Part I

The definition of the concept of "nationhood" has changed and evolved globally compared to its interpretation in the 17th century. Unfortunately, however, many Arab intellectuals still rely on the old definition, equating nationhood with ethnicity. They speak of the ethnic groups within a single land—such as Iraq, Iran, or Syria—as if they are different "nations," overlooking the tremendous evolution the concept of nationhood has undergone, particularly after World War II.

In this context, the following observations are worth noting:

First, it is essential for the Arab world in general, and for the Arab East in particular, to adhere to the principle of the nation-state. Without it, there is a risk of disintegration into warring ethnic and sectarian factions, as has occurred in Iraq over the past two decades, as is happening in Syria today, and as may very well happen in other Arab countries tomorrow.

Second, while the concept of the nation-state can sometimes be defined along ethnic lines, it can also be based on a people’s presence on a land, and their social solidarity and cohesion regardless of their sect or ethnicity. This is because shared societal, economic, and political factors rise above primitive tribal or sectarian bonds. In other words, even though the initial sense of national consciousness in Western countries began from an ethnic foundation, citizenship eventually leveled the playing field among all inhabitants within recognized state boundaries—regardless of their ethnic origins.

Third, nationalist thought—or the ideology aimed at building society on the foundation of the nation-state—precedes the emergence of the national state itself, not the other way around. History does not record the formation of a nation-state that was followed by the emergence of a nationalist ideology. Rather, it is an ideology that lays the intellectual and structural groundwork for nationhood, just as it does for other political systems. Therefore, it is logical to begin by examining nationalist thought itself, and then study how it was implemented in both the West and the Arab world.

Part II

Europe lived for centuries under the dominance of the Catholic Church and its empire, which monopolized both religion and scientific knowledge. Though kings ruled European countries, they remained at the mercy of the Church, which claimed authority over their fate in the afterlife, and earthly power through its own religious legitimacy and law.

To liberate themselves from religious authority, European states—especially their intellectuals and thinkers—turned to their pre-Christian heritage. They revived the Greco-Roman civilization and reembraced philosophy, literature, sociology, and secular law. They wielded this scientific and secular weaponry against the exclusive hold of Catholicism over all aspects of life. This led to a sweeping and innovative civilizational renaissance that ended the scientifically regressive Middle Ages by separating and distinguishing between religious matters and worldly affairs based on reason and scientific progress. This transformative period came to be known as the Renaissance—the rebirth.

The beginning of European national consciousness emerged through a culture that restored the primacy of reason and logic and rejected fatalism. In the Arab world, the early signs of this shift appeared in the latter half of the 19th century, as Arab intellectuals began translating European scientific books en masse. These translations—from English, French, and German—ushered in what became known as the Arab Nahda (Renaissance). This period witnessed the revitalization of the Arabic language, which had been largely forgotten during the era when Ottoman Turkish was the official language across the Arab world. The importation of printing presses enabled wide public access to reading, which until then had been the exclusive domain of clergy and wealthy landowners.

However, this promising development in the Arab world came to a halt for several key reasons:

First, unlike the West, which returned to its pre-Church heritage to build a rational and scientific foundation, similar efforts in the Arab world were met with rejection. Attempts to revisit pre-Islamic heritage for its historical and intellectual value were suppressed or ignored.

Second, during this critical transitional period in the West—in the late 18th century—a group of intellectuals emerged who worked actively to establish the concept of the nation-state and distinguish it from other forms of society. This culminated in the French Revolution beginning in 1789, which became the catalyst for sweeping changes across Europe toward the modern nation-state. The revolution stripped religion of its role as the source of authority, replacing it with the sovereignty of the people, who alone were granted the right to determine their destiny, the form of their government, and their laws.

This has yet to happen in any Arab country to this day. Although nationalist movements have emerged in the region, they have not succeeded in establishing true nation-states where the people—not religious law—are the source of authority. While an elite group of Arab intellectuals once believed in the necessity of transitioning to a nation-state model—arguing that failure to do so would leave us vulnerable to the power and dominance of other nations—they were unable to convince the broader public to follow. They failed to instill in people the belief that they must unite and support such a state—regardless of religion or sect—as the embodiment of their true collective identity, necessary to successfully resist colonial powers.

Third, this analysis leads to the conclusion that building a successful nation-state is only possible when the people themselves adopt it as their goal, as happened in Western countries and later in East Asian nations like Japan, China, and India. One major exception that stood out in the early 20th century was the Ottoman Empire’s transition to the Turkish nation-state, driven by a military trained in Germany that adopted the principles of the modern national state.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk led the confrontation against both Western powers and Ottoman religious systems, liberating Turkey from Franco-British ambitions. He then seized power from the clergy and forcibly established a modern secular state that separated religion from governance.

(See Abdel Halim Hammoud’s article: "The Complex Turkish Personality", Al-Akhbar, April 18, 2025.)

