by Salim Mujais
Under the oppressive conditions of the Mandate, it was necessary to oppose the modern means and methods of the Mandate with modern means and methods of our own. The truth is that the emergence of the SSNP with its strict centralized organization was in response to the heavy-handed Mandate organization. In the struggle between a Mandate interested in perpetuating the status quo from which it benefited and nurturing our political and social ailments that it used to validate the indefinite extension of the Mandate, and the emerging renaissance rebelling against occupation and the abrogation of our national rights, and determined to lead the nation towards progress and freedom, in this struggle between the interests of the Mandate to maintain its hegemony and the interests of the SSNP as a national liberation movement, there was a need for serious preparedness.
Aware of the inevitable confrontation… the leader of the SSNP developed an innovative administrative system that makes the national liberation movement feasible under the conditions of the Mandate, and that guarantees that the SSNP would reach its goals despite the expected obstacles. To change the course of events in our country, Saadeh saw that it was necessary to abandon the archaic political methods and the bankrupt traditional maneuvers, and to adopt a modern organizational system concordant in its broad structure and detail with our special conditions under the Mandate and our unique circumstances. Moreover, the Mandate was equipped with specialized branches working tirelessly to establish its presence and execute its plans… and we had no institutions to safeguard our interests from the very effective interventions of the Mandate and the corruption it was spreading in our midst. Our fellow citizens did not mount against this network of Mandate influence except an anemic, fledgling political effort, inconsistent and poorly organized…
It is clear that the failure of all attempts at liberation initiated in our country was due in the first place to the sterility of the political methods used and the corruption. It is fatuous and criminally naïve in this century to oppose the organized and specialized Mandate effort with an impulsive unorganized political effort that becomes operative only when fed with popular dissent. The organization and discipline of the SSNP was an attempt to correct the miserable failures of the irrational politics of demonstrations and strikes… Indeed, it was not difficult for the Mandate power to manipulate and manage the tumultuous popular dissent that spent its energies with meager results…
These general considerations led the leader of the SSNP to give the party its paramilitary centralized hierarchical form… Further, the authority invested in the leader was not considered by the membership to impede in any way the respect of democratic principles for it is clear that in times of crisis, nations and societies do resort to consolidation of authority in a small number of trusted individuals who through their talents, devotion and sacrifice, help lead the nation out of crisis… Moreover, the constitutions of democratic nations have embedded in them the mechanisms of such investment of authority… Democratic virtues will not arise in any society by the mere fact of enshrining them in a written constitution… for these virtues are not realized in written words, but by real behavior of the citizenry. The success of all democratic systems is contingent on the establishment of ethical values without which the word democracy remains meaningless… The constitution of the SSNP allows a balance between the need to invest the leader with the authority necessary to fulfill the required reform and the upholding of the principles of nurturing democratic values in the members of the party and their training in shouldering the responsibilities of democracy…
So, while the SSNP resorted to the centralized hierarchical system out of necessity, and to protect itself and its members from the predatory Mandate authorities, the fascists adopted the centralized system as a matter of doctrine and a philosophical view of society making it a permanent system for social organization that defines social structure and individual responsibilities in a definitive way… In the final account the difference between the SSNP view of the centralized system and the fascist view of that system is that the SSNP uses this system as a means dictated by the conditions of its struggle whereas the fascists use it as a definitive doctrinarian and philosophical necessity for societal organization.”
Colonialism being an act of violence perpetrated by aggressor nations, vanquished nations need to mount a counter array of strength to resist and end colonial aggression. In the first half of the 20th century, Syria witnessed directly two world wars, regional conflicts and colonial aggression. The SSNP had to confront the targeting of its nation by the traditional European colonial powers (France, England, and Germany), aggressive endeavors by neighboring states bent on territorial expansion (Turkey, Arabia, and Egypt), and an organized settler colonialism by a global Zionist organization. The inclusion of the formation of a strong military capability as a component of SSNP principles should come as no surprise. The SSNP considers that in the struggle of nations for advancement, survival, and control of natural resources, a nation’s power, particularly military power, becomes a decisive factor in establishing and safeguarding national rights, sovereignty and independence. Nations expand their territory when strong and vibrant and relinquish parts of their homeland when feeble and in decline. Hence, the Fifth Reform Principle states: Formation of strong armed forces that will be effective in determining the destiny of the country and the nation. “In international competition of national interests, national right is recognized only to the extent it is supported by the power of the nation... Force is the decisive factor in affirming or denying national rights… it is incumbent upon us to be always in a state of complete military preparedness. The entire Syrian nation must be well armed and prepared. We have witnessed with distress parts of our country taken away and annexed to foreign countries because we have lost our military power. We are resolved not to let this state of helplessness continue. We are determined to turn the tide so that we may regain all our territory and recover the sources of our strength and vitality.”
CASE STUDY: PALESTINE
The Palestinian question is among the most important political issues addressed by the political program for the SSNP. It can best be addressed by examining three inter-related aspects: First, The conflation of the Jewish question with the Palestinian question; Second, Legal basis for defending Syrian rights in Palestine; Third, Solutions acceptable to the SSNP to manage the ongoing situation in Palestine.
