Moreover, the fellahin were descendants of the sort of Jews, like Ben-Zvi and many of his fellow Second Aliyah Zionists, who were not overly concerned with religion. They could nominally adopt or shed one religion or another if necessary, so long as they were able to remain on their land.119 In his Yiddish collaboration with Ben-Gurion, Ben-Zvi was responsible for the chapter called “History,” in which he explained that the Jewish masses who remained in Palestine after the Roman destruction of the Jewish commonwealth—the “Jewish fellahin,” as he calls them—“paid little interest to the refined, artful hair-splitting argumentation [pilpulim] of the learned [class]. These people of the land120 used to neglect even the most basic commandments, such as laying phylacteries and praying.” One can only assume that Ben-Zvi shared these imagined Jewish fellahin’s antipathy toward such religious pilpulim. In seeking to understand the Arabs of Palestine—to study their history and their society—Ben-Zvi came to the radical conclusion, employing theories of race and genealogical origin, that these were the real Jews.
THE ARABIC PRESS, THE “GREAT DANGER,” AND THE CLAIM OF A SEPHARDIC-ASHKENAZIC DIVIDE
One question that has interested recent scholars of this period in Palestine is whether Sephardic Zionists had a discernibly different attitude toward the Arabs of Palestine from that of their Ashkenazic counterparts. An increasingly common view is that the Middle Eastern Sephardim—given their knowledge of Arabic, their typically longer heritage living among Muslims, and their deep-rootedness in the Ottoman Empire—related to their non-Jewish neighbors differently from, and more positively than, the way in which the Ashkenazic newcomers to Palestine did. In making the case for this distinction between Sephardim and Ashkenazim, Abigail Jacobson has pointed to the various newspapers that each of these communities produced to argue that the differences between the papers reflect “essential differences between the Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews in Palestine,” and that, in contrast to the Ashkenazim, “the Sephardim seem to have realized the importance and necessity of coexisting and co-operating with the Arab inhabitants of Palestine.”121 In making her argument, Jacobson studied three newspapers: ha-Ḥerut, ha-Aḥdut, and another Second Aliyah Zionist paper, ha-Poʿel ha-ẓaʿir, founded and staffed by members of the eponymous workers’ party, Histadrut ha-poʿalim ha-ẓeʿirim be-ereẓ yisraʾel (Organization of Young Workers in the Land of Israel).122 Given these sources, Jacobson notes that the differences she observed between ha-Ḥerut, on the one hand, and ha-Aḥdut and ha-Poʿel ha-ẓaʿir, on the other, should be regarded as differences between Sephardic Zionists and Second Aliyah Ashkenazic Zionists (rather than Ashkenazic Zionists broadly).123
By adding the Ben-Yehuda family’s newspapers into the analytical frame, my study both builds on and complicates Jacobson’s provocative analysis and conclusions. To be sure, I mined the newspapers for different sorts of material (especially the terminology and categories employed in referring to the non-Jews of Palestine) rather than focusing on more programmatic statements. I would suggest, however, that the commonalities we noted between the Sephardic-edited ha-Ḥerut and the newspapers of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, a First Aliyah Ashkenazic Zionist, support Jacobson’s intuition that the differences she identified between ha-Ḥerut, on the one hand, and the socialist Second Aliyah papers, on the other, caution against imagining a clear divide between Ashkenazim and Sephardim.
While some Sephardim during the Late Ottoman period, and still more thereafter, charged the Ashkenazim with callousness toward Palestine’s Arabs and an unwillingness to learn Arabic or understand local culture,124 it must be noted that for the editors of ha-Ḥerut, the differences were not black and white. The primary concern that the editors voiced regarding their non-Jewish neighbors was, as noted above, that the Arabic press was vociferously anti-Zionist. As ha-Ḥerut’s editors made their case about the degree to which the Arabic press posed formidable challenges to the future of the Jewish settlement in Palestine and the consequent need to create a Zionist-edited Arabic newspaper to respond to the alleged slander, they declared: “of the newspapers of our city, we can say that the truth is that ha-Aḥdut is the only one that has awoken to our words.”125 In other words, the only local Zionist paper that listened to ha-Ḥerut and thus also understood the problems associated with the Arabic press was none other than ha-Aḥdut, one of the very papers that has at times been portrayed as the antithesis of the Sephardic approach. Whether or not we accept ha-Ḥerut’s claim of credit for “awakening” ha-Aḥdut to this problem, the fact that, according to ha-Ḥerut’s editors, one of these Second Aliyah Ashkenazic papers joined ha-Ḥerut’s campaign suggests the need for qualifying the fundamental distinction that has been posited between Ashkenazim (even Second Aliyah Ashkenazim) and Sephardim in Late Ottoman Palestine.
