Palestine in the Thought of
Antun Sa’adeh
Toufiq Mhanna
Was Antun Sa’adeh the first to address the Jewish-Zionist threat to his nation? The answer is no. Many writers and thinkers had previously addressed this danger. However, what qualified Antun Sa’adeh for his undisputed leading position was his understanding of the correlation between colonial fragmentation represented by the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Balfour Declaration, which aimed at the Judaization of Palestine. He recognized that the Jewish threat extended beyond Palestine and threatened the entities of the Syrian nation as a whole. This realization led to the “nationalization” of the battle, starting in 1922 with the Palestinian resistance during the Akka Incidents and their opposition to Jewish immigration.
However, he believed that “the struggle of the Palestinian people on its own” was insufficient to repel this migration, which was backed by powerful nations and fleets. His celebrated 1925 article, “The Zionist National Question,” is, without exaggeration, the first comprehensive intellectual, political, and organizational study to address the Zionist project—its goals, methods, organization, principles, and supporters—while thoroughly debunking all its claims. It is a truly analytical piece highlighting an unprecedented and unmatched insight into the movement and its objectives.
In my book, “Antun Sa’adeh and Zionism,” published in 2014, I detailed Sa’adeh’s thorough refutation of the colonial, political, and Talmudic biblical foundations of Zionism. I examined Sa’adeh’s approach and his tireless efforts to counter this threat, rooted in his belief in the national character of the struggle. Among the issues raised by Sa’adeh, the following may be noted:
1. The Palestinian people cannot counter the Zionist project on their own. This is a mission for the entire nation. Thus, Sa’adeh was a pioneer in advocating for a nationally unified battle.
2. The Zionist movement follows a precise, systematic plan. Consequently, a rival systematic strategy must be developed to counter it—one that addresses division and unites the nation in this existential struggle.
3. Behind the Zionist movement were British superpowers, bolstered by the Balfour Declaration and organized immigration. The United States of America followed a similar course, prompting Sa’adeh to write his renowned article: "The Moral Decline of the United States," due to the US Congress's approval of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration in 1924.
4. The Zionist movement is a well-organized force, not easily countered by mere fanfare and speeches but rather by a demonstration of true power in affirming or denying national rights. Thus, there should have been a guerrilla fighter ready and willing to assassinate Balfour during his 1925 visit to Syria, which would have marked a new phase in the Palestinian struggle. Victory will be achieved solely through armed resistance, making Sa’adeh deservedly the pioneer of the call for armed struggle.
5. The danger of the Zionist movement is not limited to the people of Greater Syria; rather, it is a threat that will affect the entire world. In his 1931 letter to Lloyd George, published in the Damascene “Alef Ba',” Sa’adeh stated: “The truth, my Lord, is exactly as you say – great consequences, more significant than you imagine, will arise from this malevolent experiment that history has never before seen. Rest assured that its repercussions will extend beyond Palestine and will affect the entire world, teaching terrible lessons not only for the children of Israel but for all humankind." This is now transpiring right before our eyes. People around the world, even in countries conspiring against us, are taking to the streets to revolt against injustice, Zionism, racism, settlement, the systematic extermination of our people, and colonialism. Sa’adeh’s vision is becoming a reality: Zionism poses a threat to global civilization, progress, values, and humanity as a whole.
6. Sa'adeh founded the Syrian Social Nationalist Party to counter threats to his nation from division, Judaization, and social backwardness due to outdated systems and traditions unsuitable for building a national state. The party aims to serve as a national and social liberation movement, an instrument for progress, and a precise counterplan to the Zionist project. For the national cause does not achieve victory through mere theorizing, analyzing, philosophizing, and diagnosing problems. Instead, it requires the formation of a social nationalist party—a movement that encompasses the entire life of the nation through thought, struggle, sacrifice, and martyrdom. In this regard, the founding of the SSNP constituted a qualitative and historical distinction from what preceded it or followed it, setting it apart from those engaged in political life or public affairs.
7. Matching words with deeds, Sa’adeh and his followers, along with his party, actively resisted British and French colonialism, beginning with the Palestinian revolution in 1936 under the leadership of Saeed Al-Oss and Hussein Al-Banna. He urged nationalists to fully embrace their responsibilities in confronting Jewish immigration and opposed the plan to partition Palestine in 1939. Furthermore, the al-Zawbaa’ (Whirlwind) organization played a significant role in the fighting of 1948. It revealed the weakness of Arab regimes that hindered the arming of nationalists or even holding nationalist demonstrations on their behalf, as evidenced by the Lebanese government's prevention of a national rally on November 2, 1947—the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration—under the premiership of Riad Solh; or when in 1948, out of blatant complicity and fear of losing power, it prevented arming the nationalists. In response to Ben Gurion in 1948, Sa’adeh declared that if the Jewish state was graduating officers, so were we, allowing the nation to seek to dismantle the new artificial entity through its free will. Sa’adeh firmly opposed any interference from international, regional, or Arab organizations in determining our national destiny in Palestine. He believed that no international body, regime, or group had the right to relinquish any inch of national land.
8. Sa’adeh never trusted the regimes of the Fertile Crescent, nor the Arab kings and presidents, blaming them for conspiring to undermine the 1936 revolution. In 1936, he called for a general Syrian conference to address the situation in Palestine. He held the Arab regimes responsible for the loss of Palestine in 1948, believing that their armies did not enter Palestine to liberate it from Jewish control, but to oppress the Palestinians who remained. Additionally, he proclaimed the complete bankruptcy of Arabism in Palestine as these regimes collapsed one after another.
