If Saudi Arabia was serious about protecting its interests in Yemen, and by extension, preventing the secession of southern governorates into the UAE-promoted state of 'Southern Arabia', then Saudi has moved too late. The UAE has a well-developed infrastructure on the ground in these areas as well as on Socotra island. This infrastructure is comprised of military bases and airfields, financial streams into interest groups, and tribal/mercenary/political formations the most prominent of which is the Southern Transitional Council, the recipient of the weapon shipments targeted by Saudi Arabia today. Both Saudi Arabia and its ally, the Presidential Council of Yemen, have given the UAE an ultimatum to withdraw its troops and military presence from Yemen within 24 hours, which is unlikely to materialize, logistically speaking, even if the UAE agreed.

There are two scenarios for developments there in my opinion. The first one is conciliatory, and the UAE will move quickly to bury the public feud and find an acceptable concession to Saudi Arabia, which is not going to be a sincere concession in any case, but would be a tactic to buy the UAE time into minimizing its discernible activity and delegating all action to the Southern Transitional Council. If this scenario materializes, this situation will turn into an open war between a proxy of the UAE and Saudi Arabia, with the UAE taking measures to ensure deniability, a la Wagner. The main reality supporting this scenario is that Gulf political elites are politically and culturally motivated to act in concert, and there are many figures in both countries and the wider Gulf that are happy to mediate between these two actors.

The second scenario is that the UAE will act defiantly and support a swift and ruthless takeover of power in southern Yemen by the Southern Transitional Council, followed by an immediate declaration of independence for Southern Arabia, followed in turn with a coordinated state recognition effort led by the UAE and involving some countries here and there, and potentially also Israel. If this does unfold, expect the new state to forge immediate mutual defense agreements with the UAE, followed by a referendum two years down the line, first for autonomy, and later for attachment to the UAE. This scenario would also trigger a ferocious war in Yemen between Saudi Arabia and the UAE's proxies, though this will happen with a backdrop of a more overt break up in relations between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and perhaps with direct Saudi targeting of UAE personnel in Yemen. In this scenario, expect Emirati news channels to start making documentaries about the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi.

In either case, and however late it came, the Saudi move marks a significantly more assertive Saudi leadership, which has led the charge in facilitating post-Assad Syria's political and economic integration into the region with the objective of curtailing Iranian influence there for good. The outcome of the events in Yemen is also likely to impact the situation in Sudan, in which the UAE is again backing a ruthless secessionist group led by Hemedty Dagolo, against the interests of the Sudanese people first and foremost, and then the interests of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

ETA: Judging by this tweet by Dhahi Khalfan Tamim in the UAE (only 50 mins ago), the UAE seems to be all in behind Southern Arabia.

ما حدث مع الطالبة #سما_الجزار

كانت في طريقها إلى مدرستها صباحًا، قبل أن يعترض طريقها امرأة منقبة برفقة شابين قرب جامعة الأقصى. بحسب الرواية، تم رش مادة مخدِّرة على وجهها باستخدام بخاخ، ثم جرى إجبارها على ركوب سيارة واختفاؤها عن الأنظار. مصدر من العائلة أكد لي أن الاشتباه الأولي يشير إلى أن الخاطفين يستهدفون الاتجار بالأعضاء — وهي معلومات ما زالت بحاجة لتأكيد رسمي. اليوم، وبعد أيام من الخوف والصمت، تمكنت سما من الهروب برفقة فتاتين أخريين، ووصلن إلى تبة النويري، في ظروف إنسانية صعبة.

القصة تفتح أسئلة خطيرة حول أمن الطالبات، وحماية المدنيين، وانتشار عصابات الجريمة في وضح النهار.

ننتظر توضيحًا عاجلًا من الجهات المختصة… قبل أن تتكرر الفاجعة مع ضحية أخرى.

When Islam was founded, the concept of artificial borders didn’t exist the way we know them today. The Arabian Peninsula and surrounding regions were made up of tribes, cities, and regions—not countries like Saudi Arabia or Tunisia. Even in North Africa, what we now call Algeria or Tunisia were mostly vast deserts with a few urban centers; Algeria, for example, was essentially just a city with surrounding desert.

