the leaders of British Jewry. He met Claude Montefiore and Frederick
Mocatte, representatives of the Anglo-Jewish Association. They were
not sympathetic. Herzl fared no better at a banquet given to him by
the Maccabbeans. The personal impression Herzl made was profound. But
there was no practical issue nor did he make any progress during the
time he spent in England. He got Sir Samuel Montagu and Colonel
Goldsmith to agree to cooperate with him in an endeavor to establish a
vassal Jewish State under the sovereignty of Turkey if the Powers
would agree; provided, the Baron de Hirsch Fund placed L10,000,000 at
his disposal for the plan; and Baron Edmund de Rothschild became a
member of the Executive Committee of the proposed Society of Jews.
These conditions were fantastic at that time and Herzl could not meet
them.
He went to Paris and had a talk with Baron Edmund. Baron Edmund was
older than Herzl and felt ill at ease in the presence of a calm critic
of all he had done for Jewish colonization in Palestine. Herzl made
the impression on him of an undisciplined enthusiast. Baron Edmund did
not believe it possible to create political conditions favorable for a
mass immigration of Jews. Even if that could be done, an uncontrolled
mass immigration into Palestine would have the effect of landing tens
of thousands of Jews to be fed and looked after by the small Jewish
community in Palestine. He clung to his idea of slow colonization
attracting no attention and careful not to provoke hostility. Every
reply of Herzl fell upon a closed mind. Baron Edmund's refusal to
cooperate was decisive.
This was a decision of historic significance. It turned Herzl away
from the thought that the Zionist movement should be built upon the
support of Jewish philanthropy. All his hopes in this connection were
dissolved by the contacts he had made in London and in Paris. Baron
Edmund's refusal to cooperate carried with it the refusal of the Baron
de Hirsch Fund and of the circle of leading Jews in London.
Reluctantly, Herzl came to the conclusion that there was only one
reply to this situation. The Jewish masses must be organized for the
support of the Zionist movement.
The organization he had in mind was not a popular democratic
organization. What he meant was to assemble the upper "cadres" to take
charge of the organization of the masses for the great migration. At
the same time, he wanted to prove to the philanthropists that a
popular organization was possible. He felt that they would be greatly
influenced by the development of a widespread popular movement.
Whatever his thoughts were at that time, his decision to turn to the
Jewish masses, to abandon reliance upon the wealthy led to the
organization of the modern Zionist movement.
He organized his followers in Vienna. He was the center of a circle in
which were included the men who later became the members of the first
Zionist Actions Committee. In November 1896 he, for the first time,
addressed a public meeting in Vienna. In this address he did not use
the term "The Jewish State," nor did he use it in most of his public
utterances at that time. He had become cautious. He did not want to
prejudice his political work in Constantinople.
He was still thinking of issuing a newspaper, but there were no funds
for that purpose. The report that he intended to issue a newspaper
drew the attention of a number of personalities and groups in Berlin.
There were the Russian Jewish students, led by Leo Motzkin, and a
group called "Young Israel," headed by Reinrich Loewe. A conference
was held on March 6 and 7, 1897, called by Dr. Osias Thon Willy Bambus
and Nathan Birnbaum. They had come together to talk about a newspaper
but the First Zionist Congress was launched at this meeting Herzl's
proposal for the calling of a General Zionist Conference in Munich was
agreed to. In the preliminary announcement of the calling of this
Conference or Congress, Herzl said:
"The Jewish question must be removed from the control of the
benevolent individual. There must be created a forum before which
everyone acting for the Jewish people should appear and to which he
should be responsible."
Every one of Herzl's ideas was met by protests and public excitement.
The protests were usually launched by Jews. The calling of the
Congress aroused a great deal of indignation in conservative circles.
The Rabbis of Germany protested not only to the holding of the
Congress but also the choice of Munich.
The Congress controversy persuaded Herzl to begin the publication of
the weekly Die Welt. The first issue appeared on June 4, 1897, Herzl
provided the funds. The journal was something new in Jewish life. It
was, in fact, the organ of the Congress. Throughout Herzl's life, Die
Welt served as the exponent of his ideas. At first, Herzl contributed
numerous articles. He sent in a regular weekly review of all
activities connected with the movement. He was responsible for many
unsigned articles and notices. He directed the paper in all its
details, although he refused to figure as its official editor and
publisher. The amount of work he did during the months preceding the
Congress was amazing. He was completely absorbed in every aspect of
the Congress. The man of the pen revealed himself as a first-class man
of action.
On August 29, 1897, the First Zionist Congress was assembled, not in
Munich but in Basle, Switzerland. The majority of the delegates to the
First Zionist Congress, drawn to Basle from all parts of the world,
saw Herzl for the first time. The total number of delegates at the
first session was 197.
The first act of the Congress was the adoption of a resolution of
thanks to the Sultan of Turkey. Then Herzl rose and walked over to the
pulpit. It was no longer the elegant Dr. Herzl of Vienna, it was no
longer the easy-going literary man, the critic, the feuilletonist. As
one reporter said: "It was a scion of the House of David, risen from
among the dead, clothed in legend and fantasy and beauty." The first
words uttered by Herzl were: "We are here to lay the foundation stone
of the house which is to shelter the Jewish nation." "We Zionists," he
stressed, "seek for the solution of the Jewish question, not an
international society, but an international discussion.... We have
nothing to do with conspiracy, secret intervention or indirect
methods. We wish to place the question under the control of free
public opinion."
His First Congress address contained the ideas which he had already
expressed in previous speeches and articles, but there was a great
difference between the views in "The Jewish State" and the address
delivered at the first session of the Zionist Congress. The latter is
the carefully considered public statement of one who knew he
represented tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of
followers. His words were not those of a seer, but of a statesman.
Almost as profound was the effect produced. It was at this Congress
that the Basle Program was adopted.... "Zionism seeks to secure for
the Jewish people a publicly recognized, legally secured home (or
homeland) in Palestine."
The second important task of the First Congress was the creation of an
organization. The Congress was declared to be "the chief organ of the
Zionist movement." The basis of electoral right was to be the payment
of a shekel, which at that time was equivalent to twenty-five cents.
There was to be an Executive Committee with its permanent seat in
Vienna. Everything which was to unfold later in Zionism, both in the
way of affirmative forces and inner contradictions, was already
visible or latent in the first Congress. There was discussion of a
bank, of a land redemption fund to be called The National Fund, the
creation of a Hebrew University, and the clashes between practical and
political Zionism.
