to the people of the country in which he lives, is unhappy because his
hope of an open-armed welcome is disappointed. He returns reluctantly to
his own people, and tries to find within the Jewish community that life
for which he yearns—but in vain. Communal life and communal problems no
longer satisfy him. He has already grown accustomed to a broader social
and political life; and on the intellectual side Jewish cultural work
has no attraction, because Jewish culture has played no part in his
education from childhood, and is a closed book to him. So in his trouble
he turns to the land of his ancestors, and pictures to himself how good
it would be if a Jewish State were re-established there—a State arranged
and organised exactly after the pattern of other States. Then he could
live a full, complete life among his own people, and find at home all
that he now sees outside, dangled before his eyes, but out of reach. Of
course, not all the Jews will be able to take wing and go to their
State; but the very existence of the Jewish State will raise the
prestige of those who remain in exile, and their fellow citizens will no
more despise them and keep them at arm’s length, as though they were
ignoble slaves, dependent entirely on the hospitality of others. As he
contemplates this fascinating vision, it suddenly dawns on his inner
consciousness that even now, before the Jewish State is established, the
mere idea of it gives him almost complete relief. He has an opportunity
for organised work, for political excitement; he finds a suitable field
of activity without having to become subservient to non-Jews; and he
feels that thanks to this ideal he stands once more spiritually erect,
and has regained human dignity, without overmuch trouble and without
external aid. So he devotes himself to the ideal with all the ardour of
which he is capable; he gives rein to his fancy, and lets it soar as it
will, up above reality and the limitations of human power. For it is not
the attainment of the ideal that he needs: its pursuit alone is
sufficient to cure him of his moral sickness, which is the consciousness
of inferiority; and the higher and more distant the ideal, the greater
its power of exaltation.
This is the basis of Western Zionism and the secret of its attraction.
But Eastern _Chibbath Zion_ has a different origin and development.
Originally, like “Zionism,” it was political; but being a result of
material evils, it could not rest satisfied with an “activity”
consisting only of outbursts of feeling and fine phrases. These things
may satisfy the heart, but not the stomach. So _Chibbath Zion_ began at
once to express itself in concrete activities—in the establishment of
colonies in Palestine. This practical work soon clipped the wings of
fancy, and made it clear that _Chibbath Zion_ could not lessen the
material evil by one iota. One might have thought, then, that when this
fact became patent the _Chovevé Zion_ would give up their activity, and
cease wasting time and energy on work which brought them no nearer their
goal. But, no: they remained true to their flag, and went on working
with the old enthusiasm, though most of them did not understand even in
their own minds why they did so. They felt instinctively that so they
must do; but as they did not clearly appreciate the nature of this
feeling, the things that they did were not always rightly directed
towards that object which in reality was drawing them on without their
knowledge.
For at the very time when the material tragedy in the East was at its
height, the heart of the Eastern Jew was still oppressed by another
tragedy—the moral one; and when the _Chovevé Zion_ began to work for the
solution of the material problem, the national instinct of the people
felt that just in such work could it find the remedy for its moral
trouble. Hence the people took up this work and would not abandon it
even after it had become obvious that the material trouble could not be
cured in this way. The Eastern form of the moral trouble is absolutely
different from the Western. In the West it is the problem of the Jews,
in the East the problem of Judaism. The one weighs on the individual,
the other on the nation. The one is felt by Jews who have had a European
education, the other by Jews whose education has been Jewish. The one is
a product of anti-Semitism, and is dependent on anti-Semitism for its
existence; the other is a natural product of a real link with a culture
of thousands of years, which will retain its hold even if the troubles
of the Jews all over the world come to an end, together with
anti-Semitism, and all the Jews in every land have comfortable
positions, are on the best possible terms with their neighbours, and are
allowed by them to take part in every sphere of social and political
life on terms of absolute equality.