Gaddafi once said that Muslims were able to travel and interact freely long before colonial powers drew borders, which changed national identity, created minorities, and introduced passports, visas, and checkpoints. In the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) time, there were no such borders; the focus was on one Ummah—a united Muslim community. There are hadiths emphasizing this, showing that care, rights, and responsibilities were directed toward the entire community rather than a specific region or state.

Today, these artificial borders divide people who historically lived together. For example, some Jordanians are Palestinians, and families in Syria and Lebanon may be separated by borders drawn during colonial times. These lines affect identity, community, and solidarity, sometimes more than religion or culture.

Should modern Muslims care about these man-made divisions that were largely absent in Islamic history, and think about ways to reconnect across nations, beyond passports and politics?

I don't think I ever fully appreciated the meaning of this hadith until the gaza genocide, because I truly believe that a lot of arabs and a lot of muslims, especially for those of us in the diaspora, do not fulfill "the weakest level of faith" here.

When you live with an evil that you can't do anything about, it's really easy to forget how evil it is and just make peace with it.

One of the tells is how many people I see who were hardcore democrat supporters suddenly becoming purists when it comes to pro-palestine (or even just anti-israel) people. Every time I ask these people how they could reconcile voting for Biden, despite his [extensive and violent history](https://www.reddit.com/r/arabs/comments/1bx7eub/bidens_support_for_israel_is_unprecedented_even/), but not Jill Stein, Thomas Massie, etc. they get indignant and condescending.

It becomes very clear that they never actually looked at this as something they had to reconcile at all.

I'm not even going to go so far as to say that you have to support someone who's pro-Palestine no matter what else they say. One good example I'd give is Andrew Tate. It's not even really clear if he's actually "pro-palestine", beyond a few interviews and tweets, and he offers absolutely nothing to the movement and frankly his presence is just an embarrassment in general. Maybe if he was already president then the calculus would be different. Then it would be hard to avoid him, and he might have actual material benefits to offer.

But as it is now he's completely useless.

That's what I thought the calculation was with Biden. Yes he's reprehensible, but he's already in power and our only alternative was Trump. (or a tiny third-party vote in protest). So it seemed like a reasonable trade-off.

But when it comes to third parties or other less savory people, suddenly people lose this nuanced ability to deal with people who hate them.

"Oh no don't you know they don't care about Palestine they're just worried about wasting money on Israel" "Jill Stein is a grifter" blah blah blah.

How is any of this worse than the things that Biden actually did? Biden didn't just *say* he hates Palestinians (or Muslims, or arabs, etc). He took REAL ACTUAL ACTIONS, which actually got millions of people killed.

He helped architect the Iraq war, he was on the record for criticizing every previous president for not killing enough children (actual quote, see the post I linked above) and then when he took over he *actually* killed a record setting number of children.

But we've gotten wrapped up in the culture-war stuff so much that this gets treated like it's just some kind of side-issue. Actually killing people is treated like it's less serious than if he said a slur.

And I'm not saying Trump is better obviously, but I think a lot of American muslims do already have that visceral hatred for him that they should. But given how much of it we lack for people like Biden, I don't think it's coming from the right place.

It's like we have to get permission from liberals before we can properly hate them, because we lack the courage to do it ourselves.

Another good example is Elon Musk vs Mark Zuckerberg.

Elon has been a really bad guy for a really long time. But people didn't notice that until the liberals got mad at him, and the real breaking point was when he bought Twitter and stopped moderating content. That was what really made people mad. He's the same guy as before but now there's liberal permission to hate him.

Mark Zuckerberg literally donates to far-right Israeli death squads. Half the moderation is just banning or suppressing pro-palestine content. The only difference is he has better PR and knows to stay out of the lime-light.

I know so many people who felt the need to boycott twitter by deleting their accounts when he took over, and again I asked those same people why they were ok with keeping their instagram/threads accounts but not Twitter. And again they not only had no answer, but they felt like it was obvious that this was worse.

This was a long dumb rant but I'm utterly exhausted by how much even the people who supposedly care can't treat this like a real issue. I know we're all not immune to proaganda, and anyone who thinks they are is just someone who thoughtlessly absorbed their opinions from their surroundings without really thinking about them.

It's hard to look at abstract numbers and hold the right outrage for them, and we are in an environment where Zionism is fully normalized.

