ABSTRACT
As in the case of Turkish historians, modern Lebanese and Syrian historians have tended to impose a major historical break at the end of the First World War and the demise of the Ottoman Empire. This is quite understandable for nationalist reasons: after all, the war and the years leading up to it were marked by the rise of indigenous Arab nationalism, a struggle that – especially in the Syrian case – was intensified during the subsequent period of French domination under the Mandate. Moreover, the break makes sense from a less ideological point of view, too. In the aftermath of the war, Syria and Lebanon as the territorial states we know today emerged, complete with republican constitutions that have proved to be the blueprint for a political and constitutional framework that is more or less still in place.
