218 • chapter 5
from a text of this genre is difficult, not least because Moyal’s historical
reconstructions suggest more than one model for Jewish independence.
Given the Ottomanist political philosophy with which Moyal is associ-
ated in recent historiography,^126 especially because of lines like the one
cited above in which he wrote of the compatibility of Zionist ambitions
and those of “the Ottoman nation under whose shadow we stand,”^127
we may interpret his view of an israelite awakening (nahḍa) “under
the protectorate of King Cyrus” as his precursory model for a contem-
porary Jewish renaissance under the Ottoman sultan. Indeed, Moyal
describes the period of the Second temple as one of “partial indepen-
dence [baʿḍ al- istiqlāl] under the rule of an Israelite governor appointed
by the decree of the persian king.”^128 In his account of alexander the
Great’s conquest of Judea, Moyal uses a more specific phrase, describ-
ing the Greek ruler’s decision to preserve Judea’s “internal (or domes-
tic) independence [istiqlālahā ad- dākhilī].”^129 employing the central
terms of the modern arabic political- ideological lexicon^130 — waṭaniyya,
qawmiyya, shaʿb, nahḍa, istiqlāl— Moyal projects them onto the distant
Jewish past, implying, perhaps, that such a national awakening, nahḍa
qawmiyya, is possible again. this may well have been how Moyal was
able to unite his Zionism with his Ottomanism, how his newspaper
Ṣawt al- ʿuthmāniyya (the Voice of ottomanism) could serve to defend
Zionism. Just as the Israelites returned to their land with “partial in-
dependence” (baʿḍ al- istiqlāl) as a persian protectorate in the Second
temple period, or with “internal independence” (al- istiqlāl ad- dākhilī)
under alexander’s Greek regime,^131 so too in Moyal’s own day the Jews
might return to palestine and live there, this time as an Ottoman pro-
tectorate. Moyal’s particular vision of Zionism, then, could be perfectly
consistent with his commitment to the Ottoman empire.
however, this interpretation of Moyal’s reading of Jewish history is
complicated by other aspects of his presentation of Jewish history. For
instance, he also writes admiringly about the Maccabees, during whose
rule “the Israelite nation achieved complete independence [tamām al-
istiqlāl] and power.” Indeed, “the neighboring nations feared its [the
hasmonean state’s] might.”^132 Such a description could hardly have
been intended to relax the anxieties of those arabs who saw a threat in
Zionist ambitions. If the precedent of the Jews under Cyrus or alexan-
(^126) See, e.g., Campos, Ottoman Brothers.
(^127) ha- Ḥerut 4:70 (February 2, 1912), 3.
(^128) Mūyāl, at- Talmūd, 25.
(^129) Ibid., 66.
(^130) See ayalon, Language and Change in the Arab Middle East.
(^131) Mūyāl, at- Talmūd, 66.
(^132) ibid., 31.