from six hundred and forty towns. There were delegates from Turkestan,
Bokhara, and the Crimea. In addition, there were present five hundred
visitors from provincial towns and over one thousand one hundred
visitors from Petrograd.
A unique historic document was placed before the Convention when the
Chairman read the full text of the Military Order of the Day, issued
and signed by General Alexeieff, Commander-in-Chief of the Western
Front, permitting the Jewish soldiers to elect from their number
delegates to the Convention, and furnishing passes and transportation
to the delegates to facilitate their presence at the gathering.
The spokesman of the soldier-delegates read the following resolution,
which had been adopted by his colleagues:――
“We――Jewish soldier-delegates from the Army――who participate
in this Convention, avow to the Convention, and to the Jewish
people:
“Hundreds and thousands of Jews are in battle in the Russian
Army. In a time of outlawry and terrible persecution, under
the burden of false accusations, the Jewish soldiers fulfilled
their full military duty. In the ocean of blood poured out by
the heroic Russian Army, there is no little of Jewish blood.
“Now, having become free citizens of Russia, and fully
privileged members of the Army, the Jewish soldiers will
continue their efforts in a new spirit of enthusiasm.
Believing that the strengthening of the revolution, and the
strengthening of the peoples in Russia can be accomplished
only through the union of all the peoples and by a strong
discipline in the free army, the Jewish soldiers declare
triumphantly that they are prepared to follow the call of the
revolutionary democracy to defend Russia against her enemies.
“We believe that the Russian democracy, which has assumed the
task of freeing all the peoples of the world, will understand
the strivings of our people, and will support Jewry in its
efforts to create a national centre for the Jewish people, on
its historic soil, Palestine.”
The Conference carried the following resolutions:――
“Considering first that the Jewish people, in view of its
disposition and dispersion all over the world, can recreate
for itself conditions for the normal development of its
national, cultural, and economic life, only through the
restoration of a national autonomous centre in its historic
home, Palestine,
“Secondly, that the Jewish nation has never severed its ties
with its ancient home, and has always longed for it, and that
its moral and historic right to Palestine is incontestable and
irremovable,
“Thirdly, that the aspirations of the Jewish nation, so
manifested, fully coincide with the great principle of
self-definition, of freedom and independence for the
development of all nations proclaimed by the democracies
and governments of all countries:
“The Zionist Conference in Russia unanimously expresses its
firm belief that when establishing the basis of the future
national and political life, the nations will recognize and
count with the clearly-stated will of the Jewish nation for
the resettlement and rebirth of Palestine as its national
centre, and will consequently create conditions guaranteeing
the free and successful development of the concentrated Jewish
forces and of the restoration of Palestine.
“To ensure the concrete and full manifestation of the will
of the Jewish nation, the Conference considers it necessary
first to organize among the Jews a referendum on the question;
secondly, to lay before the All-Russian Jewish Congress the
question of Jewish claims in Palestine; and thirdly, to claim
the admission of a representative of the Jewish nation at
the future peace conference, to be held upon the closing of
hostilities, for the expression of the wishes of the Jewish
nation, and for the defence of its historic and national
rights and interests.”
The same spirit was revealed also by the Jews of Poland. In May,
1917, a Zionist Conference was held in Warsaw, attended by nearly four
hundred delegates representing a large number of committees, synagogues,
societies and groups consisting of all classes of the Jewish population.
A sort of plebiscite was arranged among the Jews of Poland, with a view
to ascertaining their attitude towards Zionism. The plebiscite resulted
in the acceptance of a resolution in favour of Zionism.
All these and many other facts prove that the Zionist idea has made
great progress among the Jewish masses. But under the new circumstances
Zionism required more than the usual propaganda: it required work,
political work.
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES IN ENGLAND AND THE ALLIED COUNTRIES
The introduction into this book of a comprehensive account of the
various _démarches_ on behalf of the Zionist cause recently undertaken
in English political circles, and also in allied countries, is rendered
difficult by the following considerations. In the first place, the
publication of pourparlers which have taken place, and of schemes
which have been, or are to be, submitted, is impossible, because they
are still in progress, and their final issue is dependent on further
developments. In the second place, the author feels great embarrassment,
being compelled to break the rule hitherto observed of avoiding any
reference to his own share in the work of the movement. In this section,
however, he has participated so directly in the _démarches_ referred to
that it was quite impossible to speak of them at all without referring
occasionally to his share in the political activities.
A glance, however, at recent political efforts appeared indispensable,
in order to bring the history of Zionism up to date. But there is no
claim that the following account is more than an outline of the most
important events. With these provisos we pass to the facts themselves.
It was at once clear that England was destined to play a most important
part in Zionist politics. London from the beginning was the financial
centre of the Zionist Organization and the Mecca of political Zionism.
Even at the time of the _Chovevé Zion_ Movement England was regarded,
as it were, as the country that stands between the “_Galuth_” and
“Salvation.” When the idea of Palestine had begun to be popularized
among the Jews of Russia and Poland――long before the name “Zionism”
had become current――Disraeli’s _Tancred_ and George Eliot’s _Daniel
Deronda_ were translated into _Hebrew_. The name of Sir Moses
Montefiore was in the mouth of all Jews in Eastern Europe, and his
journeys to Palestine, in connection with his great plans, had long
since grown legendary. English Jews were valued because of this famous
individual; they were considered simply as national Jews, whether they
really were so or not. From a distance the observer did not recognize
the mediocrity, the parochialism and dissensions; he saw the summits
only, and they appeared splendid. A man like Albert Goldsmid, who was
an English colonel and also a national Jew, appeared to be a type such
as could hardly be found in any other country. That was rich material
for the Jewish imagination, which fed upon it and made it much greater
than the truth. It was, however, not imagination, pure and simple; a
sound political instinct was also at work here. The Jewish _Ghetto_
had for long prophesied that it is England’s destiny to decide
the fate of Palestine, and however much one may smile at the
speculations of _Ghetto_ politicians, these had, nevertheless, in
their quick-wittedness understood much that is sometimes hidden from
professional politicians. Moreover, this was not the politics of
the _Ghetto_ only. Herzl did not know the _Ghetto_, and received no
information from it; notwithstanding this, all roads led him to London.
It was in London that he for the first time in his life publicly took
part in Jewish life. At a later period again, the offer of a territory
in East Africa was made by the English Government; the El-Arish
Expedition was organized by England. Zionist finance was English, and
English was the Zionist political outlook.
In the pre-war period the Zionist Organization had everywhere sought
connections. True to its programme, desiring a charter from the Ottoman
Government, with the approval of the great Powers, it worked without
intrigue and adventure, honestly anxious to get this charter with
the approval of all nations. In this matter, England always took the
first place. Herzl and his followers had worked zealously in England.
This work was continued after Herzl’s death. The author also, in his
capacity as member of the Zionist Executive, visited this country
several times. The impressions gained here were always stimulating and
interesting, but the Zionist question was not prominent.
