the other causes mentioned before. We must build a house for ourselves,
and then, even in foreign countries, we shall have the position of
respected guests, and our competition with the native population will
not arouse their resentment and jealousy more than the competition of
other strangers. But the economic cause differs from the other causes.
Our national and political degradation is a moral fact, and requires
only a moral remedy—that we stand higher in the estimation of the world,
as a nation with a concrete life of its own, and with a land in which it
can extend to others that hospitality which it receives elsewhere. But
in order to remove the economic cause we must of necessity diminish the
competition between Jew and non-Jew in places where that competition is
excessive. For even the respected guest has economic freedom only within
certain limits. If he oversteps these limits, and his competition
presses too hard on the native, the native is forced to protect himself,
either by legislative restriction of the foreigner’s rights, or
sometimes even by force. It follows that if we succeed in establishing a
separate State for our people, the two first causes of anti-Semitism
will be removed, even if the State is very small, and even if most of
the Jews remain where they are, and only a very small minority goes to
settle in our State. For the mere fact of the existence of a Jewish
State, where Jews would be masters, and their national life would
develop on lines of its own in accordance with their spirit—this fact
alone would suffice to remove from us the brand of inferiority, and to
raise us in the world’s estimation to the level of a nation equal in
worth to the other nations, sharing alike their privileges and their
duties; and the attitude of the other nations to us would no longer be
different from their attitude to each other. But the economic cause,
though its working may be mitigated to some extent when the wandering
mendicant is transformed into a well-to-do guest, cannot be got rid of
until the number of Jews in every country declines to the limit dictated
by the economic condition of the native population. Until that time
hatred of these foreign competitors will continue, and the native
population will continue to persecute them with restrictive laws and
even with violence, even though there exist somewhere or other a
separate Jewish State, and even though all nations respect the Jewish
nationality which has in that State its concrete expression.
Thus we arrive at a further condition of the solution of our problem.
What we need is not simply a State, but a State to which the majority of
the Jews will emigrate from all their present homes—to such an extent
that their numbers in every country will decline to the extent demanded
by local conditions—and a State extensive enough and materially rich
enough to maintain so large a population.
And here we come to the Achilles’ heel of political Zionism. Granted
that we have it in our power to establish a Jewish State: have we it in
our power to diminish thereby the number of Jews in every country to the
maximum which the economic condition of the country can bear without
their arousing anti-Semitism? This question the opponents of the new
Zionism, which promises _to put an end to the Jewish problem_ by the
establishment of the State, are continually asking: but so far we have
not received from the Zionists a clear and satisfactory answer. During
the last twenty years, for instance, at least a million Jews have left
Eastern Europe for America and Africa. That is a very large number,
sufficient for the establishment of a Jewish State. Yet this emigration
has had no perceptible effect on the economic condition of the countries
from which it has taken place, and the relations between the native
population and the Jews in those countries have not improved. The reason
is that the emigration has not in fact lessened the number of Jews in
those countries, the loss being always counterbalanced by the natural
increase of those who remain. If, then, Pinsker’s idea had been carried
out as soon as his pamphlet was published, and all these emigrants had
gone not to America or Africa, but to the Jewish State, the State might
by now have been successful and flourishing, and national life might be
developing there in a satisfactory manner, so as to bring great honour
to our people wherever Jews are; but none the less the Jewish problem in
the lands whence the emigration proceeded would remain exactly where it
was, because economic competition between the Jews and the native
population would be just as keen as before, and would still be felt by
the latter to an intolerable degree. If, therefore, a Jewish State is
really to solve the Jewish problem on its economic side for good and
all, then hundreds of thousands must emigrate to it every year from the
lands of the Diaspora, so that the diminution in the number of Jews in
those lands will be patently perceptible, and their influence on
economic life will decrease from year to year, till it ceases to be a
cause of hatred and jealousy on the part of the native population. We
must therefore ask ourselves first of all, whether it is really possible
to transport such a vast number of people in a short time, and to open
up for them new sources of livelihood in a new State, wherever it may
be. I doubt very much whether any responsible person will answer this
question in the affirmative.
But this criticism, which is fatal to the new Zionism, as expounded by
Herzl and his followers, does not seriously affect Pinsker’s Zionism.
The new Zionists make the political and economic problem the be-all and
end-all of their strivings. Their primary aim is to improve the hard lot
of the Jews _as individuals_. They regard such improvement in exile as
out of the question, since Jews are regarded as strangers in every
country, and the competition of the stranger exposes him to the
resentment of the native population. Hence they demand that the Jews
shall establish a separate State for themselves, where they will not be
strangers and their competition will not be a crime.[40] But this idea
can be justified only if the State is able to improve the lot of all the
Jews or most of them; that is, if all or most of the Jews can leave
foreign countries and settle in their State. Unless this condition is
fulfilled, the amelioration will be only partial; it will affect only
that fortunate minority which succeeds in establishing itself in the
Jewish State. The majority will remain as badly off as before—hated and
persecuted foreigners in strange lands. Where, then, is the promised
annihilation of the Jewish problem through the establishment of the
State?
