The Syrian Revolution 20211 - 2024: A Marxist Analysis

Book by Yossi Schwartz, Internationalist Socialist League (RCIT Section in Israel/Occupied Palestine), January 2025

 

 

Download
Syria Book_WEB.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Document 576.7 KB

 

 

 

Chapters:

 

 

Part 1

Introduction

 

Chapter 1: Syria before the French Occupation

 

Chapter 2: The Sykes-Picot Agreement

 

Part 2

Chapter 3: Arab Nationalism

 

Chapter 4: The Struggle against colonialist France in Syria (1919-46)

 

Chapter 5: Syria under Hafez Assad

 

Chapter 6: Syria under Bashar Al-Assad

 

 

Part 3

Chapter 7: The Reformist and Centrist Left before the Victory of the Syrian Revolution

 

Chapter 8: The Reformist and Centrist Left after the Victory of the Syrian Revolution

 

 

Part 4

Chapter 9: The Revolutionary Communists and the Syrian Revolution

 

Chapter 10: On the Perspective of the Syrian Revolution

 

Endnotes

 

Part 1

 

 

Introduction

 

 

 

In Syria, after more than 13 years, the political revolution won, and Bashar Assad, the butcher, ran away to Russia. Most of the left, whether they call themselves Communists or Trotskyists, opposed the revolution either because they are counter-revolutionary reformists or centrists who suffered from Islamophobia.

 

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) does not intend to initiate a social revolution. It supports the capitalist system and the disarming of the people and the militias. It proposes forming one army to defend the capitalist system. Only the workers and poor peasants, led by a revolutionary party, can advance a social revolution. Yet it is a historical event that may lead to other revolutions.

 

But how can Marxists hail such a revolution led by reactionary Islamists say the reformists and the centrists? When the Communist International was still a revolutionary party and France joined Spain in attacking the Islamic Republic of the Rif, led by Abd El Karim, the French Communist Party defended the Rif.

 

"Abd el-Krim was not a mystical prophet waging jihad and wanting nothing to do with heretics, in the mold of Muhammed Ahmed ibn-Abdullah (otherwise known as “al-Mahdi”) in Sudan in 1880. Neither was he a pure Berber rogue competing for power. Although he was above all regarded as a local hero, he nevertheless sought to strengthen his international position by sending envoys to some European capitals, generally members of his close family, or by sending letters through foreign journalists and collaborators. He was considered as an example in the Muslim world. The Rif Republic was largely a State based on the tribal system, and a fairly strict form of Islam called Salafism that stands in opposition to Maraboutism and tribalism." [i]

 

"When France joined Spain in its war against the Republic of the Rif in Morocco in 1925, the French communist movement launched a broad-based agitation campaign. This movement played on the themes of anti-militarism, anti-colonialism, and anti-imperialism, serving as an opportunity to show a united front between the Communist Party, the CGTU, and socialist and reformist organizations. It peaked with the general strike that started on 12 October 1925. This strike was the first large-scale application of the new principles of Bolshevization for the galaxy of communist organizations." [ii]

 

"In France, a social-democrat coalition (Popular Front) led by Léon Blum came to power in May 1924, and in 1925, it signed an agreement with Spain regarding joint military action in Morocco. Only the French Communist Party (PCF) – initially accused by the Komintern of being ambiguous about colonial matters and supported by intellectuals, including the Surrealist “Clarté” group – organized mass protests against the war, particularly against the sending of troops to Morocco. At the end of 1924, the PCF also wrote “a pro-Rif manifesto” and sent a telegram of support to Abd el-Krim that would be read before the National Assembly".[iii]

 

Trotsky, in a letter to the painter Diago Rivera, later wrote: "When Abdel-Krim rose up against France, the democrats and Social Democrats spoke with hate of the struggle of a “savage tyrant” against the “democracy.” Leon Blum's party supported this point of view. But we, Marxists and Bolsheviks, considered the struggle of the Riffians against imperialist domination as a progressive war. Lenin wrote hundreds of pages demonstrating the primary necessity of distinguishing between imperialist nations and the colonial and semi-colonial nations, which comprise most of humanity. To speak of “revolutionary defeatism” in general, without distinguishing between exploiter and exploited countries, is to make a miserable caricature of Bolshevism and to put that caricature at the service of the imperialists." [iv]

 

It is essential to know Trotsky's theory and strategy of the Permanent Revolution to understand why only the working class, backed by the poor peasants, can complete the democratic revolution and move on to a socialist revolution.

 

 

 

Trotsky's theory is the extension of Marx's permanent revolution

 

 

 

The theory of the permanent revolution was first developed by Trotsky as early as 1904. The permanent revolution, while accepting that the objective tasks facing the Russian workers were those of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, nevertheless explained how, in a backward country in the epoch of imperialism, the "national bourgeoisie" was inseparably linked to the remains of feudalism on the one hand and to imperialist capital on the other and was therefore unable to carry through any of its historical tasks. It became the task of the working class that, after taking power, will continue to carry out the socialist tasks, and the tempo of achieving the socialist tasks depends on the tempo of the world revolution. Marx and Engels already observed the rottenness of the bourgeois liberals and their counterrevolutionary role in the bourgeois-democratic revolution. In his article The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution (1848), Marx writes:

 

"The German bourgeoisie has developed so slothfully, cravenly, and slowly that at the moment when it menacingly faced feudalism and absolutism, it saw itself menacingly faced by the proletariat and all factions of the burgers whose interests and ideas were akin to those of the proletariat. And it saw inimically arrayed not only a class behind it but all Europe before it. The Prussian bourgeoisie was not, as the French of 1789 had been, the class that represented the whole of modern society vis-a-vis the representatives of the old society, the monarchy, and the nobility. It had sunk to the level of a kind of social estate, as distinctly opposed to the crown as to the people, eager to be in opposition to both, irresolute against each of its opponents, taken severally, because it always saw both of them before or behind it; inclined to betray the people and compromise with the crowned representative of the old society because it already belonged to the old society." [v]

 

Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution also deals with the perspective of the world revolution in contrast to Stalin's socialism in one country. It also deals with the process after the working-class revolution. Trotsky summarized the theory and strategy of the permanent revolution:

 

"I hope that the reader will not object if, to end this book, I attempt, without fear of repetition, to formulate succinctly my principal conclusions.

 

1. The theory of the permanent revolution now demands the greatest attention from every Marxist, for the course of the class and ideological struggle has fully and finally raised this question from the realm of reminiscences over old differences of opinion among Russian Marxists, and converted it into a question of the character, the inner connexions and methods of the international revolution in general.

 

2. With regard to countries with a belated bourgeois development, especially the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the theory of the permanent revolution signifies that the complete and genuine solution of their tasks of achieving democracy and national emancipation is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat as the leader of the subjugated nation, above all of its peasant masses.

 

3. Not only the agrarian, but also the national question assigns to the peasantry – the overwhelming majority of the population in backward countries – an exceptional place in the democratic revolution. Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed. But the alliance of these two classes can be realized in no other way than through an irreconcilable struggle against the influence of the national-liberal bourgeoisie.

 

4. No matter what the first episodic stages of the revolution may be in the individual countries, the realization of the revolutionary alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry is conceivable only under the political leadership of the proletariat vanguard, organized in the Communist Party. This in turn means that the victory of the democratic revolution is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat which bases itself upon the alliance with the peasantry and solves first of all the tasks of the democratic revolution.

 

5. Assessed historically, the old slogan of Bolshevism – ’the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ – expressed precisely the above-characterized relationship of the proletariat, the peasantry and the liberal bourgeoisie. This has been confirmed by the experience of October. But Lenin’s old formula did not settle in advance the problem of what the reciprocal relations would be between the proletariat and the peasantry within the revolutionary bloc. In other words, the formula deliberately retained a certain algebraic quality, which had to make way for more precise arithmetical quantities in the process of historical experience. However, the latter showed, and under circumstances that exclude any kind of misinterpretation, that no matter how great the revolutionary role of the peasantry may be, it nevertheless cannot be an independent role and even less a leading one. The peasant follows either the worker or the bourgeois. This means that the ‘democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ is only conceivable as a dictatorship of the proletariat that leads the peasant masses behind it.

