Part I
THE PALESTINE DIARY By Robert John and Sami Hadawi Third Edition 2006 from Amazon.com Paperback: Volume I 438 pages; ISBN: 1-4196-3570-0 Volume II 424 pages; ISBN: 1-4196-3569-7 Hardcover edition also available at Amazon.com
This will not be a conventional book review, but an exposition of matters that are vitally important for Armenians to know; matters that will shed light on their tragic history and, moreover, enable them to better properly evaluate many current affairs as they relate to Armenians and Armenia.
Part I of a IV part series by C.K. Garabed There are scholars among us doing yeomen’s work by searching out primary historical records and making them available to us, the reading public. It saves the rest of us the trouble of ferreting out the facts – what really happened, and classifying them in some kind of comprehensible order. "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." wrote Orwell in 1949. In the New York Times July 6, 1985, Winston Churchill said "In wartime, truth is so precious, she should always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies," Dr. John, the author of the work reviewed here, added, "We must hold historians to the highest standards of proof in sorting them out." In most cases, we don’t have the time and resources to do it on our own. It is with this introduction to the subject that I wish to comment on the invaluable services rendered by Robert John and Sami Hadawi for the better comprehension of the events that transformed most of the land of Palestine into the modern state of Israel, causing more conflict in the Middle East, and conflict for countries such as Syria and Persia/Iran who have given a haven and economic opportunity to so many Armenians. And there is Jerusalem with its wonderful Armenian traditions in an area where 20 percent of the population was once Christian. Now it is 2 percent.
To see things in their true perspective requires impartial judgment of archival facts. But the ability to acquire that perception comes at great cost of time and effort; even a lifetime of study. However, not all the important works of literature indispensable to our education are available in the local library. Many critical volumes must be sought out from non-customary sources. Now, there is The Palestine Diary—a new and 3rd edition not from bookshops—but from the book publishing arm of the mainstream Amazon.com bookselling website and for purchase worldwide.
When I learned that Robert John was publishing a third edition of The Palestine Diary, I knew that it was time to reread that comprehensive and meticulously researched work for information of possible value for the Armenian American reading public. Although the new edition contains some prefatory remarks and significant new information published for the first time, all references to Armenians in the previous edition remain intact, and I resolved to review the work in that light. Accordingly. I have selected passages of special interest to Armenian History and of current conflicts in the region as they affect the Armenians.
One of the salient features of this work is the author’s propensity to keep his conjectures to the minimum, relying on the excavation and revelation of historical facts (to the extent that there are such things). It is left to the reader to conjecture on the interrelationship of these facts, and their significance to each other. For example, this reviewer was led to ponder the relative significance of the timing of the following events and their combined impact:
a. The Sykes-Picot Treaty secretly arrived at between France and England for the partition of the former Ottoman Empire, even while President Wilson grandiloquently painted a rosy picture of the self-determination principle among all peoples. b. The entry of America into the conflict that became known as “the war to end all wars,’ and later World War I. c. The failure of the U.S. to include Turkey, Germany’s ally, in the declaration of war against Germany. d. The insistence of President Wilson to use the term “Associated Powers” when referring to America’s alignment with France and Britain, instead of “Allies”. e. The commitments made under the Balfour Declaration and the timing of its revelation. f. The Russian Revolution and Russia’s withdrawal from the conflict. g. The British drive for Jerusalem.
Among the factors that may have had an indirect impact on the fate of Armenia are the decision of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to decline to ask the U.S. Congress for a declaration of war against Turkey, and his insistence on the use of the term “Associated Powers”. By refusing to declare war on Turkey, at the behest of the American Board of Missions who wished to protect its investment in properties in Turkey, the U.S. was prevented from coming to the rescue of the fledgling Armenian Republic, and, furthermore, forced to abandon any post war claims for redress against the Ottoman Empire. By distancing itself from the Allies through the use of the term “Associated Powers” the U.S. weakened its hand at the post war peace conference. Furthermore, by withdrawing from the war, Russia could no longer lay claim to Constantinople and Turkish Armenia; and possibly have some say about the disposition of Palestine.
In addition to the above, this reviewer was constrained to go back to the immediately preceding pre-war period because there appeared to be a vital link to the two events that took place in America one year before the European conflict broke out. Referred to first is the establishment of the Central Bank, euphemistically called the Federal Reserve System, without which, huge war loans to France and England would not have been possible. The second is the passage of a constitutional amendment, theretofore expressly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, enabling Congress to levy a personal income tax on individuals. This latter event would assure, if necessary, the payment of interest by the Federal Government to the Central bank for the use of its own money.
What evidence is there that the events of 1914-1918 were part of a master plan to rearrange the world order? None, really, other than the musings of conspiracy-minded individuals. Yet, one cannot ignore certain significant events.
Sometimes, in order to properly evaluate historical circumstances, one must look to the outcome in order to judge of the cause or origin. In other words, cui bono? or who benefits?
Of the five empires that became involved in the great conflict, British, German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman, only the British Empire was to be seen after the smoke had cleared. What come to mind are the words of King Farouk of Egypt, who in 1948 observed: “The whole world is in revolt. Soon there will be only five Kings left—the King of England, the King of Spades, the King of Clubs, the King of Hearts, and the King of Diamonds.”
The Palestine Diary does not purport to answer any questions raised in the mind of the reader by the foregoing, but it does provide the background against which such decisions were made, which may permit the reader to draw his conclusions, that is, to the extent that conclusions can be drawn at all.
Armenians need to inform themselves of the wider issues at work during the WW I period which would shed some greater light on the issues that confronted them in the previous century. The P.D. contains many references to Armenia and Armenians that are not common knowledge, and which, if read, will widen the horizons of the reader who is interested in evaluating how the fate of Armenia was bound up in larger European and Middle East issues.
