Journal of Modern Jewish Studies

ISSN: 1472-5886 (Print) 1472-5894 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmjs20

1911: the birth of the Mizrahi–Ashkenazi

controversy

Moshe Behar

To cite this article: Moshe Behar (2017) 1911: the birth of the Mizrahi–Ashkenazi controversy,
Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 16:2, 312-331

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14725886.2017.1295588

Published online: 04 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cmjs20

Download by: [The University of Manchester Library] Date: 04 April 2017, At: 10:57
JOURNAL OF MODERN JEWISH STUDIES, 2017
VOL. 16, NO. 2, 312–331
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14725886.2017.1295588

1911: the birth of the Mizrahi–Ashkenazi controversy

Moshe Behar
Department of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

ABSTRACT
The question was simple: should the Hebraist Zionist movement in
Ottoman Palestine invest in publishing a newspaper in Arabic and, if
yes, should it be communitarian Jewish or general in its topics? What
began as yet another obscure intra-Zionist deliberation gradually
crystallized into what I argue merits the label of the earliest,
explicitly Ashkenazi–Mizrahi ethnic controversy. This is with the
smallest risk of the superimposition in hindsight of the terms and
signifiers usually associated with Israel’s post-1971/Black-Panthers
era onto the Ottoman period. Lasting between 1909 and 1913,
the spirited exchange regarding the Arabic newspaper involved
two dozen writers, mainly of the Sephardi–Mizrahi Haherut
newspaper, and about one third of ethnic Ashkenazim writing
elsewhere. It was nonetheless October 1911 that encapsulated the
peak of the controversy, mainly due to writing by Mizrahi
intellectual and activist Dr Shimon Moyal (1866–1915) and
Ashkenazi intellectual and activist Dr Avraham Ludvipol (1865–
1921). My decision to let primary texts speak for themselves at
greater length than is customary results from my conviction that –
in this case – extensive recourse to source material can convey
best to twenty-first-century readers why the exchange is
effectively “the mother” of all ensuing Mizrahi–Ashkenazi ethnic
controversies. While clear definition for what constitutes such a
controversy is provided, I close by offering a sample of views
about the Arabic newspaper by four prominent Ashkenazi Zionists.

Relaxing Ashkenazi-centredness
In his 2001 article, “‘A Question That Outweighs All Others’: Yitzhak Epstein and Zionist
Recognition of the Arab Issue,” Alan Dowty gave scholars a translation of Epstein’s 1907
essay “A Hidden Question.” Introducing this important source, he found it necessary to
discusses Ahad Ha’am, Menachem Ussishkin, Leo Motzkin, Theodor Herzl, Max
Nordau and Ber Borochov as representative Zionists who dealt with what was dubbed
the “Arab [Palestinian] question.” Yet in relation to this discussion neither Epstein, nor
Dowty a century later, mentioned any newspaper, social or political organ of non-Euro-
pean composition or form, nor any individual Jew of non-European origin or identity.
This article contributes to the reappraisal of the “Arab Question” within Zionism. It
does so by marshalling evidence from an exchange regarding the question of a Hebrew
newspaper in Arabic in Ottoman Palestine, demonstrating that, contrary to the historically

CONTACT Moshe Behar moshe.behar@manchester.ac.uk

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 JOURNAL OF MODERN JEWISH STUDIES 313

dominant representation, the crucial pre-1948 debate over the “Arab question” was never
situated exclusively within Euro-Zionist circles. Arguments by non-Ashkenazi intellec-
tuals remain scant in the gigantic body of scholarship scrutinizing the Palestine/Israel
question, produced throughout the world by Jews, Arabs, Zionists, anti-Zionists, post-Zio-
nists and others. While studies on Palestine/Israel are heterogeneous and polarized, most
remain Ashkenazi-centric: they gloss over writings by Middle Eastern Jewish intellectuals
whose reasoning often fractures the cosy coherence typifying Zionist or anti-Zionist teleo-
logical narratives.

Pre-1948 “Mizrahi discourse”?

Scholars agree that as a consequence of economic, sociopolitical and cultural dynamics, a
distinct collectivity, largely comprised of Jews of Asian/African descent, has emerged in
Israel following the post-1949 mass arrival of these Jews to Israel (Behar 2007; Amor
2013). A bottoms-up socio-terminological struggle from 1980 to 1995 enshrined “Mizra-
him” (Easterners) as the global signifier to denote them (Behar 2009). Yet recent studies
offer a corrective to the dominant view of the Mizrahi collectivity as a post-1950s made-
in-Israel phenomenon. While sociologically it may well be that this collectivity is an
“in-Israel” outgrowth, a modern Mizrahi sociopolitical and cultural discourse, thought,
consciousness, perspective, view, orientation, reasoning, disposition and so on has nonethe-
less been in empirical existence since the late nineteenth century either within, around, or
against European Zionism (Behar and Benite 2013, 2014; Evri 2014; Behar 2015).
By “Mizrahi discourse” I mean a multifaceted discourse that nonetheless possesses a
common denominator that since the early twentieth century has retained the discourse’s
richness while concurrently enabling its development (to date). Shared by formulators of,
and participants in, the “Mizrahi discourse” this denominator is the following tacit agree-
ment, embedded in many primary sources (Behar and Benite 2013): there existed in the
pre-1948 modern Middle East, and remains chiefly inside Israel/Palestine today, a distinct
sociocultural collectivity consisting of Eastern (non-Ashkenazi) Jews. Before or after
1948, this collectivity never assimilated its distinctive identity to either Ashkenazi
Zionists or non-Jewish-Arabs. It is mainly physical, cultural and political geography
that to this day continues to play the key-role in the century old “Mizrahi discourse”:
“The relationship with, and the link to, the East, however defined, and the condition
of ‘being an Eastern Jew,’ again however defined, are key elements [in this discourse]”
(Behar and Benite 2013, xxi). The “Mizrahi discourse” is far from textual alone but
also encompasses such areas as the sociopolitical, institutional, organizational, artistic,
religious and more.
The foundation for what in the Palestine/Israel context would subsequently be recog-
nized as “the Mizrahi discourse” differing from the Ashkenazi Zionist one was laid by the
constituency surrounding the Haherut newspaper (1909–1917). For all intents and pur-
poses Haherut associates were the first historically organized Mizrahim (Behar 2015).
For them, Sephardi/Mizrahi identity emanated from a cultural and geopolitical orientation
that viewed Jews as desirably linked to the Arab-East and Asia-at-large (Evri and Behar
2017) in a manner that was profoundly modernist, forward-looking and optimistic.
Haherut supported the Zionist idea of Jewish territorial ingathering (Bezalel 1989) yet
in a manner that differed markedly from neighbouring Ashkenazi Zionist constituencies.
314 M. BEHAR

Haherut supported the Young Turks’ 1908 Revolution enthusiastically and advocated
for Zionist integration within the new Ottoman framework, while promoting inter-
ethnic and inter-religious cooperation, including with Palestinian Arabs (Campos
2011). It maintained that as Eastern-Semitic, Jews must reintegrate themselves into
their culturally and linguistically Arabized ancient homeland (Jacobson 2003, 2011b). It
is unsurprising that with regard to the crucial realm of labour, writers for Haherut advo-
cated for Jewish-Arab cooperation (Laskier 1992) questioning the economic separatism
institutionalized by the Second Aliya (1904–1914). Haherut dealt with the Palestinian
Arab question more than any other Hebrew platform (Bezalel 2008, 367). It can be said
that in relation to the Palestinian Arabs, adherents of the Mizrahi discourse have
always taken seriously Hillel the Elder’s tenet “what is hateful to you, do not do to your
fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is its interpretation” (Shabbat Folio, 31a, Babylo-
nian Talmud).
Lastly, being Zionist, Haherut supported the revival of Hebrew yet displayed no hosti-
lity towards Arabic, as was common among non-Mizrahi intellectuals such as Yosef Klaus-
ner, YH Brenner, and Yaacov Rabinovitch, or in leading periodicals such as Hapo’el
hatza’ir (1907–1970). Haherut published Zionist Mizrahi voices advocating for the pro-
motion of Hebrew–Arabic bilingualism. Writers urged Arabized Jews to maintain their
Arabic while emphasizing the need for Ashkenazi newcomers to learn Arabic and fam-
iliarize themselves with the culture of the region (Maman 1910).

