Introduction to the History of Modern Zionism

From the Preface:

Up to the present the Zionists have done most of the writing and all of the shouting. They have succeeded in moving the political aspects of Zionism so far into the foreground as to overshadow the older religious Zionism which forms an integral doctrine of orthodox Judaism, and entirely to obscure the original aspect of the modern movement which started out as a purely ameliorative measure to secure, through colonization in Palestine, "self-emancipation" for Jews living under distressing conditions in Russia. Political Zionism holds the center of the stage. The Zionists have also succeeded in creating the impression on the outside world that Political Zionism represents a national uprising among the Jews in general, a recrudescence of national feelings that have long lain dormant. The claim is made that Zionism is part of the movement for the reassertion of nationalities that forms such a striking feature of the political history of Europe in the nineteenth century, and that is now showing itself again at the end of the war in the rise of the suppressed nationalities of Poland, Bohemia, Armenia and Arabia. This impression is entirely erroneous and misleading. As a matter of fact, of the Jews settled in Western European countries and in this country where Jews enjoy precisely the same political and other rights as their fellow-citizens, only a very small percentage of those who have lived long enough in these countries to have become assimilated to the political and social conditions, approve of political Zionism. The larger proportion of such Jews are probably entirely indifferent to the question.

Not content with this political Zionists now claim that the issue has been won that opposition to it has become useless, that those who continue to combat it are blind to the rapid movement of events through which as one of the leaders puts it. "Zionism has been transferred from the field of national aspirations to the realm of political fact." The slogan has been given out to drown all opposition by a mighty chorus of "victory" shouts. And all this before the Peace Conference at Paris has made any declaration on the subject!

The basis of this assurance appears to be largely the statement made by the Right Honorable Arthur J. Balfour, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, under date of November 2nd, 1917, that the British government "view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object." The statement means much or little according as one gauges what Mr Balfour had in mind in making it It will be noted that Mr Balfour avoids the term "Jewish State," and speaks only of a "national homeland." To a "homeland" for such Jews as have gone to Palestine or who propose to settle there, there is, of course, no objection; and I emphasize throughout this volume the desirability of encouraging the colonization movement in every possible way as much for the sake of Palestine as for that of the Jews, since the country can only benefit by the presence of a thrifty and industrious population devoted to the improvement of the land and to promoting its industrial and commercial activity. It all depends, therefore, on what is meant by "national." Mr Balfour, it may be admitted, would not have used the term had he not accepted the main contention of political Zionists that the Jews were a separate nation or nationality. Now Mr. Balfour, so far as known, has made no special study of either Jewish history or of the Jewish religion or of the psychology of the Jewish people. His type of mind is, as is well known, essentially skeptical, and he would be apt to view such a question as Zionism from the point of view of diplomatic policy. At all events he would probably be the last one to claim any weight attaching to his opinion of the crucial question, whether the Jews are a nation or merely a religious body that once was a nation. The ultimate source, therefore, of the introduction of the term "national" into Mr. Balfour's declaration is the platform of the political Zionists. If, therefore, it can be shown, as I propose to do in this volume, that this term cannot properly be applied to the Jews, the declaration would merely have the force attaching to any statement coming from so distinguished a personage as Mr. Balfour. Granting the full weight of the statement as it stands, it does not follow that Mr Balfour favors the organization of the Jews, viewed as a national unit, into a political unit in Palestine to be placed in control of that country. He is silent on this essential point -- naturally so, for Mr. Balfour is, above all, a statesman, and when he wrote this declaration, the issue of the war was still uncertain, and even he was not in a position to decide what should become of Palestine upon the termination of the great conflict. He could not at the time have envisaged more than the recognition of the Jews to the right of self-government in their colonies. We are now in a position, however, to appeal from Mr. Balfour of 1917 to Mr. Balfour of 1918, at a time when the war was approaching its close. Judging from his later utterance, it would seem that Mr. Balfour has been impressed by the opposition which, since his first declaration, Zionism had encountered in many circles. The emphasis is placed by him on Palestine as a home for "homeless" Jews. The "national homeland" is not stressed, and it would appear that Mr. Balfour now views Zionism largely, if not purely, as an ameliorative measure for a portion of the Jewish people. He expresses his belief that those Jews who are led to go to Palestine will be happier in a "civil community which completely harmonizes with their historical and religious sentiments: a community bound to the land it inhabits by something deeper even than custom." To this every one interested in the welfare of such Jews as wish to settle in Palestine can cheerfully assent, but this is not political Zionism. Apparently, the political Zionists themselves have come to a realization of the vagueness of the former declaration, for a demand is being made for a more precise statement as to the intentions of the British Government towards Palestine.