But with Pinsker it is different. The loss which he mourns is primarily
the loss of Jewish national dignity. He weeps for a _nation_ which is
not regarded and respected by the other nations as an equal, and whose
individual members are treated everywhere not merely as foreigners, but
as beggars in receipt of charity. With him the question of national
dignity comes first of all. Of the three causes to which he traces the
ill-feeling between Jews and Gentiles, the first one, which lies in the
degraded position of the Jews as a nation—a point not mentioned by the
new Zionists—is the most important in his own view, and occupies most of
his attention. Next to it stands the political cause; and this cause
also, unlike the new Zionists, he regards from the point of view of the
problem of national dignity. He is not much troubled by the fact that we
are treated as aliens in every country: that fact, no doubt, harms us as
individuals, but in itself it does not imply any contempt or
inferiority. The root of the trouble is that we are not treated as
aliens in the ordinary political sense, but are regarded as wandering
mendicants, as inferior beings, who are not entitled to demand respect
and consideration as of right. So with the third cause, the economic
one. Its sting lies for Pinsker chiefly in the fact that here also we
Jews are differentiated from other aliens—that in consequence of the low
esteem in which we are held our competition causes more resentment than
that of other aliens. Pinsker, therefore, has more right than the new
Zionists to regard the establishment of a Jewish State as the absolute
solution of the Jewish problem—that is, of the problem of the _dignity_
of the Jewish nation and of its members, who, even if most of them
remain scattered among the nations, and even if they continue to be
hated and persecuted in various countries because of their economic
competition, will at any rate no longer be exposed to the contempt of
their neighbours, and to the taunt that they are not a nation, but a
pack of beggars wandering about in a world which is not theirs, and
existing only on sufferance.
On the other hand, Pinsker raises another question, which does not
trouble the new Zionists very much: the question of the national
consciousness.
If we assume, as Herzl does in his pamphlet, that the Jewish State will
contain all the Jews, and will offer to every individual Jew the
possibility of living comfortably among his people, then we need not be
much concerned about the anterior development of the national
consciousness as an incentive to the establishment of the State. We have
ready to hand another and a stronger incentive in the natural desire of
every individual to improve his position.[41] But if from the outset we
accept the fact that even a Jewish State will not absolutely solve the
Jewish problem on its economic side, and that the chief purpose for
which we need a State is a moral one—to gain for our own nation the
respect of other nations, and to create a healthy body for our national
spirit—then we are bound to face the question whether the national
consciousness is so strong among us, and the honour of our nation so
dear to us, that this motive alone, unalloyed by any consideration of
individual advantage, will be sufficient to spur us on to so vast and
difficult a task.
Now Pinsker, candid here as always, does not conceal from us that, as
things are, the national consciousness among us is not nearly strong
enough for our purpose. “Our greatest misfortune is that we do not form
a nation: we are merely Jews.” The _galuth_ life has compelled every Jew
to put all his strength into his individual struggle for existence; and
in that struggle we have been compelled to use any kind of weapon that
came to hand, without enquiring too closely whether it was consistent
with our national dignity. Thus, as time went on, both our sense of
nationality and our sense of dignity became dulled; and at last we
ceased to feel the need of restoring our dignity, national or
individual.[42] We left it to the Deity to perform that ideal task by
bringing us the Messiah at the proper time, and buried ourselves in
affairs more necessary for our immediate physical survival.[43] Even in
modern times, when the breeze of modern culture has blown on us and
begun to awaken our dormant sense of dignity, we try to find
satisfaction in a strange delusion of our own invention—that the people
of Israel has a “mission,” for the sake of which it must remain
scattered among the nations: “a mission in which nobody believes, a
privilege of which, candidly, we should be glad to be rid, if at that
price we could wipe out the name of ‘Jew’ as a title of shame.”[44] This
loss of self-respect on the one side aggravates the contempt in which we
are held, and on the other side is itself the greatest stumbling-block
on our path of progress. For what, except a strong national
consciousness, can induce our people to bend all its energies to the
task of restoring its national dignity, and to fight unceasingly and
unwearyingly against all the obstacles with which it is confronted? That
those obstacles are many and serious—this again Pinsker does not conceal
from us. At the best, several generations must elapse before we can
attain our end, “perhaps only after labour too great for human
strength.” Only, as we recognise that this is the one road to our
national salvation, we must not turn back faint-heartedly because of the
danger or for lack of confidence in the success of our efforts.[45] But
such language is intelligible only to a thoroughly awakened national
consciousness, which can intensify the desire to attain the end in
proportion to the heaviness of the task, can flame up for one instant in
the heart of the whole people, and produce a “national resolution,” a
sacred and unbending resolve to take up the work of revival and to carry
it on, generation after generation, till its completion. And “where,”
asks Pinsker, bitterly, “where shall we find this national
consciousness?”
