The Formation of Modern Iraq and Syria

Eliezer Tauber

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781135201258
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Regional Studies
• Index: History

This volume examines the impact of clandestine and overt political organizations in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq after World War I. It analyzes Amir Faysal's short-lived state in post-war Syria, relations between Syrians, Iraqis and Palestinians, and nationalist activity within Iraq.

Chapter 1

SYRIA AND AL-FATAT

Shortly before 7 am on 1 October 1918, the first cavalrymen of the 3rd Australian Light Horse Brigade entered Damascus, by this signalling the approaching end of World War I in the Middle East. On the same day Shukri al-Ayyubi was appointed governor of Damascus but, being incompetent, he was replaced by General ‘Ali Rida al-Rikabi two days later. From then on al-Rikabi functioned as military governor though his official title, as authorized by General Allenby, was Chief Administrator of internal Syria (OETA, East).

‘Ali Rida al-Rikabi had served many years in the Ottoman army and had even reached the rank of corps commander. But the suspicions of the Ottoman authorities concerning his nationalist leanings brought about his forced retirement on the eve of the war. Only a few days before the end of the war was he returned to active service. At first he was to stop the British advance on the Tiberian front, and later he was to defend Damascus after the departure of the Turks. Al-Rikabi took advantage of this latter assignment to deliver himself into the hands of the British, not before he had stationed the Ottoman soldiers who were to defend the city in indefensible positions and had arranged the Ottoman artillery in an untenable position due to lack of water. Thus, for the first time since the beginning of the war, the fact that al-Rikabi was one of the prominent members of the secret Arab society, al-Fatat, bore practical results. On his appointment as military governor he began to organize the public order in the city in coordination with the central committee of al-Fatat, which was soon to become the main political power in the short-lived Syrian state of Amir Faysal.¹

The Anglo-French declaration of 8 November 1918 gave the society its first chance to express the ideological lines that were to characterize its policy during the next two years. In this declaration Britain and France announced that the goal of the Allies in the war was to free the peoples oppressed by the Turks and to enable them to establish national governments to be chosen freely by themselves. The general reaction in Damascus to this declaration was one of rejoicing, and several notables came to the offices of the British and French liaison officers to express their gratitude. However, al-Fatat was not satisfied. The society could see that the declaration did not include a recognition by the two powers of the full independence of Syria, and therefore issued a resolution: “The country adheres to its absolute independence and unity according to the principles on which the great Arab revolt of Husayn was based.” Following a speech by the French foreign minister at the end of December concerning French interests in Syria, the society initiated a letter to the Powers protesting at any foreign intervention in Syria, even in the form of advisers. Opposition to France became from then on one of the principal planks of the society's policy, though in fact it was also opposed to any other European influence in Syria. At a conference organized by the society one of its members defined it thus: “We do not want to be guided by Europe except at a distance . . . just as a lighthouse guides the navigator without touching him.” These pronouncements and others by members of the society led a senior British officer to describe the situation in Damascus as follows: “A small party consisting mainly of fanatical Moslems and ‘Young Arab’ hot heads desires a purely Sherifian Government and displays a certain anti-European sentiment.”²

In December 1918 the leaders of al-Fatat drafted a new constitution for the society. It consisted of 80 articles and was to replace the 1909 constitution which had become irrelevant in the new circumstances. The goal of the society was formulated in the first article as follows: “The goal of the society is complete independence of the Arab countries in all its legal and political senses. Support for this independence would bring the Arab nation into the ranks of living nations.” To this was added Article 13: “The first duty of the society is to strengthen Arab consciousness within all strata of the Arab nation.”

The second article of the new constitution established that: “The society will remain secret for the present, in the light of the general political situation.” In this spirit it was decided that every member of the society should be given a fictitious name or have a number assigned to him and that the society should have a password to be changed when necessary (Arts. 55–56). However, despite the decision in principle to continue the secrecy of the society, it was already not the same compact and secret society that it was before the war. Circumstances had changed, and with them also the methods of operation. Article 11 made clear that: “The society will invest efforts to lead the government according to its political line of action.” The society held that it had the right also to criticize the government and to call for strikes where the government's policy was not in accord with the principles of the society (Art. 61). Since its remaining secret made it difficult to achieve this goal, the society decided in Article 17: “The society shall have a broad, open political party, by means of which it shall direct the general elections and apply its policy.” This article was put into action within a short while with the establishment of the Independence Party, Hizb al-Istiqlal (see Chapter 2 for a wider discussion of this party), which was the external and public organ of the society. The person responsible for the party on behalf of the society was its central committee member, Tawfiq al-Natur. The society also decided that any member who belonged to another society must reveal the other society's secrets and also do his best to sway that society towards the goals of al-Fatat (Arts. 3e and 60).

