What If Arabia Was Actually Made a Single Country?

Jun 2013
6,394
USA
#1
TECHNICALLY the Arabians were promised their own single state. But like many promises made by many nations, they weren't able to happen. However what if during the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, France gets the Syrian coast and Lebanon while Britian gets Israel, but the rest of former Ottoman territory is made into a single nation.

In my view, this state would eventually be unified with Saudi Arabia, whether if they take over Saudi Arabia or the other way around.
 

athena

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
5,032
Eugene, Oregon
#2
You ask an interesting question. Historically people have been conquered because they could not unite. Greeks could not unite. The Celts could not unite against Rome. Native Americans could not unite against the invasion of people coming from Europe.

As a citizen of the US it seems impossible for me to comprehend why the Arab countries have not united? They seem to be religiously united and divided, and incapable of being politically united? It begs the question, how do people determine who is one of "us" and who is not? How do people know they are of different groups and not say, one Greek, Celtic, native American, or Arab nation?

Your question made me so curious I googled for information and this link is pretty fascinating to me. It provides cultural reasons why the Arabs will never sing, "United we stand. Divided we fall."

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
 
Last edited:
Nov 2011
8,874
The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
#3
The only people more likely than a Jew and an Arab to have a dispute between each other is an Arab and another Arab. Any reading of the history of the Arabian Peninsula and Southern protectorates or those former Ottoman lands that made up Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon shows constant fighting between tribe and tribe, sect and sect, clan and clan, family and family---all the way back to Cain and Abel (who are supposedly from that area). I haven't bothered to count up the actual days that the area has experienced peace without any colonial powers being present, but I suspect that it is about zero.
One big Arabistan (as the Ottomans called it) would be one big civil war, which practically would just have led to a Big-power intervention and the carve up into smaller, tribal-based countries--much as was done between 1900 and 1919.
 
Jul 2012
105
U.S
#4
You ask an interesting question. Historically people have been conquered because they could not unite. Greeks could not unite. The Celts could not unite against Rome. Native Americans could not unite against the invasion of people coming from Europe.

As a citizen of the US it seems impossible for me to comprehend why the Arab countries have not united? They seem to be religiously united and divided, and incapable of being politically united? It begs the question, how do people determine who is one of "us" and who is not? How do people know they are of different groups and not say, one Greek, Celtic, native American, or Arab nation?

Your question made me so curious I googled for information and this link is pretty fascinating to me. It provides cultural reasons why the Arabs will never sing, "United we stand. Divided we fall."

Why Arabs Lose Wars :: Middle East Quarterly
Just because two people are Arabs, doesn't mean they have the same interests, the same social beliefs, or even the same religion. It's like saying, "Why don't all of the Hispanic countries unite?"

Also what does an article on what seems to be harping about how the Political field in Arab countries and the culture of their militaries have to do with Arab countries uniting together?

The reason why they'll never sing "United we stand. Divided we fall." Is because you'll be hard pressed to get 22 different countries, spanning over two continents with different diverse histories to band together unless it's in their interest to do so.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,933
SoCal
#5
TECHNICALLY the Arabians were promised their own single state. But like many promises made by many nations, they weren't able to happen. However what if during the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, France gets the Syrian coast and Lebanon while Britian gets Israel, but the rest of former Ottoman territory is made into a single nation.

In my view, this state would eventually be unified with Saudi Arabia, whether if they take over Saudi Arabia or the other way around.
The problem here is this: How exactly do you get the victories Entente/Allies to actually honor their promises to the Arabs?

Any thoughts on this?
 

athena

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
5,032
Eugene, Oregon
#6
The only people more likely than a Jew and an Arab to have a dispute between each other is an Arab and another Arab. Any reading of the history of the Arabian Peninsula and Southern protectorates or those former Ottoman lands that made up Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon shows constant fighting between tribe and tribe, sect and sect, clan and clan, family and family---all the way back to Cain and Abel (who are supposedly from that area). I haven't bothered to count up the actual days that the area has experienced peace without any colonial powers being present, but I suspect that it is about zero.
One big Arabistan (as the Ottomans called it) would be one big civil war, which practically would just have led to a Big-power intervention and the carve up into smaller, tribal-based countries--much as was done between 1900 and 1919.
I joined a Muslim forum and didn't stay long, because of the intense arguing and failure to come to agreements. On the other hand, our history is not so different from all this Arab arguing. I think everyone argued intensely and settled differences with violent conflict. Surely the Celts did, Scotts and Germans are known for a history of arguing, and we go from the Celts to family feuding.

Then came the idea of democratic government and rule by reason. I don't think we have a good idea of rule by reason today, but in the past the US had education that advanced an understanding of rule by reason. I suppose that is what arguing people think they are attempting to achieve, but when they lack the skills for good argumentation, all people get is arguments. They can not get from the arguing to agreements.

This is a question. Why can some people get to the agreement and others can not, short of killing others?
 

athena

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
5,032
Eugene, Oregon
#7
The problem here is this: How exactly do you get the victories Entente/Allies to actually honor their promises to the Arabs?

