Matters were coming to a head, especially among the fighting and somewhat primitive people of the Jebel ed Druz (who are not unlike the tribes of our north-west frontier). The French Governor played a dirty trick on the leaders of these Druzes. He invited them and then made them prisoners and kept them as hostages. This was in the summer of 1925, and immediately an insurrection broke out in the Jebel ed Druz. This local revolt spread all over the country, and became a general rising for Syrian freedom and unity.
This war of Syrian independence was a remarkable affair. A small country, about the size of two or three districts in India, stood up to fight France, which was then the greatest military Power in the world. Of course the Syrians could not fight pitched battles with the huge and well-equipped French armies, but they made it difficult for them to hold the rural areas. Only the large towns were in French possession, and even these were often raided by the Syrians. The French tried their utmost to terrorize the people by shooting down large numbers and burning down numerous villages. The famous old city of Damascus itself was bombarded and largely destroyed in October 1925. The whole of Syria was a military camp. In spite of all this the rising was not put down for two years. It was crushed at last by the mighty French military machine, but the great sacrifices of the Syrians had not been in vain. They had established their right to freedom, and the world knew what stuff they were made of.
It is interesting to notice that while the French tried to give a religious colouring to the rising and tried to use the Christians against the Druzes, the Syrians made it quite clear that they fought for national freedom, and not for a religious objective. Right at the beginning of the insurrection a provisional government was established in the Druze country, and this government issued a proclamation appealing to the people to join the war of independence and win “the complete independence of Syria, one and indivisible . . . the free election of a Constituent Assembly to draft the constitution, the withdrawal of the foreign army of occupation, and the creation of a national army to guarantee security and apply the principles of the French Revolution and the Rights of Man”. So the French Government and the French army tried to put down a people who were standing up for the principles of the French Revolution and the rights which it had proclaimed!
Early in 1928 martial law was ended in Syria; also the censorship of the Press. Many political prisoners were released. In accordance with the demand of the nationalists, a Constituent Assembly was convened in order to draw up the constitution. But the French sowed the seeds of trouble by arranging for separate religious electorates (as in India now). Separate compartments were created for Muslims, Greek Catholics, Greek Orthodox Church, and Jews, and each voter was compelled to vote for one of his own religious group. A curious and revealing situation arose in Damascus. The leader of the nationalists was a Protestant Christian. Being a Protestant, he did not fall into any of the special electorates, and could not therefore be elected, although he was one of the most popular men in Damascus. The Muslims, who had ten seats, offered to give up one seat, so that it might be given to the Protestants, but the French Government would not agree.
In spite of all these attempts of the French, the nationalists controlled the Constituent Assembly, and they drafted a constitution for an independent and sovereign State. Syria was to be a republic in which all authority was derived from the people. There was no reference in this draft constitution to the French or their mandate. The French protested at this, but the Assembly would not budge an inch, and a tussle went on for many months. At last the French High Commissioner suggested that the draft constitution should be adopted with just one transitional clause to the effect that during the continuance of the mandate no article in the constitution should be applied so as to conflict with France’s obligations under the mandate. This was rather vague, but still it was a great climb down for the French. The Constituent Assembly, however, would not agree even to this. The French Government thereupon, in May 1930, dissolved this Assembly and at the same time proclaimed the constitution drafted by it, with the addition of their transitional clause.
So Syria proper had succeeded in obtaining much that it wanted, and yet it had not compromised or given up a single one of its demands. Two things remained: the ending of the mandate, with which would go the transitional clause, and the larger question of Syrian unity. Otherwise the constitution itself is a progressive one, and designed for a perfectly free country. The Syrians showed themselves brave and determined fighters during the great insurrection, and afterwards as equally determined and persistent negotiators, refusing to modify or qualify in any way their demand for full freedom.
In November 1933 France offered a treaty to the Syrian Chamber of Deputies. This Chamber had been packed and consisted of a majority of moderates favourable to the French Government. In spite of this, the treaty was rejected by the Chamber. This was due to France insisting on continuing the existing partition of Syria into five States, and on maintaining camps, barracks, aerodromes, and military forces in Syria.
Note (October) 1938:
The Nazi triumph in Czechoslovakia, and the increasing domination of Europe by Germany and her demand for colonies, have brought about a new situation all over the world. France has sunk back into the second rank of Powers and can hardly maintain for long a vast overseas empire. The difficult situation in Palestine has led to suggestions that Syria and Palestine and Trans-Jordan might be united together in an Arab federation.