Finally, the astute reader may perceive that some players on the world stage turned out to be pawns in a game in which the Armenians, no less than the Palestinians, were stripped of their patrimony.
In the Introduction we find on page 8 the following:
Through the Rev. Hechler, [Zionist, Theodore] Herzl obtained an audience of the Grand Duke of Baden through whom he hoped to be received by the German Kaiser. Through intermediaries, he endeavored to ingratiate himself with the Sultan of Turkey by activities designed to reduce the agitation by emigré Armenian committees in London and Brussels for Turkish reforms and cessation of oppression, and started a press campaign to calm public opinion in London on the Armenian question. (Footnote: A letter entered in Herzl’s diary on 15 May 1896 states that the head of the Armenian movement in London is Avetis Nazarbek, ‘and he directs the paper Hunchak (The Bell). He will be spoken to.’)
But when offered money for Palestine, the Sultan replied that the people had won their Empire with blood, and owned it. ‘The Jews may spare their millions. When my Empire is divided, perhaps they will get Palestine for nothing. But only our corpse can be divided. I will never consent to vivisection.’
In CHAPTER III headed The Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916), we find on pages 54 and 55 the following:
As the major ally, France’s claim to preference to parts of Syria could not be ignored. The British Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Grey, told the French Ambassador in London, Mr. Paul Cambon, on 21 October 1915, of the exchanges of correspondence with Sherif Hussein, and suggested that the two governments arrive at an understanding with their Russian ally on their future interests in the Ottoman Empire.
M. Picot was appointed French representative with Sir Mark Sykes, now Secretary of the British War Cabinet, to define the interests of their countries and to go to Russia to include that country’s views in their agreement. The negotiations for this Tripartite (Sykes-Picot0 Agreement for the partition of the Ottoman Empire (Document 4) started as soon as general agreement had been reached with Hussein, but neither Sir Henry McMahon nor the Sherif Hussein were told of them.
In the secret discussions with Foreign Secretary Sazonov, Russia was accorded the occupation of Constantinople, both shores of the Bosphorus and some parts of Turkish Armenia.
(Footnote: This new offer to Russia of a direct outlet into the Mediterranean is a measure of the great importance attached by Britain and France to continued and wholehearted Russian participation in the war. British policy from the end of the Napoleonic wars had been directed against Russia’s efforts to extend its conquests to the Golden Horn and the Mediterranean (threatening Egypt and the way to India). For this reason, Britain and France had formed an alliance and fought the Crimean War (1854-56), which ended in the Black Sea being declared neutral; no warships could enter it nor could arsenals be built on its shores. But Russian concern for the capture of Constantinople was more than economic and strategic. It was not unusual for priests to declare that the Russian people had a sacred duty to drive out the ‘infidel’ Turk and raise the Orthodox cross on the dome of Santa Sophia.) France claimed Lebanon and Syria eastwards to Mosul. Palestine did in fact have inhabitants and shrines of the Greek and Russian Orthodox and Armenian churches, and Russia at first claimed a right to the area as their protector. This was countered by Sykes-Picot and the claim was withdrawn to the extent that Russia, in consultation with the other Allies, would only participate in deciding a form of international administration for Palestine.
About the Author’s Armenian Ancestry Dr. John is a descendant of the Malkum/Malcolm family of Julfa and Isphahan, Persia. One of them married the niece of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Their portraits are family heirlooms. The family history exemplifies the role of the Armenians of Julfa often acting as intermediaries between Europe and Persian culture, and the government and Shahs of the Qajar dynasty (1781–1925) that was ended by a coup led by Reza Khan, an officer in Iran's military force. They also had trade relations with the East. Dr. John is a descendant of Prince Malcolm Khan, the Armenian who drafted the first Persian constitution in the 19th century, and was appointed by the Shah to be the Persian envoy and minister plenipotentiary in London.
Robert John’s grandfather, Joseph M. John, had moved from New Julfa, Persia to British India. There, he Anglicized his name from Hovhanness, saying – “Hovhanness – Johanness – is John.” He became a property-owner, including a Tea-estate – Happy Valley – in Darjeeling. He retired to England, where his younger son was having an outstanding record at King’s College, Cambridge: a First in Natural History Tripos – and Senior Wrangler ( a student in the highest class of honors in mathematics). Robert John’s father, Andreas McNab John, was educated in a Jesuit school in India. He liked repeating the Roman Catholic and Armenian liturgies. His mother, Victoria Isquhi (Queen) Stephens (Stepanian) went first to a French convent, and then to an exclusive English girls’ boarding school in India where, with her bronze hair and fair complexion, she was the only non-English girl. The fees were paid by her very rich guardian granduncle Lazarus, who eventually left his fortune to a home for orphans. Dr. John’s parents were married in India in 1907. They moved to the south of France and then to England, for their children’s education.
In World War II, Dr. John’s brother volunteered for the B.E F. in France in 1939, volunteered to command in Waziristan, N.W. Frontier, India, was wounded twice in action against the Afrika Corps. in North Africa and the 1st German Parachute Div. at Monte Cassino. His cousin Alain John volunteered from King's Cambridge for the Royal Air Force and was killed-in-action at age 23, but a sculpture that he made at age 17 is in Coventry Cathedral as a war memorial to members of the R.A.F. In WW I, his uncle, Lt. Col. J.C. John, fought on the Western Front and volunteered for Dunster Force that freed Mesopotamia from Turkish rule. He was decorated for bravery in rescuing wounded under heavy fire; the Force eventually joining up with the Russian Imperial Army. He was asked to visit and report to the government on the state of the oil wells in Baku. In WW II he was Acting Major General commanding in Bihar and Orissa., India.