Freemasonry in Ottoman Palestine - Jerusalem Quarterly

Freemasonry was to prove itself one of the most influential social institutions in theOttoman Empire. 8 Despite the fact that they were considered outposts of Europeaninfluence, 9 secularism, 10 and borderline revolutionary ideologies, 11 Freemason lodgesin the Middle East were extremely popular and influential. Incorporating a belief ina Supreme Being, 12 secretive rituals, 13 and modern Enlightenment ideals, Freemasonryoffered its members a progressive philosophical and social outlook, an importanteconomic and social network, ties to the West, as well as a potential arm for politicalorganizing. 14 All four of these elements proved central to the spread and impact ofFreemasonry lodges in the last several decades of the Ottoman Empire.At its most basic level, Freemasonry offered a world-view based on progressivehumanism. In its founding constitution, the Grand Orient de France (GODF), theFrench Masonic order with arguably the greatest international impact, 15 firmly rooteditself in such an outlook:Freemasonry, which is essentially a philanthropic,philosophical and progressive institution, aims to searchfor the truth, study ethics and practice mutual support. Itworks for the material and moral improvement of humanity,towards intellectual and social perfection. (...)Its principlesare mutual tolerance, the respect of others and of oneself,absolute freedom of conscience. Believing that metaphysicalconsiderations are the exclusive concern of individualmembers, it refuses any dogmatic position (...). 16As such, there was a natural sympathy between Freemasonry and French revolutionaryideals, and it is no wonder that generations of nineteenth century reformers foundthemselves closely allied with Freemasonry ideals. As we learn from the work of PaulDumont, Ottoman intellectuals in the mid-nineteenth century were impacted deeply byFrench revolutionary principles, intellectual pursuits, and social questions of the day. 17Dumont writes that most of the Ottoman Masonic lodges at the time discussed themesof the French Revolution: liberty, social justice, equality of citizens before the law, andbrotherhood - all of which were timely in the Ottoman context.Thus the Freemasonry lodges of the Ottoman Empire provided a fertile partnership forYoung Ottomanist thinkers and reformers such as Namık Kemal, 18 and Freemasonryas an institution played a significant role along with other secret societies (includingwhat Zarcone calls “para-Masonic organizations”) in drawing up the 1876 OttomanConstitution. 19At the same time, Freemasonry in Egypt provided an outlet for political and socialorganization in the era of British colonization, and Masons played a role in the ‘Urabirevolution. 20 Anti-colonialist organizers such as the Islamic thinker Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, 21 Muhammad ‘Abduh, and the noted writer Ya’qub Sannu’ (of Abu Naddarafame) were prominent members of various Egyptian Masonic lodges. AccordingJerusalem Quarterly 22/23 [ 39 ]

Jamal Muhammad al-Din al-Afghanito one source, al-Afghani actively sought out Freemasonry because of its politicaldimension as a liberation movement:If the Freemason society does not interfere in cosmic politics,while it includes every free builder, and if the building toolsit has are not used for demolishing the old buildings to erectthe monuments of true liberty, brotherhood, and equality,and if it does not raze the edifices of injustice, arroganceand oppression, then may the hands of the free never carrya hammer and may their building never rise...The firstthing that enticed me to work in the building of the free wasa solemn, impressive slogan: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity- whose objective seemed to be the good of mankind, thedemolition of the edifices and the erection of the monumentsof absolute justice. Hence I took Freemasonry to mean adrive for work, self-respect and disdain for life in the cause offighting injustice. 22Thierry Zarcone argues that, to the east, Freemasonry and para-Masonic organizationsthat merged Sufism, politics, and Masonry played a critical role in the 1905-1907Iranian Constitutional Revolution. 23 And, of course, most prominent was the roleaccorded to Freemasons in the Young Turk revolution of 1908, as well as the foundingleadership of the Committee for Union and Progress (CUP). 24 Four Salonikanlodges in particular played an instrumental role in supporting the revolution - LogeMacedonia Risorta (Grand Orient d’Italie), Veritas (Grand Orient de France), Laboret Lux (Grand Orient d’Italie), and Perseverencia (Grande Oriente Español). 25[ 40 ] HISTORICAL FEATURES Freemasonry in Ottoman Palestine

and to better them. I would also like to be part of such an order, to take part inbenevolence and the useful works of your order.” 33New members swore to abide by these principles as well as to promote mutualaid, public service, and Masonic loyalty, on pain of excommunication. 34 Thus, allFreemasons, regardless of their motivations for joining, were held accountable andcomplicit in theory in upholding these Masonic principles. Of course, it is also likelythat the close relationship between the Young Turks and the Freemasonry movementgave it a stamp of approval, as well as a certain cachet and political expediency, andthat these socio-political power considerations played a role in Masonry’s popularity. 35Ideology and professed ideals alone do not account for what actually happens on theground - to have a more accurate picture, one must examine the social consequencesof participation in a Masonic lodge.The Grand Orient Ottoman –Nationalizing and Mobilizing FreemasonryFar from its origins as a closeted secret society pursued by the state and itssecret police, during the Young Turk period Freemasonry became legitimate andinstitutionalized as part of the new socio-political order. One indication of theincreasingly important role of the Freemasonry movement in the post-1908 OttomanEmpire was that in 1909, the long-defunct “Supreme Council” of the Scottish riteof Masonry within the Ottoman Empire was re-constituted. Also in 1909, the YoungTurks sought to institutionalize, ‘nationalize’, and mobilize Freemasonry through theestablishment of the Grand Orient Ottoman (or GOO, sometimes called the GrandOrient de la Turquie), an umbrella mother lodge that aimed to bring foreign-sponsoredlodges under its control. 36 In the summer of 1909, eight Constantinople-based lodgesunited to establish the GOO. 37 In its first elections held in August, Ottoman Minister ofthe Interior Talat Pasha was elected Grand Master of the GOO, 38 assisted by a multiethniccast of Who’s Who in the capital. Among the GOO’s important innovations wasits refusal to use the Masonic concept of “Grand Architect of the Universe,” feelingthat such a quasi-deistic formulation would offend its Muslim constituents. Instead,the GOO asserted that the “Grand Architect” was an ideal to strive for, not an actualpersonage. 39The GOO leadership sought to establish an autonomous Masonry in the spirit ofpolitical and national emancipation, as well as to form a core of constitutional liberalswho would be able to stand up to the numerous reactionaries found throughout theempire. 40 Under the aegis of the GOO, Ottoman lodges were established throughoutthe empire and existed side-by-side with foreign lodges. 41 Paul Dumont has writtenthat initially some lodges expressed reservations at the new Young Turk Masonicinstitutions, precisely because of their attempts to institutionalize Masonry withina specific political agenda. The GODF lodge Veritas in Salonika, for example,complained that the establishment of the GOO was “entirely premature”:[ 42 ] HISTORICAL FEATURES Freemasonry in Ottoman Palestine

Among the reasons which push to me to place obstacles at thedevelopment of this new Masonic power, is that I noted, alas,that the lodges subjected to its influence completely neglectthe regulations of the Masonic statutes and regulationswith regard to the recruitment of the members and blindlyare subjects to the instructions of parties which work withanother collective aim. 42Within weeks, however, de Botton’s reservations had dissipated and he wrote tothe GODF to ask them to do all that was “humanly and Masonically possible” torecognize the GOO. 43The GOO served as an important link between the new ruling party and the broaderMasonic public. In its early efforts to co-opt foreign Masonic lodges throughoutthe empire, the founders of the GOO invited Ottoman Freemasons to a “nationalconvention” in Constantinople in the fall of 1909. But despite ambitions to becomethe umbrella lodge for all Masons empire-wide, the founders of the GOO continued tobelong to foreign lodges as well as to lodges racked by national schisms. 44Freemasonry as a Social ClubDuring this period, religious community played an important role in defining thecontours of daily life - Muslim, Jewish and Christian children usually studiedin separate schools, 45 and inter-communal civic organizations were limited toprofessional guilds and bourgeois social groups, among them the Freemasons. As oneof the few private forms of organization that existed in the Middle East in this period,Masonic lodges attracted a wide variety of members and supporters. Thus Freemasonlodges could serve as rare ‘common meeting grounds’ for the spectrum of religious,ethnic and national communities. 46 According to historian Jacob Landau, “...by the endof the [19th] century, there was hardly a city or town of importance without at leastone lodge. Christians, Muslims and Jews mingled freely in these lodges (althoughcertain lodges were preponderantly of one faith...) which were among the fewmeeting-places for members of different faiths, as well as for foreigners and natives.” 47Beyond serving as a ‘neutral’ meeting ground for various ethnicities and religions,Masonic lodges also served as vehicles for internal solidarity and social cohesionacross various elite and middle-strata groups, including the traditional aristocracy, 48ruling administration, 49 rising merchant classes, 50 and lower-level employees andintellectuals. In Egypt, for example, Muslim Masons by-and-large hailed from similarrural notable backgrounds, had links with the military, were educated in the newschool system, and were mostly concerned with efficient rule rather than democracy. 51Masonry provided the Syrian Christians of Egypt not only with an opportunity topush for a constitutional parliamentary regime, but also a means of preserving their‘insider’ Ottoman status in the face of foreign domination. 52Jerusalem Quarterly 22/23 [ 43 ]

