Ottoman Brothers: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-Century Palestine (33 page)

More than any single other issue, however, Zionism stood at the center of the “press wars” in Palestine, drawing not only numerous lawsuits, but also an unprecedented public dialogue between newspapers. As the extensive research of historian Rashid Khalidi has shown, at least six hundred anti-Zionist articles were published in ten leading Arabic newspapers between 1908 and 1914.
⁹⁹
These articles espoused opposition to Jewish immigration (as a demographic threat), land purchases (as a territorial threat), and the Zionist ideology of establishing an independent Jewish homeland (as an ideological and political threat). The importance of these articles in the consolidation of a collective Palestinian consciousness
has been analyzed elsewhere, but it is also important to note that the press wars over Zionism were frequently depicted as an intercommunal clash in Ottomanist terms. Criticisms from Christian or Muslim newspapers were, according to the Jews, nothing less than attempts to divide the Ottoman nation. Likewise, for Christian and Muslim critics, Zionism itself was counter to the integrity of the Ottoman state no less than it was a danger to Palestinians.

Already in the spring of 1909, two Ladino newspapers in Jerusalem published an account of an article which had appeared in the Jaffa newspaper
Al-Asm‘aī
, in which Is’af al-Nashashibi, the young Ottomanist poet, had reportedly “dishonored the Jews.” Al-Nashashibi’s original articles are missing, but it seems that in addition to publishing an offensive cartoon and anecdote about a Jew in the desert, al-Nashashibi complained about Palestinian Jews’ indifference toward the broader cultural renaissance that was taking place among Jerusalem’s Muslim and Christian intellectuals.

They [the Jews] should help in reviving this [Arabic] language after its destruction…since they [want to] attach their hearts to ours in this land. And I expect that they will rid their hearts of those empty aspirations like the question of Zionism or governing Palestine, since this is a hope which will be very difficult to execute. If the Jews want to live a good life with us, they should trample these hopes under their feet, and they should unite with us in respecting this beautiful language which their grandfathers enriched so much in Spain…. They should imitate our brothers the Christians, who are founding schools and teaching this beautiful language.
¹⁰⁰

The Ladino newspapers took offense and immediately demanded that the Jewish community establish an Arabic-language newspaper to “clos[e] the mouths of these terrible adversaries.” In addition to defending the Jews against attacks, the envisioned newspaper would also “show how much good our brothers bring to their
patria
and how great is the part that the Jews take in the economic development of Palestine.”
¹⁰¹
Indeed, almost immediately, the Jewish writers Shim’on and Esther Moyal, fluent in Arabic, issued flyers responding to
Al-Asm‘aī
’s attacks.
¹⁰²

Interviewed weeks later by
Liberty
, Dr. Moyal argued that the Jewish community needed to respond to these attacks in the Arabic press before they spread. Indeed, he feared, it may already be too late. A later article in
Liberty
cried out, “Danger!” to its readers, pointing out that after the establishment of “our beloved constitution,” the Arabic press began printing anti-Semitic articles. “Only he who has read…only he can feel the enormity of the terrible things which will come to pass in the future to the people of Israel, in the land of Israel, if we do not hurry to preempt them.”
¹⁰³

Moyal was not the first to propose a Jewish newspaper in Arabic, although he would be the strongest proponent of this plan and the one to eventually accomplish the task. Even before the Nashashibi incident, Albert Antébi had proposed the establishment of a bilingual Arabic-French newspaper that would be moderate, a supporter of the sultanate and the constitution, as well as a defender of regional and municipal economic interests—“openly Ottoman-national.” The newspaper would be run by Jews, however it would identify with general (not Jewish chauvinistic) interests. According to Antébi’s vision, “by identifying the Jewish interests with those general to the area, we will ensure our colonization project an era of prosperity that the diffusion of
baksheesh
[bribery] does not.”
¹⁰⁴
When his correspondent revealed that he was not interested and proposed that the Zionists pay for such a paper instead, Antébi responded that the Zionists would provoke a Muslim, nationalist, and anti-Semitic response; all the separatists, Antébi warned, whether Macedonian, Albanian, or Zionist, would be crushed with the same vigor. Instead, he argued, “the future is with patriotic, Ottoman liberalism, enlightened, active and devoted. All our Jews—and the [Zionist] colonists especially—must embrace it without delay or reserve.”
¹⁰⁵