Part III

     The Fertile Crescent area fell under the French and British mandates at the end of the First World War in 1918, and was fragmented into powerless sectarian mini-states. Palestine was stripped from its people, and a racist, Zionist Jewish state was established in its place, and was renamed as "Israel." This meant that Western powers designed and engineered the Arab East into theocratic states run by different and antagonistic religious sects. These sects were given legitimacy, above and beyond the sovereignty of the people. Since then, not a single Arab state has succeeded in establishing a civil state that separates religion from state affairs and abolishes political sectarianism. Furthermore, because the spread of religion, unlike national states, is not tied to geographic boundaries, its expansion is connected exclusively to the spread of its believers which opens the door for foreign intervention in the name of religious beliefs. Thus, some Syrians who belong to the Sunni sect, for example, may ally with Turkey and see no issue with that, because they do not believe in the unifying concept of the homeland but rather in the dominance of religion, and may be ready to fight alongside Turkey against their own brethrens.

In addition to this, there are objective and compelling reasons that contribute to the success or failure of the formation of the nation-state:

First, as previously mentioned, the establishment of a nation-state depends on the people adopting this concept—that is, the people must see themselves as an integrated unit distinct from other social groups, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. The people must also view their existence on a specific land as being deeply connected to their neighbour who shares this land with them, whether that neighbour belongs to the same sect or not. Societal unity is essential in building the nation-state. Herein lies the crucial role of public schools and schoolteachers, who can play a vital part in either building, or neglecting and crushing national unity (refer to my article “The Goals of Public Education in the Nation-State,” Sabah al-Khayr, issue no. 130). Evidence of this can be found in Lebanon, where national unity and national aspirations were much stronger before the outbreak of the sectarian civil war in 1975 than they were afterwards. Following the war, sectarian currents increased at the expense of the state and its institutions, foremost among them the school and the university. Schools became more confined to their sectarian environments, and the Lebanese University was no longer referred to as a: “national university”, despite having earned that title with distinction and excellence before the civil war.

Second, foreign intervention and the division of the Arab East into sectarian states by the colonial west, as well as the Zionist settlement in Palestine and beyond, played a critical role in preventing the building of a national society. Hence, the formation of a national state would mean the curbing of foreign interventions and their control over our destinies and resources. This is precisely what Western countries, whose colonial ambitions know no bounds, have always fought against, and continue to oppose. Therefore, it is not enough for people to become aware of their collective national identity—they must also strive to implement it, and defend their land just as they would defend themselves and their homes.

Third, the colonial West who had created artificial sectarian states in the Fertile Crescent area following the Sykes-Picot Agreements and the San Remo Conference at the end of World War I resorted to backing sectarian entities that were adopted by some inhabitants who refuse to relinquish them and blend with other elements of the population sharing the same land. This has represented the greatest obstacle in attempts to restore the unity of the Arab East—even in the form of a confederation that allows those entities freedom within this unity. What is strange is that these groups are willing to surrender to western powers or their enemies, rather than take a step toward solidarity and unity under a structure that existed in the Arab East before World War I. Unfortunately, in spite of  the existence of sectarian intermarriages and shared family names across these entities; and in spite of their common culture and language, and their realization that the partitioning  has resulted in the loss of an entire entity (Palestine), and the stripping of lands and territories from each of the existing states; In spite of all of this, sectarian and religious identities still dominate minds and emotions—even when they lead us toward disaster, as is happening today. In such a situation, there is no hope for our survival while sects are fighting each other, and the many enemies are devouring our lands, and displacing our populations with minimal effort and without paying any price, because, in our minds, the enemy is the other sect residing on our land, not the actual enemy who seeks to uproot us, whether our sect wins or loses!

The sectarian conflict erupting in all countries of the Fertile Crescent area without exception is a deadly conflict that will destroy them all, and erase them from existence in favour of the creation of single-sect states that will continue to fight each other! This serves the will of the colonizer, and it is the ideal way for the Zionist entity to realize its dreams at our expense and without paying any price, because the sects’ zealots are the fuel for the ongoing war and a means to secure the economic, political, and strategic interests of the colonial West. That is why the West deliberately establishes religiously antagonistic authorities within the entities of the Fertile Crescent area: If a Sunni assumes power in Iraq, for example, this same colonial West supports an Alawite in Syria, and a Christian in Lebanon. When power in Iraq shifted to the Shiites, as happened after the U.S. occupation in 2003, the West worked to change the head of state in Syria from an Alawite to a Sunni to prevent any rapprochement among these countries. Indeed, Turkey—under U.S. approval—succeeded in putting a Sunni at the head of the Syrian opposition, one whose movement bears a “takfiri” (excommunicatory) legacy that rejects all who differ from it and who is willing to fight on the basis of sectarian hatred rather than national identity. The massacres along the Syrian coast are a prime example of this tendency.

