Phoenicians

Chapter 25
After the “Vichy” government assumed power in France in 1940, General Henri-
Fernand Dentz was appointed the French High-Commissioner of Lebanon, his
appointment resulted in the resignation of Emil Iddi on April 4th, 1941. Five-days
later General Dentz appointed “Alfred Naqqash (Naccache/Naccash)” as head of
state.
During the following weeks (April 8th – May 30th, 1941) a Luftwaffe aircraft was
shot down over Iraq during the advance of Baghdad in the Anglo-Iraqi War1. Since
the nearest “Axis” bases were on Rhodes, it was calculated that the plane had
refueled in the Vichy controlled Syria or Lebanon. An event that reinforced the
longstanding belief among the “Allies” that the ‘armed neutrality’ of Vichy
territories was not true and that they were concealing their use by “Axis” forces.
Australian, Free French and Indian units invaded Syria and Lebanon from
Palestine, whereas a hefty defense was mounted by the Vichy of Lebanon, the Allies
weight of numbers overwhelmed the resistance and the French surrendered, and
armistice was signed in Acre on July 14th, 1941.
After endorsing the Acre Armistice, General Charles de Gaulle visited Beirut,
officially ending Vichy control – never a group to resist a moment, the Lebanese
national leaders took this time to ask the General to end the “French Mandate” and
unconditionally recognize Lebanon’s independence.
As a result of national and international pressure, on November 26th, 1941,
General Georges Catroux, delegate general under General de Gaulle, proclaimed
the independence of Lebanon in the name of his government. The United States,
Britain, the Soviet Union, the Arab states, and certain Asian countries recognized
this independence, and some of them exchanged ambassadors with Beirut.
Although the French recognized Lebanon’s independence, they continued to
exercise their authority. It would take 5-years, 1-month and 5-days for the last
Frenchman in authority to leave Lebanon.
French General Charles de Gaulle had 2nd thoughts about a proclamation of
independence on behalf of Syria and Lebanon he had approved, and rescinded the

1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_War
order affirming his belief in the “imperial” right of France to maintain sovereignty
over the affairs of the two countries.
I found a note of interest in my search for events that followed in 1941
discovering that a group of able bodied Polish Jews (who had been evacuated from
Russia to Iran and had joined the military in Iran) where soon transferred to
Lebanon as part of the British forces.
One other bit of information I was able to locate was a small reference to the
situation in Syria and Lebanon in meeting minutes taken at a meeting of the US
State Department on August 29th, 1941 that noted and classified.
Independence for Syria and Lebanon was thought desirable. The people had
been promised independence, and it was considered that they were relatively
ready for it. The question was presented as to whether the areas should form
one state or two. It was thought that there would be no regional supervisory for
the Middle East, as has been proposed for the other areas.

A combination of popular unrest and pressure from the British persuaded the
French to permit elections in Syria and Lebanon in which their interests were
defeated, whereas in Syria the National Bloc was returned to power and “Shukri al-
Quwwatli” became the first president.
In 1943 in Lebanon, the previous guidelines outlined the general election,
whereas the President was supposed to be a Maronite, the Prime Minister a Sunni
and the Speaker of Parliament a Shiite. On September 21 st, 1943, the new Chamber
of Deputies elected “Bishara al Khuri” as president. He appointed “Riyad as Sulh”
(Solh) as prime minister, and asked him to form the 1st government of independent
Lebanon. On November 8th, 1943, the Chamber of Deputies “amended” the
Constitution, abolishing the articles that referred to the “Mandate” and modifying
those that specified the powers of the High-Commissioner, this unilaterally ended
the Mandate.
The French authorities responded by “arresting” a number of prominent
Lebanese politicians, including the President, the Prime Minister, and other cabinet
members, and “exiled” them to the Castle of Rashayya (65 kilometers-40 miles east
of Sidon).
This action “united” the Christian and Muslim leaders in their determination to
get rid of the French. The French, finally yielding to mounting internal pressure and
to the influence of Britain, the USA and the Arab countries, released the prisoners
on November 22nd, 1943 --- since then, this day has been celebrated as
Independence day in Lebanon.
