Since the beginning of the 20th century, with the intervention of the British and the French in the region, peace and tranquility had been disturbed, and religious and sectarian conflicts, along with Arab nationalist movements, had emerged. The British supported the Druze, while the French supported the Maronites, encouraging rebellion against the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, since 1842, generations raised in missionary schools, whose numbers rapidly increased in the region, were trained with anti-Turkish separatist ideas. According to records, at the beginning of the 20th century, there were 123 missionary schools operating in Beirut, 9 in Aleppo, and 41 in Damascus. It was with the influence of this new Crusade coming from the West that Syria’s separation from the Ottoman Empire would occur.
Syria was the headquarters of the 4th Army under the command of Jemal Pasha during World War I. Pasha was commanding the defense of the entire region from his headquarters in Damascus and was pursuing state policies based on establishing good relations with tribes and influential figures. However, as the activities of the Arab nationalist movements increased, Jemal Pasha’s governing style began to become more severe. After a raid on the French consulate, documents were seized that exposed the relations between nationalist Arab leaders and the French, and these individuals were executed by the Ottoman State Military Court, which had been established by Jemal Pasha. This event gave imperialist powers, who were inciting Arabs against the Ottomans during the war, leverage, and Syria passed through the last phase of the Ottoman Empire as a center for separatist Arab ideas and movements.
The rebellion of Sharif Hussein, a tribal leader, and his sons, ultimately bore the characteristics of a rebellious movement. However, Arab nationalists centered in Syria, with dozens of organizations, would leave deep and influential marks on the political formations of Arabs in the post-Ottoman region. There were also Arab intellectuals who opposed these movements, supported by Europeans. In 1890, some Arab intellectuals in Paris, who sought to form an opposition against Abdülhamid, defended the idea of an independent Arab state. Although Halil Ganem, an Ottoman deputy from the Syrian Assembly, was Christian, he dreamt of a liberal and Islamic Ottoman state and opposed the idea of an Arab state, stating: “During their 400 years of rule, the Turks never took a single piece of our property; they left the land, property, industry, and trade to the local people. The Arab intellectuals and elites have no desire other than to live according to the Ottoman interests of the ummah.”
Zee-ya Go-kalp the famous Turkish nationalist writer also argued that Turkish-Arab unity could be possible with a formula similar to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Britain was engaged in intensive efforts to create a Turkish-Arab separation. A report sent to the British Foreign Ministry stated: “Turkey must pursue a more lenient policy toward the Arabs and effectively leave no room for them. This can only be achieved by occupying the Arab countries, including Syria, that remain under Turkey’s control and separating them from Turkey. As long as Turkey holds any Arab land, the government in Istanbul will be able to pursue a policy of unity there, and this will influence other Arab countries and disrupt Britain’s moral position.”
Refik Rezzak Sallum, in his statement to the Aliye Divanı military court regarding the activities of foreign schools and the incitement of Arabs against other enemies, said: “I studied in French schools. Today, the children of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Ashraf, and Ayn attend Jesuit schools; in other Arab countries, English is dominant, and they either attend English schools or American colleges. The common goal for all of them is to instill in the Arabs the same ideas I have about the Turks. For them, the common enemy is the Turks. Therefore, those who aim to steer the Arabs toward certain known or even unknown goals will have Turkish hostility as their sole issue. I believe our mistake is that those who come after us will inevitably fall into the same trap because this belief is the result of a goal that has been skillfully instilled for centuries.”
During World War I, the Allied Powers promised independence to the Arabs while also dividing Arab lands among themselves through the Sykes-Picot agreement. This agreement, revealed after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, caused great disappointment and frustration among Arab nationalists. Sharif Hussein’s son, Faysal, expressed this frustration: “I could not present myself before the Muslim world, asking them to fight the caliph and make sacrifices. But now I see that the European states, whom we served, are dividing the Arab countries.”
Ultimately, the British, who entered through the path opened by Arab nationalism, established mandates in Iraq, southern Syria, Palestine, and Jordan, while the French established mandates in Syria and Lebanon. The lands of Syria, promised to the Hashemite family by England to support Arab nationalism against the Ottomans, were left to the French mandate in 1920 at the San Remo Conference, according to the Sykes-Picot agreement. For the people of Syria, who had hoped to live in a united Arab state after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, coming under French mandate was a complete disaster, and large-scale resistance began with the help of the Turks, who were fighting against the invading forces in Anatolia. Fearing Arab independence, the French followed a divide-and-rule policy, supporting minorities against the Sunni Arab majority. Accordingly, autonomy was granted to regions such as Latakia, where the Nusayri population was in the majority, and Jabal al-Druze, which had a large Druze population. The French mandate administration, which had been inciting Syrians against the Ottomans, began to implement everything they had previously propagated. They divided the Syrian people, pitting different groups against each other, and sought to impose French culture by undermining religious values. Schools were made to teach French, and French national days were celebrated instead of religious holidays. Syrian currency was tied to the French franc, and military expenses were loaded onto the Syrian people.
In response to all these humiliations, the Syrian people resisted. The French bombed major cities like Damascus, Aleppo, Hama, and Homs in response to the uprisings. In these attacks, thousands of civilians, including women and children, were killed. The Syrian people increasingly gathered in support of the resistance. Western media was full of reports claiming that the Turks were behind the uprisings and that Turkey would return to the region to restore Turkish-Arab unity. The French newspaper “Revel” reported: “French hostility is being carried out by Kemalist agents in Syria and Lebanon, and they are even collaborating with pro-Turkish Arabs from Hejaz.” In contrast, Şekip Aslan, a Druze intellectual loyal to the Ottoman Empire, said in an interview with a German newspaper: “Syria’s land will not remain after the Ottomans. No one can incite those living here to hostility against the French. Druze, Arabs, Turks, Sunnis, and Christians have lived here for a long time without being enemies of each other.”
Ahmet Özcan
