RUHI AL-KHALIdI’S “AS-SAYūNīZM” • 91Zionism,^174 “Mendelssohn’s theory” and the so- called asqāmah against
Jewish nationalism are central to al- Khalidi’s narrative.
The comparison between Nassar’s pamphlet and al- Khalidi’s manu-
script is somewhat more complicated when it comes to Jewish territo-
rialist ventures beyond Palestine. While Nassar consistently minimizes
these ventures, al- Khalidi discusses some extensively and downplays
others. Just like Nassar, al- Khalidi does not give much attention to the
explosive east Africa controversy, for instance, even though Gottheil’s
entry deals with it at great length. Unlike Nassar, though, al- Khalidi
presents a protracted discussion of Baron Maurice de Hirsch’s project
of moving masses of Jews to Argentina, a scheme mentioned only in
passing in Gottheil’s article. After laying out the details of the scheme
and the 1892 negotiations with Russian officials, al- Khalidi takes pains
to emphasize that de Hirsch’s Argentina plan was quite different from
Herzl’s Zionism. “There was not the slightest Zionist attachment, nei-
ther morally nor politically,” in de Hirsch’s plan, writes al- Khalidi, “nor
was there a thought in his mind of establishing a Jewish state, neither
then nor in the future. Rather, his project was the incorporation of the
Jewish immigrants into Argentinean citizenship quickly and easily.”^175
de Hirsch, in other words, was a philanthropist who fully abided by
“Mendelssohn’s theory” in all respects: he did not attempt to reconnect
the severed link between the Jews and Palestine and he did not treat
the Jews as a nation.^176 He simply wished to transfer suffering Jews to
a new country, the nationality of which they would immediately adopt.
Perhaps al- Khalidi passed over the east Africa plan because it com-
plicated his theory of Jewish history. Al- Khalidi, like his uncle Yusuf
diyaʾ, recognized the suffering of the masses of Jews in eastern eu-
rope; as we have seen, he records their oppression under the czar in
minute detail. He therefore understood the impulse to find a refuge for
Jews wherever it might be. Yet, as one who acknowledged and compre-
hended the historical Jewish link to Palestine, the notion of the Jews’
seeking nationally to settle a territory other than Palestine (as was the
case with the east Africa plan) must have been somewhat mystifying.
The nationalist “territorialist” position undercut the premodern bond
between the Jews and Zion, while simultaneously violating the modern
“theory of Mendelssohn” by still maintaining Jewish peoplehood and
the will for Jewish self- rule.
(^174) See ibid., 108n.64.
(^175) al- Khalidi, “as- Sayūnīzm, ay al- masʾala aṣ- ṣahyūniyya” [copyist version], 75.
(^176) This was perhaps merely accidental, though, since Ruhi al- Khalidi emphasizes that
de Hirsch rejected the settlement of Palestine for economic and political (i.e., not neces-
sarily ideological) reasons.