Ashkenazi–Mizrahi tensions before Haherut

The idea to create a bilingual Hebrew–Arabic newspaper in Palestine pre-dated Haherut
and probably emerged in 1899. It was, rather upliftingly, “the honourable Shlomit Hamida
Sharifa, a native of Arabia currently residing [in Palestine], who succeeded in securing an
Ottoman license for this purpose” (Hamagid, “Yehuda’s News Items”, 30 December 1899:
16). Hamagid boasted: “for Jews, this will be the first newspaper to be published in the
sister-languages and by a female publisher” [all translations are mine M.B.].
Between 1909 and 1913 several Haherut writers noted that they were first, or among the
first, to propose “a Hebrew newspaper in Arabic” (the word “Jewish” was less frequent). It
is nonetheless clear that on their late-1908 return from Cairo to Jaffa Shimon Moyal and
his wife Esther (Levy 2012) were among those who began advocating for such newspaper
more consistently. Interestingly, in the pre-Haherut press the Arabic–Hebrew tension was
first associated with Mrs Moyal. In March 1909 a Sephardi Banquet (neshef Sfaradi) was
held in Jaffa, hosting many Palestinians and Ashkenazim. In her address Mrs Moyal
impressed the audience, particularly young Palestinian invitees, with her superb Arabic
(Hazvi, 15 March 1909). She
spoke with love and affection of the Arabs who are racially closest [to the Hebrews] and
whose development, ideas and views resemble those of the Hebrews. Mrs Moyal closed
with a call for everyone to undertake, as Ottomans, special work so that everyone could
become One People through the new Ottoman constitution. (Hazvi, 15 March 1909)

Some Ashkenazi guests felt uneasy about local Jews raving about “the beauty of the Arabic
language.” A[lter] Gutman (1870–1932), aka S Ben-Zion, was among the dignitaries
invited to greet from the podium. His address insulted his Sephardi–Mizrahi hosts by
 JOURNAL OF MODERN JEWISH STUDIES 315

deriding their proximity and attraction to Arab culture and language; he also criticized the
veiling of women, a claim dismissed by his hosts. Author Uri Nissan Gnessin (1879–1913)
followed and “cut deeper the wounds inflicted upon the Sephardim by Gutman” (Hazvi,
15 March 1909). After that evening Esther Moyal published a path-breaking Mizrahi text
(which owing to space-constraints I must analyse in-depth elsewhere). Entitled “Gather-
ing” (Hazvi, 30 March 1909), she elaborated:
Last night I was fortunate to witness for the first time […] the clash between the views of
“Sephardim” – whose perspectives and opinions are fully Mizrahi – and the opinions of
their brothers the “Ashkenazim”, saturated with a European way of thinking. Two cultural
powers dominate the earth: the ancient Mizrahi and the European; the latter triumphed
over the former and will soon wash it away completely. At the beginning of the gathering
[asefa] I felt the anxiety one experiences when clouds are filled with electric currents
before storms erupt. Agony was visible on everyone’s face. While both groups spoke in
Hebrew, mutual understanding was minimal: not everything the “European” said was under-
stood by the “Eastern” while the “European” did not always comprehend the thoughts of the
“Eastern.” […] The nature of the Mizrahi is to adhere to paths agreed in advance; he desires
to proceed very slowly while rushing tends to trigger his disengagement. The Mizrahi is mod-
erate, very moderate and it is possible that this [alleged] shortcoming is actually superior to
careless hastiness. The European becomes excited more easily; he wishes to move forward in
huge steps notwithstanding [Palestine’s] local obstacles of which he is not yet aware. The
European likes to opine even if views have already been articulated before him, albeit in a
different style. Whereas he chases life’s grand principles, it is more pertinent to discuss tan-
gible issues. […] I don’t wish to discuss here the resolutions of the gathering. […] I wish to
learn just one thing from it: that the [ethnic] clash about which I was initially worried was
subsequently not that dreadful. […] I hope that readers will not be too quick to judge my
words unfavourably without taking into account that I write in Arabic and that the person
assembling them in Hebrew is not fluent in it [Moyal surely meant her husband; see
below—M.B.]. My aim is not to judge the battles between our parties but to record the
impressions a Jewish gathering in the Land of Israel made on me, a Hebrew-Arab woman.
[Ivriya-Araviya].

While Moyal detected the embryonic existence of a politicized intra-Jewish ethnic divide,
the contentious idea of a “Hebrew newspaper in Arabic” would soon reflect it full-blown
for the first time. The post-1908 triumphs of the Union and Progress Party were mean-
while being celebrated by Palestinians, Armenians, Greeks and Mizrahi Jews and some
Ashkenazi Jews (clergy included). Dr Moyal addressed audiences in Arabic while simul-
taneously translating from Hebrew speeches by such Ashkenazim as Rabbi A Hakohen
Kook (1865–1935) (“After the Revolution,” Hazvi, 30 April 1909). Analysis in Hazman
highlighted Moyal’s activities and “The National Israel Union” he founded and over
which he presided (“Land of Israel’s victory-Celebration of the Constitution,” 21 May
1909):
Members of the union contributed greatly to the demonstration of support for the Consti-
tution. Natives of the Land and absolute Arabs [aravim gmurim] by language, clothes and
customs, they embedded themselves in the demonstrating masses, explaining the necessity
and nature of freedom.

The Moyals held a lavish party hosting hundreds of Jaffa’s religious and ethnic groups who
celebrated until 2.00 am. The official telegram sent “To our Constitutional New Sultan
Muhammad the 5th” read:
316 M. BEHAR

We, members of the “National Israel Union”, descendants of refugees who 400 years ago were
offered shelter with love and affection by your ancestors, gathered today to celebrate. […] We
formed in Jerusalem a rabbinical Jewish court comprised of European and Ottoman rabbis
[…] not in existence since the People of Israel were exiled from their Land. We swear to
be loyal in our bodies and properties so long as you, our master, remain committed to the
Constitution […].” (“Land of Israel’s victory-celebration of the Constitution,” 21 May 1909)

It should be emphasized that Moyal was ardently Zionist, involved in, for example, orga-
nizing a memorial for the fifth anniversary of Herzl’s death in Jaffa’s Sephardi synagogue.
Not only was this the first occasion where women and men sat together but Ashkenazim of
diverse ideological streams were also invited (Gabbai, “Herzl Day in Jaffa,” Hazvi, 12 July
1909). Moyals’ overall project was to conjoin Mizrahim, Ashkenazim and Palestinians.

Arabic newspaper in Haherut

Sustained advocacy for an Arabic newspaper crystallized following Haherut’s appearance.
Already its fourth issue (21 May 1909) included a special supplement where Yossi Haglili
(aka YD Maman) interviewed Moyal. A central issue it discussed was attacks on Zionists
and Jews published in Christian-owned Arabic publications. Both men contested the claim
that such attacks were driven honestly by concerns over the wellbeing of Ottoman society
or Palestine. They agreed that texts deliberately ignored benefits that Jews and Zionists had
brought to the Land. “If these writings cannot, or are unwilling to, understand these
elements themselves,” Haglili asked, “doesn’t it become our duty to clarify them based
on empirical proof […] so that Arab readers following such texts blindly could judge
issues for themselves?” Moyal asked whom Haglili had in mind to do this work and
was told:
The all-too-few Jews – sadly – who are capable of responding in Arabic, […] who see and
hear what truly goes on, and whose forecasts [regarding Jewish/non-Jewish relations] are dis-
couragingly unpromising. […] Our European brothers who possess means stand aside. […]
Isn’t it our duty then to […] prevent this negative development before it spreads further in
the Arab masses?