In this regard, it is important to note that to a large extent, Freemasonry in the coloniesand beyond was another face of ‘humanistic colonialism’, which aimed to spreadwestern ideas of progress, public health, secular education, justice, social laws,solidarity, freedom of opinion, press, and association, and economic and technologicaldevelopment. Among other things, colonial Freemasonry created a social and culturalelite and sought to assimilate the ‘native’ Freemasons to Francophone and Europeanvalues and culture. 53 Of course, this reception was a dynamic process, and we canassume that local Freemasons adapted Freemasonry to themselves as much asthemselves to Freemasonry.Since recruitment to Freemasonry lodges depended on the recommendation of twomembers, the organization often had the effect of re-affirming class 54 and, in someareas, ethnic or religious distinctions. 55 Furthermore, Masons were also active inother organizations, creating a linkage between Freemason lodges and other civilorganizations. In this way Freemasonry helped shape the civic public sphere evolvingin the Ottoman Empire.As the site of the ancient temple of Solomon, Palestine was considered the birthplaceof Freemasonry’s traditions and ideals. The first Freemason lodge in Palestine wasestablished in 1873 in Jerusalem by Robert Morris, a visiting American Freemason,Henry Mondsley, an English engineer, and Charles Netter, a French Jew. Morris hadset off for the Middle East to forge ties with local and potential Masons; when hearrived in Jerusalem he brought with him a charter for the Royal Solomon MotherLodge (No. 293) from the Grand Lodge of Canada. 56 According to local Masonichistory, most of the members of the lodge were American Christians who had settledin Jaffa. 57 Little is known of the lodge’s work, but in 1907 the lodge’s charter wasfinally formally revoked “on account of bad management,” and the lodge quietlydisappeared. 58 After the Jerusalem lodge, Le Port du Temple de Salomon was foundedin August 1891 in Jaffa by a group of Arab and Jewish locals, working in French; 59soon thereafter the Frenchman Gustave Milo, along with other European engineerswho had arrived to construct the Jaffa-Jerusalem railroad, joined the lodge. 60 The lodgefollowed the Misraim (Egyptian) rite, one of the 154 rites in Freemasonry. 61 Little isknown of the lodge’s first decade and a half, other than a report that the members ofLe Port du Temple de Salomon wanted to purchase land for a cooperative Freemasonvillage. The endeavour was apparently racked by disputes and never came to fruition. 62According to one Mason historian, 63 because the Misraim rite was not recognized bymost other obediences in Freemasonry, Le Port du Temple de Salomon lodge decidedto leave the Egyptian grand lodge and transfer its allegiance to the Grand Orient deFrance (GODF), a leading umbrella organization for Middle Eastern Freemasonrylodges. 64 In April 1904, the lodge applied to the GODF, and by March 1906, the lodgewas notified that it had completed all requirements for adoption by the GODF, andwas renamed L’Aurore (Barkai in Hebrew; Shafaq in Arabic). 65Based on an internal correspondence between the lodge and the GODF, it seemsthat the Jaffa Freemasons hoped to benefit from European patronage, acting as both[ 44 ] HISTORICAL FEATURES Freemasonry in Ottoman Palestine

catalyst and safeguard. The lodge Venerable (President) wrote to the GODF: “Thedifficulties and obstacles all being almost surmounted we are sure that under theauspices of the GODF we will be able to work with more freedom and for a longtime. We hope to catch up with ourselves over wasted time.” 66 Eager to quickly fall inline under the GODF, Barkai asked for a charter, instructions, ritual, constitution, andseveral books of “catechism” for the first three grades.From the outset, the lodge faced numerous obstacles in Palestine, mostly from thereligious leaderships, and it seems they were physically pursued upon opening the newlodge headquarters. Several months after its founding, Barkai wrote to the GODF:We will work assiduously to surmount all the difficulties thatwe encounter here. It is a country which will take a little timeto be reformed; let us not be unaware that it is Palestine theHoly Land. We are bothered by the clergy that drove outus from our premises, and each day, of new congregationsforming. The spirit of the natives is quickly captured by thespirit of the Church, by its men. It is the greatest cause of thedelay of our establishment. We had to deploy a great force tohasten the opening and to be in time to send the balance ofour account to you, for the appointment of our delegate to theconvention. 67Although its existence was marred by difficulties, including “abuses and irregularities”by government functionaries in the aftermath of the Young Turk revolution, 68 bythe beginning of World War I, the Barkai lodge was the largest, most successfulFreemason lodge in Palestine. 69A Study of the EffendiyyaIn 1906, the dozen founding members of the Barkai lodge were exclusively Jewishand Christian: Alexander Fiani, Dr. Yosef Rosenfeld, Jacques Litwinsky, Hanna ‘IssaSamoury, David Yodilovitz, Yehuda Levi, Musa Khoury, Maurice Schönberg, Moise(Moshe) Goldberg, Marc Stein, Michel Hourwitz, and Moise (Moshe) Yachia. 70 Withina few years, however, and due to the changed atmosphere in Palestine in the aftermathof the Young Turk Revolution, Barkai quickly became a centre for leading membersof the political, intellectual and economic elite of all three religions. Importantly,there was significant Muslim participation in the lodge in the post-1908 period. Of the157 known members and affiliates in the years 1906-1915, 70 were Muslim, 52 wereChristian, and 34 were Jews. 71This composition is particularly significant when we consider that much of the anti-Masonic literature denounces Masonry as the purview of the ‘minority’ Jewish,Christian and foreign European communities. The high participation of MuslimsJerusalem Quarterly 22/23 [ 45 ]

in Palestine contradicts this charge, even as we note that Christians and Jews wereover-represented in the lodge as compared to the population as a whole. In 1907,for example, Muslims comprised 75 percent of the population of the Jaffa region,Christians 19 percent, and Jews between 6 to 10 percent (depending on whether ornot non-Ottomans are considered). 72 By 1914, the Jewish proportion of the Jaffa-areapopulation had risen to almost 25 percent, while the Muslim majority had declined to56 percent and the number of Christians remained stable at 19 percent.Concurrently, Freemasonry became more appealing for Palestine’s leading Muslimfamilies. At the beginning of 1908, Barkai claimed only three Muslim members outof a total of 37; by the end of 1908, another 14 Muslims had joined the lodge alongwith six Jews and Christians, marking the first time that new Muslim enlistment inthe lodge exceeded that of the other two communities. In the six years following, newMuslim recruits annually exceeded Christian and Jewish recruits; in most years theMuslim initiates exceeded new Jewish and Christian members combined.At the same time, Barkai witnessed a dramatic decline in new Jewish membership.The peak for Jewish membership was in the first year of the lodge’s founding; after1907, Barkai never admitted more than four Jewish members in any given year. Someof this declining interest was offset by the establishment of two new lodges based inJerusalem, Temple of Solomon (established 1910), and Moriah (established 1913). InTemple of Solomon, Jews comprised 37 percent of the membership, while Muslimsand Christians were 41 percent and 19 percent respectively. More markedly, theMoriah lodge, which existed from 1913 to 1914, was 60 percent Jewish, 29 percentChristian, and only three percent Muslim. While some of this can be accountedfor by the dramatically different demographics of Jerusalem (where Jews were themajority), 73 we will see below that the founding of the Moriah lodge was a political actrooted in a rupture with the Temple of Solomon lodge that pitted Europeans (and theirprotégés) against Ottomans and Zionists against anti-Zionists.According to the membership logs, Christians and Jews were more likely to takeleading roles within the lodges, and they were more likely to stick around for Masonicpromotion. Of the officers of the three Palestinian Masonic lodges, 43 percent wereChristian, 36 percent Jewish, and only 16 percent Muslim. That is to say, of the threegroups, Muslims were much more likely to remain at the entry-level apprentice stagethan Christians or Jews. Of course, this is in part accounted for by their comparativelyrecent exposure to Masonry, unlike their Christian and Jewish counterparts, some ofwhom had been among the founding members of the lodge.Further demographic details provide a more vivid picture of just how deeply-rootedand localized Freemasonry was in Palestine. By birth, Freemasons in Palestine wereoverwhelmingly Ottoman (87-88 percent), and by-and-large Palestinian (60 percent).Of those born in Palestine, 82 percent were born in Jaffa or Jerusalem, with the restcoming from other towns such as Nablus, Gaza, Hebron, and Bethlehem. Only onePalestinian Freemason was born in a village. Thus, Palestine’s Freemasonry lodges[ 46 ] HISTORICAL FEATURES Freemasonry in Ottoman Palestine

were fairly indigenous lodges, much more so than anti-Masonic critics claimed.Only 11% of lodge members were European-born, most of them Jewish immigrantsto Palestine (in some cases Ottomanized citizens), and a few of them EuropeanChristians employed locally.That most of the lodge’s membership came from Palestinian families of the threereligions (60 percent) tells us the manner in which Freemasonry lodges served associal networks for the growing middle class and various elites. To a certain extent,this sector was largely pre-selected and self-perpetuating. In order to be accepted intoa lodge, a prospective candidate had to secure the sponsorship of two lodge membersin good standing. These recommendations often came from relatives (older brothers,cousins, uncles, and sometimes fathers), business partners or acquaintances, and alsogeographically-based extended family networks (for example, strong ties existedamong the several Christian families from Beirut in Jaffa, as well as among the NorthAfrican (Maghrebi) Jewish families). Family ties were the single most importantfactor in joining - fully 32 percent of all Freemasons in Palestine had family memberswho were also member Masons – but educational and professional ties also provedsignificant. Among the Freemasons in Barkai lodge were at least six recent graduatesof the American University in Beirut, in addition to many who had studied in variousprofessional schools in Constantinople. Furthermore, nine employees of the Jaffa andJerusalem branches of the Ottoman Imperial Bank were Freemasons.Socially, the members of Palestine’s Freemasonry lodges, like Masons elsewhere,were largely of the newly mobile middle classes of the effendiyya in the liberalprofessions, the commercial and bureaucratic elite, as well as from the traditionalnotable families. 74 Though coming from different religious communities, they sharedsimilar modes of modern education, exposure to foreign languages and Western ideas, arelatively high level of economic independence, and a growing socio-political weightin Palestine and the empire as a whole. As a new class, these men were to have animportant impact on the future. Rashid Khalidi has observed:By the late Ottoman period, a military officer, a postalofficial, a teacher in a state preparatory school, or a companyclerk was part of a large and growing new elite, not rootedfor the most part in the old notable class, and with a moderneducation involving a number of western elements, and accessto quite considerable power. This new social stratum was toplay a role of extraordinary importance in the politics of theMiddle East throughout the 20th century. The importance ofthe Ottoman context, and specifically of the universal impactof the changes which had been taking place throughout theempire can be seen here, for the pattern in the Arab provincesfollowed that in Rumelia and Anatolia, where Turkishspeakingmembers of these or newly-trained professionalgroups totally transformed Ottoman and later TurkishJerusalem Quarterly 22/23 [ 47 ]

