Arabism is as sacred as religion, and carries a religious burden like language. Every group or entity that is keen on homogeneity naturally rejects anyone who does not assimilate with it, and ostracizes anyone who remains within its space, as was the case with the Kurds and will remain so with others under the shadow of Arabism. This was also the mentality of conquests and Islamization, and the mentality of spreading religion on the basis that it is the true religion and all others are infidel and false. Moreover, it is the religion of the Creator.
Arab nationalism includes all Arabic speakers, even from outside the Syrian homeland, and the Muhammadan nation includes all believers even from outside the Syrian homeland or the Arab region according to the concept of loyalty and disavowal. Within the Syrian homeland, Arabists exclude non-Arabs or those who do not wish to be Arabs from the right of citizenship, in whole or in part. According to loyalty and disavowal, the Ottoman Turkish Sunni became closer to them than the Syrian Kurd, and the Mauritanian became closer to them than the Syriac. Thus, religion became a factor of internal division in pluralistic homelands, and Arabism or Arab nationalism became a factor of internal fragmentation, not a factor that unites those who differ around common denominators. This Arabism wanted to unite what nature, life, and circumstances had separated, and to fragment what life and circumstances had united. This was Arab nationalism, which Saadeh described as a psychological illness that distorted the mind, logic, and perception.
Saadeh said nearly seventy years ago that Arabism had gone bankrupt, at a time when it was a self-evident identity! How do we evaluate Arabism and Arab nationalist thought now, after all these years? Has Arab nationalism succeeded in any of life’s battles…unity…progress…peace…the Palestinian cause…democracy…freedoms…the economy…Cilicia…Alexanderton…the unity of the land…divisions based on sectarianism, the constant need to possess the tool of factional or sectarian hegemony, the erosion of understanding between people and in all other areas of life? Where has Arab nationalism succeeded, and in which area of life?
Aflaq saw Arab identity as a sacred axiom. This is how he saw it in an article he wrote in 1957 entitled “Arab Nationalism and the National Vision”: “For the Baath Party, Arab nationalism is a self-evident axiom that imposes itself without the need for discussion or struggle. Difference and the necessity of conflict are confined within this nationalism. There is no parallel to this model except in the structure of the Syrian National Front. The racial and ethnic characteristic is axiom and non-negotiable. And since Arabism is Islam, i.e. a religion, it is also non-negotiable. The practice of self-deception and empty boasting is also non-negotiable. Likewise, the concepts of hopes and dreams are non-negotiable. According to the provisions of non-negotiation, responsibility must be understood regarding the Kurdish issue and its aggravation, and responsibility for pushing the Kurds to seek their interest in equal citizenship, which racist Arab nationalism took from them. In short, all the country’s misfortunes are due to the duality of Arabism and religion…!
Arabism, which Saadeh considered a psychological illness, was an imaginary fantasy far removed from reality: the Arabism of origin, race, language and religion. Is it conceivable that Saadeh would side with Arab racism, that is, with racists? Is it conceivable that Saadeh would side with those who intrude religion into the state? Isn’t it to be expected that Saadeh would say to those who merge religion with the state: “You are pathological cases and need treatment?” Whoever views nationalism through religion is sick. Nationalism is not based on religion. Religion is universal and global, while nationalism is national and regional, meaning it is linked to a geographically defined and globally recognized homeland. Nationalism is people’s awareness of the unity of their social, economic and political life based on common denominators with those who are different, regardless of their religion, origin or class. Syrians are not a race, language or religion, nor are they all part of a society. Syrians as a people or a society are a political state that is not subject to the rulings of any religion, and it is not their civic duty to obey the commands of any religion. However, they do not care that Syrians embrace any religion, nor do they care that Syrians practice their religiosity as they wish in their personal sphere!
The issue here concerns Saadeh and his diagnosis of the diseases of Arabism, or rather, hi analysis of the issue of Arabism، The Arabism that he meant and that Saadeh described as a disease is the Arabism of the Baath, which we have become practically acquainted with over the years, especially after Saadeh’s death, as well as the Arabism of Hafez al-Assad, which we have also become acquainted with, then the Arabism of Sati’ al-Husri, and even the Arabism of Aflaq and al-Arsuzi, and in general the Arabism of Arab nationalism and the Arabism of the nation of Ibn Abdullah, then the Arabism of the Arab homeland from the ocean to the Gulf. This is precisely the Arabism that Antoun Saadeh described as a psychological illness. We add to that the word “incurable,” meaning that it is a malignant psychological illness that leads to death in all cases