 

6. A democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, as a regime that is distinguished from the dictatorship of the proletariat by its class content, might be realized only in a case where an independent revolutionary party could be constituted, expressing the interests of the peasants and in general of petty bourgeois democracy – a party capable of conquering power with this or that degree of aid from the proletariat, and of determining its revolutionary programme. As all modern history attests – especially the Russian experience of the last twenty-five years – an insurmountable obstacle on the road to the creation of a peasants’ party is the petty-bourgeoisie’s lack of economic and political independence and its deep internal differentiation. By reason of this the upper sections of the petty-bourgeoisie (of the peasantry) go along with the big bourgeoisie in all decisive cases, especially in war and in revolution; the lower sections go along with the proletariat; the intermediate section being thus compelled to choose between the two extreme poles. Between Kerenskyism and the Bolshevik power, between the Kuomintang and the dictatorship of the proletariat, there is not and cannot be any intermediate stage, that is, no democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants.

 

7. The Comintern’ s endeavour to foist upon the Eastern countries the slogan of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, finally and long ago exhausted by history, can have only a reactionary effect. In so far as this slogan is counterposed to the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it contributes politically to the dissolution of the proletariat in the petty-bourgeois masses and thus creates the most favourable conditions for the hegemony of the national bourgeoisie and consequently for the collapse of the democratic revolution. The introduction of the slogan into the programme of the Comintern is a direct betrayal of Marxism and of the October tradition of Bolshevism.

 

8. The dictatorship of the proletariat which has risen to power as the leader of the democratic revolution is inevitably and very quickly confronted with tasks, the fulfillment of which is bound up with deep inroads into the rights of bourgeois property. The democratic revolution grows over directly into the socialist revolution and thereby becomes a permanent revolution.

 

9. The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it. Socialist construction is conceivable only on the foundation of the class struggle, on a national and international scale. This struggle, under the conditions of an overwhelming predominance of capitalist relationships on the world arena, must inevitably lead to explosions, that is, internally to civil wars and externally to revolutionary wars. Therein lies the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such, regardless of whether it is a backward country that is involved, which only yesterday accomplished its democratic revolution, or an old capitalist country which already has behind it a long epoch of democracy and parliamentarism.

 

10. The completion of the socialist revolution within national limits is unthinkable. One of the basic reasons for the crisis in bourgeois society is the fact that the productive forces created by it can no longer be reconciled with the framework of the national state. From this follows on the one hand, imperialist wars, on the other, the utopia of a bourgeois United States of Europe. The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion, only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet.

 

11. The above-outlined sketch of the development of the world revolution eliminates the question of countries that are ‘mature’ or ‘immature’ for socialism in the spirit of that pedantic, lifeless classification given by the present programme of the Comintern. Insofar as capitalism has created a world market, a world division of labour and world productive forces, it has also prepared the world economy as a whole for socialist transformation.

 

Different countries will go through this process at different tempos. Backward countries may, under certain conditions, arrive at the dictatorship of the proletariat sooner than advanced countries, but they will come later than the latter to socialism.

 

A backward colonial or semi-colonial country, the proletariat of which is insufficiently prepared to unite the peasantry and take power, is thereby incapable of bringing the democratic revolution to its conclusion. Contrariwise, in a country where the proletariat has power in its hands as the result of the democratic revolution, the subsequent fate of the dictatorship and socialism depends in the last analysis not only and not so much upon the national productive forces as upon the development of the international socialist revolution.

 

12. The theory of socialism in one country, which rose on the yeast of the reaction against October, is the only theory that consistently and to the very end opposes the theory of the permanent revolution.

 

The attempt of the epigones, under the lash of our criticism, to confine the application of the theory of socialism in one country exclusively to Russia, because of its specific characteristics (its vastness and its natural resources), does not improve matters but only makes them worse. The break with the internationalist position always and invariably leads to national messianism, that is, to attributing special superiorities and qualities to one’s own country, which allegedly permit it to play a role to which other countries cannot attain.

 

The world division of labour, the dependence of Soviet industry upon foreign technology, the dependence of the productive forces of the advanced countries of Europe upon Asiatic raw materials, etc., etc., make the construction of an independent socialist society in any single country in the world impossible.

 

13. The theory of Stalin and Bukharin, running counter to the entire experience of the Russian revolution, not only sets up the democratic revolution mechanically in contrast to the socialist revolution, but also makes a breach between the national revolution and the international revolution.

 

This theory imposes upon revolutions in backward countries the task of establishing an unrealizable regime of democratic dictatorship, which it counterposes to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thereby this theory introduces illusions and fictions into politics, paralyses the struggle for power of the proletariat in the East, and hampers the victory of the colonial revolution.

 

The very seizure of power by the proletariat signifies, from the standpoint of the epigones’ theory, the completion of the revolution (’to the extent of nine-tenths’, according to Stalin’s formula) and the opening of the epoch of national reforms. The theory of the kulak growing into socialism and the theory of the ‘neutralization’ of the world bourgeoisie are consequently inseparable from the theory of socialism in one country. They stand or fall together.

 

By the theory of national socialism, the Communist International is down-graded to an auxiliary weapon useful only for the struggle against military intervention. The present policy of the Comintern, its regime and the selection of its leading personnel correspond entirely to the demotion of the Communist International to the role of an auxiliary unit which is not destined to solve independent tasks.

 

14. The programme of the Comintern created by Bukharin is eclectic through and through. It makes the hopeless attempt to reconcile the theory of socialism in one country with Marxist internationalism, which is, however, inseparable from the permanent character of the world revolution. The struggle of the Communist Left Opposition for a correct policy and a healthy regime in the Communist International is inseparably bound up with the struggle for the Marxist programme. The question of the programme is in turn inseparable from the question of the two mutually exclusive theories: the theory of permanent revolution and the theory of socialism in one country. The problem of the permanent revolution has long ago outgrown the episodic differences of opinion between Lenin and Trotsky, which were completely exhausted by history. The struggle is between the basic ideas of Marx and Lenin on the one side and the eclecticism of the centrists on the other" [vi]

 

Thus, to complete the revolution in Syria, it must progress to a socialist revolution by the armed working class,

 

"Al-Shara (Golani), in his first reference to Israel on its occupations and the destruction it causes to weapons and military technology, said that the Syrian people are exhausted after years of war. Therefore, the current situation “does not allow entry into new conflicts.” [vii]

 

“He also added that “the priority at this stage is restoration and stability, and not to be drawn into conflicts that could lead to further destruction. The Israeli claims (for attacking Syria) have weakened and no longer justify its recent transgressions.“ [viii]

 

“He also added that the steps taken by Israel “threaten an unjustified escalation in the region.” In the meantime, the Syrian delegation to the UN filed a complaint against Israel last Friday for the intrusion into Syria and air force strikes against it. It is also in contact with the US. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth, and it is still too early to assess what the new regime’s reaction to Israel and Western imperialism will be, although there are very worrying signs.

 

It is possible that the Syrian people are not ready for war with Israel, which has considerable military superiority, and that in the future, there will be a military conflict between Syria and Israel in which we will support the rebels without giving them political support. There is a need to demand the new regime’s declarations of support for the Palestinian people.

 

In any case, the democratic revolution must be completed and the socialist revolution must be continued, and the rebel organizations are incapable of this. The first demand that must be raised is the organization of the working class and the poor peasants through a revolutionary constituent assembly and democratic organizations in every neighborhood of workers and peasants. The expropriation of significant capital. (enterprises, banks), under the democratic supervision of the working class, agrarian reforms for the benefit of the poor peasants must also be advanced.

 

Complete the democratic revolution – expel the imperialists, create a revolutionary constituent assembly!

 

Independent democratic organization of the armed workers and the poor peasants!" [ix]


Chapter 1: Syria before the French Occupation

 

 

 

Syria, located in the Middle East on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, is one of the oldest inhabited regions. Its civilization began with the simple settlements of the Neolithic seventh millennium B.C. It progressed to the tremendous Mesopotamian cultures after being conquered by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and Alexander the Great. With the fall of Rome, Syria became part of the Byzantines until the Arab Muslims conquered it, and Türkiye ruled it for 400 years, followed by French imperialism until 1946.