politics, through the Committee of Union and Progress andlater via the Kemalist revolution. 75In Palestine, these Masons came from importantfamilies of this new social stratum as well asfrom more traditional communal and notablefamilies. Among the Muslims, there were quite afew members of the traditional notable families,including: ‘Arafat, 76 Abu Ghazaleh, 77 AbuKhadra, 78 al-Bitar, 79 al-Dajani, 80 al-Khalidi, 81al-Nashashibi 82 and Nusseibi. The Christianfamilies were largely members of the growingmiddle-classes, employed in commerce andthe liberal professions: Burdqush, 83 al-‘Issa, 84Khoury, Mantura, 85 Sleim, 86 Soulban, 87 andTamari. 88Among the Jewish members, the Ashkenazimwere largely colonists who arrived in the1880s and ‘90s and lived in the early Jewishagricultural settlements, adopting Ottomancitizenship upon arrival. The Sephardi andMaghrebi Jews, on the other hand, wereyounger members of economically andcommunally established families: Amzalek, 89Elyashar, 90 Mani, 91 Moyal, 92 Panijel, 93 Taranto,and Valero. 94Two-page initiation certificate of Sa’idNashashibi. Source: GODF Archive, ParisThus there was a certain degree of what RanHalevi has called the “democratic sociability”of the Freemasonry movement. 95 The radicalinnovation of a single organization that wouldvoluntarily encompass both Khalidis andNashashibis as well as Burdqushes, Manis, andother young men from ‘regular‘ families cannotbe overlooked. Most Palestinian Freemasonsin this period joined in their mid-20s to mid-30s (the average age was 31.8 years old at timeof pledging), although they were sometimesyounger (especially those with family legacies)and sometimes older. While all of the menhad to be fairly independent financially andprofessionally in order to afford membershipdues and other lodge expenses, 96 the lodges didnot attract the older leaders of each community.[ 48 ] HISTORICAL FEATURES Freemasonry in Ottoman Palestine

Members were the same men who supported the Committee for Union and Progress,and later, the various decentralization and nationalist parties.The overall professional composition of Palestine’s Freemasons leaned heavilytowards commerce and banking/accounting, education, medicine, law, government,and miscellaneous white-collar professions (such as clerkships). Christians wereover-represented in these professions due to their more European-style education andknowledge of foreign languages, as well as the fact that they were generally favouredby consulates and foreign companies as potential employees. 97 Muslim Freemasons,in contrast, were dominant in government bureaucracy, legal and judicial occupations,and military/police work. Twelve members of the local police and military personnelwere Freemasons in Palestine, a phenomenon that repeated itself elsewhere. 98In fact, Freemasons of all three religions penetrated the most central areas ofPalestinian society and economy. Most notably, one of Palestine’s representatives inthe Ottoman parliament, Ragheb al-Nashashibi of Jerusalem (who later became mayorof Jerusalem), was a Freemason. 99 Because of this demographic and professionalprofile, access to these networks played an important role in Masonic appeal andcachet. 100Inter-Masonic commercial relationships were frequent, and it was not uncommonfor businessmen to request letters of introduction with a Masonic stamp of approval.Such a letter was obtained by Yosef Eliyahu Chelouche, himself not a Mason, fromthen-president of Barkai lodge Iskandar Fiuni (Alexander Fiani) in preparation fora business meeting with a Greek in Egypt. 101 Furthermore, a significant number (22percent) of Freemasons in Palestine belonged to other Freemason lodges, whetherlocally or abroad, indicating the extent to which Freemasonry itself served as anoverlapping affiliation network. Beyond the direct networking of Freemasonry lodges,there was a great deal of indirect networking and cross-fertilization of other groupsand organizations. As was the case empire-wide, one of the most significant groups atthe time was the local branch network of the CUP.Public Participation and PhilanthropyBecause of its status as a secret society as well as the seeming loss of the Barkai lodgearchives, 102 it is difficult to retrace the full scope of the lodge’s activities. Furthermore,we know (thanks to a shocking case of ‘Masonic treason’ within the Jerusalem lodges)that the Freemasons had good reason to be silent about their activities, in order toprotect themselves from both religious and government intervention. 103 Nevertheless,we are aware that the Palestine lodges’ regular activities focused on the followingareas: philanthropy, 104 mutual aid, 105 and lay education. In this they continued the workof other Masonic lodges, which regularly had committees to deal with justice, welfare,property, general subjects, and propaganda. 106Jerusalem Quarterly 22/23 [ 49 ]

Socially, Masonic lodges annually held summer and winter solstice banquets, withelaborate programs and ceremonies; 107 as far as I can tell this was the only Freemasonactivity to which entire families were invited and were thus semi-open to the public.The scathing critique of the Lebanese priest Father Cheikho centred on his claim thatFreemason lodges in Lebanon had unacceptable innovations that challenged the rightsand roles of the church, such as performing their own marriage ceremonies along‘civil’ lines; 108 I have found no evidence of this in Palestine, however, and so it ispossibly fabricated or exaggerated.Beyond that, we can only wonder at what sort of Masonic activity was implied whenmembers spoke of their missionary-like activities of “contributing to the diffusion ofMasonic ideas in this Ottoman Empire which is our fatherland, which greatly needsto take as a starting point our motto to ensure the well-being of its children.” 109 In thiscontext, Barkai requested that it be allowed to affiliate itself with the Grand OrientOttoman, in order to coordinate Masonic activities empire-wide:Considering that the current state of our country is a largesphere of activity for the Masonic ideas, that the presence ofa GOT in Constantinople as a regular Masonic power wouldcontribute much to the improvement of all the classes of thecountry, the Barkai lodge asks you to recognize this newMasonic power. 110Because of its close ties with leading members of the new government and rulingparty, the GOO was an important friend to have, a fact not lost on Palestine’s Masonsfacing - for example - attack by one of Palestine’s newly elected parliamentarians,apparently an avowed enemy of Freemasonry.By the same occasion we must let you know that the deputyof Jaffa, 111 a backward, fanatical man imbued with retrogradeideas, conducts a campaign against our FreemasonsFawzi and Yahia, police chief and policeman of our city,by denouncing them to the authorities of the capital asreactionaries and guilty of misappropriation, which isabsolutely contrary to the truth. His goal is to attack theFreemasons employed with the government. We have informedthe GOT of the remainder of these intrigues, as its presidentis the current Minister of the Interior. But fearing that thisintriguing and fanatical deputy does succeed thanks to hisinfluence in directing the authorities, superiors of the capital,against our wrongfully disparaged Freemasons, we ask youto support our intervention with the GOT and to support ourFreemasons so that calumnies of the model of this infamousdeputy remain without effect.[ 50 ] HISTORICAL FEATURES Freemasonry in Ottoman Palestine

Eventually in 1910 the GODF did establish “fraternal relations” with the GOO andauthorized its members to fraternize with the Ottoman organization. 112 As a result, inJune of that year, several members of Barkai decided to revive the defunct Templeof Solomon lodge in Jerusalem. They wrote to the GODF, and were told they shouldopen it under the auspices of the GOO, since it was the recognized grand lodge of theregion. The GODF also instructed them to invoke the Grand Architect of the Universeand preserve the French slogans “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” 113Eventually, at least 22 members of Barkai also became members of the new lodge,and there were close relations between the two lodges. Within a few years, however,the Temple of Solomon was to undergo an internal split that would divide PalestinianFreemasonry and foreshadow events to come.Against Foreigners and ZionistsBy March 1913, a faction of the Temple of Solomon lodge broke off and formed itsown provisional lodge, demanding “symbolic and constitutional acceptance” by theGODF. 114 The new Moriah lodge immediately requested catechism books, proposeda lodge seal, began searching for a garden as lodge headquarters, and set strictguidelines for admission to the lodge: only those with “irreproachable reputations”and decent French need apply. According to its new president, the task of the Masonsof Moriah would be to defend the ideas of freedom and justice, particularly inJerusalem where clericalism and fanaticism were strongly against Masonic work. 115Avraham Abushadid, newly-elected Speaker of the lodge, urged his fellow Masons toensure that “mutual tolerance, respect of others and yourself, and absolute freedom ofconscience are not words in vain.” 116 According to Abushadid, in the East “the word‘freedom’ is replaced by ‘servility’ and ‘fanaticism,’ while ‘equality’ and ‘fraternity’are vocabulary replaced by the synonyms of ‘superstition’ and ‘hypocrisy’.” Throughtheir Masonic mission, Abushadid envisioneda renaissance of the Ottoman people: …this new star whichcomes from our East, continues to shine with an increasinglysharp glare, and our route is clear...the day will come whenits luminous clarity will disperse all darkness, and the base ofthis shaking humanity will collapse and one will see then, allthe nations, all the races, all the religions will be erased anddisappear, and to make place for a rising generation, youngpeople, free, fraternizing and sacrificing a whole gloriouspast, for a new era of peace, truth and justice.Despite this claim to the erasure of lines between peoples, the split within the TOShad been a cultural and political division between two separate factions - one Arabicspeaking, largely Muslim and Christian, and the other French-speaking, largelyJewish and foreign. Of the eight known Temple of Solomon members who defectedJerusalem Quarterly 22/23 [ 51 ]

