work of the _Chovevé Zion_, despite the political character of his
theory. He understood perfectly well that their work was very far
removed from the great project of which he dreamt; but he understood
also that without a “national resolution,” proceeding from a strong
national consciousness, and without unity and an organisation embracing
the whole people, it would be impossible to carry out his great idea.
The consent of the Powers, the favour of the Sublime Porte, even a
Charter signed and sealed—all this cannot help us in the least, so long
as we are not a single people, strong by virtue of our unity and our
indomitable will, penetrated through and through with a sense of our
present national degradation, and prepared to sacrifice our all for a
nobler future. Hence, when Pinsker saw that national indifference was
the rule in every section of the people; when he saw how faint an echo
his pamphlet raised in the hearts of the ruling classes, whom he
confidently expected to be the first to rally to his banner; and when he
saw a small group of men with insignificant means, or none, putting
forth every possible effort to carry out a national project, small and
poor though it was in comparison with his own ideal—Pinsker could not
help lending a hand to those who were engaged in this work, seeing in
them the nucleus of an organisation, and the small beginning of the
“national resolution.” For Pinsker the work done in Palestine was not
the beginning of the practical realisation of his programme, but only
the beginning of the preparatory stage—the beginning of the revival of
the national consciousness, and of the union of the people under the
banner of a common ideal. He hoped by means of national action on a
small scale to arrive ultimately at that national resolution on the part
of the whole people for which he looked in his pamphlet; and then the
real work would begin.
It is abundantly clear that this is exactly the course which the new
Zionists too are taking to-day, though as yet, it would appear,
unconsciously. How great, for instance, is the gulf between the
Jewish Company of Herzl’s vision—possessing a capital of fifty
millions sterling, and undertaking not only to plant the settlers in
the Jewish State, but also to sell the property and transact the
business of all the Jews in the Diaspora—and the small Bank, with
its quarter-of-a-million, which has now been opened, after infinite
labour, to carry on some simple and unimportant business operations
in Palestine and Russia! Or again, is there any sort of relationship
between the Society of Jews which Herzl describes in his pamphlet—a
Society which is to stand at the head of the whole people and manage
all its national affairs, as Moses did—and the Actions Committee
which now stands at the head of the Zionist organisation? And how
shall we be brought to the Jewish State—that free State guaranteed
by all the Powers—by such minor concessions as it is possible to
obtain now, according to the Zionist leaders, at Yildiz Kiosk for a
certain price? The plain truth is that all this work, which the new
Zionists regard as “political” work _par excellence_, has as little
to do with the theory of political Zionism as had the petty
colonisation work which Pinsker took up. In the one case as in the
other, the whole value of the work lies in its effect on the people,
which it educates gradually in the direction of unity, organisation,
national resolution. In other words, we are still, as we were in
Pinsker’s day, at the first stage, the preliminary stage of
preparatory work.
It must be admitted, however, that in the practical sphere—even
confining that to preparatory work and propaganda—Pinsker did little,
and did not achieve in his ten years of work half as much as the leader
of the new Zionism has achieved in five years. Pinsker was purely a
theorist: he worked out the theory of Zionism better and more fully than
his successor, but, like all theorists, he was of little use when it
came to practical work. Men of his type, simple-souled and pure-minded
to a degree, innocent of the tricks and wiles of diplomacy, knowing
nothing but the naked truth—such men cannot find the way to popular
favour. Their words are too sincere, their actions too straightforward.
