Arab NAtions being Busy here and therefore can't do something else, I don't agree...Since When it's time to gain something upon your rival/enemies then out of nowhere they can... i can take the example of EGY, When they sent Trainers to ASSad... or not Voicing their concern about such Massacre... It' snot like ppl ask to intervene... But at least voicing could help... Or KSA/UAE putting money on the SDF/Taking a part in East Syria, Where It's obviously not the thing to do to push ASSad or Iran out the game... or UAE/Qatar Pushing each of their sides to not let down that piece of land, by literally giving both of the side guarantees that they could have a home if anything goes wrong... Or Algeria Ostrich ideology...and so on.

As for those who have no military power AND the one who is the most Suffering from recession/Migration are the one voicing their concern about X and Y...

So, Yes if Those with Power use it for their own benefit and yet asking others to behave differently, Then cohesion gonna be difficult.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

I Understand and Agree (most of it) with your POV.
But The reality is a bit Different, at least on the Ground, Many Arab countries play on both sides while asking others to not, Everyone Of them do, no exception, But some got a more deadly consequences out of it... and that's what make the balance tilt in the region.

As for Arab NAtions being Busy here and therefore can't do something else, I don't agree...Since When it's time to gain something upon your rival/enemies then out of nowhere they can... i can take the example of EGY, When they sent Trainers to ASSad... or not Voicing their concern about such Massacre... It' snot like ppl ask to intervene... But at least voicing could help... Or KSA/UAE putting money on the SDF/Taking a part in East Syria, Where It's obviously not the thing to do to push ASSad or Iran out the game... or UAE/Qatar Pushing each of their sides to not let down that piece of land, by literally giving both of the side guarantees that they could have a home if anything goes wrong... Or Algeria Ostrich ideology...and so on.

As for those who have no military power AND the one who is the most Suffering from recession/Migration are the one voicing their concern about X and Y...

So, Yes if Those with Power use it for their own benefit and yet asking others to behave differently, Then cohesion gonna be difficult.

I think that the vast majority of all Arabs will agree regardless of ideology. I mean, we are both in agreement. Every Arab user on PDF (let alone elsewhere and in person) agree as well. In fact I am yet to meet a single one that truly disagrees outside of the trolling of (Arab country x or y is alone, I alone care about my country kind of perspective). Obviously such people exist, I am just saying that I am yet to meet them.

Regimes conspiring against each other and fighting for power is something that has and always will occur. This goes for all Muslim countries and non-Muslim ones for that matter.

The difference between our bunch and say well-developed democracies like Scandinavian countries is that while they are competing (countries) they are doing it within a set of well-defined rules and without (simplistically speaking) burning each other to the ground and understanding that they are part of a larger "body". That it is not only about them. Those in power are not fighting for their life either. They can lose power? So what? Their party (usually only the big ones win elections) will be elected in 4 years time or 8 or at worst 12 years time. No harm done. Meanwhile regimes/dictatorships/unelected regimes are not operating like this.

I am not even talking about the involvement of citizens here. Most Arabs can't (in practice) through political, social etc. pressure change government policies unless they have almost everyone else behind them and manage to extort so much pressure that the regime's survival is questioned so the regime's have no other option but to follow the public sentiment. Case in point KSA or any other Arab country one day (hypothetically speaking) joining hands with Israel to attack Palestinians. Something unthinkable for obvious reasons.

Paradoxically (I believe) that you are indirectly contradicting yourself. I will explain why that is. On one hand you rightly complain that Arabs could/should have done something in Syria/done more but on the other hand I get the feeling that you are not ready to look past political disagreements between Arab regimes x or y in power, for the greater benefit of more Arab political unity. Increased unity that could potentially have avoided the Syrian mess and the other ones in the Arab world if the regimes in power spoke with 1 or at most 2 tongues rather than 5-6 ones as currently, making united stances incredibly difficult. Basically cooperated much more closely on a political level for the greater good.