The question became prominent with the outbreak of the war. The thought
lay uppermost, that the work must be carried on here in England, that,
if possible, it must be concentrated here. If this thought was evident
to the Zionists of other countries, was it any wonder that it deeply
stirred the English Zionists? Thus it happened that this thought found
an excellent champion and representative in the person of Dr. Chaim
Weizmann. He took counsel with his colleagues in England, and together
with them began to consider the question of what was to be done in
England, in order to make the political problem of Zionism a problem
of the day. The idea that England was the most important centre, and
offered the most promising prospect of success, was neither new nor
the opinion of a single party; it had become rather the property of the
whole Zionist Organization. But it was now something entirely different
from what it used to be formerly. Formerly Zionism was an abstract idea;
in spite of all Herzl’s great achievements, the problem remained merely
a project. It is the political problem we are talking about, because
the intellectual and practical labour of Zionists for Palestine had
been a reality during the whole time of the _Chovevé Zion_ and the
Zionist movements. Now, however, political Zionism has also become a
reality. If the war has taught us anything at all it surely is this,
that nothing is more fatal than an attitude of indifference towards
problems of international politics. The practical and intellectual
members of the Zionist Organization, too, who used to look down upon
politics, have changed their attitude towards them. Formerly, they
may have been entirely or partially right――the intellectual were
undoubtedly right in proclaiming that the spiritual in Zionism must be
the soul of the whole movement, and the practical ones also were right
in establishing the early colonies, and it is only a pity that more
considerable progress was not made――but now all were agreed that, in
consideration of the new possibilities, the movement must come into
relation with the political forces, and the establishment of actual
relations constituted a great many-sided and responsible work, which
had to be carried out, at first in England, but also partly in other
countries of the _Entente_.
One of the most distinguished representatives of the Zionist idea in
this country is the Very Rev. Dr. Moses Gaster, the late _Haham_ of the
Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ congregations in England, who from early
youth occupied a respected and influential position, in the time of
_Chovevé Zion_ as well as in Zionism, and devoted himself also with
great zeal to the political question of Zionism. He also represented
the view that a wide field for political efforts lay open here, and he
freely gave his time and his eloquence in the service of the cause. In
this direction he was very active, especially in the earlier stages.
The Very Rev. Dr. Joseph Herman Hertz, Chief _Rabbi_ of the United
Congregations of the British Empire, has evinced a sympathy with the
Zionist Movement which at certain pregnant moments was equivalent to
declaring himself at one with Zionism. His affiliation with the Zionist
idea goes back to _Chovevé-Zion_ days, and subsequently he became
one of the founders of the “South African Zionist Federation.” The
Spiritual Leader of British Jewry has ever been a sincere friend of the
movement, and on various decisive occasions has championed the idea,
defending it, explaining it, and encouraging it. In the new development,
especially in the months preceding the “Declaration,” his help in
connection therewith has been of far-reaching and lasting importance.
The inspiring spirit and the driving force, he who most successfully
had made many distinguished non-Jewish personalities familiar with
Zionism and who championed with all his energy and enthusiasm a Zionist
political programme in England, was Dr. Chaim Weizmann. In the very
earliest months of the war he began to collect the threads for the
political work, to rouse the Zionist circles with which he was in touch,
to revive old connections in non-Jewish circles and to form new ones,
to prepare for negotiations――in a word, to open up the work that was
destined later on to become a properly-organized programme. Herein
he had the support of a group of enthusiastic and deeply sympathetic
Zionists, and was strengthened and stimulated in his initiative by them.
The first attempts to confer with the Government representatives about
Zionism were made: the impressions were satisfactory. One foresaw that
this contained the germs of promising possibilities. These impressions
led to the conclusion that mere discussions alone were not sufficient,
but rather that it was necessary to formulate plans. In order to
formulate plans and in order to obtain authority from the Zionist
Organization to submit these plans (for such appeared to be the
next step) it would be necessary to establish a centre in London,
and to obtain the necessary representative powers. It would also be
necessary to write more about Zionism: to publish books, to undertake
propagandist work――in another and more direct manner. The means
were also considered to win over the non-Zionist, perhaps even the
anti-Zionist, Jewish elements. All these aims were discussed, weighed,
and elaborated by a small circle. It was not the whole of English
Jewry, it was not even the then existing English Zionist Federation;
it was really a circle of a few Zionists, mostly intellectuals who
corresponded with Dr. Weizmann, and met and took counsel with him.
From that time forward the Zionist idea began to occupy the attention
of the English Press. The question became topical, the old English
traditions found new expression. Most people had no conception that
they were speaking in the spirit of old traditions――for few knew of
this remote chapter in ♦English history――but they did it unconsciously,
which makes their action perhaps even more valuable. Many a journalist
among the élite of the intellectuals not only gave assistance to the
cause of Zionism in the Press, but went a step further, and helped
vigorously in the political work. In connection with this matter the
name of the doyen of English journalism, Mr. C. P. Scott, Editor of
the _Manchester Guardian_, may be especially mentioned. Since the very
beginning Mr. C. P. Scott has given the whole problem a very careful
and sympathetic attention, and was an influential mediator between
Zionists and leaders of British politics. He and Dr. Weizmann had
conversations with some personalities, who strengthened them in their
hopes that the ground was favourable for Zionism. Other Zionist workers
in England also shared their view, and Dr. Gaster, too, in conjunction
with Dr. Weizmann, had some important conversations with English
leaders. The impressions which both had formed confirmed the hope that
Zionism has a great future in England.
♦ “Engish” replaced with “English”
We can by this time, without committing any indiscretion, take this
opportunity of mentioning one of the influential personalities who had
given great and never-to-be forgotten services in the cause of the
Zionist idea, that is the Rt. Hon. Herbert Samuel, late Home Secretary,
who unites in himself the brilliant qualities of an English statesman
with an enthusiastic attachment to Judaism, but had never yet taken an
active part in essentially Jewish affairs. His wonderful energy, his
distinguished talents and his patriotic zeal had for long been devoted
to the services of the country, and both in the Asquith ministry and in
Parliament he formed one of the most distinctive figures. Although he
directed his activities exclusively to questions of Home administration,
he turned his mind also from the commencement of the war to the great
political problems of foreign politics, and when the opportunity was
offered to become more acquainted with the Zionist idea, this idea
won his sympathy, and he championed it with the full force of his
convictions. It is sufficient to mention the words contained in his
speech at the Demonstration of December 2nd at the London Opera House:
“that he has stood for Zionism not only in the Cabinet, but also
outside it.” These were modest words. As a matter of fact, he has not
only stood for Zionism, but he has also done much to elucidate Zionist
questions. He merits truly a page of honour in the history of Zionism.
For the sake of historical accuracy, other distinguished persons must
be mentioned as well. We refer to some members of the famous House
of Rothschild. Volumes could be written concerning what Baron Edmond
_de_ Rothschild has done for colonization in Palestine. Far removed
from political activity and unwilling to play any official part in the
Zionist Organization, devoted with love and attachment to his country,
France, and at the same time inspired with the loftiest sentiments for
Judaism, this Nestor of true philanthropy cherishes a love for the idea
of regenerating Palestine that cannot be too highly valued. That he
has made this ideal one of the most beautiful traditions of his family
is shown by the fact that his son, James, has followed the example of
his father. This stimulating and instructive example could not fail to
influence the other branches of this great family also. The late Lord
Rothschild of London, who stood at the head of organized English Jewry,
was long regarded as an opponent of Zionism. But this opposition was
not a matter of principle, it was simply determined by circumstances:
the obstacles appeared to him insurmountable, and that was the only
reason for his opposition. In view of the different circumstances
caused by the war, he revised his former opinions, and shortly before
his death he began to take an interest in Zionism. Following this
lead, other members of this family also have taken up a favourable view
towards Zionism, and this view grew to a complete alliance with the
Zionist Organization on the part of the present Lord Rothschild.
In connection with this development, the very great services of Dr.
