LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

in reaction, Druze commoners to rally around their traditional leaders,⁷⁵ thus forming an internal front lobbying against the Patriarch's plans and an internal danger to his community. In comparison, the Maronites lacked leadership and cohesion. By summoning all the Maronite notables and having them sign this convention under his supervision, the Patriarch was responding to these developments by presenting compromise solutions to the issues dividing the Maronites and striving to impart on them a higher sense of solidarity and responsibility in defense of the general interest. To bolster this projected Maronite unity, Mgr Hubaysh made public the text of the convention through the clergy in the villages and mobilized the Church apparatus to mobilize Maronite commoners and awaken their awareness to the ongoing contest and the need to identify and rally with their coreligionists.

      The principle of such a pact between all the Maronites was in itself quite new. It rested on principles alien to the organization of the Mountain, aiming to supplant old parochial allegiances and clientele by a preeminent communal political identity and loyalty. More specifically, it challenged the traditional organization of the Mountain by contesting the legitimacy of the authority of the Druze muqata'jis over their Maronite tenants on the basis of communal differences. The Patriarch was thus acting to thwart all Druze attempts at reestablishing their old privileges by undermining the basis of their authority.⁷⁶

      THE END OF THE EMIRATE

      Mgr Hubaysh's plans, however, came to none, and his project faced, shortly thereafter, a first and capital setback in November 1841, when the Druze muqata'jis, infuriated by the policy of the new Christian Shihabi Emir, Bashir III, besieged the town of Dayr-al-Qamar, seat of the governorate. The Patriarch immediately called upon the Maronite notables and commoners of the northern and central districts to gather an army to save “their” threatened Emir.⁷⁷ He financed the campaign from Church funds, supplying the Maronite army with provisions, arms and ammunition, and used the Church apparatus to mobilize his flock. However, in spite of all the efforts and authority of the Patriarch and the clergy, which often reached the point of threats of excommunication,⁷⁸ the Maronite army did not go to the rescue of the Emir at Dayr-al-Qamar. Instead, it dallied at Baabda arguing over leadership and organizational issues⁷⁹ and finally attacked the neighboring Druze village of Shuwayfat before disbanding.

      The Maronite army lacked cohesion and purpose. The leadership of the campaign had been assigned to a Shihabi Emir whose orders and directives were never heeded. Furthermore, the Maronite muqata'jis were more inclined to support their Druze counterparts than the Maronite Emir since they felt equally threatened by the insubordination of the commoners, while the commoners were more preoccupied with asserting their power against that of their muqata'jis than with rushing and saving “their” threatened Emir and coreligionists in the town of Dayr-al-Qamar. Finally, the Maronite army, composed of separate parochial groups, made any coordination between these separate bands and cliques impossible. This lack of coordination and mutual support among the diverse groups underscored the absence of any effective networks for the mobilization of the whole community as such and the originality of such an initiative.

      The division of the Maronites seemed also connected to an apparent lack of motivation and concern for the issue at stake. The narrative of Tannus Shidyaq is replete with accusations of “treachery” by several groups and notables, underlining the lack of motivation and solidarity as well as the conflicting interests of the Christians as a group. Thus, all the pledges of “everlasting union and solidarity” between the Maronites failed to materialize at this critical time and on this critical issue. Their performance discredited the Patriarch's attempt to establish a firm Maronite political front backing his political program. It led him thereafter to pursue a more selective policy, relying more on behind-the-scene diplomatic and political channels to reach his aims than trusting the aptitude of his community.

      In the meantime, Bashir III, abandoned to his fate, was expelled under humiliating conditions from Dayr-al-Qamar to Beirut, where an Ottoman special envoy dismissed him and sent him to Istanbul. The Shihabi Emirate thus ended ingloriously, and an Ottoman governor was appointed to rule Lebanon directly.

CHAPTER TWO	·	The Emergence of Lebanism
		The French Connection

      The end of Shihabi rule came as a blow to the Maronite clergy and represented a serious setback to its ambitions. As a result, the Patriarch immediately dispatched to Istanbul a special envoy, Abbot Nicolas Murad, who was assigned the delicate task of “earnestly requesting the immediate return of Emir Bashir II, the only [person] able to put an end to the disasters of Lebanon.”¹ Thus, the Maronite Patriarch, who for a year had tried strenuously to uphold the Emirate, was conceding defeat. Without Bashir II, he was unable to maintain the status quo that had obtained in 1840 or to control the situation on the ground.

      The Maronites’ rout and their failure to rescue the last governing Shihabi Emir were followed by communal clashes during which some Maronite villages were attacked and devastated. The new Ottoman governor, ‘Umar Pasha, seemed unable or unwilling to stop the fighting, and, disapproving of his appointment, the Patriarch was loath to ask his help. The only conclusion he came up with was that the old Emir alone—he was by then nearly eighty years old—could remedy this sorry situation. Hence, Mgr Hubaysh added a new element to his former claim. He now wanted not only confirmation of the autonomous status of the Mountain under a Maronite governor but clearly and simply the return to the 1840 status quo through the restoration of Shihabi rule with Bashir II. Given the reserved reaction of the Ottomans to his first proposal, the Patriarch faced certain failure had he not benefited from an unhoped-for support.

      

      Unexpected assistance came in the form of determined and steadfast French support for the Maronite position in the Mountain, in Istanbul, and in the other European capitals. The French government sanctioned the Maronite claim for the restoration of the Shihabs between 1842 and 1845. At the same time, it followed a sufficiently ambiguous policy to feed the aspirations of the Church. Additionally, some circles and personalities in France, directly and indirectly, fanned the expectations of the Church by advocating the Maronite cause. French support and influence was thus not only limited to political and diplomatic support by the French government. It also came in the form of political ideas promoting Christian emancipation from Ottoman rule. The multifaceted nature of French support needs to be elucidated before we resume our narrative.

      THE FRANCO-LEBANESE DREAM

      In 1840, the French alone, and against all the other European powers and the Ottoman government, backed Muhammad Ali's claim for confirmation of his rule in Syria.² France refused to associate itself with the London Convention of July 15, which enjoined the Egyptian Pasha to withdraw from Anatolia and most of the Syrian provinces in return for recognition of his hereditary rule in Egypt. If Muhammad Ali refused to submit, the Ottoman government, with the assistance of the signatory powers, Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, would take adequate measures to force him to yield.

      Until the last minute France tried to prevent a joint military intervention against its Egyptian ally, and when the intervention ultimately occurred, secretly hoped that the Egyptian Pasha would be able to hold his ground honorably. The total rout of the Egyptian forces in Syria came as an unpleasant surprise. Not only was France's ally badly defeated, but the French position and influence in Europe, Syria, and Istanbul was badly damaged. By bluntly refusing to associate itself with the other European powers in the solution of the Eastern crisis, France lost its position inside the Concert of Europe that had been established after 1815. It had to wait until the signature of the Straits Convention of July 13, 1841, to recover its former rank among its peers. France's influence in Syria, which had rested for the past ten years on French patronage of Egyptian rule and on its informal protectorate of the Maronites, looked seriously comprised. Ottoman rule was reestablished against France's apparent will in these provinces, and the Maronites were embittered by the position of the French government, which had preferred to support unconditionally their Egyptian oppressor instead of backing up their rebellion.

      

      As a result, Francois Guizot, who replaced Adolphe Thiers as minister of foreign affairs after these French setbacks, decided to send back Prosper Bourrée as consul in Beirut to

Скачать книгу