Actually SDF (half of the fighters are local Syrian Sunni Arabs from Eastern Syria) are hardly pro-Iran or pro-Al-Assad. It's the only anti-Al-Assad regime group that controls this much land and which most likely will continue to control it. Obviously this group is not aligned with Turkey (not because Turkey cares about Al-Assad being in power or not, they do not, but mostly because they threaten Turkey's interests) so those who support the "Turkish project in Syria" will badmouth that group despite the group having few/little relations with Iran and Al-Assad. BTW, personally, I am no fan of them and currently I am in favor of 1 party uniting Syria, if that is the Al-Assad regime so be it. The quicker the war ends the better for most people. Ideally Bashar himself and his closest advisers will be removed not far from now on and a political transition can occur. I think this will occur if Syria is to be rebuilt because economically struggling Russia let alone 100 times weaker Iran, is certainly not going to do it. Nor the GCC or the West. For GCC to do it, it would require Al-Assad to cut ties with Hezbollah and the Iranian regime. Will he be willing to do that? I am not sure and doubt it.

Rest we agree with. Hard not to.

The conclusion is obviously that some type of democracy or at least a model where the voice of the actual Arab people will be heard and prioritized at all times, rather than a select few or those aligned to the rulers, for a coherent and unified Arab stand to emerge. That is why I am saying 1-2 decades, more realistically 2+ decades. But why not kickstart the process already now? Take the GCC as an example. The creation of this regional bloc, albeit little to do with democracy, created services and rules that the average person in the GCC could enjoy and wanted beforehand. Such as free travel (no visas), employment, investment, economic cooperation being much easier due to less bureaucracy etc.

Now compare free economic movement, free movement of people, cross-border employment between say Tunisia and Algeria or Morocco and Algeria and there is lightyears of difference. I could say the same thing about KSA and Iraq. It should not be like this and it is highly unnatural as people in those border regions moved freely not many decades let alone generations ago!

Such topics are perfect examples out of 100's why the current political systems are working against our interests and not for them.

And people in the GCC (compared to most other Arabs and Muslims and people of the world in fact) have little to complain about other than lack of political rights, but most of us can see the ground realities and echo what I am saying although, once again, it is not openly spoken about for obvious reasons.... But that should not prevent Arabs anonymously or in person and in particular the 50 million + big and very influential diaspora, from interacting and talking (openly) about those issues and trying to influence events back home. It's a duty as I see it, especially those of us in the diaspora who know both worlds.

Sorry for the long posts. It's a topic close to my heart and a very important topic if not a crucial one for most progress (long-term) as a whole and something that most Arabs feel strongly about, those that have some kind of political interests.

@Falcon29 bro, I am sure that you could add a lot of interesting posts/points to our current discussion. Feel free to comment if you bother reading our novels in this thread.

 

[Falcon29]

@Saif al-Arab @HannibalBarca

Both of you made good points, but I'm kind of having trouble figuring out where your debate began, it is really long, lol. So I'm going to assume it's related to topic in hand, before I address that I did read this page of posts. I disagree with our Tunisian brother in suggesting that enmity to Israel is what unites or what should unite us. It's not a good sign if Israel is supposed to a distraction in order to keep the region from falling apart. I also agree with Saif that Israel isn't the only bad actor in the region and thus it is not enough to unite all Arab people since many share other concerns which they also want addressed. Take for example Saudi's Gulf Arabs, Syrians and maybe even others feel existentially threatened or feel an imminent threat from Iran.

If you seek to form an Arab force on the basis of opposing Israel. They will assume this is an distraction, an Iranian led axis will probably support it. Because Iranian led axis likes to propagate that it's activities/policies in the region are meant to counter Israel, but that's obviously an misleading representation of their policies in certain Arab nations which have nothing to do with countering Israel. Thus you have immediate controversy.

I don't believe in Arab nationalism as an ideology, but obviously Arabs share a culture and history which will make them remain close to each other. But, as some driving force, I don't like it. It's not healthy and will be short lived like during the 50's to 70's era. Arabs compose a large population as well, so you can't follow Jewish model for unity. Today Arab nationalism(the traditional kind) is mostly gone. Yet still Arab nations have close ties and look after each other. Consciously the younger generation also feels attachment to their like, but in an healthier manner. So socially there is some kind of Arab unity.

Politically, we are in a different time, I don't see it manifesting. And we're not like Europe, who really needed NATO and did put it into use. I believe having a good Islamic leadership can achieve what many of us are looking for in terms of political objectives but what impact it will have on cultural aspect of society I don't know. We're a stubborn people, more than Europeans, so we have higher ceiling of urgency that we have yet to reach to really bring this kind of change to do something about Israel and/or countering Iran.

