90 • cHAPTeR 2
Before turning to the younger al- Khalidi’s position on this issue,
we must recall that he was not the only Arab in Palestine to under-
take a translation of Gottheil’s extensive “Zionism” article. In 1911
Najib Nassar, editor of al-Karmil newspaper in Haifa and an outspo-
ken opponent of Zionism, published a sixty- four- page pamphlet called
aṣ-Ṣahyūniyya:Tārīkhuhu,gharaduhu,ahamiyyatuhu(mulakhasanʿan
al-ensyklūbīdiyyaal-yahūdiyya) (Zionism: Its History, Purpose, and Im-
portance [excerpted from the JewishEncyclopedia]). In publishing this
translation, Nassar made his own purpose explicit: he sought to show
that, contrary to the view recently expressed by the Ottoman grand
vizier, Zionism was not merely a dream^171 of fanatics, but a very real
threat that required decisive and sustained opposition from the highest
levels of the Ottoman administration. There could be no better source
to demonstrate the serious nature of Zionist intentions and activities,
Nassar reasoned, than the Jews’ own encyclopedia.
In his analysis of Nassar’s aṣ-Ṣahyūniyya, Neville Mandel contends
that Nassar engaged in a systematic manipulation of Gottheil’s arti-
cle. According to Mandel, Nassar slashed from his translation most of
Gottheil’s references to internal discord within the Jewish and Zionist
ranks and to Jewish territorial projects outside of Palestine.^172 It strikes
me that Mandel overstates his case. After all, Nassar acknowledges that
Herzl’s Judenstaat proposed either Palestine or Argentina for the site of
the Jewish state; he mentions the al- Arish suggestion as well as the east
Africa considerations; and twice he even adds mention of a supposed
english rabbinic decree against Zionism.^173 Nonetheless, it is true that
Gottheil’s article emphasizes these events and movements more than
Nassar does. Nassar’s thesis— asserting that Zionism must be deemed
a grave menace to the Ottoman empire in general and to Palestine in
particular— guided the way in which he selected the passages from
Gottheil’s encyclopedia entry and led him to excise those parts that
undermined his perception of the serious threat of Zionism.
Al- Khalidi’s aim in writing his manuscript was different from that of
Nassar, as we have discovered, even though al- Khalidi certainly agreed
that Zionism was a genuine danger for Palestine. One way to discern the
difference between the two works is to compare them on the very issues
that Mandel has highlighted concerning Nassar’s pamphlet. We have al-
ready seen that al- Khalidi writes unreservedly about Jewish opponents
of Zionism. In contrast to Nassar, who leaves out from his translation
Gottheil’s discussion of the Jewish Reform movement’s opposition to
(^171) Riwāya. Literally: “a play, story, or drama.”
(^172) Mandel, TheArabsandZionismbeforeWorldWarI, 108– 9.
(^173) Mandel acknowledges these two references in a footnote. See ibid., n.68.