Those only can attract the mob and bend it to their will who can descend
to its level, pander to its tastes, and pipe to it in a hundred tunes,
choosing the right one at the right moment. Pinsker had none of these
arts. If, for example, he had gone to Yildiz Kiosk to negotiate for the
colonisation of Palestine, and had been told there: “If you have two
million pounds you may have so-and-so; otherwise—nothing”—what would he
have done? Without a doubt he would have replied at once: “We have not
such a large sum of money, and have at present no prospect of getting
it.” Then he would have returned home empty-handed, and the public at
large would have known nothing of his going or of his returning; or, if
it had been impossible to keep the matter quiet, everybody would have
known that “certain steps had been taken” at Yildiz, but had come to
nothing. This, of course, would have made a bad impression, and have
helped in some degree to weaken the energy of his few supporters. But we
all still remember how the Zionist leaders behaved on a similar occasion
last year. Leadership on these lines cannot satisfy those who have a
liking for the plain truth; but from a pragmatic point of view it
undoubtedly has the advantage. First of all, people heard only the glad
news (it “spread in one day to the ends of the earth”) that the Sultan
had given the Zionist leaders a favourable reception and made them
certain promises, but that the details could not yet be published. This
news aroused widespread attention: friends and foes alike waited
breathlessly for the curtain to be drawn. Then, after the news had
become public property and enlivened the hopes of the Zionists, the
leaders made the further announcement that the great promises had been
made conditionally, and could not be fulfilled unless they had two
million pounds. Everybody who knew the true state of things understood
at once—and certainly the leaders understood it, even while they were
having audience of the Sultan—that this condition could not be met, so
that the promises were mere empty words. And yet the first impression
was not altogether effaced, and it served to strengthen in many people
the belief that something great could be done if only all sections of
the people were ready to put all their strength into it—the kind of
belief which is calculated to intensify the energy of the workers, and
to spur them on to put forth greater efforts.
In a word: theory and practice are two departments which no doubt depend
on each other, but each one needs special abilities and different
qualities of mind, which can with difficulty be combined in one man. We
must therefore honour every man according to his value in his own
department. If I might borrow an illustration from religion, I should
say that Pinsker was the originator of the gospel of political Zionism,
and Herzl its apostle; Pinsker brought the new dispensation, and Herzl
gave it currency. But it is usual for the apostle to recognise the
originator and to acknowledge his greatness: as he spreads the gospel,
so he publishes abroad and sanctifies the name of him who brought it.
Had the Zionist apostle followed this custom, Pinsker would now have a
world-wide reputation, and would be venerated by all whose watchword is
Zion. But Herzl would not be satisfied with the practical mission which
was in reality his _métier_. He must needs “originate” the gospel itself
over again—in an inferior form, it is true—so that it should be all his.
Thus the odd result has come about that the further the gospel spreads,
the more completely is its true originator forgotten.
But it is not for Pinsker’s reputation that I am concerned. In his
lifetime he was so far from the desire for notoriety and ascendancy,
that I have no doubt that if he were alive to-day, he would rejoice
wholeheartedly at the wide vogue given to his idea, and not a shade of
displeasure would pass over his face because of the injustice done to
himself personally. My only regret is that Pinsker’s wonderful pamphlet
has sunk with him, and the Zionist gospel itself has become more
superficial and more materialistic.[56] Zionism is a faith, and, like
every other faith, it needs one authoritative “Bible,” to be conned by
the true believers, to be their fountain-head of spiritual influence. At
present Zionism has no “Bible.” Great as is Herzl’s influence with the
new Zionists, his pamphlet could not attain that high dignity. But its
general spirit pervades all the other brochures and speeches on which
Zionists live, and from which they derive their faith; and that spirit,
as we have seen, is not calculated to raise the masses above material
interests, and render them capable of making great sacrifices for a
higher national ideal. Pinsker’s pamphlet is the only one that is worthy
to take the first place in the literature of Zionism, and to be revered
by the party as the _fons et origo_ of all its views and policies. If
this pamphlet were disseminated among Zionists, and made familiar to
them, it would undoubtedly help to educate them in its spirit—a spirit
of pure idealism, which sets more store by the dignity of the whole
people than by the advantage of the individual, never flinches in the
face of danger, is never impatient, and demands no certainty of success.
