From: nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Bulbul)
Subject: Re: Arab U N I T Y
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:57:54 GMT

In <1992Nov18.100541.19460@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> abde@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tamer A. Abdelgawad) writes:

" Sounds like what some Israelis want to do to the Palestinians.  As far as
" why we would have to force them, it's simple:  They don't want Arab Unity
" based on Islam, and probably for good reason.

   This is one of their options, it is not the only one or even the best.

" You rule out race, language, and political stance.  I agree.  By similar 
" arguments, I rule out religion (otherwise, we would have to include muslim
" republics in the former USSR, muslims in Afghanistan, Bagladesh, India, 
" Iran, ...). Do you agree?

   I agree, but the main idea here is that a union based upon beliefs is
more logical than one based upon race, language, or culture without common
beliefs. There is no problem in including independent Muslim countries into
than union as it is obvious. (Look at Brittain and the Folklands.) 

   There can be one president and many governors, somehow like in the 
States but with more cooperation (e.g. economical,  educational, etc.) 
Those dependent counties as in India, China, or wherever they might be, 
can be treated in the same sense that the Prophet (MPBUH) treated Muslims 
of Mecca in the Hodaibia Pact, until matters can be straightened. 

   But in this sense of a union any Muslim can return to the
Muslim State, unlike now, when you have to get citizenships or pay for
residence permits, etc.

" I suggest that Arab unity, in the sense being discussed in this newsgroup,
" is completely undesirable:  To me, the only kind of unity that makes sense

   Undesirable by _who_ and _why_?

" in today's world is Economic.  Of course, to have the sort of economic 
" cooperation that is strong enough to be called 'unity', there are some
" prerequisites.  For one, the parties involved should not lose by entering
" into such a union.  That prerequisite alone should rule out any kind of
" 'union' on an arab-world scale:  while the Saudis and Kuwaitis might find
" that it is in their best interest to open their common border, and trade
" freely, do not expect the Saudis to be happy about opening their border
" and their markets completely to, say, Egypt.

   That is true. So it is sort of a union for those who hardly need it.

" I'm not implying that there is no room for Arab cooperation.  Clearly,
" Arab countries can work out mutually beneficial cooperation agreements,
" and they do!  For example, many oil-rich Arab countries find it beneficial
" to employ relatively cheap white-collar labor from Egypt, and the Egyptians
" are not complaining.  Ditto for Egyptian farmers in Iraq.

   I.e. a union based on equality is out of question. 

   But why? Because some Arabs think (by the most modest) that God created 
them but other Arabs originally were monkies and donkies and probably 
still are. Remember that this labor is treated like dirt, discriminated
against in every sense and lives worse than any Xtians can claim about 
living in a Muslim state. If you work in a firm you share the load (I
mean with people like _you_) and others (natives) get the credit. If
you are a teacher or professor, you have to give native A+'s or they'll
find a way to expel you. If you have a car accident, you are the guilty
no matter what, etc., etc., etc.

" So instead of making general statements about Arab Unity, I suggest 
" posters point out specific situations where Arab cooperation would be
" useful.

   The first such suggestion is that Arabs start talking to each other.
The second is to stop acting like little children. By the time this
happens, I would have a few more suggestions.

" Tamer Abdelgawad

** hiZI yA nawa^im .ka.srik il.harIr
   w .kaLi SHa^ri NA^im ma^ ilhawa y.tIr
                                  --Isam Rajji