The ending of the French Mandate was a mixed blessing for Lebanon, in the
beginning of its life the Mandate was leveled on a Lebanon suffering from the
religious conflicts of the 1860s and the remains of The Great War – WWI. The
French were concerned “not” only with maintaining control over the country, but
also the rebuilding of the Lebanese economy and their social system. They repaired
and enlarged the harbor of Beirut and developed a network of roads linking the
major cities. The worked at developing a governmental structure to include a new
administration and judicial systems and a workable civil code. They worked on a
better educational system, agriculture, pubic health, and generally increased the
standard of living.
Unfortunately they also linked the Lebanese currency to the “depreciating”
French franc ---this had a very negative impact on Lebanon. Another wrong move
on their part was in making French the language of “instruction”, a move that
favored the Christians at the expense of the Muslims.
The foundations of the new Lebanese state had been established in 1943 by an
unwritten agreement between “Bishara al Khuri – president” and “Riyad as Sulh –
prime minister” as the two leaders of their respected communities, the Christians
and the Muslims. The contents later known as the National Covenant (al Mithaq al
Watani), which were approved by their followers.
The National Covenant laid out four principles:
1. Lebanon was to be a completely independent state, whereas the Christian
communities were to cease identifying with the West. In return, the Muslim
communities were to protect the independence of Lebanon and prevent its
merger with any Arab State.
2. Although Lebanon is an Arab country with Arabic as its official language, it
could not cut off its spiritual and intellectual ties with the West, which had
helped it attain such a notable degree of progress.
3. Lebanon, as a member of the family of Arab states, should cooperate with the
other Arab states, and in case of conflict among them, it should not side with
one state against another.
 4. Public offices should be distributed proportionally among the recognized
religious groups, but in technical positions preference should be given to
competence without regard to confessional considerations.
Moreover, the three top government positions should be distributed as follows:
President should be Maronite
Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim
Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies a Shi’a Muslim,
And the ratio of deputies was to be six Christians and five Muslims

From the very beginning, the balance provided for in the National Covenant was
fragile – and many observers, internally and externally believed that “any” serious
internal or external pressure could threaten the stability of the Lebanese political
system, now it seems a realistic concern.
On January 1st, 1944 Lebanon gained its full independence from France, as the
Christians and Muslim leaders agreed to share power in the new government and
retained strong ties to the West…it went on to become a member of the League of
Arab States on March 22nd, 1945 and participated in the San Francisco Conference
of the United Nations and became a member in 1945 – French troops were
completely withdrawn on December 31st, 1946 (they had began withdrawing on
March 10th, 1946) in accordance with the Franco-Lebanese Treaty which had come
into effect on November 13th, 1936. After their pullout from Lebanon, they became
deeply involved in the affairs of Vietnam – during the same year – 1946.
During the presidency of Bechara El Khoury (9-21-1943 to 9-18-1952) [founder
of the Ad-Dustour Party] the overall economic status of Lebanon was known as a
free-wheeling economic liberalism, to a great extent under the influence and
guidance of “Michel Chiha2”. Lebanon followed a system of free exchange, money
conversion, and extensive trade. Likewise, strict financial orthodoxy was pursued
with regard to state finances – whereas they began to follow a policy of
expenditures on public services, which, one primary expenditure being the Beirut
International Airport (Rafic Hariri International Airport), which was opened for
business on April 23rd, 1954.

2
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/02/the_responsibil.php
 During the years following the end of the war and Lebanon’s independence,
events in the region, other than their economic growth moved forward towards
what would be more disturbing times for the small nation.
One event of particular sadness for the Druze was the passing of one of their
influential and well-known leaders “Shakib Arslan” who died in 1946. In his life he
had transited from being focused on Ottomanism to Arab Nationalist, Activist and
Islamist to the extreme…in front he was anti-Western to such a point that he earned
the title as “mujaheed” (a) striver for Arab freedom and independence.
And south of the Lebanese border on July 22nd, 1946 “Menachem Begin” blew up
a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, headquarters of the British Mandate
administrators, 90 people lost their lives that day, Jews, Arabs, as well as the British
--- this raid he said was in retaliation for the raid on the Jewish Agency on June 29th.
The name of his organization was the “Irgun Zvai Leumi3”. On November 17th, 1946
eight British servicemen are killed by Jewish Terrorists.