 

“Syria is divided into four topographical zones. To the west, along the eastern Mediterranean, is a narrow, fertile coastal plain. This coast is separated from inland Syria by low mountains that are parallel to the coast and extend south into Lebanon. The third and largest zone is a belt watered by the Euphrates, which flows from the northwest to the southeastern border with Iraq. The Taurus Mountains are the natural boundary between Syria and Türkiye. Outside the reaches of the rivers and irrigation, Syria is a desert. Thus, Syria has uneven and combined parts: agricultural, urban, and nomadic civilizations loosely integrated” [x]

 

The agricultural communities of ancient Syria were villages from the Neolithic period during the seventh and sixth millennia B.C. The time of the beginning of the agrarian revolution that was the foundation of classes. The Gods of this period were generally closely linked with natural phenomena that regulated agriculture. Dagan in the east and Resheph and Baal in the west were storm and weather Gods whose anger could destroy agricultural production and were treated with the utmost respect. The same Gods were worshiped in the urban centers and city-states of the third and second millennia but became more commercially oriented.

 

It is of interest that the God Baal was also the God of the Canaanites and the Hebrews:

 

"Baal was the god worshiped in many ancient Middle Eastern communities, especially among the Canaanites, who apparently considered him a fertility deity and one of the most important gods in the pantheon. As a Semitic common noun, baal (Hebrew baʿal) meant owner or lord, although it could be used more generally; for example, a baal of wings was a winged creature, and, in the plural, baalim of arrows indicated archers. Yet such fluidity in using the term baal did not prevent it from being attached to a god of distinct character. As such, Baal designated the universal god of fertility, and in that capacity, his title was Prince, Lord of the Earth." [xi]

 

"The tremendous Syrian cities of the Bronze Age achieved a high degree of civilization. The most advanced were discovered in Mari and Ebla, city-states' capitals. The Mari Palace contained at least 300 rooms, courts, and several stories.

 

Excavations have recovered extensive cuneiform archives kept by scribes who wrote official correspondence between rulers to careful inventories of all products manufactured, imported, and exported under their supervision. The accounts described metals – gold, silver, copper, and tin – shipped from distant places, of woven textiles and jewelry from specialized craftsmen." [xii]

 

Just as Mari and Ebla prospered from their locations on an overland commercial route, Ugarit on the Mediterranean coast profited from its maritime trade in luxury finished commodities for export to Egypt and the Aegean. As early as the second millennium B.C., the craftsmen of Ugarit (today Ras Shamra) were known for their skills that would be maintained in later periods (thus Solomon requested from Hiram of Tyre, south of Ugarit, a specialist in these arts, for the decoration of the Temple in Jerusalem. Buyers were not only from Jerusalem but also the capitals of the Assyrian kings in northern Iraq.

 

The Babylonian Empire that ruled North Assyria ruled occupied North Syria:

 

"Under the rule of the Amorites, which lasted until about 1600 BC, Babylon became the political and commercial center of the Tigris-Euphrates area, and Babylonia became a great empire, encompassing all of southern Mesopotamia and part of Assyria to the north. The ruler largely responsible for this rise to power was Hammurabi (c. 1792–1750 BC), the sixth king of the 1st dynasty of Babylon," [xiii]

 

The Assyrian Empire occupied North Syria:

 

"Assyria was a dependency of Babylonia and later of the Mitanni kingdom during most of the 2nd millennium BC. It emerged as an independent state in the 14th century BC, and in the subsequent period, it became a major power in Mesopotamia, Armenia, and sometimes in northern Syria. Assyrian power declined after the death of Tukulti-Ninurta I (. 1208 BC). It was restored briefly in the 11th century BC by Tiglath-pileser I. Still, during the following period, both Assyria and its rivals were preoccupied with the incursions of the semi nomadic Aramaeans. The Assyrian kings began a new period of expansion in the 9th century BC. From the mid-8th to the late 7th century BC, a series of strong Assyrian kings—among them Tiglath-pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon—united most of the Middle East, from Egypt to the Persian Gulf, under Assyrian rule. The last great Assyrian ruler was Ashurbanipal." [xiv]

 

During the Hellenistic period, Syria went through many wars:

 

"Syrian Wars, (3rd century BC), five conflicts fought between the leading Hellenistic states, chiefly the Seleucid kingdom and Ptolemaic Egypt, and, in a lesser way, Macedonia.

 

Seleucus, one of Alexander’s leading generals, became satrap (governor) of Babylonia in 321, two years after the death of Alexander. In the prolonged power struggle between the former generals of Alexander for control of the disintegrating empire, Seleucus sided with Ptolemy I of Egypt against Antigonus I, Alexander’s successor on the Macedonian throne, who had forced Seleucus out of Babylonia. In 312, Seleucus defeated Demetrius at Gaza using troops supplied by Ptolemy, and with a smaller force, he seized Babylonia that same year, thereby founding the Seleucid kingdom, or empire. By 305, having consolidated his power over the kingdom, he began gradually to extend his domain eastward to the Indus River and westward to Syria and Anatolia, where he decisively defeated Antigonus at Ipsus in 301. In 281 he annexed the Thracian Chersonesus. That same year, he was assassinated by Ptolemy Ceraunus, the disgruntled son of Ptolemy I.

 

Seleucus was succeeded by his eldest son, Antiochus I Soter, who reigned until 261 and was followed by Antiochus II (reigned 261–246), Seleucus II (246–225), Seleucus III (225–223), and Antiochus III the Great (223–187), whose reign was marked by sweeping administrative reforms in which many of the features of the ancient Persian imperial administration, adopted initially by Alexander, were modernized to eliminate a dual power structure strained by rivalry between military and political figures. The empire was administered by provincial stratēgoi, who combined military and civil power. Administrative centers were located at Sardi's in the west and at Seleucia on the Tigris in the east. The Seleucids exerted enormous political, economic, and cultural power throughout the Middle East by controlling Anatolia and its Greek cities. Their control over the strategic Taurus Mountain passes between Anatolia and Syria and the Hellespont between Thrace and Anatolia allowed them to dominate commerce and trade in the region. Seleucid settlements in Syria, primarily Antioch, were regional centers by which the Seleucid empire projected its military, economic, and cultural influence." [xv]

 

The complex and devious diplomacy surrounding the wars was characteristic of the Hellenistic monarchies. The main issue in dispute between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies was control of southern Syria. In the First War (274–271) Ptolemy II wrested Phoenicia on the northern Syrian coast, most of Anatolia, and the Cyclades Islands from the Seleucids. In the Second War (c. 260–255/253) the Seleucid king Antiochus II, aided by Antigonus Gonatus of Macedonia, initiated a largely successful campaign to regain Phoenicia and Anatolia.

 

The Third, or Laodicean, War (c. 245–241) was begun by Ptolemy III to enforce earlier diplomatic arrangements disadvantageous to Seleucus II, son and successor of Antiochus II. Seleucus had to concede territory in Anatolia to the rulers of Cappadocia and Pontus to consolidate his position. By the peace terms Ptolemy kept Seleucia Pieria in Syria and several coastal areas in Thrace.

 

In 236 Seleucus was forced to cede his Anatolian possessions to his brother Antiochus Hierax in the so-called War of the Brothers. Antiochus in turn lost them to the Anatolian ruler Attalus I of Pergamum. By this time, the former eastern Seleucid provinces, Bactria and Parthia, were also in the hands of independent rulers. By 221, Antiochus III began to implement a policy of restoring Seleucid power, largely successful except for an abortive attack on Egypt. In the Fourth War (219–217), which he initiated, Antiochus had to concede Coele Syria (southern Syria and Palestine) to Ptolemy IV, whose victory at Raphia in Palestine, however, was clouded by revolts in Egypt. The Fifth War (202–200) climaxed a renewed and permanently successful Seleucid effort to wrest Coele Syria from the Ptolemies. Antiochus’ subsequent Hellenizing policy in Judaea led to rebellion and independence for Judaea in 142. Weakened by constant warfare, the Hellenistic states fell under Roman control in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC." [xvi]

 

Syria became a Roman province in the first century BC:

 

"The tale of Syria's conquest is marked by the military and diplomatic ingenuity of Pompey the Great. In 64 BC, amidst the backdrop of the Third Mithridatic War, Pompey capitalized on the weakened state of the Seleucid Empire, which was embroiled in internal and external conflicts. Through a combination of forceful military campaigns and shrewd diplomacy, he quickly subdued the region, annexing it to the Roman Republic. This expanded Roman territorial boundaries and established Syria as an essential eastern province." [xvii]

 

When the Byzantine Empire fell, Syria was occupied by the Muslim Arabs.