Fourth, the Arab East remains backward in its understanding of the concept of the nation-state, still mistakenly equating the nation-state with race or religion — a grave error. The modern concept of nationhood has moved away from this definition—at least in theory—and has adopted the notion of equality among all citizens within the national territory, regardless of their religion, race, or gender. There is no discrimination between them, and anyone born in a specific country obtains citizenship by birth, even if his/her parents are not citizens; they are entitled the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen.

This does not mean that Western countries have achieved the ideal of true civic equality—these countries are still prone to antagonistic political currents, with some refusing the idea of integration and equal citizenship regardless of race or religion, but the journey toward integration has begun. A clear example is the equalization of rights and duties between black and white citizens under the law—especially after the long Vietnam War, during which many Black Americans refused to participate in that war while being denied their civil rights.

The nagging question remains for us who live in the torn Arab East: Is there hope to achieve national solidarity rather than tearing each other apart?

Part IV

 Antoun Saadeh is one of the most important thinkers to have worked on defining the concept of the national collective. This topic deeply preoccupied him, and he considered it decisive for the salvation of the Arab East from the fragmentation and disintegration we are witnessing today—a crisis he foresaw nearly a century ago.

Unlike many others, Saadeh defined the concept of a national entity as: “a group of people that have common national interests, share the same destiny, and live a unified psychological and material life within a specific territory, and whose interaction with that territory produces specific attributes that distinguish it from other national entities”.

 (See The Genesis of Nations, last section of Chapter Seven).

 From this definition, we can deduce that Saadeh’s concept of the nation-state differs from other forms that define the nation on the basis of linguistic, or ethnic/racial, or religious grounds. If we examine today’s prevailing concepts of nationalism—taking into account that such concepts shift with time and place, as they are subject to historical realities and cannot be separated from human history—we find various models of nation-states. Some restrict the nation to a particular race, as was the case of the United States, which for a long time denied equal rights to black subjects or as some right-wing parties in Europe now do, by denying national identity to immigrants of African descent.

 On the other hand, some Arab thinkers have claimed that language alone defines national identity, while others have considered religion whether Christian or Muslim as the basis of nationhood.

 Additionally, we have witnessed certain extreme forms of nationalism where nationality is defined as both ethnic and religious, like the Zionist entity, which not only colonized and subdued the Palestinian people, but also seized their land under the pretext of the exclusive right of “the Jew,” at the expense of the Palestinian who was expelled and became a refugee. Currently, the Jewish state is committing genocide in Gaza, and openly declaring that it wants the Palestinians out.

 This vision of nationhood represents racism at its worst, because it bestows national identity on a specific group of people while denying it to others - inevitably leading to division, conflict, and perpetual strife. The fire will continue to burn as long as these concepts do not evolve to align along lived reality.

 It is important to note that clinging to language, religion, or race as determinants of identity is a regression—a return to models that existed in ancient and medieval history, and which have no place in the modern concept of the state, i.e., the nation - state. Defining identity based on racial grounds, for example, reflects the tribal model, where lineage—not land—is the determinant of identity. The same applies to religion, where “unity” is based on belonging to a particular faith as opposed to other religious creeds that need to be eradicated or banned.

 In the modern state—the nation state—it is the land that defines a people’s identity. A population that loses its land automatically loses its identity. We have glaring examples of this in the loss to Israel of most of Palestine that was taken by force, and the loss of the Syrian Golan Heights, as well as Lebanese territories also to Israel, leading to the deprivation of its inhabitants of their original identity.

 Saadeh rejected the racist destructive theories that tore society apart, whether religious or racist. He called for the unification of linguistic, ethnic, and religious components that coexist within a single geographic space, under the banner of citizenship, which guarantees equality before the law without discrimination. The importance of law does not come merely from its existence, but from the fact that it is applied to a specific geographical territory, which leads to a homogenous and unified society. Law is a fundamental factor in cementing societal unity; without it, communities sitting atop a piece of land called a “state” will continue to follow their own sectarian, religious, and ethnic laws, unchecked and unregulated.

 In conclusion, Saadeh’s concept of the nation-state remains far ahead of its time. It calls for the acceptance and equality of all the different elements that constitute a society living on a specific territory, and rejects the exclusion of any of its elements on racial or religious bases. This does not mean that these elements should not be recognized, rather, all should accept the equality of citizens as the leading and foundational principle for anyone born on this land, in order for all to thrive and progress.

 Saadeh is one of the few who emphasized the centrality of land in defining the concept of nationhood. Land is the constant—without it, we lose our identity, name as a civilization, and vitality as a living society. Any people who lose their land lose their identity, and their civilization becomes a vanished one, studied in history books but no longer present in the real world.

Note:
"Suraqia" is the name Saadeh gave to the Fertile Crescent countries, which were once a single entity before being divided by Western colonialism at the end of World War I.