Then the leaders would not have to be always looking for some means of
keeping the fervour up to the required temperature, nor to entangle
themselves in exaggerated promises and self-contradictions, which only
the blindness of enthusiasm can fail for a moment to detect.
Enthusiasm, however, is a flame which spreads rapidly but does not last.
It is only the slow-burning fire, with its steady flame, that can create
the enormous strength required for such a national task in many
successive generations. For this reason I believe that there will yet
come a day when all the external show and parade will no longer satisfy
those who thirst for a national ideal; and in that day many will once
more remember Pinsker and his pure and lofty message—a message of work
without limit and sacrifice without reward, for no other object than to
restore the dignity of our people, and to enhance our value for
humanity.
Footnote 31:
We hear now that Herzl commended Pinsker and his pamphlet—for the
first time—at one of the sittings of the Fifth Congress. That Congress
met at Basle some weeks after the _Chovevé Zion_ in Russia had given
prominence to Pinsker’s name on the anniversary of his death. This is
evidence that the President of the Zionist Congress still sometimes
pays attention to the public opinion of Russian Jewry. But, of course,
this does not affect what is said above.
Footnote 32:
[A second edition was published about a year after the appearance of
this Essay.]
Footnote 33:
Here is an incident which illustrates the extent to which the contents
of Pinsker’s pamphlet have been forgotten, even in Russia. A short
time ago, some of the Jewish periodicals in Russia published a letter
of Pinsker’s dating from 1883, which was found among the papers of the
Odessa Committee. The letter contains only a few headings of the ideas
which are explained in detail in his pamphlet. But the periodicals
were surprised, and found it necessary to remark that it appeared
_from this letter_ that so long as twenty years ago Pinsker had
“foreseen, as it were,” the Zionist movement of our day.
Footnote 34:
In Austria the _Chovevé Zion_ used to call themselves “Zionists” long
before Herzl’s time. I believe that Dr. Birnbaum invented the name in
his journal _Selbst-Emanzipation_. Herzl mentions the “Zionists” a few
times in his brochure, and satirically represents them as trying to
raise a heavy load by the steam of a tea-kettle (_Judenstaat_, p. 4).
Footnote 35:
_Autoemancipation_, pp. 1-7 [7-11 in the second edition, 1903.]
Footnote 36:
_ib._ p. 15 [17.]
Footnote 37:
Pinsker died before the days of what is now called “spiritual
nationalism,” the view which denies the need for a distinct national
territory, believing it possible that sooner or later we shall
obtain equal rights in the lands of our dispersion as _a nation_:
that is, shall be allowed to carry on our distinctive _national_
life in these lands, just as we have already obtained equal rights,
_as citizens_, in many countries: that is, have been allowed to take
part in social and political life like the other inhabitants. But
Pinsker lays the foundation for this view, by demanding—for the
first time—_national_ equality, and substituting the formula of
spiritual nationalism: “the same rights for the Jewish _nation_ as
for the other _nations_” (“die Gleichstellung der jüdischen Nation
mit den anderen Nationen”—_Autoemancipation_, p. 7 [11]) for the
older formula of the protagonists of emancipation: “the same rights
for Jews as for the other citizens.” It is, however, fundamental to
Pinsker’s view that national equality is unattainable so long as we
lack the concrete attributes of nationality. A nation which is a
nation only in the spiritual sense is a monstrosity which the other
nations cannot possibly regard as their compeer; it follows that
they cannot recognise its title to demand the same rights as those
enjoyed by the real nations.
Footnote 38:
_ib._ pp. 7-10 [11-13.]
Footnote 39:
_ib._ pp. 10-11 [13-14].
Footnote 40:
_Judenstaat_, pp. 24-26.
Footnote 41:
The question, “What will induce the Jews to found their State and to
settle in it?” is answered by Herzl quite simply: “We can trust the
anti-Semites to see to that.” (_Judenstaat_, p. 59.)
Footnote 42:
_Autoemancipation_, p. 12 [15].
Footnote 43:
_ib._ p. 16 [18].