It is not only Jews who have come out of the Ghetto: Judaism has come
out, too. For Jews the exodus is confined to certain countries, and is
due to toleration; but Judaism has come out (or is coming out) of its
own accord wherever it has come into contact with modern culture. This
contact with modern culture overturns the defences of Judaism from
within, so that Judaism can no longer remain isolated and live a life
apart. The spirit of our people strives for development: it wants to
absorb those elements of general culture which reach it from outside, to
digest them and to make them a part of itself, as it has done before at
different periods of its history. But the conditions of its life in
exile are not suitable. In our time culture wears in each country the
garb of the national spirit, and the stranger who would woo her must
sink his individuality and become absorbed in the dominant spirit. For
this reason Judaism in exile cannot develop its individuality in its own
way. When it leaves the Ghetto walls it is in danger of losing its
essential being or—at best—its national unity: it is in danger of being
split up into as many kinds of Judaism, each with a different character
and life, as there are countries of the Jewish dispersion.[23]
And now Judaism finds that it can no longer tolerate the _galuth_[24]
form which it had to take on, in obedience to its will-to-live, when it
was exiled from its own country, and that if it loses that form its life
is in danger. So it seeks to return to its historic centre, in order to
live there a life of natural development, to bring its powers into play
in every department of human culture, to develop and perfect those
national possessions which it has acquired up to now, and thus to
contribute to the common stock of humanity, in the future as in the
past, a great national culture, the fruit of the unhampered activity of
a people living according to its own spirit. For this purpose Judaism
needs at present but little. It needs not an independent State, but only
the creation in its native land of conditions favourable to its
development: a good-sized settlement of Jews working _without
hindrance_[25] in every branch of culture, from agriculture and
handicrafts to science and literature. This Jewish settlement, which
will be a gradual growth, will become in course of time the centre of
the nation, wherein its spirit will find pure expression and develop in
all its aspects up to the highest degree of perfection of which it is
capable. Then from this centre the spirit of Judaism will go forth to
the great circumference, to all the communities of the Diaspora, and
will breathe new life into them and preserve their unity; and when our
national culture in Palestine has attained that level, we may be
confident that it will produce men in the country who will be able, on a
favourable opportunity, to establish a State which will be a _Jewish_
State, and not merely a State of Jews.
This _Chibbath Zion_, which takes thought for the preservation of
Judaism at a time when Jewry suffers so much, is something odd and
unintelligible to the “political” Zionists of the West, just as the
demand of R. Jochanan ben Zakkai for Jabneh was strange and
unintelligible to the corresponding people of that time.[26] And so
political Zionism cannot satisfy those Jews who care for Judaism: its
growth seems to them to be fraught with danger to the object of their
own aspiration.
The secret of our people’s persistence is—as I have tried to show
elsewhere[27]—that at a very early period the Prophets taught it to
respect only spiritual power, and not to worship material power. For
this reason the clash with enemies stronger than itself never brought
the Jewish nation, as it did the other nations of antiquity, to the
point of self-effacement. So long as we are faithful to this principle,
our existence has a secure basis: for in spiritual power we are not
inferior to other nations, and we have no reason to efface ourselves.
But a political ideal _which does not rest on the national culture_ is
apt to seduce us from our loyalty to spiritual greatness, and to beget
in us a tendency to find the path of glory in the attainment of material
power and political dominion, thus breaking the thread that unites us
with the past, and undermining our historical basis. Needless to say, if
the political ideal is not attained, it will have disastrous
consequences, because we shall have lost the old basis without finding a
new one. But even if it is attained under present conditions, when we
are a scattered people not only in the physical but also in the
spiritual sense—even then Judaism will be in great danger. Almost all
our great men, those, that is, whose education and social position fit
them to be at the head of a Jewish State, are spiritually far removed
from Judaism, and have no true conception of its nature and its value.
Such men, however loyal to their State and devoted to its interests,
will necessarily regard those interests as bound up with the foreign
culture which they themselves have imbibed; and they will endeavour, by
moral persuasion or even by force, to implant that culture in the Jewish
State, so that in the end the Jewish State will be a State of Germans or
Frenchmen of the Jewish race. We have even now a small example of this
process in Palestine.[28] And history teaches us that in the days of the
Herodian house Palestine was indeed a Jewish State, but the national
culture was despised and persecuted, and the ruling house did everything
in its power to implant Roman culture in the country, and frittered away
the national resources in the building of heathen temples and
amphitheatres and so forth. Such a Jewish State would spell death and
utter degradation for our people. We should never achieve sufficient
political power to deserve respect, while we should miss the living
moral force within. The puny State, being “tossed about like a ball
between its powerful neighbours, and maintaining its existence only by
diplomatic shifts and continual truckling to the favoured of fortune,”
would not be able to give us a feeling of national glory; and the
national culture, in which we might have sought and found our glory,
would not have been implanted in our State and would not be the
principle of its life. So we should really be then—much more than we are
now—“a small and insignificant nation,” enslaved _in spirit_ to “the
favoured of fortune,” turning an envious and covetous eye on the armed
force of our “powerful neighbours”; and our existence as a sovereign
State would not add a glorious chapter to our national history. Were it
not better for “an ancient people which was once a beacon to the world”
to disappear than to end by reaching such a goal as this?[29] Mr.
