1910‒14――The Tenth and Eleventh Congresses――Death of Wolffsohn.
CHAPTER XLIXE. ON THE EVE OF THE WAR
Baron Edmond de Rothschild in Palestine――Sir John Gray Hill
――Professor S. Schechter――South African Statesmen――A Canadian
Statesman――Christian religious literature again.
ZIONISM DURING THE WAR, 1914‒1918――
⭘ General Survey
⭘ Zionist Propaganda in Wartime
⭘ Conferences
⭘ The Jewish National Fund
⭘ Zionism and Jewish Relief Work
⭘ The Russian Revolution
⭘ Political Activities in England and the Allied Countries
⭘ Conference of English Zionist Federation in 1917
⭘ Zionism and Public Opinion in England
⭘ Co-ordination of Zionists’ Reports
⭘ The British Declaration and its Reception
⭘ London Opera House Demonstration
⭘ Manifesto to the Jewish People
⭘ Declarations of the Entente Governments
APPENDICES――
I. The Prophets and the Idea of a National Restoration
II. Rev. Paul Knell: Israel and England Paralleled
III. Matthew Arnold on Righteousness in the Old Testament
IV. “Esperança de Israel,” by Manasseh Ben-Israel
V. “Spes Israelis,” by Manasseh Ben-Israel
VI. “Hope of Israel――Ten Tribes ... in America
――מקוה ישראל――De Hoop Van Israel,” by Manasseh
Ben-Israel
VII. The Humble Addresses of Manasseh Ben-Israel
VIII. “Vindiciæ Judæorum,” by Manasseh Ben-Israel
IX. Enseña A Pecadores
X. “De Termino Vitæ――of the Term of Life,” by Manasseh
Ben-Israel
XI. “נשמת חיים――De Immortalitate Animæ,” by Manasseh
Ben-Israel
XII. “Rights of the Kingdom,” by John Sadler
XIII. “Nova Solyma,” edited by the Rev. Walter Begley
XIV. “Præadamitæ――Men before Adam,” by Isaac de La Peyrère
XV. Isaac Vossius
XVI. “Doomes-Day”
XVII. “Restauration of _All_ Israel _And_ Judah”
XVIII. “Apology for the Honorable Nation of the Jews――Apologia
por la Noble Nacion de los Ivdios――Verantwoordinge voor
de edele Volcken der Jooden,” by Edward Nicholas
XIX. “A Word for the Armie,” by Hugh Peters
XX. Isaac da Fonseca Aboab
XXI. Dr. Abraham Zacutus Lusitanus
XXII. Jacob Judah Aryeh de Leon
XXIII. Thesouro Dos Dinim
XXIV. “Rettung der Juden,” by Manasseh Ben-Israel
XXV. Newes from Rome
XXVI. “The World’s Great Restauration,” by Sir Henry Finch
XXVII. “The World’s Great Restauration”――_continued_
XXVIII. Philip Ferdinandus
XXIX. Petition of the Jewes Johanna and Ebenezer Cart(en)
(w)right
XXX. “The Messiah Already Come,” by John Harrison
XXXI. “Discourse of Mr. John Dury to Mr. Thorowgood――Jewes in
America,” by Tho. Thorowgood――“Americans no Jews,” by
Hamon l’Estrange
XXXII. “Whether it be Lawful to Admit Jews into a Christian
Commonwealth,” by John Dury
XXXIII. “Life and Death of Henry Jessey”
XXXIV. “The Glory of Jehudah and Israel――De Heerlichkeydt ...
van Jehuda en Israel,” by Henry Jesse
XXXV. Of the Late Proceeds at White-Hall, concerning the Jews
(Henry Jesse)
XXXVI. Bishop Thomas Newton and the Restoration of Israel
XXXVII. “A Call to the Christians and the Hebrews”
XXXVIII. The Centenary of the British and Foreign Bible Society
XXXIX. Lord Kitchener and the Palestine Exploration Fund
XL. Bonaparte’s Call to the Jews
XLI. Letter addressed by a Jew to his Co-religionists in
1798
XLII. “Transactions of the Parisian Sanhedrim,” by Diogene
Tama
XLIII. “Signs of the Times”――“A Word in Season”――“Commotions
since French Revolution”――“History of Christianity”
――“The German Empire”――“Fulfilment of Prophecy,” by
Rev.James Bicheno
XLIV. “Restoration of the Jews”――“Friendly Address to the
Jews,” by the Rev. James Bicheno――“Letter to Mr.
Bicheno,” by David Levi
XLV. “Attempt to Remove Prejudices Concerning the Jewish
Nation,” by Thomas Witherby
XLVI. “Observations on Mr. Bicheno’s Book,” by Thomas
Witherby
XLVII. “Letters to the Jews,” by Joseph Priestley
XLVIII. “An Address to the Jews on the Present State of the
World,” by Joseph Priestley
XLIX. “Letters to Dr. Priestley,” by David Levi
L. “A Famous Passover Melody,” by the Rev. F. L. Cohen
LI. “Reminiscences of Lord Byron ... Poetry, etc., of Lady
Caroline Lamb,” by Isaac Nathan
LII. “Selection of Hebrew Melodies,” by John Braham and
Isaac Nathan
LIII. Earl of Shaftesbury’s Zionist Memorandum――Scheme for
the Colonisation of Palestine
LIV. Restoration of the Jews
LV. Another Zionist Memorandum――Restoration of the Jews
LVI. Extracts from Autograph and other Letters between Sir
Moses Montefiore and Dr. N. M. Adler
LVII. The Final Exodus
LVIII. Disraeli and the Purchase of the Suez Canal Shares
LIX. Cyprus and Palestine
LX. Disraeli and Heine
LXI. Disraeli’s Defence of the Jews
LXII. A Hebrew Address to Queen Victoria (1849)
LXIII. An Appeal by Ernest Laharanne (1860)
LXIV. Statistics of the Holy Land
LXV. An Open Letter of Rabbi Chayyim Zebi Sneersohn of
Jerusalem (1863)
LXVI. The Tragedy of a Minority, as seen by an English Jewish
Publicist (1863)
LXVII. London Hebrew Society for the Colonization of the Holy
Land
LXVIII. An Open Letter of Henri Dunant (1866)
LXIX. An Appeal of Rabbi Elias Gutmacher and Rabbi Hirsch
Kalischer to the Jews of England (1867)
LXX. Alexandre Dumas (fils) and Zionism
LXXI. Appeal of Dunant’s Association for the Colonisation of
Palestine (1867)
LXXII. Edward Cazalet’s Zionist Views
LXXIII. A Collection of Opinions of English Christian
Authorities on the Colonization of Palestine
LXXIV. Petition to the Sultan
LXXV. (1) _Chovevé Zion_ and Zionist Workers
○ (2) Modern Hebrew Literature
LXXVI. Note upon the _Alliance Israélite Universelle_ and the
Anglo-Jewish Association
LXXVII. An Appeal of the Berlin _Kadima_
LXXVIII. The Jewish Colonies in Palestine
LXXIX. The Manifesto of the _Bilu_ (1882)
LXXX. Zionism and Jewish Art
LXXXI. Progress of Zionism in the West since 1897
LXXXII. The Institutions of Zionism
LXXXIII. David Wolffsohn’s Autobiography
LXXXIV. Some English Press Comments on the London Zionist
Congress (1900)
LXXXV. Colonel Conder on the Value of the Jewish National
Movement (1903)
LXXXVI. Lord Gwydyr on Zionism and the Arabs
LXXXVII. Consular Reports
LXXXVIII. “Advent of the Millennium” (Moore)
LXXXIX. Crémieux’s Circular to the Jews in Western Europe
XC. “The Banner of the Jews” (Emma Lazarus)
XCI. “The Advanced Guard”
ADDENDA
CORRIGENDA
CATALOGUE OF THE ILLUSTRATIONS
BOOKS CONSULTED
INDEX
ILLUSTRATIONS TO VOL. II.
○ BARON EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD
○ LIEUT.-COL. SIR MARK SYKES, BART., M.P.
○ RT. HON. ARTHUR J. BALFOUR, M.P.
○ GEN. SIR EDMUND H. H. ALLENBY
○ M. S. J. M. PICHON
○ M. JULES CAMBON
○ H.E. PAOLO BOSELLI
○ H.E. BARON SIDNEY SONNINO
○ M. A. F. J. RIBOT
○ M. G. E. B. CLEMENCEAU
○ PRESIDENT THOMAS WOODROW WILSON
○ RT.HON. DAVID LLOYD GEORGE, M.P.
○ LAYING FOUNDATION STONE OF THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY, JERUSALEM
○ _NEWES FROM ROME._
○ THE KATTOWITZ CONFERENCE, 5644 = 1884
Illustration: _Leopold Pilichowski._ 1918
_Lieut.-Col. Sir_ MARK SYKES, _Bart._, _M.P._
SIR MARK SYKES, BART., M.P.
(A TRIBUTE)
A MOST tragic event took place on the 16th of February, 1919, when the
world lost one of the most valiant champions of Zionism, namely Sir
Mark Sykes, Bart., M.P. He fell like a hero in the thick of the fight;
he was suddenly extinguished, as it were a torch in full blaze. He
stood towering above the crowd of sceptics and grumblers, viewing the
promised land as from Pisgah’s height, his clear eye fixed on Zion. He
was at once a sage and a warrior, a knight in the service of the sacred
spirit of the national idea without fear or reproach, whom nothing
could overcome but the doom of sudden and premature death. Sir Mark
Sykes was but forty years old, physically a giant, a picture of perfect
manhood, full of youthful vigour, a soldier and a poet, a fervid
patriot and a kindly and self-sacrificing friend of humanity. He was
one of the born representatives of that tradition which for centuries
has inseparably united the genius of Great Britain with the Zionist
ideal of the Jewish people. In him appeared to be harmoniously united
the soaring imagination of Byron, the deep mysticism of Thomas Moore,
the religious zeal of Cardinal Manning and the statesmanly and wide
outlook of Disraeli.
