The unification of the Arabian Peninsula?

[Yankee-stani]

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

 

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

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

 

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

\

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.

 

[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.

 

[Yankee-stani]

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

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

 

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

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.

 

[Ansu fati]

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

 

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

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.

 

[Yankee-stani]

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

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]

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