Israel’s Genocide in Gaza | 2023- till present

[_Arabia_]

Nearly all Arab countries are fake artificial entities. The borders are not natural.

Is there a good reason why KSA, Kuwait Jordan and UAE are separate countries?

All countries of the world are artificial by design. Using KSA, one of what, 1-3 states in the entire world never to be colonized, as an example is also dishonest. KSA emerged due to the most successful Arab unification project in modern history. In this regard KSA is a blessing as otherwise it would likely have been divided into at least 4-5 countries based on ancient historical regions or possibly even more depending on how history would have unfolded.

Unification of Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But by the same logic, we could say the same thing about every Muslim and most non-Muslim nations. Why is Afghanistan and Pakistan not 1 country? Why is Azerbaijan and Iran not one country? Why is Bangladesh not unified with Indian Bengal etc?

Once again due to your anti-Arab bias you are only using Arab samples when the entire Muslim world was drawn by colonial powers, including your very own country.

Anyway I will tell you why? Because the British Empire stopped the Saudi Arabian Ikhwan from conquering Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait. One of the first instances of the RAF being used was to prevent an Saudi Arabian invasion of Iraq.

Ikhwan raids on Transjordan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ikhwan raid on Busayya - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The very same Brits turned what is modern-day UAE into a protectorate (Trucial States) when they ruled South Asia. In fact I even think they made it a part of the British Raj if I recall. Could be wrong.

Trucial States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So there you have your answers.

 

[Meengla]

What is lacking is the political and economic unification. Follow ultimately by the military aspect. Like how the Europeans and Westerners united using EU, NATO etc. even though they are far more divided than Arabs given their 100's of different ethnic groups, languages, countries etc.

But they were more clever and united based on a common overall Christian, cultural and political (most importantly = democracy and liberalism/capitalism) sphere. That is where the Arabs and by the extension Muslims have failed utterly to do something similar.

They have failed and the failure was actively engineered. As long as Israel exists in its current form in that region, expect the continuation of the failure. There are big $$ and big weapons behind Project Israel to ensure that Middle East remains in strife and when there is strife, there is no unity, and when there is no unity, then there is no prosperity...
But, I agree with your post's overall positivism: Arabs are united along some common values. Perhaps more united that anything outside of Europe in that sense!
Good post, btw!

 

[_Arabia_]

They have failed and the failure was actively engineered. As long as Israel exists in its current form in that region, expect the continuation of the failure. There are big $$ and big weapons behind Project Israel to ensure that Middle East remains in strife and when there is strife, there is no unity, and when there is no unity, then there is no prosperity...
But, I agree with your post's overall positivism: Arabs are united along some common values. Perhaps more united that anything outside of Europe in that sense!
Good post, btw!

Arabs are united by geography (you can walk on foot from Morocco to Oman without crossing 1 single non-Arab country), language, culture, ancient and modern history, ancestry (DNA), religion (s), cuisine, art and most things that you can thing of and what makes up a culture. Of course with underlining cultures in every country and region but this is normal when we are talking about such a large geography with such a rich recorded history. As well such a large population.

Certainly much more in common in every way than what the collective West has in common.

The differences between say Finland and Spain are much, much larger than the difference between say Morocco in the West and Oman in the East.

As I wrote nobody among Arabs denies any of the above as it is undeniable.

The problem is that all this does not really matter in an era (modern world) of nation states. For the Arab world to bolster its political, economic and ultimately military unification, we need the Arab League to evolve into a EU or NATO like movement.

Where we cooperate based on mutual interests and signed treaties. Not like right now where there are maybe 1-2 functioning regional Arab blocs but at the end of the day there are 20 + Arab states and thus 20 + different regime policies, rivalries etc. All this enables negative/destructive outside meddling and creates a weak region.

You think that the West would be as strong as it is now (although it is declining in my eyes and many peoples eyes) if they had not tried to unify politically, economically and militarily?

All of our main problems are due to this. If current status quo continues and Palestine regains independence, none of the wider problems will be solved.

Just look at the problems within Palestine itself of disunity (Hamas vs Fatah vs other differences) and it is largely the same story repeating itself.

That is why this is all related but some Arabs still don't understand such relatively simple things.

Everything applies for the wider Muslim world as well and our relations.