 

"Syria passed from the Byzantine to Islamic rule in the mid-seventh century CE as the advancing Arab armies took control of the region after the Battle of Yarmouk in 636 VR. Social and religious change was slow in the early periods of Umayyad and Abbasid rule. Still, the arrival of Islam in the 630s CE saw the city of Damascus rise to prominence as the capital of the newly formed caliphate. And by the eighth century, Damascus, along with Baghdad to the east and Cordoba to the west, became one of the most powerful socio-political centers of the Islamic world." [xviii]

 

The early Umayyad period was one of strength and expansion. The army, mainly Arab and largely Syrian, extended the frontiers of Islam. It carried the war against Byzantium into Asia Minor and besieged Constantinople; eastward, it penetrated Khorasan, Turkistan, and northwestern India; and, spreading along the northern coast of Africa, it occupied much of Spain. This vast empire was given a regular administration that gradually acquired an Arab-Muslim character. Syrians played an important part in it, and the country profited from the wealth pouring from the rich provinces to the empire’s center. The caliphs built splendid palaces and the first great monuments of Muslim religious architecture: the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and the Great Mosque of Damascus, constructed by the Umayyads. The religious sciences of Islam began to develop while Christian culture still flourished. Except under ʿUmar II, Christians were treated with favor, and there were Christian officials at court." [xix]

 

Later on, Baghdad, the capital of Iraq, replaced Damascus as center of science and culture:

 

"Baghdad, modern Iraq’s capital, exemplifies human creativity, perseverance, and cultural richness. During the Abbasid Caliphate, 750-1258 CE, this city became a beacon of intellectual and scientific progress, gaining the name “City of Light. Caliph al-Mansur founded Baghdad in 762 CE, and it was ideally located along major trade routes, resulting in a melting pot of cultures and ideas. Its circular form, with the caliphal palace and mosque in the center, represented the Abbasid Empire’s function as both a political and spiritual hub, spanning North Africa and Central Asia" [xx]

 

At the beginning of the 16th century Syria was occupied by the Turks.

 

"Throughout the 15th century, Mamluk Syria continued to decline while a new power, the Ottoman Turkish sultanate in Asia Minor, was growing to the north. Having occupied Constantinople and the Balkans, it began to look southward. In 1516, Sultan Selim I defeated the Mamluks in the Battle of Marj Dābiq and occupied the whole of Syria that year and Egypt the next. Although parts of Syria enjoyed some local autonomy, the area as a whole remained for 400 years an integral section of the Ottoman Empire. It was divided into provinces, each under a governor: Damascus, Aleppo, and later Tripoli and aydā, or Sidon, of which the administrative center was later moved to Acre. Damascus, the largest, had special importance as the place from which the pilgrimage to Mecca was organized every year. The governor of Damascus led the pilgrimage when possible, and most of the revenues of the province were earmarked for its expenses." [xxi]


Chapter 2: The Sykes-Picot Agreement

 

 

 

An Al Jazeera article says: "The Ottoman Empire (1516-1924) lost control over many of its territories to the growing powers of colonial countries in the last few decades before its collapse. France took control of Algeria (1830) and Tunisia (1881), Italy took over Libya (1911), while Britain gained control of the Aden protectorate (1939), Oman (1861), Arabian Gulf chiefdoms (1820), and Kuwait (1899). Egypt fell into British custody in 1882. Sudan also fell under British control in 1899.

 

As World War I erupted in July 1914, the weakening Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire to confront Britain and France. Then, the political regimes and the region’s maps began to transform.

 

Mark Sykes was an English political adviser, diplomat, politician, military man, and traveler. He represented his country in secret talks with France and Russia to partition the territories of the Ottoman Empire in the Arab Orient and Anatolia.Sykes signed what became known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement. In 1915, upon Sykes’ recommendation, the Arab Bureau was established. The entity served as a British intelligence bureau in Egypt and was tasked with controlling political activities in the Near East. It has revived the old names of Ottoman-administered regions, such as “Palestine,” “Syria,” and “Iraq.”

 

Francois Georges-Picot (1870-1951) was a French diplomat and the son of historian Georges Picot. He negotiated the secret Sykes-Picot agreement with Sykes. Picot had worked at the Court of Appeal in Paris for two years before joining the diplomatic circuit in 1896. Picot served as secretary to the Ambassador in Copenhagen before being appointed Consul-General in Beirut shortly before World War I. In Beirut, Picot established strong relationships with the Maronite Christian leaders, then moved to Cairo before returning to Paris in 1915. As a member of the French Colonial Party, he defended Arab orientalists who supported the French mandate in their own countries. Between 1917 and 1919, Picot held the position of a high commissioner in Palestine and Syria and, in that capacity, recommended the deployment of 20,000 French soldiers, paving the way for General Henri Gouraud's arrival to command the French army in the Levant. This agreement was a betrayal of British promises to the Arabs.

 

Britain was the most powerful party among those countries. At the same time, it was in contact with the Emir and Sharif of Mecca, Hussein bin Ali, who had been plotting a revolution to establish an Arab kingdom in the region.

 

On May 16, 1916, Sykes and Picot secretly signed a deal that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov approved.

 

The deal called for the establishment of five entities in the Levant:

 

"The first entity extended from Baghdad to the south to include Kuwait, reaching to the Gulf coast. This entity was under the direct control of the British.

 

The second entity combined what is today northern Iraq, Jordan, and the Negev desert, reaching Sinai. This part was under British influence.

 

The third entity included a coastal area that extended from southern Lebanon to the north towards the provinces of Mersin, Iskenderun and Adana. It extended anteriorly to the inside of Anatolia. This part was under direct French control.

 

The fourth entity comprised the Syrian Desert. This part was under French influence.

 

The fifth entity included the Ottoman Jerusalem sanjak, the northern part of historic Palestine. Due to its religious significance, this part was an international zone. Britain was, however, allocated control of Acre and Haifa.

 

The agreement regarding Russia stated that Russia’s tsar would keep his stake in Istanbul, the territories adjacent to the Bosphorus strait, and four provinces near the Russian borders in east Anatolia. Greece was allocated control of Türkiye’s western coasts, and Italy was given control of Türkiye’s southwest.

 

When Russian Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown in a popular revolution in 1917, the Bolshevik communists, led by Vladimir Lenin, found and published a copy of the Sykes-Picot agreement in the government’s archive records.

 

Britain, during its negotiations with Sharif of Mecca Hussein bin Ali, took up the responsibility of establishing “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. This was stated in a letter written on November 2, 1917, by the then British foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour, to Baron Walter Rothschild, a close friend of Zionist movement leader Chaim Weizmann.

 

The British commitment was endorsed in 1920 when Herbert Samuel, a British Jewish Zionist, arrived in Palestine as Britain’s first high commissioner. That year, the League of Nations formalized the British mandate of Palestine in a unique article in its legislation." [xxii]

 

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a betrayal of the British promises to the Arabs. The Institute for Curriculum Services writes:

 

"To understand the Arab-Israeli conflict, it’s essential to consider the various broken promises that the British made to Arabs as they tried to secure allies in the Middle East during World War I. These agreements set the stage for the “broken promises” that contributed to conflicts, especially between Jews and Arabs.

 

The Allied Powers had strategic interests in the Middle East. They were concerned that the Central Powers would advance further into the Ottoman Empire and take control of areas with important natural resources, such as oil, or march south toward Egypt to take control of the Suez Canal. Also, Greater Syria was strategically important to the Allied Forces because of its geographic location as a land bridge connecting Asia, Africa, and Europe.

 

Looking for allies to help them fight, the British reached out to the Arabs, who felt mistreated by the Ottomans. In 1915, Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, exchanged letters with Sheik Sharif Hussein, the Emir of Mecca (known today as the “Hussein-McMahon Correspondence”). In these letters, McMahon promised the Arabs independence in return for their support in fighting the Ottomans. After some discussion, Hussein accepted McMahon’s promise of Arab independence.

