A Phony Narrative: Arab Nationalism

reply to post by dontreally

This is the Arab world. And look at Israel: a mere speck on the map. A mere speck for the Jews, 2 million of which were indigenous residents of the Arab world.

That "mere speck" belongs in Germany where the Jews experienced their suffering. Instead, you insist that the Arabs pay for the crimes of the Nazis.

And of course, the 2 million Jews who were indigenous to the middle east can stay in the middle east.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
That "mere speck" belongs in Germany where the Jews experienced their suffering. Instead, you insist that the Arabs pay for the crimes of the Nazis.

And of course, the 2 million Jews who were indigenous to the middle east can stay in the middle east.

Well there you have it folks.
The world according to sk0rpi0n.

Well now that we have that straitened out....

reply to post by SLAYER69

Well there you have it folks.
The world according to sk0rpi0n.

Well now that we have that straitened out....

Only in your world is it logical to make somebody suffer for somebody elses crimes. But its ok I guess. I mean, why let things like "justice" get in the way of things?

Really?

At Christmas?

The OP has done a good job. Of articulating in a crystal clear manner what in itself is just another narrative, in this case one that is used to maintain a state of divisiveness.

Why would you do that now, OP?

Not only at Christmas, but at a time when so many people from all walks of life are going to be turning their once doomed thoughts towards a bright future? Why re-stimulate this by using old rhetoric that has never taken the argument anywhere anyway?

I for one am ending my participation here.

I pray that all of the people in the Middle East and elsewhere find a safe way home, wherever it may be.

may you all be safe on this thread, too, and not end up in the ban-heap.

Seriously, # another century of this. Merry Christmas.

!

I don't get the point of this thread. Muslims have a collective identity? Who would have thought!!? So do Christians.

What does Arab nationalism have to do with forcing Palestinians off their land because something bad happened to Jews in Europe? Stealing is stealing.

Jews living in Israel in ancient times is not relevant in 2012, nor does it give Zionists any right to steal the land that Palestinians were living on in MODERN times.

Originally posted by neo96
Ya know if the Isrealis were muslim those arab/Palenstine defenders would not have anything to cry about.

But they are Jewish which makes them evil so yeah there is a phony narrative being slung around on these boards.

Arabs can do no wrong whoops muslims make no mistake it is about jew versus muslim it always has been.

edit on 7-12-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

You must be very ignorant when it comes to history. The reason why the Arabs are upset is because the surrounding nations had to accept all the refugees that the theft of land created. At least the ones that the invading savages didn't murder. At if you would actually do a little research it's the Zionist the Arabs are complaining about not the Jews.

reply to post by dontreally



There certainly isn't the same level of nation-state-ism as in the West, but to say an Arab is an Arab is just not accurate.

There is variety in the language spoken throughout the Arabic world.

Some varieties of Arabic in North Africa, for example, are incomprehensible to an Arabic speaker from the Levant or the Persian Gulf Region.

varieties of Arabic wiki

Some of the dialects are less similar than say, Italian is to Spanish. Remember that French/Spanish/Italian all belong to the same linguistic group. These are still considered nations. There a comparable level of cultural/linguistic/ethnic diversity in the Arabic world as there is in Europe.

The main difference is that the Middle East has a history of political and religious unification. Not as true in Europe or other places.

The primary flaw in your premise is equating the words Arab and Muslim.

It is true that Muslims will associate themselves with Islam before their nationality. But there are sub-regional differences and Arabs are not uniform.

I'd agree that many would prefer a single nation, Caliph.

As far as Israel/Palestine goes, it is indeed much of the Muslim world against Israel. I think Jewish people should be able to live in the region, but I don't think a Jewish theocracy is any better than a Muslim one.

Both sides are behaving childish. Both use too much violence.

I agree that the NARRATIVE of Arab Nationalism had been and is a lie.
The closest thing to a 'nation' that the arabs ever had was the formation of the arab league, made up of 22 members today. It is more of a loose collective unity than an aspiration for the formation of a superstate.The last thing that those member nations want is to be ruled by another human, as they have far too much differences that can be resolved, if ever.