167
Palestine and Trans-Jordan
May 29, 1933
Adjoining Syria is Palestine, for which the British Government holds a mandate from the League of Nations. This is an even smaller country, with a total population of less than a million, but it attracts a great deal of attention because of its old history and associations. For it is a holy land for the Jews as well as Christians and, to some extent, even the Muslims. The people inhabiting it are predominantly Muslim Arabs, and they demand freedom and unity with their fellow-Arabs of Syria. But British policy has created a special minority problem here—that of the Jews—and the Jews side with the British and oppose the freedom of Palestine, as they fear that this would mean Arab rule. The two pull different ways, and conflicts necessarily occur. On the Arab side are numbers, on the other side great financial resources and the world-wide organization of Jewry. So England pits Jewish religious nationalism against Arab nationalism, and makes it appear that her presence is necessary to act as an arbitrator and to keep the peace between the two. It is the same old game which we have seen in other countries under imperialist domination; it is curious how often it is repeated.
The Jews are a very remarkable people. Originally they were a small tribe, or several tribes, in Palestine, and their early story is told in the Old Testament of the Bible. Rather conceited they were, thinking themselves the Chosen People. But this is a conceit in which nearly all people have indulged. They were repeatedly conquered and suppressed and enslaved, and some of the most beautiful and moving poems in English are the songs and laments of these Jews as given in the authorized translation of the Bible. I suppose in the original Hebrew they are equally, or even more, beautiful. I shall give you just a few lines from one of the Psalms:
By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept: when we remembered thee, O Sion.
As for our harps we hanged them up: upon the trees that are therein.
For they that led us away captive required of us then a song, and melody, in our heaviness: Sing us one of the songs of Sion.
How shall we sing the Lord’s song: in a strange land?
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem: let my right hand forget her cunning.
If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth: yea, if I prefer not Jerusalem in my mirth.
These Jews were finally dispersed all over the world. They had no home or nation, and everywhere they went they were treated as unwelcome and undesirable strangers. They were made to live in special areas of cities, apart from the
others—“ghettos” these areas were called— so that they might not pollute others. Sometimes they were made to put on a special dress. They were humiliated, reviled, tortured, and massacred; the very word “Jew” became a word of abuse, a synonym for a miser and a grasping money-lender. And yet these amazing people not only survived all this, but managed to keep their racial and cultural characteristics, and prospered and produced a host of great men. Today they hold leading positions as scientists, statesmen, literary men, financiers, businessmen, and even the greatest socialists and communists have been Jews. Most of them, of course, are far from prosperous; they crowd in the cities of eastern Europe and, from time to time, suffer “pogroms” or massacres. These people without home or country, and especially the poor among them, have never ceased to dream of old Jerusalem, which appears to their imaginations greater and more magnificent than it ever was in fact. Zion they call Jerusalem, a kind of promised land, and Zionism is this call of the past which pulls them to Jerusalem and Palestine.
Towards the end of the nineteenth century this Zionist movement took gradual shape as a colonizing movement, and many Jews went to settle in Palestine. There was also a renaissance of the Hebrew language. During the World War the British armies invaded Palestine and, as they were marching on Jerusalem, the British Government made a declaration in November 1917, called the Balfour Declaration. They declared that it was their intention to establish a “Jewish National Home” in Palestine. This declaration was made to win the goodwill of international Jewry, and this was important from the money point of view. It was welcomed by Jews. But there was one little drawback, one not unimportant fact seems to have been overlooked. Palestine was not a wilderness, or an empty, uninhabited place. It was already somebody else’s home. So that this generous gesture of the British Government was really at the expense of the people who already lived in Palestine, and these people, including Arabs, non-Arabs, Muslims, Christians, and, in fact, everybody who was not a Jew, protested vigorously at the declaration. It was really an economic question. These people felt that the Jews would compete with them in all activities and, with the great wealth behind them, would become the economic masters of the country; they were afraid that the Jews would take the bread out of their mouths and the land from the peasantry.
The story of Palestine ever since has been one of conflict between Arabs and Jews, with the British Government siding with one or the other as occasion demanded, but generally supporting the Jews. The country has been treated as a British colony with no self-government. The Arabs, supported by the Christians and other non-Jewish peoples, have demanded self-determination and complete freedom. They have taken strong objection to the mandate and to fresh immigrants on the ground that there is no room for more. As Jewish immigrants have poured in, their fear and anger have increased. They (the Arabs) have declared that “Zionism had been an accomplice of British imperialism; responsible Zionist leaders had constantly urged what an advantage a strong Jewish National Home would be to the English in guarding the road to India, just because it was a counteracting force to Arab national aspirations.” How India crops up in odd places!
The Arab Congress decided to non-co-operate with the British Government and to boycott the elections to a Legislative Council which the British were forming. This boycott was very successful, and the Council could not be formed. The policy of non-co-operation of a kind lasted for several years; then it weakened to some extent and some groups gave partial co-operation to the British. Even so, the British could not get an elective council, and the High Commissioner governed as an all-powerful sultan.
In 1928 the different Arab groups again united in the Arab Congress and demanded a democratic parliamentary system of government “as of right”. They further very bravely stated that “the people of Palestine cannot and will not tolerate the present absolute colonial system of government”. An interesting feature of this new wave of Arab nationalism was the stress laid on economic questions. This is always a sign of a growing appreciation of the realities of the situation.