 

[Oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ]

Look, you can adopt all the anti-Arab (ignorant at that too mostly) positions you want to. That does not change an ounce of the history here at hand or the fact that it has only been Arabs so far that have done anything for Palestine in terms of going to war and taking must of the burden which is only natural and expected.

As for the rest, what you wrote, everything (disunity) can be applied to the wider Muslim world and if you actually bothered to read what I actually write instead of what you would like me to write, then you would clearly notice, that I am very critical and on the same page as you in terms of this needing to change.

As for payroll, you a guy that uses 2 American flags, and who hides his identity, must be the one on payroll, not me who plays with open cards (as everyone can see) and is freely criticizing every single party involved, including my "own".

So don't speak or lecture me about attitudes when you clearly have a major problem yourself in this regard.

Word salad and innuendo my Arab dude. You think flags give credence to my posts, defending one group over another or claimed/professed bravado?
In fact I see you pushing seeds of discord and unearned aggrandizement. If one reads your posts it gives an air haughtiness ... a rosy picture where Arabs rule and others seek to imitate. No my dude!
Last time Saladin, a Kurd who some claim shared Arab ancestry from the Army of Nur al-Din, an ethnic Turk, fought to free Quds from crusaders, for Muslims!

Get your act together instead of picking petty gripes and lengthy essays on Arab greatness...

 

[_Arabia_]

Word salad and innuendo my Arab dude. You think flags give credence to my posts, defending one group over another or claimed/professed bravado?
In fact is see you pushing seeds of discord and unearned aggrandizement. If one reads your posts it gives an air haughtiness ... a rosy picture where Arabs rule and others seek to imitate. No my dude!
Last time Saladin, Kurd who some claim shared Arab ancestry from the Army of Nur al-Din, an ethnic Turk, fighting to free Quds from crusaders, for Muslims!

Get your activity together instead of picking petty gripes and lengthy essays on Arab greatness...

You are the one seeking discord by writing utter nonsense and making false accusations.

So who and what exactly are you working for, representing, what is your origin and what do you stand for? I could be writing to some Israeli Jewish bot that as usual is engaging in anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric.

In short stop wasting my time writing utter nonsense and lies when you don't 1) even read what I write, 2) don't understand what I write. Whatever it is, quite doing it. You are derailing informative and civil discussions with your trolling.

 

[Meengla]

Certainly much more in common in every way than what the collective West has in common.
The differences between say Finland and Spain are much, much larger than the difference between say Morocco in the West and Oman in the East.
As I wrote nobody among Arabs denies any of the above as it is undeniable.

Europe may have different countries, languages but on many levels they share a lot: Race, religion, geography. On top of that, they, after two very blood World Wars, realized it is better to be united than to fight out scraps of land where one ethnicity maybe under the control of a different ethnicity. Plus they had the Americans behind them for unity after World War II. So, as I see, Europe and the Arab World are the only two major multination civilizations who are united. Nothing comes close that. That there are no more major frictions in Latin America or Africa or Southeast Asia is because remote big powers don't have much interest in them--except when it comes to containing China.

You think that the West would be as strong as it is now (although it is declining in my eyes and many peoples eyes) if they had not tried to unify politically, economically and militarily?
All of our main problems are due to this. If current status quo continues and Palestine regains independence, none of the wider problems will be solved.

Again: Unity doesn't form based on good wishes. There needs to be peace and leadership which would be beholden to their people. The Arab World is being actively sabotaged from remote powers.

 

[UKBengali]

Europe may have different countries, languages but on many levels they share a lot: Race, religion, geography. On top of that, they, after two very blood World Wars, realized it is better to be united than to fight out scraps of land where one ethnicity maybe under the control of a different ethnicity. Plus they had the Americans behind them for unity after World War II. So, as I see, Europe and the Arab World are the only two major multination civilizations who are united. Nothing comes close that. That there are no more major frictions in Latin America or Africa or Southeast Asia is because remote big powers don't have much interest in them--except when it comes to containing China.



Again: Unity doesn't form based on good wishes. There needs to be peace and leadership which would be beholden to their people. The Arab World is being actively sabotaged from remote powers.

Europe is far more heterogenous than the Arab world.

