Saʿadeh’s conception of peace in the Arab world was grounded in his broader understanding of nations, sovereignty, and realistic cooperation. He rejected rhetorical or abstract notions of unity that ignored the concrete realities of societies, arguing instead for what he described as “realistic Arabism,” based on cooperation among distinct nations rather than the dissolution of their identities. [1] In this sense, regional peace could not be built on emotional slogans or ideological abstractions, but required strong, organized nations capable of constructive interaction and mutual respect.
Within this framework, Saʿadeh viewed the Syrian nation as playing a pivotal role in stabilizing the Arab environment. He maintained that a fragmented Syria—divided by sectarianism, regionalism, and political opportunism—would contribute to instability rather than peace. [2] Consequently, he emphasized the necessity of achieving internal unity and social renaissance as a prerequisite for meaningful regional cooperation.[3] A cohesive and confident Syria, possessing a clear national identity and strong social institutions, could serve as a constructive partner in fostering stability across the Arab world. [4]
Saʿadeh therefore advocated the establishment of a cooperative Arab Front as an institutional mechanism for coordination among Arab nations. [5] This proposal was formally embedded in the objectives of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, which explicitly included “the endeavour to form an Arab front.” [6] The purpose of this front was not to abolish national sovereignty, but to coordinate policies on shared issues and defend common interests against foreign domination. In Saʿadeh’s view, regional peace requires organized cooperation that respects diversity while promoting solidarity. The Arab Front, thus conceived, would function as a barrier against colonial ambitions and a framework for constructive collaboration.
At the same time, Saʿadeh criticized what he described as “illusory Arabism,” which relied on slogans of unity without addressing the structural causes of division and weakness. He argued that such approaches led to fragmentation and political confusion rather than genuine cooperation. [7] Realistic Arabism, by contrast, begins with the strengthening of each nation internally and proceeds toward coordinated action based on shared interests. Only nations that possess coherence and vitality, he maintained, can contribute effectively to regional stability. In this sense, the rise of Syrian Social Nationalism was seen as contributing not only to Syrian unity but also to the formation of a strong and balanced Arab front. [8]
Saʿadeh also linked regional peace to cultural and social renewal. He believed that internal divisions fueled by sectarianism, reactionary ideologies, and outdated social structures weakened the Arab world and made it vulnerable to external interference. The establishment of a new psychological, cultural, and scientific order—capable of eliminating discord, overcoming fragmentation, and fostering confidence—was therefore essential for lasting peace. Such renewal would cultivate solidarity within societies and encourage cooperation among nations, thereby creating the foundations for a stable regional environment. [9]
Regional peace, however, could not be separated from justice in concrete political issues, particularly the question of Palestine. [10] Many political and historical analyses argue that lasting peace cannot be achieved while the Palestinian population remains dispossessed of its land, denied sovereignty, and subject to ongoing structures of domination and displacement. The SSNP likewise framed the confiscation of Palestinian land and the displacement of its inhabitants as a fundamental injustice that undermined regional stability.
Saʿadeh regarded the Palestinian problem as a central test of stability in the Arab world. In his view, peace cannot prevail while a people are dispossessed of their land, denied sovereignty, and subjected to policies of domination and expansion. The confiscation of Palestinian territory and the displacement of its inhabitants constituted, in his analysis, a profound injustice that undermined any claims to regional stability. Consequently, the restoration of rights and the correction of historical wrongs were necessary conditions for meaningful and lasting peace. [11]
This concern extended to broader historical injustices affecting Syria and its regional environment. Saʿadeh—and, after his death, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party—questioned the possibility of regional stability in a context where colonial projects had fragmented Syria and deprived it of vital parts of its territory, including Palestine, the Golan Heights, Cilicia, Alexandretta, the Sinai, and parts of southern Lebanon. Such developments, in their view, perpetuated instability and fueled conflict across the Arab world. The redress of these wrongs was therefore seen as essential for establishing durable peace, since a settlement built upon dispossession and inequality would remain fragile and temporary.
In this perspective, peace in the Arab world emerges not from forced unity or political domination, but from cooperation among sovereign nations that share common interests while preserving their individuality, and from the restoration of justice in cases of dispossession and colonial fragmentation. A strong Syrian nation, unified socially and politically, would contribute to the creation of a cooperative Arab front capable of resisting foreign intervention and promoting regional stability. Regional peace, therefore, becomes the product of national renaissance, realistic cooperation, cultural renewal, and the correction of historical injustices, rather than ideological abstraction or imposed unity.
[1] Antun Sa´adeh, The Enemies of the Arabs Are the Enemies of Lebanon, 1979, pp. 159 – 165.
[2] Ibid., pp. 123-129.
[3] Ibid., p. 161.
[4] Ibid., pp. 159 – 165.
[5] Antun Sa´adeh, Al-Muhadarat al-’Ashr (The Ten Lectures), op. cit., p. 171
[6] Ibid., p. 171-179,
[7] Ibid., p. 179.
[8] Antun Sa´adeh, The Enemies of the Arabs Are the Enemies of Lebanon, 1979, pp. 159 – 165.
[9] Ibid., p. 165.
[10] On 14 May 1948, the State of “Israel” was declared in Mandatory Palestine. The 1948 war resulted in the displacement of a large portion of the Palestinian population (approximately 700,000–900,000 people) and the depopulation of numerous villages, an event widely referred to as the Nakba. Historians attribute these developments to a combination of military conflict, political collapse, and, in some cases, expulsions and forced flight. The establishment of the state followed decades of Zionist political and diplomatic activity under the British Mandate, during which the British authorities supported aspects of the Zionist project while presiding over escalating intercommunal tensions.
[11] By historical wrongs or injustices, reference is made to the fragmentation of geographical Syria following the Sykes–Picot Agreement, the issuing of the Balfour Declaration, the loss of territories including Cilicia, Alexandretta, the Sinai, and the Ahwaz region, as well as the occupation of Palestine, which resulted in the deprivation of Syria of vital raw materials. See Antun Sa’adeh. The Complete Works, vol 2, 1935-1937, Paving the Road for Syria’s Revival”.