Following the expansion in the ranks of the society at this time its leaders decided to divide the members into three groups, according to the date of their joining: those who had joined it before the war, those who had joined it during the war, and those who joined it after the war (Art. 4). The society's central committee was empowered to decide on the promotion of members from one status to a higher one, for various reasons (Art. 24). Eventually, therefore, the members of the society were actually divided into two groups: those who had joined before or during the war, and who were called “the founders” (al-mu'assisun), and those who joined after the war and were called “the regulars” (al-‘adiyun). Society members Muhibb al-Din al-Khatib and Muhammad al-Shurayqi were later given the task of making a complete register of the members who had joined the society from its founding until the end of the war. The “founders” had the right to know all the members of the society, while the “regulars” would receive society decisions and instructions by messengers in order to maintain some of its former secrecy. They would hold monthly meetings to discuss current affairs, and they also had the right (according to Art. 27) to express, by a two-thirds vote, a lack of confidence in the central committee. Furthermore, the seven members of the central committee, including the secretary-general and the treasurer, could be chosen only from among the “founders” (Arts. 7–8 and 36).

The society's central committee was a powerful body, as will be shown below, and according to the constitution (Art. 18) had “the authority to enter into negotiations when necessary, in the name of the society, with representatives of the Powers or the government of the country”. The members of the first central committee after the capture of Damascus were: Yasin al-Hashimi, Shukri al-Quwwatli, Rustum Haydar, ‘Izzat Darwaza, Rafiq al-Tamimi, Tawfiq al-Natur and Ahmad Qadri. Rafiq al-Tamimi was elected secretary-general of the society and Tawfiq al-Natur its treasurer. Since Rafiq al-Tamimi went on a mission for the Arab government to Beirut and Rustum Haydar went to Paris as a member of the Arab delegation to the peace conference, it was decided in May 1919 to replace them with Sa‘id Haydar and Ahmad Muraywid. Then ‘Izzat Darwaza was appointed secretary-general and Shukri al-Quwwatli treasurer. A dominant personality who was not included in this period as a member of the central committee was ‘Ali Rida al-Rikabi. He was occupied with senior administrative duties and, in addition, at this time political differences of opinion began to appear between him and the other leaders of the society. These differences were to strain relations between them, as will be described below.

Structurally the society was divided into three levels: the general centre in Damascus headed by the central committee, centres in places where there were more than ten society members, and branches in towns where there were more than six members. Some of the branches were affiliated directly to the general centre and some to the local centres. All the local centres and branches were subordinate to the central committee (Arts. 6 and 31–33). From the start of the renewed activity of the society it was decided to set up a branch in Istanbul. Furthermore, society member Bashir al-Qassar was sent to Egypt to establish a branch there, his cover function being commercial representative of the Arab government of Damascus.

All this activity required money. The financing of the society came from contributions of its members (several of whom were quite wealthy), from commercial firms established by its members, and from public fund-raising of various kinds such as lotteries (Art. 63). Funds were also provided by Amir Faysal, mainly for the spread of propaganda and the acquisition of supporters, and these were transferred to the society usually through Ahmad Qadri or Yasin al-Hashimi. In accordance with Article 16 of its constitution the society set up a ramified intelligence system the purpose of which was to uncover any activity that would harm the prospects of independence for the country, and it was also supported handsomely by the government. Special sums were allocated for its activity in Beirut and the other areas occupied by the French, and for its activity in Palestine and Egypt.³

The society welcomed men of stature who could keep a secret. They had to be intellectuals or men with “experience in life”, and not less than 25 years of age (Arts. 3a and 3c). This could be explained by the new range of ages in the society: the young students at the eve of the war were now in their late twenties. However, the society was not satisfied with these criteria. It decided to relax the entry requirements and reached the conclusion that anyone qualified for high office in the state would be suitable for acceptance into the society. In fact, the society wanted all new appointees to government positions to be members. Therefore, when it learned that a certain person was going to be appointed to such a position, the members of the central committee immediately approached him, swore him to allegiance and took him into the society. The result, of course, was that the number of members increased and the membership came to include many men in positions of authority, although not all of the new members were unreservedly loyal to it. Some of the Syrian officers who had previously been members of al-‘Ahd also joined.⁴ A numerical check of the “activists”⁵ of the society reveals that the number of those joining the society before and during the war reached 115. Of these 13 were hanged by the Ottomans, while three died of other causes. During the 22 months of the existence of Faysal's state the remaining 99 were joined by 70 more, to produce a total of 169 activists.⁶

As mentioned above, many government officials in Faysal's Syria were members of al-Fatat. At the beginning of Faysal's regime members of the society held the following senior positions: ‘Ali Rida al-Rikabi – military governor and in fact head of the temporary government; ‘Adil Arslan – assistant to the military governor; Rashid Tali’ – mudir (minister) of the interior; Yasin al-Hashimi – chief of the general staff; Muhammad ‘Ali al-Tamimi – mudir (director) of the Damascus police; ‘Ala’ al-Din al-Durubi – wali of Damascus; Shukri al-Quwwatli – secretary to the wali of Damascus; Jalal Zuhdi – president of the Court of Appeal; Ibrahim Hashim – prosecutor-general in the Court of Appeal; Ja‘far al-‘Askari – governor of Salt and later governor of Aleppo; Jamil al-Ulshi – the Arab government representative in Beirut. Many of those in Faysal's entourage were members of the society, and in fact Faysal himself was a member, having joined it in 1915. All this caused the historian Amin Sa‘id, who was a journalist in Damascus during Faysal's regime, to remark about the central committee of al-Fatat that: “This committee in effect ruled the government, and its position with respect to it was like the position of the Committee of Union and Progress with respect to the Turkish government. Nothing would be carried out except according to its instruction and will.” This power of the society and the numerous offices held by its members created bitterness towards it in many circles, especially among notables who did not gain such positions and envied the society members who in effect took over the new state.⁷