In the Arab world, everyone speaks Arabic.

 

[Tamerlane]

Arabs have been united (part of the same blocs) for most of Islamic history. Even during the Ottoman period, albeit less than half of the Arab world was part of the Ottoman Empire, those that were, were part of the same bloc.

I'm beginning to agree with most of what you say, although I think that, as @Oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ said, you have a very strong Arab nationalistic bias. But that's not a sin and most people here support their own countries.

My question to you is this: Assuming you're from Saudi Arabia as you say, if Arabs will ever unite it will be under the leadership of Saudi Arabia. The only other Arab candidate for leadership is Egypt, but it is Saudi Arabia that has all the money and the Islamic holy sites. Therefore, only Saudi Arabia can unite the Arab world.

So, why doesn't Saudi Arabia unite the Arab world?

 

[_Arabia_]

Europe may have different countries, languages but on many levels they share a lot: Race, religion, geography. On top of that, they, after two very blood World Wars, realized it is better to be united than to fight out scraps of land where one ethnicity maybe under the control of a different ethnicity. Plus they had the Americans behind them for unity after World War II. So, as I see, Europe and the Arab World are the only two major multination civilizations who are united. Nothing comes close that. That there are no more major frictions in Latin America or Africa or Southeast Asia is because remote big powers don't have much interest in them--except when it comes to containing China.



Again: Unity doesn't form based on good wishes. There needs to be peace and leadership which would be beholden to their people. The Arab World is being actively sabotaged from remote powers.

The West is unified along political lines (capitalism, liberalism and democracy) and religious (Christianity - even though most are mostly atheist or secular today) as well as geography (Europe) + the US/Canada are former European colonies mostly inhabited (or at least the dominating group are people of European descent) but the cultural, linguistic, ethnic divisions are 1 million times bigger than those found in the Arab world.

As I wrote the difference between Finland and Spain in terms of climate, ethnicity, language, culture are 1 million times bigger than the difference between Morocco and Oman.

You know what, Morocco next door and Spain have more in common in terms of geography, climate, cuisine, appearance.

Just like Greece has more in common with Arabs of the Mashriq in many areas than they have with Scandinavians or Brits.

As for race, Arabs belong to the same race as well. Even all the main minorities in the Arab world are fellow Semitic peoples or Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples (related people again) such as Berbers. We largely look the same as well. Olive-skin/brown Caucasian race by large.

However I agree with you.

I would also say that there are more cultural blocs in the world than just the Europeans and Arabs. I could argue that there is a Sub-Saharan African bloc (Bantu-speaking bloc), East Asian bloc (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), Turkic bloc (at least in Central Asia) and others.

Your last part is spot on. Could not agree more.

 

[_Arabia_]

I'm beginning to agree with most of what you say, although I think that, as @Oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ said, you have a very strong Arab nationalistic bias. But that's not a sin and most people here support their own countries.

My question to you is this: Assuming you're from Saudi Arabia as you say, if Arabs will ever unite it will be under the leadership of Saudi Arabia. The only other Arab candidate for leadership is Egypt, but it is Saudi Arabia that has all the money and the Islamic holy sites. Therefore, only Saudi Arabia can unite the Arab world.

So, why doesn't Saudi Arabia unite the Arab world?

You are misunderstanding. I am not an Arab nationalist. I am an Arab patriot and a proponent of Arab unification politically, economically and militarily. I don't even propose 1 unified federal Arab state as it is not realistic as of now.
Anyway the posts of mine that might appear "nationalistic" are mostly reacting to the anti-Arab posts. Look at it from an Arab perspective. If you were seeing ignorant posts, trolling, historical lies repeated, you would also argue against it. That does not make me a Ba'athi, lol. Even more less when I constantly criticize Arab leadership, the current status quo etc. As everyone can see.

But I draw the line at historical lies, insults etc.

I'm beginning to agree with most of what you say, although I think that, as @Oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ said, you have a very strong Arab nationalistic bias. But that's not a sin and most people here support their own countries.

My question to you is this: Assuming you're from Saudi Arabia as you say, if Arabs will ever unite it will be under the leadership of Saudi Arabia. The only other Arab candidate for leadership is Egypt, but it is Saudi Arabia that has all the money and the Islamic holy sites. Therefore, only Saudi Arabia can unite the Arab world.