Moyal responded that it was impossible for him to be published in Arabic newspapers and
that in the past he had been forced to self-finance the publication and distribution of his
responses. From Moyal’s obituary by Avraham Elmaleh (Haherut, 15 June 1915) we know
that he ultimately lost over 4000 francs of his own money on the newspaper. By May 1909
Moyal responded on three occasions and found this undertaking expensive and ineffective.
The best idea was to publish a Hebrew newspaper in Arabic yet this required the consider-
able sum of 30,000 francs. Moyal mentioned that he had raised the issue with the Zionist
leader Menachem Sheinkin (1871–1924) who, incidentally, would suggest the name “Tel
Aviv” for the new city a year later, and eight years later (1917) publish a booklet on the
relationship between Hebrew and competing languages Jews use.
Mockery of Moyal for his insistence on the importance of Arabic for Palestine’s emer-
ging Jewish collectivity swiftly spread in the leading socialist-Zionist newspaper Hapo’el
hatza’ir. Moyal was derided as an “Arab patriot” (“Letter from Jerusalem,” 6 July 1910)
and charged with being an ideological associate of non-Zionists such as the Ottoman
Empire’s Hakham Bashi (Chief Rabbi) Haim Nahum Effendi (1873–1960) who visited
Palestine in 1910. The hostility of Hapo’el hatza’ir was not limited to the idea of the
 JOURNAL OF MODERN JEWISH STUDIES 317

Arabic newspaper but concerned Haherut’s overall Ottoman-Eastern orientation. Particu-

larly annoying for Hapo’el hatza’ir was what it described as the countless warnings that
Haherut associates had written about the long-term dangers to the Jews in Palestine
inherent in the prevailing Zionist ignorance of the “Arab question” (“On this-and-that,”
9 December 1910).
This mirrored the conflicting interpretations of developments in Palestine by Mizrahi
and Ashkenazi intellectuals. In “The First Bomb” (Haherut, 23 June 1911) Maman
attempted to make sense of these differences by contrasting the socio-historical trajectories
producing Mizrahim and Ashkenazim:
While we [local Jews] predicted the first bomb before its actual appearance, we failed to antici-
pate how soon it would explode; now it has. Did you hear its sound my dozing [Ashkenazi]
brothers? […] Were your nerves shaken following its explosion […] or is it that you now
confirm what I’ve long suspected, namely, that your very senses have been utterly destroyed
already for such long time? Is it possible that you have heard nothing of recent news from
Haifa [regarding attacks on local Jews]? […] Perhaps for you, brothers, such news means
little because you’ve been long accustomed to physical persecutions [pra’ot] and witnessed
[in Europe] bodiless heads, open stomachs, dismembered bodies. […] Yet do you have any
idea how much these developments affect the Land’s local Jews? They depress them not
only because they [Mizrahim] are, quite naturally, extremely worried [about Palestine’s situ-
ation]: peace and tranquility have thus far dominated their lives as they are centuries distant
from such inhuman behaviour. Local Jews are also worried because they are significantly
more familiar with the Land’s hard and dangerous conditions if, heaven forbid, it would
also experience that pattern of pogroms suffered by past Jewish generations. Local Jews are
also familiar with the spirit of the Arab people among whom they have lived safely until now.

Maman proceeded to detail the tragic incident in Haifa involving Mr Buzaglo, a Sephardi
teacher who had graduated from the Alliance school, who spoke Hebrew, Arabic and
French, who had many Jewish, Christian and Muslim friends and who also happened
to be the son-in-law of Mr Nahon, Haifa’s Alliance school director. This background
did not save Buzaglo from a violent attack following an inflammatory news item about
him in the Arabic press. This metaphorically constituted for Maman that “First Bomb”
in Palestine. He concluded:
Dozing brothers, pay attention to our situation, learn thoroughly from this incident and open
your eyes. You, who by moving to this peaceful, tranquil Land escaped persecution, where
exactly will you run next [if the situation deteriorates]? You, who are to be blame for your
boycott [of Palestinian labourers and/or goods – M.B.], loud cacophony, wild imagination,
and false heroism – where are you now? You – who as a consequence of your impulsiveness
placed more obstacles [than bridges] on our holy movement and last hope – until when will
you hide from sight? […] You brothers are furthest from being in touch with the Land’s
[Ottoman/Arab] masters while at the same time removed from poisonous Arab writings
of which we are occasionally able to translate only fragments for you [into Hebrew].
(Haherut, 23 June 1911)

This was neither the first, nor only violent incident involving local Jews. Ben-Zion Levy, a
Sephardi from Jaffa, had been murdered and mutilated a year earlier (“Letter from Jaffa,”
Hazman, 20 March 1910), and the fate of Yehezkel Nisanov three months earlier (Ben
Shabat, “The Time has Come – and if not now, when?” Haherut, 24 March 1911) and
of Shlomo Abo a year later was similar (Ben Shabat, “Will We Remain Silent?”,
Haherut, 10 July 1911).
318 M. BEHAR

On 6 June 1910 Ben-Shabat covered attacks on Jews in Arabic newspapers concluding

that “as suggested by Elmaleh we have one remedy: establish an Arabic-Hebrew newspa-
per with which to combat our critics.” On 10 July, 1911 he explained: “With Haherut’s
editor in writing and verbally, I’ve long pointed out the necessity for a Hebrew-Arabic
newspaper; yet all prominent politicians have ignored the issue, paying no attention to
the deteriorating situation.” For Ben-Shabat, the purpose of such a newspaper was to com-
municate with Jews throughout the Empire who only read Arabic and provide them with
diversified sources of information. In “The Question of creating a Hebrew Newspaper in
Arabic: a proposal” (8 September 1911) Elmaleh offered a qualification: “Few of the leaders
with whom we raised the newspaper idea did not necessarily oppose it in principle but
because they trusted Turkey’s new righteous and progressive leadership.”
The most authoritative individual on Arabic journalism by Jews was Dr Nissim Malul
(1893–1957). He cautioned against melodramatic calls for action that exaggerated expec-
tations regarding the ability of Jews to respond to attacks in Arabic. Engaging with the
recurrent (Ashkenazi) contention that Arabic-speaking Jews were “passive” and “indiffer-
ent,” Malul wrote that he
can demonstrate with an exact list of names that between Egypt and Syria there are only few
among us, Arabic-speaking Jews, capable of responding to their attackers, whether this be a
consequence of an insufficient command of literary Arabic [Fusha], disinterest in politics, or
minimal immersion in Arab journalism and literature. […] Only two or three individuals
have actually written – particularly one writing almost daily one or two articles [himself—
M.B.]. (“Due to the Debate,” Haherut, 16 August 1911)

Malul was reported to have lectured in Petah Tikva, describing his plan
to publish an Arabic-Hebrew newspaper in Jaffa; hoping until then to reprint the Egyptian
newspaper Mahrusha known for its love of Israel. He mentioned his work on Volume II
of his book Asrar al-Yahud (Secrets of the Jews) that clarifies the usefulness Jews bring [to
their surroundings]. (S. Abadi, Haherut, 23 August 1911)

Intervening at length in the discussion from Damascus, Elmaleh lamented the lack of
action in creating the newspaper. Although highlighting chiefly technical and financial
elements, he emphasized not only that the newspaper should be general in topic rather
than parochially Jewish but also that its editors should be Arab non-Jews who would be
reliable and taken seriously (“On the Question of Establishing Arab Newspaper in the
Land of Israel,” Haherut, 8 September 1911). Two weeks later Moyal submitted a
Hebrew translation of a lengthy Arabic pamphlet which he deemed to be illustrative of
the increasing hostility towards Jews in Palestine. His accompanying article explained:
Upon my return from Egypt three years ago, I noticed the danger looming over the yishuv as
a consequence of the lack of knowledge among the leadership of the mood, culture and level
of education of Eastern Arabs. […] Even if performed by Newton or Galileo, every analysis
resting on incorrect and uninformed assumptions will be erroneous. With my own eyes I wit-
nessed the errors [of leaders] who think that local Arabs are rude savages because they do not
resemble the “educated and civilized” Europeans. […] At the same time, I noticed the errors
of Arabs who in their simplistic approaches hold Jews to be immoral, immodest and sexually
loose; a nation loving solely itself and parasitic on others; a nation that will not refrain from
seizing others’ property by bribing judges, governors, etc. I noticed that European Zionists
pay no attention to such matters that necessitate their concern. The Land’s Arabs are not
identical to Istanbul’s governing Ottomans. A good relationship with the Turks does not
 JOURNAL OF MODERN JEWISH STUDIES 319

secure good relationships with the Arabs. Arab love and friendship are as necessary for us as
the Turks’ – if not more. (“Pay attention and listen People of Israel,” 22 September 1911)

Moyal then summarizes his efforts to address the widening Arab-Jewish gulf:
Speeches in Arabic; discussions in Hebrew with Zionist leaders; addresses at public Jewish
meetings where I attempted to point out prevailing misconceptions while explaining the
necessity for taking Arab needs into account. I encouraged rabbis and urged spokespersons
to speak at Arab national gatherings and translated their speeches into Arabic; I founded an
Ottomanist Jewish movement and urged Jews to participate in general national demon-
strations and celebrations. I arranged meetings with Zionist functionaries to discuss the cre-
ation of an Arabic newspaper to disseminate correct and unbiased information about Jews
and Zionism and to counter the flood of defamation in Christian-owned Arabic newspapers.