On his return to Vienna, Herzl made the following entry in his diary:
"If I were to sum up the Basle Congress in a single phrase I would
say: In Basle I created the Jewish State. Were I to say this aloud I
would be greeted by universal laughter. But perhaps five years hence,
in any case, certainly fifty years hence, everyone will perceive it.
The state exists as essence in the will-to-the-state of a people, yes,
even in that will in a single powerful person.... The territory is
only the concrete basis, and the state itself, with a territory
beneath it, is still in the nature of an abstract thing ... In Basle I
created the abstraction which, as such, is invisible to the great
majority."
All that Herzl did in the political field--his conversations in
Constantinople, his interview with the Grand Duke of Baden in advance
of the holding of the First Congress, was undertaken as author of a
political pamphlet. He was now aware of the fact that he was called
upon to act as President of the World Zionist Organization. It was
difficult to draw a line between the movement and its leader. Herzl
insisted that his leadership in the movement was impersonal and that
now its direction was vested in its instruments--the Congress and the
Actions Committee. But he had all the authority of an accepted leader.
The evolution of Herzl's conception of the Jewish problem since he saw
the degradation of Dreyfus can be measured by a study of the articles
he wrote after the First Congress. He himself was quite aware of the
transformation. He had seen the Jewish people face to face. "Brothers
have found each other again," he said. He wrote with great
appreciation of the quality of the Russian delegates. He said, "They
possess that inner unity which has disappeared from among the
westerners. They are steeped in Jewish national sentiment without
betraying any national narrowness and intolerance. They are not
tortured by the idea of assimilation. They do not assimilate into
other nations, but exert themselves to learn the best in other
peoples. In this way they manage to remain erect and genuine. Looking
on them, we understood where our forefathers got the strength to
endure through the bitterest times."
Immediately after the First Congress, Herzl grappled with his second
task, the creation of the Jewish Colonial Bank. He wrote of the bank
in _Die Welt_ in November, 1898, "The task of the Colonial Bank is to
eliminate philanthropy. The settler on the land who increases its
value by his labor merits more than a gift. He is entitled to credit.
The prospective bank could therefore begin by extending the needed
credits to the colonists; later it would expand into the instrument
for the bringing in of Jews and would supply credits for
transportation, agriculture, commerce and construction."
The seat of the bank was to be London. There were to be two billion
shares at L1 each. The bank was to be directed by men acquainted with
banking affairs, but the movement would be placed in a position to
control its policy. The hopes of Herzl grew from week to week. As he
approached the practical situation he became less and less confident
of the cooperation of men of wealth. Differences arose in the
preliminary discussions as to the scope of the bank. In the first
draft of the Articles of Incorporation the Orient alone was named as
the area of work for the bank. Menachem Ussishkin insisted that the
words "Syria and Palestine" should be substituted. After a great deal
of discussion, the proposals for the formation of the bank were
brought to the second Zionist Congress and the Articles of
Incorporation, as amended, were adopted by acclamation.
Herzl clung to the idea which had come to him when he was thinking of
the Jewish State as a pamphlet, that it might be better for him to
write a novel. The impulse to write such a novel became irresistible
after his visit to Palestine. It was to be called "Altneuland." He
began to write it in 1899. It was completed in April 1902, and
published six months later. It is remarkable that he could write such
a novel while engaged in varied political activities in
Constantinople, in London and in Berlin; and while he had to deal with
the many troublesome internal Zionist problems.
"Altneuland" was a novel with a purpose. It described the Palestine of
the near future as it would develop through the Zionist Movement. It
had the weaknesses of every propaganda novel. The entire work has
something of the state about it and proceeds in the form of scenes
rather than by way of narrative. Each type has a specific outlook.
Most of the characters are portraits of living personalities. It was
his purpose to memorialize his friends and his opponents.
"Altneuland" tells of a Jew who visits Palestine in 1898 and then
comes again in 1923 when he finds the Promised Land developed under
Jewish influence. Its territory lies East and West of the Jordan. The
dead land of 1898 is now thoroughly alive. Its real creators were the
irrigation engineers. Technology had given a new form to labor, a new
social and economic system had been created which is described as
"mutualistic," a huge cooperative, a mediate form between
individualism and collectivism. Haifa had become a world city. Around
the Holy City of Jerusalem, modern suburbs had arisen, shaded
boulevards and parks, institutes of learning, places of amusement,
markets--"a world city in the spirit of the twentieth century." In
this new land, the Arabs live side by side in friendship with the
Jews.
"Altneuland" did not produce the effect Herzl had expected. Within the
Zionist Movement it did more harm than good. Many of Herzl's friends
were disappointed that the novel should have so little of the Jewish
spirit. It ignored the Hebraic renaissance. The novel evoked the
sharpest criticism from Achad Haam.
* * * * *
While Herzl was immersed in political action, visiting European
capitals, carrying on correspondence with leading persons whose
interest in Zionism he had engaged, and submitting reports to the
Zionist Congress or to the Actions Committee, often facing critical
situations in his struggle with growing Zionist parties, the Zionist
Organization was gradually becoming an accepted institution in Jewish
life. It was the international sounding board for the discussion of
the Jewish question. The Jewish National Fund was founded at the
Fourth Congress held in London in 1900. The Jewish Colonial Trust was
finally established with headquarters in London.
The first Zionist party in the Congress was the Democratic faction led
by Leo Motzkin, but soon there were added the Mizrachi party and the
beginnings of a labor party. Not only Dr. Nordau's stirring addresses,
but many controversies "made" Congresses. The cultural issue was a
Congress perennial. Many discussions also took place around what was
called the issue of "practical" and "political" Zionism. The Russians,
under the leadership of Ussishkin, were all heartily against the
"charter" emphasis and drove with maddening persistence for immediate
work in Palestine. In the course of these debates, continued over the
years, the Congress became a forum for the discussion of international
Jewish problems and developed speakers and theorists of varying
degrees of talent. It also produced men with hobbies. The Jewish
National Fund and the Hebrew University was the hobby of Dr. Herman
Schapiro. Colonization in Cyprus was the hobby of Davis Trietsch, who
created many scenes on the floor of the Congress. Dr. Chaim Weizmann
was not only a leader of the Democratic faction, crossing swords time
and again with Herzl, but devoted much time and thought to the idea of
a Hebrew University. The procedure of the Congress, based on
Continental models, was gradually worked out and became fixed, and
many of the delegates were adepts in the art of procedural sparring.
The language in Congresses used during Herzl's life was German, but
gradually the imperfect use of German by East European Zionists led to
the development of what was called "Congress German." This was a form
of German that was easy to use, because respect for grammar and
pronunciation was not required.
