Colleague Salah Al-Sayer states in a video that most Arab countries are not truly Arab, and that the term "Arab nation" is a great lie. He argues that advocates of Arab unity have relied on the existence of a shared history, geographic continuity, religion, language, among other factors, and built their idea upon these. He asserts that he has researched and found that what is known as "Arab history" is not applicable or credible, with very few points of convergence. For instance, what is common between the histories of Lebanon, Morocco, Sudan, or Yemen? This applies to other countries as well. The existence of shared history between two neighboring countries is normal and applies to all countries around the world.
Geographic connection also means nothing; South American countries are connected, and their peoples are similar in appearances, language, heritage, religion, school of thought, clothing, as well as many of their foods, songs, and traditions. Their history is notably shared, and the commonalities or connections between them are much greater than those among all Arabs. Yet, they have never had the chauvinistic drive to unite. Why must we be the ones to unite with all this diversity in which we are immersed?
The factor of religion is also a common factor among numerous groups worldwide. There are over 1.4 billion Catholics and many other Christians, yet religion has not been a "unifying" factor among them. Moreover, within Islam, there are various sects and groups, and many large non-Muslim minorities, who have lived in most Arab countries since ancient times. If Syria were to unite with Iraq on a religious basis, millions of non-Muslims — Christians, Jews, Druze, Baha'is, and Alawites — would become second-class citizens.
Common language is another myth. Several countries, including African ones, speak French and are connected by a cultural network called "Francophonie," but nothing else, noting that France, which previously colonized and humiliated them, leads this community. Regarding language, I do not believe any country would be willing to fight alongside another country simply because their languages are the same.
Colleague Salah also believes that "Arab unity," or its cousin Arab nationalism, essentially stem from British and French ideas aimed at creating a military entity against the Ottoman Turks through a great Arab revolution, which partially came to fruition. Arab Christians played a significant role in reviving and strengthening the idea of Arab nationalism due to their fear of the Islamic numerical dominance in their societies and the potential marginalization. Thus, it was not surprising that most Arab nationalist leaders and thinkers were Christians, focusing their idea on unifying Egypt, Iraq, and the Levant, while countries on the fringes, like the Arabian Peninsula, Sudan, and North Africa, were not particularly in their calculations.
It is evident that we, as Arab countries, differ in our cultures, dreams, features, skin colors, customs, traditions, attire, food, and even in the pronunciation of letters in our language. So, what is left for us to rally around? Given that we are a group of underdeveloped countries, nearly null in many of their facets, bringing these nulls under one umbrella would keep them null, if their union persists. Therefore, it is better for each country to focus on its own status — scientifically, culturally, and most importantly, materially — before we think for a moment about a dream that may never be realized. A small wealthy country will never accept merging into a union with a "sister" country that is dozens of times larger in area and population, and has a backward and crumbling economy. For instance, Jordan, which once cheered for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, would definitely not accept uniting with Sudan, but would often not oppose uniting with a small, very wealthy country. Here, self-interest is the measure, not deceptive national sentiments.