So, why doesn't Saudi Arabia unite the Arab world?

I missed the other part of your message.

I don't buy that premise because if Arabs unified politically, economically and militarily in a NATO/EU like bloc (Arab League becoming effective and not a coffee club) it would not matter who leads as it would be a democratic process where everyone would have a say (ideally) nor do I think that many of the current states would survive in its current form, for instance I believe and hope that at least the GCC + Yemen (as a start) would unify into a single federal state so KSA would just be a part of that larger Arab state.

Besides there is not 1 single dominant power in the Arab world (say like the US in the West) that would dominate. I don't think either KSA or Egypt (in their current form) have the power to unify the entire Arab world. This is impossible. However KSA has the power to unify with Yemen, Oman, UAE, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar next door. Maybe Iraq as well.

Egypt with Sudan, Libya etc.

I am not fixated with current day modern-day states or who leads what. I am looking at the overall benefits and in my example most of the current leaderships are also gone and replaced by more representative regimes.

 

[tower9]

I am unfortunately inclined to agree. For now at least. You know what the most comical thing about all this is? Most Arabs would love it, talk about it all the time, whenever Arabs met from different countries in non-Arab countries we automatically create close bonds and have each others back.


Arabs have been united (part of the same blocs) for most of Islamic history. Even during the Ottoman period, albeit less than half of the Arab world was part of the Ottoman Empire, those that were, were part of the same bloc.

Every Arab revolution/conflict all over the Arab world evokes other Arabs. Even the Palestinians have been doing it all the time. Whether in despair or in hope.

The problem is that we are ruled by unrepresentative regimes who are guided by the rulers priorities and interests before those of the masses. This is what creates schizophrenic policies and lack of coherent long-term goals.

There are a few regional exceptions (GCC) due to shared ideology and system in place (Sunni Arab majority monarchies aligned with the same political bloc in the Arab wrold) but this can't be replicated (same system) in non-monarchies that have far, far fewer resources, smaller economies and living standards.

Arabs in their vast majority by definition are pro-Arab unity in some form or another. From the Pan-Arab secular socialists/nationalists who want a political unification, to the Arab Islamists who want Arab unification in the religious sense rather than ethnic.
Most of us want closer political, economic and military Arab cooperation.
If this was not the case organizations such as the Arab League, that predate the freaking UN, EU, NATO etc. would not have emerged to begin with. It is probably the world's first ethnic regional bloc that came into existence in the modern world.

Have you ever heard about a Slavic political bloc, a Germanic political bloc etc. in comparison. I can only think about the Turkic council which is a recent creation and is incomparable to the Arab bloc, as we are talking about different languages entirely and a landmass that is not even connected.

What has died is the destructive anti-Arab Ba'ath ideology, not Arab patriotism/nationalism. That will never die.

It is very difficult for people, even if they are co-ethnics, to unify into one state after they have been separate. The only way to really do it is with force. The only major exception was West and East Germany. But all of the other examples where co-ethnics unified was mainly due to force and having one state absorb the others. Of course, there is conflict when they do it, but they turn out stronger in the end.

In the Arab world, the only state strong enough to do it would be Egypt. Nasser and the UAR with Syria, was the closest thing in modern history to a United Arab Republic but it broke apart because Nasser was a domineering dictatorial personality and Egypt and Syria were not contiguous.

Egypt for decades have been ruled by pro-Western dictators and puppets, so it is no longer an independent player. The KSA is the next strongest player in this space but it has no capability to unify the Arabs.

I don't see how things will change until some type of massive revolution and upheaval occurs and one state is able to disrupt and overthrow the other ones. It will probably be a state of euphoria. I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

 

[tower9]

I don't think there is much 'unity' in Latin America or Africa either; it is just that those regions are not part of the Eurasian Continent's big games and so are largely spared the mayhem. But during the Cold War, those regions, along with South East Asia, were not spared of great violence engineered by remote big powers.
Speaking of 'unity', in just little over the last century, Europeans had butchered each other in two major wars. Europe is united right now because they have their Khalifa America which is the binding force plus Germany and France learned the hard way from centuries that it is better to set aside petty differences and improve economies.