Weizmann in this same direction must be mentioned. Shortly before the
outbreak of war Dr. Weizmann had given much attention to the project of
founding a University in Jerusalem. This project, which met with great
approval, not only in Zionist circles but also elsewhere, brought him
into closer relations with the House of Rothschild, and this did much
to make the members of this family more closely acquainted with Zionism.
This was the position at the beginning of the war. The outlook was
promising, and a sound start had been made. But all this was waiting
for development, for deepening, for actualization. The English Zionist
Federation, being a local organization, could neither speak in the name
of the great masses of Zionists of the Entente countries nor could it
undertake the great political labour of propaganda organization. Thus
it happened that on the part of Dr. Weizmann, Dr. Gaster, and others,
the invitation was sent forth to the main organization to delegate two
of its representatives to London.
There was, however, still another matter which caused the coming of
the delegates of the general Zionist Organization in London to appear
necessary. Although the Organization remained uniform in its principles
and aims, an actual collaboration of Zionists throughout the world
in the pre-existing form had to be set aside for the time being. The
greatest numbers of Zionists live in Russia: there exist the persons
who are especially called to make Palestine their home, and there also
the majority of the most distinguished Jewish nationalists and the
leading spirits of a _Hebrew_ culture are most strongly represented.
The great Jewish community in America, which unites the intensity of
national consciousness of Russian Jews with the fresh spirit of liberty
of the New World, constitutes even more and more a reservoir, not
only of powerful material resources, but also of great organizing
motive-power, of influential initiative and endeavour, which are
doubtless destined to play a decisive part in the solution of the
Zionist problem. When, in addition to these facts, it is realized
that the great resources for the colonization of Palestine have been
contributed from Paris, by Baron Edmond _de_ Rothschild, where also
the headquarters of the Jewish Colonization Association are situated,
which has the disposal of the millions of the late Baron _de_ Hirsch,
and which, if the issues in Palestine are favourable, is destined
to develop its colonizing activities in this direction: when finally
the fact is remembered that London is the centre of all financial
institutions, then it will be easily understood that the whole
situation has brought England to a place of first importance in the
matter of Zionist activities, that it seemed a logical necessity that
certain representatives of the Organization had to move their residence
and their work hither, so as not only to maintain what already existed,
but also to prepare systematically the conditions for the new and rich
possibilities, together with the distinguished personal factors already
at work here.
In conclusion, one more circumstance must be mentioned, the importance
of which is also not to be under-rated. Though for a long time the
Zionist Organization had endeavoured to make Zionism the cause of the
entire Jewish people, the consciousness of the need for unity grew
as the war progressed. It was very desirable that those Jews who did
not consider themselves organized Zionists, should co-operate in the
realization of many practical plans. All the peoples involved in the
war had managed to create among their parties a so-called “_Union
Sacrée_,” and to form a united front. Why should this be impossible to
the Jews?
Soon after the outbreak of the war, the Zionist leaders in England had
attempted to come to an understanding with those indifferent to their
cause and with the so-called anti-Zionists, in order to render possible,
without renouncing the principles of Zionism, collaboration in working
out a practical scheme in Palestine.
All these motives led the leaders of English Zionism to request the
general organization to delegate here two of their representatives
――namely, Dr. Tschlenow of Moscow and the author, for the purpose
of assisting in the important work to be done in this country. They
arrived in London shortly before the end of the year 1914.
Space does not allow us to describe the work of these three years in
detail; we must therefore confine our attention to the chief features.
In the course of the first few months the work consisted in a searching
test of the attempts in hand: this test yielded a perfect agreement and
a verification of all reports made. In the early months of 1915 there
were new conferences with many leading personalities, with favourable
results. In March, 1915, Dr. Tschlenow, Dr. Weizmann, and the author
went to Paris, after Dr. Weizmann had previously visited Paris
again and again on Zionist business. Attention was then confined to
Jewish circles, and so far as non-Jewish circles were concerned a
certain general enquiry appeared to be necessary. At the same time,
attempts were made through conferences with a group of leading Jewish
personalities in London who stood aloof from Zionism, to bring about
an understanding. The Zionist delegation which was in charge of
these negotiations and this correspondence was composed of Dr. E. W.
Tschlenow, Dr. Moses Gaster, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Mr. Herbert Bentwich,
and the author. As an understanding just then appeared impossible,
the negotiations were postponed until further notice. Dr. Tschlenow
shortly afterwards left England, after a stay of five to six months,
and returned to Russia. At the meeting of the Zionist Committee in
Copenhagen and at the Zionist meetings that took place in Russia, Dr.
Tschlenow was able to report that the political efforts in England
had filled him with the best hopes. The Author remained in England and
devoted himself, in addition to propaganda, to the political task in
which Weizmann’s unwearied efforts became more and more important. The
period 1915‒1916 was more one of preparation than one of execution:
Zionism had to be strengthened from within, the societies in London and
the Provinces had to be maintained, new societies had to be created,
pamphlets and books had to be written and published; externally, the
work consisted in finding new sympathisers, and in an enlightening
propaganda wherever a proper opportunity offered itself. The
correspondence with the Zionist leaders and organizations in Russia
and America became more active and the relations ever closer. In London
a number of talented young Zionist writers and workers had grouped
themselves round the leaders; many books and many pamphlets which were
published during this period had won great popularity for the Zionist
writers and publicists who had already proved their worthiness,
such as Major Norman Bentwich, who subsequently became the first
Procureur-General of Palestine under the British occupation, and Messrs.
Paul Goodman, Albert M. Hyamson, Samuel Landman, Harry Sacher, Leon
Simon; new personalities joined them, as, for instance, Semmi Tolkowsky
and others. The temporary stay in London of many prominent Zionists of
Russia and Palestine, such as Boris Goldberg of Wilna, and recently the
agriculturist, Jacob Ettinger, and the manager of the Anglo-Palestine
Company, David Levontin, who both came over from Palestine, and the
great intellectual influence exercised by _Achad Haam_, who freely gave
his invaluable advice in every important question――all these have done
very much to make London the real centre of Zionist work.
Towards the end of the year 1916 several months were spent in drafting
outlines and projects for the purpose of drawing up a Zionist programme
which should be as clear as possible and correspond with the present
conditions, in which efforts Dr. Weizmann and the author were supported
by a number of notable colleagues. Already in 1915 the work had
commenced on the projects and memoranda, the drafting of which received
many contributions from several members; and the work was continued
from that time onwards. A committee, consisting of Dr. Gaster, Dr.
Weizmann, Mr. Herbert Bentwich, Mr. Joseph Cowen, and the author, had
towards the end of 1916 outlined a preliminary sketch of a programme
which was afterwards discussed in a further committee. This programme
was intended to serve as a foundation for the official representations
which were then in view. At the same time, Dr. Weizmann was constantly
occupied independently in preparing the ground for the coming official
proposals, by conferences and propaganda; this he was able to do,
thanks mostly to his personal connections, though he always acted in
conjunction with the author.
The 7th of February, 1917, constitutes a turning-point in the history.
Shortly before this date Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mark Sykes, Bart., M.P.,
had communicated with Dr. Weizmann and the author on the question
of the treatment of the Zionist problem. Sir Mark Sykes, who is a
distinguished authority on oriental matters and who had earlier given
attention to the Arab question, was entrusted with the study of the
Zionist problem. In conjunction with a representative of the French
Government, M. Georges Picot, he had devoted great attention to the
question, and both had had first conversations with Dr. Moses Gaster.