9. Sa’adeh condemned the isolationist mentality prevalent among certain Lebanese factions, who shirked their national responsibilities. He emphasized that saving Palestine is fundamentally a Lebanese, Levantine, and national issue. Sa’adeh exposed the Zionist movement's efforts to form alliances with sectarian and isolationist groups in Lebanon, aiming to create “an alliance of minorities hostile to the nation and its environment.” He urged that entities should not function as prisons but as strongholds to defend Palestine, Lebanon, and other regions from danger. Due to neglect and the failure of ruling forces, Palestine was lost—along with the Golan Heights, Sinai, and parts of southern Lebanon.
The policies of neutrality and self-distancing, the practice of isolationism, and the belief that Lebanon's strength lies in its weakness have all served as a reserve force for the Zionist project and its backers. The notion of independent Palestinian decision-making alongside systems of backwardness has also played this role. Compromise and settlement policies did not result in land liberation—neither when reactionary governments agreed to truces in 1948, nor following the wars of 1967 and 1973. None of the concessions, from Camp David to Oslo, Wadi Araba, or the Arab Summit Initiative in 2002, succeeded in reclaiming even a grain of soil; in contrast, resistance has proven effective.
Antun Sa’adeh’s perspective on the Jewish question has various interpretations and readings. It is commonly thought that Sa’adeh did not differentiate between Jews and Zionists, suggesting that every Jew was perceived as a Zionist. However, a thorough and systematic examination of Sa’adeh’s works reveals the fundamental principles and key points in his beliefs, writings, and speeches. In his notable article “The Zionist National Question and Its Extension,” Sa’adeh elaborated: “There is a group of well-educated Jews who recognizes the issues and underlying causes. They understand the futility of the Zionist message and oppose it for the betterment of both Jews and all humanity. Among them is Henry Morgenthau, former United States Ambassador to Turkey, and a vocal opponent of Zionism.”
Sa’adeh focused and emphasized the party’s doctrine to vehemently oppose Jewish immigration. He argued that this immigration involves people who have intermingled with various populations, resulting in a discordant and dangerous mixture with inflexible beliefs. Their goals, he stated, fundamentally clash with the fundamental reality, rights, and sovereignty of the Syrian nation and its ideals. He urged Syrian nationalists to resist this migration with all their might.
In 1937, Sa'adeh did not object to the creation of a religious or sectarian council for Jews in Lebanon. However, he considered the request to establish a national council for Jews in Lebanon as an unacceptable infringement on Lebanese dignity and national sovereignty.
In his book The Folly of Immortality: Islam in its Christian and Muhammadan Messages, Sa’adeh examined Mosaic religion. He noted that it initially believed in one God, like other heavenly religions, but later deviated from the path of humanity. Sa’adeh compared Christianity and Judaism, stating: "Christianity and Judaism differed in their conception of the common good. The Jews restricted it to the children of Israel, while Christianity extended it to all nations. Consequently, Judaism lost its status as a general human religion, and the Jews became the connection between local deities and the universal human God."
10. Sa’adeh rejected the association between Judaism and Christianity, as well as any link between the Old Testament and the Bible. In 1944, he wrote a historical article titled "Jewish Influence in the Vatican," criticizing this merger and its threat to both the Christian faith and the national issue as a whole. He argued that this connection Judaizes the Christian mind and conscience before it encounters the light of the Gospel and its teachings. Sa’adeh pointed to the "sanctification of the Torah" and cited Zionist Christian evangelical churches as prime evidence. Furthermore, he highlighted how the current trend of linking the three religions under the banner of "the sons of Abraham" serves to Judaize minds receptive to Islamic teachings. He termed this religious alignment, creeping in alongside political, economic, and cultural normalization, as destructive.
In response to a question about Palestine posed by the Turkish newspaper al-Watan in 1947, he stated: “Palestine is part of Syria, and it cannot be separated from it. We can accept the presence of a Jewish minority under Syrian rule and within Syrian borders, but independence can never be recognized for them.” This statement confirms that Antun Sa’adeh acknowledged the existence of sophisticated Jews who opposed the Zionist movement and its objectives. He did not object to establishing a religious council for them from a civilizational standpoint. Sa’adeh called for a fight against Jewish immigration but did not engage in a religious war against their beliefs, which he neither accepted nor believed in. He opposed merging the Bible with the Old Testament. While he accepted Jewish minorities under Syrian rule and within the sovereignty of the Syrian national state, he strongly rejected their independence as a separate nation.
It is obvious from this that Sa’adeh did not call for the killing of Jews, nor did he consider all Jews to be part of the enemy Zionist movement. He did not oppose legislation for the practice of their religious rituals within Syrian territories under national sovereignty. Instead, he advocated for repelling invading Jewish immigration. His writings and speeches targeted only immigration and the Zionist movement, viewing every Jew settling on Palestinian land or other national territories as an usurper and aggressor, but not judging Jews living outside these regions in the same manner.
We turn to his famous saying: “Fear God, we are all Muslims dedicated to the Lord of the Worlds. Among us are those who worship God through the Gospel, others through the Qur’an, and some through wisdom. Our only adversaries are those who threaten our religion, rights, and land—primarily the Jews.” This should not be construed as a declaration of war against every Jew or as labelling all Jews as Zionist or hostile. The statement indicates that his aim was to discourage internal religious conflicts. Additionally, it emphasizes that the initiator of the conflict are the Zionists themselves, not vice versa.