The claim that the Sephardic Zionists were particularly or uniquely sympathetic to Palestine’s Arabs is still more complicated. Jacobson argues that “throughout its discussion of the ways to influence Arab public opinion,” ha-Ḥerut “reflected hopes for coexistence and co-operation between the Jewish and Arab community in Palestine.” While I generally agree with Jacobson, it is important to recognize the terms on which this coexistence and cooperation were meant to be based. Recall that ha-Ḥerut’s worries about the impact of the anti-Zionist Arabic press led the newspaper to call for a large-scale apologetic propaganda campaign. The newspaper issued this plan: “We will show to the Arab masses what the Jews have done for the land [Palestine] and the homeland [Ottoman Empire].126 We will prove to them … that we have enriched the production and labor and [we will show] the great advances that we have brought in commerce and in everything, and the great benefit that we have brought through this for the good of the Ottoman homeland.”127 ha-Ḥerut’s answer, in other words, was to convince “the Arab masses” that they have only benefited—and would only continue to benefit—from the Jewish immigration to Palestine. While to a certain degree this response reflects a desire for peaceful coexistence, I would suggest that it was not merely “paternalistic,” as Jacobson acknowledges,128 but essentially delegitimized any criticism of the Zionist endeavor.
In their articles, ha-Ḥerut’s editors expressed no interest in a mutual exchange of ideas concerning Zionist settlement or the future of Palestine. Rather, all who sought to question the ideological or political compatibility of Zionism and Ottomanism, who perceived within Zionism a separatist movement seeking Jewish sovereignty in Palestine, who highlighted the trappings of statehood that the Zionist movement created for itself (including a flag, an anthem, and postage-like stamps) were dismissively and derisively labeled “the enemies” (ha-ẓorerim) and “the informants” or “the libelers” (ha-malshinim). Consider, for instance, a November 1910 ha-Ḥerut report entitled “The Libel of our Enemies.” The author explains:
It has come to our attention from a trusted source that, following the celebration of the anniversary [of the arrival in Palestine] of Mr. [Eliezer] Ben-Yehuda, a telegram was sent from here [Jerusalem] to haifa, to the newspaper al-Karmil, saying: “In the beit ha-ʿam [house of the Nation] of the Jews an anniversary party was organized in honor of Ben-Yehuda, one of the scholars of the Jews. There, they raised the flags of the Zionists, sold Zionist stamps, and sang the Zionist national anthem. As the Zionists are arousing this movement (?), the residents of the Land of Israel are slumbering in a deep sleep.”129
Here ha-Ḥerut cites an Arabic newspaper from Haifa that fairly accurately described the celebration of the anniversary of this most prominent Zionist’s immigration to Palestine. Some of the details are corroborated just one page earlier in the same issue of ha-Ḥerut; the rest, in Ben-Yehuda’s own paper, ha-Or.130 The description recorded in the telegram to al-Karmil was, if anything, understated in its portrayal of the nationalistic nature of the party for Ben-Yehuda; ha-Or described the festivities as “the first national, living celebration after two thousand years of exile and destruction” at which, inter alia, Ben-Yehuda “cried tears of joy” on hearing
the singing of the Zionist national anthem ha-Tikvah. What is clear, then, is that it was not any inaccuracy in the description of the event that disturbed ha-Ḥerut’s writer; it was rather the Arabic newspaper’s cautionary rhetorical conclusion, that while the Zionists were pursuing their national plans, Palestine’s (non-Jewish) residents were “in a deep sleep.” ha-Ḥerut thus challenges the reader: “Now … do you still doubt our words? Do you still not wish to understand the deep disaster [ha-shoʾah] that can come upon us if we do not act preemptively? Will we be deaf and pass silently over these vulgar lies that have the potential to destroy our standing here in the land?”131 Ha-Ḥerut’s editors were offended by any criticism of Zionism; it was the critical tone, it would seem, not the alleged facts (which, the author presumably recognized, were true), that constituted the “vulgar lie.” Ha-Ḥerut viewed any sign of opposition to Zionism as a “Great Danger” (the catch-phrase consistently attached to its reports on the anti-Zionist Arabic press) that demanded a strong, countervailing response.
