Sejarah Zionisme, 1600-1918/Volume 1/Bab 31

CHAPTER XXXI.

THE LEBANON QUESTION

Selim I.—The Emir Beshir of The Lebanon—A Conference of five Powers—Druses and Maronites—Massacres in Damascus—A Military Expedition—The Protocol of August 3rd, 1860—General Beaufort d’Hautpoul—Achmet Pasha—David Pasha—Joseph Karan—The Constitution of The Lebanon—The boundaries—The alterations from 1861 to 1902—The Earl of Carnarvon’s views—Jewish charity—Anti-Jewish accusations and riots—M. E. A. Thouvenal—Lord John Russell—George Gawler’s letter.

After the conquest of Syria in 1516 by Sultan Selim I. (1467‒1520), The Lebanon was ruled by a succession of Mussulman Emirs, the most famous of whom, Beshir Shehaab, governed benevolently from 1789 to 1840, in the later years of his reign by the help of Mehemet Ali. The withdrawal of the Egyptian troops from Syria in 1841 was followed by anarchy in the mountains. Lord Palmerston accordingly wrote, on 15th June of that year: “Her Majesty’s Government feel especially called upon to address the Turkish Government on this matter on the account of the oppression which Haji Nejib is said to practise upon the Christians. For England having, in conjunction with other Christian Powers, succeeded in restoring Syria to the Sultan, she is entitled to expect that the Sultan, in return for such assistance, should secure his Christian subjects from oppression.” A conference of representatives of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia met at Constantinople on 27th May, 1842, with the ultimate result that the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs announced on 7th December that the Porte would act upon the advice of the five Powers, and appoint separate Kaimakams for the Druses and Maronites respectively. This arrangement was in vogue with but slight success for nearly twenty years.

This portrait is the frontispiece of Mount Lebanon.... Colonel Churchill, vol. i.... 1853.

In 1860 the lasting feuds of the tribes in The Lebanon suddenly burst into a furious attack, on the part of the Druses, on their Maronite neighbours. The Turkish authorities connived at the massacres which were committed. On the 9th of July, 1860, riots broke out in Damascus in consequence of the punishment inflicted upon a few Mussulmans who had insulted the Christians. These Mussulmans rushed, armed to the teeth, to the Christian quarter, and began slaying, burning and pillaging. The Turkish soldiers came to their assistance on the pretence of quelling the disturbance, made common cause with the rioters, and joined in the killing, robbing and plundering. A few old Mussulmans attempted to stop the massacres, but the Turkish officers had no desire for peace; on the contrary, they spurred on their soldiers to further aggression against the unfortunate Christians, and the soldiers were assisted by hordes of looters of every sect. This state of things lasted two days, during which the rioters did not cease to massacre the Christians, to whom the Governor did not afford any help. The number of the victims was estimated at 3300. The places where their houses had stood were not recognizable, all their dwellings having been reduced to ashes.

The Sultan sent Faud Pasha (1815‒1869) as an Extraordinary Commissioner with a military force. Faud Pasha issued a Proclamation to the inhabitants of Syria, in which, after alluding to the grief felt by the Sultan on hearing of the outrages, he said:—

“According to the Imperial commands, invested with a special and extraordinary mission, and possessing full powers, I have arrived, accompanied by a military force, to punish the guilty authors of so many crimes.

“The Imperial firman will inform you what is my mission, and enable everyone to judge of the extent of the Imperial justice, which accords refuge to the oppressed and punishes the oppressor.

“All may remain here in safety; the condition of the families driven from their homes will be taken into consideration, and I undertake to reassure them, and to extend to them the protection of the Imperial justice.

“I command, above all, that from this day forth dissensions cease; whichever nation dares to use violence against the other shall be attacked by the military force which accompanies me, and every person who forgets his duty will undergo immediate punishment.”

But Faud did not succeed in removing the difficulties, and each new account added to the horrors of the massacre. It appeared that the country had almost been swept clean of its Christian inhabitants. In The Lebanon not a Christian village had been spared; all the commerce of the region was interrupted; a journey from one village to another was no longer safe.