to form Moriah, five of them were Jewish, one Christian, and two were foreigners(Frenchmen). 117 The ‘natives’ of TOS accused the ‘foreigners’ of being, among otherthings, Zionists, while they were accused in turn of being “xenophobes.” 118 If beforethe split TOS had been 40 percent Muslim, 33 percent Jewish, and 18.5 percentChristian, afterwards both TOS and Moriah were far more homogenous lodges.Picture of Cesar ‘Araktinji, long-time Barkai lodgepresident, from a lodge pamphlet.Source: M. CamposIn the face of this schism among Freemasonsin Jerusalem, the Jaffa-based Barkai lodgeappealed to the GODF to deny Moriah’srequest for recognition. 119 According toBarkai president ‘Araktinji, the presenceof two competing Freemasonry lodges inJerusalem would cause discord.His request was politely denied by theGODF, which had long wanted a lodge inJerusalem. “…Tell our Freemason brothersof the lodge of the Temple of Solomonthat they should not look at [Moriah] asa rival lodge, but rather a new hearth alsoworking to realize our ideals of justiceand brotherhood.” 120 Not to be dissuaded,‘Araktinji again appealed to the GODF,stating that the founders of Moriah hadacted improperly in founding a lodge on their own. He also asserted that languageproblems were a catalyst in the defection, since many of the Temple of Solomonmembers did not know French, and several of the defectors apparently did not knowArabic. 121 Furthermore, most of the TOS members had been initiated under the GODForder through Barkai, and as a result, the GODF owed them special consideration.Finally, according to ‘Araktinji, the main instigator of the defections, Henri Frigere,had promoted personal animosity among Jerusalem’s Freemasons, and he should betransferred elsewhere in the region in order to mend the growing rifts in PalestinianFreemasonry. 122In their defence, the founders of the Moriah lodge wrote again to the GODF, this timeindicting not only the members of TOS from whom they split, but also the Jaffa-basedlodge Barkai and all “indigenous” Freemasons. According to Moriah,The indigenous Turkish and Arab element is still unableto understand and appreciate the superior principles ofMasonry, and in consequence, of practicing them. For themajority, Freemasonry is probably only an instrument ofprotection and occult recommendation [?], and for others aninstrument of local and political influence. The work of thelodges consists primarily of [illegible] and recommendations,[ 52 ] HISTORICAL FEATURES Freemasonry in Ottoman Palestine

not always unfortunately, for just causes and in favour ofinnocent Freemasons. The rest does not exist and cannot existbecause the indigenous know only despotism, from which theysuffer for long centuries, and their instruction is very littledeveloped, and is not prepared to work with a disinterestedaim for humanity and justice. Many events that you haveknowledge of will assure you of this point of view, whichexplains the particular way the Masons in Jerusalem haveaccommodated the news of the creation of our lodge and theirfight against what they ingeniously call competition! 123This situation, according to Moriah, had caused a deadlock in lodge work, since the“indigenous” lodge members vetoed suggestions of the second faction. Naturally,this letter also carries a racist and patronizing thread woven into Masonry: “natives”cannot be expected to truly understand Masonic principles as “Europeans” do. Whileproposing universalism on the one hand, Freemasonry lodges in practice expoundeda very Eurocentric - and in the case of the GODF, a Francophile - view of the modernliberal man. The irony here, of course, is that only Ottomans who were alreadypredisposed to European language, ideology, or manners sought out membership inEuropean lodges. Members of a certain class and cultural milieu sought fraternity andlegitimacy in this very European institution, precisely because of all it represented:cosmopolitanism, liberalism, modernity, and acculturation to a changed global setting.That orientation towards Europe was fraught with tension. The core indigenousTOS lodge members were reportedly suspicious of the two Frenchmen (Frigere andDrouillard) and their influence over the other defectors. Frigere reported that the TOSleadership “persuaded the other Freemasons that our lodge [Moriah] was createdwith the aim of facilitating the descent of the French into Palestine...and other stupidstories, which can appear ridiculous by far, but which were not, considering theparticular situation of Turkey, without a rather pressing danger.” 124Of course, during this period the Ottoman Empire had recently fought and lost severalwars, one against Italy over its annexation of an Ottoman province (Libya), and theother against former Ottoman provinces of Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegroover the remaining Ottoman regions of the Balkans. Furthermore, long-standinglocal resentments against the privileges accorded foreigners in the Empire under theCapitulations, as well as the arrogance of European consuls who repeatedly insistedon running warships to intimidate and control the local population also weighedinto the equation. As a result, anti-European sentiment and suspicions were runningparticularly high.Of course, general Ottoman resentment against an increasingly encroaching Europeoverlapped with the changing contours of Palestine due to the rise of the Zionistmovement. In this period, the Palestinian urban and rural populations were acutelyaware of the growing presence of Jewish immigrants in the country; PalestinianJerusalem Quarterly 22/23 [ 53 ]

opposition to these developments was manifest in the Arabic press, in telegrammedpetitions to the central government in Istanbul, and in periodic rural clashes amongpeasants and Jewish colonists. 125 As a result, by the next year the depiction of the splithad changed slightly: Barkai president ‘Araktinji wrote to the GODF complaining thatthe Moriah lodge had emerged after a failed bid for leadership over the TOS lodge,and that moreover, it harboured Zionists, a fact which had hardened the position of itsexternal opponents and generated its own internal critics.The high officials of the government and the few notablesof Jerusalem have remained loyal to their Ottoman lodge ofwhich they are active members and did not want to recognizethe brothers of the Moriah lodge. We have gone twice toJerusalem to appease the hatred and reconcile the brothermembers of both lodges and we have succeeded only slightly,because Frigere as president did not know well how tobehave in the choice of his initiates, the majority of whom areZionists, an Israelite society having particularistic ambitionsin Palestine.Nobody can ignore the fact that 90 percent of the populationof Turkey are fanatical ignoramuses, especially in Palestine;the enlightened are exceedingly rare. It is because of thedeclarations of Dr. Herzl and his friends the founders ofZionism, through several conferences in Europe on Palestinefor the Zionists, which has engendered an implacable hatredagainst them on the part of the inhabitants of this country.Our brothers in Jerusalem are the high functionaries of thegovernment, they are the notables (though well-educated,non-fanatics) who fear being carried in derision in the eyesof their compatriots and prefer to move away from theirFreemason brothers, the Zionists; the proof is that severalof them during the slumber of the Turkish lodge, insteadof initiating themselves and affiliating themselves with theMoriah lodge, came to Jaffa and presented themselves atthe Barkai lodge, such as for example: Nashashibi RaghebBey, deputy of Jerusalem, Djelal Bey, General Prosecutorof Jerusalem and at present President of the CommercialTribunal, Khaldi Djamil, teacher, Tawfik Mohamed,commander of the gendarmerie in Jerusalem, Osman CherifBey, General Prosecutor in Jerusalem, Zia Joseph, policechief in Jerusalem, Audi Joseph, large proprietor in Ramallahnext to Jerusalem, Assaf Bey, president of the Court of FirstInstance in Jerusalem, etc.[ 54 ] HISTORICAL FEATURES Freemasonry in Ottoman Palestine

Moreover, several active members of the Moriah lodge whoare in the minority of the lodge realized this state of affairsand [in light of] the part taken by the Zionist majority, askedus many times to help them to form a new lodge under theauspices of the Grand Lodge of France of the Scottish rite;we ask them to have patience while waiting to reform theirlodge Moriah. 126According to ‘Araktinji, the members of the TOS would have liked to have joineda GODF-sponsored lodge in Jerusalem had Moriah not undercut them. He againrecommended that the GODF withhold its support for Moriah and arrange for theprofessional transfer of Frigere, which would eventually open the way for reform andreconciliation. In ‘Araktinji’s optimistic view, “the balance at the time of the electionswill be right and our brother Zionists will be more useful in secrecy and more content,though the majority of the lodge would be notable natives and senior officials of thegovernment, at least the name of the lodge ceases being a Zionist lodge and will berespected more in the eyes of the population of Jerusalem.” 127As it was, the Moriah lodge faced a great deal of persecution by the local ‘clerics’,especially the French among them.In Jerusalem initially [there was] a Canadian lodge of theScottish whose ritual was adapted perfectly to the veryreligious mentality then of the population. Then it was theturn of the Grand Orient of Turkey; this one marked alreadya considerable progress in ideas. The lodge, either because itreached only one certain class of the population or for otherreasons, did not excite the fear of the religious communities.But it was not the same for us. As soon as the communities,especially the Assumptionists, learned that a lodge of theGODF had been formed in the Holy City, a fury of fear,we believe, seized them and, although we were careful toavoid causing anything, they adopted a combative attitudeimmediately. 128The Moriah lodge blamed the French consul and vice consul in Jerusalem, alongwith a French priest, for striking such an anti-Masonic tone, and went so far to askthat they be replaced. In repeated requests to the GODF to intervene with the Quaid’Orsay, Moriah pointed out that not only did the local French representation act in away that would not be tolerated in France, they were also negligent in their duties andwere neglecting French interests. As they sought fit to point out to the GODF, Frenchcommerce and trade in Palestine had declined over ten years from first place to fifthplace. 129Moriah was the only Palestinian lodge that left a record of its activities and projects,Jerusalem Quarterly 22/23 [ 55 ]