Moyal then asked: “What were the results of my work?” He highlighted an occasion where
“an important [Ashkenazi] teacher interrupted one of my lectures in Arabic and publicly
mocked all Sephardim who deal with non-Hebrew literature” (22 September 1911). Moyal
probably meant Gutman or Gnessin.

October 1911: birth of the Mizrahi–Ashkenazi controversy

While the discussion about the question of an Arabic newspaper acquired an ethnic
colouration and tension before the intervention of Dr Avraham Ludvipol, it turned into
an explicitly Ashkenazi–Mizrahi controversy afterwards. By “Ashkenazi–Mizrahi contro-
versy” I understand a debate about sociopolitical, cultural, economic or artistic topics that
is comprised of the following: (i) it must be public; (ii) it must involve at least two indi-
viduals on each “side” (but usually more); (iii) it must involve at least one party self-defin-
ing as Eastern/Mizrahi; (iv) it must last days, even weeks; and – most crucially – (v) it must
address some element of the post-1882 Palestine/Israel question and/or its associated
intra-Jewish relationships.
For example, the 1896–1897 debate between Avraham Shalom Yahuda and Theodor
Herzl (Behar and Benite 2014) does not qualify: there exist no primary documentation
about it and it was also circumstantial, limited, and not public and sufficiently widespread.
Similarly, the debate between Abdallah Yosef and Wissenshaft des Judentums scholars
(Evri and Behar 2017) does not merit the label “Ashkenazi–Mizrahi controversy” either
(even if it borders it): lacking links to the Palestine/Israel question, this debate addressed
historical, poetic and philosophical elements pertaining to considerably broader intra-
Jewish East/West divides. Sephardim and Ashkenazim always had their differences. Yet
only those that concern directly and explicitly the modern question of Palestine/Israel
may earn the label “Ashkenazi–Mizrahi.” For example, some domains within
twenty-first-century Facebook (in Hebrew) can certainly be said to host ongoing
Ashkenazi–Mizrahi controversies. Similarly, during the early months of 1997, an
Ashkenazi–Mizrahi controversy that involved, among others, prominent academics and
artists, erupted on the pages of Ha’aretz newspaper’s weekend magazine. During the
1940s the newspaper Hed hamizrah included such controversies too. Yet the first of
such controversy was the one analysed next.
Dr Ludvipol presented his opposition to an Arabic newspaper in at least seven
newspaper articles. It was chiefly his dismissive language, paternal elitism and Orientalist
320 M. BEHAR

arrogance that inflamed the discussion. Gribetz (2014, 197) argues that a Zionist-Arabic
newspaper could have negatively affected Ludvipol’s own work as a Zionist editor. Be
that as it may, at least two dozen writers involved themselves in the debate, of whom a
third were ethnic Ashkenazim. There was a correlation between the participants’ ethnic
origin and affiliation with the Moyal or Ludvipol “camps.”
Ludvipol’s first article “On establishing a Hebrew Newspaper in Arabic” (Hazvi, 4
October 1911) included his principal contention: “If the newspaper is Hebrew [in
content], it will not be Arab; if it is Arab, it will not be a Hebrew newspaper.” His argument
evolved from a dichotomous, profoundly essentialist, and primordially informed1 Zionist
view conceiving Jews and Arabs – and possibly even Hebrew and Arabic – as parallel; his
reasoning echoed Rudyard Kipling’s 1889 formulation, “East is East, and West is West,
and never the twain shall meet.” For Ludvipol those initiating the idea of a Hebrew
Arabic newspaper were “noisy shouters. […] Those amongst our Jews native to the
Land wish to imitate their European brethren: French Jews have newspapers in French,
so let us do the same; English Jews have newspapers in English, so let us follow their ways.”
Ludvipol explained that while Europe’s Jewish newspapers attempted to promote the
Jewish cause, repeating such activity in Palestine would be “ridiculous” since in Europe
it “had no effect” on gentiles hostile to Jews. Imitating this rationale in Arabic would be
bound “to fill us with boredom and be a source of yawning.” Ludvipol explained that
once European Jews realized that their journalistic advocacy had no effect on gentiles
they began to address Jews in order to educate them and provide them with knowledge
and power. Jews became the target audience of Jewish newspapers.
And now here come our own Arab-Jews [emphasis in the original; Ludvipol employs the sig-
nifier disparagingly – M.B.] trying to do the same. But it is one of two [options] my friends. If
you wish to create a Hebrew newspaper in Arabic of the first [European] type I have men-
tioned, come along and we [Europeans] will furnish you with knowledge, education and
wisdom

on how useless this exercise is bound to be. As was the case in Europe,
Such an initiative is stillborn by definition. […] If you were to have in mind a newspaper for
intra-Jewish purposes […] then permit me to laugh outright! For whom do you intend to
create a newspaper in Arabic? Thank God we have not sunk to such a level where we
need to speak in Arabic in the Land of Israel to the people of Israel. I can understand if
those two or three importunate, brainless assimilationists amongst Sephardi Jews who
preach for assimilation and merger with the Arabs and acceptance of their language at the
expense of Hebrew language and literature speak to us about creating a newspaper in
Arabic. From one twisted minded individual [Moyal – M.B.] I heard that it is worth
selling one settlement to finance an Arabic newspaper. But we shall not argue with such
people. My words are directed to all those young Sephardim describing themselves as nation-
alists [Zionists] and presenting themselves to us as products of the new National Revival. To
them we say: on gentiles your newspaper will have zero, zero, zero effect; for Jews we have no
need for a Hebrew newspaper in Arabic. (Hazvi, 4 October 1911)

Local Sephardim/Mizrahim were offended by Ludvipol’s words. In “On establishing a

newspaper in Arabic” (Haherut, 19 October 1911), Moyal responded:
I admit unreservedly that I’m the person who argued that it is worth selling one settlement to
finance a newspaper in Arabic. […] In responding to Ludvipol I ask readers to judge to whom
the label twisted mind, with which he permitted himself to describe me, truly fits. The fact is
 JOURNAL OF MODERN JEWISH STUDIES 321

that Ludvipol thinks of me as his opponent because I did not follow his words with Amen
[…] and because I, the Sephardi-Mizrahi, dare demonstrate that his European opinions
and experiences are insufficient for the proper assessment of Eastern affairs. The contempt
reflected in Ludvipol’s eyes is visible. He unleashed his tongue against me and all enlightened
Sephardim whom he derides with insults, mocking, ridicule, laughter and yawning. In doing
so Ludvipol brings to mind Goliath’s behaviour towards red-headed youngster, David. Tell
us, our guest Mr Ludvipol, dressed in a coat made of European culture, who pretends to
furnish with knowledge, education and wisdom those whose attires are actually thicker
than his: have you ever had the opportunity of embarking on a long journey to find yourself
suddenly caught in heavy rain, and then invited by a gypsy to be a guest in his tent? On your
departure, did your education and manners guide you to condemn the tent’s owner for his
poverty, wildness and parochialism or, instead, take your leave of him with gratitude and
praise? Even if you primarily view us as Mizrahim, you ought to remember that you are
our guest and that local Jews and our ancestors suffered many years to maintain their
national identity amidst the many national groups that generation after generation ruled
the Land. These are the Land of Israel’s local Jews whom you value as of zero worth but
who are nonetheless the primary foundation for Israelite national revival. […] If those are
the people you deem assimilationist, whose young you describe as brainless and powerless
while doubting their national-Zionist commitment […] when compared to your own New
Nationalism […] – then please tell us who are the nationalists according to your lucid Euro-
pean opinion? […] You unreasonably marshal evidence from European Jewish newspapers
written in the languages of people whose chief national belief rests on melting everyone into
the general society while considering that applicable to an [Ottoman] society whose chief
national idea is that each tribe and race should remain within its own type, customs and
language, provided that this idea is joined to love of the Ottoman nation and knowledge
of other groups’ languages. […] In his narrow outlook about the conditions of life, Mr Lud-
vipol reminds me of that little fish swimming to the edge of its lake and concluding that that
is also the world’s end since life outside the lake is impossible.”