During the Congresses Herzl maintained throughout the role of leader
and moderator. His manner was gracious and he never lost his sense of
dignity. He was capable of sharp retort, but always bore in mind that
it was high duty to hold a balance and to seek compromise rather than
sharp division. He developed it in a most remarkable way on the
platform. His appearances were dramatic. His interventions were
arresting. The man of the writing desk developed as one of the ablest
in the parliamentary arts. After some of the Congresses he had to
retire to a health resort, having exhausted his strength and bringing
on a recurrence of his heart trouble. On a number of occasions his
close friends feared for his life. But after a few weeks of rest he
usually returned stronger than before and with greater determination
to pursue his course, regardless of the consequences to himself.
* * * * *
At this point it is important to refer to his family life. He had
married Julie Naschauer on July 25, 1889. She was the daughter of
wealthy parents and grew up in a conventional social circle. When she
married Herzl he was already a rising young author who was highly
regarded among those with whom she associated. He was attractive,
aristocratic in bearing, a keen conversationalist and had all the
qualities of being a conventional partner of a conventional wife. But
Herzl threw himself into Zionist affairs with such tremendous dynamic
activity and was so completely absorbed in the idea which his thinking
had given birth to, that except for occasional interim periods, his
family played a secondary part in his life ever after he had taken up
the Jewish problems his special task in life. Julie Herzl also
suffered by reason of Herzl's devotion to his own mother. Herzl never
rid himself of his filial dependence which made it very hard for his
wife to understand. They had three children. In 1890 a daughter was
born and named Paula or Pauline. In 1891 his son, Hans, was born,
whose life after his father's death became a serious problem. There
was a third child, a daughter Margaret, known as Trude, who was born
in May 1893. During this period there were many separations from his
family. There were disagreements and reconciliations, but the cup of
unhappiness for Julie Herzl overflowed when Herzl became the official
leader of a public movement. From that time on her home was constantly
overrun with unwelcome visitors. Not only did Herzl give his life to
the movement in the literal sense, but he gave his reserve of funds
and sacrificed the welfare of his family for the sake of the movement
he had brought to life. His domestic affairs as well as his failing
heart, made all the years of Herzl's brief Zionist life pain and
struggle.
The tragic position of Jews in various parts of Europe, greatly
agitated Herzl during the time he was carrying on negotiations with
the Kaiser and the Sultan. He was constantly being led to the thought
that it would become necessary to find a temporary haven of refuge for
Jews. In 1899 a series of pogroms broke out in Galicia. In his diary
at the time, he had references to England and Cyprus, "we may even
have to consider South Africa or America." But he banished these
thoughts from his mind because he knew that the Zionists would place
serious obstacles in the way of considering any project other than
Palestine. When his hopes with regard to Germany had collapsed,
however, he thought of these alternative proposals again.
* * * * *
On October 22, 1902 a Conference between Joseph Chamberlain, the
Colonial Secretary, and Herzl took place. Chamberlain had been in the
Colonial Office since 1895. He held an influential position in the
councils of the British Government. He was a man of strong will and
political integrity. Herzl submitted his plan for the colonization of
Cyprus and the Sinai Peninsula, which included El Arish--"Jewish
settlers under a Jewish administration."
Chamberlain said that he could speak definitely only about Cyprus. The
Sinai Peninsula came under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Office. As
far as Cyprus was concerned, he believed that it was not promising
because the Greeks and Moslems would object, and it would be his
official duty to side with them. He took a more favorable view,
however, of El Arish. In that connection, it was necessary for Herzl
to talk to Lord Lansdowne of the Foreign Office. A great deal would
depend upon the good-will of Lord Cromer, the British Consul General
in Egypt, and actually the Vice Regent of that country. Through the
good offices of Chamberlain, it became possible for Herzl to meet
Lord Lansdowne a few days later. He was well received and was
listened to with a great deal of attention.
Herzl was asked to submit a written expose. Then he asked for
permission to have Leopold J. Greenberg go to Egypt and confer with
Lord Cromer. Lord Lansdowne said that he would arrange for such a
meeting. Greenberg discussed the matter with Lord Cromer in Cairo.
There were objections raised by both Lord Cromer and the Egyptian
Prime Minister on the ground that an attempted Jewish economy,
undertaken in 1891-2 in the region of ancient Midian, had been a
pitiful failure. There had been political complications and border
disputes with Turkey.
A definitive reply was received by Herzl on December 18, 1902 written
on behalf of Lord Lansdowne by Sir T.H. Sanderson, permanent
Undersecretary. Lord Lansdowne had heard from Lord Cromer, who favored
the sending of a small commission to the Sinai Peninsula to report on
conditions and prospects, but Lord Cromer feared that no sanguine
hopes of success should be entertained, but if the report of the
Commission turned out favorable, the Egyptian Government would
certainly offer liberal terms for Jewish colonization.
On the other hand, however, the Zionists should understand that they
would be expected to meet the cost of a defense corps and to guarantee
the administration. In Lord Cromer's opinion, the most important
question was that of the rights which Herzl expected for the projected
settlement. He wrote: "In your letter of the 12th ult. you remark that
you will become great and promising by the granting of this right of
colonization. Your letter does not make clear what is to be understood
by these words, and what kind of rights the colonists will expect."
Lord Lansdowne also touched on the question of the new citizenship of
the settlers. Herzl had believed that he would have only Englishmen to
deal with, since England had become more and more the master of Egypt.
It was apparent, however, that the Egyptian Government also played an
important part in the discussions.
Lord Cromer confirmed that the Egyptian Government would make it an
essential condition that the new settlers become Turkish subjects
bound by Egyptian law, but while the British occupation continued the
settlers would always be certain of fair treatment.
Herzl was satisfied with this letter and described it as a historic
document. The British Government had recognized Herzl as the Zionist
leader, and the movement represented by him as a negotiating party. He
already saw the "Egyptian province of Judea" under a Jewish Governor,
with its own defense corps under Anglo-Egyptian officers.
As a result of the English negotiations, Lord Rothschild seemed to be
won over by Herzl. The old banker, who had refused two years before to
meet the Zionist leader, now visited him in his hotel. The next task
before Herzl was the organization of the Commission. The Commission
was composed of the South African engineer, Kessler; the Chief
Inspector of the Egyptian Survey Department, Humphreys; Col. Goldsmith
was to report on the land; and Dr. Soskin was to study agricultural
possibilities. Oscar Marmorek was to investigate building and housing
problems and act as General Secretary. Dr. Hillel Jaffe of the Jaffe
Hospital was to deal with the problems of climate and hygiene.