To put an end to these excesses and to restore peace and safety to the province, the “Protocol of the 3rd of August” was signed. In August the first French troops were landed on the Syrian Coast. It was a gratifying sign of the unanimity prevailing among all civilized Powers that although the state of Europe was at that time far from tranquil, the European nations were yet capable of unison in the cause of justice. It was certainly in the cause of justice that the forces of the Western world were brought to the Syrian coast, though political intrigue was busy circulating rumours such as are bound to be spread abroad when an expedition of this kind is undertaken by European Powers. That France should send troops to a country which, according to popular belief, she had coveted for years was, indeed, enough to excite world-wide attention. But opinion that mattered was inclined to assert that France had acted generously and loyally. It was, indeed, too absurd to profess the belief that intrigues in the East had given rise to these disturbances, and that the Christians themselves had caused the massacre so that France should achieve glory and influence. Undoubtedly there was in every Levantine town a host of Catholic emissaries, Jesuits, Lazarists, and the like, and it was only natural for Roman Catholics to use the name and invoke the protection of the Power which had once been the only Catholic Power known in the East.

The expedition of 1860 was made at the instance of France, but according to an international convention all the Powers had to participate in it. A contingent of European troops, which was to be increased to 12,000 men, was to be despatched for the purpose of restoring peace. France engaged to furnish half of these troops at once. If it became necessary to increase the force beyond the stipulated number, a further understanding was to be arrived at among the contracting Powers. The Commander-in-Chief of the expedition was to enter into communication with the special Commissions of the Porte. All the Powers were to keep sufficient naval forces on the Syrian coast to assist in the maintenance or re-establishment of tranquillity there. The contracting parties fixed the term of the occupation at six months, being convinced that this period would be sufficient to ensure the pacification of the populace. These were the principal terms of this important Convention, as laid down in the Protocol by the representatives of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia and Turkey at Paris on the 3rd August.

“The Plenipotentiaries of, etc., desirous of establishing, in conformity with the intention of their respective Courts, the true character of the assistance afforded to the Sublime Porte, by the provisions of the Protocol signed this day, the feelings which have dictated the clauses of this act, and their perfect disinterestedness, declare in the most formal manner that the contracting Powers do not intend to seek for, and will not seek for, in the execution of their engagements, any territorial advantage, and exclusive influence, or any concession with regard to the commerce of their subjects, such as could not be granted to the subjects of other nations.”

Troops were landed on the 16th of August under General C. M. N. Beaufort d’Hautpoul (b. 1804). Subsequently a Commission representative of the Powers was appointed to investigate the facts. The Druses escaped into the Hauran Desert, and it was found that Turks and Damascene fanatics were really responsible for stirring up the strife, in which the Maronites had acted with a vindictiveness equal to that of the Druses. Punishment was meted out to the Mohammedans who were principally responsible, and among others Achmet Pasha, the Governor of Damascus, was shot. The French occupation continued till the 5th June, 1861, and the French and English squadron patrolled the coast for several months after. In June, 1861, the troops returned to France, and the Commissions drew up a scheme of government for The Lebanon. It provided for the appointment of a Christian Governor, to be chosen by the Porte, and for dividing the region into seven districts, each of which was to be controlled by a chief professing the religion held by its inhabitants. David Pasha, an Armenian Christian, was the first Governor. He was installed on the 4th of July, 1861. In spite of many difficulties, he succeeded in restoring order; and by raising a military force from the inhabitants of The Lebanon he made the presence of the Turkish soldiery unnecessary. The district Council included four Maronites, one Druse, one Orthodox Greek, and one Separatist Greek. The constitution did not satisfy the Maronites, whose revolt, under Joseph Karan, kept The Lebanon in a very unsettled state for several years. The privileged province of The Lebanon was finally constituted by the Organic Statute of the 6th of September, 1864.