The fact is that a declaration such as Mr. Balfour made before the termination of the conflict should only have been taken at the time as an indication of general sympathy with the ameliorative aspects of the Zionistic movement, and not as an endorsement of the political aims of the Zionists to reorganize Palestine as a distinctively Jewish State. Similarly, the endorsement of Mr. Balfour's sentiments by the French and Italian governments, couched in very general terms, and the statement issued last September by President Wilson ought not to be regarded as more than a general expression of sympathy with the humanitarian phases of the Zionistic movement.

Events that have transpired since the termination of the war justify the suspicion --and indeed more than suspicion, -- that the statesmen who are to grapple with the problem of the reorganization of Palestine will feel their way cautiously. Even before the termination of the war protests from Christians and Mohammedans were raised against the political program of Zionism. Still more significant is the attitude of representative men among English, French and American Jews. In England a "League of British Jews" was formed led by such men as Claude G. Montefiore and Israel Abrahams, whose authoritative position as students of Jewish history and Jewish religion lends great weight to their utterances. In this country, a statement signed by over three hundred representative American Jews from all parts of the country, protesting against the program of the political Zionists has been forwarded to the Peace Conference. The opposition also shows itself in England and in this country in warnings raised by such men as Sir George Adam Smith, Herbert Adams Gibbons, the Honorable Henry Morgenthau, Ex-Ambassador of the United States to Turkey, and others, who speak from a direct knowledge of the East and of Eastern conditions.

In the spring of 1918 the French government sent a commission of experts to Palestine for the purpose of investigating the economic conditions and the attitude of the natives towards political Zionism. Among the members of the commission was M. Sylvain Levi, the distinguished Orientalist, who in the same year was sent by the French government to this country in order to ascertain the views of Zionists, and Non-Zionists as well, towards the proposed reorganization of the Jewish State. The result of M. Levi's investigations in Palestine and in this country is to be seen in the statement that he made before the Peace Conference on March 1st which was decidedly unfavorable to political Zionism. Strong pressure was brought to bear upon Professor Levi to refrain from exposing the weaknesses of political Zionism, but he felt it his duty on the basis of his investigations, to do so, with the result of bringing down on him the wrath of the English Zionists, who apparently believe in the foolish policy of forcible suppression of opposition to their movement. A delegation of English Zionists was heard by the Peace Conference just preceding M. Sylvain Levi, and Dr. Weizmann in his account to the Zionist Conference of the result of the hearing was frank enough to state that he declined to shake hands with M. Levi, and accused him of "betraying" the cause. This exhibition of bad manners as well as of bad temper does not indicate that the Zionists are as confident of their ultimate success as their public utterances would suggest. A further indication that the issue has not yet been won is the manner in which the political Zionists have shifted their position of late. They now place the organization of the Jewish State in the distant future, possibly in order to prepare their followers for the disappointment that will ensue in case the Peace Conference should decide not to propose steps for the organization of such a State. Some of them have even gone so far as to suggest the abandonment of the designation "Jewish State" and now speak of a "Commonwealth of Palestine." They thereby either give the whole case away or raise the suspicion of proposing a verbal camouflage to conceal the real aim that they have in mind. It is probably a safe guess that the leaders have been given an intimation that the Peace Conference will not go beyond the expression of general sympathy with Jewish colonization in Palestine and the promise to secure full rights to Jews settled there, with perhaps local autonomy for the colonies.

