What's new

King Abdullah of Jordan warns of “massive conflict” if Israel proceeds with annexation

Israel is not going to invade Jordan. It will mean the end of the Jewish state demographically as the Jews will be outnumbered by Arabs. Unless the Arab states are stupid enough to wage a war on it like 1967. Arafat should have accepted the 2000 Camp David proposals.
 
I am in favor of a single federal Arab state in the perfect world and I see no reason why KSA, Kuwait an Iraq should be separate states. In fact I predict that we will merge again as throughout the many millennia before.
Then how Saddam was wrong in achieving this? Or the leadership is reserved for someone special?
along with some Wikipedia screenshots?
Facts are independently verifiable, here's one
Anyway are you Indian? Why the interest in internal Arab affairs? I find that rather strange as I don't know many Arabs who would do the same with Indian affairs or "studying" age old local conflicts/rivalries.
Doesn't matter, all types of people are found all over the world.
 
Israel is not going to invade Jordan. It will mean the end of the Jewish state demographically as the Jews will be outnumbered by Arabs. Unless the Arab states are stupid enough to wage a war on it like 1967. Arafat should have accepted the 2000 Camp David proposals.

Israelis are already outnumbered in Palestine/Israel. If you include the fact that 2/3's of all Israeli Jews are ethnic Arab Jews, you can easily make the claim that Israel is an ethnic Arab Jewish state. Already 20% of Israel's population is Palestinian Arab.

Then how Saddam was wrong in achieving this? Or the leadership is reserved for someone special?

Facts are independently verifiable, here's one

Doesn't matter, all types of people are found all over the world.

Because he was stupid/naive geopolitically. He thought that the world would look silently at him conquering Kuwait and potentially all of Eastern Arabia, basically conquering 50% of the world's oil and gas reserves in one go. The West (USA) would never allow him to do that. Nor is it the way forward. Today unification can only occur through a political process not by conquest. Crimea is a special case because Crimea was under Russian rule far longer than Ukrainian (a 29 year old entity) and even Crimea had a huge Russian naval presence since the collapse of the USSR. Majority of the population in Crimea was/is Russian as well. Russia is 1 of the 3 main superpowers of the world and can easily conquer Crimea without outsiders doing much about it de facto other than putting sanctions on Russia.

Destroying much of Kuwait city and the fauna of Kuwait/region is not really a bright idea either. Nor wise leadership.

It equals to KSA conquering Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Oman and Qatar. A part of me would love that (if it could occur completely peacefully) but I also know that the US would be the first country to carpet bomb KSA if that occurred. Russia would oppose it as well. As would China. None of the powers would want such a hydrocarbon monolith to emerge and control most of the world's oil and gas in one go as well as trillions worth of mineral wealth. The West losing all those military bases in the process as well.

Easier to divide Arabs if we are divided into 20 states than 2-3 strong federal states.
 
Israel is not going to invade Jordan. It will mean the end of the Jewish state demographically as the Jews will be outnumbered by Arabs.
There's a thing called occupation, google it.
Unless the Arab states are stupid enough to wage a war on it like 1967.
Buddy, you should study a little more before commenting, it was Israel who attacked first in the name of preemptive strike.

If you include the fact that 2/3's of all Israeli Jews are ethnic Arab Jews
They don't call themselves Arabs though.
 
There's a thing called occupation, google it.

Buddy, you should study a little more before commenting, it was Israel who attacked first in the name of preemptive strike.


Israel is not China. It can not take over a territory the size of Jordan. There simply aren't enough Jews in the world to form a greater Israel. Israel took over Sinai and gave it back to Egypt after a peace treaty. They were in talks to give Palestinians' a state too in 2000 and 2008. Yasser Arafat refused it. The longer the Arabs keep going on and about this war rhetoric, the more they'll screw over the Palestinians.
 
It equals to KSA conquering Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Oman and Qatar. A part of me would love that (if it could occur completely peacefully) but I also know that the US would be the first country to carpet bomb KSA if that occurred. Russia would oppose it as well. As would China. None of the powers would want such a hydrocarbon monolith to emerge and control most of the world's oil and gas in one go as well as trillions worth of mineral wealth. The West losing all those military bases in the process as well.
So, in that hypothetical scenario - should other Arabs support you against those superpowers or not?
 
There's a thing called occupation, google it.

