Why did Pan Arabism fail?
How could it work?
Because arab nation doesn't exist and even within the subgroups they have tribal bullshit going on.
>>872946
Because Pan-anything is a retarded idea.
Israel used hacks instead of rolling over, and Nasser didn't have the military might to pressure or attack the royalist states because of it
"Pan-Arabism" should elicit the same reaction as "pan-slavism" or "Turanism."
It's almost like speaking one language DOESNT magically rid you of cultural differences
Even in medieval times arabs distinguished between "true arabs" of the peninsula and "the people of syria", "the people of Egypt", "the people of Maghreb", etc despite their single tongue
>>873095
They don't even speak one language. Classical arabic is like latin and the regional variants are like the romance languages.
>>872946
Because the French and the eternal Anglo conspired to ruin it.
>>872946
Dictators unwilling to compromise their powers.
>>873129
That's a fair comparison, no one in their right mind would argue for "Pan-Latinism"
>>873394
Wouldn't that just be the reconstitution of the Roman Empire?
>>872946
The only thing preventing Arabs from returning to their usual regionalist quarreling was the "common enemy" in the form of Israel that was oppressing their fellow Arabs.
In the end Nasser's adventures proved massive failures, Arab nationalism degenerated in your average corrupt dictatorship more worried in perpetuating their rule than the welfare of their people or the conclusion of their ideals.
The moral decline of secularism and nationalism made the Arabs to turn over to Islamism, Iran success in resisting America and Afghanistan against the Soviet Union only reinforced Islamism at the expense of Arab Secularism (which pan-arabism was a prime tenant).
>>873454
Suddenly Pan-Latinism becomes alot more agreeable.
>>873074
Pan-Arabism has a lot more credibility than both of those though
>>873316
Kek
>>872946
Islam and Israel.
>>872946
Because Arab countries don't want to throw money away to help poorer Arab countries.
>>872946
Israel.
>>872946
>supranationalism in a overly tribal region
>>873950
To some extent yes
>>873394
I unironically believe in pan-Latinism. The French, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Romanians, and others must be united under a single flag.
>>874963
>The French, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese,
Okay, but only if Austria, Belgium, Britain, Germany, Lichtenstein. Luxembourg, and Switzerland can all join up to make a pan-germanic state.
>>874963
>romanians
slavic
Because they swallowed the Soviet meme and implemented socialist economics, alienating the massive classes of small-business owners and merchants that exists in all Arab countries.
Because muslims can't organise politically. Whenever an institution is created with the authority to speak/make decisions, it is undermined by other sects/nationalities/cultural groups for not representing them. They can't even organise within single countries, what hope do they have of organising internationally?
I guess the flipside would be the argument that the US has destabilised all attempts at strong arab nationalism (except saudi arabia). Maybe without that external pressure they could have done it.
>>872946
Why did you fail?
>This whole thread
delet this
al watan al akbar soon
>>875386
>>872946
Islam heavily discourages nationalism. Also, there are very real cultural (even linguistic) differences between the States of the "Arab world".
Furthermore, a united Middle East was not in the interest of the West, because Arab nationalists were chummy with the USSR.
The only time a Pan-Arab identity appeared was in opposition to Israel, and that ended Nasser got BTFO
>>875386
I don't understand your point
>>872946
Arabs.
>>875556
He doesn't have one.
>>875747
Are you implying or otherwise indicating that some people post here without having anything meaningful to add to any discussion?
>>872946
>Why did Pan Arabism fail?
Arabs. Secular nationalist movements don't really carry much weight to the local powerbrokers who care more about their tribal interests and globalist oil barons.
>>875386
Israel is probably the only thing that could make Pan Arabism work
>>872946
ego
>>873876
How?
>>873129
But the Chinese are the same. Go a few miles away from a city and they speak completely different languages. Some provinces like Fuzhou people living 50 miles apart in separate villages can't understand each other unless they speak the Lingua Franca.
>>872946
We will never know the exact causes for sure but it definitely would have had a lot better chance of succeeding if the west did not try to force regime change and coups on almost every secular Arab government and if the Saudis had never spend decades funding the spread of Wahhabism.
It lacked real support. All pan-arabist regimes came to power through military coups, and the people who got power from these coups cared more about their own position than ideology. Look for example at how Saddam Hussein and Hafez Al-Assad hated each other despite the fact that they were both ba'athists.
>>872946
Partly because it crushed minorities beneath it to try and create a fake homogeneous group that wasn't based on reality.
More than that it was derailed by Arabs being unable to keep their lust for a strong authoritarian leader in check, leading to despotism and dictatorship. A lot like Russia in that respect really.
>>875532
It's an abstract kind of merchant.
>>877287
It's always funny when people think "Chinese" is one huge language while Dutch and German are somehow different
I dunno, cantonese having hundreds of thousands of different ideograms compared to mandarin makes that so much different I think. It's even worse when school tosses all those students into one classroom even if some learned cantonese style, fuziji(?), and mandarian and all teach them in mandarin
>>872946
Pan-Arabism was a popular ideology amongst the urban populations of many Arab states up (Syria and Iraq especially) until the 1970s, but the problem was how to actually act on that sentiment. Nasser played the part of the Arab nationalist revolutionary in public, but in fact he was very much out to look after Egypt's interests only - it's just that up until 1967, pan-Arabist showmanship and Egyptian priorities were conveniently aligned. So the strongest Arab power wasn't actually that keen on pan-Arabism. That leaves you with Iraq (Until 1958 a Hashemite regime, unpalatable to Syrians), Saudi Arabia (not interested in secular pan-Arabism), Jordan (Hashemite as well, and very much pro-Western/"soft" on Israel), and Syria itself (too weak, constant coups). Basically none of the Arab leaders were prepared to seriously put pan-Arabic unity above the interests of their respective states, and the pan-Arabic movement, though popular, did not put enough pressure on said leaders.