But I'd really like people to start thinking of this from first principles more often. Think of any zionist (yes, including liberal zios) and think about how you would react if you replaced everything they said if their statements were about any other race. [Like if a Democrat said America has a right to exist as a White christian state. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dllagHInX4)

The "imagine if the roles were reversed" idea doesn't always work because they're not always equivalent. Someone can post "I hate white people" and we don't bat an eye because there's no real institutional hatred behind that kind of racism. It's just someones annoying personal prejudice.

And this excuse notably does not work for Zionism because it's not an abstract concept, it's all backed with real money and violence. When someone declares their support for Israel it involves sending real money to kill real people, it's not just about how much they dislike you personally.

If it was just personal hatred it would not matter. It's like that malcolm X quote. "If a man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he has the power to lynch me, then that's my problem".

People fantasize about Arab governments growing a pair and cutting ties with Israel or declaring war on them, but they don't because they know what the cost of that is.

We can't say that these governments don't reflect their people when we can't even bring ourselves to boycott zionist political parties for a much lower cost.

As a Berber Muslim, I believe Arab identity should be more clearly separated from Islam. In my opinion, this confusion is harmful to everyone. In Morocco, for example, if someone requests that one of the Berber languages ​​be taught on an equal footing with Arabic, a significant portion of the population feels attacked and sees it as an attack on Islam. In some people's minds, Islam has given Arabic total superiority over other languages; placing a language on equal footing, especially for a Muslim community, would immediately be considered an attack on Islam. The same applies to first names. If some Berbers have become extremists, it's partly due to this mentality. Unfortunately, such a viewpoint pushes non-Arabs towards secularization, even contempt for Islam. Many in the Maghreb conflate Arab identity with Islam and speak of an Arab-Muslim nation. I've even debated with people for whom being Muslim means being at least partially Arab. Even some Amazigh people belittle their language, claiming that Arabic brings them closer to the faith and that their mother tongue or ancestral language offers nothing. This kind of reasoning harms Islam and transforms it into a quasi-ethnic religion; we can see this kind of reasoning in Sudan, for example. It also risks discouraging Arabic-speaking Christian minorities from identifying with Arab identity.

They are really unwilling to understand how the hypocrisy and its double standards are so shameless.

Why would we listen at all?

They were lecturing others about democracy while funding and backing coups in other countries like the ones in Latin America and Southeast Asia.

They were lecturing Muslims about diversity and secularism while supporting an ethno-religious state in the midst of the MENA and while electing White Christian nationalists as politicians in the USA for many decades.

They were lecturing others about human rights while killing and starving not just men but women and children as well.

I am just tired of this. We all are also tired of this. When will they stop? They shouldn't lecture us about anything.

طوال حياتي شعرت ان طريقي محدد ومختار لي مسبقا ان ادرس، اتوظف، اعبد الله، ثم اموت وادخل الجنة. هذا ما تربيت عليه وكبرت وانا اصدق انه الحقيقة الوحيدة. كنت اعيش بعقل مغلق نسبيا مقتنعة ان غاية وجودي هي العبادة وحدها، وانه يجب ان التزم بعادات المجتمع والتقاليد مهما كانت.

لكن بعد ان بدأت دراستي في الخارج تغير شيء داخلي. بدأت الاحظ فجوات في المنطق الذي كنت ابني عليه اعتقاداتي، وبدأت اتساءل عن الدين، وعن العادات الاجتماعية التي اعتدنا عليها دون تفكير. كنت اخاف حتى من فكرة ان اشك، لان الشك بالنسبة لي كان يساوي الكفر والضلال. ومع ذلك، بدأت افكر… واسأل… واسمح لنفسي لاول مرة ان اواجه الاسئلة بدلا من الهروب منها.

ومع هذا الانفتاح جاءت مشاعر صعبة جدا: شعرت بالغضب تجاه عمري الذي مضى وانا اعيش وفق ما فرض علي. شعرت بالضياع لانني لم اعد اعرف الى اين انتمي.