Ludvipol also reminded Moyal of “that ignorant Egyptian peasant who was asked why he
doesn’t plant lava beans [fūl] on his land and answered that it is because when such seeds
were planted in Russia they failed to grow” (Haherut, 19 October 1911).
Moyal listed six points that he claimed “escaped Ludvipol precisely as life in the open
air did not occur to that fish.”
(i) Arab-Muslims comprise the dominant force numerically and in terms of the Land’s overall
development; unlike the custom in Europe, they will not hate the Hebrews solely because they
are Jewish. (ii) The Arab race includes subgroups that hope – particularly following Turkey’s
Declaration of Freedom (1908) – to assume leading governmental roles because their average
formal education is higher than that of Muslims. (iii) Christians comprise this subgroup and
dislike Palestine’s Jews for two reasons: they are influenced by anti-Semites among their Euro-
pean co-religionists; they think of Jews as more educated, thus viewing them as competitors
capable of gaining control over business while superseding them in political and trade relations
with Muslims. (iv) For these reasons Christians generally – and Christian-owned newspapers
particularly – began disseminating disinformation about Jews and their activities in Palestine.
(v) The failure of Jews to establish an Arabic newspaper and the refusal of Christian-owned
newspapers to publish material by Jews, accelerated this situation and Muslim writers began
reproducing that misleading information. If it were not for “those young Arabic-speaking
Jews whom you [Ludvipol] pejoratively label assimilationists, mindless, etc.,” Muslim writers
would become as hostile to Jews as Christians are. (vi) Recent material in Arabic by local
Jews was successful in instilling some doubts among Muslims. It is now the time to spread
among Muslim friends truthful and factual information and recall the historically amicable lit-
erary and inter-group relationship between Muslims and Jews.
322 M. BEHAR

Moyal continued:
European Jews writing in European languages were always ready to be influenced by Christian
writers […] because their writing compared to the Christians’ is not capable of stirring public
sympathy for the Jews. That is not so regarding Arab literature where Jewish writers possess
the centrality needed to be able to affect everyone. Now tell me, Mr Ludvipol, how would you
describe an experienced military professional [metaphorically Ludvipol] if he attacks a peace-
ful merchant who never used arms or engaged in a fight [metaphorically Moyal]? […] Assign
to yourself the derogatory labels you have retrieved from your indeed rich literary Hebrew
arsenal and ascribed to me, a person who is, after all, a relative newcomer to Hebrew literature
and who decided from the start to write solely due to the danger looming over the whole
yishuv. I decided to write due to your and your friends’ lack of knowledge and understanding
of the conditions here. You [plural] were consequently engaged in fruitless attempts that by
no means fit our situation. […] And what would you do […] had I responded to your words
in Arabic which I speak fluently [rather than in Moyal’s poorer Hebrew]? Your text did teach
me one thing: that the colour of [your] culture has heavily impressed itself upon your nature
and upon that of some of your friends who value your [arrogant] accounts not only of
Sephardi Jews but also of the rest of the [Ashkenazi] members of the Old Yishuv. Moreover,
your greed, of which you also boast of, has effectively excluded you from the rules of etiquette
that guide those fortunate individuals who are unwilling to surrender to your skewed views
and enslave themselves to your bogus perspectives.

Moyal, meanwhile, continued his pro-Ottoman activism: he was part a tri-lingual synago-
gue gathering in Jaffa where Ben-Nissim Korkido and Hacham Masalton lectured in
Arabic; H Aburoy in Turkish, and Moyal and H Simron in Hebrew (“In Our Country,”
Moriya, 17 October 1911). Ludvipol responded to Moyal briefly and dismissively:
A certain man among our Sephardi brothers found himself insulted by my words. […] His
response did not and cannot teach me anything; he presents nothing I don’t already know.
[…] The brilliant idea of selling one Jewish settlement (to whom? non-Jews?) to finance an
Arabic newspaper has not yet been endorsed by our Sephardi brothers who have not yet sunk
to such a low love level for the country. (“Soft response”, Hazvi and Haherut, 23 October 1911)

Moyal was not alone in interpreting Ludvipol’s argument in ethnic terms. “A Response to
Ludvipol” by Sephardi Tahor was published in Hazvi (23 October 1911); a longer version
appeared the following day in Haherut signed by Avraham Basrawi (Sephardi Tahor):
You cannot understand the substance of, and necessity for, the newspaper which we, native
Jews born in this Land, propose. Since arriving from the diaspora you remain distant from us.
You neither join our circles nor become involved in our lives which you deem strange. Your
observations of us remain diasporic in nature. Your persistent “Francophone” vantage point
leads you to imagine the Land’s Arabs in European terms. You interpret local newspapers as
if they were European. But you are wrong. (i) European newspapers are published by differ-
ent political parties to specific audiences who learn from them all they need. […] But in the
Land of Israel newspapers are general in nature, their number is limited and they have few
subscribers. Even in the biggest trade centre, Beirut, capital of [Greater] Syria, there are no
more than five or six newspapers. […] (ii) You are wrong to argue that local Jews wish to
replicate European activities and, as a European, you are far from understanding us. The
newspaper we envision is not the one you describe. It aims to be a general newspaper
whose editors and writers will be committed to the truth [professional journalism – M.B.].
[…] Such a newspaper does not yet exist here. […] Since Istanbul’s Constitution, the govern-
ment has begun to consider seriously what newspapers print. Today’s journalism is the
means and power between People and Government. […] (iii) I judge and challenge your
libel against Hebrew-Arabic writers and young Sephardim whom you label assimilationists!
 JOURNAL OF MODERN JEWISH STUDIES 323

The ways of life in which we were raised, and the Land of Israel’s pure climate, did not evoke
the assimilation controversy that has dominated some of our European brothers. […] Our
descendants settled in the Land hundreds of years ago, living Jewish lives. […] We have
remained faithful to Judaism and other nationalities living with us have likewise remained
faithful to their ways and religions. […] I repeat: our diasporic brothers! On settling in
this Land refrain from viewing us paternalistically, looking down on us and alienating us.
We had had enough of the many errors your predecessors committed as a consequence of
their unfamiliarity with the Land’s life and nature.

In his “Response to Sephardi Tahor” (Hazvi, 25; Haherut, 27 October 1911) Ludvipol may
have attempted a “divide and rule” tactic:
Following attacks on me […] I was honoured to receive greetings of approval from my
Sephardi friends. The best among our Sephardi bothers know that […] national unity is
our guide. […] We will oppose with all our power the few restless Sephardim who (i)
attended the banquet held for [non-Zionist] Rabbi Nahum; (ii) encourage assimilation
with the Land’s locals; (iii) spread Arab language/literature at the expense of Hebrew
language/literature. […] Those preaching assimilation are few. Sephardi brothers who
agree with us […] would do well to prevent them from assuming leadership roles so that
we can tell who sides with us and with whom our problem is.

Ludvipol entitled his second article “What is the source of our strength?” (Hazvi, 16
October 1911). He suggested that
in Turkey there are other nations who require self defence from hateful adversaries yet they
do not establish newspapers in their language. Greeks or Armenians do not establish news-
papers in Turkish but in their own language. […] Following the [1908] defeat of the oppres-
sive ruler, members of the liberation movement understood the importance of the
Armenians. […] the Armenians used the relationship with their new allies to their own
advantage. […] Armenian salvation did not come from establishing newspapers in
Turkish. While Jewish [Sephardi] brothers also supported the new ruling power, they com-
pletely forgot about their nation’s affairs. Mr Karaso undertook the dangerous assignment of
delivering the message of the will of the People to the Sultan yet found it unnecessary to advo-
cate for the Israelite nation. […] Mr Mazliach gave a lecture condemning those who hate us
but his introduction was anodyne, resulting from his desire to speak as an Ottoman rather
than as a Jew and counter suspicions that he is biased. Neither Greek nor Armenian
would have done so. […] Armenians supported the new regime as an organized force of
the Armenian nation. […] They gave something but demanded something in return. Jews
provided services while demanding nothing. […] ‘Give-and-take’ is the rule; it is thus not
surprising that Jews received nothing if they requested nothing. You will argue that my argu-
ment discusses the central government and is therefore irrelevant with regard to the war [on
the ground against us by the Palestinian Arabs]. […] Yet neither Ottoman nor Palestinian
forces will be countered by establishing an Arabic newspaper but solely by forming an orga-
nized force of the Hebrew nation, as the Armenians and Greeks have done. Had the Jews pos-
sessed such power it would have also been easy to win over the Arabic press.