Footnote 44:
_ib._ p. 19 [20]. As the sequel shows, Pinsker’s criticism is aimed
only at those who make the “mission” the moral end of our dispersion.
They think that we can fulfil our mission only if we are thoroughly
scattered: whereas the fact is precisely the reverse. “So far the
world does not regard us as a genuine firm, and allows us little
credit.” If, therefore, we really wish to benefit the world by
fulfilling a mission, we must first of all establish our national
position, so as to enhance our credit with the rest of the world.
Footnote 45:
_ib._ p. 20 [21].
Footnote 46:
_ib._ p. 26 [25].
Footnote 47:
_Judenstaat_, p. 70.
Footnote 48:
He means, apparently, the _Alliance Israélite Universelle_ and its
sister organisations in England and Austria. The Jewish Colonisation
Association had not yet come into existence.
Footnote 49:
Herzl shows, in his pamphlet, no great liking for large meetings, even
for propaganda purposes. “There is no need”—so writes the founder of
the Zionist Congress—“to summon special meetings with a lot of
palaver.” (_ib._ p. 57.)
Footnote 50:
_Autoem._ p. 27 [25-26]. Elsewhere (p. 34 [30]) Pinsker insists that
the home of refuge must be secured by _political_ means (“politisch
gesichert.”)
Footnote 51:
Herzl also, in his pamphlet, does not decide on a territory; but he
also looks to America and Turkey, and suggests the Argentine or
Palestine (_Judenstaat_, p. 29).
Footnote 52:
_Autoem._ p. 30 [28].
Footnote 53:
_ib._ p. 35 [31].
Footnote 54:
“Eilig und doch ohne Erschütterung” (_Judenstaat_, p. 85). In one
place Herzl says that the emigration of the whole people from the
various countries to its own State will take “some decades” (p. 27),
but does not say how many. Elsewhere he is more definite; the
emigration will last “perhaps twenty years or perhaps more” (p. 79).
Footnote 55:
It is worth pointing out that Pinsker, too, hints that the company of
capitalists, which is to co-operate with his Directorium, may expect a
good profit. But as soon as he has mentioned this expectation he adds:
“Whether, however, this act of national redemption will be more or
less good business or not—that question is not of great moment in
comparison with the importance of the undertaking for the future of
our people.” (pp. 32-33 [30].)
Footnote 56:
Even in his lifetime Pinsker was not understood, and his pamphlet was
not appreciated at its full value. Smolenskin, in his critique, saw
nothing in the pamphlet beyond the superficial _Chibbath Zion_ which
had then a wide vogue in Hebrew literature, and could find nothing to
say in its praise except that it was written in German—a language in
which “such ideas ... have never been expressed before.”
THE TIME HAS COME
(1906[57])
You are right, my friends: “Now the time has come to begin planting our
literature in the land of its birth and on its own native soil.”[58] But
it seems to me that there is a wider and a deeper foundation for this
statement than you give to it in your announcement. The time is ripe for
your enterprise not merely “because there is already a considerable
number of Jews in Palestine and the neighbouring countries, and so
Hebrew literature, its language being common to the Jews of Palestine,
has a function to perform in the sphere of national culture.” If that
were the only reason, we Hebrew writers outside Palestine, though we
should certainly have welcomed the new adventure and have been glad to
enjoy the literary fruit of Palestine, should not have felt it our duty
to take an active part in a local Palestinian literary movement, created
only for the Jews in Palestine, whose circumstances are known to us only
by hearsay, or from the visitor’s brief experience. If none the less I
feel—and I am sure that other writers will feel the same—that it is my
duty to take part in your undertaking, that can only be because it is
not merely the condition of the Jews in Palestine, but the condition of
our people in general that now convinces us of the necessity of
reuniting our land and our language—those sundered halves of a single
whole, those twin main pillars of our national life, which are both so
near to us and so far from us—and of making them both together, by the
establishment of a worthy literary centre in the land, a single mighty
channel through which the influence of our national spirit should be
carried to all the lands of our dispersion.