Those nations are made up of diverse ethnic groups - aryans, bedouins arabs, chinese, africans, etc. The only thing that hold them up together to spout the false narrative of unity is Islam, of which many of those nations are of the muslim majority.

I agree with the OP too, that the Kurds are the saddest lot and discriminated abominably. All I can say is that one the great Caliphs was Saladin, who decisively ended the crusades, saved many lives. He was a Kurd too.

The prophet Muhammad had taught that arab muslims must treat non arab muslims as equal, and not with discrimination. Such is the egalitarian appeal and thus the ability for many races to bind.

Unfortunately, the Islam that is being currently taught is NOT the Islam of the prophet - the divine messenger, but by mis-interpretations of men, worse still, by bloodthirsty greedy men hell-bent on using and abusing mankind for the their own personal gains, something that prophet Muhammad had NOT wanted.

Many of their acts would have deem blasphemous in the prophet's time, and yet none dares speak up or question, but to support their acts. Such support is nothing more than 'asibiyyah' - tribal solidarity, that had allowed 'Jahiliyyah - arrogance and tribal chauvinism to reign, something that the prophet had tried so hard, so hard to destroy so that Islam will be religion of peace to bring muslims to progess and evolution.

Today in self ruled Palestine territory, the apostate Meshaal of a pagan 3rd rebirth as he calls his return to Gaza, vows to continue with the 'resistance' against Israel.

He should cut his BS about fighting only zionist and not jews. Had he invented a missile system that targets only zionists, or know which jew is a zionists, when he fired the missiles upon Israeli terrority INDISCRIMINATELY, and terrrorist attacks on innocent civilians worldwide? So cut the spew about zionist, which is another layer of excuse and blinders when his true intentions had been to slaughter all jews.

None dare ask what 'resistance' did he meant? - Resistance to peaceful co-existance, palestinians to taste social welfare in job opportunities, education, health,etc? OR did he mean the palestinians must continue the resistance to LIFE itself, by placing themselves in the fire when he order attacks and sucide bomb jews, while he sips sherbet and dines on Kebabs in Iran as he had done for the past few decades?

It is sad to see so many whom are still blind or wilfully determined to be blind, to the rapacious men living amongst us, and stand on their side. The palestinians had been given divine mercy to stop the bloodside. They wept and celebrated when the truce was announced, proving that they wanted to live, and not as prepared to die as Hamas led the world to believe.

Yet today, they still continue to support the ones whom had led many of them or their families to their deaths. How long more must Allah be mocked and Islam stained by the extremists and their supporters?

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

aryans, bedouins arabs, chinese, africans

My post consciously focused on the middle eastern states of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine. There are no "aryans, chinese or africans". in this region. Even in North Africa, only Sudan, Somalia, and Mauritania have sizable "African" populations. But again, these differences - thanks to the success of Arabization - have been reduced to very little. The only substantial group extant in those regions are the Berbs (who don't have self determination, not even in an autonomous region like the Basque have in Spain), which, a people 65 million large, it's pretty amazing that till this day, they still have very little communal rights in the countries they live in. For example: Israel made Arabic a co-official language. The Berbs make up an ethnic majority in Algeria, Tunisia and Libya, but only Arabic is the official language of these countries. But who here talks about "apartheid" as people incessantly label Israel as?

The only thing that hold them up together to spout the false narrative of unity is Islam, of which many of those nations are of the muslim majority.

Specifically, Sunni or Shi'ite. Historically, the Sunni have always ruled, even in Iran. With the ascent of Islamist Iran, and since the fall of Iraq and the Taliban, Iran now has free reign to expand their program. Syria's (whats left of them) house of Assad are Alawi, which is a "shi'ite" sect, or so says Ayatollah Khameini. The Islamist Free Syrian Army is Sunni, and so seeks to win back Syria to the Sunni. This also explains why, despite the cooperation between Erdogan and Ahmadinejad, Erdogan is first and foremost a Sunni Islamist, which is why he was the first major state to support the opposition and to call for Assad to step down from power. Now, here's the count: Sunni Islamists control the parliaments in Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt since the Arab uprisings. Then you can add Turkey to the mix, which has taken a pro-Islamist stance. And so too Syria will enter the fold, since, as many have noted, the Free Syrian Army is essentially a mixture of varying degrees of Islamist contingents.