Pinsker found no satisfactory answer to this question. He made this
national consciousness a categorical imperative, a _conditio sine qua
non_; but he did not show how it was to be supplied. For this reason the
whole of the practical scheme which follows gives one the impression of
being formulated conditionally—subject, that is, to the emergence among
our people, no matter by what means, of a national consciousness strong
enough to enable them to carry out the idea in practice.
Pinsker’s practical scheme, as I said above, is only an outline. But its
general lines are very similar to those laid down by Herzl in the
pamphlet which is the basis of present-day Zionist policy.
As we cannot hope for another leader like Moses—“history does not
vouchsafe such leaders to the same people repeatedly”—the leadership of
the movement for national rebirth must be taken by a group of
distinguished Jews, men of strong will and generous character, who “by
their union will, perhaps, succeed in freeing us from reproach and
persecution, no less than did the one great leader.”[46] Herzl uses very
similar language about this collective _negotiorum gestor_,[47] and he
and Pinsker alike look for its members among the upper-class Jews; but
Herzl has his eye especially on the Jews of England, while Pinsker looks
generally to the great organisations already in existence.[48] Herzl
calls this governing body “the Society of Jews”; Pinsker calls it “the
Directorium.” Herzl pictures the formation of the Society of Jews in a
very simple manner. The best of the English Jews, having approved the
project, come together without any preliminaries, and form a “Society of
Jews.” Herzl sees no need to call a National Assembly first: the general
consent which is necessary to give the Society proper standing with the
Governments will come afterwards spontaneously.[49] But Pinsker wanted
the various organisations to call “_a National Congress_, of which they
themselves would be the nucleus.” Only in the event of their refusing to
do this does he suggest that they should at least constitute a special
“national institution” called a “Directorium,” which should unite all
forces in the national work. The principal and immediate object of this
institution would be “to create a safe and independent home of refuge
for that superfluity of poor Jews which exists as a proletariat in
various countries, and is disliked by the native population.”[50] All
other Jews, not merely in the West, “where they are already naturalised
up to a certain point,” but also “in those places where they are not
readily tolerated,” can remain where they are. Unlike Herzl, Pinsker
does not think it possible that all the Jews will leave their homes and
go to their own State; nor is this necessary for his real object, as I
have pointed out above. Economic pressure is under present conditions
causing the “superfluity” to emigrate year by year from every country
where there is a superfluity; and thousands of Jews leave their homes
because they can no longer maintain themselves. At present these
emigrants escape one trouble to fall into another. They wander from
country to country, and find no proper resting-place; and the large sums
of money expended by various organisations on the migration of Jews and
their settlement in new homes produce no real benefit, because the new
home also is only a temporary lodging. When the number of Jews in the
new country reaches the “saturation-point,” the journey will have to be
resumed; the Jews must move on to yet other countries. But if we can
prepare, while there is yet time, a single secure home of refuge instead
of the many insecure ones, the superfluity will gradually find its way
thither, and its inhabitants will increase from year to year, till at
last it becomes the centre of our national life, though the bulk of the
people will remain, as hitherto, scattered in strange lands.
The first act of the “Directorium” would be to send an expedition of
experts to investigate and find the territory best suited to our purpose
from every point of view. When he wrote his pamphlet Pinsker did not yet
regard our historic land as the only possible home of refuge; on the
contrary, he feared that our ingrained love for Palestine might give us
a bias and induce us to choose that country without paying regard to its
political, economic and other conditions, which perhaps might be
unfavourable. For this reason he warns us emphatically not to be guided
by sentiment in this matter, but to leave the question of territory to a
commission of experts, who will solve it after a thorough and detailed
investigation. But on the whole he thinks that the desired territory
will be found either in America or in Turkey.[51] In the latter
alternative we shall form a special “Pashalik,” the independence of
which will be guaranteed by Turkey and the other Great Powers. “It will
be one of the principal functions of the Directorium,” writes Pinsker,
for all the world like an orthodox adherent of “diplomatic” Zionism
to-day, “to win for this project the sympathy of the Porte and the other
European Governments.”[52]
“And then, but not till then,” he warns us once again, the Directorium
will enter on its work of buying land and organising colonisation. In
this work it will need the assistance of “a group of capitalists,” who
will form “a joint-stock company”—exactly as in Herzl’s scheme, where
side by side with the Society of Jews there is established the Jewish
Company, a company of capitalists, to direct the material affairs of the
settlement.
