Imagining a Remapped Middle East - How 5 Countries Could Become 14

[EAK]

but we will take all of kashmir

In your Dreams

 

[Ayush]

In your Dreams

ye sapna sacch hoga

 

[EAK]

ye sapna sacch hoga

Hzaron Khahishain aisi k har khahish py dam nikly

 

[al-Hasani]

Bahrain, UAE is a different case, their historical region was Bahrain for a short time though.

Countries names always change despite some ( Iraq, Syria can be found prior 1920 actually way longer ago during Islamic times and ancient times ).
The region of Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, which are called artificial states by some because of the Sykes picot agreements, their borders are drawn though behind each there is their own history proving none of them belong to others.

So either you think Iraq or parts of Iraq belong to Iran and Turkey ? or Syrian land to Turkey ? if you manage to show us this evidence through history then try to convince me.

Jordan is part of the levant region, neither part of the region Arabia nor Mesopotamian Iraq. Theres historical differences between Syria and Iraq therefor they are seperated as well.

Meaning none of these "artificial states" belong to Turkey or Iran or Arabia, their inner disputes is something else. Despite that it’s better to have some unification with each other in the middle east, this useless nationalism from all sides will only bring trouble.

Mostly all correct Dorlitos11. I have to correct you about the Arabia part though. The Syrian Desert and the areas next to it were often also part of historical Arabia. Jordan especially Southern Jordan was also part of the ancient Hijaz region. Similar history and a shared Nabatean presence that left World UNESCO Heritage Sites such as Petra in Jordan and Mada'in Saleh in KSA (Northern Hijaz). Geographically they are similar too if not identical. Geographically Jordan is sometimes also included in the Arabian Peninsula - which btw is not a fully defined region in terms of geography. Sometimes people use the political borders, some use the Arabian Plate and others use some of the ancient maps. Besides Arabia is not a homogenous area. It would be like saying that the Middle East is one and the same area everywhere. Arabia is made up by many historical and ancient regions from the South, North, West and East. Some of it lands (Northern ones) were also part of civilizations such as the Babylonian, Assyrian, Sumerian, Roman (Northern Hijaz) and others. Overall the Semitic part of the Middle East as least had mutual migrations and influences since the neolithic period. (10.200 BC).

Overall one can claim that every country in the Middle East has a historical legitimicy since all of them were once part of ancient civilizations. Some more defined than others. The only countries I can't find any legitimacy about is Kuwait, Qatar and UAE. If we presume that you need at least a millennia of independent history. Lebanon is also a doubtful case since it was basically curved out of Syria as a Christian colony by the French. At least they have the ancient Semitic Phoenician civilization to fall back on but Phoenicia was not only confined to current day Lebanon. This does not mean that those countries have no history. That is the mistake many often make. It just means that they were much longer part of civilizations, ancient historical regions that they only formed a small part of rather than the time that they have been "on their own" so to speak.

 

[Bahoz]

Official self rule in Iraqi Kurdistan and de facto self rule in Syrian Kurdistan... Does not take a genius to figure out where the next Kurdish self ruling parts will be. Although, even as a Kurd, I believe that a totally independant Kurdistan is still too far away.

 

[Doritos11]

Mostly all correct Dorlitos11. I have to correct you about the Arabia part though. The Syrian Desert and the areas next to it were often also part of historical Arabia. Jordan especially Southern Jordan was also part of the ancient Hijaz region. Similar history and a shared Nabatean presence that left World UNESCO Heritage Sites such as Petra in Jordan and Mada'in Saleh in KSA (Northern Hijaz). Geographically they are similar too if not identical. Geographically Jordan is sometimes also included in the Arabian Peninsula - which btw is not a fully defined region in terms of geography. Sometimes people use the political borders, some use the Arabian Plate and others use some of the ancient maps.

Overall one can claim that every country in the Middle East has a historical legitimicy since all of them were once part of ancient civilizations. Some more defined than others. The only countries I can't find any legitimacy about is Kuwait, Qatar and UAE. If we presume that you need at least a millennia of independent history. Lebanon is also doubtful since it was basically curved out of Syria as a Christian colony by the French. At least they have the ancient Semitic Phoenician civilization to fall back on but Phoenicia was not only confined to current day Lebanon. This does not mean that those countries have no history. That is the mistake many often make. It just means that they were much longer part of civilizations, ancient historical regions that they only formed a small part of than the time that they have been "on their own" so to speak.

Modern borders are not precise either, Iraq’s desert region and Arabia’s northern desert bordering Iraq both fade into each other, tribes so I know what you mean, they are spread over larger areas. I know the same about Jordan, except most of their population is northwest anyway which is closer to levant which i think they are much closer to anyway / west bank.

This is why I said, fighting wars over such unihabited areas is not worth it neither did they do it, see Kuwait-Saudi Arabia Khafji neutral zone and Iraq-Saudi arabia neutral zone, those areas are not worth it declaring full war on each other so they did it with agreements.

 

[al-Hasani]

Modern borders are not precise either, Iraq’s desert region and Arabia’s northern desert bordering Iraq both fade into each other, tribes so I know what you mean, they are spread over larger areas. I know the same about Jordan, except most of their population is northwest anyway which is closer to levant which i think they are much closer to anyway / west bank.