Buddy, you should study a little more before commenting, it was Israel who attacked first in the name of preemptive strike.


They don't call themselves Arabs though.

Well, I can also claim ancient Sumerian, Thamudic, Dilmun, Babylonian, Nabatean whatever ancestry and adopt Judaism (a religion native to the Arab world) and create a new ethnicity and religion. Might as well adopt some ancient pre-Abrahamic Semitic religion and go around and pretend to be the next Sargon of Akkad.

Point in case, when it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Arab Jews, now turned into "Israeli Jews" since 1947 onwards, some much latter, will remain Arab Jews until they die and so will their off-spring. So will their DNA. Heritage. Ancestry. Appearance etc.

Many outsiders unfamiliar with Israel propagandize this fallacy of "Poles and Russians" making up 99.99% of all Israeli Jews but in reality they are a minority and barely form 1/3 of all Israeli Jews (pure Ashkenazis). However they were the most prominent ones initially because Israel is basically their creation and this is also why battle-hardened Ashkenazis that saved in the WW2 and leading Western armies (USA, UK, France, USSR), aided with Western help and tech, could defeat the larger Arab armies with were largely composed of soldiers with zero experience in modern warfare and soldiers whose countries recently gained independence. Many "experts" on PDF completely miss those simple facts.

However you don't hear much about Arab Jews, Jews from Arab lands in the media because Israel/Israelis are creating a new identity where they frame everything as "Israeli" to the point that they call Arab dishes for "Israeli" as well. Falafel is now an Israeli dish. Israeli tourist institutions are advertising Arab cuisine, Arab music etc. as Israeli music.

Anyway, don't believe what I have written of pure facts, take a look at the DNA tests of Arab Jews, say Yemeni Jews and Yemeni Muslims. Identical.

So, in that hypothetical scenario - should other Arabs support you against those superpowers or not?

Yes, because "you" would be irrelevant as KSA would cease to exist in its current form and such a thing would not be realistic with the current leaderships in power either so the House of Saud angle would be irrelevant too.

Anyway you did not answer my question, why the interest in old Arab disputes as an Indian? I am just curious, you don't hate to tell your motives.
 
Israel is not China. It can not take over a territory the size of Jordan. There simply aren't enough Jews in the world to form a greater Israel.
There's a large diaspora though more than Israel's total population, point being IDF is fully capable of launching a full scale invasion of Jordan.
Well, I can also claim ancient Sumerian, Thamudic, Dilmun, Babylonian, Nabatean whatever ancestry and adopt Judaism (a religion native to the Arab world) and create a new ethnicity and religion. Might as well adopt some ancient pre-Abrahamic Semitic religion and go around and pretend to be the next Sargon of Akkad.

Point in case, when it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Arab Jews, now turned into "Israeli Jews" since 1947 onwards, some much latter, will remain Arab Jews until they die and so will their off-spring. So will their DNA. Heritage. Ancestry. Appearance etc.

Many outsiders unfamiliar with Israel propagandize this fallacy of "Poles and Russians" making up 99.99% of all Israeli Jews but in reality they are a minority and barely form 1/3 of all Israeli Jews (pure Ashkenazis). However they were the most prominent ones initially because Israel is basically their creation and this is also why battle-hardened Ashkenazis that saved in the WW2 and leading Western armies (USA, UK, France, USSR), aided with Western help and tech, could defeat the larger Arab armies with were largely composed of soldiers with zero experience in modern warfare and soldiers whose countries recently gained independence. Many "experts" on PDF completely miss those simple facts.

However you don't hear much about Arab Jews, Jews from Arab lands in the media because Israel/Israelis are creating a new identity where they frame everything as "Israeli" to the point that they call Arab dishes for "Israeli" as well. Falafel is now an Israeli dish. Israeli tourist institutions are advertising Arab cuisine, Arab music etc. as Israeli music.

Anyway, don't believe what I have written of pure facts, take a look at the DNA tests of Arab Jews, say Yemeni Jews and Yemeni Muslims. Identical.
I know that but identities are malleable and they don't identify with Arabs now, in fact Ben Gurion wrote somewhere (I forgot the exact quote) "They needed to be de-Arab-ified".

Anyway you did not answer my question, why the interest in old Arab disputes as an Indian? I am just curious, you don't hate to tell your motives.
Well, I have studied a little bit of all history of all regions and it's lockdown here, so...
I am a Muslim too, so there's that.
 