 

As the war dragged on, with massive casualties and loss of life, the British looked for new allies to join the fight and decided to reach out to the Jews in Greater Syria. In 1917, the British Foreign Minister, Arthur Balfour, wrote a letter to representatives of the Jewish Zionist movement – Lord Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann – promising to create a Jewish national home in the ancient Jewish homeland in exchange for Jewish support of the war effort (known today as the “Balfour Declaration”).

 

What the British failed to mention to both the Jews and the Arabs of the region was the secret deal they made with France on May 9, 1916 – known as the “Sykes-Picot Agreement.” [xxiii]

 

Below is a Letter from Sir Henry McMahon to Sharif Hussein Oct 24th, 1915:

 

"I have received your letter of the 29th Shawal, 1333, with much pleasure and your expressions of friendliness and sincerity have given me the greatest satisfaction.

 

I regret that you should have received from my last letter the impression that I regarded the question of the limits and boundaries with coldness and hesitation; such was not the case, but it appeared to me that the time had not yet come when that question could be discussed conclusively.

 

I have realized, however, from your last letter that you regard this question as vital and urgent. I have, therefore, lost no time in informing the Government of Great Britain of the contents of your letter, and it is with great pleasure that I communicate to you on their behalf the following statement, which I am confident you will receive with satisfaction: -

 

The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded.

 

We accept those limits with the above modification, without prejudice to our existing treaties with Arab chiefs.

 

As for those regions lying within those frontiers wherein Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interest of her ally, France, I am empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain to give the following assurances and make the following reply to your letter:

 

1. Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca.

 

2. Great Britain will guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression and will recognize their inviolability.

 

3. When the situation admits, Great Britain will give to the Arabs her advice and will assist them to establish what may appear to be the most suitable forms of government in those various territories.

 

4. On the other hand, it is understood that the Arabs have decided to seek the advice and guidance of Great Britain only and that such European advisers and officials as may be required to form a sound form of administration will be British.

 

5. With regard to the vilayets of Baghdad and Basra, the Arabs will recognise that the established position and interests of Great Britain necessitate special administrative arrangements in order to secure these territories from foreign aggression, to promote the welfare of the local populations and to safeguard our mutual economic interests.

 

I am convinced that this declaration will assure you beyond all possible doubt of the sympathy of Great Britain towards the aspirations of her friends the Arabs and will result in a firm and lasting alliance, the immediate results of which will be the expulsion of the Turks from the Arab countries and the freeing of the Arab peoples from the Turkish yoke, which for so many years has pressed heavily upon them.

 

I have confined myself in this letter to the more vital and important questions, and if there are any other matters dealt with in your letter which I have omitted to mention, we may discuss them at some convenient date in the future.

 

It was with very great relief and satisfaction that I heard of the safe arrival of the Holy Carpet and the accompanying offerings which, thanks to the clearness of your directions and the excellence of your arrangements, were landed without trouble or mishap in spite of the dangers and difficulties occasioned by the present sad war. May God soon bring lasting peace and freedom to all peoples!

 

I am sending this letter by the hand of your trusted and excellent messenger, Sheikh Mohammed Ibn Arif Ibn Uraifan. He will inform you of the various matters of interest but of less vital importance that I have not mentioned in this letter.

 

Compliments

 

(Signed) A. H. McMahon." [xxiv]

 

Part 2

 

Chapter 3: Arab Nationalism

 

 

 

"The Arab uprisings briefly resurrected the idea of Arab nationalism. During the 2011 Pan Arab Games in Qatar, spectators sang the unofficial Arab national anthem, the lyrics of which promote the idea that Arabs cannot be separated by artificial borders or religion because the Arabic language unites them all. But the euphoria of the moment soon dissipated as the reality of factionalism set in. Despite various attempts at unity, Arab nations have repeatedly failed to act collectively or agree on common interests" [xxv]

 

"The first Arab nationalist movement was launched in Beirut in 1857. The Syrian Scientific Society ushered in a short-lived Arab cultural and intellectual renaissance. Failing to attract a broad audience, it fizzled out as the First World War began. It was essentially an elitist organization of primarily Syrian and Lebanese Christians and a few Americans and Britons living in the area. (Secular Arab nationalism appealed to Christians because they could be integrated as full-fledged citizens.) Decades later, the Young Arab Society was established in Paris in response to the 1908 Young Turks’ coup against Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid. The group demanded a democratic transition, administrative autonomy for Arabs, and the designation of Arabic as an official language on par with Turkish" [xxvi]

 

“The repressive policies of the Ottoman military governor of Syria led the Young Arabs to demand independence for the Arab provinces in West Asia, paving the way for the British-backed Great Arab Revolt in 1916. The world order that emerged after the First World War gave rise to the present-day states of the Arab East, while the independent countries of North Africa emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War. Western imperial countries created the Arab states in their current format to ensure their continued fragility and dependence on the West for their security.

 

Arab identity is not an ethnic marker. It emerged during the Abbasid caliphate as a political dividing line between Arab caliphs and their Persian subjects in the ninth century. To be considered an Arab, it was sufficient to claim to be one and speak Arabic. Arab nationalism was mostly limited to pride in the community’s achievements, especially the spread of Islam and the Arabic language outside the Arabian Peninsula. Arab regimes’ obsession with staying in power prevented them from cooperating, ensuring that state nationalism superseded pan-Arabism.”

 

The ideology that Arabs are united was introduced at the beginning of the twentieth century. Sati al-Husary, Iraq’s minister of education during King Faisal I's reign, promoted the concept. His conceptualization of Arab nationalism remained mostly a sentimental attachment to religion and language but didn’t include the economic or political spheres.

 

Two organizations were important for promoting Arab Nationalism in opposition to the Ottoman Empire. The two were the Young Arab Society (al-Fatvt) and the Covenant Society (a/l-Ahd). However, they did not have mass support. When the Ottoman government entered the war in October 1914, some Arab nationalists began to negotiate with the Sherif of Mecca, al-Husayn ibn-'Ali, a national revolt led by him with the support of the British. He formed an army led by his son Faysal that occupied Damascus. At the same time, British forces Marched from the Persian Gulf to defeat the Turks in Iraq and occupy it." [xxvii]

 

In 1919, the Arab nationalists held a congress that rejected the mandate over Syria and Palestine and promoted the following resolutions:

 

"We the undersigned members of the Syrian General Congress, meeting in Damascus on Wednesday, July 2nd, 1919, made up of representatives from the three Zones, viz., the Southern, Eastern, and Western, provided with credentials and authorizations by the inhabitants of our various districts, Moslems, Christians, and Jews, have agreed upon the following statement of the desires of the people of the country who have elected us to present them to the American Section of the International Commission; a very large majority passed the fifth article; all the other articles were accepted unanimously.

 

1. We ask absolutely complete political independence for Syria within these boundaries: The Taurus System on the North; Rafah and a line running from Al Jauf to the south of the Syrian and the Hejazian line to Akaba on the south; the Euphrates and Khabur Rivers and a line extending east of Abu Kamal to the east of Al Jauf on the east; and the Mediterranean on the west.

 

2. We ask that the Government of this Syrian country should be a democratic civil constitutional Monarchy on broad decentralization principles, safeguarding the rights of minorities, and that the King be the Emir Feisal, who carried on a glorious struggle in the cause of our liberation and merited our full confidence and entire reliance.

 

3. Considering the fact that the Arabs inhabiting the Syrian area are not naturally less gifted than other more advanced races and that they are by no means less developed than the Bulgarians, Serbians, Greeks, and Roumanians at the beginning of their independence, we protest against Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, placing us among the nations in their middle stage of development which stand in need of a mandatory power.

 

4. In the event of the rejection by the Peace Conference of this just protest for certain considerations that we may not understand, we, relying on the declarations of President Wilson that his object in waging war was to put an end to the ambition of conquest and colonization, can only regard the mandate mentioned in the Covenant of the League of Nations as equivalent to the rendering of economical and technical assistance that does not prejudice our complete independence. And desiring that our country should not fall prey to colonization and believing that the American Nation is farthest from any thought of colonization and has no political ambition in our country, we will seek the technical and economical assistance from the United States of America, provided that such assistance does not exceed 20 years.

 

5. In the event of America not finding herself in a position to accept our desire for assistance, we will seek this assistance from Great Britain, also provided that such assistance does not infringe the complete independence and unity of our country and that the duration of such assistance does not exceed that mentioned in the previous article.