“_Now_ convinces us,” I say: although it is already many years since we
began to recognise that the Hebrew spirit is yearning towards its own
land, because its life in exile is not a healthy and a complete life.
But this recognition itself could not get free all at once from the
fetters of _galuth_, and did not prevent us from dreaming all those
years of the revival of our language and literature outside Palestine.
Now realities have shown the futility of our dream, and we learn
perforce from experience what we would not learn willingly from logic,
that just as the Hebrew spirit cannot develop as it should without a
free centre “on its own native soil,” so, too, are its outer vestments,
our language and literature, under the same disability; and all our
efforts to revive them on strange soil will not avail except for a short
time—until the hammer of an alien environment strikes out a spark which
will destroy in a moment what we have spent many years and the last
remnant of our strength in building up.[59]
How slow is the development of an idea in the human mind! Every new idea
is born with great travail, and even after its birth there is a long
lapse of time and a heavy loss of force between its dawn and its
noontide splendour. At first it appears shrouded in mist, luminous yet
obscure, and its faint rays shimmer on the surface of the human spirit
without being able to penetrate to the depths below. Only little by
little, after much labour and hard struggling, is the mist dispelled,
and the light of the idea grows stronger and floods all the dark corners
of the mind. Then we look into these corners, and wonder at ourselves
for not having been conscious before of the chaos of error and
contradiction which held its own there while the light was already
playing on the surface above.
Hard were the birth-pangs of our national idea in the form of “Zionism,”
and the mists shrouded it at its birth. In the last generation the
Jewish people had settled down to its exile; it waited for the mercy of
Heaven and the kindness of the world, scarcely felt how its limbs were
being torn asunder and scattered in all directions, and asked no great
boon of the future, except a peaceful life and a livelihood among the
nations. Then a hurricane arose, and thunderously swept away the hope of
kindness from the world, yes, and even the hope of mercy from heaven.
And the clarion-call went forth among the exiled people: You wish for a
peaceful life and livelihood? Then get you up and go to your national
land, and look no more for crumbs from strangers’ tables: for there is
neither peace nor livelihood except for each people in its own land.
That was the dawn of our new idea. The memory of our historic land,
which had become a lifeless thing, a mere book-memory, became once more
a living emotional force, and in its re-birth awoke our love for the
rest of our heritage, which now appeared in a new light to many for whom
it had lost all actual value. If we say—so these men reasoned—that we
have a national land, to which we wish to return in very deed and not
only in prayer, then we admit, and want others to admit, that we are
actually a nation, and not merely a Church. And if we are a nation, then
we must have a national spirit, which distinguishes us from other
nations, and we must value and protect it as every other nation does
with its national spirit. And if we value our national spirit, where
shall we find it if not in the heritage of our past, and especially in
our national language and literature, in which each generation stored up
its spiritual treasure, and left to its heirs in the next the best
fruits of its thought, its secret longings, its half-uttered sighs? Thus
_Chibbath Zion_ began by giving an impulse to the “spiritual
revival”—the fostering of our language and literature, the establishment
of national schools, and so forth—not as a separate and distinct ideal,
but as a necessary consequence of the ideal of a peaceful life in
Palestine, as a sort of proof of our being really a distinct nation and
possessing all the attributes of a nation, and being therefore both in
need and deserving of that which we have not now—our national land.
But gradually the Zionist idea began to get clearer, and events in
Palestine and elsewhere helped it to emerge from the mists of visionary
hopes. Then some of its followers reversed the sequence of ideas. It is
not the case, they said, that the redemption of the people is the goal
of all our efforts, and the spiritual revival only a means to it, and a
branch of it. On the contrary, the spiritual revival is our real object,
whether we know it or not, and the whole purpose of the settlement to be
built up in Palestine is merely to serve as its basis.