Ludvipol’s third article included a decree: “Spread out and write for existing Arabic news-
papers! That is our suggestion to Sephardi brothers who know the language of the Land or,
more accurately, the language of those residing in the Land who still comprise its majority”
(“Conquering the Arab Press,” Hazvi, 19 October 1911). Demographically conscious Lud-
vipol explained that this advice emanated from the French experience of the Dreyfus
period where Jews writing in general newspapers could positively affect Jewish affairs.
He cited the examples of Isadore Zinger and Bernard Lazar.
324 M. BEHAR

Moyal contested Ludvipol’s claims. He explained that leading newspapers in Turkish –

such as Sabach and Turkia – were Armenian and Greek respectively (“On Establishing an
Arab Newspaper”, Haherut, 25 October 2011). He suggested that in Greater Syria there
were no political parties similar to those in Europe, explaining that Arabic newspapers
tend to be confession based in terms of ownership and content, that is, Sunni, Shiite,
Christian-Orthodox, Catholic and so on, yet there exists no Arab-Jewish newspaper.
Finally, he concludes, contributing to existing Arabic newspapers is effectively impossible,
as they are not general in topic, as is the case in Europe.
Malul intervened and lamented Ludvipol and Moyal’s mutual attacks: “Sephardim rea-
lized from Moyal’s article that Ludvipol spoke of them derogatorily […] while Ashkena-
zim followed Ludvipol’s statements uncritically because they trust such a famous
journalist, particularly when discussing the New Yishuv and our people’s wellbeing”
(Haherut, 25 October 2011). Malul found Ludvipol’s arguments implausible, including
his erroneous analogy of Jews to Armenians and Greeks.
Jews are firstly assumed by Ottomans to include enough speakers of Arabic. Silence in the
face of attacks is therefore understood to be sinful with regard to the central government
and a betrayal of Ottoman brothers. Secondly, the New Yishuv has developed extremely
rapidly thus unnaturally. We were consequently unable to explain to our Ottoman brothers
that we came to repair for all rather than destroy.

Malul then explained that Ludvipol was empirically wrong as it had become impossible to
write in Arabic newspapers. Furthermore, the limited number of Jewish writers capable of
doing so could never be extensive enough. Malul’s conclusion was that a general Arab-
Jewish newspaper was needed.
Ludvipol was offended by articles that deemed him a European foreigner:
They suggest that we are guests in a humble gipsy tent. […] Yet we aren’t savages arriving
here from the African wilderness needing to learn manners from you, a few of our
nervous Sephardi bothers. […] Far from being guests, we came to settle, give our body
and soul to revive this Land. […] We know that Ottoman wellbeing is our wellbeing and
that some official antagonism toward us results from fallacies propagated by Syrians and
some of our wretched brothers. […] It can be expected that local Arabs would find some jus-
tification in viewing us as guests. […] It is only natural for a person to envy those working
harder and outshining him. But you, Sephardi brothers, why complain about us and deni-
grate us as ‘guests’? Let local Arabs do this by themselves! They do not need you to fuel
their envy. (“Guests … ” Hazvi, 24 October 1911)

Mizrahi intellectual Y D Maman, who had published an important Hebrew book on teach-
ing Arabic in 1910, decided to intervene. His two-part article “On establishing Arabic
newspaper” (Haherut, 30 October 1911) begins, “Sephardi and Ashkenazi friends
protest that I take no part in the newspaper debate […] notwithstanding being one of
the topic’s main initiators who is more familiar than many with the intricacies woven
into this weighty question.” Being Ludvipol’s acquaintance, Maman was appalled by his
insinuation that the Sephardim who proposed an Arabic newspaper were false Hebrew
nationalists: “I respect Mr Ludvipol as a writer and journalist yet not as arbitrator, nation-
alist, or well-mannered European, as many assume he is.” Maman then describes Ludvi-
pol’s becoming the Palestine agent of the insurance company Gresham. During 1909–1910
Ludvipol serialized commercial advertisements in Haherut under his name. Maman
 JOURNAL OF MODERN JEWISH STUDIES 325

apparently took out a subscription with Ludvipol and after a few payments chose to exer-
cise his right of termination.
As an experienced agent, Ludvipol attempted to reverse my request; as an author, he
sprinkled his words with tales, analogies, superlatives. Realizing that these had failed,
agent/author Ludvipol fumed […] and declared: “Sephardim are stupid Arabs, incapable
of understanding the value of responsibility. Napoleon was correct when he said that if
you crush a Russian, what is left will be a mujik. I shall be correct in suggesting that if you
crush a Sephardi the remains will be Arab.”

Manan concluded:
Sephardim are degraded and called names by both hasidic Ashkenazim of the Old Yishuv
and members of the New Yishuv, European intellectuals included. […] If a Jew sins,
[French anti-Semite Edouard] Drumont attacks all Jews; if a Sephardi sins and terminates
his subscription, Ludvipol attacks the entire Sephardi community. […] Is it worth arguing
with a person holding such prejudicial view of us apriori? […] I’m not surprised that Hat-
soph’s editor and Gresham agent labels us false nationalists.

In the second part of his article (1 November 1911) Maman suggested that Sephardim
refrain from self-justification because Ludvipol does not really think that they are false
nationalists but complete Arabs of a Jewish fate [aravim gmurim bney dat Moshe]. Ludvipol
studied the history of his Sephardi brothers in their countries of origin and concluded that
wherever Jews lived with their Arab brethren, they merged and assimilated with them – pre-
cisely as happened with our French Jewish brothers, with Askenazim [German-Jews], or with
Jews in Russia from where Ludvipol, the notable author, hailed to enlighten us paternalisti-
cally. Arabs: do not then argue with the Hebrews on the Arabic newspaper as you are partial
and biased and your views are thus invalid [psulim]. (Haherut, 1 November 1911).

Haherut was professional enough to publish not only Ludvipol’s responses but texts by
others defending him. A lengthy one by Peretz Kusmai suggested that Moyal’s reasoning
implies that “Ashkenazi Ludvipol is forbidden from expressing his opinion against the
proposal of Sephardi Moyal” (“Peaceful and truthful words,” Haherut, 2 November
2011). As Kusmai never published any additional text, it is unknown whether he was eth-
nically Ashkenazi or Mizrahi. An interesting case was leading Haherut journalist Ben-
Shabat who on 3 July 1912 reversed his position, arguing that developments in Palestine
render Moyal’s newspaper unnecessary; he now opted for Ludvipol’s proposals. Three
Sephardim immediately wrote to oppose Ben-Shabat.
In Hazvi meanwhile Aryeh Keizar argued that “Arabic newspaper will have no effect”
(24 November 1911) but few Ashkenazim sided with Moyal. In “Please stop” (Hazvi, 12
November 1911) pseudonym Mizkney Hayishuv made it clear that he was an Ashkenazi
who had arrived in Palestine during the late nineteenth century:
Following the Constitutional Reform we felt the need to take this opportunity to improve our
situation. […] While Arabs, Turks, Armenians (etc.) had special newspapers defending their
Ottoman interests, Jews remained with none. We wouldn’t have felt this void if it were not for
the sudden hatred befalling us. […] If we remain asleep […] this malady will spread. […]
Some think that we should have a newspaper in Arabic […] and this view prevails chiefly
among our Sephardi brothers. Others think we should publish in existing newspapers to
communicate with the Land’s Arabs and the government. […] I was shocked to read Ludvi-
pol’s articles. Where did he assemble his strong words about Sephardim based on the views of
one? […] It is true that our Sephardi brothers remain removed from our ideas and way of
326 M. BEHAR

thinking. They are cold and indifferent to our work. But have we forgotten that their situation
and socialization have differed from ours for centuries? Or that it is we who are responsible
for our mutual relationship rather than they? […] Only after the Constitutional Revolution
we understood our fault and attempted to search for means to correct this distorted state of
affairs. It is not by articles like Ludvipol’s or by insulting Sephardim that we shall triumph in
escaping the mess into which we have led ourselves. The opposite is true: if we continue this
way existing rifts will grow deeper. […] Sephardim and Ashkenazim should work together
for our wellbeing and that of the Empire.”

In November 1911 the Moyal–Ludvipol controversy was covered by Filistin and in

December Ludvipol was appointed editor of the prestigious Hamoledet. Meanwhile
Mizkney Hayishuv proceeded to write “How poor and empty we are!” (Hazvi, 14
March 1912), strongly criticizing the (Ashkenazi) yishuv’s prevailing opposition to legal
Ottomanization and cultural Arabization.

