Following the end of the Great Syrian Revolt, France agreed to hold elections within both countries. Even though the Revolt happened in Syria, it impacted constitutions in both Lebanon and Syria. France refused to change the borders of Lebanon even though several Sunni Muslim leaders still hoped for reunification with Syria. Because Sunni Muslims supported nonsecterianism within Lebanese politics, their refusal to participate meant that it was easier for the French to set up a confessional system of politics. The use of confessional politics, which allowed Muslims to participate within the Lebanese government, reduced their desires to merge with Syria. However, Muslims still pushed for Lebanon's identity as an Arab nation whereas Christians identified with the Mediterranean. Voices criticizing the French borders still existed; Antun Sa'adah, founder of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and a Lebanese Christian, criticized France for dividing Greater Syria. However, he still wrote that Syria, with its distinct regional history, should remain separate. Writers like Sati' al-Husri believed that the only reason why Arab lands remained separate was because of foreign interference. Other writers including Nabih Amin Fares, George Antonius, and Michel ‘Aflaq contended that colonial powers divided Arab land because unity would pose a threat to colonialist rule. Syrian Arab nationalists at first saw the Lebanese government as unconstitutional and unrepresentative because of the confessional system; however, they suspended these viewpoints in hopes of gaining independence through collaborating with Lebanese nationalist movements.