At the commencement of the year 1917 Sir Mark Sykes entered into closer
relations with Dr. Weizmann and the author, and the discussions held
with the latter led to the meeting of February 7th, 1917, which marks
the commencement of official negotiations. Besides Sir Mark Sykes,
the following took part in this meeting: Lord Rothschild, Mr. Herbert
Bentwich, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Dr. M. Gaster (at whose house the meeting
took place), Mr. James _de_ Rothschild, Mr. Harry Sacher, Right
Hon. Herbert Samuel, M.P., Dr. Chaim Weizmann, and the author. The
deliberations yielded a favourable result, and it was resolved to
continue the work. For further regular consultations with Sir Mark
Sykes and M. Georges Picot, the author was chosen. Discussions
on questions connected with the Zionist programme took place. In
consequence of these negotiations and of the great importance of the
Zionist question to all the Governments of the Entente Powers, the
author was called to Paris in March, 1917, by the French Government.
On the 22nd of March he was received at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
in Paris, where he outlined the principles of the Zionist programme.
He received the assurance that the French Government regarded the
programme very favourably, and was authorized to inform the Zionist
Organizations of Russia and America of this result by telegraph.
After a stay of one month in Paris, during which the author got into
touch with the leading Jewish circles, he went to Rome, where he
devoted himself to the same task. The conferences which he had with the
leading Italian Jews led to the happy result that the programme laid
before them by the author was accepted. With regard to the question of
the Holy Places, it was considered advisable to enter into negotiations
with the Vatican. The Author had conferences with the Cardinals
(especially with Cardinal Gasparri), and on the 10th of May he was
received in an audience by the Pope. These conferences led to a most
satisfactory attitude on the part of the Vatican towards Zionism.
Between the 12th and the 18th of May, the author, together with the
President of the Jewish Community in Rome, Commendatore Sereni, was
received several times at the Italian Consultà, and by the then Prime
Minister Boselli, and he was assured that the Italian Government, in
conjunction with the Allied Powers, would support the Zionist programme.
He was authorized, just as in Paris, to telegraph this result to the
Russian and American Zionist organizations.
Having returned to Paris, the author was received on May 28th by the
then Prime Minister Ribot, and after that remained another month,
during which various negotiations were conducted. He then received a
document addressed to him, a statement from the French Government, the
text of which, translated from the French original, runs as follows:――
“PARIS, _June 4, 1917_.
“SIR,
“You were good enough to present the project to which you
are devoting your efforts, which has for its object the
development of Jewish colonization in Palestine. You consider
that, circumstances permitting, and the independence of the
Holy Places being safeguarded on the other hand, it would be a
deed of justice and of reparation to assist, by the protection
of the Allied Powers, in the renaissance of the Jewish
nationality in that Land from which the people of _Israel_
were exiled so many centuries ago.
“The French Government, which entered this present war to
defend a people wrongfully attacked, and which continues the
struggle to assure the victory of right over might, can but
feel sympathy for your cause, the triumph of which is bound up
with that of the Allies.
“I am happy to give you herewith such assurance.
“Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my most distinguished
consideration.
“(_Signed_) JULES CAMBON.
“M. N. SOKOLOW,
_Hôtel Meurice, Paris_.”
From this statement it is clearly seen:――
(1) that hereby the question of Zionism is recognized as one
of those concerning small and persecuted nations;
(2) that the principle of the recognition of Jewish
nationality and its historical right to Palestine is here
accepted; and
(3) that the French Government is prepared to support this
movement.
In the meantime, the Zionists in England――and especially their
political leader, Dr. Weizmann――had continued the work with great zeal
in this country. After his return, the author again took a share in
this work. The great development which the political and propagandist
work had in the interval made in England, led to the establishment of
a larger consultative committee and to the opening of new offices,¹ and
a year earlier Dr. Weizmann had been elected President of the English
Zionist Federation, and this did much to bring new life into the
Federation. Two periodicals were founded, the monthly _Zionist Review_,
in London, and the weekly _Palestine_, published by the British
Palestine Committee, Manchester, and Zionism reached a popularity such
as it never previously had in this country.
¹ Zionist Organization, London Bureau, Empire House, 175
Piccadilly, W.
CONFERENCE OF ENGLISH ZIONIST FEDERATION IN 1917
A Special Conference of Delegates from the Constituent Societies was
held in London on the 20th of May, 1917, with the President, Dr. Chaim
Weizmann, in the chair. The Conference was called partly in consequence
of the disturbing news that had been received from Palestine and
partly in order that a communication on the political situation, as it
affected the Jewish National Movement, might be made to the societies
through their delegates. The Conference occupied the whole of the day
and was very largely attended. It was opened by the Chairman with an
address, in which he reviewed the situation. He said:――
“Grave and great events have taken place since we met last――events
which will affect deeply the fate of Jewry all over the world. The
first event of colossal magnitude was the Russian Revolution. By a
miracle, in one night the chains and fetters which have enslaved a
great nation of 150 to 160 millions for centuries have been broken, and
a free Russia has emerged. It has become almost a current phrase in the
Press that it was a ‘bloodless’ revolution, but those who know Russia,
those who have lived in Russia, know very well that although the last
act of the drama was comparatively bloodless, much blood has been
poured out during many years, and it was this outpouring of blood
which has prepared the dramatic developments which we witnessed two
months ago. And we Jews know that in this stream of blood there was a
considerable fraction――a very considerable fraction――of Jewish blood.
It was common knowledge in the years 1905 and 1906 that there was not a
single Jewish family in Russia which had not paid the toll in the form
of a son or a daughter or a relative to the Moloch of Russian Tsardom.
All those Jews who have bought so dearly freedom for themselves and
for the rest of Jewry, will go down in history as heroes, as saints,
and our hearty congratulations and wishes go out to all those who have
fought for the Russian Revolution, and to those who are going to carry
on the work under the new régime. It is clear that an event like this
cannot pass without convulsions. It is marvellous that things should
go in Russia as they do now, but it is equally clear that the fate of
Jewry, the fate of the Zionist Movement, largely depends upon stable
conditions in that part of the world, and it will be, I am sure, an
honourable task for the Zionist Organization all over the world, and
especially for our friends in Russia, to contribute as much as it is
in their power to the stabilization of conditions in Russia. Some of
us――some of our friends even, and especially some of our opponents――are
very quick in drawing conclusions as to what will happen to the Zionist
Movement after the Russian Revolution. Now, they say, the greatest
stimulus for the Zionist Movement has been removed. Russian Jewry
is free. They do not need any places of refuge somewhere outside
Russia――somewhere in Palestine. Nothing can be more superficial, and
nothing can be more wrong, than that. We have never built our Zionist
Movement on the sufferings of our people in Russia or elsewhere. Those
sufferings were never the cause of Zionism. The fundamental cause
of Zionism was, and is, the ineradicable national striving of Jewry
to have a home of its own――a national centre, a national home with a
national Jewish life. And this remains now stronger than ever. A strong
and free Russian Jewry will appreciate more than ever the strivings of
the Zionist Organization. And truly we see it even now. Russian Jewry
is formulating its national demands in a proud, open, free way, which
may well serve as an example and an encouragement to the free Western
communities of Jewry. You have all read of meetings which have taken
place all over Russia――of a meeting which took place only recently
in Moscow, and was attended by seven thousand Jews. Many Western Jews
could learn from these meetings how a free and proud Jew ought to speak.
We therefore look forward with confidence to the future of Zionism in
Russia.
