Early Zionist Interest In Lebanon
A Chapter from "My Enemy's Enemy"
By Laura Zittrain Eisenberg
Encouraged by the
nebulous border in the Galilee region, early Zionist strategists
considered Lebanon, especially the southern portion, an arena for
potential Zionist settlement. Chaim Weizmann toured Lebanon in 1907.
Initially unimpressed, he nonetheless perceived "colossal" potential
there and decided to reserve judgement until he completed his trip (1).
Two-and-a-half weeks later, he was back in Haifa, anxiously seeking
support for several small industries he wanted to establish in
Sidon, specifically a soap-boiling plant, a lemon-processing
factory, a distillation plant, and an olive oil factory. By
cooperating with Atid Enterprises, newly found by Russian Jews,
Weizmann estimated that the Zionists could create in Sidon a single
olive oil company to control the entire oil industry of the country.
He concluded his enthusiastic proposal with the observation that
"Saida [Sidon] is a good place in every respect. The raw material is
available, there is a harbor, it is favorably situated, capable of
development, and has a Jewish population" (2).
Property for sale around Sidon also attracted the attention of other
Zionists. The Hibbat Zion (Lover of Zion) movement was a network of
Jewish nationalist clubs that emerged in the Russian Pale in the
1870s. The Odessa branch maintained an office in Beirut charged with
purchasing land in Eretz Yisrael for Zionist immigrants from Russia.
In 1908, this group became particularly excited about a farm for
sale in the Sidon/Nabatye region, which they considered the
northwest border of Eretz Yisrael.
The leaders of the Beirut Hibbat Zion office glowingly described the
property as a precious jewel with enormous agricultural, political,
and strategic potential. They believed that this property would give
the Zionists a firm foothold in that part of Eretz Yisrael which
fell within Lebanon and a starting point from which to create a
chain of Jewish settlements, linking it with that part of Eretz
Yisrael which lay to the south. They identified the owner as a
wealthy Christian from Beirut with considerable land holdings in
southern Lebanon, also available for purchase. Enthused one Hibbat
Zion agent [wrote]:
Every man has his fateful hour and now is the fateful hour to
seize the land…It would be a sin on our part if we miss it. We
must gather every resource in our power to effect this purchase…
We will not cast from our hand this treasure, this wonderful
gem, which could be for us a key to a strong position in the
heights of Lebanon so dear to us.(3)
The Ottomans passed laws in 1907 and 1908 making it difficult for
Jews, even those who were Ottoman subjects, to buy land in Judea and
the Galilee. Hibbat Zion leader Menachem Ussishkin argued that this
made land purchase in Lebanon all the more important, especially
since this farm apparently lay within the limits of the autonomous
Lebanese province, making Ottoman interference in Zionist programs
less likely (4). No steps were ever taken toward
purchasing the farm, probably due to the meager resources of the
organizations involved and their preference for property more in the
heart of Eretz Yisrael; but the proposal did serve to raise the
issue of the geographical vagueness of Zionist activity.
The Jews of Sidon did not dispute Ussishkin´s description of Sidon
as the first colony in Eretz Yisrael. The Jewish community there
received aid from the Zionist Commission in Jerusalem commensurate
with that received by Jewish communities in the Holy Land, and
Sidon´s Jews voted in the election for the first Jewish Elected
Assembly in Eretz Yisrael. When the community fell on hard times and
lost its Hebrew school, its leaders dispatched a passionate letter
in which they identified themselves as "the residents of Sidon,
which is in Eretz Yisrael," and concluded their plea for assistance
from Jerusalem by asking why they should receive less than "the rest
of the Jewish communities of Eretz Yisrael"(5).
Others used biblical sources to establish southern Lebanon as part
of Eretz Yisrael, or "biblical Palestine." These scriptural
geographers deduced that the Hebrew tribe of Naphtali had dwelt
along the Litani river, and that the tribe of Asher had settled in
the area of Sidon (6). Sidon´s claim to be within
the divine boundaries of Eretz Yisrael notwithstanding, mainstream
Zionist interest in southern Lebanon, based solely on security and
economic imperatives, stopped at the Litani river.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, by which the British and French
divided the Levant into zones, constituted the first serious attempt
at demarcating a Palestine-Lebanon border. As World War I drew to a
close, the two allied powers created Occupied Enemy Territorial
Administrations (OETAs) for themselves on the eastern Mediterranean
coast based on Sykes-Picot, but with several significant
modifications. British OETA South was in essence "Palestine"
(although no such formal entity yet existed), while Lebanon became
French OETA North. Some Jewish settlements ended up in the French
sphere of influence, as did the entire Litani river. As a military
boundary, the line between the two areas was not necessarily
permanent, so technically, the question of the Palestine-Lebanon
border remained open. Worried lest the military line become
permanent, the Zionists launched a campaign to ensure the inclusion
of the Litani´s vital water resources in Palestine.