The Commission met with great difficulties. There was opposition by
the Turks. There was misunderstandings between Herzl and Greenberg.
Herzl himself went to Egypt in order to bring the negotiations to a
conclusion and to straighten out difficulties. His intervention in no
way improved the situation. Lord Cromer had become very cool toward
him. He received the general report of the Commission, which observed
that "under existing conditions the land is quite unsuitable for
settlers from European countries, but if sufficient irrigation were
introduced, the agricultural, hygienic and climatic conditions are
such that part of the land, which is at present wilderness, could
support a considerable population."
An application for the concession was made by Herzl on the advice of
Lord Cromer, having as his legal representative a Belgian lawyer of
high standing. The Egyptian Government did not receive with favor the
outline of the concession. Herzl was received on April 23rd by
Chamberlain, who had just returned from his African journey.
Chamberlain listened to the report given by Herzl on the work of the
Commission. Both regarded the report as unfavorable. Then Chamberlain
made this remark:
"On my travels I saw a country for you, Uganda. On the coast it is
hot, but in the interior the climate is excellent for Europeans. You
can plant cotton and sugar. I thought to myself, that is just the
country for Dr. Herzl. But _he_ must have Palestine, and will move
only into its vicinity."
This was the first reference to Uganda which became the center of
attention in Zionist circles.
Herzl was told that the Egyptian Government would reject the plan. It
was found that the area would require five times as much water as had
been first estimated. The Egyptian Government could not permit the
diversion of such a quantity of water from the Nile.
An attempt to have Chamberlain intervene with Egypt was not
successful. "That being the case," said Chamberlain, "What about
Uganda?" Self-administration would be accorded. The Governor could
definitely be a Jew. Although the matter belonged to the Foreign
Office, he would have it transferred under his jurisdiction in the
colonial office. The territory would be the permanent property of a
colonization company created for the purpose. After five years, the
settlers would be given complete autonomy. The name of the settlement
was to be "New Palestine."
Herzl pressed for a reply from the government in order that the
project might be presented to the Zionist Congress on August 14, 1903.
The official proposal came from Sir Clement Hill, permanent head of
the Foreign Office. In this letter it was stated that Lord Landsdowne
had studied the question with the interest which His Majesty's
Government always felt bound to take in every serious plan destined to
better the condition of the Jewish race. The time had been too short
for a closer examination of the plan and for its submission to the
British representative for the East African (Uganda) Protectorate.
"Lord Landsdowne assumes," the letter continues, "that the Bank
desires to send a number of gentlemen to the East African Protectorate
to establish whether there is in that territory land suitable for the
purpose in view; should this prove to be the case, he will be happy to
give them every assistance in bringing them together with His
Majesty's Congress, the conditions under which the settlement could be
carried out. Should an area be found which the bank and His Majesty's
representative consider suitable, and His Majesty's government
consider desirable, Lord Lansdowne will be glad to consider favorably
proposals for the creation of a Jewish colony or settlement under such
conditions as will seem to the members to guarantee the retention of
their national customs...."
The document went on with an offer--subject to the consent of the
relevant officials--of a Jewish governorship and internal autonomy.
This was the first official proposal in connection with the Zionist
movement which Herzl was able to submit to a Zionist Congress. When
the letter of Sir Clement Hill was submitted to the Sixth Zionist
Congress in 1903, it split the Zionist movement wide open. It arrayed
the overwhelming majority of Zionists in Russia against Herzl and he
was called upon to defend himself against a general attack which
preceded the convening of the Congress. When the Congress was convened
in an atmosphere of great excitement and partisan controversy, the
Uganda project was submitted in the form of an official resolution
calling for the appointment of a commission of nine to be sent to
investigate conditions in East Africa. The final decision on the
report of the investigating committee was to be left to a special
Congress. Although the vote showed a majority in favor of the official
resolution--the tally was 295 for, 177 against, and 100 absentees--the
debate on the resolution revealed an overwhelming opposition to the
project. It was regarded as an abandonment of Palestine in favor of a
diversion. After the vote, the Russian delegates left the Congress in
a body. All the opposition delegates left with them and met in
conference to discuss the situation. When Herzl heard of the deep
feeling that prevailed in the conference, he asked for the privilege
of speaking to the opposition. He gave them his solemn assurance that
the Basle Program would be unaffected by the resolution. He swore
fealty to the Basle Program, to Zion and Jerusalem. His speech
revealed the great transformation that had taken place in Herzl's
organic relation to the Zionist movement. The opposition delegates
felt that in spite of Herzl's seeking alternately one or another
substitute for Palestine, his heart responded without reserve to the
appeal of Zion. The opposition reappeared in the Congress the
following day. They exacted assurances that the funds of the Jewish
Colonial Trust, of the Jewish National Fund and the Shekel Income,
should not be used for the commission investigating East Africa, and
that the commission should report to the Greater Actions Committee
before it appeared to submit its report to the Congress.
Herzl's experience at what is called the "Uganda Congress" drew him
nearer to the older Zionists. He realized now that the ultimate goal
could not be reached within the near future, that Uganda was merely a
compromise achievement, providing the field of preparation for a
second attempt to reach Zion. The Congress of 1903 was the climax of
Herzl's career. It was, in effect, the end of his quest.
Later, the East African project became a matter of lesser importance
in the eyes of the English. The English colonists in East Africa
declared their opposition to a Jewish settlement. A Zionist opposition
was organized, led by Menahem Ussishkin, who was not present at the
Uganda Congress. The Charkov Conference of Russian Zionists was
called. Herzl was charged with having violated the Basle Program. The
Charkov Conference disclaimed responsibility for all actions in the
direction of East Africa. It appointed a committee of three to
communicate their demands to Herzl. They asked that he promise that he
would not place before the Congress any territorial projects other
than those connected with Palestine or Syria, and that he would take
East Africa off the agenda. By now Herzl would have been pleased to
let the East African project disappear from the agenda; it was clear
that the English government was not greatly interested and was seeking
a way out; but the devious route of political action, once started,
could not so easily be halted; Herzl found himself chained to a
political reality.
Throughout his Zionist life, Herzl suffered from a heart ailment
which became more and more acute as he was taken up by the excitements
and activities of the Movement. He became aware of his illness soon
after he had written "The Jewish State." He had premonitions of the
fatal consequences but persisted in carrying the burden of the
Movement himself, consuming all his strength in the process. At
intervals he was forced to take rest cures. On a number of occasions
it was thought that he had reached the end of his strength. When he
was grappling with the Uganda project, York-Steiner, an intimate
friend, wrote of his appearance: "The imposing figure is now stooped,
the face sallow, the eyes--the mirrors of a fine soul--were darkened,
the mouth was drawn in pain and marked by passion."