 

[HannibalBarca]

@Saif al-Arab @HannibalBarca

Both of you made good points, but I'm kind of having trouble figuring out where your debate began, it is really long, lol. So I'm going to assume it's related to topic in hand, before I address that I did read this page of posts. I disagree with our Tunisian brother in suggesting that enmity to Israel is what unites or what should unite us. It's not a good sign if Israel is supposed to a distraction in order to keep the region from falling apart. I also agree with Saif that Israel isn't the only bad actor in the region and thus it is not enough to unite all Arab people since many share other concerns which they also want addressed. Take for example Saudi's Gulf Arabs, Syrians and maybe even others feel existentially threatened or feel an imminent threat from Iran.

If you seek to form an Arab force on the basis of opposing Israel. They will assume this is an distraction, an Iranian led axis will probably support it. Because Iranian led axis likes to propagate that it's activities/policies in the region are meant to counter Israel, but that's obviously an misleading representation of their policies in certain Arab nations which have nothing to do with countering Israel. Thus you have immediate controversy.

I don't believe in Arab nationalism as an ideology, but obviously Arabs share a culture and history which will make them remain close to each other. But, as some driving force, I don't like it. It's not healthy and will be short lived like during the 50's to 70's era. Arabs compose a large population as well, so you can't follow Jewish model for unity. Today Arab nationalism(the traditional kind) is mostly gone. Yet still Arab nations have close ties and look after each other. Consciously the younger generation also feels attachment to their like, but in an healthier manner. So socially there is some kind of Arab unity.

Politically, we are in a different time, I don't see it manifesting. And we're not like Europe, who really needed NATO and did put it into use. I believe having a good Islamic leadership can achieve what many of us are looking for in terms of political objectives but what impact it will have on cultural aspect of society I don't know. We're a stubborn people, more than Europeans, so we have higher ceiling of urgency that we have yet to reach to really bring this kind of change to do something about Israel and/or countering Iran.

About Israel, I didn't say "that Israel should unite us" but i was referring to Anti-Israel sentiment as cement to what made the Arab world almost one entity after the End of the Colonialism.

And That Israel is still among many Arab countries a meter that is used for consolidate "Alliances". I agree that right now and in the future that "Meter" is fading.

Of course Israel is not the only variable in the Equation, but it's one of the most important one, for that short Arab consolidation. It was present (and fueled) at every ideology in the Arab world.

The Arab world is shifting Where previous era "ideology" are either removed or evolving, Therefore The population mindset is also in transition, and it' sthis transition that every Arab nation should enforce their similarities to give a base for the future. But as things are going right now, "the enforcement" in the arab world is unequal, where only few enjoy and promote while the other part is being used as playground...

That's also why such "program" isn't the one preferred in our Human History... Since conquest and subjugation were the easiest action... When minor Difference overshadowed our major similarities...

 

[Falcon29]

About Israel, I didn't say "that Israel should unite us" but i was referring to Anti-Israel sentiment as cement to what made the Arab world almost one entity after the End of the Colonialism.

And That Israel is still among many Arab countries a meter that is used for consolidate "Alliances". I agree that right now and in the future that "Meter" is fading.

Of course Israel is not the only variable in the Equation, but it's one of the most important one, for that short Arab consolidation. It was present (and fueled) at every ideology in the Arab world.

That makes sense. Honestly we don't need political unity in the Arab world. There are various alliances and they can mostly achieve their interests without a need for some joint military force or treaty of some sort.

If you want to challenge Israel(and to a smaller extent Iran) , which has US and European backing, then yeah that's not going to work without some sort of major and serious commitment to each other. Israel has established itself as the main military power in the region because of numerous reasons so it's practically untouchable. Especially if you want to take it far(like liberating West Bank to enforce two state solution), that's not going to happen without understand of what will come next and backup plans for that. With their nuclear arsenal and US backing, it's hard to predict. You would need to assume the worst.

 

[HannibalBarca]

That makes sense. Honestly we don't need political unity in the Arab world. There are various alliances and they can mostly achieve their interests without a need for some joint military force or treaty of some sort.

If you want to challenge Israel(and to a smaller extent Iran) , which has US and European backing, then yeah that's not going to work without some sort of major and serious commitment to each other. Israel has established itself as the main military power in the region because of numerous reasons so it's practically untouchable. Especially if you want to take it far(like liberating West Bank to enforce two state solution), that's not going to happen without understand of what will come next and backup plans for that. With their nuclear arsenal and US backing, it's hard to predict. You would need to assume the worst.