The SSNP draws a clear distinction between the Palestinian Question and the Jewish Question. The former relates to the rights of southern Syrians to self-determination and sovereignty in their own land, and the right to refuse and resist colonial settlers. The latter question is the need of the Jewish people for a haven to escape the anti-Semitism and persecution in European countries. The sacrifice of the rights of the Palestinians to provide a solution for the Jewish Question is what the British mandate in collusion with the Zionist organizations were endeavoring to achieve. In the SSNP perspective, Palestine is southern Syria. The division of Syria into two spheres of influence under British and French control after World War I and the creation of proto-states in each area has tended to obscure a reality long acknowledged that Palestine constitutes the southern part of Syria. Far from constituting a separate regional entity,44 Palestine and the Palestinians are part of the Syrian homeland and the Syrian nation. As such, the issue of national rights devolves to the Syrian nation and not an ‘Arab presence’ after the Islamic conquest. Jews have no historical rights in Palestine. The Syrian nation antedates the first entry of Jews to Palestine (Land of Canaan) and their recent return is a recurrent foreign incursion because of the precedence of Syrian (Canaanites) settlement in the land. In an open letter to Lloyd George Saadeh had explained: “You say, Sir, that the achievements of Zionism to date prove that the land of milk and honey was not a myth, but you forget that the milk and honey flowed from the land thanks to the efforts of the nation that inhabited the land, and inhabits it still, prior to the advent of the Jews escaping bondage in Egypt.” 45 Th
e claim to a Promised Land is a non-issue in international law, but rather a particularistic view of religion.
The magnitude and nature of the Zionist threat is beyond the immediate impact of land ownership and resources directly relevant to the residents of southern Syria. The view steeped in regionalism that was and remains prevalent, failed to elicit a broad national response to the grave Zionist threat, compounded by the preoccupation of politicians in other Syrian states with their own petty regional concerns. All the actors on the Palestinian stage were woefully ignorant or neglectful of the true national dimensions of the Palestinian question. Focus on the unity of national rights advanced by the SSNP is the sole guarantor of the coherence of national struggle against the Zionist incursion and any other threats to national security.
The proper legal rebuttal to the Balfour Declaration had first appeared in the Blue Memorandum of the SSNP published on June 15, 1936,46 and in subsequent publications.47 The Balfour Declaration is a political commitment that has no legal power in international law and contradicts Article 22 of the League of Nations charter. The SSNP considers the Balfour Declaration as a purely political declaration that binds only the British government. Further, the Balfour declaration contradicts Article 22 of the charter of the League of Nations that prohibits Mandate Powers from any action that may jeopardize, abrogate or infringe on the sovereignty of the countries under mandate. The Balfour declaration as a political pledge binds only to its originator, Great Britain, and should not affect the fundamental national rights of the people of Palestine. This is an important legal point that contemporary politicians in Palestine and the Arab east had ignored to the peril of their arguments. Traditional political leaders had mounted their defense of Palestinian rights by noting the contradiction between the promises made by Sir McMahon to King Hussein of Arabia and the Balfour declaration. They claimed that the correspondence between the British representative in Cairo and the Arabian potentate during the early part of World War I preceded the Balfour declaration and therefore should supersede it. They did not understand that they were by this argument accepting the right of Great Britain to make pledges about the land of Palestine. As to the assurances given by Britain to Sharif Hussein, they too should have had no bearing on determining national rights in Palestine as neither Britain nor Sharif Hussein had any rightful claims to Palestine. The labeling of Palestinians as Arabs did and does not confer on the ruler of Arabia the right to decide or dispose of their national patrimony, just as Britain and any other Arab country cannot decide upon the rights of, say, the Egyptians. As Sharif Hussein was an Ottoman appointee, he had no right legally to represent Palestinians despite the capricious argumentations of Pan-Arabists.
Zionist pamphleteers had an easy target with the traditional arguments. They stressed that the existence of ambiguous pledges to the Arab king “could not in itself invalidate another set of pledges which are at least equally binding.” They highlighted the fact that the so called pledges made to King Hussein by Sir McMahon in 1915 were “far from embodying any definite engagement even towards the Sherif” and they quote the British Foreign Office characterization of the affair as “a long and inconclusive correspondence.” The Zionist pamphleteers emphasized that “Arab Palestine remained perfectly passive throughout the German-Turkish operations, while, on the other hand, Jewish colonists, whose services were afterwards publicly recognized by the military authorities, actively co-operated with the British forces at the risk of their lives.” 48 They also point to another weakness in the apposition of the Hussein-McMahon correspondence and the Balfour declaration: Hussein never disavowed or objected to the Balfour declaration. Further, they assert that Hussein’s son, King Feisal of Syria and then of Iraq, had declared that he regarded the Zionist proposals at the Peace Conference in Versailles “as moderate and proper” and that “there is room in Syria for us both.”