The germs of Sykes’ Zionism lay latent in him in his earliest years.
He was scarcely eight years old when his father took him for the
first time to Jerusalem. He often related how when many years later
he visited a certain spot in Palestine, an elderly Arab told him that
years before an English gentleman had been there with a little boy,
leaving behind him kindly memories. His father, a wealthy landowner in
Yorkshire, was one of the principal churchbuilders in England of his
time. He was a gentleman of the old style, a protector of the poor,
fired with religious enthusiasm, who devoted untiring labour to the
management of his family estate. Every foot of this extensive family
estate with its churches and schools, its country houses and old and
new farms and dwellings, with its great collections and its old and
valuable library, bears the impress not only of marked diligence and
refined taste, but also of an unusual sense of continuity and tradition.
Long before the traveller from Hull reaches the estate, a high and
slender tower strikes his eye. It is the monument that has been erected
in memory of the grandfather, the old squire, an original character
about whom Sir Mark was wont to tell so many amusing stories. Long
after the introduction of railways he used to ride his steed to London,
and on the way often used to stop, take the hammer from the navvies who
were breaking road-metal, and perform their work for them for hours at
a time. Now his statue is to be seen in a chapel-like recess crowned
with a high tower on one of the main roads of the estate. His son, Sir
Mark’s father, was not less of an original character. He had nothing
of the tradition of feudal lords――the family was descended from an old
and very rich shipbuilding family in Hull which flourished in the 16th
century, had by the 17th century gained a great reputation, and later
had business relations with Peter the Great――but he rather represented
the type of a fanciful Maecenas, whose hobby it was constantly to
remodel buildings or to erect new ones. His ancestors had built ships,
he built houses. That amounted to a passion in him, a noble passion, a
desire to build, endow and found. And as he was very religious he built
churches. He also travelled widely and gathered large collections in
his country house. His religion was nominally High Church, but he must
have had strong leanings towards Catholicism. His wife, the mother of
Sir Mark, was an ardent Catholic. Sir Mark was attached to his mother,
and was brought up in the Catholic faith. On his mother’s side Sir
Mark had a decided strain of Irish blood, but the English type was
predominant in him. His features, however, were of extraordinary
gentleness, his eyes large and clear blue in colour, and a wisp of
hair would often fall over his brow. He was an English Catholic and
cherished in his heart the memory of the not so far distant time when
Catholics were persecuted, and restricted in their civil rights. He was
a Catholic in a country where the Catholics constitute a small and weak
minority, and often he remarked to me that it was his Catholicism that
enabled him to understand the tragedy of the Jewish question, since not
so long since Catholics had to suffer much in England. His Catholicism
did not make him fanatical; it made him rather cosmopolitan, that
is to say, catholic in the pure sense of the word. He received an
exceptionally careful education and studied hard in Catholic schools
before he took his course at Cambridge. The fact that in his early
youth he had Jesuit priests among his teachers was often exploited
by those who envied him, in a sense which suggested a leaning in him
towards Jesuitism. If the term Jesuitism be taken to mean a zeal for
Catholicism, then there can be no doubt that this assertion is correct,
since Sir Mark was certainly very religious. But if this expression
be taken in the customary sense, namely, as equivalent to clerical
intrigue, hypocrisy and spiteful hate of other religions, nothing
was more remote from the character, the mental outlook and all other
attributes of Sir Mark than such a form of Jesuitism. He was incapable
equally of dissembling or of servile conduct; he was proud without
being arrogant, and was severe and inflexible when truth was at stake.
His soul was an open book; he troubled himself neither of career nor
of popularity. He possessed an ideal, and this ideal was the sole test
of all his thought and actions. At heart he was pious, a good Christian
and a good Catholic: he never prided himself upon his faith, which
was a sacred thing to him: religious boast and propaganda were alike
foreign to him: his relations with God were an intimate personal matter
which concerned no stranger; but his faith was the moving force of his
life which afforded him courage to go forward and strength to endure
and to deny himself.
When I was with Sir Mark in Hull, where we came to speak at a great
Zionist meeting last summer, the member for Hull disappeared from my
sight for several hours on one occasion. I presumed that he had gone
to the old Catholic cathedral to attend a service as he frequently
did. On returning he told me that he had visited his old teachers, the
Jesuit fathers, and that he had convinced them that it was the duty of
Christians to atone for the crime that humanity has not ceased for many
centuries to commit against the Jewish people in withholding their old
native country from them. “This was not so difficult,” he added, “as
one of these fathers is an avowed friend of the Jewish people. When,
some years ago, a protest meeting was held in Hull against the Beilis
trial (the trumped-up story of ritual murder that had emanated in
Kiev from the Russian anti-Semites), this priest had appeared on the
platform to declare in the name of his religion that the persecutions
of the Jews that took place in Russia under the old régime were a blot
upon civilisation.” The meeting which was to be held that same day was
to be attended by Jews and Christians equally. He said with a humorous
smile that his success with the fathers made him hope for equal success
with the whole Christian audience at that meeting. “Perhaps people
find fault with me,” he continued, “that I have neglected their local
affairs. A member for Hull who gives all his time to Zionism may be
rather a puzzle to the good people of Hull, but I think I shall manage
them――will you be responsible for the Jews?” I replied, “Very well, I
shall be responsible for the Jews, but only with your help; the Jews
are more impressed by an English baronet who is a Christian than by a
fellow Jew like me.” “It is to be regretted,” he said somewhat sadly,
“that the Jews rather than follow leaders of their own race bow and
scrape to Gentiles. How do you explain that?” I answered: “That is the
spirit of the Exile, that can be combated only by means of Zionism.”
The meeting was most successful. There never had been such a Zionist
triumph in Hull. The enthusiasm was shared by both the Christian
representatives and the Jewish population, the latter but recently
arrived for the most part from Eastern Europe. There was only one
discordant note in the speeches, and that probably escaped the notice
of most of those present, and did not detract in the least from the
success of the meeting; this was an utterance that offended Sir Mark’s
religious sentiment. “It is natural,” someone said, “for Sir Mark to
be a friend of the Jews as he is such a good Christian, and must be
conscious of the fact that the founder of Christianity belonged to the
Jewish race; moreover, Sir Mark as a Catholic venerates the Holy Mother
who was as we know a daughter of the Jewish people.” This utterance
pained Sir Mark and hurt me very much. I afterwards had long talks with
Sir Mark about this tactlessness, which could only have been committed
by a quasi-assimilated Jew. The speaker may have meant it well, but
a Zionist could never have made such a mistake, for to be a Zionist,
means not only to desire immediate emigration to Palestine, but also
to maintain the proper practical attitude to the non-Jewish world. This
attitude is one neither of servility nor of arrogance, it is one of
dignified yet modest and noble self-consciousness, self-respect and
respect for others.
In order to understand the attitude of such as Sir Mark and others
like him in his own and other nations, towards the Jewish problem,
it is necessary to study the problem more closely than is common
among the unthinking crowd who bandy about the words anti-Semitism and
philo-Semitism, and, upon their superficial observations, condemn one
man as an anti-Semite and laud another as a philo-Semite, according as
whether they hate or love certain individual Jews. The crowd does not
understand that one can be a great friend of the Jewish people and a
great admirer of the Jewish genius and yet find such things ridiculous
and repulsive as the apeing, the servility, the obtrusiveness, the
hollowness and the empty display, the desire to intrude everywhere,
the excessive zeal of the neophytes and all the unpleasant traits of
some assimilated Jews. On the other hand, one may approve of all these
qualities and rejoice that certain Jews have become rich, obtained
titles or gained high office in so far as one desires the assimilation
of the Jewish people and the extinction of the Jewish spirit.
Anti-Semitism is fractricidal in that it implies hatred and contempt
for, and the desire to persecute a whole race. It is organised
outrage, because it employs the brutal power of a majority to insult
a defenceless minority and to deprive it of human rights. It is
consciously calumnious because it instigates malice against the Jewish
people or religion and exploits for this purpose actual weaknesses or
failings belonging in reality to neither the race nor the religion. It
is biassed and sophistical because it generalises from the faults of
individuals and because it fixes itself upon the mote in another’s eye
without perceiving the beam in its own.
Philo-Semitism in the true sense of the word resembles philhellenism.
The latter does not mean simply friendly intercourse with parvenu
Greeks, but sympathy for the Hellenic people as such, and with the
spirit of Hellenism and an endeavour to aid these and to establish them.
Of such a kind was the philo-Semitism of Sir Mark Sykes. I will speak
plainly, and do not hesitate to state that he had no liking for the
hybrid type of the assimilating Jew. He had no wish to interfere with
such people; he emphatically condemned any attempt at suppression of
rights or chicanery, but he did not like this type just because he
was fond of the Jewish people. What was of the Jewish essence, of the
Jewish tradition, was sacred to his religious sense and stimulating to
his artistic sense. In this lay the secret, not exactly of our personal
success with Sykes (for our cause is of too great an importance in
the world’s history to be connected with personalities) but of the
wonderful concord of minds which was the natural outcome of his outlook.