and as these were merely propositions made to the GODF we have little way ofknowing if they were carried out. Among the projects Moriah proposed were theopening of a “scientific, sociological and philanthropic library” for the use oflodge members; opening a dispensary under the aegis of the French Consulate inJerusalem to provide free medical care to newly-enfranchised Moroccans underFrench protection; and encouraging establishment of a French society to competefor concessions in providing electricity and electric tramways for Jerusalem. 130Of all its proposed projects, the most idealistic was the establishment of a secular(laïque) school in Jerusalem. At the time, virtually all of the schools in Palestinewere private and confessional, including the state school system that educated onlyMuslim students at the lower levels. 131 In an effort to gain popular support for theidea, the Moriah lodge published an article in a local newspaper and led a delegationto meet with the French consul in the city to request the establishment of a Frenchsecular secondary school. The consul said he would recommend to the ministrythat a congregational high school be established instead, a proposition that was notwelcomed, according to Moriah, from either the French or Masonic point of view.“From the French point of view,” Moriah complained, “the solution of the Consul isnot good because all the Greek, Arab, and Jewish elements that are the most numerouswill never come to a religious school, and it is precisely at this element which [theproject] is aimed. From the Masonic point of view, we would lose an excellentoccasion to attract with our ideas the rising generation, which would carry a seriousblow to religious omnipotence in our city.” 132The Moriah lodge presented a petition signed by 316 heads of household in supportof the establishment of a French lay school, representing 622 children. 133 By thenext year, however, there had been no progress on the matter of the school, althoughthere were similar Freemason-sponsored ideas floating around both Beirut andAlexandria. 134 A report in the Arabic press of French plans to establish a scientificschool of higher education in Palestine along the lines of the American Universityin Beirut came to naught, as did Moriah’s suggestion that they establish a school for“rational thought.” 135By 1914, the members of the Moriah lodge had modified their original Francophoneelitism and requested permission to establish an Arabic-speaking lodge; whileacknowledging that they wanted to keep the “homogeneity and brotherhood” of theirFrench-speaking lodge, they recognized that doing so kept out initiates who did notknow French well enough to join. 136 The GODF’s response was clear: while they didnot object to occasional meetings in Arabic, as necessary, they warned their brothersto “advise you of the greatest prudence with regard to the initiation of the indigenouslaymen.” 137With the war, however, all three Palestinian Masonic lodges ceased activity, so Moriahwas unable to carry out its plans for an Arabic branch. Barkai also closed its doors andits president, along with other members, was exiled to Anatolia. In 1919 ‘Araktinjireturned from exile to find the lodge headquarters in shambles. From 1920 to 1924[ 56 ] HISTORICAL FEATURES Freemasonry in Ottoman Palestine

the lodge was shut down due to Jewish-Arab clashes in the aftermath of the BritishBalfour Declaration and subsequent Mandate over Palestine, which was predicatedon recognizing a “Jewish national home” in Palestine at the expense of its Arabinhabitants. With the 1929 clashes in Palestine, most of the remaining Arab membersof the lodge left to join all-Arab lodges, and by the 1930s mixed Jewish-ArabFreemasonry lodges in Palestine were a thing entirely of the past, another pillar fallento the rising nationalist conflict. 138Whereas heterogeneity in the Ottomanist context enabled mixed Freemasonry lodgesto flourish as long as they assumed a shared outlook, the seeds of sectarian andnational discord nevertheless infiltrated the supposedly sacred Masonic order. Masoniclodges and individual Masons did not live separate from Ottoman Palestinian society,but rather were deeply integrated into it, and as such were sensitive to the balancebetween Ottomanism and particularism, Ottoman patriotism and European influence,and growing inter-communal rivalry.Michelle Campos is the author of A ‘Shared Homeland’ and its Boundaries: Empire,Citizenship, and the Origins of Sectarianism in Late Ottoman Palestine, 1908 - 13.(Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University 2003). She is an assistant professor in theDepartment of Near Eastern Studies at Cornell University.Endnotes1David Tidhar, Barkai: Album ha-yovel [Barkai: Albumof Its 50th Anniversary].2Ibid.3David Tidhar, Sefer Kis: Lishkat Barkai [Pocketbook:The Barkai Lodge] (Tel Aviv: Ruhold, 1945).4David Yodilovitz, Skira al ha-bniah ha-hofshit [ASurvey of Freemasonry].5Joseph Bradley has stated that rather than class,“education, urbanization, and sensibility” were key.Joseph Bradley, “Subjects into Citizens: Societies, CivilSociety, and Autocracy in Tsarist Russia,” AmericanHistorical Review, 107, 4 (2002): 1101. This constructionis echoed in the Middle Eastern context in KeithWatenpaugh, “Bourgeois Modernity, Historical Memoryand Imperialism: The Emergence of an Urban MiddleClass in the Late Ottoman and Inter-War Middle East,Aleppo, 1908-1939” (Ph.D. Dissertation: UCLA, 1999).According to Watenpaugh, the Aleppine chroniclerKamil al-Ghazzi expanded the notion of ‘ayan from thetraditional notables to include the urban upper-middleclass, indicating the importance of education, urbanism,and weltanschauung. Along these lines, Watenpaugheschews a purely economic definition and instead definesthe middle class as “an intellectual and social constructlinked to a specific set of historical circumstances,” p. 9.6Georges Odo, “Les réseaux coloniaux ou la ,” L’Histoire (Special: Les Francs- Maçons), 256(2001).7Jacob Landau dates the first Freemason lodges inthe Middle East to the mid-18th century (in Aleppo,Izmir, and Corfu in 1738, Alexandretta in the 1740s,and Armenian parts of Eastern Turkey in 1762 andConstantinople in 1768/9). However, these were small,uncentralized, and short-lived, and little is knownabout them other than their existence. Jacob Landau,“Farmasuniyya,” The Encyclopedia of Islam: NewEdition (Supplement), (1982).8M. Şükrü Hanioğlu, “Notes on the Young Turks andthe Freemasons, 1875-1908,” Middle Eastern Studies25, (1989): 2. See also Paul Dumont, “La Turquie dansles Archives du Grand Orient de France: Les LogesMaçonniques d’Obédience Française a Istanbul duMilieu du XIXe siècle a la veille de la Première GuerreMondiale,” in Jean Louis Bacqué- Grammont and PaulDumont, eds., Économie et Sociétés dans l’EmpireOttoman (Paris: Presses du CNRS, 1983). See RobertMorris, Freemasonry in the Holy Land. Or Handmarks ofHiram’s Builders (Chicago: Knight and Leonard, 1876)for a travelogue account of Middle Eastern Masonryin the second half of the 19th century. In Izmir, Morrisfound eight lodges, some of which were comprised ofspecific ethnic majority groups. Beirut was home to threelodges, but the largest among them, Palestine (GrandLodge of Scotland) had 75 members from as far south asGaza, as far north as Aleppo, and as far east as Baghdad.For contemporary accounts, Jurji Zeidan publishedTarikh al-Masuniyya al-‘am in Cairo in 1889, and from1886-1910, Shahin Macarious published a MasonicJerusalem Quarterly 22/23 [ 57 ]

