The Moroccan Nationalist Movement and Its Attitude toward Jews and Zionism · 167and not all of them identify with the rule in conquered Palestine, the radi-
cal elements of the Istiqlal interpreted his words for their own purposes.
It is assumed that the Moroccan Nationalists understood, at this point,
the “double standard” espoused by some of the elite Jews, whose identity
fluctuated between various combinations of national, French, and Mo-
roccan identity. They related to them as toward a manipulative factor in
Moroccan society.^19 As stated, the sultan’s speech and various concurrent
events are considered the catalysts of the riots and murders in Oujda and
Jerada about a month later.
The public forum of the Istiqlal was—and still is today—the daily al-
̔Alam. In the period discussed here, many articles appeared in al- ̔Alam
concerning the subject of Zionism. In June 1947, the newspaper published
an article under the headline “The Modern Crusaders,” which stated that
the Jews, as Zionists, play the part of the destructive Crusaders in today’s
modern world. They are “trampling, blood-thirsty soldiers” whose aim is
to “conquer the entire world.” They have different beliefs and opinions,
and all kinds of ideologies, but “no true belief and no real ideals”—it is
just the lust for money that drives them forward. Their only goal is to
gain control of the entire universe.^20 During the 1947–49 war, the Moroc-
can newspapers called upon Muslims of all socioeconomic strata to do-
nate funds on Arab Palestine’s behalf and to boycott Jews and Europeans.
In Fez, the wife of ̔Allal al-Fassi and the wives of other leading notables
rallied on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs and the war effort against Israel.
In Casablanca, the women of the local bourgeoisie donated their jewelry
for this cause. Muslims in several major urban communities were encour-
aged to boycott Jewish and European business firms if their representa-
tives were known to espouse pro-Zionist sentiments or to have collected
funds on Israel’s behalf.^21
The Nationalists’ reactions to the riots in Oujda and Jerada typify their
overall approach to the Jews: They claimed their people neither partici-
pated in the riots nor initiated them, but took their time before they criti-
cized them. They expressed remorse about the events, called harming the
Jews “contemptible steps,” but simultaneously accused them of bring-
ing these sorry events upon themselves by supporting Zionism and the
state of Israel. Aḥmad Balafrej claimed that the Zionist propagandists
should have foreseen these outcomes, just as the Nationalists should
have warned their people of the consequences of their actions.^22
The scene’s situation changed again shortly before and after Morocco