This can only mean very bad news for Israel. And people wonder why Israel is resisting the 2 state solution. Not only historically (since the settlements began in the 70's) speaking, Israel could very well be justified in settling the west bank, but strategically speaking, giving up the west bank could bode extremely bad for them if - given the trends - Hamas ruled in a nascent Palestinian state.

I know you feel international law would rule over Islamists. I don't believe that. I think they are and will remain interested in eliminating Israel using either statecraft, the Arab population within Israel, or, if they grow so brazen (and given Islamism's growth, it's not out of the question) militarily.

He was a Kurd too.

He also established one of the more tolerant Islamic societies. When Maimonides fled Andulasia and Morocco because the Arabs (or Moors) threatened to kill him, he found refuge in Egypt...where he became Saladin chief physician.

Many of their acts would have deem blasphemous in the prophet's time, and yet none dares speak up or question, but to support their acts. Such support is nothing more than 'asibiyyah' - tribal solidarity, that had allowed 'Jahiliyyah - arrogance and tribal chauvinism to reign, something that the prophet had tried so hard, so hard to destroy so that Islam will be religion of peace to bring muslims to progess and evolution.

Surprised I've never asked this before. Are you Muslim? If so, what's your take on the belief that Islam should rule worldwide? Or at least is destined to?

You probably know my views as you've followed my posts here for awhile. I've since changed them. Before, about 2 years ago, I was ardently of the belief that the world was destined to support a Jewish eschatology. Of course, philosophically and theologically speaking, I still find myself aligned to Jewish ways of thinking, but I've liberalized my position, or rather, made my position more compatible with the facts of reality. All religions should be allowed to exist, and no religionist has any right whatsoever to coerce another religionist to believe what they do. In short, I believe God desires that there be religious plurality. And if this world is ever to become what all religions hope it to be, it'll only happen through mutual respect and compromise. An absolutely important part of this is Islam's recognition of Jerusalem's centrality to Jews. I use to believe that the 'dome of the rock' should be removed. Given the likely political consequences of doing that, it'd be idiotic and downright suicidal to incite Muslims by destroying it. Instead, a Jewish temple should be built adjacent to it, since the Mount the dome is built on - Mount moriah - is the holy place of Judaism.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

That "mere speck" belongs in Germany where the Jews experienced their suffering.

I wonder why people say these things.

Its Ignorant.

Are you saying Jews NEVER experienced suffering in the Middle East?


At least the Germans can admit that past hatred, has no bearing on the Jews who live there today. Germany has the third-largest Jewish population in Europe.........

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

Some of the dialects are less similar than say, Italian is to Spanish. Remember that French/Spanish/Italian all belong to the same linguistic group. These are still considered nations. There a comparable level of cultural/linguistic/ethnic diversity in the Arabic world as there is in Europe.

What does that change? Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine are not established along ethnic lines. They are arbitrary lines.

In fact, if ACTUAL ethnic, linguistic, or religious issues were taken into regard, the map of the middle east would look incredibly different. For instance, Iraq is 60% Arab Shi'ite, 38% Arab Sunni. What sense is there in making a state where these two intractable religious opponents vie for power? It's a recipe for disaster, as history - and Iraq's current sectarian issues - have shown. Iraq also has a very large Kurdish population - 6.5 million, who are grossly under-represented in the new state.