 

6. We do not acknowledge any right claimed by the French Government in any part whatever of our Syrian country and refuse that she should assist us or have a hand in our country under any circumstances and in any place.

 

7. We oppose the pretensions of the Zionists to create a Jewish commonwealth in the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine, and oppose Zionist migration to any part of our country; for we do not acknowledge their title but consider them a grave peril to our people from the national, economical, and political points of view. Our Jewish compatriots shall enjoy our common rights and assume the common responsibilities.

 

8. We ask that there should be no separation of the southern part of Syria known as Palestine, nor of the littoral western zone, which includes Lebanon, from the Syrian country. We desire that the unity of the country should be guaranteed against partition under whatever circumstances.

 

9. We ask for complete independence for emancipated Mesopotamia and that the two countries should have no economic barriers.

 

10. The fundamental principles laid down by President Wilson in condemnation of secret treaties impel us to protest most emphatically against any treaty that stipulates the partition of our Syria country and against any private engagement aiming at the establishment of Zionism in the southern part of Syria; therefore we ask the complete annulment of these conventions and agreements.

 

The noble principles enunciated by President Wilson strengthen our confidence that our desires emanating from the depths of our hearts, shall be the decisive factor in determining our future; and that President Wilson and the free American people will be our supporters for the realization of our hopes, thereby proving their sincerity and noble sympathy with the aspiration of the weaker nations in general and our Arab people in particular.

 

We also have the fullest confidence that the Peace Conference will realize that we would not have risen against the Turks, with whom we had participated in all civil, political, and representative privileges, but for their violation of our national rights, and so will grant us our desires in full in order that our political rights may not be less after the war than they were before, since we have shed so much blood in the cause of our liberty and independence.

 

We request to be allowed to send a delegation to represent us at the Peace Conference to defend our rights and secure the realization of our aspirations" [xxviii]

 

In 1920, Faisal established the Arab Kingdom of Syria. A few months later, a French Army – including Moroccan cavalry and two Algerian battalions – defeated the weak Syrian force in the Battle of Maysaloun near Damascus, claiming Syria as a French mandate. After all, France had a gentlemen's agreement with British imperialism, and the Arabs were not members of the Gentlemen's Club of Rubbers.

 

"Arab local rulers, to win popular support, promoted Sunni orthodoxy instead of treating faith as a private matter, which alienated other Muslim sects and Christians. For example, Egyptian Vice President Hussein el-Shafei, who served under President Gamal Abdel Nasser, tried to attract Egypt’s Coptic Christians to Islam. In the 1970s, Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi urged Lebanese Maronite Christians to embrace Islam to end the civil war. In Sudan, President Jaafar Numeiri transformed from a secular Arab nationalist to a religious zealot, introducing sharia throughout the country, including in the non-Islamic southern region.

 

While unifying the region is necessary, it cannot be achieved by religious dogma or by secular nationalism. The history of the failure of this attempt was proven under Gamal Abdul Naser. Factionalism and self-interest blocked any attempts at genuine unity between Egypt and Syria. The Gulf Cooperation Council was created in 1981 by six Arab nations – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Oman – ostensibly to integrate their economies and defense capabilities. But the group failed to achieve its objectives, and relations among the member states were marred by conflict. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are still entangled in ongoing border issues. And in 2017, three of the member states (plus Egypt) imposed a three-year blockade of Qatar.

 

The attempt to unite the Arab Maghreb – an alliance among Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Mauritania, and Libya – appeared in 1956 after Tunisia and Morocco won independence from France. But this, too, failed. Morocco’s invasion of Algerian-held territory in 1963 started the Sand War, which permanently soured relations between the two countries. Their dispute over Western Sahara further deepened hostility. The five countries held their first summit in 1988, but the heads of state have not met since Algeria closed its border with Morocco in 1994. The AMU wrote 30 multilateral agreements, but only five have been ratified

 

The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement divided the region into French and British mandates that carved states without considering their ethnic composition and inflamed sectarianism. “Awakening of the Arab Nation,” a book written in 1905 by Maronite Christian Naguib Azoury, predicted a clash between Arab nationalism and Zionism – which would not end until one of the two movements defeated the other. Azoury’s prediction was proven in 1967 when the Six-Day War destroyed all hope for a pan-Arab nation. The defeat allowed ethnic and religious minorities in the Arab region, which had to articulate specific demands for autonomy. They became militarized and presented their demands in Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, and beyond." [xxix]

 

The nationalists' failure to forge a united Arab formation gave rise to the Communist parties and other leftist organizations like the Popular and Democratic Fronts for the Liberation of Palestine. However, the Communist parties degenerated under Stalin. Their support for Israel in 1948 and, later on, their support for the secular Arab rulers in Egypt and Syria made them and Marxism unpopular and reopened the door for the Islamists, especially when only in the Mosques could people meet and exchange ideas.


Chapter 4: The Struggle against colonialist France in Syria (1919-46)

 

 

 

The League of Nations, according to Lenin, was a unification “on paper only; in reality, it is a group of beasts of prey, who only fight one another and do not at all trust one another.” [xxx] France's rule over Syria was achieved through an agreement with Britain and the approval of the League of Nations., but the Syrians resisted. The French Army divided and repressed them and later dissolved its division of Syria into a few states. At the same time, it separated Lebanon and Palestine from Syria.

 

With the defeat of Ottomans in Syria, British troops under General Sir Edmund Allenby entered Damascus in 1918, accompanied by soldiers of the Arab Revolt led by Faisal, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca.

 

The new Arab administration formed local governments in the central Syrian cities, and the pan-Arab flag was raised all over Syria. With faith in earlier British promises, the Arabs hoped the new state would include all the Arab lands stretching from Aleppo in northern Syria to Aden in southern Yemen.

 

However, by the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France, General Allenby assigned the Arab administration only the interior regions of Syria (the eastern zone). On October 8, French troops disembarked in Beirut and occupied the Lebanese coastal region south of Naqoura (the western zone), replacing British forces there. The French immediately dissolved the local Arab governments in the region

 

When first arriving in Lebanon, the Christian community received the French as liberators. However, as they entered Syria, they were faced with strong resistance. Under French colonialism, the region was subdivided into six states: Damascus (1920), Aleppo (1920), Alawites (1920), Jabal Druze (1921), the autonomous Sanjak of Alexandretta (1921, modern-day Hatay), and the State of Greater Lebanon (1920), which became later the modern country of Lebanon.

 

The drawing of those states was based on Syria's Ottoman sectarian policy of divide and rule. However, nearly all the Syrian sects were hostile to the French mandate and the division it created, and there were numerous revolts in all of the Syrian states. Maronite Christians of Mount Lebanon, on the other hand, supported French colonization, and Greater Lebanon was the exception to the newly hostile formed states.

 

"The French focused on fragmenting the various groups in the region so the local population would not be able to form a larger nationalist movement to dispose of colonial rule. In addition, the administration of colonial governments was heavily dominated by the French. Local authorities were given very little power and did not have the authority to decide policy independently. French officials could quickly overrule local leaders' small amount of power. The French did everything possible to prevent people in the Levant from developing self-sufficient governing bodies. In 1930, France extended its constitution to Syria" [xxxi]

 

“Uprising Unrest erupted in Syria when Faisal accepted a compromise with French Prime Minister Clemenceau and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann over Jewish immigration to Palestine. Anti-Hashemite demonstrations broke out and Muslim inhabitants in and around Mount Lebanon revolted with fear of being incorporated into a new, mainly Christian state of Greater Lebanon. Part of France’s claim to these territories in the Levant was that France was a protector of the minority Christian communities.

 

On April 25, 1920, the supreme inter-Allied council formulating the Treaty of Sèvres granted France the mandate of Syria (including Lebanon) and Britain the Mandate of Palestine (including Jordan) and Iraq. Syrians reacted with violent demonstrations, and a new government headed by Ali Rida al-Rikabi was formed on May 9, 1920. The new government decided to organize general conscription and began forming an army.