In early May 1919 Faysal returned to Damascus from his first visit to Europe (see Chapter 5). In the same period it became known that an international commission of enquiry was to come to Syria on behalf of the League of Nations (eventually only King and Crane came) in order to determine the aspirations and desires of its inhabitants concerning their future. On the initiative of al-Fatat and its Independence Party it was decided to convene a general congress which would represent all parts of Syria and would be able to formulate a unified position before the commission of enquiry. Due to the imminent arrival of the commission the elections to the congress were conducted hastily. Since there was not enough time to arrange for proper general elections, it was decided that the electors from the Ottoman period who were still alive would be the voters. (These electors, who earlier had elected the Syrian representatives to the Ottoman parliament, had at the time been chosen in the ratio of one for every 500 males eligible to vote.) This election procedure stirred up resentment in various circles, with people claiming that the electors from the Ottoman period did not justly represent current public opinion in Syria. During the elections themselves pressures were exerted by various groups, mainly by the diverse political societies that existed at the time, and – as noted by a British observer – “bribery and intimidation by the Arab Independence Party under the aegis of the Arab Administration in Damascus having played their part”. It should also be pointed out that not all members of the congress were to be elected; in addition there were tribal chiefs, representatives of religious communities and representatives of Palestine, who were especially invited by Faysal to participate.

The congress was to number 85 elected members and 35 invited ones, 120 in all. A compilation from various sources of the names of the members of the congress yields over 130 names, and it seems that there was a certain changing around among them. Of these, 35 were members of al-Fatat (just over one-quarter). However, it is important to note that the number of actual participants was much smaller. For example, the election of the ten representatives of Beirut to the congress was held on 2 July, when the King-Crane commission had already arrived in Syria. Furthermore, even after they were elected the French authorities did not allow them to go to Damascus, just as they did not permit any of the other representatives of the western region that was under their occupation. Only those western region representatives who were in Damascus prior to this were able to participate in the congress. In the same way most of the Palestine representatives were prevented from attending, and only those who had already been staying in Damascus were able to take part. The result was that at the time the King-Crane commission arrived in Damascus only 69 representatives were actually participating, and it appears that the percentage of al-Fatat members among these was even higher than the figures of nominal membership given above would lead one to expect. Heading the congress were to be Muhammad Fawzi al-‘Azm as president with ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Yusuf as vice-president. However, they were known to have been in the past, undoubtedly pro-Ottoman, and therefore they were not considered the most suitable persons to preside over the elected body of the new Syrian state. And indeed, as early as at the preliminary session of the congress, a quarrel broke out between them and the nationalist circles, and they were forced to resign. When the first official session of the Syrian Congress was held on 3 June 1919, in the building of al-Nadi al-‘Arabi, al-Fatat member Hashim al-Atasi was elected its president.⁸

On 10 June the King-Crane commission arrived in Jaffa and began to receive local delegations for the purpose of hearing their views concerning the desired future of the region. From statements by the members of the commission the local people learned that the peace conference was of the opinion that a mandatory power should be appointed over Syria. In view of the expected arrival of the commission in Syria the nationalist circles decided that another body must be set up that would fight ideas of this kind. It was decided that an additional congress should be established, alongside the Syrian Congress, to be called the “Congress of the Societies”, in which would participate two representatives from each of the parties, societies, and associations that existed in Syria at that time. Participating in this congress were representatives of the Independence Party, the Syrian Union Party, al-‘Ahd al-Suri, al-‘Ahd al-‘Iraqi, al-Nahda al-Filastiniyya, and many other societies, more than 20 in all. Al-Fatat member Jamil Mardam was chosen as president. On the agenda of the first session, on 30 June, were five items: “1. the absolute independence of Syria, without any aegis or mandate whatsoever ... 2. maintenance of the integrity of Syria ... 3. a protest against Article 22 [of the League of Nations Covenant, which determined that the Arab provinces that had been liberated from ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Introduction: The Fertile Crescent in World War I
• 1. Syria and Al-Fatat
• 2. Political Parties in Faysal’s Syria
• 3. The Committee for National Defence
• 4. The Arab Clubs
• 5. Political Activity Outside Syria
• 6. Al-‘Ahd Al-‘Iraqi and the Syrian Army
• 7. From Dayr Al-Zur to Tal‘afar
• 8. Al-‘Ahd Al-‘Iraqi in Northern Iraq
• 9. Al-‘Ahd Al-‘Iraqi in Baghdad
• 10. The Independence Guard
• 11. The Iraqi Revolt
• 12. Repatriation
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index