Malik versus Saadeh

Wajdi Najib al-Masri

I read an article published in the prominent newspaper "An-Nahar" on August 5, 2016, by Joseph Bassil, titled "Will Charles Malik's 'predictions' regarding the conditions of the Arab world and the fate of Lebanon prove correct?" After reading the article and reviewing Charles Malek's predictions, it is necessary to shed light on some aspects that Malik had overlooked.

Bassil examined Malik’s report, which dates back almost seventy years, and deemed it relevant to our current circumstances. This leads us to assert that Malik's 1940s writings can be viewed as "prophecies" that went unnoticed by others. However, this notion is inaccurate for two reasons. Firstly, Charles Malik relied on speculation rather than providing specific details. He presented alternative possibilities, stating, for instance, "The final outcome could either be the destruction of the Arab world and its colonization by the Jews, or its revival as a respectable, modern entity." While he may have been partially correct, his prediction was based on equal probabilities. Secondly, it is important to note that Malik was not the first to discuss and anticipate these matters. Others had already preceded him. One person not only identified and forewarned about these issues but also had the distinction of establishing an organized and disciplined movement to confront the Zionist movement. This person was Antun Saadeh.

If Charles Malek's report has warned against the Zionist movement and its dangers to the Arab world and Lebanon, what can we say about what Saadeh wrote in 1925 in Al-Majallah magazine? “Despite the Zionist movement not rotating around a natural axis, it has made considerable progress, advancing with a highly organized and meticulous plan that will succeed unless confronted by a systematic counter-plan. This should not surprise anyone as long as Syrians continue to neglect their responsibilities, allowing the Zionists to carry out their plans and usurp Palestine. To this day, no organized Syrian movement addressing national issues and the future of the Syrian nation has emerged. This has placed our homeland and people at one of the most perilous crossroads in history. We face a determined adversary focused on self-interest, leading to one of two possible outcomes: life or death. Ultimately, the responsibility for the outcome rests squarely on us.”

The difference between Malik and Saadeh is that Malik’s predictions came twenty-four years after Saadeh’s, and after the establishment of the State of Israel. In contrast, Saadeh warned of the dangers of Zionism and immigration to Palestine before founding his political party. His aim was not only to reunite his country, which had been divided by colonialism, but also to lay the foundation for a renaissance that would lead his nation from confusion and chaos to clarity and truth. If Malik had considered Palestine the most dangerous Arab issue, Saadeh took a more objective and thorough approach. He saw the matter as one concerning the entire nation's existence, based on social foundations unrelated to religion or language. Consequently, the party's second principle states: "The Syrian cause is a national issue that stands alone, completely independent of any other matter." The third principle builds on this: "The Syrian cause is the cause of the Syrian nation and the Syrian homeland."

In Saadeh’s view, Palestine was a national issue because it was part of the Syrian homeland, and the Arab world had no direct relationship with it. Subsequent events confirmed this, as the loss of Palestine resulted not only from the strength of the Jews but also from the weakness and defeatism of the Arab world and the unwillingness of its leaders to risk their interests for its sake. Only Saadeh's party included on its membership card a phrase reminding members of the stolen parts of the national land, including Palestine, to ensure it remained firmly fixed in memory and not erased by oblivion.

The "prophetic" report asserts: "1- The Arab world will not remain silent in the face of injustice, and an injustice has occurred in Palestine." Contrary to this assertion, we observe not merely a passive stance but a disgraceful defeat. This has led numerous Arab nations to establish overt or covert relations with Israel and, in some cases, to conspire with Israel against other Arab countries." 2: The Arab world will not be able to eliminate the Jews in Palestine, and Israel will not be able to eliminate the Arab world." Concerning this point, Israel will continue to dominate the Arab world as long as we reject Saadeh's view that a systematic counter plan to Zionism is necessary. As for the report’s call for the abolition of feudalism, the dismantling of sectarian barriers, and the introduction of significant government reforms, I direct the writer to the principles of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, especially the reform principles, as they offer solutions to everything Malik had contemplated. Although he was familiar with the party’s principles, he believed that merely unifying the Syrian lands, including Lebanon, would not suffice to achieve his ambitions and visions—not just for Lebanon, but for the entire Syrian nation.

Malik's statement that Lebanon "must remain completely politically independent," and his warning against "political and economic pressure to dissolve Lebanon into Syria," reveals a misunderstanding of the social concept of the nation. Saadeh never aimed to dissolve Lebanon into Syria. From a national perspective, Lebanon is an integral part of Syria. After being separated under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, influenced by Zionist pressures on France and England, Saadeh viewed Lebanon as a vital sphere for freedom of thought. He explicitly stated that the Lebanese cannot be compelled to return to the broader homeland except through intellectual efforts that would demonstrate that true national affiliation is key to resolving Lebanon's sectarian, economic, and social crises.

Lebanon is not part of the Arab world in terms of national affiliation; rather, it is part of Syria, and Syria is one of the Arab nations that must unite to form a single front, not only against Israel but also against anyone who attempts to attack any of its member states in any form or shape.

Charles Malek's prediction about the slim prospects for peace between the Arab world and Israel has come true—not because the Arabs do not desire peace, as they are eager for it, even to the point of surrender—but because Israel is not interested due to a strict religious doctrine handed down through generations. In the Book of Genesis, we read: “On that day the Lord (the God of Israel, not the God of the universe) made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your offspring I will give this land from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates;’” 18:15 Be careful not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are coming." Exodus 34:12, meaning the land of Canaan, including Lebanon, of course. And from the Book of Deuteronomy we read: " When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you—and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them.” 7: 1-2-3. How can anyone still believe that Israel is genuinely interested in peace talks to establish two states, given these are the commandments of their God?

Charles Malik was right when he said, “As long as a strong, liberating leader does not arise in Lebanon seeking glory, existence, light, and life... no force that can raise it from collapse or protect it from Jewish control.” Such a leader did emerge, spoke out, and met Malik's demands. However, in the end, the Lebanese regime conspired against him because he aimed to save not only Lebanon but the entire Syrian nation from perceived threats. Subsequent events would prove Saadeh right in every sense of the word.

The issue with Charles Malek reflects the broader problem among Lebanonists who fail to recognize that Lebanon is not an integrated, self-contained society. As Kamal Jumblatt stated in a 1969 interview with Youssef Al-Khal for the Magazine of Contemporary Issues: “This society is not truly a society as it should be,” referring to Lebanon. Antun Saadeh, who is undoubtedly one of the best writers on this subject, shares this view.”

In the end, we must ask ourselves: Will Lebanon suffer if all the Levant countries rise along with it? Is it better for Lebanon to remain imprisoned by its sectarian system and paralyzed by fear, or should it open up to its natural surroundings? Should it turn away from the thoughts of a visionary who believed that the glory of Lebanon would be amplified by the glory of all Syria, and could only be achieved within the grandeur of the entire Syrian nation?