I know that but identities are malleable and they don't identify with Arabs now, in fact Ben Gurion wrote somewhere (I forgot the exact quote) "They needed to be de-Arab-ified".


Well, I have studied a little bit of all history of all regions and it's lockdown here, so...
I am a Muslim too, so there's that.

I can identify as a unicorn as well, that does not somehow erase that I am a homo sapiens of a particular genetic, cultural, linguistic, ancestral etc. heritage like each individual person in the world.

So I don't care what they identify with and many do identity as Arab Jews and continue the traditions of their ancestors. In fact many continue to speak Arabic too as well. There are Israeli Jews from modern-day Saudi Arabia that are branded as Yemeni Jews (because they are from Southern KSA) and outside of religion, passport and ideology, they are identical people to us.


Anyway of course they will identity as Israelis nowadays. There is no oxymoron between being an Israeli Jew and of Arab ancestry. Most Israeli Jews are like that, including the Israeli users on this forum. I have talked about this topic with a few of them.

Well, I have studied a little bit of all history of all regions and it's lockdown here, so...
I am a Muslim too, so there's that.

Fair enough. No biggie.
 
Last edited:
I can identity as a unicorn as well, that does not somehow erase that I am a homo sapiens of a particular genetic, cultural, linguistic, ancestral etc. heritage like each individual person in the world.
Identities are the key aspect of how a person forms his worldview. Mizrahis don't identify with Arabs, in fact they're the more anti-Arab and anti-peace than Ashkenazis; most left leaning peace soughing Israeli parties are packed with Ashkenazis whereas Shas and Likud, both have Mizrahis as their vote-base.

Yes, because "you" would be irrelevant as KSA would cease to exist in its current form and such a thing would not be realistic with the current leaderships in power either so the House of Saud angle would be irrelevant too.
But then it'll be the opposite of strategy towards Saddam, is not it?
 
Identities are the key aspect of how a person forms his worldview. Mizrahis don't identify with Arabs, in fact they're the more anti-Arab and anti-peace than Ashkenazis; most left leaning peace soughing Israeli parties are packed with Ashkenazis whereas Shas and Likud, both have Mizrahis as their vote-base.

I told you, identity in this regard is irrelevant. Let us assume that those 4 + million Syrian Arabs (not even talking about the other Arab refugees in Turkey such as Iraqis) will become Turkish citizens overnight, do you think that their history, identity, DNA, culture, appearance etc. will suddenly change to the point that you can claim them to be some Turkic peoples even though some might identify as such out of a sudden?

Jews are not an ethnic group today. Ancient Israelites went extinct/were absorbed by other Semitic peoples of the region ages ago. Israel did not exist on a map for 2000 + years. There were plenty of ethnic Arab and non-Israelite Jews as in followers of Judaism.

Today you have Ethiopian "Jews", Polish "Jews" and "Yemeni Jews". Israel considers them Jews and the "same people".

So this is of no importance to me. Those people remain Israeli Arabs, hence why they are called Israeli Arabs or Arab Jews. Mizrahi is a word for every Jew not from Europe (Askheanzi) or who is not a Sephardic Jew.

That is a myth. @Falcon29 already spoke in detail about this myth and how Arab Jews are seen in a better light by Palestinians and how they have better dealings with Palestinians. That Jew who has that popular youtube channel where he interviews Jews and Palestinians, did some asking among Palestinians while asking them this exact question.

But then it'll be the opposite of strategy towards Saddam, is not it?

What?
 
I told you, identity in this regard is irrelevant. Let us assume that those 4 + million Syrian Arabs (not even talking about the other Arab refugees in Turkey such as Iraqis) will become Turkish citizens overnight, do you think that their history, identity, DNA, culture, appearance etc. will suddenly change to the point that you can claim them to be some Turkic peoples even though some might identify as such?
Syrians were not Arabs before Rashidun conquest, but now they're. Similarly, if the above scenario happens someday then after some time lapse, they will be Turks. Most of the Anatolians are Turkified themselves, so are the most of the Arabs (Arabified).
That is a myth. @Falcon29 already spoke in detail about this myth and how Arab Jews are seen in a better light by Palestinians and how they have better dealings with Palestinians. That Jew who have that channel where he interviews Jews and Palestinians did some asking among Palestinians while asking them this exact question.
That's a myth from the Arab side, I must say. Mizarahis don't like Arabs, that is simply visible in their voting patterns or maybe you can cite some credible surveys?
How supporting a future conquests in Arabia by xyz entity is not in contradiction to the strategy of opposing Saddam?