magazine in Egypt, al-Lata’if.9The Ottoman sultan Abdülhamid II often clampeddown on Masonic activities, viewing them as unwelcomeEuropean incursions into Ottoman society as well aschallenges to his sovereignty. Conservatives in the lateOttoman period considered Freemasonry a danger tothe Ottoman regime as well as a danger to Islam. JacobLandau, “Muslim Opposition to Freemasonry,” Die Weltdes Islams, 36, 2 (1996).10Freemasonry has been denounced based on itssupposed association with Jews, missionaries,communists, atheists, revolutionaries, Zionists, andSatanism. The Catholic Church was a long-time critic ofthe Freemasonry movement based on its supposed antireligiousand ritualistic elements - in 1738 the Churchbanned Freemasonry in a papal bull issued by PopeClement XII. “Freemasons,” Encyclopedia Judaica. Inthe Middle East, local clerical anti-Masonic activitiesstarted around the time of Robert Morris’ 1876 trip to theHoly Land; he reported that local priests issued a tractagainst Masonry in Arabic. See Morris, Freemasonryin the Holy Land, 310. In 1906 there were a series ofpersecutions against Freemasons in Mount Lebanon,and a few years later, Beirut-based Father Louis Cheikopublished a series of anti-Masonic pamphlets in Arabiccalling for a “jihad” against organized Freemasonry.See Archives of the Grand Orient de France (hereafterGODF), Box 685, and al-Ab Louis Cheikho al-Yasu’i,Al-Sirr al-Masun fi Shi’at al-Farmasun (Beirut: CatholicPublishing House, 1910). For a local example of“virulent” Muslim opposition to Muslims participating inFreemasonry lodges, see Yves Hivert-Messeca, “France,Laïcité et Maçonnerie dans l’Empire Ottoman: La Loge à l’Orient de Janina (Epire),” Chroniquesd’Histoire Maçonnique, 45 (1992): 125-6.11Critics of the 1908 Young Turk revolution blamedFreemasons, Jews, and other ‘enemies’ for eventuallyoverthrowing the Ottoman sultan; the British governmentalso saw a CUP-Freemason-Jewish-Zionist plot againstthem. For further reading on these conspiracy theoriessee Jacob Landau, “The Young Turks and Zionism:Some Comments,” in his book Jews, Arabs, Turks(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1993); Elie Kedourie,“Young Turks, Freemasons, and Jews,” Middle EasternStudies, 7/1 (1971); and Mim Kemal Öke, “YoungTurks, Freemasons, Jews, and the Question of Zionismin the Ottoman Empire, 1908-13,” Studies in Zionism, 7/2(1986). Specific examples of local conspiracy theoriesfrom the 1908-14 press can be found surrounding thespring 1909 counter-coup against the Young Turks whichtook on the “Freemasons, the defiers of religion andthe discarders of the heart of the people behind them.”See “The disturbances in Turkey and the victory ofthe constitution,” in ha-‘Olam, v. 3, no. 14 (27 April,1909) and “The Jews and the Committee for Union andProgress,” in ha-Herut, v. 1, no. 20 (14 July, 1909).12In the aftermath of the French Revolution, FrenchFreemasonry took on a strong anti-clericalist tone, andby 1877 had abolished the required belief in God. Frenchobediences refer instead to the “Grand Architect of theUniverse.” L’Histoire (Special: Les Francs-Maçons) 256,(2001): 24.13Freemasonry membership is highly hierarchicalinitiatesare ‘apprentice’, the second degree is‘companion’, and the third degree is ‘master’. Each levelinvolves memorization of a catechism and performanceof elaborate symbolic rituals.14While the British model of Freemasonry was moreconservative in bent and generally was supportive of thereligious and political status quo, the French traditionof Freemasonry (the one which became more prominentthroughout the Middle East, including Palestine)has emphasized liberal, philosophical positions andencouraged political engagement and critique, includingsupport for revolution. Karim Wissa, “Freemasonry inEgypt from Bonaparte to Zaghloul,” Turcica, 24, (1992).15The Grand Orient de France, Grand Lodge de France,Grand Orient d’Italie, Grande Oriente Español, GrandLodge of Scotland, and later Grand Orient de Turquie/Grand Orient Ottoman all vied for hegemony in theOttoman Masonic world.16First Article of the Constitution of the Grand Orient deFrance, (http://www.godf.org/english/index_k.htm).17Paul Dumont, “La Franc-Maçonnerie Ottomaneet les à l’Époque des Tanzimat,”REMMM, 52/53, 2/3 (1989). See also Thierry Zarcone,Mystiques, Philosophes et Francs-Maçons en Islam: RizaTevfik, Penseur Ottoman (1868-1949), du Soufisme a laConfrérie (Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient JeanMaisonneuve, 1993).18According to Thierry Zarcone, “The ideas developedby Namık Kemal and the other Ottoman reformers werenot all borrowed from Freemasonry. Actually Ottomanthinkers who became Masons had already developedtheir own system of thought and in most cases,particularly for Namık Kemal, they only ‘recognized’their ideas in the Masonic ideology.” Zarcone,Freemasonry and Related Trends in Muslim ReformistThought in the Turko-Persian Area (unpublishedconference paper).19According to Hanioğlu, the constitutional reformerssupported the deposed sultan Murad V, earning themthe unending hostility and police supervision of SultanAbdülhamid II. Hanioğlu, “Notes on the Young Turksand the Freemasons.”20See Juan Cole, Colonialism and Revolution in theMiddle East (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1993) and also Wissa, “Freemasonry in Egypt fromBonaparte to Zaghloul”, Éric Anduze, “La Franc-Maçonnerie Égyptienne (1882-1908),” Chroniquesd’Histoire Maçonnique, 50 (1999), and A. AlbertKudsi-Zadeh, “Afghani and Freemasonry in Egypt,”Journal of the American Oriental Society, 92, (1972) fora discussion of 19th century Egyptian Freemasonry’spolitical involvement.21See Kudsi-Zadeh, “Afghani and Freemasonry inEgypt”. Although first a member of Italian and BritishMasonic lodges, al-Afghani later formed a ‘nationallodge’ (mahfal watani).22Quoted by Muhammad Pasha al-Makhzumi, author ofUtterances of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani al- Husayni, citedin Ra’if Khuri, Modern Arab Thought: Channels of theFrench Revolution to the Arab East (Princeton: KingstonPress, 1983) 30.[ 58 ] HISTORICAL FEATURES Freemasonry in Ottoman Palestine

23Zarcone, “Freemasonry and Related Trends.”24Hanioğlu, “Notes on the Young Turks and theFreemasons”. Hanioğlu argues that while Freemasonryin the Ottoman Empire had its own political arms activein the opposition until 1902, and while it supportedthe Young Turk Revolution as it had supported theArmenian, Bulgarian and Albanian committees, in thepost-1908 period the CUP and organized Freemasonryfollowed divergent paths. According to Zarcone, the CUPitself should be considered a “para-Masonic” institution,as it continued the tradition of secrecy, an oath of loyalty,and hierarchy. See Zarcone, “Freemasonry and RelatedTrends.”25Is. Jessua, Grand Orient (Gr : Loge) de Turquie :Exposé Historique Sommaire de la Maçonnerie enTurquie (Constantinople: Francaise L. Mourkides, 1922).26Paul Dumont, “La Franc-Maçonnerie d’ObédienceFrançaise à Salonique au Début du XXe Siècle,” Turcica,16 (1984): 73.27Öke, “Young Turks, Freemasons, Jews, and theQuestion of Zionism.” In 1908, for example, the lodgeVeritas appealed for protection to the GODF, statingthat their lodge archives were under attack from thegovernment, and that they feared compromising some oftheir members. The lodge Macedonia Risorta, protectedby the Italian consul, provided immunity from policescrutiny for its many Young Turk activists.28Cited in Anduze, “La Franc-Maçonnerie Égyptienne”,79.29Grand Orient de France. Suprême Conseil pourla France et les Possessions Françaises, “CompteRendu aux Ateliers de la Fédération des Travaux deL’Assemblée Générale du GODF du 21 au 26 Septembre1908,” Compte Rendu des Travaux du Grand Orient deFrance, 64 (1908).30Landau, “Muslim Opposition to Freemasonry”, 190.31Kedourie, “Young Turks, Freemasons, and Jews.”32Dumont, “La Franc-Maçonnerie d’ObédienceFrançaise à Salonique,” 76.33Letter from Suleiman (Shlomo) Yellin (Beirut), nodate. Central Zionist Archives (hereafter CZA), A412/13.34See the text of the Obligation for the Initiation to theFirst Degree (Apprentice).35Najdat Safwat, Freemasonry in the Arab World(London: Arab Research Centre, 1980) 16. Jessua, GrandOrient (Gr: Loge) de Turquie also claims that a largenumber of participants sought to reap benefits from theYoung Turks through the lodges. “Each one wantedto become a Mason like the leaders of the new order.Those who entered a lodge by conviction were not verynumerous.”36In 1910, a debate erupted between the Grand Lodgeof Egypt and the Grand Orient Ottoman, both of theScottish rite, concerning rights of jurisdiction overScottish Freemasonry in Egypt (formally still anOttoman vilayet though in essence a British colony).See Joseph Sakakini, Rapport Concernant L’Irregularitéde la Gr* L* d’Egypte (n.p.: n.p., 1910) and JosephSakakini, Incident avec la Grande Loge d’Egypte:Rapport du Fr* Joseph Sakakini (Constantinople: n.p.,1910). The main Grand Lodge of Scotland refused torecognize the legitimacy of the Grand Orient Ottomanover its members in the empire. See Dumont, “La Franc-Maçonnerie d’Obédience Française à Salonique”, 76.37These lodges included Vatan/La Patrie, MouhibbaniHourriyet/Les Amis de la Liberte, Vefa/Perserverance,Resna, Shefak/Aurore, Bisanzio Risorta, Les Vrais Amisde l’Union et Progrès, and La Fraternite Ottomane.Jessua, Grand Orient (Gr: Loge) de Turquie.38According to one source’s claim, Talat had in mindthe establishment of an underground network of IslamicFreemasons who would provide a channel for solidarityamong Muslims in the anti-imperialist struggle. See Öke,“Young Turks, Freemasons, Jews, and the Question ofZionism”, 210.39Zarcone, Freemasonry and Related Trends, 17-18.Zarcone sees this as an example of Muslim creativitywithin Freemasonry as opposed to a simple absorption ofEuropean ideals and standards.40Jessua, Grand Orient (Gr: Loge) de Turquie, 10.41For example GOO lodges existed in Salonika (MidhatPasha), Jerusalem (Temple of Solomon), and Egypt(Nour al-Mouhabba, al-Nassra, al-Talah, and Chams al-Mushreka).42Isaac Rabeno de Botton, Venerable (President) of theVeritas lodge, to the GODF, 10 October, 1910; cited inDumont, “La Franc-Maçonnerie d’Obédience Françaiseà Salonique”, 77.43Dumont, “La Franc-Maçonnerie d’ObédienceFrançaise à Salonique”, 77.44For an extensive discussion of the Grand OrientOttoman, see Éric Anduze, “La Franc-MaçonnerieColoniale au Maghreb et au Moyen Orient (1876-1924):Un Partenaire Colonial et un Facteur d’ÉducationPolitique dans la Genèse des Mouvements Nationalisteset Révolutionnaires.» Universités des Sciences Humanesde Strasbourg, 1996.45There was some overlap of Muslim children whowere sent to local Jewish schools (particularly those ofthe Alliance Israélite Universelle as well as the Evelinade Rothschild school for girls. However, by and large,children were sent to primary schools within their ownreligious community. (The Ottoman state schools, theRudiyya, were technically open to all three religionsthough I have found no evidence that any non-Muslimsattended these schools). By university, however,there was significantly more crossover, as chosen andaccomplished Ottoman youth attended imperial law,medical, and other schools in the capital. Also manywell-to-do youth attended the American University inBeirut.46Paul Dumont gives as an example the 1869 membershipcount of the lodge L’Union d’Orient: 143 members,among them 53 Muslims, consisting of magistrates,military, functionaries, religious leaders, and somenotables. See Dumont, “La Franc-Maçonnerie Ottomaneet les à l’Époque des Tanzimat.” Incontrast, the Grand Orient d’Egypt, founded by the LeCaire lodge which split off from the GLNE in 1908 inorder to “practice [as well as proclaim] liberty” seemedto be composed largely of minorities. BibliothèqueNationale de France (hereafter BN), FM2-140.47Landau, “Farmasuniyya”.48In Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt, there was widespreadJerusalem Quarterly 22/23 [ 59 ]