Any thoughts on this?
I love your question! I feel badly about all the times I am blaming my own country for the violent conflicts, but I think moral is a matter of cause and effect and we have not been moral. We have acted on short-term, narrow visioned self-interest, and effect has not been good.

I have often contemplated, could the seat of the problem be having a God who has favorite people, and from the beginning told these people to slaughter everyone and take the land that is Isreal. This is extremely bad behavior and Christians and Muslims continue to behave this way. Jews, Muslims, and Christians worship the same, jealous, revengeful and fearsome God.
 
May 2015
1,052
The Netherlands
#8
TECHNICALLY the Arabians were promised their own single state. But like many promises made by many nations, they weren't able to happen. However what if during the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, France gets the Syrian coast and Lebanon while Britian gets Israel, but the rest of former Ottoman territory is made into a single nation.
I assume you mean Palestine.

In my view, this state would eventually be unified with Saudi Arabia, whether if they take over Saudi Arabia or the other way around.
With the exception of the Hedjaz, this vast Arab state would be landlocked. Possessing limited infrastructure and minimal outlets it was bound to gravitate towards France and Britain in exchange for support. Like the Ottomans before them, the united Arabs would get into conflict with the expanding house of Saud sooner or later. I doubt however that unification was possible without French or British support. Historically, the British sided with the Saudi's (against the Kingdom of Hedjaz), who united much of Arabia. In this case they would probably try keep the Arabs divided, by pitting the two states against each other (i.e. like our time, but with bigger wars and more fall-out as a result).
 
Last edited:

athena

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
5,032
Eugene, Oregon
#9
Just because two people are Arabs, doesn't mean they have the same interests, the same social beliefs, or even the same religion. It's like saying, "Why don't all of the Hispanic countries unite?"

Also what does an article on what seems to be harping about how the Political field in Arab countries and the culture of their militaries have to do with Arab countries uniting together?

The reason why they'll never sing "United we stand. Divided we fall." Is because you'll be hard pressed to get 22 different countries, spanning over two continents with different diverse histories to band together unless it's in their interest to do so.

:) That is what rule by reason is about, figuring out what is in the best interest of all, and why this is so. That is, figure out cause and effect and living by the rules of cause and effect, rather than being self-serving.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States." Preamble of US constitution.
You see, this is about what is best for all, and militarily that means educating everyone, not keeping everyone ignorant so a few people can be the big cheese and rule over ignorant people. Did you read why the Arabs do so poorly in war? Culturally, Arab individuals at the top are putting themselves first, not the good of all, and this means failure to unite and work together, in both war and politically. It is a curse of a religion that promotes this (being the most pious gets God's/Allah's favor), and a history that always did reject the democratic model of social organization.

Small groups of people will behave democratically, but larger groups tend to divide between rulers and servants. It is amazing that some nations have overcome this instinct to be self-serving and organized for the good of all. However, without the education for this, the US seems to be falling back to the level of being self-serving, as it seems all civilizations have done, leading to their self-destruction. We are returning to authority over the people and this is a bad thing. The reasoning of self-interest is not the reasoning, nor the goal of the US constitution, however. neither was it as idealist as some would like because it is focused on "ourselves and our posterity" and this did not include foreigners, people of color, not native Americans. As all intelligent animals, we live with this conflict between self-interest and the good for all. Our inefficient organization protected our liberty, but progressive science and technology have radically changed this.

We are now educating the masses to serve the Military Industrial Complex and stopped educating them to rule themselves by reason. We avoid being as the Arabs, because the power above us is very strong, and the people's ability to unite is really very weak. This seems to be the way civilizations evolve.
 

athena

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
5,032
Eugene, Oregon
#10
I assume you mean Palestine.

With the exception of the Hedjaz, this vast Arab state would be landlocked. Possessing limited infrastructure and minimal outlets it was bound to gravitate towards France and Britain in exchange for support. Like the Ottomans before them, the united Arabs would get into conflict with the expanding house of Saud sooner or later. I doubt however if unification would be possible without French or British support. Historically, the British sided with the Saudi's (against the Kingdom of Hedjaz), who united much of Arabia. In this case they would probably try keep the Arabs divided, by pitting the two states against each other (i.e. like our time, but with bigger wars and more fall-out as a result).
Thank you for that explanation that clarifies the problem. The old conflict between Iranians (Persians and Arabs) has also been maintained, and Kurds have been taken advantage of, while using European Jews as a foot hold in Arab territory has made things very bad.

:) Slightly immoral wouldn't you say? We are reaping the effect of that today. When Britain's power of imperialism began to weaken, the US stepped in. At first Iran welcomed US intervention, believing it was the US intent to liberate Iran from British control, than former US President Eisenhower was caught inciting a revolt with the intent of controlling Iran politically, and the US has clearly been involved mid-east conflicts ever since, destroying any trust in the US, and along with that, destroying any trust in democracy as a desirable political order, because our democracy now represents immorality.