Lilienblum reminds me that there are in our time small States, like
Switzerland, which are safeguarded against interference by the other
nations, and have no need of “continual truckling.” But a comparison
between Palestine and small countries like Switzerland overlooks the
geographical position of Palestine and its religious importance for all
nations. These two facts will make it quite impossible for its “powerful
neighbours” (by which expression, of course, I did not mean, as Mr.
Lilienblum interprets, “the Druses and the Persians”) to leave it alone
altogether; and when it has become a Jewish State they will all still
keep an eye on it, and each Power will try to influence its policy in a
direction favourable to itself, just as we see happening in the case of
other weak states (like Turkey) in which the great European nations have
“interests.”
In a word: _Chibbath Zion_, no less than “Zionism,” wants a Jewish State
and believes in the possibility of the establishment of a Jewish State
in the future. But while “Zionism” looks to the Jewish State to provide
a remedy for poverty, complete tranquillity and national glory,
_Chibbath Zion_ knows that our State will not give us all these things
until “universal Righteousness is enthroned and holds sway over nations
and States”: and it looks to a Jewish State to provide only a “secure
refuge” for Judaism and a cultural bond of unity for our nation.
“Zionism,” therefore, begins its work with political propaganda;
_Chibbath Zion_ begins with national culture, because only through the
national culture and for its sake can a Jewish State be established in
such a way as to correspond with the will and the needs of the Jewish
people.
Dr. Herzl, it is true, said in the speech mentioned above that “Zionism”
demands the return to Judaism before the return to the Jewish State. But
these nice-sounding words are so much at variance with his deeds that we
are forced to the unpleasant conclusion that they are nothing but a
well-turned phrase.
It is very difficult for me to deal with individual actions, on which
one cannot touch without reflecting on individual men. For this reason I
contented myself, in my note on the Congress, with general allusions,
which, I believed, would be readily intelligible to those who were
versed in the subject, and especially to Congress delegates. But some of
my opponents have turned this scrupulousness to use against me by
pretending not to understand at all. They ask, with affected simplicity,
what fault I have to find with the Congress, and they have even the
assurance to deny publicly facts which are common knowledge. These
tactics constrain me here, against my will, to raise the artistic veil
which they have cast over the whole proceedings, and to mention some
details which throw light on the character of this movement and the
mental attitude of its adherents.
If it were really the aim of “Zionism” to bring the people back to
Judaism—to make it not merely a nation in the political sense, but a
nation living according to its own spirit—then the Congress would not
have postponed questions of national culture—of language and literature,
of education and the diffusion of Jewish knowledge—to the very last
moment, after the end of all the debates on _rechtlich_ and
_völkerrechtlich_, on the election of X. as a member of the Committee,
on the imaginary millions, and so forth. When all those present were
tired out, and welcomed the setting sun on the last day as a sign of the
approaching end, a short time was allowed for a discourse by one of the
members on all those important questions, which are in reality the most
vital and essential questions. Naturally, the discourse, however good,
had to be hurried and shortened; there was no time for discussion of
details; a suggestion was made from the platform that all these problems
should be handed over to a Commission consisting of certain writers, who
were named; and the whole assembly agreed simply for the sake of
finishing the business and getting away.
But there is no need to ascertain the attitude of the Congress by
inference, because it was stated quite explicitly in one of the official
speeches—a speech which appeared on the agenda as “An Exposition of the
basis of Zionism,” and was submitted to Dr. Herzl before it was read to
the Congress. In this speech we were told plainly that the Western Jews
were nearer than those of the East to the goal of Zionism, because they
had already done half the work: they had annihilated the Jewish culture
of the Ghetto, and were thus emancipated from the yoke of the past. This
speech, too, was received with prolonged applause, and the Congress
passed a motion ordering it to be published as a pamphlet for
distribution among Jews.
In one of the numbers of the Zionist organ _Die Welt_ there appeared a
good allegorical description of those Jews who remained in the National
German party in Austria even after it had united with the anti-Semites.
The allegory is of an old lady whose lover deserts her for another, and
who, after trying without success to bring him back by all the arts
which used to win him, begins to display affection for his new love,
hoping that he may take pity on her for her magnanimity.
