Sa’adeh’s Early Awareness of Zionism and its Dangers

Sakr Abu Fakhr

I have often pondered the true motives behind the assassination of Antun Sa’adeh and why the Lebanese authorities, in concert with Husni al-Zaim in Damascus, attacked and executed him on July 8, 1949, with such ruthless ferocity. The prevailing narrative suggests that Sa’adeh was executed for organizing an armed movement against the Lebanese state; a story that seemed implausible even to my younger self. Over time, I began to realize that the Lebanese authorities of that era were deeply fearful and threatened by Sa’adeh. In hindsight, it appears that Sa’adeh posed a significant threat to Lebanon's political system, which had just emerged from colonial rule and closely resembled the unchanged, oppressive power structures in the Levant that resisted any form of change or progress. For the traditional elites in Damascus—landowners, merchants, religious sheikhs—and the fervent sectarian leaders in Lebanon were both the rulers and political leaders of the two countries. They also held sway over urban neighbourhoods, whose residents followed these sectarian leaders as obediently as a herd follows its leader. Not to be overlooked, the sons of these leaders who monopolized the highest positions in the new state. It is not surprising in this situation that these reactionary groups would tremble at the rise of a new political and intellectual movement that crosses the sects, denominations and entities whose borders were drawn up by French and English colonialism.

In this context, the concept of Syrian unity, the early awareness of the danger posed by the Zionist movement, and the promotion of secularism were three key elements that ushered in a new historical awareness. This clashed significantly with the traditional views on nationhood, renaissance, and state-building. Given the circumstances, it was not surprising that sectarians, separatists, reactionaries, opportunists of Arab nationalism, and Israeli agents united against Antun Sa’adeh and attacked him in that unfortunate summer of 1949. All of them quickly recognized the imminent danger that Sa’adeh and his ideas posed to their interests, sectarian benefits, and complacency in their old, dilapidated stone sarcophagi. They rushed to confront him before his influence could spread. The true threat of Sa’adeh and his ideas lies in their direct challenge to fanaticism, backwardness, sectarianism, and in his call to combat Zionism and Israel. Indeed, Sa’adeh's views on nationalism, secularism, and combating Zionism alarmed influential groups, filling them with deep fear and panic, particularly after the remarkable reception he received at Bir Hassan Airport upon his return from forced expatriation in 1947. This rare reception triggered alerts within circles of Lebanese authorities, who dreaded the potential political interactions Sa’adeh could initiate, fearing their uncontrollable outcomes.

Sa’adeh approached Zionism and Israel from a scientific, materialistic, and historical perspective. In his analysis of the Jewish question in Europe and its colonial impact in Palestine, he offered an insightful interpretation. Nearly a century ago, he elucidated the Zionist movement's efforts to transform religion into nationalism and to evolve Jews from a group of believers into a nation. Sa’adeh did not adhere to the common stereotypes about the Jews, such as their supposed "genius," "hidden power," "global conspiracy," or the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Instead, he focused on analyzing Zionism and uncovering its objectives by examining the historical context of the Jewish question in Europe, contemporary realities, and emerging colonial interests in our region. Sa’adeh rarely referenced the Torah or Talmud in his works, except when it was necessary for scientific research.

Sa’adeh's understanding of Zionism and its objectives, even during his time in the American diaspora, was far superior to that of politicians in the Arab Levant, including leaders of the Palestinian national movement. Early on, he advocated confronting Zionism and Jewish immigration not from a standpoint of religious fanaticism or ethnic hatred, but as a national response to defend Palestinian rights and protect Syria from potential threats. Sa’adeh, then seventeen years old, remarked: “One of the emerging threats to Syrian territories is Zionism. If the Zionists alone were behind this dangerous project, it would be manageable, but they have the backing of the greatest maritime power that ever existed on earth—Britain.” Exactly twenty-eight years later, Sa’adeh emphasized that "the destruction of the artificial state of Israel is an endeavor we fully understand. It is a lengthy, arduous, and violent struggle that demands every bit of our strength, as powerful foreign nations support the new Jewish state with ambitions, money, fleets, and weapons to ensure its survival. The issue is not just with the new artificial Jewish state, but also with that state and the influential powers supporting it." The uniqueness of the conflict in Palestine cannot be overstated. Unlike the Indian-Pakistani, Iraqi-Iranian, or Russian-Ukrainian conflicts involving neighboring nations, or the national liberation movements in Algeria and Vietnam, it stands apart as a singular case in global history. In the case of national liberation movements, revolutions succeed when the occupation becomes too costly and ineffective for the occupier. At the regional level, these conflicts end either with one party's victory or through a peace agreement. However, the issue of Palestine is uniquely complex. It transcends a traditional interstate conflict that could be resolved through negotiations or wars; it is a multifaceted struggle encompassing human, geographical, historical, cultural, national, and political dimensions. Therefore, we are not dealing with an occupying force like the French army in Algeria and Syria, or the American army in Vietnam. Instead, we are confronting an army, a society, a state, and an international coalition. This conflict spans time and encompasses all Palestinian territories. In this context, Israel is neither a traditional colonial state nor merely an occupying power. Rather, it represents Europe’s solution to the Jewish question that once troubled it. Hence, the establishment of Israel was not merely the direct result of a war lost in 1948, but rather the culmination of a nearly one-hundred-and-fifty-year conflict between a rising Europe and a declining Turkey, spanning from the era of European renaissance to the period of Turkish decline.