He was almost at the brink of the grave. In May, an alarming change
for the worse occurred in the condition of his heart muscles. He was
ordered to Franzienbad for six weeks, but the rest did him no good. On
June 3, he left with his wife and several friends for Edlach in
Semmering. He knew that this was his last journey. Then there was a
slight improvement and he returned to his desk. But he rapidly grew
worse. To the faithful Hechler he said, "Give them all my greetings
and tell them that I have given my heart's blood for my people." On
July 3, pneumonia set in and there were signs of approaching
exhaustion. His mother arrived, then his two younger children, Hans
and Trude. At five in the afternoon, his physician who had taken his
eyes off the patient for a moment, heard a deep sigh. When he turned,
he saw Herzl's head sunk on his breast.
In his will Herzl asked that his body be buried next to his father,
"to remain there until the Jewish people will carry my remains to
Palestine." When the Russians entered Vienna in 1945 the remains of
Herzl were still there.
_The Jewish State_
by
_Theodor Herzl_
_Preface_
The idea which I have developed in this pamphlet is a very old one: it
is the restoration of the Jewish State.
The world resounds with outcries against the Jews, and these outcries
have awakened the slumbering idea.
I wish it to be clearly understood from the outset that no portion of
my argument is based on a new discovery. I have discovered neither the
historic condition of the Jews nor the means to improve it. In fact,
every man will see for himself that the materials of the structure I
am designing are not only in existence, but actually already in hand.
If, therefore, this attempt to solve the Jewish Question is to be
designated by a single word, let it be said to be the result of an
inescapable conclusion rather than that of a flighty imagination.
I must, in the first place, guard my scheme from being treated as
Utopian by superficial critics who might commit this error of judgment
if I did not warn them. I should obviously have done nothing to be
ashamed of if I had described a Utopia on philanthropic lines; and I
should also, in all probability, have obtained literary success more
easily if I had set forth my plan in the irresponsible guise of a
romantic tale. But this Utopia is far less attractive than any one of
those portrayed by Sir Thomas More and his numerous forerunners and
successors. And I believe that the situation of the Jews in many
countries is grave enough to make such preliminary trifling
superfluous.
An interesting book, "Freiland," by Dr. Theodor Hertzka, which
appeared a few years ago, may serve to mark the distinction I draw
between my conception and a Utopia. His is the ingenious invention of
a modern mind thoroughly schooled in the principles of political
economy, it is as remote from actuality as the Equatorial mountain on
which his dream State lies. "Freiland" is a complicated piece of
mechanism with numerous cogged wheels fitting into each other; but
there is nothing to prove that they can be set in motion. Even
supposing "Freiland societies" were to come into existence, I should
look on the whole thing as a joke.
The present scheme, on the other hand, includes the employment of an
existent propelling force. In consideration of my own inadequacy, I
shall content myself with indicating the cogs and wheels of the
machine to be constructed, and I shall rely on more skilled
mechanicians than myself to put them together.
Everything depends on our propelling force. And what is that force?
The misery of the Jews.
Who would venture to deny its existence? We shall discuss it fully in
the chapter on the causes of Anti-Semitism.
Everybody is familiar with the phenomenon of steam-power, generated by
boiling water, which lifts the kettle-lid. Such tea-kettle phenomena
are the attempts of Zionist and kindred associations to check
Anti-Semitism.
I believe that this power, if rightly employed, is powerful enough to
propel a large engine and to move passengers and goods: the engine
having whatever form men may choose to give it.
I am absolutely convinced that I am right, though I doubt whether I
shall live to see myself proved to be so. Those who are the first to
inaugurate this movement will scarcely live to see its glorious close.
But the inauguration of it is enough to give them a feeling of pride
and the joy of spiritual freedom.
I shall not be lavish in artistically elaborated descriptions of my
project, for fear of incurring the suspicion of painting a Utopia. I
anticipate, in any case, that thoughtless scoffers will caricature my
sketch and thus try to weaken its effect. A Jew, intelligent in other
respects, to whom I explained my plan, was of the opinion that "a
Utopia was a project whose future details were represented as already
extant." This is a fallacy. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer
calculates in his Budget estimates with assumed figures, and not only
with such as are based on the average returns of past years, or on
previous revenues in other States, but sometimes with figures for
which there is no precedent whatever; as for example, in instituting a
new tax. Everybody who studies a Budget knows that this is the case.
But even if it were known that the estimates would not be rigidly
adhered to, would such a financial draft be considered Utopian?
But I am expecting more of my readers. I ask the cultivated men whom I
am addressing to set many preconceived ideas entirely aside. I shall
even go so far as to ask those Jews who have most earnestly tried to
solve the Jewish Question to look upon their previous attempts as
mistaken and futile.
I must guard against a danger in setting forth my idea. If I describe
future circumstances with too much caution I shall appear to doubt
their possibility. If, on the other hand, I announce their realization
with too much assurance I shall appear to be describing a chimera.
I shall therefore clearly and emphatically state that I believe in the
practical outcome of my scheme, though without professing to have
discovered the shape it may ultimately take. The Jewish State is
essential to the world; it will therefore be created.
The plan would, of course, seem absurd if a single individual
attempted to do it; but if worked by a number of Jews in co-operation
it would appear perfectly rational, and its accomplishment would
present no difficulties worth mentioning. The idea depends only on the
number of its supporters. Perhaps our ambitious young men, to whom
every road of progress is now closed, seeing in this Jewish State a
bright prospect of freedom, happiness and honors opening to them, will
ensure the propagation of the idea.
I feel that with the publication of this pamphlet my task is done. I
shall not again take up the pen, unless the attacks of noteworthy
antagonists drive me to do so, or it becomes necessary to meet
unforeseen objections and to remove errors.
Am I stating what is not yet the case? Am I before my time? Are the
sufferings of the Jews not yet grave enough? We shall see.
It depends on the Jews themselves whether this political pamphlet
remains for the present a political romance. If the present generation
is too dull to understand it rightly, a future, finer and a better
generation will arise to understand it. The Jews who wish for a State
shall have it, and they will deserve to have it.