The Zionists appealed to the British, who had seemingly committed
themselves to the creation of a vital Jewish homeland in Palestine
with the Balfour Declaration. They contended that vitality in the
north depended on sufficient water resources and a defensible border
and that the 1918 line of demarcation deprived Palestine of both.
Zionists suggested that if God and man had been less than precise
about where the border should be, mother nature offered the Litani
river as a natural frontier. Aaron Aaronsohn, a Palestinian Jew and
internationally respected agronomist, surveyed the northern reaches
of Palestine and concluded that the Litani river was essential for
the irrigation and cultivation of the Galilee. The independent
engineering firm of Fox and Partners, commissioned by the Zionist
Organization to survey the economic potential of Palestine,
confirmed his analysis. Its report reiterated that the northern
frontier of Palestine must include the Litani, adding that while
"the Litani will in the future be of great benefit to Palestine, it
is of no value to the territory to the north"(7).
This permitted the Zionists to argue that giving the river to
Palestine was only natural and would not deprive Lebanon of any
resource(8). In the proposals submitted to the
Peace conference, however, the Zionist Organization was careful to
note that with proper management, the waters in question could "be
made to serve in the development of the Lebanon as well as of
Palestine"(9). David Ben-Gurion expressed the same
concern for the water resources of a future Jewish state and
similarly concluded that its northern border should run along the
Litani(10).
Zionists claims foundered on the rocks of British-French rivalry.
The French, who only grudgingly authorized modifications to the
Sykes-Picot agreement, refused to cede southern Lebanon to the
British primarily because they did not want to give in on anything
else but also because their Maronite clients expressed an interest
in an enlarged Lebanon. The British declined to force a showdown
over the issue because the existing boundary did serve British aims,
if not those of the Zionists. Palestine´s economic viability was not
terribly important to the British. They valued Palestine as a buffer
thwarting French access to the Suez Canal. The security argument
also fell on deaf ears since Palestine itself was the security belt
guarding Suez, and a few miles north or south within the Galilee
region was inconsequential to the defense of the canal.
The British also refused simply to let the French have their way,
however. Arguing the Zionist the Zionist position, Aaronsohn wrote
that although the "historic and religious associations with
Palestine centre round Jerusalem and Judea, …for its hopes of a
great secular future Palestine must depend mainly on the country
north"(11). But when the border issue arose at the
Paris Peace Conference, British prime minister David Lloyd George
adopted the biblical slogan "from Dan to Beersheba" as his boundary
policy. Frederic Hof notes the irony in that while "the Zionists
were writing thoughtful boundary proposals based on security and
economic considerations for what they hoped would someday be a
Jewish State, … British Protestant statesmen were thumping tables in
favor of "Dan to Beersheba""(12). Lloyd George´s
biblical diplomacy ultimately lost the Litani for Palestine.
According to his biblical atlas, the Sykes-Picot line had been too
generous to Palestine in the northwest, at Lebanon´s expense. The
ministers agreed that it was only fair to compensate by leaving the
Litani totally in Lebanon. Subsequent minor adjustments, codified in
1923, brought the northernmost Jewish settlements into Palestine but
made no allowance for Zionist access to Galilee water resources now
permanently in Lebanon. Zionist planners were bitterly disappointed.
[…..]
In 1926, a most unlikely source, the French high commissioner in
Lebanon, Henri de Jouvenel, next raised the possibility of extensive
Zionist settlement in the French-mandated Levant. By his own
admission "jealous" of the benefits that Zionist activity brought to
British mandated Palestine, Jouvenel hoped to put Zionist capital,
manpower, and expertise to work in the underdeveloped regions of
Lebanon and Syria. Jouvenel noted enviously that while the French
had to assist the Maronites in their endeavors, the Zionists
supported themselves….
Jouvenel first revealed his plan for Jewish colonization in the
French Levant to Weizmann and Kisch when they visited Beirut in
April of 1926…. Jouvenel envisioned Zionist settlements in northern
Syria beginning at the Euphrates around Aleppo and moving south
through Homs toward Damascus. He also suggested that the Zionists
resurrect the ancient city of Palmyra in the Syrian desert. Kisch
recorded his excitement at hearing such a proposal come
"spontaneously" from the French high commissioner. Weizmann asked
about Zionist settlement in French-controlled territory in the
south, along the Lebanese border with Palestine, which had the
"advantage of greater proximity to our present centres of
colonization, and historically, apart from this convenience, would
have a greater appeal to the deep sentiments of the Jewish people"(13).