The opposite poles attracted each other with irresistible force. Truly
anglicised Jews could not have had the hundredth part of the same
success with him, not because of their not being excellent patriots and
capable men (for such many of them incontestably are and Sykes was fond
of society and of making acquaintances and was amiable to all), but
for him there were real Englishmen enough. Concerning English affairs,
national questions and parliamentary matters he would discourse with
anglicised Jews on the same footing as English non-Jews, but concerning
the spirit of Jewish history, the _ethos_ of Hebraism, the national
sufferings and aspirations, that emerge only in national Hebrew
literature, in the large centres of Jewish population in Eastern Europe
and in the new settlements in Palestine――concerning all these matters
he would and could seek information only from the fountain source.
These are the things that have succeeded with Sykes and others and
that will succeed further, not high diplomacy. There is no lack of this
latter at the Foreign Office, which swarms with great diplomats, and
it would be carrying coals to Newcastle to seek to add more trained
specialists to the crowd of busy politicians in Downing Street. There
could be no success with Sykes that way. He was, as it were, born to
work with us Hebrews for Zionism.
The spirit of the East breathed in this Yorkshire gentleman. In his
earliest youth he showed a keen interest for Arabia, for Islam and the
Turkish Empire. At Cambridge he studied Arabic under Professor E. G.
Browne, and there also he met the lady who was afterwards to be his
wife and true helpmeet, a daughter of Sir John Gorst, who was at the
time one of the members of parliament for the University. In the year
1898 Sykes, then a young student, undertook a second journey to the
East, and stayed much of his time in the Hauran. He devoted himself
with the entire freshness and sincerity of his youth (he was then but
twenty years old) to his observations as a traveller. In the year 1900
appeared his first book, which recounts his impressions in an elegant
style and light form.¹ In this book he ascribes to his guide, a
Christian Arab named Isa, the following words apropos of the Jews there,
that they were “dirty like Rooshan and robber like Armenian.”² Sykes
himself had at that time no clear idea of Jews or of Armenians――of the
two peoples for whom he strove and died nineteen years later. He cites
an expression of opinion and repeats it in the bad English of an Arab
guide. After his return from the East, he devoted his attention to
military studies, in which he distinguished himself. He served in the
South African War in 1900‒2. He gave a proof of his technical knowledge
in his work on strategy and military training which he had compiled
in collaboration with Major George d’Ordel.³ In the year 1904 he was
travelling again, and the literary product of his later and earlier
journeys was his second considerable book on Islam and the Orient.⁴
This book is dedicated to his fellow-soldiers in the South African
War.⁵ In this work already speaks to us a young but mature man who
had travelled much in four continents and had been through the South
African Campaign. Here we already perceive the fundamentals of his
later Zionism. As regards the future of the Orient he looks not to
modern civilisation and capitalism, but to the latent force of national
life. He was not deceived by the specious platitudes so dear to that
deplorable product of modern European democracy ‘the man in the street’
as to ‘extending the blessing of Western civilisation’; he regarded
rather with unconcealed apprehension the contingency of the Western
Asiatics becoming ‘a prey to capitalists of Europe and America,’
“in which case a designing Imperial Boss might, untrammelled by the
Government, reduce them to serfdom for the purpose of filling his
pockets and gaining the name of Empire-maker.” (Prof. Browne’s Preface,
_Dar-ul-Islam_, p. iv.). He had a great predilection for all national
individualities, and detested the desire to imitate and assimilate. “He
hated the hybrid Levantine ... and faithfully portrayed the Gosmopaleet
(Cosmopolite)” (_ibid._). He condemned interfering tutelage. “Orientals
hate to be worried and hate to have their welfare attended to....
Oppression they can bear with equanimity, but interference for their
own good they never brook with grace” (_ibid._). He shows a profound
historic sense: “he does not disguise his preference for countries
with ‘a past’ over countries with ‘a future’” (_ibid._), and finds
in the nature of the Oriental the conditions for a true equality. “He
recognises the fact that there is more equality because less snobbery
and pretence in Asia than in Europe” (_ibid._). The only feature that
is wanting in this book is a knowledge of Jews and of Zionism. He
makes but once mention of this matter, in a short sketch of the Jews
at Nisibin. “The Jews at Nisibin . .. their appearance is much improved
by Oriental costume ... in which they look noble and dignified.” He
then adds: “I trust that the Uganda Zionists will adopt my suggestion”
(p. 141). One who believes in the assimilation of the Jews may
snobbishly consider this also as anti-Semitic, but in fact it is only
the harmless joke of an artist, for Sykes was essentially an artist.
His drawings were excellent, he was also very musical, and had a great
predilection for all true individuality, for the archaic, the original,
the unadulterated, for race, nationality, _genius loci_, for everything
racy and natural, and for everything that was not cliché, mechanical
and snippety.
¹ _Through Five Turkish Provinces_, by Mark Sykes. London,
Bickers and Son. 1900.
² _Ibid._, p. 127.
³ _Tactics and Military Training._ By Major George d’Ordel and
Captain Mark Sykes. London. 1902.
⁴ _Dar-Ul-Islam._ A record of a journey through Ten of the
Asiatic Provinces of Turkey. By Mark Sykes. London. 1904.
⁵ “The F Company, 3rd Batt. Princess of Wales’ Own Yorkshire
Regiment, who served in South Africa, 1900‒2.”
This was the foundation of his latent Zionism. From 1904 to 1911 he
pursued his military studies, managed his estates and travelled much.
In 1911 he entered Parliament as member for Hull. Although nominally
a Tory, Sir Mark was at bottom no party man, but a man of convictions.
Full of faith, greedy for work, energetic, confident, capable, quick of
study, charmed with a fight. Equally ready to defend or attack, he was
unselfish. Over the Irish question he fell out with the Conservatives;
he was an outspoken champion of Home Rule, and throughout his life he
remained a loyal friend of Irish nationalism. His speeches soon made
him popular in Parliament; they were never long and yet never trite.
He showed the same qualities in his letters to the Press. He had always
something to say, some original thought which he expressed in his own
individual style. He told me once, how he had learned public speaking
at school. He had to prepare the outline of the speech and afterwards
to state in short and simple terms the substance of his speech. The
latter, he added, was the more difficult task, because a facile speaker
can make long speeches, and yet find it impossible to repeat later the
essential facts of his speeches. He was not a facile speaker in this
sense; he never spoke quite extempore, but always prepared his speeches
carefully, often by means only of simple key words or of a few pictures,
resembling hieroglyphics, as, for example, the sun with streaming rays.
He never spoke to the gallery, never flattered, never perverted the
truth under the mask of sincerity, and never sought to create effects.
His speeches were full of beauty and deep idealism with a breath of
religious fervour, as he leant forward to address himself to the hearts
of his audience. This practical man was at bottom a poet. He could tell
most fascinating stories. He had not been brought up in the chilling
atmosphere of severe Puritanism, but in the medieval glamour of
Catholic cathedrals and under the sun of the East. Yet he had remained
a proud and staunch Briton. He was a remarkable and extremely unusual
combination of a blue-eyed, simple and modest Englishman of childlike
sweetness, and of a medieval knight full of Oriental reminiscences,
with ardent faith and picturesque imagination. We loved him and he
loved us, because his nature was gentle, kind and sympathetic. He
chatted freely: he told all about his enthusiasms, his “castles in the
air,” his stories about dervishes, his travelling impressions, with a
lively dramatic touch with appropriate gesture and expression, often
drawing his round, brown stylo pen from his pocket in order to explain
the matter more pointedly by means of a rapid sketch. How often I
regretted that no shorthand writer was present. His ways were dignified
and courteous, his modesty so natural and so frank that he gave the
impression of being himself unconscious of it. When the talk took a
jesting turn, there was no sting in his witticisms, his jests were easy
and never offensive. When he was angered, his emotion lasted but a few
seconds, and afterwards he was as light-hearted as a child.
Such was the Mark Sykes of 1914 when the War broke out. He took up his
part in the War with all his patriotism and with his idealistic faith
in the victory of justice. In 1915 he was with his regiment busy in
hard training and ready for the field. He often told me how it had come
to pass that the East had become his sphere of action. One day Lord
Kitchener said to him: “Sykes, what are you doing in France, you must
go to the East.” “What am I to do there?” asked Sykes. “Just go there
and then come back,” was Lord Kitchener’s answer. Sykes travelled to
the East, made his way through accessible and inaccessible districts,
and came back. His observations and experiences constituted the
material upon which all the great things that afterwards happened were
based. He then voluntarily entered the service of the Government as
expert, as adviser, and as draughtsman of their policy. He was one
of the pioneers of the new British War Policy in the East, one of the
protagonists of the “Eastern School.” In the year 1916 he undertook
with M. Georges Picot a journey to Russia. It was then the Czarist
Russia with its eye fixed upon Constantinople; that was the occasion
upon which the so-called Sykes-Picot agreement was signed. From the
standpoint of Zionist interests in Palestine this agreement justly met
with severe criticism; but it was Sykes himself who criticised it most
sharply and who with the change of circumstances dissociated himself
from it entirely. It was a product of the time, a time when there
was as yet no decided plan formed of launching a definite campaign in
the East, when the prime necessity was some sort of agreement, since
otherwise no progress would have been made. This was long before Mr.
Balfour’s declaration, and since at this time the Zionist interests in
Palestine had as yet received no attention because they were unknown
and not debatable, and also as it was essential to come to terms about
Constantinople with the old regime in Russia, this agreement was a
necessary prelude to action. This agreement Sykes regarded later as an
anachronism.