_Chapter I. Introduction_
It is astonishing how little insight into the science of economics
many of the men who move in the midst of active life possess. Hence it
is that even Jews faithfully repeat the cry of the Anti-Semites: "We
depend for sustenance on the nations who are our hosts, and if we had
no hosts to support us we should die of starvation." This is a point
that shows how unjust accusations may weaken our self-knowledge. But
what are the true grounds for this statement concerning the nations
that act as "hosts"? Where it is not based on limited physiocratic
views it is founded on the childish error that commodities pass from
hand to hand in continuous rotation. We need not wake from long
slumber, like Rip van Winkle, to realize that the world is
considerably altered by the production of new commodities. The
technical progress made during this wonderful era enables even a man
of most limited intelligence to note with his short-sighted eyes the
appearance of new commodities all around him. The spirit of enterprise
has created them.
Labor without enterprise is the stationary labor of ancient days; and
typical of it is the work of the husbandman, who stands now just where
his progenitors stood a thousand years ago. All our material welfare
has been brought about by men of enterprise. I feel almost ashamed of
writing down so trite a remark. Even if we were a nation of
entrepreneurs--such as absurdly exaggerated accounts make us out to
be--we should not require another nation to live on. We do not depend
on the circulation of old commodities, because we produce new ones.
The world possesses slaves of extraordinary capacity for work, whose
appearance has been fatal to the production of handmade goods: these
slaves are the machines. It is true that workmen are required to set
machinery in motion; but for this we have men in plenty, in
super-abundance. Only those who are ignorant of the conditions of Jews
in many countries of Eastern Europe would venture to assert that Jews
are either unfit or unwilling to perform manual labor.
But I do not wish to take up the cudgels for the Jews in this
pamphlet. It would be useless. Everything rational and everything
sentimental that can possibly be said in their defence has been said
already. If one's hearers are incapable of comprehending them, one is
a preacher in a desert. And if one's hearers are broad and high-minded
enough to have grasped them already, then the sermon is superfluous. I
believe in the ascent of man to higher and yet higher grades of
civilization; but I consider this ascent to be desperately slow. Were
we to wait till average humanity had become as charitably inclined as
was Lessing when he wrote "Nathan the Wise," we should wait beyond our
day, beyond the days of our children, of our grandchildren, and of our
great-grandchildren. But the world's spirit comes to our aid in
another way.
This century has given the world a wonderful renaissance by means of
its technical achievements; but at the same time its miraculous
improvements have not been employed in the service of humanity.
Distance has ceased to be an obstacle, yet we complain of insufficient
space. Our great steamships carry us swiftly and surely over hitherto
unvisited seas. Our railways carry us safely into a mountain-world
hitherto tremblingly scaled on foot. Events occurring in countries
undiscovered when Europe confined the Jews in Ghettos are known to us
in the course of an hour. Hence the misery of the Jews is an
anachronism--not because there was a period of enlightenment one
hundred years ago, for that enlightenment reached in reality only the
choicest spirits.
I believe that electric light was not invented for the purpose of
illuminating the drawing-rooms of a few snobs, but rather for the
purpose of throwing light on some of the dark problems of humanity.
One of these problems, and not the least of them, is the Jewish
question. In solving it we are working not only for ourselves, but
also for many other over-burdened and oppressed beings.
The Jewish question still exists. It would be foolish to deny it. It
is a remnant of the Middle Ages, which civilized nations do not even
yet seem able to shake off, try as they will. They certainly showed a
generous desire to do so when they emancipated us. The Jewish question
exists wherever Jews live in perceptible numbers. Where it does not
exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations. We
naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted, and there
our presence produces persecution. This is the case in every country,
and will remain so, even in those highly civilized--for instance,
France--until the Jewish question finds a solution on a political
basis. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of
Anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into
America.
I believe that I understand Anti-Semitism, which is really a highly
complex movement. I consider it from a Jewish standpoint, yet without
fear or hatred. I believe that I can see what elements there are in it
of vulgar sport, of common trade jealousy, of inherited prejudice, of
religious intolerance, and also of pretended self-defence. I think the
Jewish question is no more a social than a religious one,
notwithstanding that it sometimes takes these and other forms. It is a
national question, which can only be solved by making it a political
world-question to be discussed and settled by the civilized nations of
the world in council.
We are a people--one people.
We have honestly endeavored everywhere to merge ourselves in the
social life of surrounding communities and to preserve the faith of
our fathers. We are not permitted to do so. In vain are we loyal
patriots, our loyalty in some places running to extremes; in vain do
we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our
fellow-citizens; in vain do we strive to increase the fame of our
native land in science and art, or her wealth by trade and commerce.
In countries where we have lived for centuries we are still cried down
as strangers, and often by those whose ancestors were not yet
domiciled in the land where Jews had already had experience of
suffering. The majority may decide which are the strangers; for this,
as indeed every point which arises in the relations between nations,
is a question of might. I do not here surrender any portion of our
prescriptive right, when I make this statement merely in my own name
as an individual. In the world as it now is and for an indefinite
period will probably remain, might precedes right. It is useless,
therefore, for us to be loyal patriots, as were the Huguenots who were
forced to emigrate. If we could only be left in peace....
But I think we shall not be left in peace.
Oppression and persecution cannot exterminate us. No nation on earth
has survived such struggles and sufferings as we have gone through.
Jew-baiting has merely stripped off our weaklings; the strong among us
were invariably true to their race when persecution broke out against
them. This attitude was most clearly apparent in the period
immediately following the emancipation of the Jews. Those Jews who
were advanced intellectually and materially entirely lost the feeling
of belonging to their race. Wherever our political well-being has
lasted for any length of time, we have assimilated with our
surroundings. I think this is not discreditable. Hence, the statesman
who would wish to see a Jewish strain in his nation would have to
provide for the duration of our political well-being; and even a
Bismarck could not do that.
For old prejudices against us still lie deep in the hearts of the
people. He who would have proofs of this need only listen to the
people where they speak with frankness and simplicity: proverb and
fairy-tale are both Anti-Semitic. A nation is everywhere a great
child, which can certainly be educated; but its education would, even
in most favorable circumstances, occupy such a vast amount of time
that we could, as already mentioned, remove our own difficulties by
other means long before the process was accomplished.
Assimilation, by which I understood not only external conformity in
dress, habits, customs, and language, but also identity of feeling and
manner--assimilation of Jews could be effected only by intermarriage.
But the need for mixed marriages would have to be felt by the
majority; their mere recognition by law would certainly not suffice.
The Hungarian Liberals, who have just given legal sanction to mixed
marriages, have made a remarkable mistake which one of the earliest
cases clearly illustrates; a baptized Jew married a Jewess. At the
same time the struggle to obtain the present form of marriage
accentuated distinctions between Jews and Christians, thus hindering
rather than aiding the fusion of races.