Fact is, world opinion still seems to be directed by Europeans. The world still make-believes that Iraq, Syria, etc, are logical states with logical borders. They aren't. They were planned by non-Arabs, by English and French statesman. As said, trying to make a "nationality" out of Iraq, Syria etc, is akin to making a nationality out of Oregon, Washington, and California. The underlying point being: they are culturally, linguistically, and religiously more or less the same. My quoting Zuheir Mohsen was to point out that Arabs made another group of Arabs living in the area of the West Bank/Gaza into a "nationality" which was based on no substantial ethnic categories. The problem could have been remedied quite easily by having Jordan absorb the refugees, since Jordan was created FOR Arab residents of the Palestinian mandate. Additionally, 800,000 Jews were exiled between 148 and 1967. These Jews - most of whom were absorbed by Israel - could have and should have (and only Israel can be blamed for failing to emphasize this) been seen as part of a population exchange with the Arabs, since the initial number of Arab refugees - 700,000 roughly corresponded to the Jews kicked out of their Arab countries.

but I don't think a Jewish theocracy is any better than a Muslim one.

There has never been any talk or indication of a Jewish theocracy. Just because Jews are culturally and spiritually connected to Israel doesn't mean a state there would be theocratic. Theocracy is a type of government; Saudi Arabia is a theocracy, since it bases itself on Shari'a law. Iran is a partial theocracy since it partially bases itself on Shari'a law; same with Pakistan, Afghanistan, and, pending the Egyptian constitution, Egypt as well. Israel is a SECULAR democracy i.e. religion, or halacha (Jewish religious law), has no say in the formulation of its laws.

reply to post by sonnny1


Would you want to go back to Germany or Poland?

Abraham Joshua Heschel, the philosopher and theologian, who's family, mother, father, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, were killed in the holocaust, said he has never been able to go back to Poland or Germany.

Keep in mind that Heschel was a German intellectual. He was the professor of Jewish studies at the University of Berlin. He was present to the radicalization of the school systems. He stood by, aghast, at what was being said about Jews. He saw this happening; he had to endure the injustice of it all. Germany and Poland to him contain the memory of the greatest injustice mankind has ever seen. He does not want to go back to a land, culture and society which systematically murdered his people.

Neither would I.

reply to post by sonnny1

Are you saying Jews NEVER experienced suffering in the Middle East?

Not at all.
Does Jewish suffering entitle them to cause others to suffer?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


The Palestinians didn't have to suffer.

Since they were part and parcel to a larger Arab cultural identity, they could have been relocated (just as Pakistan/India did) to Jordan...which was established for them in the first place.

reply to post by dontreally


It doesn't change the fact that many have moved on, and the Germans have moved on. I am glad to see Jews, and many minorities in Europe have the freedom to live, where they want.

The whole Notion that the "Jew" should move back to Germany, or given a swath of land somewhere in Europe is Preposterous.

On your topic, I found this interesting. From the link of a prior post.

The major contradiction in Arab nationalist thinking is seen in its most flagrant form in the adoption of certain cultural elements as language, common history and heritage, and tradition as defining features of that nationalism, while ignoring Islam out of a deep-seated secularist bias.

I think this is a Contradiction, that many don't want to talk about. Its like the chicken before the egg parable.
I think this first has to be addressed. The Religion.

reply to post by dontreally


Why should Palestinians have to move off THEIR land?

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Are you saying Jews NEVER experienced suffering in the Middle East?

Not at all.
Does Jewish suffering entitle them to cause others to suffer?

Question time hey ?

If Every Jew was exterminated from this Earth would Arab on Arab secular violence still happen, as it does now?

WHY are they making their brothers suffer?

WHY is the Islamic World killing each other and innocent victims, in the Name of Religion and extremism?


Does Arab suffering entitle them to cause others to suffer?

reply to post by sonnny1

It doesn't change the fact that many have moved on, and the Germans have moved on

True, but you can't just say "go back to Europe" given what happened to them there. It's almost malicious to say.

In my mind, if you're Jewish and have no problem living in the lands where the holocaust happened, that's your choice. But no non-Jew has a right to tell a Jew "go back to Europe".

I think this is a Contradiction, that many don't want to talk about. Its like the chicken before the egg parable. I think this first has to be addressed. The Religion.