Zionism had been at work in England for two full years without its
coming to know anything of Sykes, who himself worked on his own lines
for a year and a half, without knowing anything of Zionist organisation
or a definite programme of Zionism. What happened resembled the
construction of a tunnel begun at two sides at once. As the workers
on each side approach one another they can hear the sound of blows
through the earth. It seems at first a strange enough story; a certain
Sir Mark appears, he makes some enquiries, and then expresses a wish
to meet the Zionist leaders. Finally a meeting actually takes place
and discussions are entered upon. Sir Mark showed a keen interest
and wanted to know the aims of the Zionist Organisation, and who
were its representatives. The idea assumed a concrete form; but this
acquaintance, however, valuable as it was, had as yet no practical
significance. Acquaintanceships were made and discussions took place
during the years 1914‒16 by the hundred with influential people and
with some who had more voice in affairs than Sir Mark ever had. They
constituted certainly a most important introductory chapter, and one
without which the book itself could not have been written, but they
were naturally fragmentary, preliminary, without cohesion and without
sanction. The work itself began only after the 7th of February, 1917.
The subsequent chapters describe this work in general outlines. A
thousand details remain for the pen of some future historian, when the
time comes for the archives of the Foreign Office, of the Ministries
for Foreign Affairs of the other Entente Powers, and of the political
offices of the Zionist Organisation in London and Paris to be made
public. In the whole proceedings there are no secret treaties, no
secret diplomacy, in fact neither diplomacy nor conspiracy; but they
constitute a series of negotiations, schemes, suggestions, explanations,
measures, journeys, conferences, etc., to which each of those who took
a part gave something of the best in himself.
It is my duty both as historian and as one who took an active part in
these negotiations and proceedings to record here that Sir Mark Sykes
really gave of his best to this work. For more than two wonderful years
we were in daily intercourse with him. Our friendship was of the most
intimate. We shared in common all the delights and disappointments
arising from the Zionist work. We instructed each other; he furnished
his knowledge of the East, his profound understanding of the guiding
political principles of Great Britain, his personal observations with
reference to the possibilities of bringing our aims into harmony with
the ideals of the Entente; we supplied Zionism, inspired by Jewish
sufferings and hopes. It was not difficult for us to convince him what
an excellent cultural type the Hebrew represents, since already in his
youth, before he had the slightest idea of Jews and Zionism, he had
intuitively perceived that the hybrid Levantine is hopeless in that
direction. The idea was latent in him, and but awaited stimulus and
direction into the proper channel. He was ready to understand what a
great natural force the Jewish genius could be in the reawakening of
Palestine, all the more because long before as a man of extraordinarily
high culture――English to the last fibre of his thought, saturated with
English tradition, English literature and English taste――and yet at
the same time a broad-minded humanist, with great ideals not only for
his own nation but for all other nations and races, he had seen that
the ‘civilising’ of the East by assimilation was idle and superficial
prating and a vain delusion. Deep sympathy of ideals had earlier
formed an unconscious bond between us. When this sympathy ripened
into consciousness through our meeting and soon after the commencement
of our common work, the resulting harmony was not one of policy but
one of outlook. The idea of a natural alliance between Jews, Arabs
and Armenians as peoples of the Near East developed into something
quite distinct and found in Sir Mark a convinced champion. He was
an enthusiastic protagonist of the Jewish national renaissance in
Palestine, an admirer of the Hebrew genius, who could not hear enough
from me about national Hebrew literature, who took an interest in every
detail of Jewish culture. At the same time he was a sincere friend
of the Arabs and Armenians and made strenuous efforts to secure their
liberation. We all worked together with him in this direction, but the
main idea was his and remained his favourite project till the close of
his life. Many superficial and petty individuals in our own ranks, who,
not realising the great and difficult task and themselves taking no
active part, busied themselves in spreading distrust and discontent,
complained that Sykes was too much taken up with the Arabs. I am sure
that among many Arabs of the same degree of political maturity Sykes
was accused of being too much taken up by the Jews.
Our interchange of ideas resulted in a complete fusion of thought. But
Sykes gave us his time and labour as well as ideas. It seemed as though
in these two years his whole life’s energy reached its culminating
point and spent itself. He worked at constant high pressure. But rarely
he allowed himself a week-end in Sledmore with Lady Sykes and the
children, and even there he was never idle. It was a constant round
of church-going, of devotion to the estate and building repairs, of
musicians, old French songs, and of hospitality. Holidays were out
of the question. All his excursions were connected with political or
Parliamentary business. Even prior to the commencement of his official
connection with Zionism, Sir Mark was a man of extraordinarily wide
activities. When on the 8th of February, 1917, one day after the
first official meeting, our work began with the first conference
with M. Georges Picot at Sir Mark’s private house, No. 9 Buckingham
Gate, the latter place had already become an important centre for
matters concerning the new and at that time scarcely completed plan
of a kingdom of the Hedjaz, concerning Armenia and Mesopotamia, and
was equipped with all such material as files of correspondence and
telegraphic communications, etc. It was then that Zionism took its
place in the system and came to dominate the situation more and more as
our labours progressed. One was liable to be called upon at any moment,
early in the morning or late at night. It became a joke with us to name
his sudden telephone calls ‘brain-storms.’ Sir Mark had a ‘brain-storm’
which meant: danger in sight. This may appear as somewhat far-fetched
to outsiders, but those who were in the thick of the work knew well
what formidable obstacles stood in the way, and how well founded were
Sir Mark’s doubts and fears. At every moment dangers had to be guarded
against; there were elements that were in favour of the _status quo
ante_ in the Near East; vested economic interests that desired to
uphold this _status quo_ for their own ends; clerical, anti-Semitic and
pan-Islamitic propaganda; certain Arab sections that opposed Zionism
because, obsessed by fanaticism or misled by agitators or influenced
by narrow and short-sighted considerations of the needs of the moment,
they had no proper appreciation of the great idea of a Hebrew-Arabic
national alliance; intrigues of certain Syrian concession-hunters who
stormed with a ‘holy wrath’ against the Zionist idea; certain factions
in England that would have nothing to do with an energetic policy in
the East, and indeed ridiculed and belittled the importance of British
interests in that region; a by no means small party that warned England
against undertaking any new engagements; and finally, be it mentioned
with regret, our Jewish circles of the assimilating school. The cause
of Zionism was in the same dire case as Laocoon in the grip of snakes.
Every day brought a fresh indication of some hostile movement, a new
suspicion of enemy schemes each of which caused Sir Mark to sound a
warning. These were the ‘brain-storms.’
I should like to record a few impressions of different occasions. The
first was a day in April, 1917, in Paris. I was due at the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs to give information about Zionism. Sir Mark also came;
he was a sincere friend of France and was anxious that Zionism should
have the same appreciation in France as in England. He came in great
haste by motor from the Front, where he had been making a visit, and
went to the Hotel Lotti. He arrived early in the morning after a tiring
night’s journey. At that time Doctor Weizmann was fully occupied with
most important affairs in England. It fell to me to begin the official
work in France, after we had together prepared all our plans. Sykes
was impatient: in spite of his complete confidence in us, he could
not refrain from remaining near me, always ready with advice and help.
We worked together for some hours. I departed on my mission and we
arranged for him to wait for me at the hotel. But as I was crossing the
Quai d’Orsay on my return from the Foreign Office I came across Sykes.
He had not had the patience to wait. We walked on together, and I gave
him an outline of the proceedings. This did not satisfy him; he studied
every detail; I had to give him full notes and he drew up a minute
report. “That’s a good day’s work,” he said with shining eyes.
The second was a day in April, 1917, in Rome. Sykes had been there
before me and could not wait my arrival. He had gone to the East. I put
up at the hotel: Sykes had ordered rooms for me. I went to the British
Embassy; letters and instructions from Sykes were waiting for me there.
I went to the Italian Government Offices; Sykes had been there too;
then to the Vatican, where Sykes had again prepared my way. It seemed
to me as if his presence was wherever I went, but all the time he was
far away in Arabia, whence I received telegraphic messages.
The third was at the London Opera House Meeting of the 2nd of December,
1917. It was a truly brilliant gathering in a packed house, a festive
token of the bond of brotherhood between Great Britain and ancient
Israel. Sykes modestly surveyed the assembly. The majority of the
audience scarcely knew him, and only a few were aware that this was a
great day in his life. When he began to speak the audience recognised
that one was addressing them who had made Zionism a part of his life.
He showed no flaring enthusiasm, but rather a quiet elation, a devotion
to the subject. On leaving, he and I shook hands――no words were
necessary because we understood each other.
The fourth was a mass meeting at the end of December in Manchester.
In the morning there had been a small gathering with Sykes, and before
the meeting a banquet in honour of Mr. C. P. Scott. The meeting itself
was one of the largest that ever was held in Manchester. Sir Stuart
Samuel was in the chair. Doctor Weizmann made one of his most brilliant
speeches, and Mr. James de Rothschild roused the audience to enthusiasm.
Then Sykes rose, and made a speech full of the dreamy poetry of an
Eastern tale. The audience felt itself transported into another and
better world. The poetry of the East diffused itself as a softening
charm over the hard-cut lines of high political argument. After the
meeting we sat down, tired out, to tea. Sykes hurried in in his
rain-coat: he had no time to stay, as he had to catch the night train.
He was due in London next morning to send urgent telegrams to Palestine.