The Lebanon was constituted a sanjak or mutessariflik, dependent directly on the Porte, which was to act in this case in consultation with the six great Powers. The province extended about 93 miles from north to south (from the boundary of the sanjak of Tripoli to that of the caza of Sidon), and had a mean breadth of about 28 miles from one fort of the chain to the other, beginning at the edge of the littoral plain behind Beyrout and ending at the western edge of the Beka’a: but the boundaries were ill-defined, especially on the east, where the original line drawn along the crest of the ridge had not been adhered to, and the mountains had encroached on the Beka’a. The Lebanon was under a military Governor (mashir), who had been a Christian in the service of the Sultan (1861‒1876), Abdul Aziz (1830‒1876), approved by the Powers, and who had, so far, been chosen from the Roman Catholics, owing to the great preponderance of Latin Christians in the province. He resided at Deir-al-Kamar, an old seat of the Druse Emirs. At first appointed for three years, then for ten, his term has been fixed since 1892 at five years, the Porte fearing that the longer term might lead to a personal domination. Under the Governor were seven Kaimakams, all Christians except a Druse in Shuf, and forty-seven mudirs, who all depended on the Kaimakams, except one, in the home district of Deir-al-Kamar. A central mejliss or Council of twelve members was composed of four Maronites, three Druses, one Turk, two Greeks (orthodox), one Greek Uniate and one Metawel. This was the original proportion, and it has not been altered, in spite of the decline of the Druses and the increase of the Maronites. The members are elected by the seven cazas. In each mudirich there is also a local mejliss. Judges are appointed by the Governor, but Sheikhs by the villagers. Commercial cases, and law-suits in which strangers are concerned, are carried to Beyrout. The police is recruited locally, and no regular troops appear in the province except on special requisition. The taxes are collected directly, and must meet the needs of the province before any sum is remitted to the Imperial treasury. The latter has to make deficits good.

This constitution has worked well on the whole. The only serious hitch that occurred was caused by the attempts of the Governor-General and the Kaimakam to supersede the mejliss by autocratic action, and to impair the freedom of the elections. The attention of the Porte was called to these tendencies in 1892, and again in 1902, on the appointment of new Governors. The railway is French, and a precedence in ecclesiastical functions is accorded by the Maronites to the official representatives of France.

Henry Howard Molyneux Herbert (1831‒1890), the fourth Earl of Carnarvon, wrote: “In estimating the past, and in taking security for the future, it must never be forgotten that for generations the policy of the Turkish Government has been eminently hostile to the maintenance of Druse nationality. As charity obliges us to believe that no state in Christendom would deliberately instigate the massacre of several thousand Christians, so the common instincts of humanity, and even self-interest, oblige us to acquit the Imperial Government of Constantinople from planning, or recommending to the execution of others, a policy of such detestable iniquity towards the subjects for whose protection they are responsible. Both suppositions are too monstrous to be entertained. But as it would not be the first time that Christian rulers have fostered the disputes or exasperated the irritation of other nations, and have set the rock in motion, unforeseeing and to a great extent reckless of the course which it will take, or the misery which it will inflict; so the local authorities in Syria might not unreasonably count upon a favourable interpretation in Constantinople of conduct, which might result either in some moderate spoliation of the Christian population, or in a humiliation of the Druse mountaineers, or in a convenient opportunity for intervening in the affairs of The Lebanon. It is a natural expedient, it is doubtless the wish of the Turkish Government, to divide and rule the tribes of The Lebanon;... The desire to break down Druse independence enters at least equally into these schemes.... It is equally clear that it is not for the advantage of England, as far as she has an interest in these questions, to consent to the annihilation of Druse nationality.... Again whilst convents and schools, ... have long laboured to create a French party among the Maronites, and to establish a French influence in The Lebanon, a strong connection of gratitude on the one hand, and of good offices on the other, has existed between the Druses and England; at all events, The Lebanon has to be relieved of Turkish administration, because it would be indifferent statesmanship to stimulate still further the centralizing policy that threatens Turkey equally with every other nation in Europe, and to allow the independent strength of local institutions and a peculiar race to be confounded in the ruin of an empire now tottering to its fall.”

This was a sound political opinion, clear, logical, based upon justice. It is to be regretted that the same policy was not applied to other provinces and other distinct races. As regards British interests, we find again the old and indisputable truth expressed as follows:—

“Territorial extension, indeed, need never enter into the dreams of English statesmanship; but it would be an act of infatuation to overlook the vast importance of Syria in any present or future distribution of European Power, which either the weakness or the crimes of other nations may necessitate. The country which now, not less than in the reigns of the Ptolemies and the Mamelukes, guards and therefore governs the northern frontier of Egypt—which now, as in the days of Alexander [(III.) the Great] (356‒323 b.c.e.), commands one at least of the great approaches to India—is no petty principality, to be surrendered to the love of ease or the importunities of allies.”