participation of the notable classes in Freemasonry. SeeSafwat, Freemasonry in the Arab World.49According to Robert Morris’ travelogue from 1876,the then-vali of Syria (Muhammad Rashid), kaymakamof Jaffa (Nureddin Effendi), and kaymakam of Nablus(Muhammad Sa’id) were all Freemasons. Morris,Freemasonry in the Holy Land.50See Cole, Colonialism and Revolution in the MiddleEast.51Wissa, “Freemasonry in Egypt from Bonaparte toZaghloul”.52Cole, Colonialism and Revolution in the Middle East,147.53Odo writes that the first Arab Mason was inducted inAlgeria in 1839; by 1864 the induction of the Algerianemir ‘Abd al-Qadir signaled both a stalemate betweenthe colonizer/colonized communities as well as de factointegration of Muslims into French Freemasonry. SeeOdo, “Les réseaux coloniaux ou la ”.54As Jacob Landau pointed out, while lodge membershipfigures were generally modest (between one dozenand 100 members), there was a high concentration ofprominent members as well as “people of means” due tohigh membership fees. Landau, “Farmasuniyya”.55While lodges in the Balkans had Jewish, Armenian,and Muslim members, Greeks generally had their ownseparate lodges, often belonging to the Grand Orientof Greece. See the example of the “Prométhée” lodgein Janina, which was mixed until the 1897 Greco-Ottoman war closed its doors. Paul Dumont, “La Franc-Maçonnerie dans l’Empire Ottoman: La Loge GrecqueProméthée à Janina,” in Daniel Panzac, ed., Les Villesdans l’Empire Ottoman: Activités et Sociétés (Paris:Presses du CNRS, 1991), and Yves Hivert-Messeca,“France, Laïcité et Maçonnerie dans l’Empire Ottoman.”56The founding of the Royal Solomon Mother Lodgewas 7 August, 1873; Mr. Rolla Floyd was reported to bethe master of the lodge. File [18368]; (National ArchivesMicrofilm Publication M862, roll 1034); Jerusalem;Numerical File, 1906-10; Central Files of the Departmentof State, Record Group 59; National Archives - CollegePark (hereafter NACP).57Leon Zeldis, “Israeli Freemasonry” (www.freemasonry.org.il).58File [18368]; (National Archives MicrofilmPublication M862, roll 1034); Jerusalem; NumericalFile, 1906-10; Central Files of the Department of State,Record Group 59; NACP.59Among the founders claimed by one Masonic reportwere Ahmad Bedir al-Khalidi, Gabriel Samoury, Cesar‘Araktinji, Tamari “and others”; among the Jews wereMoritz Steinberg, Yosef Feinberg, Menachem Stein,Ya’kov Litwinsky, David Moyal, Avraham Levy, andMichal Horwitz. See ha-Boneh he-Hofshi (Jan 1935).CZA A192/1108.60Zeldis, Israeli Freemasonry. Most scholars attribute thelodge’s founding to this group of foreigners, but lodgehistorians insist on local initiative instead.61Tidhar, Barkai: Album ha-yovel.62See Ha-Boneh he-Hofshi (Jan 1935). CZA A192/1108.63Zeldis, Israeli Freemasonry.64At the time other leading GODF lodges in the MiddleEast included: Syria (Aleppo, founded 1890); Le Liban(Beirut, founded 1876); Les Pyramides d’Egypte(Alexandria, 1891-1900); Le Nil (Cairo, founded 1894);Etoile du Bosphore (Constantinople, 1880); and Veritas(Salonika, founded 1904). GODF, Catalogue.6522 April, 1904 letter from Schönberg to GODF. Lodgecorrespondence indicates that the lodge was referred toby its Hebrew name, Barkai. GODF, Boxes 1126-7.66Letter from M. Schönberg to Vadecard, SecretaryGeneral of the GODF, 19 March, 1906. GODF, Boxes1126-7.67Letter from M. Schönberg to GODF, 30 August, 1906.GODF, Boxes 1126-7.68Letter from Barkai to GODF, 31 August, 1908. Thementioned report is missing from the records. In responseto these complaints, the lodge Veritas in Salonika, withclose ties to the new ruling powers, promised to informthe Young Turks of the situation in Palestine and todemand reparations. Letter from Veritas to Barkai, 20October, 1908. GODF, Boxes 1126-7.69I have found evidence of three Freemason lodges inPalestine in the pre-World War I period: Barkai, Templeof Solomon and Moriah. There was also an irregular(unrecognized) lodge established by Shimon Moyalin Jaffa in 1910-11, but aside from a complaint issuedby Barkai that Moyal was “initiating people right andleft” we know little of this lodge. Letter from Barkai toGODF, 10 February, 1911. GODF, Boxes 1126-7. AnIsraeli Freemason claims there was at least one otherlodge, Carmel in Haifa. Zeldis, Israeli Freemasonry.I have found evidence of the existence of a lodge inthe north, but little more than that. Letter from theVice Consul of France in Haifa to the French ForeignMinister, 20 February, 1912. Microfilm roll 134,Correspondence Politique et Commerciale/NouvelleSérie (Turquie), France - Ministère des AffairesÉtrangères (hereafter FMAE). The Encyclopedia Judaicaalso claims that three lodges were founded under theauspices of the Grand Lodge of Scotland from 1910-11,but this is also likely not true. «Freemasons».70Yodilovitz, Skira ‘al ha-bniah al-hofshit, 12. AlexanderFiani and Maurice Schönberg served as the first presidentand secretary of the lodge, respectively. In 1907. Cesar‘Araktinji was selected as lodge president, a post he wasto hold (with various interruptions) until 1928.71All lodge statistics were compiled by the author withdata from the membership lists found in GODF, Boxes1126-7, and David Tidhar, Barkai: Album ha-yovel.72See Mordechai Eliav, Die Juden Palästinas in derdeutschen Politik: Dokumente aus dem Archiv desdeutschen Konsulats in Jerusalem, 1842-1914 (Tel Aviv:ha-Kibbutz ha-Meuchad, 1973).73According to the 1905 Ottoman census, Jerusalem’sOttoman population of 32,000 was broken down to41.3% Jewish, 33.8% Muslim and 24.8% Christian.If non-Ottoman resident Jews were considered, theproportion would have been much higher. See UzielSchmelz, “The Population of Jerusalem’s UrbanNeighborhoods according to the Ottoman Census of1905”, Scripta Hierosolytmitana 35 (1994).74See Dumont, “La Franc-Maçonnerie d’ObédienceFrançaise à Salonique” for a discussion of the social[ 60 ] HISTORICAL FEATURES Freemasonry in Ottoman Palestine