Israel existence lay on the foundation of disunity among Arabs. It's because of that state of the region that Israel survived... "I,to you, Wil born on your Ashes"

As for the Nuclear arsenal... Israel knows that if she use one it's equal to her end...Not because Arabs will flood the land..;But it will push an unity based on survival... Something the Palestine cause isn't triggering, Because Most Arabs don't feel directly threatened...

Per exemple TN... And her Israeli animosity... It doesn't come only for the Palestinian cause, that's only a way to perpetuate a state of "hate/frustration"...That she felt during the War, when Israel bombed TN... and her inability to answer or take revenge... So frustration was build upon generation and found a way to canalize it aka Palestinian cause.
That's also, the case for many Arab countries...

As for US, it's not a threat. The US is a country with an Ideology that is different to that of Israel... If you want to find an analogy, let's say it's like the US-Korean relationship in late 19th - First 20th century...
Israel has also a different ideology and "wishes" that fundamentally differ from the US... Both are friends in Needs, more than Needs of Friends.

If in a future war with Israel, The US will wait behind and choose her side at the start... More than "Defending" at all cost... The Current US gov maybe retarded, but the US ideological administration isn't and knows when to act and what to choose in time of despair/need.

 

[Falcon29]

Israel existence lay on the foundation of disunity among Arabs. It's because of that state of the region that Israel survived... "I,to you, Wil born on your Ashes"

As for the Nuclear arsenal... Israel knows that if she use one it's equal to her end...Not because Arabs will flood the land..;But it will push an unity based on survival... Something the Palestine cause isn't triggering, Because Most Arabs don't feel directly threatened...

Per exemple TN... And her Israeli animosity... It doesn't come only for the Palestinian cause, that's only a way to perpetuate a state of "hate/frustration"...That she felt during the War, when Israel bombed TN... and her inability to answer or take revenge... So frustration was build upon generation and found a way to canalize it aka Palestinian cause.
That's also, the case for many Arab countries...

As for US, it's not a threat. The US is a country with an Ideology that is different to that of Israel... If you want to find an analogy, let's say it's like the US-Korean relationship in late 19th - First 20th century...
Israel has also a different ideology and "wishes" that fundamentally differ from the US... Both are friends in Needs, more than Needs of Friends.

If in a future war with Israel, The US will wait behind a choose her side when it start... More than "Defending" at all cost... The Current US gov maybe retarded, but the US ideological administration isn't and knows when to act and what to choose it time of despair/need.

Things might change in the future, Jewish people might not longer have attachment to Middle East and migrate away. Or Palestinians out populate them, and so on. There are so many scenarios you can draw up, right now though I think US would back them unless they see Arabs as strategic alternative. Geographically we are important but in other aspects not so much.

Anyway I'd like to think about that after there is a viable system or platform that can be put into use. There are many ways to go about it without military confrontation even.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Things might change in the future, Jewish people might not longer have attachment to Middle East and migrate away. Or Palestinians out populate them, and so on. There are so many scenarios you can draw up, right now though I think US would back them unless they see Arabs as strategic alternative. Geographically we are important but in other aspects not so much.

Anyway I'd like to think about that after there is a viable system or platform that can be put into use. There are many ways to go about it without military confrontation even.

"You loved me as Bird, And you will mostly hate me as a Bull".

That's Mostly how Jewish ppl will End... Not being hated...But part of something they didn't want in the first place... They will be perceived as Middle Eastern/Arabs and newer generations will lose the attachment to this "Middle Eastern Exotic fruit..."

It doesn't matter if they are overpopulated by Arabs or not... The moment they choose to make Israel alive again...They lost the only thing that make them Jewish in the eye of others... Their Ever longing Originality/Particularity... They became "Normal"...

And Whatever become Normal...will end up boring...

 

[Saif al-Arab]

@Saif al-Arab @HannibalBarca

Both of you made good points, but I'm kind of having trouble figuring out where your debate began, it is really long, lol. So I'm going to assume it's related to topic in hand, before I address that I did read this page of posts. I disagree with our Tunisian brother in suggesting that enmity to Israel is what unites or what should unite us. It's not a good sign if Israel is supposed to a distraction in order to keep the region from falling apart. I also agree with Saif that Israel isn't the only bad actor in the region and thus it is not enough to unite all Arab people since many share other concerns which they also want addressed. Take for example Saudi's Gulf Arabs, Syrians and maybe even others feel existentially threatened or feel an imminent threat from Iran.