Pan-Arabism is fundamentally different than Latin America, and ESPECIALLY, Africa.

Africa is a massive continent filled with thousands of ethnic groups, many of whom don't even have linguistic or ethnic ties to one another. So you can't even use that as an example. Africa is more a geography than a cultural sphere.

Latin America was produced through colonialism. Yes, culturally, the people are all assimilated to a Hispanic culture, but there really is not an expectation of unification. Latin America however is generally a good example of good neighborliness as there is limited conflict between the states, if it weren't for the high crime, it would be such a great place to live long term.

The Arab world has a dominant ethno-cultural group, the Arabs, and a shared history and shared political/cultural world. The main problem is that it is divided between many different states and there is the omnipresent Western imperialism along with a vindictive, aggressive colonial state, Israel, right in the heart of it. So it will be very hard for the Arabs to overcome these challenges to form a functional state.

 

[tower9]

Nearly all Arab countries are fake artificial entities. The borders are not natural.

Is there a good reason why KSA, Kuwait Jordan and UAE are separate countries?

Most of the gulf states were created primarily for British imperial interests. It is no wonder that each tiny gulf state possesses massive amounts of oil. They were created as tiny dependent states for a reason.

 

[_Arabia_]

Most of the gulf states were created primarily for British imperial interests. It is no wonder that each tiny gulf state possesses massive amounts of oil. They were created as tiny dependent states for a reason.

An example of a completely wrong post.

Actually almost all GCC states existed prior to the Brits so none were created by the Brits except for maybe Qatar.

For instance KSA was never colonized and was created due to our own people.

Unification of Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Prior to that there were the first Saudi state and the second Saudi state.

Prior to that there were numerous native Arab caliphates, empires, kingdoms, sultanates, emirates, sheikdoms. Prior to that several ancient civilizations and contemporaries of Sumer next door such as Magan, Dilmun, Nabateans, and even older ones like Al-Magar and many others.

As I already explained and provided evidence of, KSA could have been even bigger if not for the Brits fighting against the Ikhwan and other Saudi Arabian forces in Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait and elsewhere. In fact prior Saudi states were larger and extended to modern-day Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Jordan and even parts of Southern Iran.

Oman was an regional empire long before the Brits/West and they even defeated the Portuguese 500 + years ago.

This was the Omani empire not long ago.

Omani Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oman even controleld land in modern-day Pakistan (Gwadar) before it was sold and Zanzibar was until recently a part of Oman.

The Sheikdom of Kuwait originated in the 1700's as well long before any Western presence.

Emirate of Kuwait - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All of UAE's 7 emirates were created prior to the Brits as well.

I would only argue that Qatar is a recent creation even though the Al-Thanis ruled that area before the Brits as well.

So actually this is a myth, one of many that is spread wide and near.

 

[tower9]

An example of a completely wrong post.

Actually almost all GCC states existed prior to the Brits so none were created by the Brits except for maybe Qatar.

For instance KSA was never colonized and was created due to our own people.

Unification of Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Prior to that there were the first Saudi state and the second Saudi state.

Prior to that there were numerous native Arab caliphates, empires, kingdoms, sultanates, emirates, sheikdoms. Prior to that several ancient civilizations and contemporaries of Sumer next door such as Magan, Dilmun, Nabateans, and even older ones like Al-Magar and many others.

As I already explained and provided evidence of, KSA could have been even bigger if not for the Brits fighting against the Ikhwan and other Saudi Arabian forces in Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait and elsewhere. In fact prior Saudi states were larger and extended to modern-day Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Jordan and even parts of Southern Iran.

Oman was an regional empire long before the Brits/West and they even defeated the Portuguese 500 + years ago.

This was the Omani empire not long ago.

Omani Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 88464

Oman even controleld land in modern-day Pakistan (Gwadar) before it was sold and Zanzibar was until recently a part of Oman.

The Sheikdom of Kuwait originated in the 1700's as well long before any Western presence.

Emirate of Kuwait - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All of UAE's 7 emirates were created prior to the Brits as well.

I would only argue that Qatar is a recent creation even though the Al-Thanis ruled that area before the Brits as well.

I was talking about the small states, not KSA.

The British had colonized or had a significant hand in the creation of Kuwait, UAE, Qatar and Bahrain. That's just facts.