Sa’adeh stated: “The Zionist movement is driven by the vision of forming an Israeli nation from the world's Jews, despite their diverse inclinations, backgrounds, morals, and customs. While this process is unnatural, its appeal to persecuted Jews makes it feasible.” In other words, Sa’adeh anticipated as early as 1925 that Zionism would successfully establish a Jewish state. With the creation of Israel, Sa’adeh believed that “the Jewish state was not established through Jewish skill or character, but rather due to the spiritual disintegration that swept through the Syrian nation. This caused internal strife, dispersed its energy and enthusiasm, and left it helpless in the face of external threats and foreign ambitions.” This is precisely what David Ben-Gurion once said. He made a significant statement following the signing of the final armistice agreement between Israel and the Arab states, specifically the Syrian-Israeli agreement on July 20, 1949. Addressing the Haganah officers, he said: ‘What we have achieved is a monumental victory for the entire Jewish people. This triumph surpasses our expectations. However, if you believe that this victory is due to your genius and intelligence, you are gravely mistaken. I caution you not to deceive yourselves. Our success is largely because our enemies are plagued by a miserable state of disintegration, corruption, and decadence.’

In his writings and opinions, particularly on Zionism and Judaism, the Balfour Declaration, the partition resolution, the 1948 war, and the establishment of the State of Israel, Sa’adeh demonstrated that he was not merely a political figure swayed by whims. Rather, he was a visionary who tirelessly sought to revolutionize not only politics but also thought and culture. The deeper we explore Sa’adeh's writings, the more we uncover his profound and early insight into Zionism, along with his leadership in warning against it, highlighting its dangers, and advocating for its opposition. By urging the nation to devise a counterplan to confront Zionism, Sa’adeh envisioned this strategy not only to repel the Zionist threat but also to initiate a comprehensive renaissance that would unleash the nation's inherent strength. Sa’adeh's writings on Zionism remain strikingly relevant even after many years. Through re-reading his writings, we discover that he was not racist against Jews, as some have falsely claimed, but rather opposed to Jewish Zionism. He critiqued how it managed to control the minds of many Jews worldwide and draw them into its colonial agenda. Sa’adeh wrote: "There is a distinguished group of Jews who understand the underlying issues and their causes, recognize the futility of the Zionist call, and oppose it for the sake of both Jews and all humanity. Among them, Henry Morgenthau, the former US ambassador to Turkey, became notable for his honest campaigns in this field, clearly demonstrating the corruption of the Zionist movement."

Indeed, Henry Morgenthau was an ardent opponent of Zionism. In March 1919, at the Paris Peace Conference, he joined thirty-one other Jews in signing an anti-Zionist petition while the Zionist movement was presenting its demands. Morgenthau famously described Zionism as "the greatest deception in history." He was not alone in this significant moral, political, and historical stance. Other notable figures who shared or continue to share his views included Rabbi Elmer Berger, Alfred Lilienthal, and contemporary dissidents such as Shlomo Sand, Abraham Burg, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Yisrael Shamir, Gideon Levy, Mordechai Vanunu, and Michael Varshavsky. Preceding them were Moshe Machover, Uri Or, Udi Adiv, and Uri Davis.

Zionism, by definition, represents the nationalism of the Jewish diaspora. Theodor Herzl built its intellectual framework on the principle of undermining the diaspora and gathering Jews into a national homeland to create a "melting pot" for their transformation into a unified nation. In contrast, Judaism sanctifies the diaspora as it is considered God's will and serves as a necessary purification before the coming of the Messiah. According to Judaism, it was in the diaspora that the Prophet Abraham discovered God, Jacob's sons who became tribal leaders were born, the tribes formed into a people in Egypt, and God granted the Torah to these people during their wanderings in Sinai. Most religious Jews initially stood against Zionism and later became divided on the issue. Among those who opposed it were Hasidim, devout Haredim, and members of Reform Judaism. The Lubavitch Hasidic community, also known as Chabad, derives its name from the Hebrew words Hochma (wisdom), Binah (understanding), and Da'at (knowledge). Its leader, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, frequently emphasized that Zionism was the greatest enemy and sin afflicting the people of Israel. Following his lead, the Satmar Hasidic group and Neturei Karta (Guardians of the City), part of the anti-Zionist Haredim, advocated that Jewish salvation comes from God rather than David Ben-Gurion. As for Reform Judaism, which was founded by Moshe Mendelssohn, it rejected Jewish nationalism and the concept of a Jewish national homeland. It encouraged Jews to integrate into the countries where they reside and abandoned the traditional idea of the coming of the Messiah. Instead, it embraced the vision of a Messianic era characterized by justice, equality, scientific and civilizational progress, and human peace. Religious Jews, such as Agudat Yisrael (Israel Association), initially opposed the Zionist program issued by the First Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897 and rejected Jewish immigration to Palestine but retracted their opposition in 1937. They fundamentally rejected Zionism because it aimed to secularize Judaism by transforming it into nationalism. These religious Jews sought to preserve Judaism as a spiritual privilege, viewing themselves as "the chosen people of God" or the "Sabbath people" awaiting the Messiah, the Savior. This is the contradiction at the core of Zionism. Zionism negates secularism because secularism and secularization encourage Jews to integrate into their communities and homelands. Simultaneously, it negates religiosity, because religiosity impedes the transformation of Jews into a nationality. This is how Sa’adeh historically understood that contradiction.