“Now what are our hopes? How do we think they will be realized? Of
course, I do not propose to prophesy in this assembly, but I shall try
to outline, as much as it is possible to do so, what are our plans, and
how we think we shall be able to carry them out. And before I do so let
me do away with one or two what I may perhaps call misunderstandings,
or what may be called wrong phrases. One reads constantly in the Press
and one hears from our friends, both Jewish and non-Jewish, that it is
the endeavour of the Zionist Movement immediately to create a Jewish
State in Palestine. Our American friends went further than that, and
they have even determined the form of this State, by advocating a
Jewish Republic. While heartily welcoming all these demonstrations as
a genuine manifestation of the Jewish national will, we cannot consider
them as safe statesmanship. Strong as the Zionist Movement may be,
full of enthusiasm as the Zionists may be, at the present time, it
must be obvious to everybody who stands in the midst of the work of the
Zionist Organization, and it must be admitted honestly and truly, that
the conditions are not yet ripe for the setting up of a State _ad hoc_.
States must be built up slowly, gradually, systematically and patiently.
We, therefore, say that while a creation of a Jewish Commonwealth in
Palestine is our final ideal――an ideal for which the whole of the
Zionist Organization is working――the way to achieve it lies through
a series of intermediary stages. And one of those intermediary stages
which I hope is going to come about as a result of this war, is that
the fair country of Palestine will be protected by such a mighty and
a just Power as Great Britain. Under the wing of this Power Jews will
be able to develop, and to set up the administrative machinery which,
while not interfering with the legitimate interests of the non-Jewish
population, would enable us to carry out the Zionist scheme. I am
entitled to state in this assembly that His Majesty’s Government is
ready to support our plans.
“I would further like to add that the support of the British Government,
when given, will be in conjunction and agreement with the Allied Powers.
Our friend, chief, and leader, Mr. Sokolow, who, owing to important
Zionist duties, is prevented from attending this meeting, has been both
in France and in Italy, and from both these Governments he has received
assurances of full sympathy and full support. One of the important
problems to be considered in connection with the future settlement of
Palestine is the delicate question of the Holy Places. I need hardly
say, in this Jewish assembly, that we Jews will be meticulously and
scrupulously careful to respect the sentiments of any religious group
or sect in Palestine. It is not for us to discuss how this complicated
question, which forms an important point in international relations,
is going to be settled. We trust to the fairness and justice of
the nations which are going to build up a better world after this
catastrophe, that they will see to it that the arrangements made are
fair and satisfactory to everyone. We have assurances from the highest
Catholic circles that they will view with favour the establishment of
a Jewish national home in Palestine, and from their religious point of
view they see no objection to it, and no reason why we should not be
good neighbours. And good neighbours I hope we shall be.
“Let us now turn our attention for a few minutes to the internal
situation. Confident as we are of our final success, we cannot help
feeling some disappointment at the fact that the whole of Jewry does
not stand united at this present critical moment. Ladies and Gentlemen,
it is not only a matter of regret, but it is a matter of deep
humiliation to every Jew that we cannot stand united in this great hour.
But it is not the fault of the Zionist Organization. It is, perhaps,
not the fault of our opponents. It must be attributed to the conditions
of our life in the Dispersion, which has caused in Jewry a cleavage
difficult to bridge over even at a time like this. It is unfortunate
that there still exists a small minority which disputes the very
existence of the Jews as a nation. But there need be no misgivings on
that account; for I have no hesitation in saying that if it comes to a
plebiscite and a test, there can be no doubt on which side the majority
of Jews will be found. And, ladies and gentlemen, I warn you that this
test is bound to come――and come sooner, perhaps, than we think. You
will have to show, and in this solemn hour I call upon you to prepare
for it, that with all your heart and mind you stand united behind those
leaders whom you have chosen to carry out, at this critical hour of
the world’s history, this work. We do not want to give the world the
spectacle of a war of brothers. We are surrounded by too many enemies
to give ourselves this luxury. But we warn those who will force an
open breach that they will find us prepared to stand up united in the
defence of the cause which is sacred to us. We shall not allow anybody
to interfere with the hard work that we are doing, and we say to all
our opponents, ‘Hands off the Zionist Movement!’”
The statement was received with repeated applause, and aroused great
enthusiasm among the delegates, both immediately after its delivery and
also in the course of the discussion which ensued.
ZIONISM AND PUBLIC OPINION IN ENGLAND
All these signs of Zionist activity naturally could not avoid creating
a certain opposition. The attempts to bring about agreement, made
at the beginning of 1915, had led to nothing, and the Zionists, from
their point of view, could not have thought ill of their opponents,
if they had limited themselves to a discussion within Jewish circles.
But the opposition went so far as to publish a document which reads as
follows:――¹
¹ The Times, May 24, 1917.
“In view of the statements and discussions lately published in the
newspapers relative to a projected Jewish resettlement in Palestine
on a national basis, the Conjoint Foreign Committee of the Board of
Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association deem it
necessary to place on record the views they hold on this important
question.
“The Holy Land has necessarily a profound and undying interest for
all Jews, as the cradle of their religion, the main theatre of Bible
history, and the site of its sacred memorials. It is not, however,
as a mere shrine or place of pilgrimage that they regard the country.
Since the dawn of their political emancipation in Europe, the Jews have
made the rehabilitation of the Jewish community in the Holy Land one
of their chief cares, and they have always cherished the hope that
the result of their labours would be the regeneration on Palestinian
soil of a Jewish community, worthy of the great memories of their
environment, and a source of spiritual inspiration to the whole of
Jewry. Accordingly, the Conjoint Committee have welcomed with deep
satisfaction the prospect of a rich fruition of this work, opened to
them by the victorious progress of the British Army in Palestine.
“Anxious that on this question all sections and parties in Jewry should
be united in a common effort, the committee intimated to the Zionist
organizations as far back as the winter of 1914 their readiness to
co-operate with them on the basis of the so-called ‘cultural’ policy
which had been adopted at the last two Zionist Congresses in 1911
and 1913. This policy aimed primarily at making Palestine a Jewish
spiritual centre by securing for the local Jews, and the colonists
who might join them, such conditions of life as would best enable them
to develop the Jewish genius on lines of its own. Larger political
questions, not directly affecting the main purpose, were left to be
solved as need and opportunity might render possible. Unfortunately, an
agreement on these lines has not proved practicable, and the conjoint
committee are consequently compelled to pursue their work alone. They
are doing so on the basis of a formula adopted by them in March, 1916,
in which they proposed to recommend to his Majesty’s Government the
formal recognition of the high historic interest Palestine possesses
for the Jewish community, and a public declaration that at the close
of the war ‘the Jewish population will be secured in the enjoyment of
civil and religious liberty, equal political rights with the rest of
the population, reasonable facilities for immigration and colonization,
and such municipal privileges in the towns and colonies inhabited by
them as may be shown to be necessary.’
“That is still the policy of the conjoint committee.
“Meanwhile, the committee have learnt from the published statements
of the Zionist leaders in this country that they now favour a much
larger scheme of an essentially political character. Two points in this
scheme appear to the committee to be open to grave objections on public
grounds.
“The first is a claim that the Jewish settlements in Palestine shall
be recognized as possessing a national character in a political sense.