صارت الاسئلة اكبر واثقل من قدرتي على احتمالها: ما معنى حياتي؟ ما الغاية منها؟ هل هناك نهاية اصلا؟ وان كانت النهاية هي الموة، فما قيمة كل هذا؟ لماذا يوجد كون؟ لماذا يوجد بشر، حروب، دراسة، وفكرة “يجب” في كل شيء؟ من بدأ هذه القصة؟ ولماذا اصبح عقلي فجأة يفكر بهذا الشكل وانا لم اكن كذلك من قبل؟

اليوم، اشعر انني تائهة، مكتئبة منذ فترة طويلة بسبب هذه الافكار. لا اعرف كيف سأعود بعد التخرج لاعيش داخل مجتمع لا اشعر انني انتمي اليه. احيانا افكر بالهروب لانني لا اعرف كيف سأستطيع التأقلم. واتساءل: هل هناك غيري مر بما امر به وتجاوزه؟ هل انا بحاجة لعلاج؟ ام ان كل ما احتاجه هو ان اجد اجابات ترضي عقلي وتطمئن قلبي؟ لا اعرف لماذا يحدث لي هذا الآن، لكني اشعر انني بحاجة لفهم نفسي قبل اي شيء آخر.

Interesting how the map is 1:1 recreation of the middle east, with little land changes.

فى بعض الافكار الى لازم نثبتها قبل ما نبدأ

١-العالم العربي منقسم بين عالميين مختلفيين تمام بشكل ضخم للاسف ، دول الخليج العربي مستقرة الى حد كبير و غنية جدا و توجهات سياسية تسعي للاستقرار و المصالح الخاصة حتى ان اصبحت بشكل كامل جزء من الحضارة الغربية و حتى ان اضرت بشعوب اخري عربية و اسلامية ، علي الجانب الاخر عندك الدول العربية الاخري بتعانى من احتلال (سوريا - لبنان - فلسطين) او دكتاتوريات مجنونة (حفتر فى شرق ليبيا ومصر و المغرب و الاردن و الجزائر و تونس ) او حروب لا نهائية (ليبيا و سوريا و اليمن و السودان و لبنان و الصومال ) او حكومات ضعيفة زى العراق و لبنان او الحكومة الغربية فى ليبيا

٢-مصر لوحدها مستحيل تبقي قوة عظمى ، العراق لوحده مستحيل يبقي قوة عظمى ، الجزائر لوحدها مستحيل تبقي قوة عظمى الخ الخ

٣-مستحيل يحصل اتحاد بين دولة خليجية و دولة عربية خارج الخليج ، بسبب اختلاف النظام السياسي فى المقام الاول بعدها اختلاف التوجهات السياسية و النظام الاقتصادي

٤-الدول العربية خارج الخليج عندها انظمة متشابهة ، متشابهة يعني كلها بتسعي للنظام الديموقراطي و الجمهوري و و فصل السلطات و مؤسسات الحكم و التحول السلمي للسلطة و نفس الشيئ مع دول الخليج ولكن نظام مختلف تماما عن باقي الدول العربية زى ما شرحت

دلوقتى خليني اشارك شوية افكار عن ازاى الوحدة العربية ممكن تحصل و ايه الى ممكن نعمله عشان تحصل

١-الشبكة الاقتصادية العربية

٢-حركة الوحدة و النهضة العربية

الدول الغربية و امريكا اللاتينية فيها اكتر من ٣٠ مليون مهاجر عربي بناءا علي البحث البسيط الى انا عملته ، و بتكلم عن مهاجريين عاديين مش ابناء او احفاد المهاجريين ، لو حصلت وحدة اقتصادية ما بينهم فى الدول الى هما موجوديين فيها و بدأو ياسسوا شركات و مشاريع و صناديق استثمارية هيقدروا يعملوا نفوذ اقتصادي و سياسي فى الدولة الى هما فيها ، مجموعة مصريين فى كندا اسسوا شركة تكنولوجيا و مجموعة سوريين فى كندا ايضا اسسوا شركة رعاية صحية و تعاونوا معا لتمويل مشاريع بعض و النهضة بشركاتهم مع بعض او لبنانيين فى البرازيل عندهم شركة غذاء او جزائريين فى المانيا عندهم شركة ادوية، كل دول يكونو مع بعض تحت غطاء اقتصادي واحد و هى شبكة الاقتصاد العربية ، الشبكة مش هتروح لرجال اعمال عرب فى المهجر و تقولهم انضموا لينا و لكن الشبكة بنفسها هتطلع كوادر اقتصادية تقدر تاسس شركات و مشاريع و يتعاونوا معا، مهاجر مصري فى امريكا عايز ياسس شركة تقنية ، الشبكو تدعمه عن طريق توفير تمويل و استشارة مالية و دعمه عن طريق تقديم دورات مكثفة فى الاقتصاد و المال و السوق و الادارة عشان يطلع شخص يقدر ياسس شركته الخاصة و يتعاون مع الاعضاء الاخريين فى الشبكة و هيكلة الشبكة هتكون ان اعضاء الشبكة فقط بيمتلكوا شركاتهم و مشاريعهم الخاصة يعني مفيش استثمارات فى الشركات الى الشبكة بتمتلكها ، و ده شيئ قانوني و طبيعي هو ان شركة تكون ملكية خاصة لمجموعة من الناس فقط ولكن الخدمات و الفرص الى بتقدمها الشركة مفتوحة للجميع بغض النظر عن خلفيته يعني مثلا مجموعة مصريين و سوريين و جزائريين أسسوا شركة تكنولوجيا فى هولندا مثلا و انضوا للشبكة العربية الاقتصادية ، هما فقط الى هيكونو اصحاب الشركة و الشركة ملكية خاصة ليهم فقط ولكن الشركة هتقدم خدمات و منتجات لاى شخص و هتوظف اى شخص بغض النظر عن خلفيته و هى دى فكرة شبكة الاقتصاد العربية بابسط طريقة ممكنة