 

On July 14, 1920, General Gouraud issued an ultimatum to Faisal, giving him the choice between submission or abdication. Realizing that the power balance was not in his favor, Faisal chose to cooperate. However, the young minister of war, Youssef al-Azmeh, refused to comply. This led to the Franco-Syrian War when Syrian troops under al-Azmeh met French forces under General Mariano Goybet at the Battle of Maysaloun. The French won the battle in less than a day. Azmeh died as a hero on the battlefield along with many of the Syrian troops. Goybet entered Damascus on July 24, 1920." [xxxii]

 

With the fall of France in 1940 during World War II, Syria was ruled by the Vichy Government until the British and Free French invaded and occupied the country in July 1941. Syria proclaimed its independence again in 1941, but it wasn’t until January 1946 that it was recognized as an independent republic.

 

"However, on September 27, 1941, France proclaimed the independence and sovereignty of the Syrian state by virtue of and within the framework of the Mandate. The proclamation said, “The independence and sovereignty of Syria and Lebanon will not affect the juridical situation as it results from the Mandate Act.” In simple words, independence was a fiction. Syria became independent only in April 1946 when France was forced to evacuate the last of its troops in April 1946, leaving the country in the hands of a republican government that was formed during the mandate" [xxxiii]

 

The rest of this chapter is based on a publication of the University of Central Arkansas. It describes the revolts and France's repression of them.

 

Crisis Phase (July 2, 1919-July 17, 1925): Syrian nationalists, meeting in Damascus on July 2, 1919, called for the independence of the Syrian territory from France. French troops took control of the Syrian territory on September 15, 1919, and General Henri Gouraud was named French High Commissioner for on October 9, 1919. Syrian nationalists rebelled against the French government beginning in December 1919. Syrian nationalists declared Syria’s independence on March 8, 1920, and proclaimed Faisal Hussein as King of Syria on March 11, 1920. During the San Remo Conference held in San Remo, Italy on April 19-26, 1920, the Supreme Council of Allied Powers (SCAP) assigned a mandate over the Syrian territory to the French government. On July 14, 1920, General Henri Gouraud issued a surrender ultimatum to King Faisal Hussein, who shortly surrendered to French authorities. French troops took control of the city of Aleppo on July 23, 1920. French troops commanded by General Mariano Goybet clashed with Syrian rebels commanded by Yusuf al-‘Azma near the town of Maysalun on July 23-24, 1920, resulting in the deaths of some 400 Syrian rebels and 42 French soldiers. French troops took control of the city of Damascus on July 25, 1920. King Faisal Hussein formally relinquished the throne of Syria on July 25, 1920. France established the states of Damascus and Aleppo, along with the autonomous Alawite territory, within the French Mandate of Syria on December 1, 1920. France established the autonomous Druze territory in the southern part of the state of Damascus on May 1, 1921. French troops suppressed a rebellion in the Alawite state led by Shaykh Saleh al-Ali on June 15, 1921. On March 4, 1922, the French government transformed the autonomous Druze territory into the Souaida state (Jabal Druze state). Government police suppressed Syrian nationalist demonstrations in Damascus on April 8-12, 1922, resulting in the deaths of three individuals. France established the Syrian Federation on July 1, 1922, comprising the Damascus state, Aleppo state, and autonomous Alawite territory. Subhi Bay Barakat al-Khalidi was elected president of the Syrian Federation. The League of Nations (LoN) Council formally approved the French Mandate of Syria on July 24, 1922. General Maxime Weygand was named French High Commissioner for Syria on April 19, 1923. The League of Nations Mandate of Syria and Lebanon under French Administration formally entered into force on September 23, 1923. General Maurice Sarrail was named French High Commissioner for Syria on November 29, 1924. The French government dissolved the Syrian Federation, and combined the states of Damascus and Aleppo to form the State of Syrian on January 1, 1925. The People’s Party (Hizb al-sha’b), a Syrian nationalist group headed by Abd al-Rahman Shahbandar and Faris al-Khuri, was formally established on June 5, 1925. On July 11, 1925, government police arrested three Druze sheikhs in Damascas and imprisoned the sheikhs in Palmyra in central Syria.

 

Conflict Phase (July 18, 1925-June 1, 1927): Druze tribesmen led by Sultan Pasha el-Attrash rebelled against the French government in the Souaida state beginning on July 18, 1925, and Druze rebels took control of the town of Salkhad on July 20, 1925. Druze rebels ambushed some 160 French-led troops commanded by Captain Gabriel Normand near Al-Kafr (Kafer) on July 21, 1925, resulting in the deaths of some 115 French soldiers. Some 500 Druze rebels and Bedouin tribesmen commanded by Sultan al-Atrash attacked French government troops near the town of Al-Mazra’a on August 2-3, 1925, resulting in the deaths of some 600 French soldiers. Some 600 French troops commanded by Major Kratzert occupied the village of Al-Musayfirah (Mousseifré) on September 15, 1925. Druze rebels attacked French troops in the village of Al-Musayfirah (Mousseifré) on September 16-17, 1925, resulting in the deaths of 47 French soldiers and more than 300 Druze rebels. French troops withdrew from the city of Al-Suwayda (Soueida), the capital of the Jabal al-Druze state, on September 24, 1925. French government troops suppressed a rebellion led by Fawzi al-Qawuqji in Hama in the state of Damascus on October 4-5, 1925, resulting in the deaths of 344 civilians and 76 Syrian rebels. Druze rebels commanded by Hassan al-Kharrat and Nasib al-Bakri attacked French troops and took control of the Damascus on October 18, 1925. French military force bombarded Damascus on October 18-20, 1925, resulting in the deaths of 1,416 civilians and 137 French soldiers. Some 15,000 individuals were displaced as a result of the bombardment of Damascus. The French government declared martial law in Damascus on October 20, 1925. Druze rebels captured Hasbaya on November 9, 1925, but French troops recaptured the city on December 5, 1925. President Subhi Bay Barakat al-Khalidi resigned on December 21, 1925. Henry de Jouvenel was appointed as French High Commissioner for Syria on December 23, 1925. French government troops re-captured Al-Suwayda (Soueida) on April 25, 1926. Ahmad Nami was elected as president of the State of Syria on April 28, 1926. French troops clashed with Druze rebels in the Maydan (Midan) quarter of Damascus on May 6, 1926, resulting in the deaths of several French soldiers. French military forces bombarded the Maydan (Midan) quarter of Damascus on May 7-9, 1926, resulting in the deaths of some 500 civilians and 100 Druze rebels. French troops launched a military offensive against Druze rebels in the Ghuta region on July 18-26, 1926, resulting in the deaths of some 1,500 individuals. Auguste Henri Ponsot was appointed as French High Commissioner for Syria in August 1926. French troops suppressed the Druze rebellion on June 1, 1927. Several thousand individuals, including some 2,000 French soldiers and 6,000 Syrian rebels, were killed during the conflict. Some 100,000 individuals were displaced during the conflict.

 