If you seek to form an Arab force on the basis of opposing Israel. They will assume this is an distraction, an Iranian led axis will probably support it. Because Iranian led axis likes to propagate that it's activities/policies in the region are meant to counter Israel, but that's obviously an misleading representation of their policies in certain Arab nations which have nothing to do with countering Israel. Thus you have immediate controversy.

I don't believe in Arab nationalism as an ideology, but obviously Arabs share a culture and history which will make them remain close to each other. But, as some driving force, I don't like it. It's not healthy and will be short lived like during the 50's to 70's era. Arabs compose a large population as well, so you can't follow Jewish model for unity. Today Arab nationalism(the traditional kind) is mostly gone. Yet still Arab nations have close ties and look after each other. Consciously the younger generation also feels attachment to their like, but in an healthier manner. So socially there is some kind of Arab unity.

Politically, we are in a different time, I don't see it manifesting. And we're not like Europe, who really needed NATO and did put it into use. I believe having a good Islamic leadership can achieve what many of us are looking for in terms of political objectives but what impact it will have on cultural aspect of society I don't know. We're a stubborn people, more than Europeans, so we have higher ceiling of urgency that we have yet to reach to really bring this kind of change to do something about Israel and/or countering Iran.

Great points as usual bro and although I agree with much what you have written as usual I have certain topics that I want to expand on as a reply to your post.

As I see it Arab unity or lack therefore (here I am talking about political unity as the Arab populace and Arab individuals will continue to share history, culture, language, geography, religion, ancestry, personal ties etc. regardless of what occurs) should not be dependent on some outside force or perceived "enemy" although I know that this is human nature to act like that. This is usually also what has united people in this world and presently. However it should IMO not be like this and I could probably argue that the Arab world is under direct and indirect attack. Sufficiently enough for there to be a real counter action from the regimes in power. Maybe it will come......

I believe that certain realities of the modern world (post WW2) have made it obvious for educated/knowledgeable/engaged Arabs that status quo is not ideal and far from perfect. What is unnatural has become natural. Something as ordinary (regime policies here) as having ones back, which was second nature in ancient, Islamic and not that long ago as well, has become something that no longer comes natural for whatever reasons. Could be the lack of direction, various competing ideologies, regimes, disagreements and what not.

However certain fundamental wishes/rights that most people wish and aspire to, is not something that can and should be negotiated about and is reason enough for Arab regimes to work much closer than currently.

Those are security, high or at least a sufficient living standard, basic services like education, healthcare, rule of law, infrastructure, science, functioning state institutions etc.

Now naturally if you have people in a room that share almost everything in common (certainly much more than they do not) that live in the same room/apartment (Arab world as an example here since you can drive/walk from Oman in the east to Morocco in the west without ever crossing non-Arab land or needing to learn another language) and that have similar challenges, troubles, potential etc. it would be naturally to work together and try to solve the challenges ahead of us, especially if under attack by outsiders (directly or indirectly) and especially if it will benefit the greater good eventually. DESPITE not all those in the room/apartment necessarily agreeing with each other on every topic. (far from it)

I don't know how I should otherwise simplify it.

Notice, this is a comment related to the current political situation of today where the Arab people are mostly sidelined and a few select regimes are representing us and our countries on their behalf.

@Falcon29

As for "Arab nationalism". What you mentioned brother (it is also far before my time but I remember relatives, parents, grandparents etc. telling it to me when I asked because KSA was not part of the "Arab nationalist" branch of Arab countries back then (Cold War) despite all Saudi Arabians being Arab nationalists (patriots, wanting the best for our people and the Arab world naturally) naturally. It is not something that we needed to propagandize or beat our chest about. Or prove our "Arabness".

That "Arab nationalism" (so-called) was hijacked by a few Arab regime figures (Nasser etc.) that adopted a specific Arabism that was more about (centered around) combating Western imperialism as Arabs jointly. Nothing wrong with that ideology on this specific topic, especially back then. However it did not work because those same people could not accept that certain Arab countries and regimes were not pro-USSR (pro-communist/socialist) and had no reason to live in the past and go all anti-West. Yet they remained as much Arabs as those that lived in Republican Arab states where this ideology was prominent. Later the Ba'athi ideology gained power in Iraq and Syria (ironically both those Ba'ath regimes were sworn enemies, showed the failure of that ideology as a political-economic ideology) which was part of the same larger ideology (anti-imperialism, Western, anti-capitalist etc.).

