The Armenian community in Lebanon has become known since the outbreak of the second Lebanese civil war in 1975 with its determination to stay out of any armed conflict among the various political factions and ethno-religious communities in the country. Few people outside the community itself do still remember that the Armenians were deeply divided during the earlier, 1958 Civil War in Lebanon and that over 30 Armenian youth were killed in tit-for-tat assassinations by rival factions in the community during those few months. This paper will outline the causes behind these bloody incidents in 1958, summarize what happened among the Armenians in Lebanon between May and December 1958, and then try to explain why Armenians in Lebanon eventually came to prefer the suppression of any serious, public discussion of these killings. In this last section of the presentation, the author will analyze the various private responses he received from different sections of the Armenian public after he had published a rare newspaper article in the summer of 2008, commemorating the 50th anniversary of these events.

This research investigates the role of the Armenian diaspora in Lebanon in the different phases of what conflict resolution theorists sometimes call the conflict cycle. This study has normative and policy objectives. It demonstrates how the Armenian community in Lebanon found ways to encourage peaceful resolution of the ethnic conflict through its active and positive intervention; and how it used its leverage in the different stages of the conflict in the sense of constructive intervention. Although they had different ideologies and approaches, the Armenian political parties were more united on the objective of keeping Lebanon united, democratic and sovereign because only in such a political system Armenian identity would be better preserved. In addition to its positive role in peace making, I also trace the capacity (i.e. agency) and the transnational opportunities (i.e. structure) of the Armenian diaspora. Little attention has been paid to how the Armenian diaspora maintained its identity and belonging in the host country and how it left an impact on the structure and behaviour of the Lebanese conflict. My main aim in this study is to redress this anomaly and present the Armenian diaspora as an important political actor with a clear impact on Lebanese politics in general and on conflict behaviour in particular. In addition, when threatened by the internal Lebanese groups, the diaspora used its contacts and exchanges (financial, political, cultural and even military) with the homeland (Armenia) and its fellow diasporic groups in other host countries to protect itself and play the role of mediator. Adopting the policy of positive neutrality, the diaspora succeeded in encouraging and promoting mutual Lebanese?Armenian interests and that these interests could only be realized by dialogue and reconciliation. This meant that the diaspora possessed resources and had access to the host government, international media and had an influence well beyond Lebanon.

The Exodus of Musa Dagh Armenians from the Sanjak of Alexandretta to Anjar, Lebanon in 1939 The Armenians of Musa Dagh constituted one of the most important Armenian communities in the Sanjak of Alexandretta/Iskenderun, an autonomous province (or county) in northwestern Syria. With the tacit approval of the French mandatory government in Syria and Lebanon, and after a questionable legislative election, Turkey annexed the Sanjak on the eve of World War II. The indigenous populations were given the choice of staying or leaving. The overwhelming majority of Armenians elected to relocate to other parts in Syira and Lebanon given the lingering trauma caused by the World War I genocide. The Musa Dagh Armenians, like most of their compatriots in the region, accordingly exited the Sanjak in the summer of 1939, spent seven weeks at Ras al-Basit in the open, and were transported by the French to Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. The emerging settlement of Anjar continues to exist as the sole Armenian rural town in Lebanon. This paper explores the three main phases of that exodus. The first phase deals with the general situation in the six main villages of Musa Dagh during the last months before departure. The psychological torment of leaving ancestral lands, loss of property, fear of living under Turkish rule once again, and uncertainty about the future punctuated the scene. In the end, the bulk of Musa Daghians decided not to stay. The second phase describes the exodus. The women, children, and the elderly traveled by vehicles and the able-bodied me on foot, the movable belongings were shipped via the sea, and the animals were led by shepherds. They all gathered at Ras al-Basit on the Meditarranean, between Latakia and Kesab, where they spent their days and nights in sheds made of branches. Unsanitary living conditions and inclement weather brought about a host of illnesses that claimed many lives. In the meantime the French searched for a suitable location in Lebanon to settle these refugees. The choice was Anjar, a rocky and marshy terrain near the Syrian border. The third phase discusses the refugees’ move to Anjar in the first week of September, 1939, the hardships they encountered, and the humanitarian assistance they received from governmental and non-governmental agencies. Although acclimatization to the new milieu proceeded slowly over a number of years, today Anjar is a viable rural settlement with all the comforts of modern living.