Jews are not an ethnic group today. Ancient Israelites went extinct/were absorbed by other Semitic peoples of the region ages ago. Israel did not exist on a map for 2000 + years. There were plenty of ethnic Arab and non-Israelite Jews as in followers of Judaism.

Today you have Ethiopian "Jews", Polish "Jews" and "Yemeni Jews". Israel considers them Jews and the "same people".
I agree but my point is that they don't like Arabs, like Pakistanis don't like Indians, got my point?
 
Syrians were not Arabs before Rashidun conquest, but now they're. Similarly, if the above scenario happens someday then after some time lapse, they will be Turks. Most of the Anatolians are Turkified themselves, so are the most of the Arabs.

That's a myth from the Arab side, I must say. Mizarahis don't like Arabs, that is simply visible in their voting patterns or maybe you can cite some credible surveys?

How supporting a future conquests in Arabia by xyz entity is not in contradiction to the strategy of opposing Saddam?

Your Indian origin shows your ignorance/cluelessness about the Arab world/Middle East, I see.

Arabs have an almost 3000 year old recorded history in Syria (853 BC). Arabs were recorded in what is modern-day Northern Syria during a battle between the Assyrian Empire and various allied Semitic city states and entities in what is modern-day Sham.

Assyrian and Babylonian Royal Inscriptions and North Arabian inscriptions from 9th to 6th century BCE, mention the king of Qedar as king of the Arabs and King of the Ishmaelites.[90][91][92][93] Of the names of the sons of Ishmael the names "Nabat, Kedar, Abdeel, Dumah, Massa, and Teman" were mentioned in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions as tribes of the Ishmaelites. Jesur was mentioned in Greek inscriptions in the 1st century BCE.[94]

Arab created several kingdoms in what is today Syria millennia before the Rashidun. Ever heard about the Ghassanids who ruled Syria for 4 centuries prior to the Rashidun?:lol: About the Nabateans that ruled Southern Syria over 2000 years ago? About Philip the Arab, an Arab emperor from Southern Syria that ruled the Roman empire 400 years before the Rashidun?

Of Queen Zenobia, an Arab queen, and of the ancient city of Palmyra? Bosra?



Basically half of Sham is geographically a part of Arabia.

Not to mention that we were/are all Semitic and racially the same people.

All people adopted an identity at one point in time, what matters here is that all Arabs are native to the Arab world and of the same racial stock and mostly Semitic peoples. Even Arabia was Arabized. Your logic makes no sense. Those are several millennia old entities.

You are pathetically trying to equate millennia old identities with some recent construct that began in 1947 and trying to claim that identical people (Arab Jews) whose only difference is their passport and religion (a closely fellow Semitic and Abrahamic religion native to the Arab world) suddenly makes Jewish Yemenis, identical genetically to their Arab brethren, magically turn into different people from the Yemeni Muslims. That is not how the world works.


If they had lived in Turkey and intermarried for centuries upon centuries, that might have been the case but I want to inform you that there already exists an indigenous Arab community in Turkey that predates the Turkic migrations by millennia. Not to mention that modern day Turks have plenty of Arab/Semitic admixture as proven by DNA, in particular those in the South and East but not only.

Maybe you should substantiate your claims?

Not sure whether you are trolling (appears to be the case) but did I not write to you that the age of conquest is over and that political unification and unification as a whole can occur without conquest? Ever heard about how the UAE unified? Or Yemen in 1990? Or how Egypt and Syria joined hands to create a country? Or Jordan and Iraq? Or how Libya, Egypt and Syria joined hands in the 1970's officially?

I agree but my point is that they don't like Arabs, like Pakistanis don't like Indians, got my point?

Native Pakistanis by a whole have little to do with Indians racially expect for Punjabis and Sindhis who only have a racial affinity with Indian Punjab and immediate neighboring regions. I think that practically every Pakistani user here will attest to that.

India is one of the most diverse regions of the world for a reason home to 100's of various ethnic groups and languages. There is no such thing as an "Indian ethnicity". Never was.

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan might elaborate more here.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom