Speaking Arab does not render one Arab, just as much as Latin American who speaks Spanish is not a Spaniard. The Arab identity was until recently limited to the Arabian peninsula. It is a political project, like European integration.
Hummm, I think you are mixing the notion of Arab and Pan-Arabism. Arab as a culture (based on a language among other things) does indeed exist and defines basically the people living between the Gulf and the Ocean (as it is some time referred to the Arab world). In this region people in majority do have Arabic as their native language, though in the fringes of the AW (Arab World), there are other important native languages like berber in Morocco or Kurdish in Iraq. But that does not remove the fact that many still feel being part of the Arab culture (like an Alsacian who speaks Alsacian will still consider himself to be French).
It is undeniable that even in the 14th century people living in place outside the Arab peninsula were refering to themselves as being Arabs (see Ibn Khaldoun books for that for example).
Pan-Arabism on the other hand is the "theorisation" of the Arab Nation as a political project and that is as you suggested new. It actually was theorised in the end of the 19th century begining of the 20th (like many other "nationalism" including Zionism) by Michel Aflak notably.
However, European integration doesn't pose the liability to minorities and neighbouring countries as Modern Pan-Arabism did to Iran, Turkey, Israel and blacks in Sudan and Kurds in Iraq.
Pan-arabism as a political project didn't really succeed. It was just impossible to achieve given the undemocratic nature of almost all Arab regimes, the Cold War and the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It was very often used by dictators as a chimere (like the Bolivarian revolution in Latin america now). I however don't really think those liabilities you are refering to are "pan arabism" related, but really state related.
In fact, Saddam Hussein sought to make Iraq view itself more as Mesopotamian instead of Arabic. Likewise, there are movements in Lebanon which stress Lebanon's Phoenician identity.
I know, I am tunisian, and in Tunisia there are also people who want to put our Carthaginian and Roman heritage up front. That being said, people do not claim they are not Arabs but that they are not ONLY Arabs. I am Tunisian, I am an Arab, but I am not Libyan and even less Omani or Saudi, though I share with them my Arab culture. Think of it like Europe again. Most importantly, I don't want to be part of the same country as Omani or Libyen. I don't share with them the "common destiny" in its political sense. I am an Arab but I definetly am against pan-arabism.
No, Emir Faisal did not consider Palestinians to be Arabs at all, nor anyone living to the west of the Red sea, too boot. His descendents would later claim parts of Palestine as part of Jordan, that much is true.
Emir Faisal is referring to a very old distinction between "Arab Maaribaa" and "Arab moustaaribaa". It refers to the tribes that have always spoke Arabic and those who adopted later (mainly after the spread of Islam). Most Palestinian are of the latter group (well at least that's what Emir Faisal must think (he being the grand grand .... son of the Prophet is definitely from the former).
Faisal opinion on this won't matter at all to be honest as Palestinian are most definitely Arabs (in the cultural sense). Now Kurds on the other hand ?
The root of all problems is that the institution (namely, Israel) capable of taking charge of the situation have been rendered powerless under international consensus. Every Palestinian faction (I include the Jewish settlers as one for the sake of simplicity, alongside the PLO and Hamas) is armed to the teeth and will fight to the death with each other. Not really a recipe for a healthy state. It is not really true Somalia is completely anarchistic: Rather, the government struggles with organisations that seek governmental control over Somalia. It will be also the case in any conceivable Palestinian state.
And let's face it: The settlers cannot be removed from West Bank without triggering a civil war. While their presence is formally illegal, it is rarely mentioned that Palestinians who voluntarily relinquish territory are punishable by death. The west nevertheless buys the logic of the Arab states due to its economic ties, though from a dispassionate perspective, you will have to admit there settlements are a fait accompli.
1. I do not understand the bolded part. What do you think Israel should do that the International Community is not allowing it to do?
2. on the italic: well that is the problem, I know they are a fait accompli that is making the problem unsolvable every day (if it ever was solvable).
I am really curious to know what would you do if you were the President of Israel, and what will you do if you were the President of PA?
Jerusalem will never be divided again and those areas "inside" the West Bank, both sides have agreed will be inside Jewish Territory should Palestinians give up their silly demands.