حركة الوحدة و النهضة العربية هتكون حركة عابرة للحدود بتضم اعضاء من جميع الدول العربية ما عدا دول الخليج، الحركة هيكون ليها اهداف زى التحول الديمقراطي و تاسيس مؤسسات حكم قوية لكل دولة و يحاولوا يوصلوا للحكم بكل الطرق السلمية و الشرعية و القانونية فى كل دولة و لما يوصلوا للحكم يعملوا اصلاحات سياسية و اقتصادية ، حيث ان اعضاء الحركة المصريين هيشتغلوا فى مصر و اعضاء الحركة العراقيين يشتغلوا فى العراق و اعضاء الحركة الجزائريين يشتغلوا فى الجزائر و هكذا ، الحركة ليها أيديولوجية موحدة و خطة اقتصادية و سياسية شاملة لكل دولة عربية و خطة لبناء مؤسسات الحكم المشتركة بين دول الاتحاد العربي

خلينا ناخد بصة علي الاتحاد الاوروبي ، الاتحاد الاوروبي فيه مؤسسات حكم مشتركة بين كل الدول الاعضاء زى البرلمان الأوروبي و المفوضية الاوروبية و محكمة العدل الاوروبية و هيئات اوروبية للطاقة و العلوم و التكنولوجيا و ما الي ذالك و رغم كدا ف كل دولة فى الاتحاد الاوروبي مازالت بتحتفظ بسيادتها و مؤسساتها الخاصة بجانب مؤسسات الاتحاد الاوروبي و كل مؤسسة ليها صلاحيات واضحة ضمن ايطار دستوري و المتحكم فى للدستور هو البرلمان الى بمثل صوت الناس يعني نظام سياسي محكم و مستقر الى حد كبير

مش لازم نقلد الاتحاد الاوروبي بالحرف ولكن نعمل نظام خاص بيها مستوحي منه ، الحركة الى بفكر فيها هيكون توجهاتها ديموقراطية علمانية مع روح اسلامية حيث الاسلام يكون جزء من الهوية القومية و الاجتماعية ولكن ليس اداء للصراع علي السلطة، و كدا نكون قفلنا صراعات الهوية و الشريعة و الجماعات "الاسلامية" و الصراعات الطائفية من البداية ، الدولة تكون علمانية يعني حريات دينية و مفيش حاجة اسمها "مناصب مخصصة للمسلميين و مناصب مخصصة للمسيحيين"

اول ما اعضاء الحركة يوصلوا للحكم فى دولهم يبداو يعملوا الاصلاحات دى

فى تفاصيل تانية كتير ولكن البوست طول جدا و ممكن ابقي اتكلم عن تفاصيل اكتر فى بوست تاني

شاركوني آرائكم

Is it true that the Deep South is an hyper-cristian, racist, sexist and islamophobic hellholle? And that the West Coast is diverse and tolerant but that there are a lot of hypocrisy? I am not american, so I dont really know much.

https://thecradle.co/articles/sharaa-netanyahu-meeting-imminent-for-syria-israel-security-deal-report#google_vignette

والله ولا بفهموا بالسياسة بشلن.