But irrespective of what the Peace Conference may or may not do, it must be clear to all who view the situation calmly that the Palestinian problem as the other questions connected with the Near East, will occupy the thought of the world for some time to come. Meanwhile, it is of importance to understand the nature of these problems. Zionism is one of them (though only one) and the wide interest that it has aroused, which is not limited to those directly concerned, is sufficient justification for making the attempt, as I do in this volume, to consider the various aspects and the roots of the movement, its relation to the general Eastern Question and to conditions in Palestine, and also what appear to me to be the fallacies of political Zionism from the point of view of a student of history. I am further led to make this endeavor by requests that have reached me from various sides to give a full presentation of the reasons why many who have made a study of the subject cannot accept the program of the political Zionists.

In stressing the historical point of view, as I do throughout the volume, I trust that even those who may not be disposed to agree with me will recognize that I do not look upon the historical treatment of a subject as a cold-blooded anatomical dissection. The historian must aim to clothe the skeleton of his facts with flesh and sinews, aye, even to supply it with "teeth." In tracing Zionism to its roots as in following the trend of Jewish history including a survey of the Reform movement in Judaism, and in setting forth the present-day conditions in Palestine, it has been my aim not only to be fair, but also to reveal my sympathies for those larger aspects of Jewish history which account for the peculiar interest attaching to an analysis of the status of the Jews, and more particularly to their strange survival, despite all vicissitudes. For the Jews furnish a single and singular illustration of a people commingling with all the nations of the world without losing their identity -- like the Gulf Stream that can be distinguished from the great body of the surrounding ocean through which it flows.

I cannot refrain from touching here upon a weakness of the Zionistic movement which I have directly encountered in the preparation of this volume, and which consists in the vagueness of the definitions of terms such as "Jewish Nation," "Jewish culture," "Jewish spirit," used by Zionists in describing the movement. This is in part due to the fact that many of those who make public addresses and write on Zionism, including some of the leaders of the movement in this country, have not made any special study of the history of the Jews or of their literature. Without such study one is apt to fall into all kinds of strange vagaries. The tension of the situation is somewhat relieved upon finding distinguished jurists extolling the glories of Judaism, of which they know little either in theory or practice, and expounding the beauties of the Hebrew language of which they cannot read the characters. The task of the student of the subject would be much simplified if Zionists could agree upon some clear and definite statement of the fundamentals that might be labelled as "genuine," with the additional warning, "beware of imitations." As it is, every Zionist feels at liberty to manufacture his own brand of Zionism. This is particularly the case when it comes to a definition of a "Jewish State." In the hope of overcoming opposition to their political program some Zionists are so vague in their use of the term "nation" and in their view of the "Jewish State," that define both terms out of existence. I have tried to make allowances for what appear to be merely subtle arguments in the presentation of the subject and have taken as my point of departure that a "Jewish State" means what the term used implies to the person of average intellect; and I have tried, following in the wake of Lord Bryce, to distinguish between a "nation" and a "nationality."

Lastly, I would call attention to the fact that it is only for the sake of convenience that I have treated the subject in a series of eight sections. The volume should be read as a whole, and I trust that those who do read it will reserve their judgment until they have followed the presentation of the subject to the end.

A word of grateful acknowledgment is due, as in the case of all my books, to my wife, my severest and my most sympathetic critic, who has, as usual, read through the manuscript and aided in revising the proofs, with the result of making valuable suggestions and of detecting slips and errors.

It is a pleasure and privilege to be permitted to write on the dedication page the name of a valued friend whose career, devoted to the service of humanity, has exerted a deep influence on my own thought and whose companionship has been a source of real inspiration these many years.

Philadelphia, May, 1919.