While today, although Arabs naturally feel a kinship as I wrote, most Arabs are rather accepting when Arab patriotism and actual Arab nationalism (here nationalism means the wish to see close Arab cooperation for the greater good of the Arab people and world) is not defined into boxes. For example I can only accept Arabs that are Muslim or put emphasis on Islam and its role in the society. Or I can only accept Christian or non-Islamist Arabs.

Arabs are tolerant people by nature (contrary to belief) and are not much about racial theories etc. nonsense that certain others in the region have adopted (at least a fringe population).

When I visit pan-Arab forums all participants agree that differences will be natural (political in particular) when talking about 20 + countries and 500 million people but that before any difference the fundamentals that I mentioned initially tie us together (forever) and thus those close ties on almost all fronts (in the wider picture) should be used as fuel to built up something useful/good as in the past for the common good despite present and future differences (they will always be there and have always been there - it is human nature and Arabs are no different here obviously).

Either that or we (as in regimes) can continue to wander in the desert wilderness not knowing in which direction to go while not correction our mistakes. At one point it becomes too late and so much water has flown in the river, that it dries out. I hope you understand what I am trying to get across here.

@Falcon29 @HannibalBarca

Please tell me what you disagree with (content wise) in this post if any at all.

BTW, you both wrote numerous long posts as well that I have not read as well while I was writing this post. I just replied to Falcon29's initial post that I have quoted.

 

[Falcon29]

@Saif al-Arab

You expanded on my points very well, as well added various others which I agree with as well. I also do notice people are voicing their opinions a lot more and feel the urgency to do so, which is good, as it suggests they are aware they make up the society and responsible for developing/reforming it ultimately. I also don't believe our leaders are doing bad for their nations, but some nations have a long way to go for a high quality of life for your average person. And that's out of the leaders influence, some of those nations simply lack natural resources or highly educated societies.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

@Saif al-Arab

You expanded on my points very well, as well added various others which I agree with as well. I also do notice people are voicing their opinions a lot more and feel the urgency to do so, which is good, as it suggests they are aware they make up the society and responsible for developing/reforming it ultimately. I also don't believe our leaders are doing bad for their nations, but some nations have a long way to go for a high quality of life for your average person. And that's out of the leaders influence, some of those nations simply lack natural resources or highly educated societies.

As I have written many times, I am not particularly ideologically driven (as in political ideologies). My primary focus is what framework (in this case ideology, regime in power, popular will etc.) will best serve Arab country x or y and what ideology or ideologies will serve the greater Arab world the best.

If I could predict the future and knew that for instance the future is a blend of democracy or elements of it adopted to the Arab context of today or 10 years from now on, mixed with an Islamic skeleton coupled with liberal economic policies, a private sector that can compete with the state, a strong welfare state, real check and balances in terms of what the rulers do, what they spend money on etc., I would not hesitate to propagandize and support this with all my power.

If so-called Arab Islamists can work towards those goals, I will support them wholeheartedly. If so-called Arab liberals can do it, I will support them wholeheartedly. If the so-called "nationalistic" party (parties) can do it, the same. If another party can do it, likewise.

Here I am ready to leave my personal beliefs aside or keep them to myself. As I have been saying always, I am quite tolerant on this front. I won't demonize a conservative Salafi (despite not agreeing with everything that he believes in or does) or his Shia counterpart or some peaceful communist Atheists (despite being lightyears away from him) as long as he/she is not harmful to me and the greater society.

I know for instance that you have (speaking about Israel and for that matter harmful foreign meddling in the Arab world be it Iran, Turkey or West, here I am talking about regimes) Arab Christians, especially in Sham, will be one of the first Arab groups to voice their opposition.

You know for some it is either my way or the highway. Not that I intend to demonize any Salafis here (in fact I just prefer to use the word Muslim when discussing Muslims as a whole) but they tend to be like this. Similar the Ba'athi ones. Just look at the Al-Assad regime AFTER THIS MUCH DESTRUCTION. I would even feel very bad if I inflicted this much harm on my greatest enemy let alone my own country, people etc. Unthinkable for me. Which sane regime is completely unwilling to change cause or policies? This is unhealthy fanaticism. You can believe strongly in your ideology or viewpoints but there should be a limit whenever you "cross the line" and where it becomes dangerous for your judgement and yourself and the society.