The Making of Eretz Israel in the Modern Era

A Historical-Geographical Study (1799–1949)

Yehoshua Ben-Arieh

• Editorial: De Gruyter Oldenbourg
• Año: 2020
• ISBN:
  9783110626544
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Histoire
• Categoría: Histoire du Moyen-Orient

Napoleon's invasion of the Middle East marks the beginning of the modern era in the region. This book traces the developments that led to the making of a new and separate geographical-political entity in the Middle East known as Eretz Israel and the establishment of the State of Israel within its bounds. Thus, its time frame runs from Napoleon's invasion of Eretz Israel / Palestine in 1799 to the establishment of Israel in 1948–1949.

Eretz Israel as the formal name of a separate entity in the modern era first appeared in the early translations into Hebrew of the Balfour Declaration, while in the original document the country was referred to as "Palestine." During the period of Ottoman rule the territory that would in time be called Eretz Israel / Palestine was not a separate political unit.

Among Jews, use of "Eretz Israel" increased only after the beginning of Zionist aliyot. Had the Zionist movement not arisen, it is doubtful whether the development to which this study is devoted would have occurred. The motivating force behind that process is without doubt the Zionist element. That is why Jews are the major protagonists in this book.

Part One: The late Ottoman period 1799–1917/18

Chapter 1: When did the modern era begin in Eretz Israel?

Three concepts and their rationales

A division into historical periods is a methodological division determined in retrospect by scholars studying and researching the past. Such a division should be justified and elucidated by significant foundational events which mark the beginning and end of each period, including its sub-periods. The early modern period, on which I have chosen to focus this geographical-historical study, should likewise be exemplified by the elements and events that brought about its beginning and end. The terminus ad quem I have chosen is obvious, the establishment of the State of Israel during the period of its War of Independence. The last chapter of this study will be devoted to that subject. However, there are several opinions regarding the start of the modern era in Palestine/Eretz Israel. There is no consensus among scholars of Middle Eastern history regarding them. Three main concepts prevail.

Before discussing the differences between the concepts, we should note that the beginning of a certain era may have a different timeframe in different areas of the world. The dawn of the modern era in the Middle East as a whole is not in keeping with the beginning of that period, as is nowadays accepted, in the countries of Europe, for example. The events that led to the development of the modern era in the Middle East were different from those in western Europe.

First concept: The Napoleonic invasion

This viewpoint perceives of the external Western changes that began infiltrating the Ottoman space, including the Holy Land, as the determining factor that brought on the beginning of the modern era in the region. It points to the Napoleonic invasion of the Middle East as the foundational event that marks the actual starting point. In the case of the Holy Land, this occurred in 1799. Regarding the reasons for Napoleon’s invasion, there is no doubt it was connected to the conflict between France and Britain, on land and sea, at the end of the eighteenth century. The military campaign against Egypt in May 1798 was not solely the result of the personal and strategic initiative of the great commander, but also a reflection of the long-term French tendencies and plans to gain a foothold in the region, accompanied by influence and power, with the aim of using it to usurp the British-held positions. The French saw the Levant, Egypt first and foremost, as a natural passageway to India, through which they hoped to renew their hold in the area and put an end to the British rule which had caused its loss.¹

With regards to Egypt, it is widely acknowledged that the Napoleonic invasion marked the start of the modern era in that country.² The important scholar of Egypt, P.J. Vatikiotis, notes some of the innovations introduced into Egypt by French rule, among them the establishment of a scientific institute. There were four sections in the Institute: Mathematics, Physical and Natural Sciences, Political Economy, Literature and the Arts. The Institute was required to publish the findings of its studies every three months. Over the course of the short-lived French presence in Egypt, important studies were conducted in a variety of areas: fuel, water energy, and the raw materials available in the country from which gunpowder could be produced. Additional studies were conducted on legislation, civil and penal jurisdiction, the state of education and its possible reform. Plans were drawn up for agricultural development, such as viticulture and wheat crops and drilling for water in the desert. The Institute set up laboratories for chemical and physical experiments and initiated archaeological excavations. Topographical and other maps of the Nile country, its canals and banks were drawn at the Institute. Animal and plant life were studied as well as available minerals, the geological formations of the soil, oases and lakes. An Arabic printing press was established and official journalism was founded, beginning with the publication of a political journal and a scientific and economic monthly.³

During the French sojourn in Egypt, the “Rosetta Stone” was also discovered, which paved the way for deciphering the Egyptian hieroglyphs. There were additional important archaeological finds as well, and Egypt became a focus of attention for scholars of antiquities, antiquarians, and famous architects. Tours arranged for European royalty and the wealthy began arriving in the East, with Egypt and the pyramids serving as their main focal point.⁴

An interesting idea raised during Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt was the digging of a water channel that would turn the overland route between the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Suez into a sea lane, thus totally transforming the route connecting Europe to India and the Far East. However, the corps of engineers and geographers charged with examining and planning this passage made a grave mistake. According to their measurements there was a substantial difference between the sea level of the Mediterranean and that of the Gulf of Suez, to such an extent that should a connecting channel between the two seas be dug, it might well be that the waters would burst forth and flood the Nile delta, even endangering the city of Cairo itself.⁵