Wikipedia is especially keen on viewing the middle east through this false nationalist lens. For example: an ancient synagogue, dead sea scrolls, or the Herodian architecture of Jerusalem, IS an absolute part of the heritage of Jews/Israelis. Why? Because it is causally linked, both linguistically, and religiously, with current Jewish traditions.

However, there is a difference between this example of a heritage site and a Muslim example. For example, the relics of ancient Persia ARE a veritable aspect of Iranian heritage. Why? Even though Islam has replaced Zoroastrianism, the language spoken by modern Persians is essentially the same as that spoken by their Zoroastrian ancestors; in addition, Shia Islam perpetuates elements of zoroastrian spirituality. But at the same time - and this is reflected in the current disputes between Ahmadinejad and the Khameini, only the person who views history through a secularist lens can appreciate Iran's ancient heritage. Fundamentalist Muslims consider appreciation of pre-Islamic cultures to be blasphemous.

Take Jordan. The vast majority of Jordanians are devoutly religious. Additionally, the majority of them are imported from elsewhere in the Arab world: they aren't actually indigenous to this area. Yet, Petra, the temple of the sun worshiping Nabateans, is regarded as the "heritage" of the people of Jordan. I'm sorry, but this is a myth. Not only are the majority of today's Jordanians unrelated to the ancient Nabateans, but the Nabatean shrine is idolatry in Islamic doctrine. Yet, despite this, despite Jordan's Sunni fundamentalism, the secular narrative is what prevails.

Egypt is another example. It took a secular dictator like Muburak, etc, to protect Egypt's ancient relics, i.e. the pyramids. But since Islamists have gained power, we have been increasingly hearing the voice of fanatics calling for the destruction of the pyramids. Now, I'm not saying that Egypt would do this (it would receive enormous international condemnation); however, it does adjust our perspective with regard to how Muslim view their pre-Islamic past.

reply to post by dontreally


I don't disagree about these countries being artificial. Where I do disagree is that Arabs are uniform. I also disagree with applying the reality of artificial nations as an argument in favor of Israel. I'm not against Jewish people living there. I am against the way it was done and is still kept in place. The concept that Palestinians should just relocate to Jordan is a bit ridiculous, do you really think that would quell all resentment?

These same European powers that drew up the whole region are the one's that forced in Israel. You are lacking in sympathy for the Arabs in the entire situation: having fake countries drawn up for them, being ruled by outsiders, being kicked off of land, and having a new state created in the middle of the region which is continuously propped up by the assistance of those same outside powers.

And, Israel has definite elements of theocracy. It is hardly a democracy with millions of Arabs being excluded from governance.

I'm not on any side in this but ending warfare and oppression.

reply to post by ShotGunRum


For multiple reasons: One, Jewish historicity in the region. Two, Jews were already a majority in Jerusalem from as early as the late 1700's. Three, are Palestinians a part of the international community? Or is there an unspoken unbridgeable difference between Muslims and the rest of the world? Both Christians and Muslims are guilty of undermining Jewish political aspirations in the area. To just rehash the history: in 1665, there was a great Messianic fervor in Eastern Europe, North Africa, and the Western Ottoman provinces for Jews to reestablish the Jewish state in Palestine. However, this didn't turn out very well (their leader, Sabbatai Tzvi, apostatized by converting to Islam). In any case, it shows that Jews never lost awareness of what they wanted: to return to Eretz Yisrael. Why were they not allowed? Because of Christian and Islamic hegemony. Modern times created the conditions where Jews had the political freedom to mobilize and work towards realizing this 2000 year long dream. Fourth, Palestinians, as Arabs, could have lived anywhere. They never established a state in the area called "Palestine". They were just Arabs who happened to have lived in that province of the Ottoman empire. There were no "roots" in the area like Jews had had. Fifth, there have been population exchanges between India and Pakistan where millions were uprooted from their homes and transferred to a new country. Why was this ok, - in much greater numbers - but not the Jewish-Arab population exchange which could have seen 800,000 Sephardi Jews come to Israel (which happened) and 700,000 Palestinians absorbed by Jordan, or Syria or Lebanon? That would have bee reasonable.