The fifth was on a glorious June day in 1918 en route from Paris to
London. Sykes insisted on my travelling with him. He was in company
with a distinguished party containing nearly all the members of the
Government. As there was no time to complete the passport formalities,
he simply attached me to himself personally. I felt embarrassed and
accepted his proposal with reluctance. But when he told me that it was
necessary to remind people constantly of the Declaration, I made up my
mind to venture flying if he should think it necessary. The journey
almost assumed the form of a Zionist meeting. There were twenty-eight
persons in all, the most prominent members of the Government. On
deck the Prime Minister was talking with Jellicoe. The tall and
imposing figure of Mr. Balfour, with his noble grey-haired head and
the well-known small hat, stood above the rest. Sykes urged me to have
a word with the Prime Minister. I seized the opportunity and in the
course of our conversation I had from him the treasured words: that
such a war as this would be in vain if we did not aim at succouring all
peoples, the Zionist Jews included. I afterwards told this to Sykes,
who was at the other end of the ship, but he knew already. “How, by
an indiscretion?” “No, a favourable wind whispered it to me.” The
‘Favourable Wind’ was one of the company who had overheard the
conversation.
Sir Mark’s work during the last few years falls into eight successive
periods. (1) February‒March, 1917, the collaboration in London with
M. Picot, and after the latter’s departure for France, with us;
(2) March‒June, 1917, our journey to Paris; his journey to Egypt;
(3) June‒November, 1917, preliminary work leading to the Balfour
Declaration; (4) November, 1917‒March 1918, from the Declaration to
the despatch of the Commission to Palestine; (5) March‒October, 1918,
the work in London during the stay of the Commission in Palestine;
(6) October‒December, 1918, the work after the return of the
Commission; (7) December 1918‒February, 1919, the journey to Syria,
and (8) February, 1919, the last days in Paris.
In the first period the foundations were laid; at that time Sir Mark
was, so to speak, introduced into the world of Zionist ideas. The
second was full of active negotiations with the Entente Governments.
During the third Sykes was in busy relations with a number of the
friends of our cause. In this period the work of Major Ormsby-Gore
was of practically the same importance, as also during the fourth
period. In the fifth period, during the time of the important work in
Palestine of the Commission under the leadership of Doctor Weizmann,
Major Ormsby-Gore was of great service there. The whole of the labours
in London connected with the activity of the Commission and with
a thousand other matters relating to Zionism fell upon Sykes, and
necessitated daily work of an intensely difficult character.
To this period belong a number of most important measures which for
the first time gave Zionism both internally and externally its proper
position and its necessary prestige. Sir Mark had at that time his
office in two rooms, afterwards partitioned into three, on the basement
of the back wing of the Foreign Office, connected with the upper
storeys by means of a lift, never used by Sir Mark, who mounted the
stairs about twenty times daily at a lightning speed, which made it
impossible for me to keep pace with him in spite of my most strenuous
efforts. The first large room was dark because the big window was
blocked with sandbags as a protection against possible air raids; it
had long tables and was illuminated artificially. I had to be there
often and for long periods at a time: my work, indeed, required my
attendance there more than at the Zionist offices, and sometimes I
had to go there three times a day and to remain there till late at
night. On one of these occasions Sir Mark said to me, “Does not this
subterranean room look like a medieval inquisition chamber, with
those long tables upon which the victims of the Inquisition might be
stretched for torture? Who knows,” added he humorously, “whether some
of your forefathers had not to undergo treatment in chambers of this
kind?” I answered, “Yes, as Scripture has it: ‘I will make the desolate
valley into a door of hope.’” After that we often used to call this
room the “Door of Hope.” This room opened into another where Sir Mark
spent whole days at work except for the time at Westminster. The duties
of Secretary were most ably filled by Mr. Dunlop, a young and energetic
man; opposite, in the building in Whitehall Gardens, Sir Mark’s older
colleague, the learned and highly experienced Mr. Beck, worked in
conjunction with him. Between the two offices the faithful Serjeant
Wilson, who accompanied Sir Mark everywhere on land and sea, passed to
and fro. It was like a hive; there was a constant coming and going of
Foreign Office men, M.P.’s, Armenian politicians, Mahommedan Mullahs,
officers, journalists, representatives of Syrian Committees, and
deputations from philanthropic societies. In the midst of this busy
world Zionism maintained its prominent position. Everything had to pass
through Sykes’ hands. In order to avoid confusion and divergence of
effort he insisted upon what was readily conceded him, namely that
he should pass an opinion on every question and every detail, and in
this there was no hesitation, no delay. Among many others a couple
of examples will suffice. The Oriental Jews, being Turkish subjects,
were under the law regarded as alien enemies. They were certainly only
technically such; at heart they were thoroughly pro-British and in
any case politically harmless. Exceptions had already been made on the
recommendations of personal standing, but no logical plan was followed.
I maintained that the Zionist Organisation should be officially
empowered to protect the Jews of Palestine and Syria, just as, for
example, the Polish Committee protected the Poles from Galicia, who
were also technically alien enemies. Sykes obtained this concession
after considerable labour. This was an official recognition of the
Zionist Organisation as competent authority. When at the time of the
most strenuous military efforts, the later categories of the male
population were called to the colours, the Zionist Organisation
in England was threatened with losing the last of its secretaries,
speakers, organisers, etc., and with seeing its activities restricted,
if not completely interrupted. None were more patriotic than the
Zionists, so many of whom were in the Army, but we had to deal with
a number of men who could be of no value to the Army, and who, on the
other hand, were indispensable to the Zionist Organisation. Previously
some had been left with us, but now it was a question of large numbers.
It was a generally recognised principle that people whose occupation
was of national importance were allowed to continue at it. I insisted
upon having this principle applied to Zionism. This matter could not
be settled by any single individual or by any single tribunal. The
question concerned a matter of principle, and had nothing to do with
individuals. Since we had received the declaration of recognition from
the British Government and the whole Entente, and as we had to prepare
the field for the realisation of this declaration, this ought surely to
have been regarded as a matter of national importance from the official
standpoint. Sykes adopted this point of view and made strenuous efforts
to have it realised. He was thoroughly convinced that our loyalty to
Great Britain and her Allies was boundless, and that in all our demands
the interests of both parties had been considered with equal devotion.
On the other hand, we recognised that when he denied us something
as inadmissible, though like any other man he might sometimes make
mistakes, he was open to change of conviction upon good reason being
shown, and that any stand taken by him against our proposals was due
rather to the fact that he regarded the matter at issue as unfavourable
in certain circumstances to Zionism, than that he had the interests of
Zionism less at heart than we; thus a community of effort and a mutual
trust was established, which led to a complete solidarity of aims. In
this way our work in conjunction with Sykes became the foundation for
our relations with the higher Government authorities, as also with
Sykes’ colleagues and successors.
The most important and politically difficult task that had to be
accomplished in London during the stay of the Commission in Palestine
was to make possible the official laying of the foundation stone
of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The recommendations and the
instructions carried by the President of the Commission, Doctor
Weizmann, to Palestine were most valuable, and will stand as a lasting
token of the generous and kindly feelings of the leading men in the
British Government towards Zionism. The influence of the Commission,
the excellence of their work, their splendid relations with the
authorities had ensured complete success. Nevertheless it was found
that, particularly with reference to the foundation-stone ceremony,
the instructions had been of too general and too vague a character to
overcome the formal and legal administrative obstacles. It is my duty
to one who is gone, to record the great services of Sir Mark in this
direction. It goes without saying that the final decision lay with a
man in higher office. However, before Mr. Balfour gave his decision and
before the most detailed instructions had been telegraphed, we had to
work strenuously day after day for several weeks, by correspondence and
by interviews, with such devotion and enthusiasm as only so magnificent
an object as the Hebrew University in Jerusalem could inspire.
During the period that followed, namely the sixth as above described,
the Zionist programme was being prepared. The end of the War was in
sight, but the cessation of hostilities was not to be expected so very
soon. Sykes decided, then, the whole of Palestine and Syria being in
British hands, to travel thither to gather fresh information and to
bring the results of his latter observations to the Peace Conference. I
tried to dissuade him from this journey, because I thought his presence
in Europe important: he, on the other hand, wanted me to go with him
to Palestine. He finally went alone and wrote to me from there that
I should come without delay. His stay in Palestine was, however, only
a very short one: he soon passed to Syria and did strenuous work in
the direction of restoring order in Aleppo. In the meantime the Peace
Conference opened here. We were all of us already assembled――except
Sykes. We thought of him every day.
One evening there was a telephone call. On taking up the receiver I
heard Sykes’ voice telling me that he had just arrived in Paris, and
was staying as usual at the Hôtel Lotti opposite us. I invited him at
once to dinner, and he came. He was the same lovable fellow, full of
life and humour, but now frightfully thin. He had lived the whole time
on “German sausages” and had suffered much from digestive troubles. It
only transpired later, that he had spent sixteen hours a day in Aleppo
working under almost impossible conditions on behalf of the Arabs and
Armenians. He was himself never in the habit of talking about his work.
It was two hours after midnight when he left us,――he had so much to
tell about the ordinary incapacity for proper administration of the
local Syrian population and their marked capacity in that direction
under suitable guidance, about the prospects for Palestine, about the
steps he had taken against anti-Zionist intrigues in Syria and other
matters. From that time forward we saw each other every day. Some days
later he went to London to see his family and returned in three days
with Lady Sykes. Immediately upon his arrival he was in touch with us.
He had a thousand ideas, and had brought reports and instructions from
Syria that had to be elaborated. Our days were filled with appointments
for visits, interviews, etc. Then Lady Sykes was attacked by influenza,
which caused a little dislocation and the postponement of an accepted
invitation, but gave no cause for alarm. On the 13th of February, Sir
Mark hastily entered my room, and on finding me indisposed, he shouted,
“There’s no time now for being ill.” The following morning he sent word
to me that Lady Sykes was better, but that he himself was taken ill.
