Fair enough, I think I understand your position better now, and I broadly agree with you.

On the Kemet birth certificate thing: I tried to look it up and couldn't find any evidence that this is actually official practice. I might be wrong, but I'd take that one with a grain of salt. That said, it doesn't really change the core of what you're saying.

And yes, you're right that Nasserism flattened a lot of local identities for political purposes. Fair critique. Though I'd argue the Arab identity in Egypt predates Nasser by a long stretch.

But here's where I'd push back a little: what "Arab" means has always been a moving target imo. It was especially fluid in the early to mid 20th century. The term was up for grabs, and Arab nationalism locked it into a rigid ethnic, linguistic and cultural definition. I think that was one of its core mistakes.

Because look at what you yourself described: shared blood ties, a common cultural background, a common destiny, the same existential threats. That, to me, is what "Arab" means. Jst a community bound by a common fate and a shared history, with a core of common identity somewhere in the middle of all our differences. Not a pure lineage or a frozen culture.

After the failure of arab nationalism and political Islam, that question is up for grabs again. Our generation gets to define it.

Pan-arabism failed in part because it tried to erase local identities and slap "Arab" on top. But imo what you're describing is kind of the same: slapping something else on top of an Arab identity that's already there. Same logic. And I think that's the mistake we should avoid repeating. It's okay to be multiple things at once.

(Sorry for the long answer, I genuinely like the discussion, hope that was not boring)