To a large extent, Sa’adeh was inspired in his revolutionary path by the national heroes of Latin America who fought against Spanish and Portuguese colonialists. Influential figures included Simón Bolívar from Venezuela, San Martin from Chile, the secular Catholic priest José María Morelos from Mexico, as well as Vicente Guerrero, Emiliano Zapata, and Francisco Madero, all hailing from Mexico. In this passage, he initially advocated for organizing guerrilla operations and expressed a wish that a Syrian guerrilla fighter had sacrificed himself for his homeland by assassinating Balfour while he was in Damascus in 1925. Sa’adeh speculated that such an act would have significantly altered the course of the Syrian cause. Meanwhile, Balfour was known for his extreme hostility towards Jews; he drafted the “Aliens Act,” which prevented Jewish immigration to Britain and subsequently sent them to Palestine. Consequently, Sa’adeh described the Balfour Declaration as “the most contemptible promise in the history of nations.” In a letter to the Syrian nationalists and the Syrian nation dated December 1, 1947, following the issuance of Partition Resolution No. 181, Sa’adeh announced that "the nationalists are now in a state of war for Palestine (...) and that November 30th is a day of mourning for the Social Nationalists and a lesson for the Syrian nation."

We discovered, through re-reading his writings, that he was not racist against Jews as many have falsely claimed, but rather he was opposed to Jewish Zionism, which had managed to influence many of the world’s Jews. Amid the tragedies in contemporary Palestinian history, Sa’adeh presented a proposal to Mufti Amin al-Husseini: to send ten thousand nationalists trained in weaponry to Palestine. However, they were short on weapons and ammunition, which needed to be secured. The Mufti’s response, as reported by Riad al-Solh, stated: ‘No weapons to the Social Nationalists even if the liberation of Palestine depended on their participation in the conflict. It seems doubtful to me that Riad al-Solh accurately reported what the Mufti said, as the Mufti was too smart to give such an answer. Nonetheless, the “Red Whirlwind” organization was formed in 1948, with Mustafa Suleiman from Beit Nabala assuming its leadership. Despite its limited capabilities, it fought in various locations in Palestine. Among its fallen fighters were Fawaz Khafaja from Jbaa in the Chouf, Muhammad Deeb Aniyos from Latakia, and Muhammad Zgheib from Younine in the Bekaa.

In addition to Sa’adeh being influenced by the heroes of liberation in Latin America, the independence movements there had a significant impact on his thought. Their political and national liberation concepts were inspired by the European Enlightenment. It is essential to emphasize that Antun Sa’adeh's primary project was to ignite a comprehensive renaissance throughout the Syrian homeland—a political, social, intellectual, cultural, and organizational revival. Sa’adeh emphasized that abandoning sectarianism is essential for initiating this renaissance, and that building a modern state must be rooted in secularism and citizenship. Building a state was a significant concern for Sa’adeh, as he viewed the state as the embodiment of the nation, similar to Hegel's notion of the presence of reason in society. It is crucial to clarify that Antun Sa’adeh had no affiliation with the Nazi concept of national origin, contrary to repeated false claims. For Nazism defined the concept of a nation in terms of race, whereas Sa’adeh defined it through the blend of various races, enriched by their interaction within geographical boundaries and historical development. Sa’adeh elaborated on this by stating: “We are a nation not because we descend from a single origin, but because we share a common life and homeland, which compels us to be national brothers united in this national community.”

The state, according to Sa’adeh, is a protector of the nation based on a strong army and effective institutions. It must also be secular and just. This protective and nurturing state requires robust foundations and a cohesive national spirit to mend social divisions, thereby contributing to national integration. To achieve national integration, the state needs to develop a unifying vision that transcends partisan loyalty, fosters compassionate relationships, and prioritizes allegiance to the homeland over ethnic and sectarian identities. A modern state is indispensable for this endeavor. Thus, it is imperative to create a vision for the state rooted in the principles of citizenship, renaissance, progress, and social-national cohesion. The modern state, through its institutions like education, culture, and the military, in addition to civil society institutions such as political parties, unions, and the press, is the agent that can achieve national integration. This process involves shifting from kinship-based ties such as tribe, clan, family, and sect to territorial ties—embracing the state, homeland, and the concept of free citizenship.