ackground of Salonikan Freemasons; Dumont, “LaFranc-Maçonnerie dans l’Empire Ottoman” and Hivert-Messeca, “France, Laïcité et Maçonnerie dans l’EmpireOttoman” for a discussion of the composition ofJanina’s lodge; and Cole, Colonialism and Revolutionin the Middle East for an analysis of the social basis ofEgyptian Freemasonry.75Rashid Khalidi, “Society and Ideology in LateOttoman Syria: Class, Education, Profession andConfession”, in John Spagnolo, ed., Problems of theModern Middle East in Historical Perspective: Essays inHonor of Albert Hourani (Ithaca: Reading, 1992), 126.76Kamal al-Din ‘Arafat was the mayor of Nablus.77Rafiq and Suleiman Abu Ghazaleh were both civiljudges from Nablus.78Sa’id Abu Khadra from Gaza had served on the majlisal-‘umumi and was a failed candidate for the 1912Ottoman parliament.79‘Umar al-Bitar was the mayor of Jaffa.80Eight members of the Jaffan Dajani family weremembers of Barkai; they were all members of theOttoman legal, municipal, bureaucratic, and educationalestablishment.81Four members of the al-Khalidi family wereFreemasons in the Barkai lodge. One of them, Jamil al-Khalidi, was also a member in Temple of Solomon.82Sa’id Ahmad Nashashibi and Ragheb Nashashibi weremembers of Barkai; Ragheb, elected to the Ottomanparliament in 1912, was also a member of Temple ofSolomon.83‘Atallah, Ya’qub and Yusuf Burdqush were all recentAUB graduates.84Yusuf and Na’im al-‘Issa belonged to the Barkai lodge.Yusuf was a leading member of the Jaffa branch of theCommittee for Union and Progress and well as serving asthe editor of the important newspaper Filastin.85Selim and Wadie Mantura were businessmen.86George, Hanna and Jean Sleim were all merchants inBarkai lodge.87Ricardo Habib Soulban worked at the ImperialOttoman Bank, while Shukri was the chief of theDerabane train station.88Emil Tamari was a translator and Wadih Salim Tamaria businessman.89The Amzaleks were a wealthy Jewish family thatarrived in Jaffa from Gibraltar; as a result, they heldBritish citizenship.90Several Elyashars were Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, froma notable Sephardi family.91The Manis were the most important Jewish family inHebron.92David Moyal, the son of a wealthy North Africanimmigrant in Jaffa, was a lawyer dealing in land salesand a frequent mediator in Jewish-Arab negotiations.93Another important rabbinical family in Jerusalem.94The Valero family was a wealthy Sephardi Jewishbanking family in Jerusalem. Three members of thefamily were Freemasons, in Moriah and Barkai lodges.95Quoted from Benjamin Nathans, “Habermas’s PublicSphere in the Era of the French Revolution,” FrenchHistorical Studies, 16, 3 (1990): 633.96The dues for the Moriah lodge, for example, were 100francs for initiation (payable in 2 chunks); 20 francs forpassing from the first to second degree; 40 francs forpassing from the second to third degree. Annual feeswere 30 francs payable on the trimester; affiliation was40 francs annually, with a discount to 10 francs if onewas a Master (3rd degree). Importantly, officers of theOttoman army were exempt from paying any dues. Seeletter on March 11, 1913. BN, RES FM2-142. While thiswas far out of the reach of a regular day laborer, whoearned from .5-2 francs a day (for cobblers) to 6-8 francs aday (for upholsters), doctors earned from 6-15,000 francsannually, while lawyers could earn 1000-3600 francsannually. See “La Palestine Economique,” May 1, 1908,Box 477, FMAE; and Ruppin to ZAC, April 25, 1912.CZA, Z3/1448.97According to Clay, the OIB for example hired almostexclusively Christians, some Jews, and Muslims onlyin subordinate service positions. Christopher Clay,“The Origins of Modern Banking in the Levant: TheBranch Network of the Imperial Ottoman Bank, 1890-1914,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 26/4(November 1994).98Jessua, Grand Orient (Gr: Loge) de Turquie.99Rashid Khalidi writes that another Jerusalem MP,Ruhi al-Khalidi, was also a Freemason, member ofthe GODF. Although I have not found his name in anyof the membership lists of the Palestinian lodges, it islikely he was inducted while serving as Ottoman consulin Bordeaux. Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: TheConstruction of Modern National Consciousness (NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1997) 79.100From the files of various Egyptian Masonic lodgeswe know that there were periodic Masonic assembliesfor networking purposes, and Masons who moved ortraveled from one locale to another had a ready networkawaiting them. See CZA A192/812.101Yosef Eliyahu Chelouche, My Life [Parshat hayai],1870-1930 (Tel Aviv: Stroud, 1930) 194.102The current Barkai lodge secretary refused to disclosewhether or not the lodge was in possession of archivalmaterial from the Ottoman period. Long-time lodgepresident Cesar ‘Araktinji reported to the GODF centraloffice after World War I that his home (the former lodgeheadquarters) had been destroyed during the war. It ispossible (though not conclusive) that the lodge’s entirecontents did not survive the Masons’ wartime exile orthe numerous subsequent wars. Letter from ‘Araktinji(in Konya) to GODF, 8 January, 1919. GODF, Boxes1126-7.103In the winter of 1913, an Italian named SalvatoreGarcea penetrated the Moriah lodge and reported itsactivities to both the (anti-Masonic) French consulas well as to the various religious communities. Asa result, seven or eight members faced ‘complete ruin’due to the expose. Garcea later tried to establish anotherMasonic lodge in Egypt, passing himself off as a Jew andcompromising the daughter of a respectable rabbinicalfamily in the process. Frigere to GODF, 12 February,1917. BN, RES FM2-142.104Lodge banquets were held to raise funds for theOttoman army’s winter clothes drive, for example.105For example the lodge attempted to interveneJerusalem Quarterly 22/23 [ 61 ]

for Anis Djaber Bey who was rendered destitute bySeptember 1908. ‘Araktinji also attempted to secureGODF intervention on behalf of Freemasons withpotential and former employers. In 1907 for exampleAstruc successfully lobbied for the job as director of theRothschild Hospital in Jerusalem thanks to the assistanceoffered by Paris. In two cases of wrongful dismissal ofMasons involving the Jaffa-Jerusalem railroad and theMessageries Maritimes at the Jaffa port, however, theGODF in Paris refused to intervene on the pretext thatthe importance of Jaffa (to France) overruled brotherlyobligations. Letter, July 1913. GODF, Boxes 1126-7.106Instituto de Cultura Juan Gil-abert, Exposición: LaMasoneria Española, 1728-1939, 34.107Grand Orient de France. Suprême Conseil pour laFrance et les Possessions Françaises, Instruction Pour LeSecond Grade Symbolique (Compagne).108al-Yasu’i, al-Sirr al-Masun Fi Shi’at al-Farmasun.10911 January, 1910. GODF, Boxes 1126-7.11011 January, 1910. GODF, Boxes 1126-7.111Hafiz al-Sa’id. ‘Araktinji wrote in a postscript: “Wehave already written to the Grand Orient Ottoman of allhis wretched qualities, especially his election which wasby the despotic ways.” Letter from Barkai to GODF, 8November, 1909. GODF, Boxes 1126-7.112Letter from ‘Araktinji to GODF, 7 April, 1913. GODF,Boxes 1126-7.113See André Combs, “Le Grand Orient de France enPalestine,” Chroniques d’Histoire Maçonnique, 52(2001): 37.11411 March, 1913. BN, RES FM2-142.11511 March, 1913. BN, RES FM2-142.11629 April, 1913. BN, RES FM2-142.117Avraham Abushadid, Yom Tov Amon, Nissim Farhi,Ezra Astruc and Moshe Yeshaia; Ibrahim Cattan; andHenry Frigere and Marcel Drouillard.118They were called “foreigners” despite the fact thatall of the Jewish members had been born in Ottomanterritories (two in Jerusalem, one in Constantinople, andtwo in Sofia). BN, RES FM2-142.119‘Araktinji to GODF, 7 April, 1913. GODF, Boxes1126-7.120GODF to ‘Araktinji, 24 April, 1913. GODF, Boxes1126-7.121Although French was the official “liturgical language”of the GODF lodges, Barkai in Jaffa informed Parisheadquarters that they were using Arabic for substantivelodge activities, since many members did not knowFrench well enough. A lodge in Egypt (Les Amis duProgrès, Mansura) had translated the GODF rites intoArabic, and Barkai was using these translations intheir work alongside a summary in French. Letter from‘Araktinji to GODF, 19 May, 1911. GODF, Boxes 1126-7.122‘Araktinji to GODF, 24 June, 1913. GODF, Boxes1126-7.123Frigere to GODF, 27 June, 1913. BN, RES FM2-142.This letter cited from Lucien Sabah, “La loge Moriahà l’Or:: de Jérusalem, 1913-14,” Chroniques d’HistoireMaçonnique, 35 (1985), 70-74. GODF, Boxes 1126-7.Araktinji to GODF, 24 June, 1913.124Ibid.125See Khalidi, Palestinian Identity and Neville Mandel,The Arabs and Zionism before World War I (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1976).126‘Araktinji to GODF, 24 July, 1914. GODF, Boxes1126-7.127Ibid.12818 October, 1913. Citation taken from Sabah, “Laloge Moriah”.129Sabah, “La loge Moriah”.130According to Moriah, “This work, which appears atfirst to be commercial, is on the contrary a primarilysecular work and we greatly await it. It should be knownindeed that the secular French population is excessivelyrestricted in Jerusalem,” most of them being Freemasons.“The rest of the population is composed of religiousof all orders.” Moriah to GODF, 2 October, 1913. BN,RES FM2-142. In 1912 Henry Frigere had written tothe French government proposing the establishmentof a French concessionary society along the model ofthe Société Commerciale de Palestine, established byJerusalem’s notables of all three religions. See Frigereletter of 17 May, 1912. BN, RES FM2-142.131In the study submitted by Moriah lodge memberNissim Farhi (director of the AIU primary school inJerusalem), there were 20 schools from six religions/confessions and five different nationalities serving10,000 children in Jerusalem. 19 June, 1913. BN, RESFM2-142. A report in El Liberal claimed there were 73schools in Jerusalem. El Liberal, v. 1, no. 22, 23 April,1909.132Sabah, “La loge Moriah.”13318 October, 1913. BN, RES FM2-142.134See the file, CZA, A192/812. See also CZA, A192/816, in particular the November 1910 meeting of theL’Assemblée Maçonique de la Neutralité Scolaire et desÉtudes Laïques. In Lebanon the Freemasons of Le Libanlodge claimed that confessional education promoted the“division of the country, intolerance, and the perpetuationof religious hatred.”13510 February, 1914. BN, RES FM2-142.136Moriah to GODF, 25 May, 1914. BN, RES FM2-142.137GODF to Frigere, 11 June, 1914. BN, RES FM2-142.This statement was crossed out in the original letter,perhaps considered too brash or stating the obvious.138See Tidhar, Barkai: Album Ha-Yovel and DavidTidhar, Sefer Ahim: 60 Years of Barkai [Book ofBrothers: 60 Years of Barkai] (Tel Aviv).[ 62 ] HISTORICAL FEATURES Freemasonry in Ottoman Palestine