Views of the famous

While the aforementioned individuals are unlikely to be familiar to most non-specialists,
the Arabic newspaper proposal was also considered by Zionists who were already promi-
nent in 1911 (possibly excluding Yitzhak Ben-Zvi). To better understand the intensity sur-
rounding the first Ashkenazi–Mizrahi controversy I close by giving (chronologically)
examples of such four individuals.
Hebraist/publisher Itamar Ben-Avi (1882–1943). Due to his pro-Ottomanist orientation
Ben-Avi differed markedly from the contemptuously Eurocentric socialist-Zionists. Accord-
ing to his thesis that Palestine’s “American, Russian, French, and Austrian Jews” should
Ottomanize themselves, Ben-Avi asked (months prior the Moyal–Ludvipol eruption):
Have we made the effort to study the language of the Arabs, understand their ways and
modes of life, and become closer to them as brothers? Do we possess a single newspaper
in Arabic that can defend our interests and explain clearly to the Land’s people what we
are aiming for? […] If we had a good egalitarian newspaper in Arabic, verbal command of
Arabic and Ottoman affiliation in all our hearts, we would not have much to fear. (“Our
fault,” Hazfira, 11 June 1911)

Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (1884–1963). A 27-year-old aspiring Arabist back then, Ben-Zvi’s

approach is best described as “instrumental Easternism,” contrary the substantive Eastern-
ism typifying Haherut’s orientation. Using his pseudonym Avner, Ben-Zvi published “On
establishing an Arabic newspaper” (Ha’ahdut, 10/17 October 1911), one of the most rig-
orous essays on the matter. The need for Hebrew press in Arabic was, by definition, con-
tradictory for Ben-Zvi:
On the one hand, Zionists wish to escape assimilation; […] on the other, the reality compels
us to direct some of our forces – already limited! – to a side-issue, notwithstanding that in
doing so we strengthen that alien [Arab] culture that sometimes stands as enemy against
us.” Following Moyal and Malul, Ben-Zvi acknowledged that “Greeks and Armenians have
established newspapers in Turkish” and added: “Arabic is not only used by Shiite and
Sunni Muslims, but also by Greek-Orthodox, Catholic, Maronite, and various Protestants,
to express demands and debate their needs internally. Jews in [Ottoman] Turkey should
have doubtlessly done the same. […] In the Land of Israel and the Ishmaelite countries sur-
rounding it Jews have special interests. In recent years Jewish agricultural settlement has
attracted attention from many antagonistic adversaries who began defaming Jews to Arabs
 JOURNAL OF MODERN JEWISH STUDIES 327

and the government. […] Throughout Greater Syria Christian journalists describe Jews as
armed and lawless foreigners. […] Yet our neighbours and the Land’s residents are diverse
by their economic situation, profession, race, religion and customs. Language alone unites
them. […] Within these constituencies we could find those whose interests suit ours. […]
Jews need special protection [in Arabic] for their affairs. The only question concerns
mode and utility: establish a special Arabic newspaper or defend ourselves through existing
newspapers. […] By externalizing personal affairs, a few writers have turned the public realm
into theatre. […] Mr Ludvipol, chief opponent of an Arabic newspaper […] reprimands
everyone who thinks differently by declaring that all the ideas for an Arab-Jewish press
rest on an imitation [of Europe]. […] He suggests that we publish in existing newspapers.
[…] While his antipathy emerges from an opposition in principal to a Jewish press in
Arabic, all those who advocate publication through existing newspapers have neither pre-
pared a special work plan to this effect, nor elaborated on possibilities of realizing their sug-
gestion; they envision no organized body to authorize and implement their suggestion; they
view work in Arab newspapers as private and optional. The other party to the debate does
rely on facts when pointing out the near impossibility of breaking into Arabic newspapers.
[…] It is puzzling that such experts in Arab journalism as Malul and Moyal have not explored
their proposal in a practical sense, namely, the newspaper’s precise nature, modus operandi
or impact assessment.

It was Ben-Zvi’s orderly exploration of these latter elements in the second part of his article
that elevated the discussion’s quality, irrespective of whether readers subscribed back
then—or subscribe right now—to his instrumental utilitarianism. Ben-Zvi asks, first,
Who is the newspaper’s target-audience? […] Some 100,000 Jews throughout the Empire
have Arabic as their spoken language yet few read Arabic. They therefore neither need a
newspaper in Arabic nor could they be relied-upon as subscribers. […] As has been justifiably
noted before me, what is needed is a general, rather than Jewish newspaper. Secondly, what
social strata will the newspaper address and, when doing so, which interests will it promote?
[…] Our aims are all linked to our country’s development and […] industrialization; we did
not arrive here to gain position by force or destruction [and] no hidden intentions underlie
our cultural work. Our national objectives oppose those of the Lebanese or of Arab Christians
who remain hopeful that European kingdoms will “liberate” them and hand control of the
Land holy to Christians. Our aspirations suit the interests of citizens of a united Ottomania.
In terms of our economic and agricultural interests, we need to distinguish between simple
fellahin and rich landlords. […] While our interests are in opposition to those of landlords,
perhaps no less opposition exists between fellahi interests and those of their Effendi-masters.
[…] Having the various Arab constituencies charted based on social and economic interests,
we can ascertain whose interests are closest to those of the New Yishuv. […] With an Arabic
newspaper we could hope to achieve some impact on part of the progressive Arab intelligen-
tsia […] and the gradual education of the Arab masses in the spirit that suits us best, namely,
of democracy and international peace. Such an egalitarian Arab newspaper is not only in our
interests but also in Arab interests. […] Both sides must work and participate financially
based on common interests. […] The editorial board must include Jews and Arabs. […]
This project must vigorously be initiated now.2

Ahad Ha’am (1856–1927). It so happened that the charismatic founder of Cultural

Zionism visited Palestine in 1911 for a two-month exploration (for the first time since
1900). His interviews make it clear that he followed the debate closely. In “A talk with
Ahad Ha’am” (Hapo’el hatza’ir, 1 December 1911: 22–24; Hazfira, 30 November), his
views were these: “Studying Arabic is more important than studying Turkish as we
shall need it until the day Arabs will need to study Hebrew.” (Mind the arrogant audacity
of this claim by a European visitor whose group comprises back then less than 10% of the
328 M. BEHAR

population and whose members have many difficulties with written and spoken Hebrew.)
Ahad Hàam was asked whether he feared that a culture stronger than Hebrew would
spread, causing Jews to disappear again. He answered that he did not “because the circum-
stances for the development of Hebrew language and culture were good and no other
people would be as interested in this Land”. Asked about a Hebrew newspaper in
Arabic, Ahad Hàam refrained from expressing a clear view.
On the face of it, those opposing the creation of an Arabic newspaper are correct as is their
argument about European Jewish newspapers and their failure to gain support. Yet it is poss-
ible that Palestine’s conditions are different since presently there are only few Arabic news-
papers, of mediocre quality. So perhaps a good newspaper could attract readers. But I do not
want to express an opinion since this matter requires much knowledge about the conditions
of the Land, the strength of existing literary forces, and so on.

Yosef Haim Brenner (1881–1921). The greatest Hebrew prose writer of his generation not-
withstanding, my research has failed to identify any intellectual more hostile than Brenner
to the sociopolitical and cultural ideas underlying Middle Eastern Jewish intellectuals such
as Malul and the Moyals. Immediately after the establishment of Haherut, Brenner
reviewed it censoriously in Hapo’el hatza’ir:
Haherut ‘newspaper’ is a fitting indicator of the cultural level typical of our people in the
yishuv … it lacks any substance; […] its long-winded editor [Avraham Elmaleh (Campos
2017) – M.B.] is incapable of writing anything that is not contradictory, inside-out, or
lacking in ridiculous and coarse non-literary barbarism. (“From the Land’s literature and
journalism”, 17 June 1909: 12–13)

Two years later Brenner complimented Ludvipol.

