Didn't stop Germany from uniting, with the whole protestant Catholic divide, though there was still conflict.There is still the whole Sunni, Shiite divide to deal with.
It wasn't like that at the beginning of the century though. The Sunnis and Shia got along fine under the Ottomans, under European rule, and got halfway through the Cold War before the sectarian nastiness started. In a way, what is going on now is a betrayal of Pan-Arabism as it was first conceived. The way I see it there were two way's Pan-Arabism could have gone, either celebrating the diversity of the Arab World or forcing homogeneity on minorities by their definition of what "Arab" meant. The latter won out in OTL, with predictable consequences for the minorities. The reason for that? Israel. Sorry. It has to take at least some the the blame.Yeah, but the Protestants and Catholics in Germany had pretty much stopped killing each other 200 years earlier. The Sunnis and Shiites are still killing each other today.
Egypt is the most populated Arab nation and was the center of Pan-Arabism. It's certainly going to be a member, the capital, and the most likely one to start the whole thing.Egypt is unlikely to stay a member of any larger Arab federation in the long term, Egyptians do speak Arabic, but there is a stronger and more distinct Egyptian national identity than in other Arabic speaking countries.
The Egyptian people are Egyptian Arab Muslims, with equal emphasis on all three parts of that identity. Any movement that overemphasizes one part of Egyptian's identity relative to the others is going to fail in the long run.Egypt is the most populated Arab nation and was the center of Pan-Arabism. It's certainly going to be a member, the capital, and the most likely one to start the whole thing.
How would this relative be in a scenario where Egypt is the center of Pan-Arab state also the existence and success of such a state would vindicate pan-Arabism and Arab nationalism . Not to mention the peace with Israel was and is still unpopular in Egypt.Arab nationalists like Nasser make the same mistake but with a different overemphasis. The Camp David Accords demonstrated that Egyptian leaders care about the Egyptian people's interests first. Anwar Saddam wasn't going to put Egypt's Nile Delta core at risk or write off control of the Sinai for the foreseeable future for the sake of the Palestinian cause or Syria's claim to the Golan heights. Egypt's continued unwillingness to annex the Gaza strip is a clear demonstration that Egyptians and Palestinians are two related, but distinct peoples.
Ummyyad Caliphate? You mean the one that conquered Al-Andalus and almost took Constantinople a couple times? Admittedly, that could work, though it would clearly be a pre-1900 PoD working on a more unified and centralized caliphate fixing its internal issues and holding on longer to create a sort of unified identity.Abbasid amd Umayyad lands - that is far as I can figure if all the Arab / Muslim world united. But I doubt it would last long - something would break them up - war, their own weight, infighting between sects, and other items like the United States.
Maybe Germany reaches Paris and generally causes more destruction in France? Idk about Britain?Post-1900, a united Fertile Crescent, possibly even taking the Arabian peninsula, though it would require the Sykes-Picot agreement to fail or not exist to begin with. Possibly a more exhausting WW1 that results in France and Britain being unable to extend their control over the Middle East effectively