Thanks @oldlevantine for this explanation, here are a few more elements to complete the picture. https://twitter.com/oldlevantine/status/1299072963766030338

In 1860 the same Maronite Church, under Patriarch Boulos Massaad also opted for the larger entity of the Mutassarifiya of Mount Lebanon as opposed to the two or three more homogeneous cantons (Maronite, Druze, Orthodox) proposed by the western powers after the Massacres.

Moreover the Patriarch also issued instructions to the bishops and the flock not to collaborate with two tribunals set up to punish the Druze perpetrators of the Massacres. One in Beirut for the notables and one in Mokhtara for the commoners.

The Tribunal in Beirut was international in character, like @STLebanon, consuls of foreign powers sat as judges while Fuad Pasha presided and was itching to execute death sentences to show that the Porte was in control and that there was no need for European intervention.

The tribunal in Mokhtara created a list of several thousand Druze individuals responsible for the killing, the list kept shrinking from around 6000 to 4000 and eventually to 258 and then to 54 but still no acknowledgement from the Maronites and refusal to endorse names.

It all took over a year of deliberations with no result at the end. While just before that Fuad Pasha had been to Damascus, had executed his friend the governor there with his own gun and the hangmen only stopped because they ran out of rope and they shot the rest.

The Maronite Church refused the smaller more homogeneous entity and refused to take revenge opting for a political solution that would allow them to live together with the Druze and moslems in the longer term and even with the Orthodox (god help us all).

The reason is that they were all children of empire and an empire rules over many nations who live under it. Divisions in the Mountain were both inter-sectarian and intra-sectarian and so were political and family alliances. A mixed society with mixed friends and mixed enemies.

A unit with only Maronites or only Druzes would be anathema to such a structure and mode of living as well as against the culture of coexistence between the people of the mountain. In today's terms we would have to put up with the Aounists just because they are Maronite !!?

What they ended up with was convincing Lord Dufferin with the idea and it created a mixed unit with a Christian Ottoman as Mutassarrif and a council consisting of representatives of every sect and region in the land. This is the idea of power sharing carried over to Grand Liban.

The Mutassarifiya period from 1860-1914 was called The Long Peace by Turkish Historian Engin Akarli who also said that the power-sharing system was part of what he termed as Lebanese Civility, a culture of diversity and inclusiveness. لياقة.

So 7abibi @oldlevantine you are right in saying that the French did not favor the power-sharing system and that it was a Lebanese contribution. But it was not only based on the experience of famine and isolation in WWI, it had historical roots in the culture of the mountain,

This is of course contrary to most writings on Lebanon that say that it is an artificial creation by French colonialism who instilled sectarianism with the devious motive of divide and rule. Ils n'ont rien compris and are blinded by ideology.

Another historical root to the idea of Greater Lebanon was inspired from the Old Levant itself ya @oldlevantine. The cosmopolitan cities & ports of the Levant were a mixture of ethnic, religious and cultural groups an atmosphere anathema to the idea of homogeneity and secularism,

These two roots came together to create the Grand Liban of the Mountain and the City - with the myth of the mountain refuge with that of the Phoenician trading past. The result was the only open and free society in the whole region.

Michel Chiha who played an important role in drafting the constitution of 1926 of came from such a Levantine family with cosmopolitan roots and connections in Alexandria, Cairo, Beirut, Damascus, Aleppo, Mosul and Baghdad along the old trade routes. Totally not the Jacobin model.

Your video also reminded me of this article by Uri Avnery https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/the-crown-and-the-coals/270159 in which he argues that Grand Liban was a mistake and that the Maronites should have satisfied themselves with a little homogeneous entity. Lui aussi n'a rien compris nor have the Israelis.

This is why Michel Chiha wrote in 1947 that "The decision to partition Palestine by creating the Jewish State, is one of the most serious mistakes of world politics." This is his answer to Uri Avnery 64 years before he wrote the article above. It is a clash between two models.

One model is that of states built on 20th century Nationalism with a homogeneous identity and uniform citizenship; the other cosmopolitan model is much more in tune with the culture of the region and accommodates diversity and considers it as part of the wealth of society.

Such a model, Lebanon is the only remnant of it, created the open and free country that attracted all the talents from the region that were driven out by Zionism, Arab Nationalism, Nasserism, Kemalism, Baathism and other so called secular nationalist countries. This is Lebanon.

So on the eve of the Centenary of Grand Liban my message is that the whole region is failing from the same phenomenon of bearded men in black preaching perpetual war. The idea of Lebanon is the exact opposite of that and the twain shall never meet. Tu comprends?

Ask the Bosnians, they share the same culture historically as we do - they were imposed an agreement at Dayton that separated them and prevented them from forming joint political initiatives. They mostly say 'this is not us'.