Were this claim of purely local import, it might well be left to settle
itself in accordance with the general political exigencies of the
reorganization of the country under a new sovereign power. The conjoint
committee, indeed, would have no objections to urge against a local
Jewish nationality establishing itself under such conditions. But the
present claim is not of this limited scope. It is part and parcel of a
wider Zionist theory, which regards all the Jewish communities of the
world as constituting one homeless nationality, incapable of complete
social and political identification with the nations among whom they
dwell, and it is argued that for this homeless nationality a political
centre and an always available homeland in Palestine are necessary.
Against this theory the conjoint committee strongly and earnestly
protest. Emancipated Jews in this country regard themselves primarily
as a religious community, and they have always based their claims to
political equality with their fellow-citizens of other creeds on this
assumption and on its corollary――that they have no separate national
aspirations in a political sense. They hold Judaism to be a religious
system, with which their political status has no concern, and they
maintain that, as citizens of the countries in which they live, they
are fully and sincerely identified with the national spirit and
interests of those countries. It follows that the establishment of
a Jewish nationality in Palestine, founded on this theory of Jewish
homelessness, must have the effect throughout the world of stamping
the Jews as strangers in their native lands, and of undermining their
hard-won position as citizens and nationals of those lands. Moreover,
a Jewish political nationality, carried to its logical conclusion,
must, in the present circumstances of the world, be an anachronism.
The Jewish religion being the only certain test of a Jew, a Jewish
nationality must be founded on, and limited by, the religion. It
cannot be supposed for a moment that any section of Jews would aim at a
commonwealth governed by religious tests, and limited in the matter of
freedom of conscience; but can a religious nationality express itself
politically in any other way? The only alternative would be a secular
Jewish nationality, recruited on some loose and obscure principle of
race and ethnographic peculiarity; but this would not be Jewish in any
spiritual sense, and its establishment in Palestine would be a denial
of all the ideals and hopes by which the revival of Jewish life in that
country commends itself to the Jewish consciousness and Jewish sympathy.
On these grounds the conjoint committee deprecate most earnestly the
national proposals of the Zionists.
“The second point in the Zionist programme which has aroused the
misgivings of the conjoint committee is the proposal to invest the
Jewish settlers in Palestine with certain special rights in excess
of those enjoyed by the rest of the population, these rights to
be embodied in a Charter and administered by a Jewish Chartered
Company. Whether it is desirable or not to confide any portion of
the administration of Palestine to a Chartered Company need not be
discussed, but it is certainly very undesirable that Jews should
solicit or accept such a concession, on a basis of political privileges
and economic preferences. Any such action would prove a veritable
calamity for the whole Jewish people. In all the countries in which
they live the principle of equal rights for all religious denominations
is vital for them. Were they to set an example in Palestine of
disregarding this principle they would convict themselves of having
appealed to it for purely selfish motives. In the countries in which
they are still struggling for equal rights they would find themselves
hopelessly compromised, while in other countries, where those rights
have been secured, they would have great difficulty in defending them.
The proposal is the more inadmissible because the Jews are, and will
probably long remain, a minority of the population of Palestine,
and because it might involve them in the bitterest feuds with their
neighbours of other races and religions, which would seriously retard
their progress, and would find deplorable echoes throughout the Orient.
Nor is the scheme necessary for the Zionists themselves. If the Jews
prevail in a competition based on perfect equality of rights and
opportunity they will establish their eventual preponderance in the
land on a far sounder foundation than any that can be secured by
privileges and monopolies.
“If the conjoint committee can be satisfied with regard to these
points they will be prepared to co-operate in securing for the Zionist
organization the united support of Jewry.
“(Signed) DAVID L. ALEXANDER,
_President, Board of Deputies of British Jews_.
“(Signed) CLAUDE G. MONTEFIORE,
_President, Anglo-Jewish Association_.
“LONDON, _May 17, 1917_.”
On the day after the appearance of this Manifesto, _The Times_
received more letters than it could make room to print from Jewish
correspondents, “taking strong exception” to the statement of the
Presidents. Mr. Elkan N. Adler at once resigned from the Conjoint
Committee, and described the publication of the Manifesto as
“inopportune, if not harmful, but he afterwards withdrew his
resignation.” Mr. B. A. Fersht and Mr. S. Gilbert also resigned.
Mr. Gilbert did not resign from the Conjoint Committee, of which he
was not a member. He resigned his membership of the Board of Deputies
in order that the prospective president, Sir Stuart Samuel, might be
elected in his place.
The Chief _Rabbi_, Dr. J. H. Hertz, wrote to _The Times_, expressing
the following opinion:――
“I do not propose to advance any arguments contesting the extraordinary
statement on Zionism and Palestine which you published on Thursday last,
signed by Mr. D. L. Alexander, K.C., and Mr. Claude G. Montefiore. But,
as Chief _Rabbi_ of the United _Hebrew_ Congregations of the British
Empire, I cannot allow your readers to remain under the misconception
that the said statement represents in the least the views held
either by Anglo-Jewry as a whole or by the Jewries of the Oversea
Dominions. Moreover, neither the Board of Deputies nor the Anglo-Jewish
Association――on whose behalf their presidents signed the document
in question――authorized its publication or had an opportunity of
considering its contents.
“It is, indeed, grievously painful to me to write this in your
influential columns. But I am impelled to do so in the interests of
truth, and in justice to the communities of which I have the honour
and privilege of being the spiritual head.”
Dr. M. Gaster, the _Haham_ of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews’
congregations in England, declared:――
“A settlement of the Jewish problem will, no doubt, form part of the
general settlement which is to secure to the world a permanent peace
resting on ‘national liberty and international amity,’ as Lord Robert
Cecil only yesterday declared in the House of Commons. The Jew also
wants a permanent peace resting on the same foundations, and he can
only find it by the realization of the Zionist programme, a national
autonomous life in the Holy Land, publicly recognized and legally
secured. It embraces, of course, the religious as well as political
and economic life, indissolubly united in the Jewish national
consciousness.”
Lord Rothschild replied to several of the objections to Zionism
advanced by the two Presidents in a letter which stated:――
“In your issue of the 24th inst. appears a long letter signed on
behalf of the Conjoint Committee by Messrs. Alexander and Montefiore
and entitled ‘The Future of the Jews.’ As a sincere believer both in
the justice and benefits likely to accrue from the Zionist cause and
aspirations, I trust you will allow me to reply to this letter. I
consider it most unfortunate that this controversy should be raised
at the present time, and the members of the Zionist organization are
the last people desirous of raising it. Our opponents, although a mere
fraction of the Jewish opinion of the world, seek to interfere in the
wishes and aspirations of by far the larger mass of the Jewish people.
We Zionists cannot see how the establishment of an autonomous Jewish
State under the ægis and protection of one of the Allied Powers can be
considered for a moment to be in any way subversive to the position or
loyalty of the very large part of the Jewish people who have identified
themselves thoroughly with the citizenship of the countries in which
they live. Our idea from the beginning has been to establish an
autonomous centre, both spiritual and ethical, for all those members
of the Jewish faith who felt drawn irresistibly to the ancient home of
their faith and nationality in Palestine.
“In the letter you have published, the question also is raised of a
chartered company. We Zionists have always felt that if Palestine is
to be colonized by the Jews some machinery must be set up to receive
the immigrants, settle them on the land, and to develop the land,
and to be generally a directing agency. I can only again emphasize
that we Zionists have no wish for privileges at the expense of other
nationalities, but only desire to be allowed to work out our destinies
side by side with other nationalities in an autonomous State under the
suzerainty of one of the Allied Powers.”