While ha-Ḥerut’s editors may have desired peaceful relations with their non-Jewish neighbors in Palestine, they appear to have desired such relations only on their own terms, leaving no room for critical attitudes toward Zionism, its methods, or its goals. In this sense I differ from Jacobson, who contends that this position represents “an interesting alternative to the more dominant approach of the European Zionist leadership” and “an alternative way of living with the Arabs.”132 If the non-Jewish residents of Palestine were willing uncritically to accept Zionist immigration to the country and the prevalence of Jewish national symbols in their developing culture and institutions, only then, it would seem, would ha-Ḥerut advocate cooperation. The supposed Sephardic-Ashkenazic divide vis-à-vis Palestine’s native non-Jews seems to be far less pronounced on closer inspection.
CONCLUSION
Palestine’s Hebrew newspapers offer critical insight into Zionist perceptions of the Zionists’ neighbors in Palestine. Whether in the simple terminology the authors and editors employed in describing Palestine’s natives as they narrated events or in more explicit discussions of the nature of and distinctions between these communities, these journalistic texts reveal that Zionists in Late Ottoman Palestine perceived their neighbors through a variety of lenses. For these Zionists, Palestine’s non-Jews were not merely some generic, nondescript indigenous population wrongfully living in the Jews’ rightful homeland. Rather, these populations were communities with which Jews had long and complex histories, as members of interconnected religious civilizations or as members of the same race. There is also a sense of uncertainty that emerges from some of these newspaper pages—an uncertainty about (if not a conscious desire to challenge) the boundaries of identity that were forming during this period. There is no doubt that there was already a clear sense of political danger in the Zionists’ encounter with Palestine’s non-Jews. However, if we retrospectively identify in this period a simple Jewish/Zionist-Arab/Palestinian encounter, or nothing more than seeds of “Arab-Israeli conflict,” we miss the intriguing complexity and fluidity of this moment.
* * *
1 Cited in Roʾi, “The Zionist Attitude to the Arabs 1908–1914,” 235. Yehoshua Radler-Feldmann (1880–1957), known by the pen name Rabbi Benjamin, was born in eastern Galicia. After living briefly in London, where he worked with Yosef Hayim Brenner, he settled in Palestine in 1907. David Tidhar, EḤY, 4:1711.
2 On the various positions articulated in the pre–World War I era, see Gorni, Zionism and the Arabs 1882–1948, 40–77.
3 See, for instance, Cohen, ed., Ẓiyonut ve-ha-sheʾelah ha-ʿarvit; Beʾeri, Reshit ha-sikhsukh yisraʾel-ʿarav, 1882–1911; Rodinson, Israel and the Arabs; Roʾi,“The Zionist Attitude to the Arabs 1908–1914,” 198–242
4 I ask the reader’s forbearance with the awkward locutions I have employed in this discussion (e.g., “non-Jewish neighbor,” “non-Jewish natives of Palestine,” “whom the Zionists found in Palestine”). I use these phrases so as not to prejudice my analysis of how Zionists conceptualized these communities, even as I recognize that the phrases are themselves problematic and would certainly not have been the way the communities described themselves.
5 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 163.
6 Lakoff and Johnson demonstrate how descriptions “highlight, downplay, and hide” with this list of statements: “I’ve invited a sexy blonde to our dinner party”; “I’ve invited a renowned cellist to our dinner party”; “I’ve invited a Marxist to our dinner party”; “I’ve invited a lesbian to our dinner party.” They write: “Though the same person may fit all of these descriptions, each description highlights different aspects of the person…. In making a statement, we make a choice of categories because we have some reason for focusing on certain properties and downplaying others.” Ibid., 163.
7 See Kressel, Toldot ha-ʿitonut ha-ʿivrit be-ereẓ yisraʾel, 71ff.
8 See, e.g., “Ha-Ḥerut as a Sephardi National Newspaper” in Jacobson, From Empire to Empire, 87–89. Jacobson acknowledges that “ha-Ḥerut did not view itself as targeting exclusively the Sephardic community,” but she argues that “from its content it was clear that the Sephardi community was its main target population, and that it served as an opposition to the traditional Sephardi leadership.”
9 Consider, for instance, the notice issued in ha-Ḥerut on March 1, 1912, upon the paper’s conversion to a daily, that referred to the paper as “the Hebrew national newspaper” but also declared that, “as is well-known, it is the first Hebrew paper to be published by Sephardim.” That notice further highlighted the fact that “its editor is Sephardic and the majority of its authors are Sephardim. And this is the glory of the community of the Sephardic Jews.” See Beẓalʾel, “ʿAl yiḥudo shel ‘ha-Ḥerut’ (1909–1917) ve-ʿal Ḥayim Ben-ʿAtar ke-ʿorkho,” 127.
