At dawn on July 8, 1949, Lebanese authorities executed Antun Sa’adeh on charges of conspiring with Jews to overthrow the government, as announced earlier by Prime Minister Riad Al-Solh. On June 20, 1949, Public Prosecutor Youssef Charbel reiterated the accusation, stating, "The party's leader is seeking assistance from a foreign entity, specifically Israel."  The objective of seeking Israel's assistance was not only to execute a coup in Lebanon and seize power but also to oppose the Syrian state under President Husni al-Zaim due to his uncompromising stance towards the Zionists. Additionally, Charbel claimed he possessed witnesses and documents, which included a document dated May 13, 1949. The witnesses attested to their statements with this document, which they said was presented to Sa’adeh by the party's Executive Officer in Acre.

The day after Charbel launched his accusation, Sa’adeh responded to the allegations in an interview with the Damascus newspaper al-Alam. He Said: “Regarding accusations of colluding with Jews, I challenge the Prime Minister to reveal any supposed evidence. Should such documents exist, they would reflect poorly on these rulers and sectarian leaders who collude with Jews via land sales or political maneuvering that facilitate Jewish immigration and ambitions over Syria's people and land. Our party's archives hold numerous documents indicating collusion between these opportunists and Jews.” He added: “We will accept their twisted interpretations and confirm our honourable contact with the Jews as a fiery war between us. This enemy-to-enemy contact, known as "contact de feu" in some languages, is undeniably honorable and distinct from the disgraceful interactions of opportunistic reactionaries.”

The accusation and subsequent crime served as a forward escape and epitomized the practices of a sectarian regime whose involvement in the 1948 Palestine war was disgraceful, to say the least. Sa’adeh explained this in an interview on June 11, 1949, just two days after the Phalange Party attacked the offices of the al-Jeel al-Jadeed newspaper. Many nationalists were injured in Gemmayzeh during this attack, which was promptly followed by coordinated actions between the authorities and the Phalange. The army then conducted a campaign of arrests and raids on the party’s offices and Sa’adeh’s house. Sa’adeh remarked: “I am certain that the government’s aim through this surprise attack is to restore its morale after the humiliating defeat in Palestine and disgraceful armistice agreement with the Jews; it waged the military against the Social Nationalist Party to distract public opinion from an impending economic and trade agreement with the Jewish state - an agreement that threatened domination over all Syrian states including Lebanon.”

The document and the accusation

Since his return to his homeland from forced exile in 1947, Sa’adeh had continually warned, through his speeches, statements, and articles, about the Zionist colonial threat in southern Syria. Periodically, he would receive field reports from party branches in Palestine, which often contradicted the optimistic narrative propagated by Arab regimes that victory over the Zionists was imminent. These reports fuelled Sa’adeh’s vehement campaign against the reactionary forces conspiring against Palestine, a campaign that only intensified after the defeat of 1948 and the establishment of the Jewish state.

After raiding the party’s offices and Sa’adeh’s home, Lebanese authorities discovered a collection of these reports and published some of them in a book issued by the Ministry of Information titled The Case of the National Party. However, the government soon withdrew the book from circulation when it became apparent that it condemned the authorities rather than Sa’adeh and his party.

Solh and Youssef Charbel based their accusation of collaboration with Israel on a document numbered 173, published in the book. This document is a report dated May 13, 1949, written by party official Muhammad Jamil Younis in Acre and addressed to Sa’adeh. It stated: “During this meeting, I obtained highly detailed information about the province and will submit my findings upon my return. It has come to my attention that the Lebanese Phalange organization and Archbishop Ignatius Mubarak are collaborating with Israel to overthrow the regime, intending to establish a Christian homeland and suppress other sects. The locals have shown me recommendation letters sent by the Archbishop to Israel. I plan to acquire copies for further analysis.”

The information contained in Muhammad Jamil Younis’s report, along with other reports, served as basic material that Sa’adeh used in his articles and speeches against Mubarak and the Phalange Party. After receiving Younis’s report, Sa’adeh was warned of foul play by the government in early June 1949 by the Minister of Interior, Gabriel Murr. This warning was conveyed by Farid Sabbagh (a party official), who met with the minister at his request. Sabbagh informed Sa’adeh: “We held a session in the Council of Ministers during which the Prime Minister threw a tantrum against the party, supported by some ministers. We have decided to pursue the party and to dismantle it. I wanted to inform you of this. See what steps you need to take and try to get in touch with the Prime Minister to calm the situation.”

I will not elaborate on the details of what happened later, but Sa’adeh instructed Sabbagh to contact Solh and try to calm things. Al-Sabbagh recounts his meeting with Solh as follows: "Prime Minister Solh said, 'The Gemmayzeh incident is of minor concern to me. The issue is much more serious. Your leader is collaborating with the Jews to overthrow the Lebanese government. I do not wish to discuss this further.'" The meeting concluded abruptly.