And to really add to the future woes of Lebanon, a “Anglo-American Committee
of Inquiry” (British and American) visited Palestine in 1946 --- where the findings
resulting in them “recommended” the issuance of 100,000 additional immigration
certificates to Jews living in European refugee camps who wished to settle in
Palestine. Further more, it “recommended” the lifting of land sale restrictions
imposed in a 1939 White Paper4. As for the future sovereignty over Palestine, the
committee was “intentionally” evasive and ambiguous, a position that sat well with
no one! Arabs responded by holding a summit on May 28th that announced its
intention to “resist” the recommendations of the committee to “open” the doors to
further Jewish immigration into Palestine.
Albert Hourani, who later became an great historian, was serving as a
representative on the “Arab Agency”, when he testified before the “Committee of
Inquiry” that said, “no room can be made in Palestine for a 2 nd nation except by
dislodging or exterminating the first.” Zionist leader “Chaim Weizman” agreed,
although he drew a different conclusion on what course of action should be taken.

3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
4
http://www.answers.com/topic/white-paper-of-1939
 The first ship, “Exodus” leaves France for Palestine on July 11th, 1947 with 4,500
Holocaust survivors on board, and on November 29th the UN General Assembly
votes to partition Palestine between Arabs and Jews – Resolution 1815.
Transjordan became an independent Kingdom (under Treaty of London), and 3-
years later is renamed Jordan, “Hashemite Emir Abdullah” (son of Sharif Hussein of
Mecca) was crowned king on May 25th.
The “Ba’ath (“Renaissance”) Party” was formally constituted in Syria, where in
had founded in the early 1930s by two students, “Michel Aflaq” (Orthodox Christian)
and “Salah al-Din al-Batar” (Sunni Muslim), the party committed itself to combining
Socialism, Islamism and Arabism as it worked towards its primary goal of Arab unity
and the restoration of past Arab glories – after some failures they eventually seized
power in both Syria and Iraq in 1963.
During the 1948 “Arab-Israeli War” the “Deir Yassin massacre” where between
100 & 200 villagers (mainly elderly, women and children) were killed during and
after the battle at the village of Deir Yassan (Dayr Yasin / Dir Yassin) near Jerusalem
by the “Irgun-Lehi6” force between April 9th and April 11th. The reporting of this
incident and the exaggerated number of casualties is said to have been the “major
cause” of the Arab civilian’s flight from Palestine.
On May 14th, 1948 the “Declaration of Independence” of the State of Israel was
publicly read in Tel Aviv – before the expiration of the British Mandate of Palestine
at midnight.
On May 15th, 1948 the Arab-Israeli war gains force when Egypt, Transjordan,
Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia attack Israel. Beginning of the on-going
conflict.
On December 11th, 1948 the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194, and
has reaffirmed its existence every year since, that stated:
“the Palestinian refuges wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with
their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and
that compensation should be paid for their property of those choosing not to
return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of
international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or
authorities responsible.”

5
http://www.answers.com/topic/1947-un-partition-plan
6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29
 On December 31st, 1948 Israeli troops drive the Egyptian residents from Negev,
located in southern Israel – the New State.
On May 11th, 1949 Israel is admitted to the UN as its 59th member, Lebanon has
been a member since October 24th, 1945 (founding member).
On June 2nd, 1949 --- Transjordan renamed Jordan.
On July 20th, 1949 Israel and Syria sign truce, ending their 19-month conflict, on
August 14th a military coup in Syria ousts the President.
On March 23rd, 1949 Lebanon endorses an “armistice” agreement (UN arranged)
with Israel, during the conflict it should be noted that Lebanon’s army was the
smallest force of the Arab armies, containing four infantry battalions each
containing 400-450 soldiers plus support personnel. Only one battalion saw action,
when they captured the Jewish village of “Malikiyya” which was 700-meters (2,300
feet) inside the border on May 13th-14th, they lost the village on May 28th – 29th, they
were also involved in fighting with Israeli forces “inside” Lebanon.
One April 24th, 1950 Jordan annexes the area known as the “West Bank”.
On December 3rd, 1951 the Lebanese University7 is founded.
On July 26th, 1952 a military coup in Egypt overthrows King Farouk.
On August 11th, 1952 the King of Jordan (“Talal Ibn Abdullah”) made king of
Jordan after the assassination of his father “Abdullah” in Jerusalem on July 20 th,
1951, was forced to abdicate due to health reasons (he suffered from
schizophrenia), his eldest son formally succeeded his father in 1952 – but did not
reign immediately as he was not yet 18-years-old.