Perhaps this conclusion also constituted one of Napoleon’s considerations in invading the Levant, with the intention of examining another option for connecting the Mediterranean to the Euphrates River as an alternative route to India and the East. The subject of a canal became one of the heated topics of debate between engineers throughout the world in the first decades of the nineteenth century until, later in that century, the renowned engineer Francis Rawdon Chesney, by measurements he conducted himself, proved the error made by Napoleon’s engineers. He elucidated what every child now knows, that sea level all around the world is the same, and a water canal between the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Suez would not entail any danger of flooding. As a result, practical plans for the construction of the channel were initiated in 1859 lasting for ten years and directed by French engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps. At the inauguration ceremony, de Lesseps did not forget to mention Chesney’s important contribution to the construction of the canal.⁶

With regard to our discussion, the main question that remains open is whether Napoleon’s invasion constitutes the opening of the modern era in the Levant, or was the beginning of that period delayed there until the campaign of Muhammad ‘Ali. There are those who believe, as stated above, that Napoleon aspired to continue from here to Mesopotamia and India since at the time it was believed to be a possible route for reaching the desired destination. There are others who claim he was only chasing the Egyptian forces who fought against his invasion, some of whom retreated into the Holy Land, and that he later aspired to reach Istanbul to defeat Turkey and from there to return to Europe. It is important to remember that Turkey declared war on France in September 1798, after Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt and in response to it, and even requested British assistance.⁷ Nevertheless, Napoleon remained in the Holy Land for only five months. He never got to Jerusalem at all. He stayed at a monastery in Ramle, a few short hours ride on horseback to the Holy City, but never made it there, apparently because it held no attraction for him.⁸ His arrival in Palestine was not as a Christian pilgrim, and the holy sites were not his objective. From Ramle he advanced north. He fought in the Galilee, mounted a siege against Acre, and then retreated after failing to conquer it. He returned to Egypt through Jaffa, and from there back to France. French forces remained in Egypt for another eighteen months until the British and Ottomans attacked them in May 1801. Finally, in August 1801, the remaining French forces in Egypt surrendered and left, thus ending French rule in Egypt which had lasted for about three years.⁹

Despite Napoleon’s short stay and operations in the Holy Land, many researchers are of the opinion that the Napoleonic invasion of it should be viewed as the beginning of the modern era in that country. This because the invasion was an important event that heralded an awakening throughout the Middle East, dormant for hundreds of years, and brought about significant political and cultural developments that constitute the start of the modern era in the Holy Land as well.¹⁰

Supporters of this hypothesis also claim that the Egyptian invasion of the country, the subsequent Egyptian rule, and the ensuing reforms in the Ottoman constitution are all the result of the French invasion and conquest throughout the region. The ensuing conquest by Muhammad ‘Ali, the founder of modern Egypt, also derived from the strong French influence that continued in Egypt after Napoleon’s withdrawal. The Egyptian ruler was a protégé of French culture. Many officers in his army were French officers who helped him establish his state, and some even converted to Islam for the purpose. The excavation of the Suez Canal was also a concept raised during the Napoleonic period, and French engineers and geographers were in charge of it. Thus, subsequent events in the Ottoman Empire and the reforms in its constitution should be seen as fruits of the European intervention. Turkey became the “Sick Man upon the Bosporus,” and survived as such until the First World War, due solely to the competition between the Western powers for dominance over the country and over events in the Ottoman Empire. Consequently, the turning point marking the beginning of the modern era in the Middle East as a whole started with the Napoleonic invasion, in whose wake came the beginning of European intervention which brought about significant changes in the character of Ottoman rule throughout the region, including the Holy Land.

Second concept: The Egyptian conquest of Muhammad ‘Ali and the reforms in the Ottoman constitution

According to this viewpoint, the Egyptian invasion and the reforms in the Ottoman constitution mark the beginning of the modern era in the Holy Land. Events and changes in the country during the nineteenth century greatly influenced the constitution and the character of Ottoman rule in the region to such an extent that they began a new era. According to this conception, the Napoleonic invasion and Napoleon’s short sojourn were not a determining factor for the Holy Land. The continued rule of the country by the Ottoman pashas proves that no actual change occurred. Thus, the foundational events of the modern era in that area were its conquest in 1831 by Muhammad ‘Ali, and his advance into Syria and Turkey with the aim of replacing the Ottoman ruler in his capital, Istanbul. According to the pact signed at the time, Syria and Palestine were included in the areas controlled by Muhammad ‘Ali for a period of ten years (1831–1840). At the end of the period, in 1839, liberal reforms (the Tanzimat) were implemented in the Ottoman constitution. Upon the reconquest of Syria and Palestine by the Ottoman forces in 1840 with the support of a number of Western powers, mainly Britain, Egyptian rule was pushed back to the Egyptian borders. Subsequently, Ottoman reforms were applied to the reconquered area.¹¹

Third concept: The turning point in Jewish aliyah: the Hassidim and the Perushim, or the First Aliyah

According to this concept, all is contingent on Jewish history. Scholars of the Jewish history of the Holy Land seek the start of the modern era in developments in the Jewish people regarding their attitude towards the land of their forefathers. Among them, there are those who view the aliyah of the convoy of Rabbi Judah he-Hasid, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, as the starting point of the modern era in the Holy Land on account of new motifs in what led to this aliyah, in addition to the religious motifs that brought Jews to come in previous immigrations.¹² Other scholars perceive the aliyah of the first Hassidim, in the second half of the eighteenth century, to be the harbinger of the modern era and identify a new interest of an ideological nature.¹³ Still others see the aliyah to the Holy Land of disciples of “HaGra” (HaGaon Rabbenu Eliyahu) from Vilna in the early nineteenth century, also called “Perushim” or “Mitnagdim” (opponents of Hassidism) as the start of the modern era. These scholars identify new conceptions in this aliyah, including messianic ideas of great momentum that motivate...