Solh’s accusations against Sa’adeh stemmed from the report by Muhammad Jamil Younis, which Solh used as a pretext to eliminate Sa’adeh and the party he so deeply despised. But why did Solh decide to lead the charge against Sa’adeh? The reason is straightforward: despite the animosity between Solh and Bishop Mubarak/Phalange Party, from Solh's perspective as a leader of the sectarian system, there needed to be unity among all factions of the regime to combat a looming threat that endangered everyone. Therefore, he set aside his enmity with the Phalange and orchestrated a reconciliation between it and the sectarian Najada Party before inciting the Phalange to escalate tensions in Gemmayzeh on June 9, 1949. This scenario was repeated in the early 1970s, when the Phalange, urged on by the authorities, committed the Ain Remmaneh bus massacre, which ultimately triggered the Civil War.

I do not wish to elaborate on Solh’s contacts and meetings with the Zionists, from his encounters with Chaim Weizmann in 1921 to his receipt of money from the Jewish Agency, as many French and Zionist documents indicate. Ironically, Solh accused Sa’adeh of the very activities he himself was involved in. I will limit myself to stating that Solh’s opportunistic and sectarian nature was detailed by his relative Saadallah Al-Jabri in his unpublished diaries. Notably, Al-Jabri recounts an event during a 1936 Syrian delegation in Paris, which included Solh, aimed at concluding a treaty with France.

Al-Jabri describes Solh in his memoirs as “coordinating with Chaim Weizmann, whom he used to frequently meet with without informing us.” He characterizes him as “a person who loves money, is arrogant, indecisive, lacks moral standards, and is also a liar.” Another matter to briefly mention is the secret negotiations Riad Solh conducted with Zionist delegates in Paris between November and December 1948. There were six meetings between him, Tofi Arazi, and Eliyahu Sasson. I won't delve into the specifics of those meetings as documented by Israel, but I will provide this summary: On September 12, 1948, Ben Gurion noted in his diary: “[Eliyahu] Sasson arrived [from Paris]. He mentioned there are prospects for peace. Riad Solh is willing to cooperate with us. Lebanon has no territorial demands. The war's burden weighs heavily on them, but they don't want to act alone. Riad Solh cannot ascend further in Lebanon; he holds the highest position available to a Muslim. Outside Lebanon, he has no prospects. His sole ambition is to be influential in the Arab League.”

Mubarak, the Phalange, and the Zionists

Returning to the report sent by Muhammad Jamil Younis to Sa'adeh, it later became indisputable that Younis's account was entirely accurate. This was corroborated by a Zionist document dated February 28, 1949. In this document, Shmuel Yaari from the Middle East Department of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs described a meeting in Haifa with envoys from Bishop Mubarak, precisely as Younis had reported. The document stated: “At 2:24 a.m., we received a telephone call from Mr. Bailey in Haifa, informing us that three Arab individuals had arrived at his office, identifying themselves as envoys from Archbishop Mubarak. They expressed their wish to meet an official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I met with them that afternoon for an hour and a half in Mr. Bailey's office."

It turns out that two of the individuals were Israeli Christians: Suleiman Shakur from Nazareth and Farid Khoury from Kafr Bir’am. They have been in contact with the Intelligence Service for some time through Mr. Samsonov from Zikhron-Ya'akov. Following his advice, they visited Bishop Mubarak in Beirut. Their trips between Israel and Lebanon were apparently business-related, supported by an old transit card from the intelligence service. At Mubarak’s request, one of his secretaries, Tawfiq Samaan, accompanied them back to Israel to liaise with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At the beginning of his speech, he presented me with a letter in Bishop Mubarak’s handwriting, printed on official stationery and stamped with the Bishop’s signature. This is its text:

“Ignatius Mubarak sends his warmest regards to his esteemed friends and requests their assistance with the tasks of his son, Tawfiq Semaan, the bearer of this message. He asks that they listen to him attentively. Tawfiq is highly regarded and entrusted with our confidential matters. Thank you in advance.

Mubarak,

Metropolitan of Beirut,

February 15, 1949.”

Semaan explained his mission as Archbishop Mubarak's request to learn the Israeli government's stance on a coup plan in Lebanon. He stated that the groundwork for such a coup has been laid, needing only some encouragement and assistance from Israel. Tensions among Lebanon's Christians have reached a peak, highlighted by the government's inability to stop the harassment of Baalbek's Christians by Shiite tribes supported by Parliament Speaker Sabri Hamadeh. When a Christian delegation sought military aid from the government, Hamadeh responded: "If you are thinking about relying on force, know that one of my tribes is sufficient to defeat the entire Lebanese army."