Post-Conflict Phase (June 2, 1927-April 17, 1946): The French government renamed the Souaida state as the Jabal Druze state on June 2, 1927. The National Bloc (al-Kutla al-Waaniyya), an alliance of nationalist groups led by Ibrahim Hannanu and Hashim Atassi, was established in 1928. High Commissioner Auguste Henri Ponsot appointed Taj al-Din al-Hasani as head of state (head of government) of Syria on February 15, 1928. Elections for a 70-member constituent assembly were held on April 10 and April 24, 1928. The Constituent Assembly convened on June 9, 1928, and presented a draft constitution to the Syrian assembly on August 7, 1928. Several parts of the draft constitution were unacceptable to the French government. André François-Poncet, the French High Commissioner, dissolved the Constituent Assembly on May 14, 1930. The French high commissioner promulgated a constitution for the Syrian State on May 22, 1930, which provided for an elected parliament and president. Legislative elections were held on December 20, 1931 and January 4, 1932, and the National Bloc won 17 out of 69 seats in the Syrian Chamber of Deputies. The Syrian Chamber of Deputies elected Mohammed Ali al-Abid as president on June 11, 1932. The Syrian State was renamed the Republic of Syria in July 1932. Damien de Martel was appointed as French High Commissioner for Syria on July 16, 1933. The governments of France and Syria signed the Franco-Syrian Treaty on November 16, 1933, promising French support for an independent Syria within four years. On November 3, 1934, the French high commissioner suspended the Chamber of Deputies in which there was strong opposition to the Franco-Syrian Treaty. Following the closure of the National Bloc office in Damascus and the arrest of two National Bloc leaders (Fakhri al-Barudi and Sayf al-Din al-Ma’min) by government police, the National Bloc called for a general strike starting on January 20, 1936. Government police killed two demonstrators in Allepo on January 21, 1936. Government troops killed four protesters in Damascus on January 21, 1936. and killed two individuals in a funeral procession in Damascus on January 22, 1936. Government troops killed three demonstrators in Homs on January 22, 1936. Some 40 demonstrators were killed by government troops in Hama on February 6, 1936. Three demonstrators were killed by government troops in Homs on February 8, 1936. Five demonstrators were killed by government police in Dayr al-Zur on February 10, 1936. The French government declared martial law in Damascus on February 10, 1936, and declared martial law in Aleppo, Homs, and Hama on February 12, 1936. Jamil Mardam and Nasil al-Bakri, leaders of the National Bloc, were arrested by government police and deported in February 11, 1936. On March 2, 1936, the French government agreed to negotiations with the National Bloc, which called off the general strike on March 6, 1936. Representatives of the French and Syrian governments signed the French-Syrian Treaty of Friendship and Alliance on September 9, 1936, which provided for the end of the mandate within three years. Legislative elections were held on November 30, 1936. The Syrian Chamber of Deputies elected Hashim al-Atassi of the National Bloc as president on December 21, 1936. On December 26, 1936, the Chamber of Deputies ratified the French-Syrian Treaty of Friendship and Alliance (although the treaty was never ratified by the French government). President Hashim al-Atassi resigned on July 7, 1939. Gabriel Puaux, the French High Commissioner for Syria, suspended the Syrian constitution on July 10, 1939. On the same day, High Commissioner Gabriel Puaux dissolved the Chamber of Deputies and appointed a Council of Commissioners headed by Bahij al-Khatib to administer Syria. The French Mandate of Syria came under the control of “Vichy France” on July 10, 1940. Henri Dentz was appointed as Vichy French High Commissioner for Syria on December 6, 1940. “Free French” troops and British troops liberated Syria from Vichy France on June 14, 1941. Georges Catroux was appointed as General Delegate of “Free France” (led by General Charles de Gaulle) for Syria on June 24, 1941. General Charles de Gaulle appointed Taj al-Din al-Hasani as president of Syria on September 12, 1941. Georges Catroux, General Delegate General of “Free France” for Syria, declared the independence of the Republic of Syria on September 27, 1941. President Taj al-Din al-Hasani died of a heart attack on January 17, 1943. Georges Catroux, the General Delegate of “Free France” for Syria, restored the constitution of the Republic of Syria on March 25, 1943. Jean Helleu was appointed as the General Delegate of “Free France” for Syria on June 7, 1943. A newly-elected Chamber of Deputies convened and a elected a president on August 17, 1943. Yves Chataigneau was appointed as General Delegate of “Free France” for Syria on November 23, 1943. Etienne Beynet was appointed as General Delegate of “Free France” for Syria on January 23, 1944. On May 17, 1945, French troops landed in Beirut, Lebanon in order to restore French administration over Lebanon and Syria following the end of the Second World War. French troops shelled the Syrian parliament and attempted to arrest Syrian government leaders in Damascus on May 29-31, 1945, resulting in the deaths of some 500 individuals. Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Britain demanded a ceasefire on May 31, 1945. The League of Arab States (LAS) Council expressed support for Syrian independence on June 6, 1945, and demanded the withdrawal of French troops from Syria on June 8, 1945. The French government agreed to transfer command of the Syrian military to the Republic of Syria on August 1, 1945. The Republic of Syria achieved independence when the last remaining French troops withdrew on April 17, 1946." [xxxiv]

 

The unity of the Arabs would advance the area, block the imperialists, and defeat Israel. What can achieve this unity when religious, secular nationalism and Stalinism have failed to do so?


Chapter 5: Syria under Hafez Assad

 

 

 

"Syria went through decades of turmoil as competing factions fought over control of the country’s government following independence in 1946. This period was one of coups, countercoups, and intermittent civilian rule, during which the army maintained a presence in the background. From February 1958 to September 1961, Syria joined Egypt in the United Arab Republic (UAR). However, growing Syrian dissatisfaction with Egyptian domination resulted in another military coup in Damascus, and Syria seceded from the UAR. Another period of instability ensued, with frequent changes of government. The Arab Socialist Resurrection (Baath) Party with a secular, Arab nationalist orientation, took control in a March 1963 coup, often referred to as the Baath Revolution. The Baath Party had been active throughout the Middle East since the late 1940s, and a Baath coup had taken place in Iraq one month before the Baath take-over in Syria.

 

Factionalism continued within the Baathist regime until then Minister of Defense Lieutenant General Hafiz al Assad took power in a bloodless military coup in November 1970. The internal conflict between the Baath Party’s more moderate military wing and more extremist civilian wing had been exacerbated by external events, including Israel’s defeat of the Syrians and Egyptians in the June 1967 war, as a result of which Syria lost territory in the Golan Heights,

 

Assad, who became president also by popular referendum in March 1971, quickly moved to establish an authoritarian regime with power concentrated in his own hands. A cult of personality characterized his thirty-year presidency, developed to maintain control over a potentially restive population. The dominance of the Baath Party; the state capitalist structure of the economy; the military underpinning of the regime; the primacy of members of the Alawi sect, to which Asad belonged, in influential military and security positions; and the state of emergency imposed as a result of ongoing conflict with Israel further ensured the regime’s stability. Nevertheless, this approach to government came at a cost. Dissent was harshly eliminated, the most extreme example being the brutal suppression in February 1982 of the Muslim Brotherhood, which objected to the state’s secularism and the influence of the “heretical” Alawis.

 

When Hafiz al-Asad came to power in Syria he announced his intention to allow limited political pluralism in the context of popular democracy. This took the form of the National Progressive Front, established in 1972. Only parties participating in the Front would be allowed to operate: to join, they were required to accept the socialist and Arab nationalist orientation of the government. The Ba'th Party was guaranteed leadership of the Front, and the new constitution, promulgated the same year, provided that it would "lead society and the state". Furthermore, only the Ba'th would be allowed to operate in the armed forces and among university students” [xxxvi]

 

 

 

The Stalinists during Hafiz Assad

 

 

 

Bakdash, the general secretary of the Syrian Communist Party, and most of the party chose to join the Front of the Ba'th. The more radical elements in the party were against participation in the Front. However, the breaking point did not come until 1976 when the Syrians intervened in the Lebanese Civil War on the side of rightist, Maronite-led elements against the nationalist bloc and its allies in the Palestine Liberation Organization. This was too much for the radicals, and Riyad al-Turk led them into opposition. His faction was termed the Syrian Communist Party (Political Bureau) or Syrian Communist Party (Riyad al-Turk).

 

During the early 1980s, the Syrian government restricted political activity, and the Communist Party was subject to severe restrictions despite its participation in the national front. It was forbidden to publish its newspapers Nidhal ash-Sha'b ("the People's Struggle") and an-Nour ("the Light"), and the security services closely monitored its activities. In 1986, the anti-communist crackdown ended, and Assad lifted the ban on the communist party as a concession to the Russian Stalinists.

 

"In 1986, Bakdash and Deputy Secretary Yusuf Faisal differed over the policies of perestroika and glasnost adopted by Mikhail Gorbachev. Faisal was supportive of Gorbachev's reforms, while Bakdash opposed them. This led to a split, with many of the party's intellectuals leaving with Faisal to form the Syrian Communist Party (Unified) Both factions continued to participate in the NP" [xxxvii]

 

The Stalinists who remained in the National Front of Assad have claimed that the regime is anti-imperialist. What a gross lie!

 

"A longtime foe of Iraqi leader addām ussein, [Assad] supported the Western alliance against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War (199091). He was succeeded by his son Bashshār." [xxxviii]

 

"In June 1976, Syria intervened in the Lebanese civil war, sending a force of 25 000 soldiers to Lebanon to prevent the defeat of its Maronite Christian allies. It maintained its military presence in Lebanon for the next three decades and significantly influenced Lebanese politics. During its presence in Lebanon, Syria maintained up to 30 000 soldiers. It had clashes with Israel