Muslim Civilization meltdown?

[Ramira]

@Bryan_Ekers

It might be worth recognizing a distinction between Arab nations (i.e. ethnic groupings) and Arab states (i.e. countries in the modern sense that ostensibly have citizens, not clans or ethnicities). The latter is often regarded, somewhat rightly, as an artificial construct with borders drawn up by former colonial powers.

In the Middle East yes.

It is not really true in the North Africa except for the Libya, which puts together two regions that never got along very well (and now again are split).

The Egypt of course is in its Nile valley a state and nation concept older than the europeans.

the three Maghrebine states, the Morocco, the Tunisia and the Algeria correspond mostly in their borders with the ancient polities and even the Ottoman period divisions.

Of course the cohesion in the North Africa is much greater, no accident in my opinion.

@chappachula

When Syria was tightly under the dictatorship of Assad, one of the ways he stabilized his society was the hatred of Israel. Assad defined patriotism as being anti-Israel. It was the only way to unite the ethnic groups who otherwise had no reason to identify themselves as Syrians.

Yes this is true of the Syria.

Of course that does not make it true of the rest of the Arabic speaking region.

When Nassar created modern Egypt in the 1950’s, he renamed it the “United” Arab republic, because he wanted to be the number one leader in the Arab world.As part of his justification for this, he made Israel the major focus of his foreign policy-- proudly declaring that he was the only one who had the power to throw the Jews into the sea, therefore he was the leader of the entire Arab nation

.

No, this is a fallacious and grossly distorted timeline and understanding
(1) Nasser did not create the modern Egypt, Nasser made a coup d’etat over an already modern state apparatus,
(2) Nasser did not come to the Pan Arab idea until later in his consolidation of power, after the Nile valley projects he had did not work (and a primary focus on the Egypt)
(3) the renaming of the Egyptian state the United Arab Republic tin the short-lived Egypt-Syria union again was later that Nasser coming to power, and was not lasting.

You have a highly distorted timeline and understanding of the Egyptian example.

Overall the Egyptians came late to the idea of pan Arabism (a fact bemoaned by the ideologists like al Husri) and never really left their Egyptian first views.

Aside from the states directly bordering the Israel and the Palestine, which of course had… surprise a direct interest in the subject, I do not see any real creation of unities around the Israel. It does not stop wars between Arab states around the Yemen, around the Saharan borders, even occupations (Kuwait…).

Indeed it did not even lead the short-lived unity of the Egypt and the Syria as the United Arab Republic last, in the hottest and most real part of the idea of a pan Arab conflict with the Israel.

It is a mythology.

And the main thing that unites the Palestinians today is their mutual hatred of Israel.

The same things were written about Dibble’s people and the African National Congress.

Drawing a deep conclusion about the Palestinians living under the pressure of the occupation in the West Bank does not tell me very much.

[Ramira]

@Alessan

That’s true, but Egypt is the exception, in that it’s both a nation and a state.

That’s the main reason why, incidentally, it hasn’t collapsed into civil war in recent years, despite upheaval in its government.

Their fighting is in the Sinai, which is Bedouin and have never liked the Nile Egyptians. So even their highlights this.

[crucible]

I personally think the question should be broadened to include all the residents of the ‘Arab’ world, Jews, Christians, and nature worshippers. The region is in turmoil with each group and tribe preying on the others. When autocrats are removed from that region, death and destruction always follows.

[TriPolar]

The Middle East without Israel would be a hugely different place right now. In what way it’s hard to say. Without Israel the US would have sought stronger allegiances in the region, would be at odds with the oil producing nations over that oil, not Israel. Nassar’s Pan Arabic concept would have worked out much differently, if at all. Jordan would probably end up in the cat bird’s seat with land that is now Israel, they would have plenty of tension with Saudi Arabia but hard to say it would blow up into anything. The US would probably have fucked up relations with Iran in exactly the same way by backing the Shah. There would be a huge mess, but a hot war would be unlikely unless a different political power than we know now would rise to power.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@andros

That was your point? OK. I was confused, as the idea that Israel’s–or any state’s–influence is in any way tied to its geographic size is bizarre.

Thomas Paine didn’t think so.

@TriPolar

Jordan would probably end up in the cat bird’s seat with land that is now Israel, they would have plenty of tension with Saudi Arabia but hard to say it would blow up into anything.

Eh? If Israel wasn’t Israel, it would be Palestine. And most of the land is not particularly valuable. “Fertile Crescent” was a relative term.

[TriPolar]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Eh? If Israel wasn’t Israel, it would be Palestine. And most of the land is not particularly valuable. “Fertile Crescent” was a relative term.

It has valuable ports and it’s central location is a great strategic advantage. Jerusalem would be a major city no matter who holds it because of it’s religious significance.

[Stormcrow]

@Bryan_Ekers

It might be worth recognizing a distinction between Arab nations (i.e. ethnic groupings) and Arab states (i.e. countries in the modern sense that ostensibly have citizens, not clans or ethnicities). The latter is often regarded, somewhat rightly, as an artificial construct with borders drawn up by former colonial powers.

I know this is the case, but I was wondering how much (if any) of that carries forward from the ways that the Ottoman Empire controlled the same area?

EDIT: Also, it seems to me that Israel is less important in terms of its effect on the region now than it has been in decades. So much else is going on that supersedes the Israeli-related issues.

[BrainGlutton]

@TriPolar

It has valuable ports and it’s central location is a great strategic advantage.

For certain values of “advantage.” H.G. Wells once compared the Jews in ancient Judea/Palestine/Canaan to “a man who insists on living in the middle of a busy highway.” Egyptians would march through it to invade Syria, Assyrians to invade Egypt, etc.

[TriPolar]

@BrainGlutton

For certain values of “advantage.” H.G. Wells once compared the Jews in ancient Judea/Palestine/Canaan to “a man who insists on living in the middle of a busy highway.” Egyptians would march through it to invade Syria, Assyrians to invade Egypt, etc.

That is another way to look at it. We can’t know who would have built up substantial military power in the region but I think Nassar would have done that and he would have been at odds with Jordan over the land and tried to complete the land link with Syria. Whatever way it worked out Palenstine would remain area of contention in the region.