Jouvenel adamantly opposed any Zionist activity in southern Lebanon
for fear of Jewish irredentism and a new battle over the
Palestine-Lebanon boundary. If Zionists established settlements
around Sidon and Tyre, worried Jouvenel, they would surely begin
agitating for the inclusion of that region in the Jewish national
home. He repeated his arguments in favor of Jewish colonization in
the north and Weizmann agreed to consider the proposal(14).
Jouvenel raised the possibility of Jewish settlement in
French-mandated territory in a letter to the Foreign Ministry in
Paris. Interestingly, he represented the idea as Weizmann´s and
claimed to have listened without expressing an opinion. He then
repeated his arguments in favor of the proposal and advised his
colleagues to encourage Weizmann if he came to discuss the matter(15).
[…..]
Debate about the issue at the Jewish Agency Executive meetings of 24
June and 15 July 1926 proved that once again, Weizmann was out of
step with mainstream Zionist thinking(16). His
Zionists colleagues permitted him to negotiate and counterpropose
away; but when he presented them with his ideas for Zionist
colonization in Lebanon and Syria, he found little support. The rest
of the Zionist leadership believed that activity within Palestine
took first priority and showed no interest in diverting attention
and funds to far-flung Zionist outposts in the Syrian desert or
along the Turkish border. The French archives document Weizmann´s
continued interest in Jouvenel´s plan well into 1927, however, and a
sustained lobbying campaign in 1930 by him and Victor Jacobson, then
head of the Zionist office in Paris, in favor of Zionist
colonization in French-mandated Lebanon(17).
[…..]
Responding to a query about Jewish settlement in southern Lebanon in
1930, French foreign minister Aristide Briand replied that he did
not oppose Jewish immigration to those areas as long as the Jews
understood that they would not be members of any Jewish state, but
rather, French, Syrian, or Lebanese citizens(18).
This was certainly not what the Zionist movement envisioned as far
as the recreation of a national Jewish presence in its ancient
middle Eastern homeland; and for the time being, the topic of Jewish
immigration to the French Levant was dropped.
Because early Zionist interests in acquiring Lebanese territory were
practical and not imbued with religious imperatives or underpinned
by emotional attachments to the land, irredentist tendencies toward
Lebanon remained mild. Despite the French rebuff of professor Brawer
(sent by the Jewish national Fund to enter Lebanon to complete
research for a map including those parts of "historic Palestine"
which lay within the area of the French mandate(19))
the Jewish National Fund, in 1937, published a map depicting all of
Palestine and part of Lebanon and Syria with he biblical verse "This
is the Land which ye shall inherit," which aroused disapproval in
the Political Department. Wrote Bernard Joseph:
Biblical quotations are no doubt spiritually refreshing but
they may create untold difficulties when used without regard to
political exigencies of the time. This one will no doubt want
considerable explaining away if it falls into the hands of the
Syrian and Lebanese political leaders. I propose drawing the
attention of the Executive to the map with a view to prohibiting
its distribution (20).
Although disappointed at losing a critical natural resource for the
Jewish homeland, Zionist thinkers did not dwell on establishing a
physical presence in Lebanon. If they could not possess the Litani,
perhaps they could find a Lebanese partner with whom to exploit the
river´s resources for the mutual development of northern Palestine
and Lebanon.
NOTES:
1. Weizmann to Vera Weizmann, 8 September 1907, in LCW, vol.
5, letter 54.
2. Weizmann to Johann Kremenetzky, 26 Septemebr 1907, in LCW,
vol. 5, letter 60. Nothing came of these projects.
3. B. Shlichover to the Odessa Committee, 20 Nisan 5668 [21
April 1908], CZA, A24/51/II (Heb.). See also Joseph Katz, "Tokhniyot
Tziyoniyot Lerekhishat Karka´ot Balevanon Batchilat Hamaya Ha´esrim"
[Zionist plans for purchasing properties in Lebanon in the early
twentieth century], Cathedra 35 (Aprail 1985): 53-57.
4. M. Ussishkin to David Wolfson, 4 Iyar 5668 [5 May 1908],
CZA, Z2/647 (Heb.).
