Constitutions for Syria, by Albert Meltzer (1947)
Article from ‘Freedom: Anarchist Fortnightly’, September 6, 1947, London, UK
“Downing Street: happy spot, where they draw up constitutions for Syria and treaties for China with the same self-complacency and the same success!”
—BENJAMIN DISRAELI (“Tancred”)
By one of those oversights which the most far-seeing statesmen can make, Syria was not included in our list of spoils from the last world war, and it went to France instead. The effect was to make Britain acutely conscious of the Syrians’ genuine desire for national independence; and soon after the struggle against the Vichy French administration in those far-off days of five years ago when we armed the Palestinian Jewish underground, the British agents in Syria were able to stir up sufficient feeling to oust the French altogether when the war for liberation was over.
The future in Syria is — like everything political in that part of the world — unsettled, but the latest stories of the ‘informed circles’ in Cairo are the mooted plans for a ‘Greater Syria’ behind which is undoubtedly British influence. The plan is that Syria should be enlarged (its present boundaries being quite arbitrarily decided, like those of all its neighbour desert States) and made into a federation which would be self-supporting and more prosperous; and include Palestine (according to some, all Palestine, according to others, a semi-independent Jewish Palestine and/or a semi-independent Arab Palestine) and Transjordan.
The King of Transjordan, Abdullah, is very strongly inclined to the idea. He does not in the least mind seeing his State merge into the ‘Greater Syria’ not as semi-independent but as a component part. It is known that Abdullah was very dissatisfied at the piece of desert he got for his portion in the share-out among the Arab tribal chiefs according to the promises made by Lawrence and other British agents; and he certainly never wished to see himself ‘king of the rubble’. Naturally, in supporting ‘Greater Syria’ he wants to see himself King of Syria, replacing the kingdom of Transjordan he recently assumed in great pomp, and the republic of Syria recently declared with the great jubilation.
He states he wishes to see the end of Zionism but it is expected he would compromise with Zionism if by doing so he got his own way in expanding his influence into a Greater Syria.
His opponent is Fawzi Kawukji who is bitterly anti-Zionist and aims at personal power for himself also. But Kawukji’s followers might be seduced from their allegiance if Abdullah could offer them an Arab Palestine, part of Syria. How far the proposed Greater Syria would be anti-Zionist or a compromise with Zionism is not known; but it is generally believed to be included in Downing Street’s plan for Palestine and its neighbouring countries.
Say what you like about the plan — after all, nobody will ask your consent — agree or disagree — your opinions are not invited. The point is that to enforce settlement means warfare of some sort. You are expected to back it, by industrial exertion or (for some) by laying down your life. Therefore, you cannot be uninterested and say it has nothing with you. But what reason have we for drawing up ‘constitutions for Syria and treaties for China‘? How is it our affair? Why should the tribal quarrels of the Arab rulers, or the Messianic beliefs of the Zionists for that matter, be affecting us so personally and directly?
So far as ‘Greater Syria’ is concerned, the poor and oppressed in the countries directly concerned know nothing of politics and in the majority of cases cannot even read what is going on. But we, who are not really in the least affected, have a direct personal responsibility. Such is Imperialism.
A.M.