The 1948 Arab-Israeli war strained the Lebanese economy with not only its
financial burden, but with the immigration of over 100,000 Palestinian refuges (of
the 800,000 Arab inhabitants of Palestine, after 1948 only 170,.000 remained) ---
these factors coupled with suspicions of corruption in President Khoury’s
administration provoked massive demonstrations which forced him to resign on
September 18th, 1952. Fuad Chehab succeeded him as acting temporary president.
Camille Nimr Chamoun, was elected shortly thereafter as the President of
Lebanon. He was born at Deir el-Qamar into a prominent Maronite family, educated
in France and became a lawyer. He was first elected to the Lebanese parliament in
1934, reelected in 1937 and 1943. He was one of the officials that were imprisoned
7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_University
by the French in Rashaia Castle. He was reelected to the National Assembly in 1947
and 1951 – but was frequently absent as he also served as ambassador to the
United Kingdom (1944-1946), and later as the ambassador to the United Nations.
His presidency was also noted as a period of a liberal economy, although it was
joined with greater government activity, especially with respect towards the public
needs. On the institutional level, a number of significant measures were enacted,
considered to be one of the most important of these measures was Lebanon’s
banking “secrecy” law – enacted on September 3rd, 1956. Along these same lines,
there was an increase in large-scale construction and the protection of industry in
general. Amongst all this the state managed to maintain the strict orthodox
financial policy as in the previous administration.
The state realized benefits of its public services, such as water, electricity,
railroads, tramways and other ventures. Institutions were established with the goal
of assisting economic growth, such as the
1. Economic Planning and Development Council
2. Ministry of Planning
3. Institute of Industrial Research
4. Silk Bureau
5. Agricultural, Industrial and Real Estate Credit Bank
6. Independent Fund for Energy
All established with the objective of financing public service expenditures.
With regard to pubic services, Lebanon’s network of roads were expanded and
improved, as were the telephone, water, and electricity networks. After the 5.6M
earthquake on March 16th, 1956 near Sidon killed over 130 people, and in the
previous year in December a flood of the Abu-Ali River near Tripoli killed over 400
citizens. These events also created large state sponsored construction projects, the
flood caused a flurry of activity in building dams on the “Litani River” --- and the
state expanded its program using thermal (oil fired) production of electricity.
A political crisis erupted during his term when he refused to break Lebanon’s
diplomatic ties with the Western powers (Israel led, France and England supported)
that attacked Egypt during the Suez Crisis in 1956, a move that severely angered
Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. His refusal went against the pro Nasser
relationship of Lebanon’s Sunni Muslim Prime Minister “Rashid Karami” and the
Syrian leadership. Karami went on to form a national reconciliation government
after the 1958 crisis ended.
Lebanese Muslims pushed the government to join the newly created “United
Arab Republic” (Egypt and Syria, February1st, 1958 UAR came to an end on Sept
28th, 1961), while the Christians wanted to keep Lebanon aligned with Western
Powers --- in the meantime, a Muslim rebellion (in Tripoli) and the toppling of a pro-
western government in Iraq caused President Chamoun to call for U.S. assistance.
During the insurrection in Tripoli (which spread across the country) the
commanding general of the Lebanese Army – “Fuad Chehab” refused to attack the
rebels in fear that the army, which was composed of Christians and Muslims, would
spit apart. President Chamoun accused the United Arab Republic of interfering in
Lebanon, the UN sent observers --- but when Iraq fell he called for help.
President Eisenhower responded by authorizing “Operation Blue Bat8” on July
15th, 1958. The primary goal to mount an operation that was to bolster the pro-
Western Lebanese government of President Camille Chamoun against “internal”
opposition and threats from “Syria” and the “United Arab Republic”.
The plan was to occupy and secure the “Beirut International Airport”, then to
secure the port and all approaches to the city of Beirut. The U.S. led forces
consisted of 14,000 troops, 8,509 regular army, including a contingent from the 24th
Airborne Brigade of the 24th Infantry Division (based in Germany) and 5,670 officers
and men of the Marine Corps. The presence of the troops successfully quelled the
opposition and the U.S. withdrew its forces on October 25, 1958 – one U.S. soldier
was shot by a sniper and three others died in accidents.