I have a shrewd suspicion that this allegory can equally well be
applied, with a slight change, to its inventors themselves. There is an
old lady who, despairing utterly of regaining her lover by entreaties,
submission and humility, suddenly decks herself out in splendour and
begins to treat him with hatred and contempt. Her object is still to
influence him. She wants him at least to respect her in his heart of
hearts, if he can no longer love her. Whoever reads _Die Welt_
attentively and critically will not be able to avoid the impression that
the Western “Zionists” always have their eyes fixed on the non-Jewish
world, and that they, like the assimilated Jews, are aiming simply at
finding favour in the eyes of the nations: only that whereas the others
want love, the “Zionists” want respect. They are enormously pleased when
a Gentile says openly that the “Zionists” deserve respect, when a
journal prints some reference to the “Zionists” without making a joke of
them, and so forth. Nay, at the last sitting of the Congress the
President found it necessary publicly to tender special thanks to the
three Gentiles who had honoured the meeting by taking part in it,
although they were all three silent members, and there is no sign of
their having done anything. If I wished to go into small details, I
could show from various incidents that in their general conduct and
procedure these “Zionists” do not try to get close to Jewish culture and
imbibe its spirit, but that, on the contrary, they endeavour to imitate,
as Jews, the conduct and procedure of the Germans, even where they are
most foreign to the Jewish spirit, as a means of showing that Jews, too,
can live and act like all other nations. It may suffice to mention the
unpleasant incident at Vienna recently, when the young “Zionists” went
out to spread the gospel of “Zionism” with sticks and fisticuffs, in
German fashion. And the Zionist organ regarded this incident
sympathetically, and, for all its carefulness, could not conceal its
satisfaction at the success of the Zionist fist.
The whole Congress, too, was designed rather as a demonstration to the
world than as a means of making it clear to ourselves what we want and
what we can do. The founders of the movement wanted to show the outside
world that they had behind them a united and unanimous Jewish people. It
must be admitted that from beginning to end they pursued this object
with clear consciousness and determination. In those countries where
Jews are preoccupied with material troubles, and are not likely on the
whole to get enthusiastic about a political ideal for the distant
future, a special emissary went about, before the Congress, spreading
favourable reports, from which it might be concluded that both the
consent of Turkey and the necessary millions were nearly within our
reach, and that nothing was lacking except a national representative
body to negotiate with all parties on behalf of the Jewish people: for
which reason it was necessary to send many delegates to the Congress,
and also to send in petitions with thousands of signatures, and then the
Committee to be chosen by the Congress would be the body which was
required.[30] On the other hand, they were careful not to announce
clearly in advance that Herzl’s Zionism, and that only, would be the
basis of the Congress, that that basis would be above criticism, and no
delegate to the Congress would have the right to question it. The Order
of Proceedings, which was sent out with the invitation to the Congress,
said merely in general terms that anybody could be a delegate “who
expresses his agreement with the _general_ programme of Zionism,”
without explaining what the general programme was or where it could be
found. Thus there met at Basle men utterly at variance with one another
in their views and aspirations. They thought in their simplicity that
everybody whose gaze was turned Zion-wards, though he did not see eye to
eye with Herzl, had done his duty to the general programme and had a
right to be a member of the Congress and to express his views before it.
But the heads of the Congress tried with all their might to prevent any
difference of opinion on fundamental questions from coming to the
surface, and used every “parliamentary” device to avoid giving
opportunity for discussion and elucidation of such questions. The
question of the programme actually came up at one of the preliminary
meetings held before the Congress itself (a _Vorkonferenz_); and some of
the delegates from Vienna pointed to the statement on the Order of
Proceedings, and tried to prove from it that that question could not
properly be raised, since all the delegates had accepted the general
programme of Zionism, and there was no Zionism but that of Vienna, and
_Die Welt_ was its prophet. But many of those present would not agree,
and a Commission had to be appointed to draw up a programme. This
Commission skilfully contrived a programme capable of a dozen
interpretations, to suit all tastes; and this programme was put before
Congress with a request that it should be accepted as it stood, without
any discussion. But one delegate refused to submit, and his action led
to a long debate on a single word. This debate showed, to the
consternation of many people, that there were several kind of
“Zionists,” and the cloak of unanimity was in danger of being publicly
rent asunder; but the leaders quickly and skilfully patched up the rent,
before it had got very far. Dr. Herzl, in his new pamphlet, uses this to
prove what great importance Zionists attached to this single word
(_völkerrechtlich_). But in truth similar “dangerous” debates might have
been raised on many other words. For many delegates quite failed to
notice the wide gulf between the various views on points of principle,
and a discussion on any such point was calculated to open people’s eyes
and to shatter the whole structure to atoms. But such discussions were
not raised, because even the few who saw clearly and understood the
position shrank from the risk of “wrecking.” And so the object was
attained; the illusion of unanimity was preserved till the last; the
outside world saw a united people demanding a State; and those who were
inside returned home full of enthusiasm, but no whit the clearer as to
their ideas or the relation of one idea to another.