Well, I thought we were only talking about geography/historical borders? In the case of Jordan then the native Jordanians are mostly of Arabian stock. They make up 60% of Jordan's population. The remaining population are Palestinians. The Levant and Hijaz at least has had a shared history for thousands of years. Especially Southern Levant (Palestine, Jordan and Southern Syria). Less so the remaining parts of Levant. Again we forget that the Levant is not a homogenous region. That's the greatness of the Middle East and it's weakness. So many considerations to take into notice. Borders shifting all the time, migrations from area x to y, influences from others etc.

For example historically even though the civilizations in Mesopotamia were all Semitic and close to each other they also differed greatly in many aspects. I mean the North and South divide. Also the geography looked different. The borders of the Gulf lied elsewhere.

Same with the ancient civilizations in Yemen. The rivalry and differences of Saba', Ma'in, Qataban, Hadramawt, Awsan, and Himyar.

In fact we can find such examples everywhere.

Anyway what we both can agree with is the stupid claim of just looking at the age of NATION states and make conclusions based upon seniority of those states without taking into account the ancient land of that country x or y and its history. Very stupid and ignorant if you ask me.

 

[Doritos11]

Well, I thought we were only talking about geography/historical borders? In the case of Jordan then the native Jordanians are mostly of Arabian stock. They make up 60% of Jordan's population. The remaining population are Palestinians. The Levant and Hijaz at least has had a shared history for thousands of years. Especially Southern Levant (Palestine, Jordan and Southern Syria). Less so the remaining parts of Levant. Again we forget that the Levant is not a homogenous region. That's the greatness of the Middle East and it's weakness. So many considerations to take into notice. Borders shifting all the time, migrations from area x to y, influences from others etc.

For example historically even though the civilizations in Mesopotamia were all Semitic and close to each other they also differed greatly in many aspects. I mean the North and South divide. Also the geography looked different. The borders of the Gulf lied elsewhere.

Same with the ancient civilizations in Yemen. The rivalry and differences of Saba', Ma'in, Qataban, Hadramawt, Awsan, and Himyar.

In fact we can find such examples everywhere.

Anyway what we both can agree with is the stupid claim of just looking at the age of NATION states and make conclusions based upon seniority of those states without taking into account the ancient land of that country x or y and its history. Very stupid and ignorant if you ask me.

Your posts are large, hard focusing on the point.

It’s just to counter claims of countries being part of others due to some agreement instead of military action for forming borders.

 

[al-Hasani]

Your posts are large, hard focusing on the point.

It’s just to counter claims of countries being part of others due to some agreement instead of military action for forming borders.

Yeah, just focus on the last part.

Anyway what we both can agree with is the stupid claim of just looking at the age of NATION states and make conclusions based upon seniority of those states without taking into account the ancient land of that country x or y and its history. Very stupid and ignorant if you ask me.

That is the central part and we both seem to agree. Borders can come and go, countries, ruling families but the history of the land they are all a part of cannot be changed. At most only change in the future.

I wrote more about it here below:

Overall one can claim that every country in the Middle East has a historical legitimicy since all of them were once part of ancient civilizations. Some more defined than others. The only countries I can't find any legitimacy about is Kuwait, Qatar and UAE. If we presume that you need at least a millennia of independent history. Lebanon is also a doubtful case since it was basically curved out of Syria as a Christian colony by the French. At least they have the ancient Semitic Phoenician civilization to fall back on but Phoenicia was not only confined to current day Lebanon. This does not mean that those countries have no history. That is the mistake many often make. It just means that they were much longer part of civilizations, ancient historical regions that they only formed a small part of rather than the time that they have been "on their own" so to speak.

We don't need to go into historical details. The overall points are the main thing here that most people do misunderstand because they just look at the age of entity x or y as a nation state rather than the history of that particular land and its people.

 

[Rostam]

Bahrain, UAE is a different case, their historical region was Bahrain for a short time though.

Countries names always change despite some ( Iraq, Syria can be found prior 1920 actually way longer ago during Islamic times and ancient times ).
The region of Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, which are called artificial states by some because of the Sykes picot agreements, their borders are drawn though behind each there is their own history proving none of them belong to others.

So either you think Iraq or parts of Iraq belong to Iran and Turkey ? or Syrian land to Turkey ? if you manage to show us this evidence through history then try to convince me.

Jordan is part of the levant region, neither part of the region Arabia nor Mesopotamian Iraq. Theres historical differences between Syria and Iraq therefor they are seperated as well.

Meaning none of these "artificial states" belong to Turkey or Iran or Arabia, their inner disputes is something else. Despite that it’s better to have some unification with each other in the middle east, this useless nationalism from all sides will only bring trouble.

The illustration below is the full map of the Sykes picot agreement (1916). The different colors represent areas being mandated for control to certain powers. As you may notice, the geographical areas which the borders encompass include diversified ethnicities and religious affiliations, which certainly does not automatically out of thin air generate any source of evidence that “they each have an independent historical record”.

 

[Doritos11]

The illustration below is the full map of the Sykes picot agreement. The different colors represent areas being mandated for control to certain powers. As you may notice, the geographical areas which the borders encompass include diversified ethnicities and religious affiliations, which certainly does not automatically out of thin air generate any source of evidence that “they each have an independent historical record”.

Dark red goes above Baghdad which takes millions of Sunnis in today, these colors were not based on ethnic/religious differences, also a seperation for religious differences is a joke since religions have changed often in the middle east on the same peoples whom were converted either by force or willingly.

To understand that they all have an independent historical record you will have to do some research on the history of those lands, from now to pre ottoman, pre Islamic era, pre Persian dynasties......... goes on, not something 100 years ago.

if this is what you meant, not sure.