Those who really wished to see the Jews disappear through intermixture
with other nations, can only hope to see it come about in one way. The
Jews must previously acquire economic power sufficiently great to
overcome the old social prejudice against them. The aristocracy may
serve as an example of this, for in its ranks occur the
proportionately largest numbers of mixed marriages. The Jewish
families which regild the old nobility with their money become
gradually absorbed. But what form would this phenomenon assume in the
middle classes, where (the Jews being a bourgeois people) the Jewish
question is mainly concentrated? A previous acquisition of power could
be synonymous with that economic supremacy which Jews are already
erroneously declared to possess. And if the power they now possess
creates rage and indignation among the Anti-Semites, what outbreaks
would such an increase of power create? Hence the first step towards
absorption will never be taken, because this step would involve the
subjection of the majority to a hitherto scorned minority, possessing
neither military nor administrative power of its own. I think,
therefore, that the absorption of Jews by means of their prosperity is
unlikely to occur. In countries which now are Anti-Semitic my view
will be approved. In others, where Jews now feel comfortable, it will
probably be violently disputed by them. My happier co-religionists
will not believe me till Jew-baiting teaches them the truth; for the
longer Anti-Semitism lies in abeyance the more fiercely will it break
out. The infiltration of immigrating Jews, attracted to a land by
apparent security, and the ascent in the social scale of native Jews,
combine powerfully to bring about a revolution. Nothing is plainer
than this rational conclusion.
Because I have drawn this conclusion with complete indifference to
everything but the quest of truth, I shall probably be contradicted
and opposed by Jews who are in easy circumstances. Insofar as private
interests alone are held by their anxious or timid possessors to be in
danger, they can safely be ignored, for the concerns of the poor and
oppressed are of greater importance than theirs. But I wish from the
outset to prevent any misconception from arising, particularly the
mistaken notion that my project, if realized, would in the least
degree injure property now held by Jews. I shall therefore explain
everything connected with rights of property very fully. Whereas, if
my plan never becomes anything more than a piece of literature, things
will merely remain as they are. It might more reasonably be objected
that I am giving a handle to Anti-Semitism when I say we are a
people--one people; that I am hindering the assimilation of Jews where
it is about to be consummated, and endangering it where it is an
accomplished fact, insofar as it is possible for a solitary writer to
hinder or endanger anything.
This objection will be especially brought forward in France. It will
probably also be made in other countries, but I shall answer only the
French Jews beforehand, because these afford the most striking example
of my point.
However much I may worship personality--powerful individual
personality in statesmen, inventors, artists, philosophers, or
leaders, as well as the collective personality of a historic group of
human beings, which we call a nation--however much I may worship
personality, I do not regret its disappearance. Whoever can, will, and
must perish, let him perish. But the distinctive nationality of Jews
neither can, will, nor must be destroyed. It cannot be destroyed,
because external enemies consolidate it. It will not be destroyed;
this is shown during two thousand years of appalling suffering. It
must not be destroyed, and that, as a descendant of numberless Jews
who refused to despair, I am trying once more to prove in this
pamphlet. Whole branches of Judaism may wither and fall, but the trunk
will remain.
Hence, if all or any of the French Jews protest against this scheme on
account of their own "assimilation," my answer is simple: The whole
thing does not concern them at all. They are Jewish Frenchmen, well
and good! This is a private affair for the Jews alone.
The movement towards the organization of the State I am proposing
would, of course, harm Jewish Frenchmen no more than it would harm the
"assimilated" of other countries. It would, on the contrary, be
distinctly to their advantage. For they would no longer be disturbed
in their "chromatic function," as Darwin puts it, but would be able to
assimilate in peace, because the present Anti-Semitism would have been
stopped for ever. They would certainly be credited with being
assimilated to the very depths of their souls, if they stayed where
they were after the new Jewish State, with its superior institutions,
had become a reality.
The "assimilated" would profit even more than Christian citizens by
the departure of faithful Jews; for they would be rid of the
disquieting, incalculable, and unavoidable rivalry of a Jewish
proletariat, driven by poverty and political pressure from place to
place, from land to land. This floating proletariat would become
stationary. Many Christian citizens--whom we call Anti-Semites--can
now offer determined resistance to the immigration of foreign Jews.
Jewish citizens cannot do this, although it affects them far more
directly; for on them they feel first of all the keen competition of
individuals carrying on similar branches of industry, who, in
addition, either introduce Anti-Semitism where it does not exist, or
intensify it where it does. The "assimilated" give expression to this
secret grievance in "philanthropic" undertakings. They organize
emigration societies for wandering Jews. There is a reverse to the
picture which would be comic, if it did not deal with human beings.
For some of these charitable institutions are created not for, but
against, persecuted Jews; they are created to despatch these poor
creatures just as fast and far as possible. And thus, many an apparent
friend of the Jews turns out, on careful inspection, to be nothing
more than an Anti-Semite of Jewish origin, disguised as a
philanthropist.
But the attempts at colonization made even by really benevolent men,
interesting attempts though they were, have so far been unsuccessful.
I do not think that this or that man took up the matter merely as an
amusement, that they engaged in the emigration of poor Jews as one
indulges in the racing of horses. The matter was too grave and tragic
for such treatment. These attempts were interesting, in that they
represented on a small scale the practical fore-runners of the idea of
a Jewish State. They were even useful, for out of their mistakes may
be gathered experience for carrying the idea out successfully on a
larger scale. They have, of course, done harm also. The transportation
of Anti-Semitism to new districts, which is the inevitable consequence
of such artificial infiltration, seems to me to be the least of these
evils. Far worse is the circumstance that unsatisfactory results tend
to cast doubts on intelligent men. What is impractical or impossible
to simple argument will remove this doubt from the minds of
intelligent men. What is unpractical or impossible to accomplish on a
small scale, need not necessarily be so on a larger one. A small
enterprise may result in loss under the same conditions which would
make a large one pay. A rivulet cannot even be navigated by boats, the
river into which it flows carries stately iron vessels.
No human being is wealthy or powerful enough to transplant a nation
from one habitation to another. An idea alone can achieve that and
this idea of a State may have the requisite power to do so. The Jews
have dreamt this kingly dream all through the long nights of their
history. "Next year in Jerusalem" is our old phrase. It is now a
question of showing that the dream can be converted into a living
reality.
For this, many old, outgrown, confused and limited notions must first
be entirely erased from the minds of men. Dull brains might, for
instance, imagine that this exodus would be from civilized regions
into the desert. That is not the case. It will be carried out in the
midst of civilization. We shall not revert to a lower stage, we shall
rise to a higher one. We shall not dwell in mud huts; we shall build
new more beautiful and more modern houses, and possess them in safety.