President Eisenhower also sent diplomat “Robert Daniel Murphy9” to Lebanon as
his personal representative ---- Murphy was to play a significant role in persuading
President Chamoun to resign, and he also played a role in the selection of
“moderate” Christian General “Faud Chehab” as President Chamoun’s replacement,
with “Rashid Karami” as the new premier.
The Presidency of Fuad Chehab (1958-1964) was an era characterized by the
linking of economic planning to the concepts of development, social justice, and
national unity. And the social and regional disparities related to deprivation of work
or income reached a point that his era had to face. In his administration a broadly-

8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Bat
9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Murphy
based attempt was made to reduce these disparities and to reform the public
administration. While it is noted that no comprehensive surveys exist to assist in
evaluating the actual accomplishments during this period, partial and sectional
studies, provide an indication that some success was achieved, especially in the
laying of the foundations for the emergence and expansion of a middle class, and in
emphasizing the role which the expansion of education (public) played for social
and career development.
Beginning in 1960 the state began to pay increasing attention to the socio-
economic disparities and “distortions”, and the need to have an active social policy
and for introducing institutional and administrative reforms to contain the
inadequacies of the system, not only to limit their effects with respect to the
economy but with reference on the political stability and security of the country,
especially after the events of 1958.
As a result, the state introduced a number of reforms, some of which fall within
the area of a modern welfare state. These include the founding of the Social
Security System10 (1963), periodic review of the minimum wage level,
establishment of the Social Development Office, the Green Project, linking all
regions to the electrical grid, generalization of public schools, strengthening of the
Lebanese University, and expanding the road network and governmental hospitals
and dispensaries.
In addition, serious efforts were made to strengthen the Ministry of Planning, by
establishing the Central Directorate of Statistics, and to reform and strengthen the
administration, and provide it with the “immunity” needed for proper functioning.
This was accomplished through the establishment of the “Civil Service Board”, the
Central Inspection Agency, the Council for Disciplinary Action and the Cooperative
of Public Sector Employees, and the regulation of monetary and financial policies
through the “Currency and Credit Law”, by virtue of which the “Bank of Lebanon”
was established.
These reforms “did not” bring an end to the distortions, only assisting in their
intensity to improve the living standards and the quality of life in the deprived
regions, and for low-income social categories. They also contributed to the
“emergence” of a middle-class nucleus, believed to have constituted an important
segment of the Lebanese society of the eve of the civil-war in 1975.
10
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2004-2005/asia/lebanon.html
 Information available, some from different studies when combined showed that
the ratio’s of poor in the total population fell from 50% (1959-1960) to 22% in 1973-
1974, and that the high-income category expanded from 18% to 21%, and there
was also a significant rise in the share of the middle-class, from 32% to 57%. It is
also noted that the wealth of the country was spread, in the share of the richest had
gone from 32% to 20% in 1970 --- now whether this indicates a spreading of the
money or in the people with lots of money leaving is not indicated.
What is noted with a certain degree of accuracy in the importance that
education played in promoting upward social mobility and its value of attainment as
measured against access and the effect of having or not having funding. For
example, the percentage of “illiterates” in the lowest income category is 60%,
compared to 2% in the category having the highest incomes. Also, the percentage
of university graduates among the disadvantaged was less than 1%, while it
reached 34% among the higher incomes.
Despite the noticeable improvement, “social disparities” remained strong. For
example, the share of the poorest 33% of the population did not exceed 10% of the
gross product, whereas the share of the richest 16% was more than 50%. Likewise,
regional disparities continued, with 60% of the poor living in rural areas in 1974,
compared to 10% of the well-to-do.
The standard of services in dwelling also differed between Beirut, other cities,
and rural locations. In 1970, it was found that 42.5% of the dwelling did not have
an indoor toilet facility, compared to only 11% in Beirut and that 33% of the rural
dwelling were not connected to a water network, compared to Beirut at 7%, and
14% were not connected to the electric grid, compared to 1% in Beirut.
Under the president we see that the state moved away from its narrow financial
path, and public spending was transformed into a tool for economic growth as
increased “subsidies” were provided to industry, tourism, and agriculture. This
period saw the establishment of a series of institutions with developmental goals:
1. Council for the Implementation of Construction Projects
2. Council for the Implementation of Large-Scale Projects for Beirut
3. Fruit Bureau
4. Bureau of Animal Production
5. The Central Bank
6. National Council for Scientific Research
 The ports of Beirut and Tripoli were modernized, and special buildings were
constructed to serve as offices for employees.