“I have got it,” he said to Serjeant Wilson when he went to bed. On
the 15th Lady Sykes sent for me, and told me that her husband would
have to remain in bed for a few days, that afterwards she intended to
go to England for a week or so to recuperate. “To Sledmore?” I asked.
“No,” said Lady Sykes, “it is too cold there. I think the South will be
better. And my chief reason for troubling you,” she added, “is because
my husband wants to know how Zionist matters went yesterday.” I gave
full details to Lady Sykes. In the afternoon of the 16th Sir Mark died.
He died on the threshold of the Peace Conference which was destined
to make his dream a living thing, died in a hotel in the midst of us,
bound up with our deepest affections, a radiant form full of love and
sincerity. His life was as a song, almost as a Psalm. He was a man
who has won a monument in the future Pantheon of the Jewish people
and of whom legends will be told in Palestine, Arabia and Armenia.
Just returned from a difficult task in the service of humanity in the
service of the idea of nationality, and about to perform great things
for the Jewish people, he fell as a hero at our side.
There it ends! Shakespeare himself could use no more than the
commonplace to express what is incapable of expression. “The rest is
silence!”
We say: “The rest is immortality――in the annals of Zionism.”
PARIS, _April, 1919_.
CHAPTER XLIXA.
_Chovevé Zion_ and Zionists in England――Louis Loewe――Nathan
Marcus Adler――Albert Löwy――Abraham Benisch――The Rev. M. J.
Raphall――Dr. M. Gaster――Rabbi Samuel Mohilewer――English
representation at the Second and Third Congresses――The Fourth
Congress in London.
THE _Chovevé Zion_ movement in England was not very powerful, yet it
enjoyed a certain amount of popularity. If we examine, for instance,
the records for 1892‒7――the years which preceded the First Zionist
Congress (Basle, 1897)――we find among the leading representatives not
only the Chief Rabbi of the Spanish and Portuguese Communities, Dr. M.
Gaster, Mr. Herbert Bentwich, Rabbi Professor H. Gollancz, the late
Colonel Albert Goldsmid, Dr. S. A. Hirsch, Mr. S. B. Rubenstein, Mr.
E. W. Rabbinowicz and other English Jews of standing, who are even now
more or less active in the Zionist Organization; but we read the names
of the late Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, Dr. H. Adler, the late Lord
Swaythling, Mr. Elkan Adler, Albert Jessel, Mr. Joseph Prag (who was
one of the most active members), Joseph Nathan, Louis Schloss, Haim
Guedalla, Captain H. Lewis-Barned, Bernard Birnbaum, Mr. Herman Landau
and other distinguished members of the community, as among those of the
prominent enthusiastic supporters of the _Chovevé Zion_ movement who
did not join the new Zionist Organization. The same phenomenon strikes
us in France. There the new Zionism was confronted on the part of the
_Chovevé Zion_ by an opposition that was even stronger than in England.
An impartial historian, desirous of reviewing the facts as they were
revealed in Jewish life and literature, would in vain endeavour to
discover any essential difference between the _Chovevé Zion_ and the
Zionist fundamental principles. He could trace a complete and clear
conception of political Zionism through centuries of English history
or Jewish history in England, and on the other hand also efforts and
undertakings in the direction of colonization pursued with great energy
and care by forces that are generally found to be co-operating with
political Zionism. A sober and dispassionate examination of all these
ideas without regard to mere catchwords must lead to the conclusion
that Sir Moses Montefiore’s representations to Mehemet Ali in 1838 were
substantially the same as Herzl made to Abdul Hamid in 1898. However,
both aimed at a legally assured home and both insisted that Palestine
should belong to the Jewish people. And no real student of contemporary
Jewish history will imagine that Sir Moses was an isolated dreamer.
He never undertook anything in Jewish affairs without consulting the
authorities of his time. One of his advisers was Louis Loewe, the
well-known Jewish scholar and his secretary for many years.
Dr. Louis Loewe (1809‒88), who was educated at the _Yeshibot_ of Lissa,
Nikolsburg, Presburg, and at the University of Berlin, came to England
in 1839 and was appointed by the Duke of Sussex to be his Orientalist.
He then travelled in the East, where he studied languages. In Cairo he
was presented to Mehemet Ali, for whom he translated some hieroglyphic
inscriptions. On his return from Palestine he met at Rome Sir Moses and
Lady Montefiore, who invited him to travel with them to Palestine. When,
in 1840, Sir Moses went on his Damascus expedition, Loewe accompanied
him as his interpreter. Since that time Loewe was attached to Sir
Moses as his personal friend and secretary. He accompanied Sir Moses
on nine different missions. He wrote several valuable works on oriental
subjects: _The Origin of the Egyptian Language_, London, 1837; A
Dictionary of the Circassian Language, 1859; a Nubian Grammar and
several pamphlets――and translated J. B. Levinsohn’s _Efes Damim_
(1871) and David Nieto’s _Matteh Dan_ (1842). Dr. Loewe was an ardent
supporter of all schemes in favour of Palestine and strongly assisted
David Gordon, the editor of the _Ha-Magid_, who was an enthusiastic and
outspoken political Zionist years before Herzl.
We have already mentioned to what an extent the Chief Rabbi, Dr. N. M.
Adler, influenced Sir Moses’ works in Palestine. Nathan Adler was born
at Hanover in 1803. He received his education at the Universities of
Göttingen, Erlangen and Würzburg. Already as a youth his abilities
proved him to be particularly adapted to the discharge of rabbinical
functions. In 1829 he was appointed Chief Rabbi of Oldenburg; in 1830
his jurisdiction was transferred to Hanover and all its provinces.
His fame spread beyond the Rhine and reached England just when the
Jewish population there was in need of a spiritual leader. In 1844 the
election took place for Chief Rabbi of the Ashkenazi Congregations of
Great Britain and the choice fell on Dr. Adler. He was inducted into
office on July 9th, 1845. His activity and influence during his lengthy
career as Chief Rabbi proved a blessing and were attended with most
invaluable results. His calling did not prevent him from contributing
excellent literary productions, mostly in Hebrew, the principal of
which is Nethino La-Ger’s commentary on the Targum of Onkelos. There
is no doubt that this famous Rabbi and great Jew was in close touch
with Sir Moses in all the steps the latter took for the colonizing of
Palestine for a political as well as philanthropic purpose.
Many of the most important Jewish scholars arriving in England, and
becoming in course of time the pride of English Jewry, were much
attracted by the idea that England was the classical soil for a
fruitful work in Palestine. It is worth noting that Dr. Albert Löwy
belonged also to this group. He was born on the 10th of December,
1816, at Aussig in Moravia. After his _barmizwah_ (attainment of his
religious majority――the age of thirteen) he was sent to a public school
at Leipzig. Later he attended the University and Polytechnic at Vienna.
There he first met his lifelong friends, Moritz Steinschneider and
Abraham Benisch. Löwy and his friends formed “Die Einheit,” a society
whose object was to promote the welfare of the Jewish people. In order
to realize this object the colonization of Palestine by the Austrian
Jews was advocated. The first meeting of the new society was held in
1838, in Löwy’s room. The object, however, had to be kept secret for
fear lest it would be defeated by the Government. England was regarded
as the country likely to welcome the new movement, and, as an emissary
of the Students’ Jewish National Society, Löwy was sent to London in
1841. Years afterwards he took a leading part in London in the
foundation of a body with kindred objects, the Anglo-Jewish Association.
To the same group of noble-minded men who raised themselves to the
height of a national and Zionist conception of a superior kind belonged
also the afore-mentioned Abraham Benisch, one of the creators of the
Anglo-Jewish Press, the author of the _Jewish School and Family Bible_
(1851), the translator of _Petahiah ben Jacob’s Travels_ (1856), and
for many years editor of the _Jewish Chronicle_. If there ever was a
Jewish nationalist, this important Anglo-Jewish writer was one beyond
a doubt. He was a man of great abilities and learning, and rendered
valuable assistance in the propaganda for and in the organization of
the societies for the colonization of Palestine. In several leading
articles written by him, with great tact and sagacity, he expounded
――particularly in connection with the political events of 1856 and of
1861――the root principles of political Zionism.
Another remarkable Jewish scholar and pioneer of Zionism in his time
was the Rev. M. J. Raphall, who was a brilliant writer and also a
pioneer of the Anglo-Jewish Press. He edited the _Hebrew Review and
Magazine for Jewish Literature_ in 1837, which was resumed in 1859.
Some years later he edited, together with the Rev. A. de Sola, the
_Voice of Jacob_, which had been founded by Jacob Franklin in 1841.
He afterwards settled in America and assisted there in the fifties
of last century, together with some distinguished American Jews, in
establishing in New York a society for the colonization of Palestine.
He was later engaged in similar work in Canada. Essentially a student
and a scholar, he devoted many years of his life to the propaganda of
the Jewish national ideas.
It is impossible to conjure away all the facts showing, firstly,
that the supposed differences between the _Chovevé Zion_ movement and
the new Zionism are mere phraseology, and, secondly, that the best
representatives of Anglo-Jews were nationalist and Zionist. The refusal
to accept the new Zionism on the part of some representatives of the
_Chovevé Zion_ movement for that reason can only be regarded as a
temporary misunderstanding.
The new Zionism made headway in England especially through the efforts
of the two organizations: the English Zionist Federation and the
Ancient Order of Maccabeans.
The English Zionist Federation was formed in pursuance of a resolution
passed by the Clerkenwell Conference of March, 1898, for the purpose
of finding a common platform upon which Zionists of all shades of
opinion could co-operate. A committee was appointed by the Conference
to draw up a scheme, and that committee established the Federation.