Dr. Weizmann replied to two statements made by the anti-Zionists in a
further letter which appeared in _The Times_:――
“I have no desire to ask for space in your columns to examine with
what justification these two gentlemen and the school they speak for
claim that they have always hoped and worked for a Jewish regeneration
in Palestine. But I am anxious to correct two statements which might
possibly generate serious misconception in the minds of those not well
informed as to Zionism and Zionist projects.
“1. It may possibly be inconvenient to certain individual Jews that
the Jews constitute a nationality. Whether the Jews do constitute a
nationality is, however, not a matter to be decided by the convenience
of this or that individual. It is strictly a question of fact. The fact
that the Jews are a nationality is attested by the conviction of the
overwhelming majority of Jews throughout all ages right to the present
time, a conviction which has always been shared by non-Jews in all
countries.
“2. The Zionists are not demanding in Palestine monopolies or exclusive
privileges, nor are they asking that any part of Palestine should be
administered by a chartered company to the detriment of others. It
always was and remains a cardinal principle of Zionism as a democratic
movement that all races and sects in Palestine should enjoy full
justice and liberty, and Zionists are confident that the new suzerain
whom they hope Palestine will acquire as a result of the war will, in
its administration of the country, be guided by the same principle.
“In conclusion I should like to express my regret that there should be
even two Jews who think it their duty to exert such influence as they
may command against the realization of a hope which has sustained the
Jewish nation through 2000 years of exile, persecution, and temptation.”
These letters of protest led to the publication of a leading article
entitled “The Future of the Jews” in _The Times_ of 29th May, which
showed that this paper is firmly convinced of the justice of the
Zionist cause. The article was of so much importance that it is quoted
in full:――
“The important controversy which has sprung up in our columns upon
the future of the Jews deserves careful and sympathetic attention.
The war has given prominence to many questions that seemed formerly
to be outside the range of practical politics. None of them is more
interesting than that of the bearing of Zionism――that is to say, of the
resettlement of a Jewish nationality in Palestine――upon the future of
the Jewish people. In the statement which we published last Thursday
from the Conjoint Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews
and the Anglo-Jewish Association exception was taken to Zionist plans
for the creation of a national Jewish community ‘in a political sense,’
and pointed arguments were directed against them. In the opinion of the
Committee, such plans are ‘part and parcel of a wider Zionist theory
which regards all the Jewish communities of the world as constituting
one homeless nationality, incapable of complete social and political
identification with the nations among whom they dwell.’ Against this
theory the Committee ‘strongly and earnestly protest,’ on grounds which,
in so far as they are set forth in the statement, are sufficiently
clear. The Committee claim that they are fully alive to the special
meaning of Palestine for the Jewish race. They are anxious that in
Palestine the civil and religious liberties of Jews should be secured.
But they affirm that ‘emancipated Jews’ in this country have no
‘separate national aspirations in a political sense.’ Such Jews regard
themselves ‘primarily as a religious community,’ and have always
‘based their claims to political equality with their fellow-citizens
of other creeds on this assumption.’ They fear lest the establishment
of a Jewish nationality in Palestine stamp the Jews as strangers in
their native lands and undermine ‘their hard-won position as citizens
and nationals of those lands.’ The Committee proceed to argue that
since ‘the Jewish religion’ is ‘the only certain test of a Jew, the
Jewish nationality must be founded on, and limited by religion. ’ It
follows, they believe, that a Jewish nationality would be obliged to
‘express itself politically’ by religious intolerance, and would thus
undermine the very principle which Jews have invoked to secure their
emancipation. The Committee further insist that the bestowal by Charter
of ‘certain special rights in excess of those enjoyed by the rest of
the population’ would be a questionable boon to a Jewish community
in Palestine, because in all the countries in which Jews live ‘the
principle of equal rights for all religious denominations’ is vital
to them.
“It seems to us that in attempting to define Jewish nationality in
terms of religion the Committee come dangerously near to begging the
question which they raise; and no question can be solved by begging
it. As Dr. Weizmann, the President of the English Zionist Federation,
observes in the letter which we published yesterday, it may possibly be
inconvenient to certain individual Jews that the Jews do constitute a
nationality. The question is one of fact, not of argument, and the fact
that the Jews are a nationality ‘is attested by the conviction of the
overwhelming majority of Jews throughout all ages.’ This conviction,
he rightly says, ‘has always been shared by non-Jews in all countries.’
But more immediately important than this discussion of a point which
cannot seriously be disputed is the denial by eminent and influential
Jewish leaders like Lord Rothschild and the Chief _Rabbi_ of the title
of the Conjoint Committee to speak for British Jewry, or, indeed, for
‘the larger mass of the Jewish people.’ Lord Rothschild writes: ‘We
Zionists cannot see how the establishment of an autonomous Jewish State,
under the ægis and protection of one of the Allied Powers, can be
considered for a moment to be in any way subversive of the position or
loyalty of the very large part of the Jewish people who have identified
themselves thoroughly with the citizenship of the countries in which
they live.’ The Chief _Rabbi_ insists that the statement of the
Conjoint Committee does not represent in the least the views held
‘either by Anglo-Jewry as a whole or by the Jewries of the Oversea
Dominions.’
“Authoritative declarations such as these dispose of the contention
that Zionism is not representative of Jewish aspirations. We believe it
in fact to embody the feelings of the great bulk of Jewry everywhere.
The interest of the world outside Jewry is that these aspirations,
in so far as they may be susceptible of realization, should be
fairly faced on their merits. It is too often imagined that the
Jewish question can be solved by the mere removal of all artificial
restrictions upon Jewish activities. Even a superficial acquaintance
with the conditions of life in the congested Jewish communities of
Galicia and Russia suggests the inadequacy of that solution. The
truth is that the Jewish question cannot be exhaustively defined
either in terms of religion or of race. It has important social,
economic, financial, and political sides. The importance of the Zionist
movement――apart from its territorial aspect――is that it has fired
with a new ideal millions of poverty-stricken Jews cooped up in the
_ghettoes_ of the Old World and the New. It has tended to make Jews
proud of their race and to claim recognition, as Jews, in virtue of
the eminent services rendered by Jewry to the religious development
and civilization of mankind. Only an imaginative nervousness suggests
that the realization of territorial Zionism, in some form, would cause
Christendom to round on the Jews and say, ‘Now you have a land of your
own, go to it!’ The Jews who feel themselves to be British, French, or
American would, doubtless, tend to identify themselves more than ever
with the lands of their political allegiance and to become more and
more a solely religious community. The rapid changes of nationality
that have been so noticeable among Jews in the past would become
increasingly discredited. The international solidarity of Jews
would undoubtedly persist――though, with a lessening of the danger of
religious persecution, the leading Jews of all countries might feel
freer to make a public stand against tendencies which sometimes bring
the Jewish name into disrepute. We note with satisfaction the assurance
of the Conjoint Committee that, if their specific misgivings can be
removed, ‘they will be prepared to co-operate in securing for Zionist
organizations the united support of Jewry.’ It is in this direction,
we believe, that progress lies.”
On the 1st of June _The Times_ contained a letter adding the names of
the Anglo-Jews who supported the view taken by the Conjoint Presidents.
The letter read as follows:――
“SIR,――As the representative character of the Jewish Conjoint Committee
has been publicly challenged, we, being Jews of British birth and
nationality, actively engaged in public work in the Anglo-Jewish
community, desire to state that we approve of, and associate ourselves
with, the statement on the Palestine question recently issued by the
committee, and published in _The Times_ of the 24th inst.
