Patriarch Hoayek: The Inconvenient Truth (1/2)

26/07/2026

By Dr. Amine Jules Iskandar

Patriarch Hoayek never sought to turn Lebanon into an experiment for coexistence. The virtuosity in which history is being reinterpreted today, on the occasion of his beatification, stems from promoting a romanticized vision of coexistence at the expense of the lives that have been wrecked for decades—and continue to be so.

Since Lebanon gained independence in 1943 on the principle of compromise, it has become customary to ignore the truth, because the truth is too unsettling. Ideologically, Greater Lebanon is supposed to represent the perfect entity, embodying a religiously fulfilled ideal destined to serve as a message to humanity.

Yet the compromise did not concern what we have (what we possess), but rather who we are (what we are). This double negation of the self was elevated, as Georges Naccache wrote, “to the level of a state doctrine”

Christians relinquished their Western Mediterranean identity, while Muslims pledged to renounce the Arab nation. Georges Naccache then published the following lines, which provoked the fury of the authorities:

“What one half of the Lebanese does not want is perfectly clear.

What the other half does not want is equally clear.

But what both halves want together is what no one can see.

A state is not the sum of two powerlessness—and two negations will never make a nation.”

What Georges Naccache wrote on 10 March 1949, was as scandalous as the letter sent by Archbishop Ignatios Moubarac in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. The journalist was imprisoned. The archbishop was exiled. From that point onward, truth was banished from Lebanon’s political vocabulary. It had to be concealed, distorted, and embellished with boundless hypocrisy. Nothing accelerated Lebanon’s downfall or the suffering of its people more than the plundering of that truth, a truth that Bachir Gemayel openly longed for.

Even the words of a pope were distorted to serve the doctrine of a Lebanon built on compromise, stripped of memory and identity. Pope John Paul II never described Lebanon as a “message of coexistence,” but rather as a “message of freedom,” at a time when the country risked falling under the totalitarian Syrian regime. Nevertheless, Lebanon’s political and ecclesiastical elites distorted his words to fit their ruthless lack of vision.

They chose to build the nation in defiance of common sense, against the lessons of history, and against the principles of political science. They established what Georges Naccache described as “an acrobatic balance” when he wrote, with remarkable foresight: “The first shock will bring about the collapse.”

Among the many historical distortions frequently repeated today is the sixth point of the questionnaire submitted to Patriarch Elias Hoayek during the drafting of the Constitution of the State of Greater Lebanon in 1926. The patriarch did indeed insist on confessional representation in parliament. However, contrary to current interpretations, this position was not motivated by an idealistic vision of harmony among Lebanon’s communities. Rather, it reflected his determination to protect each community’s distinct identity and to avoid rivalry, as he himself explained.

Confessional representation was only one component of a broader federal model suggested to him by Robert de Caix de Saint-Aymour. However, this form of ethnic federalism, limited to matters of personal status, was meant to be complemented by territorial federalism, which the French diplomat regarded as the only system capable of ensuring the long-term survival of the young state.

The greatest distortion of history, however, concerns the central project of this distinguished patriarch: Greater Lebanon. Political elites and some members of the clergy now claim that the French proposed the creation of a Christian state, but that the patriarch categorically rejected the idea, insisting instead on Lebanon’s multicultural vocation as a message of coexistence.

The archives, however, show exactly the opposite. From the shelves of the Patriarchate in Bkerké to the archives of the Quai d’Orsay, every document contradicts these carefully crafted interpretations designed to legitimize a political model that rewrites history to perpetuate itself.

In his correspondence with the French government, Elias Hoayek repeatedly emphasized the importance of a Christian state as the only guarantee of a stable and lasting future in the East. His letter of 15 July 1926, to French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand leaves no room for doubt. In that letter, which marks its centenary this month, he rejected any reduction of Lebanon’s territory.

Following the post-World War I logic of nation-state formation, he proposed the concept of population transfers. A concept deeply shocking by today’s standards. But as disturbing this idea may seem today, it was then a common practice, as he himself pointed out by citing the examples of the Balkans, Polish Silesia, and Armenian Cilicia.

The Treaty of Lausanne

In 1923, the Treaty of Lausanne had imposed, under its first article, “the compulsory exchange of Turkish nationals of the Greek Orthodox religion established in Turkish territory and Greek nationals of the Muslim religion established in Greek territory.” It was through such methods, unimaginable today, that the borders of several modern states were drawn.

Without passing value judgment from the perspective of a century later, it is important to understand that Patriarch Hoayek sought to establish a culturally homogeneous country in order to guarantee peace, stability, and security. He never intended to make Lebanon a laboratory for experiments in coexistence.

The patriarch wrote to Aristide Briand that “the primary idea behind the creation of the Lebanese state was to establish a refuge for all Christians of the East.” He was equally explicit about the need to maintain the French presence as a safeguard for future generations and described his national project as “a steadfast stronghold of loyalty to France.” This recommendation was not followed by his successor, Antonios Arida, who aligned himself with the independence movement, thereby placing his people at risk.

Patriarch Elias Hoayek was never an advocate of either immediate and complete independence or the multicultural model. The virtuosity in which history is being reinterpreted today and truth embellished, on the occasion of this patriarch’s beatification, promotes a romanticized vision of coexistence at the expense of the lives that have been wrecked for decades—and continue to be so.

This illusion runs contrary to the true vision and values of this holy patriarch, who, after witnessing the tragedy of Kafno, i.e. the Great Famine, had seen too much of the fragility of the human condition to accept compromising the future of generations yet to come.

Dr. Amine Jules Iskandar is President of the Syriac Maronite Union – Tur Levnon and Head of External Relations of the Universal Syriac Union Party in Lebanon

This article was originally published in French by Ici Beyrouth on 25 July 2026. The original can be found here.

The views expressed in this op-ed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of SyriacPress.