5. Petition from the Jewish Community of Sidon, [ca. 1919?],
Archive for Jewish Educationin Israel and the Diaspora (ED), file
1138 (Heb.). See also Pinchas Na´aman, "The Jewish Community of
Sidon on the Threshold of Its Demise," al-Hamishmar, 23 May 1948,
ED, file 1630 (Heb.); David Sitton, Kehilot Yehudai Sefarad
Vehamizrach Ba´olam Beyameinu [Jewish communities of Spain and the
East in the world in our days] (Jerusalem: Ahva Cooperative, 1974),
p. 59; and Norman A. Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands in Modern
Times (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), pp.197-98.
6. Deuteronomy 1:7, 3:25, 11:24; Joshua 1:4; "The Northern
Boundary of Biblical Palestine," 1 January 1920, CZA, Z4/16024;
Kaufmann, Biblical Account.
7. Fox report quoted by Chaim Weizmann to David Llyod George,
7 January 1920, in LCW, vol. 9, letter 252.
8. Zionist Organization to David Llyod George, 29 December
1919, and Chaim Weizmann to David Llyod George, 7 January 1920, in
LCW, vol. 9, letters 251 and 252; [Aaron Aaronsohn?], "A Memorandum
on the Boundaries of Palestine" and "The Boundaries of Palestine,"
1919, CZA, Z4/16024; Lewis Namier to Louis Brandeis, 3 October 1919,
CZA, Z4/16024.
9. "Statement of the Zionist Organization Regarding
Palestine," 3 February 1919, in LCW, vol. 9, app. 2, pp. 392, 397.
10. Shabatai Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 34.
11. [Aaronsohn?], "A Memorandum on the Boundaries of Palesine,"
1919, CZA, Z4/16024.
12. Frederic Hof, Galilee Divided: The Israel-Lebanon
Frontier, 1916-1984 (Boulder: Westview, 1985), pp. 7-8. For a
detailed account of the Franco-British negotiations over the
Palestine-Lebanon border and an analysis of the political, security,
and economic implications of the placement of the border, see chaps.
1-5. See also Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel (New York:
Knopf, 1981), pp. 116-17.
13. Kisch, "Visit to Syria," 18 April 1926, Diary Notes, CZA,
S25/9022; Weizmann to Philippe Berthelot, 2 August 1926, in LCW,
vol. 13, letter 71.
14. Jouvenel to Briand, 27 April 1926, WA; Kisch, "Visit to
Syria," 18 April 1926, Diary Notes, CZA, S25/9022; Weizmann to
Philippe Berthelot, 2 August 1926, in LCW, vol. 13, letter 71;
Barnet Litvinoff, ed., The Essential Chaim Weizmann (New York:
Holmes & Meier, 1982), pp. 226-27; Chaim Arlosoroff, Yoman
Yerushalayim [Jerusalem diary] (Tel Avive: Mifleget Poale Eretz
Yisrael, 1941), p. 111.
15. Jouvenel to Briand, 27 April 1926, WA; Ministry of
Foreign Affairs to Jouvenel, 4 May 1926, and Jouvenel to Ministry, 6
may 1926, AE, LE 18-40/PAL 29 (Fr.).
16. JAE meeting, 24 June 1926 and 15 July 1926, CZA,
Z4/302/13.
17. Reports of Weizmann´s and Jacobson´s visits to Philippe
Berthelot and M. Canet, 2 and 4 May 1927, AE, LE 18-40/PAL 29 (Fr.);
d´Aumale (French consul general in Jerusalem) to Henri Ponsot (high
commissioner in Beirut), 12 February 1930; Foreign Ministry to
berthelot, 12 March 1930; Foreign Ministry to St. Quentin, 3 April
1930; Ponsot to Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 5 June 1930; and Report
of Leon Blum´s visit to Berthelot, 21 November 1930, all in AE, LE
18-40/PAL 69 (Fr.). See also "Syria and Zionism," 30 May 1930, LE
18-40/PAL 64 (Fr.). Contrary to the documentary evidence, Weizmann
suggests in his autobiography that he never took Jouvenel´s proposal
seriously.
18. Bollack to Weizmann, 23 May 1930, WA.
19. Jewish National Fund to French Consulate in Jerusalem, 9
December 1929; Jerusalem Consulate to French High Commission in
Beirut, 11 December 1929; d´Aumale to Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
20 December 1929; and Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Ministry of
Finances, 6 January 1930, all in AD, MAN/808 (Fr.).
20. Dr. Joseph´s Office Diary, 24 September 1937, CZA,
S25/1511.
