What would happen if all of the Sunni Middle East would be united under one government? Would it finally become stable?

Assad will unite with Iraq and Egypt, just YOU see

Saladin never identified as an Arab, "Arab identity" is a 20th century invention.

thats incredibly unlikely.
he will be have unstable control over syria even aftrer he wins, with a large part of the population resenting his rule.
lets say for some reason iraqis agree to come under his boot,
what in the world would convince sunni egypt to do so?
under what leadership would that happen?
a western aided military clique or the muslim brotherhood?!

Sisi Assad and Abadi are practically already strongest allies. Unity is inevitable.

Saladin spoke Arabic his whole life and his culture was Arabic. He was an Arab,dipshit.

Was the first Muslim caliphate stable?

alliance and unity are very different things.
even if sisi whole heartily believed that is a good idea to begin with,
that would mean he will lose western aid,
and it will boost muslim brotherhood popularity ten folds.
this move would be a a death sentence for him.
also, egypt is in dire need of saudy economic aid.

>Saladin spoke Arabic his whole life
So do most Kurds today, dumbass, it's the lingua franca of the medieval Islamic empires (MENA today), doesn't make anyone an Arab.

To be "culturally Arab" you also have to identify as one (which was not possible before Pan-Arabism). Copts, Kurds and Berbers all predominantly speak Arabic today but none of them identify as Arabs, so they are not Arabs.

saudi already cut economic aid to egypt after they openly allied with assad you dumbfuck keep up with the news

as a second language. Salahuddin was from Tikrit, an Arab/Syriac city that was never kurdish, he would have spoken arabic from the day he was born. He ruled in damascus and cairo, such kurdish cities, right!!

You fucktard you don't even know what an arab is, an arab is anyone who speaks arabic as their first language and is of arab culture. Do you know who Taha Jizrawi is? Probably not. He was ethnically Kurdish but also an Arab. King abdullah of jordan is half british on his mothers side but is still considered arab, nobody considers him a "british king", because his kingdom, like salahuddin's, is pure arab.

No, it wasn't, 3 of the first 4 caliphates were assassinated, then it was an even bigger shit show from there, with Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Fatimids, etc

the abbassids up till harun al rashid's death were stable though.

it doesnt mean they dont need it anymore.
egypt economy is in ruin, and i fail to see who in syria can aid them in this matter.

Saladin was certifiably Kurdish you fucking idiot (he was from a Kurdish family). The mere fact that someone speaks Arabic doesn't make him an "Arab", cultural or otherwise. To be an "Arab" you have to identify as one, which Saladin didn't, so he was not, it is that fucking simple!

King Abdullah can be a Native American for all I care, if he speaks Arabic and identifies as Arab, he's a (pan-)Arab.

As for Medieval Arabic speakers, they mostly identified with their religion or sect, and it's rather ironically the main reason Pan-Arabism was even invented, i.e. to secularize ethnic identities in the Middle East after the collapse of the Ottoman empire.

Hardly, and they were always fighting with the other empires in the region, none of them held the entire Middle East for any extended period.

You're both idiots, Sisi is a staunch nationalist, he doesn't believe in neither pan-Arabism nor pan-Islamism, he'll form alliances if he has to, but unification is out of the question, for both leaders and peoples.

Also, Egypt can easily afford to split the Sunni block, by aligning with Iran, both it and Saudi Arabia have identical economies and are willing to pay for friends. However, Egypt seems happy to play both sides.

oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/How-The-Saudi-Rift-With-Egypt-Is-Spiraling-Out-Of-Control.html

>even if sisi whole heartily believed that is a good idea to begin with,

Salahaddin's father.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najm_ad-Din_Ayyub

Kurdish soldier from Dvin (Armenia).
When the Muslim rulers (Shaddadids) of Dvin were expelled, he moved southwards and enlisted in the army of Imad ad Din Zengi of Mosul, Salahaddin was born in that period.

He's basically the son of a foreigner in Iraq, which doesn't make him Iraqi/Arab by any standard.

of course an alawite would be accepted in sunni majority egypt.

>He's basically the son of a foreigner in Iraq, which doesn't make him Iraqi/Arab by any standard.
Yes, that is what I was saying, tell it to that moron Most Egyptians are not sectarian, a union is impossible for an entirely different reason

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Arabism#Decline

>Sunni Sufis (majority of North African Sunnis)
>Sunni Salafis (majority of Gulf Sunnis)

Wow, I didn't know people this retarded could even use a computer.

Google madhab

Madhabs have nothing to do with Salafism and Sufism, you stupid cunt, it's about practice. You can be of any Madhab and still be Sufi, Salafi or neither.

They'd still be in a cold war with Iran and also would have to worry about endless wars with Israel.

Plus, are we cutting out the Shia lands from this majority Sunni country? Because if we are, then they lose the vast majority of their oil resources and become poor as shit.

Uniting the Sunni Arabs in Syria and Iraq into one country could theoretically improve things though, since that would put an end to the sectarian fuckery funded by KSA and Iran in those two countries. Sadly, what we got was ISIS, so it will be years before something like that is feasible.

'ethnicity' map

Religion+Oil

>government makes nomadic tribes stable
statist get out.

You're retarded, until the Ottoman Empire was poisoned by nationalism shit worked just fine as a unified polity.

Due to the imperial history of the region, the Middle East is a lot more diverse and cosmopolitan than Europe. Instead of ancient and pretty easily identifiable zones of "France" and "Poland" and "Italy", you have a preponderance of Arabic speakers from Agadir to Aden, with tens of millions of non-Arabs living in isolated communities throughout. Religion also sharply divides this region, as Shia Muslims spent more than a thousand years as a repressed and mostly powerless minority.

What really fucked things up were Western liberal notions of the nation state totally inapplicable to this region. Nationalists in Iran and Turkey perpetuated genocides against the isolated minority pockets, in hopes of constructing some kind of European-style national community. The Arab world had a different history, transitioning immediately from Ottoman control to European dependency. But after WW2, nationalist strongmen toppled the European-imposed monarchs and established military regimes in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. Similar nationalist governments took hold in Lebanon and Libya. These autocrats, just like the Turks and the Persians 50 years earlier, tried to homogenize their nations through ethnic cleansing. Jews, Christians, and Kurds really got dicked hard by Arab nationalism.

The best way forward for the Middle East is the replacement of the empire and the nation state with a more localized method of rule. Abdullah Öcalan has written about something like this, which he calls democratic confederalism. Lawmaking is controlled by autonomous communes and the central government only really handles defence. Works pretty well in Syrian Kurdistan.

>Ottoman Empire
Literally, the shittiest thing to ever happen to the Middle East after the Roman Empire? That is your argument?

>The best way forward for the Middle East is the replacement of the empire and the nation state with a more localized method of rule. Abdullah Öcalan has written about something like this, which he calls democratic confederalism. Lawmaking is controlled by autonomous communes and the central government only really handles defence. Works pretty well in Syrian Kurdistan.
All that bullshit just to reach the same conclusion? I've already implied that The Middle East needs more fragmentation not unity, you didn't add anything.

Tell me what you think was wrong with the Ottoman Empire.

>What would happen if all of the Sunni Middle East would be united under one government? Would it finally become stable?

Yes.

See: the ottoman empire (and how long it lasted)

>Tell me what you think was wrong with the Ottoman Empire.
Nothing was right about the Ottoman empire, but its worst crime was keeping the Middle East in the dark ages for 500 fucking years, rendering it incompatible with the rest of the world.

The Ottoman Empire didn't last long, it was just fairly liberal with the definition of sovereignty (read denial).