Despite Antébis’s efforts, in the years before World War I the main thrust of the Jewish press in Palestine would be to cope with anti-Zionism in the local press. More than any other newspaper, the Sephardi-edited and -run
Liberty
stood out in its efforts to monitor the Arabic press and alert its Jewish readership to Arab opposition to Zionism.
¹⁰⁶
It translated articles from Arabic language newspapers, devoted numerous columns to the topic, and included news “from the field.” It was also a frequent instigator of using legal recourse and political pressure to moderate the local critics of Zionism, as its numerous letters to the chief rabbi of the empire attest. Around the same time,
Liberty
turned its attention to alleged anti-Jewish reports in the Ottoman Turkish and Greek press. It bemoaned, “The days of joy and delight have passed, the days of noisy parades have changed, the voices of ‘Long live liberty, brotherhood, equality!’ have vanished, and here and there began to be heard voices of incitement against the Jews.”
¹⁰⁷
As the paper wrote, “we hope that the constitutional Ottoman government will see all those who lecture like this and forbid the publication of these kinds of articles whose whole aim is to create an anti-Semitic movement in our free country which needs only more unity.”
¹⁰⁸

Moyal had warned the editors of
Liberty
that a new newspaper published up north,
The Carmel
, was already agitating against the Zionist colonies in the Galilee.
¹⁰⁹
Over the next several years, the most intense battles were fought between
The Carmel
and representatives of the Jewish community and Zionist movement, characterized by a cycle of complaints
against the paper, after which
The Carmel
might be forced to shut down for one- to two-month periods. For example, in the fall of 1909, Chief Rabbi Haim Nahum filed an official complaint with the Ottoman Ministry of Interior about the paper, and in late October,
Liberty
notified its readers that
The Carmel
had ceased publication for unknown reasons. In early February,
Liberty
notified its readers that
The Carmel
had resumed publication, but just one week later, Haim Nahum again requested that the paper be shut down, since “it was at the root of distance and disturbances among the peoples in the country.”
¹¹⁰

Members of the Haifa Jewish community supported the chief rabbi’s lawsuits, arguing that
The Carmel
’s true aim was “of course to destroy our value in the eyes of our surrounding neighbors and to awaken the anger of the masses against us.”
¹¹¹
Additional newspaper articles accused
The Carmel
of turning the Ottoman Turkish press and public opinion in Istanbul against the Jews, as well as of corrupting other Arabic newspapers. As
Liberty
darkly noted, “Slowly the seed of hatred from
The Carmel
bore fruit not only in Haifa but also in Damascus, Beirut, Sidon, ‘Akka (Acre), and all the cities of Syria.”
¹¹²

In June 1910, however, Neguib Nassar successfully defended
The Carmel
against the chief rabbi’s latest lawsuit, arguing that the paper was founded to protect human rights, Ottoman unity and assimilation of its peoples, and to warn the government of the ambitions of foreign residents. The aims of the Jews, according to
The Carmel
, could only damage the advancement of Ottomania and its success.
¹¹³
The general prosecutor agreed that
The Carmel
was anti-Zionist, but maintained that this was a legitimate political position that was Ottomanist in sentiment, rather than anti-Jewish, as the chief rabbi and
The Carmel
’s critics maintained. For its part,
Liberty
angrily reported that Nassar was cheered on by the assembled (and, in its view, anti-Semitic) audience.