10 Literally: “At this hour of the birth of the world in which we live.”
11 the one possible reference to these internal Jewish divisions is the claim that “our entire purpose, we repeat, is only to benefit our readers, our communities [ʿedoteinu], our land, and our language.”
12 Bezalel lists Yehoshua Radler-Feldmann (Rabbi Benjamin), A. M. Heimann, Mordecai Ben Hillel ha-Cohen, Y. M. Tukachinsky, Samuel Tiktin, Y. H. Teller, Menashe Meirovitz, M. M. Bronstein, Nahum Maltzen, Mikhael Nekhes, Moshe Smilansky, Mendel Kraemer, A. Z. Rabinovitz, Aryeh Roznik, and Samuel Rafaelovitz. See Beẓalʾel, “ʿAl yiḥudo shel‘ha-Ḥerut’ (1909–1917) ve-ʿalḤayim Ben-ʿAtar ke-ʿorkho,” 129.
13 Beẓalʾel, Noladetem ẓiyonim, 305ff.
14 See my discussion of these categories in the introduction.
15 ha-Ḥerut 1:33. The author is Mendel Kremer.
16 ha-Ḥerut 2:6 (October 12, 1909), 3. The author is Mendel Kremer.
17 ha-Ḥerut 1:44 (September 8, 1909), 3. The author is listed as Ben-Avraham.
18 ha-Or 2:14:189 (November 4, 1910), 3.
19 French for “stationery,” the word is recorded in Latin script.
20 The names are written first in Hebrew script (including et for “and”) and then in Latin.
21 ha-Ẓevi 25:103 (February 12, 1909), 3.
22 For a brief overview of the activities of British, German, French, and Russian settlers and missionaries in Jerusalem, including those of the German Templers, see Ben-Arieh, Jerusalem in the Nineteenth Century, 58–71.
23 Given their knowledge of the French word, though, it is possible that they were natives of Lebanon (where the French presence was more expansive) and not of Palestine. However, this is certainly not necessarily so; after all, well-educated Arabs in Palestine (especially those who attended missionary schools) were taught French.
24 ha-Ḥerut 2:122 (July 20, 1910), 3. The author is Mendel Kremer.
25 ha-Ḥerut 3:18 (December 2, 1910), 3. The author is, again, Mendel Kremer. See further in this chapter for a discussion of this contributor.
26 ha-Ẓevi 25:40 (November 25, 1908), 2.
> 27 ha-Ẓevi 25:57 (December 20, 1908), 2.
28 ha-Or 2:27:202 (November 20, 1910), 2.
29 The article title indeed reads yishmaʾel (Ishmael) not yishmaʾeli (an Ishmaelite), though in the article itself the author uses the term Ishmaelite. I presume that the missing yud was the result of a typographical error.
30 ha-Or 2:27:209 (November 29, 1910), 3.
31 ha-Ḥerut 1:10 (June 11, 1909), 3. The author is listed as M. ʿ. M.
32 For a report on an 1895 alleged incident in which a Muslim notable visited a Jewish colony and became intoxicated, “something he could not do in an Arab environment,” see Asaf, ha-Yeḥasim beyn ʿarvim vi-hudim be-ereẓ-yisraʾel 1860–1948, 25. On Islamic attitudes toward intoxication, see Enes Karic, “Intoxication,” EQ.
33 ha-Ḥerut 1:25 (July 26, 1909), 2. The author is listed as Y. B. Sh.
34 ha-Ẓevi 25:92 (January 31, 1909), 2. Emphasis corresponds to a repeated pronoun.
35 ha-Ẓevi 25:98 (February 7, 1909), 2.
36 ha-Ḥerut 3:23 (December 14, 1910), 2–3. There is no named author.
37 He sent a letter to Ben-Yehuda’s ha-Ẓevi concerning the decree that Muslim women boycott Jewish-owned stores in Hebron (ha-Ẓevi, november 23, 1908) and another concerning the devastating December 28, 1908, earthquake in Italy and Italy’s benevolent treatment of its Jewish population (ha-Ẓevi, January 19, 1909). At the close of the latter letter, Kremer’s name is signed in Latin script, so I have chosen here to spell his name accordingly. Yoseph Lang writes that Kremer was ha-Ẓevi’s Jerusalem correspondent and became an editor of Hashkafah. Lang, Daber ‘ivrit!, 405, 513. At various points, Campos identifies Kremer as “the Jaffa-based correspondent for the Hebrew paper ha-Hashkafa,” “an Ottomanized Jew,” and “a mukhtar of Ashkenazi Jews in Jerusalem.” Campos, Ottoman Brothers, 77, 155.
Defining Neighbors Page 19