We shall not lose our acquired possessions; we shall realize them. We
shall surrender our well earned rights only for better ones. We shall
not sacrifice our beloved customs; we shall find them again. We shall
not leave our old home before the new one is prepared for us. Those
only will depart who are sure thereby to improve their position; those
who are now desperate will go first, after them the poor; next the
prosperous, and, last of all, the wealthy. Those who go in advance
will raise themselves to a higher grade, equal to those whose
representatives will shortly follow. Thus the exodus will be at the
same time an ascent of the class.
The departure of the Jews will involve no economic disturbances, no
crises, no persecutions; in fact, the countries they abandon will
revive to a new period of prosperity. There will be an inner migration
of Christian citizens into the positions evacuated by Jews. The
outgoing current will be gradual, without any disturbance, and its
initial movement will put an end to Anti-Semitism. The Jews will leave
as honored friends, and if some of them return, they will receive the
same favorable welcome and treatment at the hands of civilized nations
as is accorded to all foreign visitors. Their exodus will have no
resemblance to a flight, for it will be a well-regulated movement
under control of public opinion. The movement will not only be
inaugurated with absolute conformity to law, but it cannot even be
carried out without the friendly cooperation of interested
Governments, who would derive considerable benefits from it.
Security for the integrity of the idea and the vigor of its execution
will be found in the creation of a body corporate, or corporation.
This corporation will be called "The Society of Jews." In addition to
it there will be a Jewish company, an economically productive body.
An individual who attempted even to undertake this huge task alone
would be either an impostor or a madman. The personal character of the
members of the corporation will guarantee its integrity, and the
adequate capital of the Company will prove its stability.
These prefatory remarks are merely intended as a hasty reply to the
mass of objections which the very words "Jewish State" are certain to
arouse. Henceforth we shall proceed more slowly to meet further
objections and to explain in detail what has been as yet only
indicated; and we shall try in the interests of this pamphlet to
avoid making it a dull exposition. Short aphoristic chapters will
therefore best answer the purpose.
If I wish to substitute a new building for an old one, I must demolish
before I construct. I shall therefore keep to this natural sequence.
In the first and general part I shall explain my ideas, remove all
prejudices, determine essential political and economic conditions, and
develop the plan.
In the special part, which is divided into three principal sections, I
shall describe its execution. These three sections are: The Jewish
Company, Local Groups, and the Society of Jews. The Society is to be
created first, the Company last; but in this exposition the reverse
order is preferable, because it is the financial soundness of the
enterprise which will chiefly be called into question, and doubts on
this score must be removed first.
In the conclusion, I shall try to meet every further objection that
could possibly be made. My Jewish readers will, I hope, follow me
patiently to the end. Some will naturally make their objections in an
order of succession other than that chosen for their refutation. But
whoever finds his doubts dispelled should give allegiance to the
cause.
Although I speak of reason, I am fully aware that reason alone will
not suffice. Old prisoners do not willingly leave their cells. We
shall see whether the youth whom we need are at our command--the
youth, who irresistibly draw on the old, carry them forward on strong
arms, and transform rational motives into enthusiasm.
_II. The Jewish Question_
No one can deny the gravity of the situation of the Jews. Wherever
they live in perceptible numbers, they are more or less persecuted.
Their equality before the law, granted by statute, has become
practically a dead letter. They are debarred from filling even
moderately high positions, either in the army, or in any public or
private capacity. And attempts are made to thrust them out of business
also: "Don't buy from Jews!"
Attacks in Parliaments, in assemblies, in the press, in the pulpit, in
the street, on journeys--for example, their exclusion from certain
hotels--even in places of recreation, become daily more numerous. The
forms of persecutions varying according to the countries and social
circles in which they occur. In Russia, imposts are levied on Jewish
villages; in Rumania, a few persons are put to death; in Germany, they
get a good beating occasionally; in Austria, Anti-Semites exercise
terrorism over all public life; in Algeria, there are travelling
agitators; in Paris, the Jews are shut out of the so-called best
social circles and excluded from clubs. Shades of anti-Jewish feeling
are innumerable. But this is not to be an attempt to make out a
doleful category of Jewish hardships.
I do not intend to arouse sympathetic emotions on our behalf. That
would be foolish, futile, and undignified proceeding. I shall content
myself with putting the following questions to the Jews: Is it not
true that, in countries where we live in perceptible numbers, the
position of Jewish lawyers, doctors, technicians, teachers, and
employees of all descriptions becomes daily more intolerable? Is it
not true, that the Jewish middle classes are seriously threatened? Is
it not true, that the passions of the mob are incited against our
wealthy people? Is it not true, that our poor endure greater
sufferings than any other proletariat? I think that this external
pressure makes itself felt everywhere. In our economically upper
classes it causes discomfort, in our middle classes continual and
grave anxieties, in our lower classes absolute despair.
Everything tends, in fact, to one and the same conclusion, which is
clearly enunciated in that classic Berlin phrase: "_Juden Raus!_" (Out
with the Jews!)
I shall now put the Question in the briefest possible form: Are we to
"get out" now and where to?
Or, may we yet remain? And, how long?
Let us first settle the point of staying where we are. Can we hope for
better days, can we possess our souls in patience, can we wait in
pious resignation till the princes and peoples of this earth are more
mercifully disposed towards us? I say that we cannot hope for a change
in the current of feeling. And why not? Even if we were as near to the
hearts of princes as are their other subjects, they could not protect
us. They would only feel popular hatred by showing us too much favor.
By "too much," I really mean less than is claimed as a right by every
ordinary citizen, or by every race. The nations in whose midst Jews
live are all either covertly or openly Anti-Semitic.
The common people have not, and indeed cannot have, any historic
comprehension. They do not know that the sins of the Middle Ages are
now being visited on the nations of Europe. We are what the Ghetto
made us. We have attained pre-eminence in finance, because mediaeval
conditions drove us to it. The same process is now being repeated. We
are again being forced into finance, now it is the stock exchange, by
being kept out of other branches of economic activity. Being on the
stock exchange, we are consequently exposed afresh to contempt. At the
same time we continue to produce an abundance of mediocre intellects
who find no outlet, and this endangers our social position as much as
does our increasing wealth. Educated Jews without means are now
rapidly becoming Socialists. Hence we are certain to suffer very
severely in the struggle between classes, because we stand in the most
exposed position in the camps of both Socialists and capitalists.