Pinsker next proceeds to describe in outline the progress of the new
settlement—how the land will be parcelled out in small plots, some to be
sold to men with capital, and some to be occupied by men of no means
with the assistance of a _National Fund_ established to that end; and so
forth. But for our present purpose we need follow him no further. What
has been said above will suffice to make it plain to all who wish to see
that it was Pinsker who worked out the whole theory of political
Zionism, and that his successors, so far from adding anything essential
to his scheme, actually took away in large measure its ideal basis, and
thus so seriously impaired its moral value that they had to have
recourse to various promises which they could neither fulfil nor
repudiate. This will become abundantly clear to anybody who will compare
the two pamphlets, Pinsker’s and Herzl’s.
Pinsker, as we have seen, puts the emphasis on the moral aspect, Herzl
on the material. Hence Pinsker wishes to found only a national centre,
Herzl promises a complete “ingathering of the exiles”; Pinsker finds the
motive power in a strong national consciousness, Herzl in the desire for
individual betterment. For this reason Pinsker does not find it
necessary to minimise the difficulties: on the contrary, he repeats many
times, with emphasis, that only at the cost of infinite sacrifice will
the goal perhaps—mark that “perhaps”!—be reached. Similarly, he
recognises that it is not work for one generation alone. “We have to
take only the first step; our successors must follow in our footsteps,
with measured tread and without undue haste.”[53] Not so Herzl. He is
bound to make light of the difficulties, because otherwise he would have
to face the question: “If we are looking for betterment as individuals,
how can we waste so much energy on a task that will take generations to
accomplish, and may not be accomplished at all, when we have so many
pressing needs which can be more or less met if we devote that energy to
them?” Hence Herzl is never tired of promising that it will be very easy
to carry out his project in a short time, if only we want it. “Let us
but begin, and anti-Semitism will at once die down in every country: for
this will be our treaty of peace with it. Once let the Jewish Company be
established, and the news of it will spread in one day to the ends of
the earth, and our position will immediately begin to improve.... Thus
the work will proceed, rapidly yet without convulsion.”[54] The same
difference is evident in the general scheme of the two pamphlets.
Pinsker devotes most of his pamphlet to showing how low we have sunk as
a nation, and how badly we need a State of our own to save our dignity.
Only at the end does he explain briefly how he pictures to himself the
practical realisation of his idea. This is because from his point of
view the essential thing is that we resolve that our dignity absolutely
demands this course of action, cost what it may. We have no need to
spend much thought at the outset on the question whether we shall
succeed, or how and when we shall succeed, because, if we suppose that
the task is beyond our strength, we must none the less take it up, in
order to wipe out our reproach. The question of dignity brooks no
calculation. But Herzl deals very briefly with fundamental principles
and reasons, because, from his materialistic point of view, there is
really no need to enlarge on them. Can anybody doubt that the position
of the Jews in exile is very bad, and that it would be better for them
and for their neighbours if they went and established a separate State
for themselves? Even our “assimilationists” would certainly agree for
the most part, if they only knew with absolute certainty from the start
that the project could be carried out without too much trouble, “rapidly
yet without convulsion.” The root question is, then, whether the goal
can in fact be reached under such comfortable conditions. For this
reason Herzl gives most of his attention to this question, and explains
his practical scheme in minute detail, with the object of showing that
it demands no great sacrifices, whether material or spiritual, and that
everything from A to Z will be achieved with ease, rapidity and
universal satisfaction. All the emigration to the Jewish State, up to
the time when the whole people is gathered there, he describes almost as
though it were a holiday excursion. And in the State itself everybody
lives in comfort and prosperity. Nobody will need to forgo even the
minor habits of his ordinary life; and the immigrant will not even have
to miss his friends and relations, because the Jews will leave the
different countries in “local groups,” and will be settled in their own
land on that basis, so that each man can attach himself to the group
which is closest to him geographically and spiritually. The
working-classes, on whose strength the State will be built up, will work
only seven hours a day, and even the Jewish Company, which is to direct
the whole work with its capital, will not incur any financial risk,
because its investments will be sound and will produce an exceptionally
good return.[55]
If, further, we take into account the wide difference between the two
pamphlets in style, we may see that Herzl’s pamphlet has the air of
being a translation of Pinsker’s from the language of the ancient
Prophets into that of modern journalism.
Yet the name of Pinsker, as the originator of the political Zionist
theory, is almost forgotten. He is mentioned as a rule only in
connection with the work of “petty colonisation” in Palestine, as though
his horizon had been bounded by his activity in that sphere. Ordinary
men, for whom the real is the visible, remember only things that are
done: and the thing that Pinsker did—that to which he devoted all his
subsequent work—has really no direct relation to the message which he
began by enunciating.