On 15 February, the Doha Debates in coordination with the BBC hosted a heated discussion on whether Arab unity after Gaza in dead and buried or not. A whopping 77% of those who attended the debate voted for the claim that we should start offering our condolences; while only 23% still had a flicker of hope.I was among the 77%; not that I believe that the recent bloodshed in Gaza is what caused the split among Arabs. The split is merely a symptom of a chronic disease which has roots deep in history.
Arab states, as of their political borders today, were sliced up by the colonial powers mid-twentieth century without the slightest regard for the varied ethnic and religious groups that lived in the region. As a result, these groups found themselves confined within artificial borders, and asked to identify with their newly-created states and governments. Naturally, whenever an Arab state was not gripped by a despot, people busied themselves with fighting each other for power, for land, or just for the heck of it. Lebanon and Iraq are perfect examples of countries that came tumbling down after autocratic regimes were ousted. No, I’m not promoting dictatorship in any way. What I’m saying is that Arab nationalism is still an unripe concept, and sectarian violence will continue to prevail at least until a firmer sense of patriotism is forged. So how can Arabs unite when oftentimes they lack a sense of affiliation within their own tiny artificial countries?
If you think about it, Arab unity is not really dead. It hasn’t been born yet. Yes there were periods in history when some sort of unity prevailed in the region under the Caliphate rule of Umayyads, Abbasids, and Ottomans. But the Caliphate of those times ruled their people under the name of religion not nationalism. And even then, things did not always flow smoothly as some group was always fighting another for power, for land, or just for the heck of it.