When the Federation was started it received support from eight
societies, representing five towns: after six months, sixteen societies,
representing nine towns, had joined: at the time of the Fourth Congress,
thirty-eight societies, representing twenty-nine towns, were affiliated.
This was the first stage of development prior to the London Congress of
the Zionist Organization.
The appearance of English Zionist Delegates at the First Congress has
already been alluded to. After the First Congress Dr. Gaster published
the following letter in the _Times_ of the 29th of August, 1897:――
“The movement aims at the solution of one of the most complex modern
social problems in Europe, and the means which are to be employed
towards the solution are the realization of deep-seated religious
hopes and ideals. For this very reason men from all the ranks of Jewish
society and all shades of Jewish religion are here united in the common,
noble, lofty and humanitarian purpose――the restoration of Israel, which
is, moreover, the true fulfilment of the words of our Prophets.
“It is surprising to find ... the incorrect statement that the
agitation is the outcome of anti-Semitism. It existed long before this
word even was coined. It prompted the Jews of Russia and Roumania many
years ago to found colonies in Palestine. But this movement is felt to
be inadequate to cope with the whole question. The political situation
of the Jews has since made enormous strides. The number of Zionists
with a definite aim before their eyes has grown rapidly. They are
recruited from among the young enthusiasts on the Continent. University
Professors and students, scholars and workmen are joining hands. They
belong most exclusively to the orthodox and embrace the vast majority
of the Jewish people. The Bible and the Prayer Book are the text, and
this agitation is merely the practical commentary.... I, as an orthodox
Rabbi, beg to differ radically from ... (the anti-Zionist views).... It
is not here the place to enter upon dogmatic questions and I therefore
refrain from discussing the ‘miracles’ that are to happen on that
day when Israel is to return to the land of his fathers. God chooses
human agencies to carry out His Will, and it is after it has been
accomplished that we become aware of the renewing circumstances,
unexpected and unlooked for, which have all contributed to bring about
the result, which before would have appeared to be little short of a
miracle. Whether the restoration will be accomplished by the purchase
of Palestine, or by unexpected political combinations or by other
peculiar circumstances, it would be idle to dogmatize about.
“One thing is certain. The whole orthodox and realistic Jewry, which
does not volatilize the words of the Prophets, and does not look upon
the Divine promises as so many spiritual symbols to be interpreted
away according to each one’s fancy, is now assembled in spirit at the
Congress and watches its deliberations with sympathy and elevated hope.”
We have already mentioned that Rabbi Mohilewer had sent his
congratulations to the Congress. The contents of Rabbi Mohilewer’s
expressions may be briefly noted as a supplement to Dr. Gaster’s letter.
Rabbi Mohilewer wrote that as the state of his health did not permit
him to travel, he sent the Congress his blessing in writing. Harmony
and concord should exist among all Zionists, even if their religious
views differed. The colonization of Palestine was recommended as a
religious duty――religion should therefore be a leading factor in the
Zionist movement. They should also bear in mind that it was a duty to
construct and not to demolish, and they should preserve the honour of
the rabbis, who were thoroughly patriotic as regarded the land in which
they lived. For the past two thousand years, the Jews had awaited the
advent of the Messiah, who would take them back to the land of their
fathers. But in our country men had risen who had abandoned this hope
and had eliminated it from the Prayer Book. Several of the rabbis in
Western Europe had declared against the Zionist movement, and one of
them had gone so far as to assert that the movement was contrary to
the biblical prophecies, as the Messiah was only to be symbolized and
the Jews were to remain in exile. He declared this to be wholly untrue.
Their faith was that God would send a Redeemer to bring back the People
to their own land, and that the Jewish people would, once again, be
honoured among the nations. Zionism does not interfere with this deep
belief; it is rather in harmony with it, and it prepares the way.
These two letters were a sort of _profession de foi_ on the part of two
rabbis representing different sections of traditional Jewry in England
and Russia respectively.
The Second Zionist Congress at Basle, 1898, was attended much more
numerously than the first one. There were over four hundred delegates,
and the English Zionists had sent a larger contingent (the Haham, Dr.
M. Gaster, had a Roumanian mandate; Jacob de Haas, Leopold J. Greenberg,
E. W. Rabbinowicz, B. Ritter, A. Snowman, S. Claff, J. Massel, Dr.
Moses Umanski, Herbert Bentwich and others). The presence of Dr.
Gaster, who was one of the most energetic spirits of the Congress, was
a great gain to the Movement. The English delegates adopted thoroughly
English methods. They were not seen standing about in groups and knots
in the passages and ante-rooms delivering impassioned speeches. The
oratorical contributions of the English delegates were few, and none
of them, except Dr. Gaster’s powerful address towards the close of the
proceedings, took up more than a few minutes. But the English delegates
worked hard in Committee and at special conferences.
At that time the number of Zionist Associations in Great Britain and
Ireland had reached twenty-six (Leeds three, Glasgow, London, Liverpool
and Manchester two each; Belfast, Cardiff, Cork, Dublin, Edinburgh,
Exeter, Hanley, Hull, Limerick, Newcastle, Newport, Norwich, Plymouth,
Portsmouth and Sunderland one each), and in France――three, out of the
total number of the Associations all over the world of 913.
The _Jewish Chronicle_, writing about the Second Congress, remarked:
“There is the remarkable point of the Congress――in strong relief with
the comparative paucity of the personnel of the English representatives
is the undoubted English influence that has been exerted. Indeed,
the net result of the Second Basle Congress is that Zionism has made
a distinct move towards England. Indeed, it would look as if events
were so shaping themselves that the Mountain having refused to go to
Mahomed, Mahomed is coming to the Mountain. The Bank is to be located
in England, so is the Colonization Commission. This may have been
the result――probably it was――of England’s supreme position among all
the great Continental Nations, not only in regard to its undoubted
stability politically, but also its unique position towards Jews.”
The Third Zionist Congress at Basle, 1899, was attended by a still
larger number of delegates from the United Kingdom. There were: Dr. M.
Gaster, Joseph Cowen, J. de Haas, Murray Rosenberg, Herbert Bentwich,
L. J. Greenberg, S. Stungo, J. Massel, Rabbi Yoffey, Rabbi Dagutzky,
M. L. Dight, Rabbi Wolf, and others――representing London, Leeds,
Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Belfast, Edinburgh,
Sheffield, Limerick, Grimsby Associations. According to a report of
Mr. L. J. Greenberg, who had already become an energetic propagandist
of the new Zionism in England, the work was progressing. He referred
also to the activities of Mr. Herbert Bentwich, for if it had not
been for him no such organization would have existed in England. The
Congress elected as members of the Colonization Committee Dr. Gaster,
Mr. Murray Rosenberg and Mr. David Wolffe, and of the Propaganda
Committee, Mr. L. J. Greenberg and Mr. J. de Haas.
The Fourth Zionist Congress was held in London at the Queen’s Hall,
August 13‒16, 1900. London had been chosen with a view to further
influence British public opinion, seeing that in no country had the
Zionist propaganda been received more sympathetically and intelligently
by the general public. Dr. Herzl said in his inaugural address at the
Fourth Congress in London, 1900:――
“I feel there is no necessity for me to justify the holding of the
Congress in London. England is one of the last remaining places on
earth where there is freedom from Jewish hatred. Throughout the wide
world there is but one spot left in which God’s ancient people are
not detested and persecuted. But, from the fact that the Jews in this
glorious land enjoy full freedom and complete human rights, we must
not allow ourselves to draw future conclusions. He would be a poor
friend of the Jews in England, as well as of the Jews who reside in
other countries, who would advise the persecuted to flee hither. Our
brethren here would tremble in their shoes if their position meant the
attraction to these shores of our desperate brethren in other lands.
Such an immigration would mean disaster equally for the Jews here, as
for those who would come here. For the latter, with their miserable
bundles, would bring with them that from which they flee――I mean
anti-Semitism.”
In the course of his address he uttered the following prophetic
words:――
“The land of Palestine is not only the home of the highest ideas and
most unhappy nation, but it is also by reason of its geographical
position, of immense importance to the whole of Europe. The road of
civilization and commerce leads again to Asia.”
According to the report read at this Fourth Congress by M. Oscar
Marmorek “they had thirty-eight societies in England as against sixteen
last year, and all these Societies had increased their membership.
Thanks to the activity of the English Zionist Federation, Zionism had
greatly prospered in England and had won the esteem of Christians. In
Canada there was scarcely a town with a Hebrew congregation where a
Zionist society did not exist.”
CHAPTER XLIXB.
England and Zionism――Sir B. Arnold in the _Spectator_
――Cardinal Vaughan――Lord Rosebery――The Death of Herzl――David
Wolffsohn――Prof. Otto Warburg――Zionism in the smaller states.
THE Uganda scheme, which was due to the initiative of Joseph
Chamberlain, led to an intimate acquaintance between the Zionist leader
and this great English statesman. This project, as well as the El Arish
expedition, which failed in consequence of technical difficulties,
made Zionism not only a living factor in Judaism from an international
standpoint, but also a political factor that was given consideration by
one great Government, namely, that of England.