Fuad Chehab, in most circles was deeply respected for his honesty and integrity
and he managed to bring stability and progress to Lebanon. It is noted that his
term was a “balancing act”, where he worked effectively with different religious
groups, and with both secular and religious forces. He was able to interface and
work closely within the government structure, and still keep direct control of the
“Minister of Defense” and the Interior. Prior to his reforms, it is said, that Lebanon
was dominated by feudal values and differences in religious and clan membership.
In this respect, his statement made many times, brought him to numerous conflicts
with the traditional feudal, confessional, and clan based politicians – who were
watching their grip on the country slip-away.
The “traditional” leadership of the various confessional lines proved to be as
resistant to change as ever. Whereas the leaders felt that “Chehabism” was a
direct attack on their positions of power. This because his administration was
walking into fields and even parts of the country where they had ruled “supremely”
and his creations like the “Deuxieme Bureau” (army intelligence apparatus) did
not sit well with their engrained political activities and their business interests.
They also feared that the formation and functioning of a “well-organized” civil
administration regulated by an efficient civil service board, applying meritorious
recruitment processes and strict accounting and thus curtailing political patronage,
would jeopardize their bases of power. In other words, the reason of the
patron/client relationship was being severely challenged. Therefore the reforms
must fail so they could defend the sanctity of their sectarian sanctuaries.
Realizing that these moves by the sitting government were designed to “remove
them of their power, the leaders of the sects involved came together in opposition.
Leaders such as “Kamel El-Assad”, “Camille Chamoun”, Saeb Salam”, “Raymond
Edde” and even “Paul Peter Meoushi”, the Maronite Patriarch from Jezzine. These
were leaders who in the near past had done battle against each other, in their
internecine ideological and political skirmishes – now they formed semi-formal
coalition against the Chehabist regime.
Along with this “mixed” but yet “concerned” political alliance, an alliance of
interest developed between the bankers and merchants on the one hand and the
traditional patrons on the other. The major complaints they shared were increased
taxation, authoritarian malpractices, encroachment on the free-market economy
and slow Lebanese asphyxiation by the Chehabist state ideology.
Helena Cobban11 puts the whole matter in concise terms: “The Chehabist
program of a national renewal met with opposition of mercantile businessmen and
conservative politicians, business oligarchy” – Walid Khalidi is more direct: “The
seemingly inherent immobilism of the system and the extent of administrative
corruption soon caught up with Chehab. The proliferation of Deuxieme Bureau
personnel into ubiquitous mini-ombudsmen operating with less than maximum tact
offended the susceptibilities12 of the Maronite oligarchs. These had been already
piqued by Chehab’s pro-Nasser bias and were harboring mounting fears of his
Cesarean ambitions.”
The reader or researcher is confused, in studying the remarkable success of the
Chehabist experience in institution-building and Chehab’s semi-willingness or
inability to create and initiate a new leadership to renew the “old” political
establishment itself. As “Ghassan Salame13” sees it, Chehab was “less eager and
less successful in his drive to bring in new blood to the political establishment.”
The entire reformist movement could not be centered just on Chehab’s
personality. Instead of relegating the responsibility or reform, or creating a new
leadership that could assist him with his approach to professional, neutral integrity
and managerial approach he turned to enter a “coalition” with old “recycled”
members of the traditional establishment, like “Pierre Gemayel’s” Kataeb Party and
“Kamal Jumblatt’s” Progressive Socialist Party.
Albeit the alliances were loose, superficial and fragile, only consider that they
came about for their political convenience, whereas they could not instigate
strategic political and administrative modernization --- simply since the political
orientation of the traditional leadership sank in “confessionalism” rather than
moving forward to national integration. It could be said he thought that by aligning
himself with any of the traditional patrons he would in a sense, co-opt the others in
order to undermine their foundations.

11
http://helenacobban.org/home.html
12
somebody’s feelings, especially those of somebody who easily becomes upset
13
http://www.ceri-sciencespo.com/cherlist/salame.htm
 There in no doubt that President Chehab launched his administrative reform
movement out of personal convictions and a genuine belief for the need to
modernize Lebanon’s political process and its economy in order to achieve genuine
social cohesion and social integration. In a true revolution of any system, the real
political, economic, social and culture modernization starts with the actions and
thinking of the individual. The man in the street, so to speak.