In addition to
The Carmel
, the Jaffa-based newspaper
Palestine
was shut down several times, once after the governor declared that it “sows discord among the elements of the country.” After another such lawsuit, this time launched at the initiative of the Ministry of Interior,
The Carmel
came to the defense of its southern ally, arguing that
“Palestine
is among the newspapers that serve the state and the homeland in loyalty and devotion.” Two months later, after additional incitement by
Liberty
against
Palestine, The Carmel
opined that it was odd that
Liberty
, “a Zionist paper that advocates foreign government in the heart of the Ottoman Empire,” should cast aspersion on
Palestine
, “a paper which serves the government and defends its existence and unity and social and economic success.” The press wars continued; on another occasion, in April 1913, the government shut down
Palestine
for “dividing between
the races.” The following year,
Palestine
successfully defended itself against another lawsuit when the court found that an article it published fell within the purview of free speech, given that it targeted Zionists and foreign Jews, not Ottoman Jews.
¹¹⁴

In other words, in addition to expressing rivalry in the public sphere, the press was also a site for battles over Ottomanism itself. The legal proceedings against the Palestinian press centered on a discourse of “public good” and the “unity” or “utility” of the nation. The Hebrew
Liberty
explained its role in the press wars in these terms:

If we attack
Palestine
or
The Carmel
or any other paper that plants hatred and animosity between the nations and especially between the Jews and the Muslims who always lived in complete brotherhood and traditional friendship…no one can find in this any chutzpah since our war is a holy and exalted war…. How can
The Carmel
claim that their brother [
Palestine
] is loyal and faithful to the state? Is placing thorns of accusation on an entire people who bring life to the state and its residents [really] defending on behalf of the government? Is slander against the Jews who are truly loyal to the beloved homeland and for whom no sacrifice is too burdensome for the good and wholeness (of the homeland), is that fighting on behalf of unity of the peoples? No and no!…The duty of the government is to protect the honor of the quiet and peaceful peoples truly loyal to it in their innocent hearts, and to control those who plant the seeds of hatred.
¹¹⁵

To a certain degree, then, the press was used as a deliberate tool by both Jews and Christians to divide the other from their Muslim compatriots. For example, in the midst of the wars in the Balkans,
Liberty
encouraged the press to work to “strengthen the good ties” between Muslims and Jews that had emerged as a result of the war which had cast doubt on the loyalty of the empire’s Christians. Within days, however,
Liberty
complained that the Christian-run
Palestine
had published “another lie” that local Jews were agitating against the Muslim Rumelian refugees. “Our Muslims here should think about the aim of these lies,” the paper warned.
¹¹⁶
Indeed, as we will see in the concluding chapter, the press was a significant factor in the reorganization of communal alliances in Palestine.

For its part, the Jewish press conflated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and, as we will see in
Chapter Six
, never engaged with the substance of the criticisms aired in the Palestinian Arab press, despite working hard to fight against them. By early 1912, Shim’on Moyal organized a public meeting in the Jewish community to discuss the anti-Zionist press.
Liberty’s
Jaffa correspondent “Ben-Emeti” reported on the meeting in some detail, and remarked that despite the fact that the meeting was set for noon on a work day (and not on Shabbat or in the evening), there was a significant gathering that showed up at the main synagogue, Kehilat
Ya‘kov. He remarked that though many public officials did not come, “those whose hearts ache at the awful situation found among his people in his land came.”
¹¹⁷

In his invitation to the meeting, Moyal indicated how he and others like him were able to reconcile their positions as both supportive of Zionism and seeking rapprochement with their Arab neighbors: “Our Hebrew national ambitions do not oppose [the Arabs’] own ambitions and we have the ability to work with energy and a devoted spirit for the shared homeland [
ha-moledet ha-meshutefet
] and for the foundational level of the Ottoman people under whose umbrella we live, at the same time that we desire to be a special Jewish nation concerned with its own language, its own style, its own past, its own future, and its own customs.” While several leading Ashkenazi members of the Jewish community expressed opposition to placing any importance at all on the Arabic press, Moyal insisted, saying, “We must organize and present ourselves before the masses, to [show them] our ambitions for the good of the homeland.”
¹¹⁸