The calamity that had befallen the Christians of Syria had aroused the deepest commiseration among the Jews all over the world. Sir Moses Montefiore led the way with a letter in the Times, July 12, 1860 (p. 9), and M. Crémieux in France followed his lead. Several Rabbis and Presidents of Jewish communities addressed appeals to the Jewish population, and handsome contributions were collected.

But unfortunately false accusations were again brought against the Jews in Damascus. Some of the fanatics were envious of the Jews, especially because they had escaped the slaughter. The accusations commenced whilst Faud Pasha was still there and was conducting the inquiries in person. The Maronites accused the Jews of being in league with the Druses, the orthodox Greeks charged them with being on terms of reciprocity with the Maronites, and after all these slanders the blood accusation was circulated. Faud, who knew perfectly well that the Jews had nothing in common with the Druses or the Maronites, and that they were a peaceful and law-abiding people, would not listen to these calumnies. But after the Pasha had left, Christian and Mohammedan fanatics, by means of bribery, conspired against the unfortunate Jews, and had some prominent members of their community arrested, bringing forward false witnesses to testify that they saw such and such a Jew committing murder. Happily, most of them were at once released by Faud Pasha on his return to the city. This act of justice was performed by the Turkish functionary spontaneously, before any remonstrance from Europe could have reached him. Nevertheless, the two European Powers acted with promptness and used their influence in the matter.

M. E. A. Thouvenal (1818‒1866), Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, had on September 23rd, 1860, given the most stringent orders to his agents in Syria to protect the Jews, and to prevent any injury being done to them; and so had Lord John Russell (1792‒1878), who had also generously joined the defenders of the Jewish population in the East. This united action on the part of the two Governments prevented misfortunes and the perpetration of crimes against the Jews, and as a consequence 1860 bore no analogy to 1840.

But if the Jews were saved from massacre and riot, this did not solve their problem. Dr. Abraham Benisch, in an editorial, pointed out that “In permitting this terrible outbreak of fanaticism in Syria, Providence has once more prominently directed the attention of the world to the country forming the inalienable inheritance of the descendants of the patriarchs, and the cradle of the institutions that have regenerated and reinvigorated a decrepit and decaying civilisation, and has once more forcibly reminded the world that ever since the ruthless Romans exterminated the Jew from the land of his ancestors, no race has found there rest for the sole of its feet, and no population has been permitted to enjoy in peace, for any length of time, the blessings of a ground due to the wandering tribe of the sore foot.”

With reference to these remarks, the following letter was received from the Christian Zionist, Colonel Gawler:—

“Dear Sir,

“I cannot refrain from giving expression to my sincere gratification at your valuable leading article of the 27th inst. I need scarcely mention that your views are met by my very warmest reciprocity on the point that, ‘in permitting this terrible outbreak of fanaticism in Syria, Providence has once more prominently directed the attention of the world to the country forming the inalienable inheritance of the descendants of the Patriarchs.’

“You may remember a plan to which I gave publication on the occasion of the war between the Druses and Maronites in 1845, upon the ‘tranquillisation of the East by planting Jewish (agricultural) settlements in Palestine.’ I entertain strongly the anticipation that something of this kind may arise from the present disturbances.

“To give Jews in Palestine the means of maintaining themselves and their families by honest and healthy industry would be the best preparation of the way for better things, to the Jewish nation and to the whole human race, that could be desired.

“In maintaining such projects I am not at all proposing faithlessness to ‘our allies’ the Turks. So long as the empire stands, Jewish civilised settlement in Syria would be a strength and a blessing to it. It is only in the event of its ever falling that I should be glad to see the claim boldly enforced in reference to Palestine, ‘This portion belongs to the God of Israel, and to his national people.’

“I should be truly rejoiced to see in Palestine a strong guard of Jews established in flourishing agricultural settlements, and ready to hold their own upon the mountains of Israel against all aggressors. I can wish for nothing more glorious in this life than to have my share in helping them to do so.

“May your anticipation be richly realised, that great good will come out of the existing Syrian evils.

“George Gawler.

“... July 30, 1860.”

All these developments stirred up Jewish public opinion in England and in France. Great possibilities threw their light into the future like a beacon of hope. The new Lebanon Constitution was, indeed, an indication of the future of Palestine: but the time was not yet ripe for the realization of these hopes.