To those [Sephardim] whose special type of Zionism led them to link our entire national
future with the Ottomans I say: […] hostile Arabs who have recently emerged against the
yishuv in villages, newspapers and kahwa/coffee houses [Brenner uses the Arabic word in
Hebrew contemptuously—M.B.]. […] are numerous. The Arab people, that is, the fellahin,
are obviously incapable of reading newspapers; generations will probably go by before
they attain such a level. […] So what are we to do? For Zionists whose heads are in the
right place the answer seems clear: consolidate our forces even more to strengthen our position.
[…] Alas, that is not what the Land’s newspapers think – particularly that lovely Haherut that
has been shouting already for a year in its unique style and pleasant voice about “the great
danger” and its only remedy: a Jewish newspaper in Arabic! A newspaper that will defend
and publicize our just cause, like [Zola’s] L’Aurore. […] And there is no one to awaken
these shouters: […] who are we to move to our side? Perhaps the effendis, whose burning
hatred springs from such depths that floods of Arab-Jewish press cannot extinguish it?
Perhaps Arab intellectuals sitting in kahwa-houses, whose trade rests on Israel’s hatred? Lud-
vipol attempted to comment on these issues to be nearly skinned like a fish by Haherut’s
heroes. […] Ludvipol responded aptly […], proving what every one of us [Ashkenazim?
M.B.] feels: that an Arab-Jewish newspaper will produce nothing: an argument conceded
even by the shouters who then began discoursing for a general Arabic newspaper. […]
Write wherever you can! What’s the point of a special platform that will surely provide
nothing positive? […] We neither can, nor should, spend the limited human and financial
resources we have on such a newspaper. We have plenty of needs and work to do at
home, inside our tent.” (“To the Tent, Hazman, 29 November 1911)

If it is wrong to describe the Zionist tent Brenner envisioned as politically and culturally
Ashkenazi, we can safely argue that it was non-Mizrahi (Figure 1).
 JOURNAL OF MODERN JEWISH STUDIES 329

Figure 1. Truncated front page of the 27 August (ab) 1914 issue of the Jaffa-based “Hebrew newspaper
in Arabic” Voice of Ottomania (‫)ﺻﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬, founded and edited between 1912 and 1914 by Dr Shimon
Moyal (1866–1915) and his deputy editor and wife Esther Moyal (1873–1948). I know of no other surviv-
ing page of this very first Jewish newspaper in Arabic in twentieth-century Palestine/Israel. News items
on this front page address international politics while Ottoman Palestine and/or its Jews are not men-
tioned. Source: Shlomo Shaba, “Arba’a itonnim shel sof hame’ah,” Davar, 11 July 1975, archived publicly
online as an open source by Israel’s National Library, at http://jpress.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI_heb/?action=
tab&tab=browse&pub=DAV#panel=browse.

Conclusion
The debate over the Arabic newspaper continued throughout 1912. In June 1913 a related
controversy erupted, chiefly involving Malul and Yaakov Rabinovitch but also Ludivpol
(Jacobson 2011a; Behar and Benite 2014). In 1912, the 46-year-old Moyal rode a horse
across the country eliciting grassroots support for the newspaper he had in mind. He
managed to secure some financial support and Jewish and Arab subscribers. Entitling
the newspaper Voice of Ottomania (‫)ﺻﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬, its first issue appeared in April 1912
(Hazvi, 14 April; Haherut, 24) rather than in 1913 as suggested by Jacobson (2011b,
105), Gribetz (2014, 197), Evri (2014) and others. Yet events leading to the First World
War would bury the newspaper together with many institutions and individuals.
The newspaper’s gestation has been surveyed here less as an aim in itself and more as a
means to point out to a considerably broader intra-Jewish volcano that remains active.
What contemporary scholars of modern Israel generally recognize as post-1970 ethnic
Mizrahi–Ashkenazi controversies are better conceptualized as outgrowths of an assertive
Mizrahi intellectual formation which pre-dated by decades the post-1949 mass arrival of
Arabized Jews to Israel (Behar 2007, 2009). In terms of the sociopolitical content of the
1911 controversy over the “Arab Question” and the Arabic newspaper – including its
associated subtexts, tenacity, emotiveness, tone, and contrasting “Eastern”/“Western”
330 M. BEHAR

dynamics and historical interpretations – I maintain that the controversy was, to all intents
and purposes, the earliest explicitly Ashkenazi–Mizrahi one. That is so precisely as the sig-
nifier “Ashkenazi–Mizrahi” is understood by scholars as well as felt, experienced and
acted-upon by intellectuals and social activists in twenty-first-century Israel, including
in its new social media (in Hebrew).

Notes
1. That is, informed by terms and assumptions that guide the reasoning of the Primordialist
School of thought for explaining the existence of collective identities.
2. Ludvipol published a letter to the editor of Ha’ahdut in the issue where part 2 of Ben-Zvi’s
article appeared; this means that it was written without having read it.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Moshe Behar is Pears Senior Lecturer in Israeli and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of
Manchester. His work includes the co-edited anthology Modern Middle Eastern Jewish Thought,
Writings on Identity, Politics and Culture, 1893–1958 (Brandeis, 2013).

References
Primary sources (Hebrew)
Babylonian Talmud
Davar
Ha’ahdut
Ha’aretz
Haherut
Hamagid
Hamoledet
Hapo’el hatza’ir
Hazfira
Hazman
Hazvi/Ha’or
Hed hamizrah
Moriya

Secondary sources
Amor, Meir. 2013. Illuminations from the Shadow. Tel Aviv: Resis-Nehara. [Hebrew].
Behar, Moshe. 2007. “Palestine, Arabized-Jews and the Elusive Consequences of Jewish and Arab
National Formations.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 13 (4): 581–611.
Behar, Moshe. 2009. “What’s in a Name? Socio-Terminological Formations and the Case for
‘Arabized-Jews’.” Social Identities 15 (6): 747–771.
Behar, Moshe. 2015. “The Foundational Antinativism of Mizrahi Literature.” Journal of Levantine
Studies 5 (1): 107–126.
 JOURNAL OF MODERN JEWISH STUDIES 331

Behar, Moshe, and Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, eds. 2013. Modern Middle Eastern Jewish Thought: Writings
on Identity, Politics and Culture, 1893–1958. Waltham: Brandeis University Press.
Behar, Moshe, and Zvi Ben-Dor Benite. 2014. “The Possibility of Modern Middle Eastern Jewish
Thought.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 41 (1): 43–61.
Bezalel, Yitzhak. 1989. “On Haherut’s Uniqueness and its Editor Haim Ben-Atar, 1909–17.”
Pe’amim 40: 121–155. [Hebrew].
Bezalel, Yitzhak. 2008. You Were Born Zionists: The Sephardim in Eretz Israel in Zionism and the
Hebrew Revival During the Ottoman Period. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute. [Hebrew].
Campos, Michelle. 2011. Ottoman Brothers: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-
Century Palestine. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Campos, Michelle. 2017. “Mizrah Uma’arav (East and West): A Sephardi Cultural and Political
Project in Post-Ottoman Jerusalem.” Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 16 (2): 332–348.
Evri, Yuval. 2014. “The Many and Changing Faces of Sephardi-ness at the Turn of the Twentieth
Century.” Unpublished PhD diss, Tel Aviv University.
Evri, Yuval, and Almog Behar. 2017. “Between East and West: Controversies Over Modernization
of Hebrew Culture in the Works of Shaul Abdallah Yosef and Ariel Bension.” Journal of Modern
Jewish Studies 16 (2): 295–311.
Gribetz, Jonathan Marc. 2014. Defining Neighbors: Religion, Race, and the Early Zionist-Arab
Encounter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jacobson, Abigail. 2003. “Sephardim, Ashkenazim and the ‘Arab Question’ in Pre-First World War
Palestine: A Reading of Three Zionist Newspapers.” Middle Eastern Studies 39 (2): 105–130.
Jacobson, Abigail. 2011a. “Jews Writing in Arabic: Shimon Moyal, Nissim Malul and the Mixed
Palestinian/Eretz Israeli Locale.” In Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule,
edited by Yuval Ben-Bassat, and Eyal Ginio, 165–182. London: I. B. Tauris.
Jacobson, Abigail. 2011b. From Empire to Empire Jerusalem Between Ottoman and British Rule.
Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Laskier, Michael. 1992. “The Sephardim and the Yishuv in Palestine: The Role of Avraham Albert
Antébi: 1897–1916.” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 10 (3): 113–126.
Levy, Lital. 2012. “Partitioned Pasts: Arab Jewish Intellectuals and the Case of Esther Azhari Moyal
(1873–1948).” In The Making of the Arab Intellectual (1880–1960): Empire, Public Sphere, and
the Colonial Coordinates of Selfhood, edited by Dyala Hamzah, 128–163. London: Routledge.
Maman, Joseph D. 1910. The Constitution and the Arab Language in our Hebraic Schools. Jaffa.
[Hebrew].
Sheinkin, Menachem. 1917. Our Language: On the Question of Hebrew and Languages Spoken
Among Our People. New York: American Hebrew Union. [Hebrew].