In concordance with its position on the rights of Jews to a national home in southern Syria and the Balfour declaration, the SSNP has opposed all partition plans proposed by the British (Peel Commission) and the United Nations. There are no benefits imminent or delayed for the Syrians in a partition plan. Any partition plan carries critical and major benefits for the Jews and leads to the formation of an exclusively Jewish state. The SSNP considered the issue of population transfer proposed by the Peel Commission and subsequently achieved by the Zionist establishment as “forceful dispossession of land that will turn the Syrians into scattered refugees,” an outcome that Ben Gurion welcomed: “It allows the Jews to call their state a national home in the broadest sense of the term… and makes the constituency of the state exclusively Jewish.”
The participation of the SSNP in acts of resistance to Zionist settler colonialism is based on a distinct understanding of the Palestinian question and should not be conflated with other acts of resistance. Indeed, the SSNP has frequently criticized the political leadership in Palestine. As early as October 1937, Saadeh wrote:
“their arbitrary reactive politics have led to a series of erratic “patriotic” acts that have engendered only material and moral losses… The Committees in Palestine did not strive to develop a stable policy because political thinking in Palestine continues to be subject to arbitrary approaches. The outcome has been that events have determined political reaction and the national politics in Palestine have remained reactive… Shedding blood may be necessary in a robust defensive strategy with clear practical goals and validated objectives. Shedding blood with no consideration of outcomes is a waste of life and squandering of time and resources… Revolt is again afoot in Palestine. We can only hope it will be less harmful than the preceding one.” 49
He continued to offer a sharp critique of the activities of the political leaders in Palestine led by the Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al-Husseini.50 Saadeh had met the Mufti when the latter escaped from Palestine to avoid arrest by the British and came to Beirut. “In the meeting between al-Zaim [Saadeh] and his Excellency the Mufti of Palestine in the home of Dr. Samih al-Khalidi in 1937 attended by a representative of the SSNP and the Arab Higher Committee, the most important question that al-Zaim asked was in relation to organization and planning. The absence of organization and planning in the Palestinian movement was responsible for the failure of the revolt of 1936. The armed guerilla activities were beneficial to the Jews and detrimental to the Syrians. These guerilla groups were active by arbitrary impulses with no wisdom or deliberation and cost the Syrians more than it cost the Jews. Indeed, it benefited the Jews where it meant to harm them.” 51 The political amateurism of Palestinian leaderships has regrettably continued until the present time and the critique offered in 1936 and 1948 could as well characterize the present. “Al-Hajj Amin al-Husseini struggled mightily against the Jews, but it was an arbitrary struggle devoid of political and organizational skill or understanding.” 52
The SSNP has a clear and objective view of the reasons responsible for the success of the Zionist endeavor. Zionist activities are logical, progressive steps in a well-organized program executed with rigor and precision despite all impediments. The overall program and its constituent parts represent a multipronged national threat that can be only vanquished and eradicated by a basic comprehensive opposing program supported by unified national strength. The theme that the Zionist plan can only be resisted and defeated by an equally comprehensive and robust Syrian plan is a constant in the SSNP’s view of the question of Palestine.
Conciliatory formulations have recurrently plagued the Syrian efforts against Zionism. An example among Pan-Arabists are the views advanced by Zaki al-Arsuzi. Arsuzi advocated the dangerous notion that Arabs and Jews should achieve a common understanding to resurrect Semitic genius. The concept of Semitic ties is an old one in this context based on Bible genealogy. Of concern are modern formulations of alliance based on this antiquated concept. Arsuzi had called on the Jews to forego their work for a separate national home and to collaborate with the Arabs for the independence of Palestine within
an Arab federation.53 Such views would from time to time take organizational forms such as the Semitic Union in Jerusalem and Nablus that advocated Jewish-Arab association.54 More recent conciliatory attempts invoke ‘peace’ as their modus operandi. The SSNP maintains that any conciliatory activity or advocacy is at best naïve and at worst detrimental to the national cause short of securing national rights.
It is clear that the SSNP is opposed to Jewish immigration to Palestine. The SSNP principles clearly called on all SSNP members to resist this immigration with all their strength, and they did. The question remains, however, on how to handle the Jewish immigrants already in the land. The SSNP addressed this issue in a memorandum on Palestine submitted by the SSNP to the Congress of the Arab Front in Jaffa scheduled for September 21, 1945.55 The Memorandum listed several demands related to curtailing any further Jewish immigration to Palestine, the prohibition of land sales to non-Palestinian Jews, the prevention of the establishment of settlements for new immigrants, and the prevention of preferential treatments of Jewish institutions and individuals by the Mandate authorities. In the final segment, the Memorandum tackled the process of the progressive dissolution of the Jewish National Home. It called for the repatriation of Jews who had entered Palestine during the period of the British Mandate to their countries of origin under the auspices of an international committee of representatives of these said countries of origin. Such a process of repatriation was to be gradual but was not to exceed in duration the elapsed period of the Mandate.