In August 1929 there were big Arab-Jew riots. The real cause was Arab bitterness and fear due to the growing wealth and numbers of the Jews, as well as the Jewish opposition to Arab demands for freedom. The immediate cause, however, was a dispute about the “Wailing Wall”, as it is called. This is part of the wall which surrounded Herod’s temple in old times, and is thus sacred to the Jews, who look upon it as a monument of the days when they were a great people. Subsequently a mosque was built there, and this wall was made part of the structure. The Jews say their prayers near this wall and, especially, recite their lamentations in a loud voice—hence the name the “Wailing Wall”. The Muslims object to this practice near a part of one of their most famous mosques.
After the riots were put down, the struggle continued in other ways, and the curious part of it is that the Arabs had the full support of all Christian churches in Palestine. Both Muslims and Christians thus joined together in great strikes and demonstrations. Even women took a prominent part. This shows that the real trouble was not religious, but economic conflict between the newcomers and the old residents. The League of Nations strongly criticized the British administration for its failure to fulfil its mandatory duties, and especially for having failed to prevent the riots of 1929.
So Palestine continues to be practically a British colony, and in some ways worse even than a full-fledged colony, and the British are continuing this state of affairs by playing the Jew against the Arab. It is full of British officials, and all the high posts are occupied by them. As usual with British dependencies, very little has been done for education, in spite of the strong desire of the Arabs for it. The Jews, with their great financial resources, have fine schools and colleges. The Jewish population is already nearly a quarter of the Muslim population, and their economic power is far greater. They seem to look forward to the day when they will be the dominant community in Palestine. The Arabs tried to gain their cooperation in the struggle for national freedom and democratic government, but they rejected these advances. They have preferred to take sides with the foreign ruling Power, and have thus helped it to keep back freedom from the majority of the people. It is not surprising that this majority, comprising the Arabs chiefly and also the Christians, bitterly resent this attitude of the Jews.
TRANS-JORDAN
Adjoining Palestine, across the river Jordan, is yet another little State, a post-war creation of the British. This is called Trans-Jordan. It is a tiny area, bordering on the desert and lying between Syria and Arabia. The total population of the State is about 300,000, barely equal to a moderatesized city! The British Government could have easily joined it on to Palestine, but imperial policy always prefers division to consolidation. This State plays an important part as a step in the overland and air route to India. It is also a useful border State between the desert and the fertile lands leading to the sea on the west.
Small as the State is, the same succession of events takes place there as in the larger adjoining countries. There is the popular demand for a democratic parliament which is not agreed to, demonstrations suppressed, censorship, deportations of leaders, boycotts of government measures, and so on. The British cleverly made the Emir Abdullah (another son of King Hussein of the Hejaz and brother of Feisal) the ruler of Trans-Jordan, a puppet ruler entirely under their control. But he is useful in screening the British from the people. He gets the blame for much that happens, and he is very unpopular. Trans-Jordan under Abdullah is in fact something like the many small Indian States we have.
In theory the State is independent, but by a treaty which Abdullah signed with the British in 1928, all manner of military and other privileges are given to Britain. Trans-Jordan, in fact, becomes part of the British Empire. This is another instance, on a small scale, of the new type of independence which flourishes under the British. This treaty and generally this state of affairs is bitterly resented by the people, both Muslim and Christian. The agitation against the treaty
was suppressed, even the newspapers supporting it being forbidden, and, as I have mentioned above, the leaders being deported. Thereupon opposition increased, and a National Congress met and adopted a National Pact and denounced the treaty. When the electoral roll for the new elections was being prepared, it was boycotted by the overwhelming majority of the people. Abdullah and the British, however, managed to gather together a few supporters to make a show ratification of the treaty.
During the troubles in Palestine in 1929 there were great demonstrations in Trans-Jordan against the British and the Balfour Declaration.
I go on writing to you, at great length, of happenings in different countries, and they seem to be the same tale repeated again and again. I do so to make you realize that we have not to deal so much with national peculiarities, as all of us are apt to imagine in our respective countries, as with world forces, with an awakening nationalism all over the East, and with the same technique of imperialism to combat it. As nationalism grows and advances, the tactics of imperialism change slightly; there is an outward attempt to appease and give in so far as forms are concerned. Meanwhile, as this national struggle progresses in the different countries, the social struggle, the class conflict between different classes in each country, also grows more obvious, and the feudal, and to some extent the possessing, classes side more and more with the imperialist Power.
Note (October 1938):
The triangular conflict in Palestine between Arab Nationalism, Jewish Zionism, and British Imperialism has continued and grown more and more desperate. The triumph of the Nazis in Germany drove out vast numbers of Jews from Central Europe, and the Jewish pressure on Palestine increased. This intensified the apprehensions of the Arabs that they would be submerged in floods of Jewish immigration and that Palestine would be dominated by the Jews. The Arabs fought against this, and some of them took to terrorist activities. Later some of the extremer Zionists retaliated in kind.
Glimpses of World History Page 113