Subsequent events, instead of diminishing, have only more firmly
increased Zionist confidence in the sympathy of English public opinion
for Palestinian Zionism. There is hardly an appeal so eloquently
written as Sir B. Arnold’s address, published in the _Spectator_,
October, 1903: “You have a country, the inheritance of your fathers,
finer, more fruitful, better situated for commerce, than many of the
most celebrated places of the globe. Environed by the lovely shores
of the Mediterranean, the lofty steppes of Arabia and of rocky Sinai,
your country extends along the shores of the Mediterranean, crowned by
the towering cedars of the Lebanon, the source of rivulets and brooks,
which spread fruitfulness over shady dales. A glorious land! situated
at the furthest extremity of the sea which connects three-quarters of
the globe, over which the Phœnicians sent their numerous fleets to the
shores of Britain, near to both the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf: the
central country of the commerce between the East and the West. Every
country has its peculiarity: every people their own genius. No people
of the earth have lived so true to their calling from the first as
you have done. The Arab has maintained his language and his original
country: on the Nile, in the deserts, as far as Sinai, and beyond the
Jordan, he feeds his flocks. In the elevated plains of Asia Minor the
Turkoman has conquered for himself a second country, the birthplace
of the Osman: but Palestine has a thin population. For centuries the
battlefield between the sons of Altai and the Arabian wilderness, the
inhabitants of the West and the half-nomadic Persians, none have been
able to establish themselves and maintain their nationality: no nation
can claim the name of Palestine. A chaotic mixture of tribes and
tongues; remnants of migrations from north and south, they disturb one
another in the possession of the glorious land where your fathers for
so many centuries emptied the cup of joy, and so where every inch is
drenched with the blood of your heroes when their bodies were buried
under the ruins of Jerusalem.”
It is obvious that these and other similar appeals and encouraging
statements made a deep impression upon Zionists. This gave rise to the
assumption that Zionism was merely concerned with English interest.
It is needless to say that such a statement is as unfounded as the one
ascribing to Zionism the pursuance of any other political interest.
Zionism is a cause of humanity and justice, altogether remote from any
political speculation: it can help the Jews, it can be useful to any
country interested in the development of the East, it can be beneficial
to all the neighbouring nations. It was only the spirit of the Bible
which enabled the English people to appreciate the justice and the
moral equity of the endeavour to raise up in the old land a free,
united, prosperous and energetic Jewish nation, attached by the closest
ties of friendship to European civilization, carrying not only into
the East the civilization of the West, just as in the Middle Ages their
forefathers brought the torch of culture to the West――that torch of
enlightenment which they have borne aloft in their journey from the
East, and which has enabled them to accomplish cultural work of their
own.
Cardinal Vaughan referred in 1902 most sympathetically to Zionism in
the following words: “I have always taken a great interest in the Jews,
they were once the chosen people. I marvel at the strength they retain
amid most unfavourable conditions. I admire their industry, their
domestic virtues and their mental force, and I can only wish success
to a plan which promises them such great advantages.”
Lord Rosebery pointed out, in one of his speeches, that the silent
campaigns of commerce are at least as decisive of the fate of nations
as the noisy operations of the battlefield. Even as the spasms
and convulsions of nature, though she works through them, are less
important than the slow, silent, everyday forces, so history is made
less by the fire and sword of the fighters than by the humble, prosaic
working-classes. The Jews were aware of the fact that not by soldiers
has the great British Empire been built up, but by Trading Companies:
India by the East India Company, Canada by the Hudson Bay Fur
Company, South Africa by Mining Companies. The East India Company was
incorporated in 1600; a few years later (1607) the earliest permanent
settlement of Virginia was founded. The Pilgrim Fathers――a movement
somewhat similar to Zionism――began their noble work in 1620; and
West Indian colonization was inaugurated with the occupation of the
Barbadoes in 1625. Half to three-quarters of a century the work went
apace in North America, colony after colony was added to the British
Crown. Then other regions began to attract the British, and a new era
dawned with the occupation of Gibraltar in 1704.
All the great achievements of British peaceful conquests encouraged the
Zionist Movement with its trusts and funds. Cecil Rhodes, with only a
million pounds to start with, created Rhodesia with its 750, 000 square
miles. The British North Borneo Company has a capital of £800, 000 and
dominates over 31,000 square miles. The British East African Company,
which administered 200,000 square miles, began with the same amount as
the Jewish Colonial Trust, namely, £250,000.
It is true that the Zionist Palestinian scheme presented other
difficulties, but where was any great work undertaken which did not
present difficulties? Is not the whole history of the Jews a struggle
for existence amid the greatest of difficulties? The Jews in their
normal condition were an agricultural people. During the centuries
of depression and persecution they had to abandon their old vocation.
Dispersed throughout all countries, yet fugitives from every land, the
Jews, who could call no place their home, had to turn to commerce or
to handicraft for a means of livelihood, and were thus able to carry
about with them everywhere that kind of labour power that they knew to
be realizable everywhere. Yet, inexorable necessity as it was, it was
a breaking with the nation’s own self. And is the present situation
without its difficulties? Let those answer who know something of the
hardships, the privations, the squalor, the wretchedness amid which
three-quarters of the Jewish people live throughout their lives. And,
as to financial means, even under present circumstances it is necessary
for the continuance of the present misery, to collect millions and
millions, whereby indescribable energies are wasted――without any real
help being given.
Inspired by these ideas, and with this object in view, the propaganda
was continued when suddenly, in 1904, the Zionist Organization
sustained the greatest loss ever experienced by any Organization. Herzl
had worked too hard; his exertions, his experiences and his emotions
had been such as to exhaust the strength of this strongest of physical
and intellectual giants. It was too much for one human being to bear;
nature was unduly taxed and he broke down. On the 3rd of July, 1904,
Herzl breathed his last in the villa “Home, Sweet Home” at Reichenau,
on the Semmering Mountain, south of Vienna. His memory will be
cherished for ever by the Jewish people.
David Wolffsohn (1856‒1914), the Zionist representative and worker,
who had distinguished himself since the very beginning of the movement,
succeeded Herzl. David Wolffsohn’s career was eminently that of a
self-made man of the kind that old Dr. Smiles would have delighted
to portray. A man of attractive and imposing appearance, of a loving
disposition and mild grace, and with a real sense of Jewish humour,
rare gifts of adaptability and extraordinary capacity for managing and
leading forward in active work, he was a splendid type of a self-made
man. But, from a Zionist point of view, he was more than that: he was
Herzl’s great friend and confidant. His autobiography is given in
Appendix LXXXIII.
David Wolffsohn, practically chosen by the Actions Committee and
all Zionist authorities, took over the leadership of the Zionist
Organization, during the interim between Herzl’s death and the Seventh
Congress in 1906. He had first intended to transfer the headquarters to
Berlin, but afterwards decided to give Cologne, the city of his home,
the preference. He was assisted in this important and responsible work
by two distinguished Zionists: Professor O. Warburg of Berlin and M.
Jacobus Kann of the Hague. The activities of Professor Warburg have
been described elsewhere in this volume: they tended in the direction
of colonization, and were almost wholly concentrated upon this domain.
M. Jacobus Kann, a member of an old and highly respected banking firm
in Holland, was more interested in the financial institutions of the
organization. He joined the Zionist Organization at the very beginning
and has served the Zionist cause whole-heartedly and devotedly,
particularly in the founding of the Jewish Colonial Trust, the
Anglo-Palestine Company and all the other financial institutions. He
travelled in Palestine, wrote a book (_Erez Israel_) dealing with his
impressions, and is also active in the Zionist work in his own country.
Holland has a well-organized and active Zionist Organization, to which
great impetus was given by the Eighth Congress at The Hague, 1909.
M. de Liema, Professor Orenstein, Dr. Edersheim, M. Cohen, M. Pool
and many others are among the prominent leaders. They take a very
active part in the general organization work and in that of the Jewish
National Fund, the headquarters of which at present are at The Hague.
The Dutch Zionist Federation has an excellent weekly paper, _Het
Judischer Wachter_, which has appeared regularly for several years,
and contains much information concerning Zionist and Jewish matters
as well as other excellent articles and contributions. It is worthy of
note that Zionism in Holland has had for several years now a Zionist
University Movement――with some good publications――which was started by
Orenstein, Edersheim and others. Mention of Holland reminds one that a
place of honour in Zionist history belongs to Belgium, and particularly
to Antwerp, which has been for several years a first-class Zionist
centre. Messieurs Jean Fischer, Oscar Fischer, S. Tolkowsky, Dr. Wulf,
Ruben Cohn, the late Mehrlender, Grunzweig and many others, occupying
important positions in the general Zionist Organization, made Zionism
a living force in Belgian Jewry. M. Jean Fischer is a member of the
Actions Committee and of the great financial institutions of Zionism:
he and his friends have taken an important part in colonization
undertakings in Palestine of which the devoted pioneer M. S. Tolkowsky
is the representative at Rechoboth. M. Fischer visited Palestine and
wrote a book containing his observations. Belgian Zionists had also
a paper of their own, _L’Esperance_ (_Ha-Tikvah_), which brought very
valuable contributions and information.
In connection with Zionism the smaller countries of Central and
Southern Europe, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries also
deserve special mention. Switzerland, the land of the Zionist
Congresses, has a good organization, of which Dr. Camille Levy, Dr.
Felix Pinkus, M. Levy are the most notable. They were always very
active in propaganda, had their delegates at the Congresses and always
made their regular contributions. Denmark and Sweden have now had for
some years a good Zionist Organization, and, of late, are developing
great activity, owing to the Zionist Office which has been established
at Copenhagen. Roumania and Bulgaria are still more important as great
centres of Zionist activity. Roumania was almost equal to Russia in the
_Chovevé Zion_ movement. Now, M. Pineles, M. Schein, M. Schwarzfeld,
the learned and well-known Dr. Nacht and Dr. Nemirower, with many other
leaders are at work in that country.