128 • CHAPTER 3
that has awoken to our words.”^125 In other words, the only local Zionist
paper that listened to ha-Ḥerutand 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-Aḥdutto this problem, the fact that, accord-
ing to ha-Ḥerut’s editors, one of these Second Aliyah Ashkenazic papers
joined ha-Ḥerut’s campaign suggests the need for qualifying the funda-
mental 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 ar-
gues that “throughout its discussion of the ways to influence Arab public
opinion,” ha-Ḥerut “reflected hopes for coexistence and co- operation be-
tween 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 pro-
duction 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 acknowl edges,^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 pal-
estine. rather, all who sought to question the ideological or political
compatibility of Zionism and Ottomanism, who perceived within Zi-
onism a separatist movement seeking Jewish sovereignty in Palestine,
who highlighted the trappings of statehood that the Zionist movement
(^125) ha-Ḥerut 3:16 (november 28, 1910), 2. Cf. Ben- Ẓevi, “On the Question of Founding
a Newspaper in arabic,”ha-Aḥdut 3:4– 5 (november 10– 17, 1911).
(^126) Ha-Ḥerut frequently uses the term moledet (“homeland”) to refer to the Ottoman
empire, as can be seen explicitly in the concluding words of this passage.
(^127) ha-Ḥerut 3:7 (november 7, 1910), 1.
(^128) See Jacobson, “The Sephardi Community in Pre– World War I Palestine,” 32.