I questioned him about the connections between Mubarak and the Christian parties, like the National Bloc and the Phalange, and whether their plans were coordinated. He responded that Mubarak lacked freedom of movement and was under constant surveillance by the secret police. Semaan acted as a liaison between Mubarak and these parties, even showing me a photo of himself with Mubarak, Eddeh, and Gemayel, the Phalange leader. He claimed that Eddeh and Gemayel also supported Mubarak regarding the coup plan, though he stressed that he only represented Mubarak. According to him, it is certain that a vast majority of the Lebanese army will support the coup once it begins.

I replied to him that while we welcome any attempt by the Christians of Lebanon to free themselves from the dominance of Arab leaders, we cannot express an opinion on this proposal until we have a detailed plan. We need to know how they intend to implement the coup, the power they have at their disposal, and the exact percentage of assistance they require from Israel. Therefore, it is appropriate for Bishop Mubarak to consult with his fellow leaders, especially Phalange members, and assign them the task of preparing such a plan. Only then will we be able to provide our considered responses.

In the end, it was agreed that Semaan and the two accompanying men would return to Lebanon the next day, and he would return to Israel as soon as he had something to report. Therefore, I contacted First Lieutenant Amir, the Governor of Akka, and secured permission for the three to cross the Israeli-Lebanese border for a period of two or three weeks. Semaan, who appears to be a property owner, made a good impression. He did not request any fee or reward and immediately agreed to return from Haifa to Lebanon.

The report refutes the authorities' treason accusations against Sa’adeh and the nationalists. The text is clear and straightforward, so I do not find it necessary to elaborate further. However, I would like to briefly recall Bishop Mubarak’s stance on the Jewish national homeland in Palestine. Mubarak also advocated for a national homeland for Christians in Lebanon. He submitted an official memorandum dated August 5, 1947, to the United Nations' international investigation committee studying the issue of Palestine, calling for the establishment of a Jewish state. His memorandum contained expressions of disdain for Arabs and Muslims.

There is no need to elaborate on Mubarak's positions regarding the Zionist movement, as they reflect the sentiments of many Lebanese politicians, both past and present. What set Mubarak apart was his frankness and candour. I will only share excerpts from a speech he delivered in Beirut in 1936 during a farewell party held by the Jewish community for Patriarch Arida, who was embarking on a European tour. Mubarak said: "We assure you, O sons of Israel, who were expelled and rejected by the Arabs in Palestine, in the name of His Beatitude the Patriarch and myself, that Lebanon welcomes both us and you. For a long time, His Beatitude has championed this idea, and under his directive, we have persisted in appealing to the rulers to allow Jews into Lebanon" (French diplomatic documents reveal that the Patriarch offered officials in the Jewish Agency land in northern Lebanon for settlement). For the presence of Jews in Palestine made the Holy Lands envied worldwide, because the world was groaning under the weight of an economic crisis, but in Palestine, it did not exist. Individuals harboring fanatic envy responded with ingratitude.''

I will suffice with this much about Mubarak to briefly point out that there are numerous Zionist documents detailing the meetings and negotiations between the Zionist state and the Phalange Party, represented by Pierre Gemayel and Elias Rababi, the editor-in-chief of al-Amal newspaper. Rababi consistently requested support for a military rebellion in Lebanon to overthrow the regime, seeking both weapons and financial aid. Here, I will refer to a report written by Eliyahu Ben Horin, a member of the American-Zionist Emergency Council, to Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett on September 13, 1948, in which he states: “Gemayel views sending the army to the south as a prime opportunity to rebel against Beshara El-Khoury. He believes that the Jews should provide financial support and weapons to aid in seizing control of Lebanon, with these arms being delivered to small ports under their control.” Ben Hourin communicated Gemayel's perspective during a meeting in New York involving Elias Rababi. He also asked Rababi to meet with Zionist officials in Paris on his return to Lebanon to discuss the situation further. The Phalange maintained consistent contact with the Jewish state, receiving money and weapons from them and eventually allying with them during the civil war in 1975, fighting side by side.

What can be concluded from the execution of Antun Sa’adeh and its aftermath is that the Lebanese sectarian system does not hesitate to commit crimes to safeguard the interests of its various leaders. These leaders, while allied against anyone who threatens their power and exposes their betrayals—as was the case with Sa’adeh—are simultaneously embroiled in conflicts among themselves to gain more influence for personal interests under the guise of protecting their sect's rights. If we compare the events of July 1949 to today, it is evident that this regime neither prosecutes nor holds accountable any of its participants, regardless of their crimes. There are Lebanese individuals who have killed officers, soldiers, citizens, representatives, and clerics, bombed churches, and committed mass massacres. All these acts have been overlooked; the sectarian alliance has not prosecuted or held anyone accountable. They openly allied with the Zionists and even elected presidents for the Lebanese Republic.