“Your obedient servants,
SWAYTHLING ISRAEL GOLLANCZ
CHAS. S. HENRY MICHAEL A. GREEN
MATTHEW NATHAN H. S. Q. HENRIQUES
LIONEL ABRAHAMS¹ JOSHUA M. LEVY
ISIDORE SPIELMANN LAURIE MAGNUS
EDWARD D. STERN EDMUND SEBAG-MONTEFIORE
ISRAEL ABRAHAMS ARTHUR REGINALD MORO
LEONARD L. COHEN PHILIP S. WALEY
ERNEST L. FRANKLIN ALBERT M. WOOLF
“_May 29th._”
¹ “Sir Lionel Abrahams signs subject to the opinion that,
in view of the statement made by the President of the
English Zionist Federation on May 20, a further attempt at
co-operation between the Conjoint Committee and the Zionist
organisations in the United Kingdom is now desirable.”
There were soon widespread signs that the congregations supposed to
be represented by the Board of Deputies did not agree with the views
expressed in the manifesto. Thus the seatholders of the New Synagogue,
Stamford Hill, carried a motion calling upon their representatives
at the Board of Deputies and the Conjoint Committee to resign. This
was passed with only two dissentients. Synagogues in Manchester and
Liverpool and the Committee of Deputies in Manchester, Yorkshire and
Cheshire expressed regret at the action of the President of the Board
of Deputies in “committing the Board to a policy for which the Board
has given him no kind of authority.” The Belfast Congregation passed
a similar resolution and also expressed confidence in Dr. Weizmann and
the Zionist movement. Congregations in Birkenhead, Cardiff, Dublin,
Edinburgh, Glasgow, Limerick, Merthyr Tydvil, Middlesbrough, Newcastle,
Newport (Mon.), Swansea and Wallasey took similar action. In Leeds
a meeting was held representative of all the Jewish congregations
and organizations; in Manchester the Jewish representative Council
condemned the action of the Conjoint Committee. Indeed, throughout
the United Kingdom Synagogues, Friendly Societies, Jewish Charitable
Organizations and nearly every kind of Jewish institution made a public
protest against the Manifesto, and declared in favour of Zionism.
These widespread signs of dissatisfaction with the existing leadership
of the body which had hitherto claimed to be the official spokesman for
Jewish opinion in England, was destined to lead to a complete change of
government in that body.
It is true that at the meeting of the Anglo-Jewish Association on June
3rd Dr. Gaster’s resolution of censure was not put to the vote. But on
Sunday, 17th June, at a meeting of the Board of Deputies a resolution
of censure on the Conjoint Committee, calling upon the representatives
of the Board to resign from the Conjoint Committee, was carried
by fifty-six votes to fifty-one. Mr. H. S. Q. Henriques, the
Vice-President of the Board, spoke in defence of the Manifesto. In
his speech he said the Conjoint Committee had on the 17th May granted
permission to the Presidents to publish the statement when they thought
it advisable to do so, but he had himself been surprised that they had
published it so soon. Mr. Gilbert said that in October he had asked if
any Manifesto then existed or was contemplated and had been told that
the suggestion was “malicious and wicked.” Sir Philip Magnus, Bart.,
said he had heard of the Manifesto a week or so before Mr. Henriques.
From these statements it becomes clear that the document was compiled
by a few of those thoroughly Anglicized Jews who, themselves very
comfortably off in England, and about equally ignorant of the main
currents of life in that country and of the main currents of Jewish
life anywhere, were in their complacent self-satisfaction of opinion
that they expressed the views of English Jews, when in reality they
did not in the slightest degree represent the views of the overwhelming
majority.
In consequence of the vote of censure, the Honorary Officers, Mr. David
L. Alexander, K.C., the President; Mr. H. S. Q. Henriques, M.A., B.C.L.,
the Vice-President; and Mr. Joshua M. Levy, the Treasurer, resigned.
The Board of Deputies later attempted to restore the irresponsible
power of a non-elective and unrepresentative committee having power
to speak for the Jews of England. This new Conjoint Committee was
to consist of the Foreign Committees of the two bodies, the Board of
Deputies and Anglo-Jewish Association, meeting together to deal with
Foreign affairs affecting the Jews. “Except in matters of routine or
urgency,” the parent bodies have to be consulted before any action is
taken. The question of Zionism was declared outside the province of the
Joint Committee unless specially delegated to such Committee by both
parent bodies. This scheme was adopted at a meeting of the Board of
Deputies held on January 20th, 1918.
Meantime the question of a general manifesto in favour of Zionist aims,
not only by organized adherents of the movement but by the Anglo-Jewish
Community generally, having become of urgent importance, the Council of
the English Zionist Federation issued an appeal to Jewish organizations
throughout the country to convene meetings in order to pass resolutions
in the following terms:――
“(1) That this meeting being unanimously in favour of the
reconstruction of Palestine as the National Home of the Jewish
People, trusts that His Majesty’s Government will use its best
endeavours for the achievement of this object.
“(2) That this Mass Meeting pledges itself to support the
Zionist leaders in their efforts towards the realization of
the Zionist aims.”
These resolutions were adopted at large meetings in London, at
the Queen’s Hall, Monnickendam Rooms, at the Marcus Samuel Hall,
New Synagogue, and in Bethnal Green, and at important meetings in
Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds, Hull, Manchester, Swansea, Merthyr Tydvil
and Bradford.
The following is the list, so far as we have been able to ascertain, of
Synagogues and Institutions, which are known to have adopted these or
similar resolutions.
_Manchester._ The Communal Council (representing 15,000 Jews, members
of Synagogues, Trade Unions and Friendly Societies), the Lancashire and
Yorkshire and Cheshire members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews,
a special meeting of representatives of Synagogues at the opening of
the Kovna Synagogue; the following Synagogues: Rydal Mount _Hebrew_
Congregation, _Kahal Chassidim_, _Beth Jacob_, United Synagogue and
_Beth Hamedrash_ and New Synagogue; the following Friendly Societies:
Grand Council of the Order of Ancient Maccabeans, _Achei Brith_ and
Shield of _Abraham_ (Frances Annie Frankenburg, King Edward the Seventh,
Nathan Laski, and Dr. Herzl Lodges), Independent Order of _Achei Brith_,
Order of Ancient Maccabeans (_Modin_ No. 24, _Don_ Isaac ♦Abrabanel
No. 11, ♠_Rechoboth_ No. 29, Mount _Horeb_ No. 9, Mount _Lebanon_ No. 3,
and _Mattathias_ No. 14 Beacons), the Maccabean Club, the Order Shield
of _David_ (Broughton Lodge), and the Manchester and Salford Jewish
Grocers’ Association; and the following Zionist Societies: Manchester
Zionist Association, _Poale Zion_, and Manchester Daughters of _Zion_.
♦ “Abarbanel” replaced with “Abrabanel” for consistency
♠ “Rechobot” replaced with “Rechoboth” for consistency
_Leeds._ The Leeds Jewish Representative Council (representing
all Synagogues, Trade Unions, Friendly Societies, and other Jewish
organizations); the following Friendly Societies: Grand Order of
_Israel_ (Grosenburg Lodge No. 90 and Dr. Dembo Lodge No. 47), the
Pride of _Israel_ Independent Friendly Society, the Order of Ancient
Maccabeans (_Massodah_ Beacon and Mount _Sinai_ No. 13 Beacon), and
the Independent Order of _B’nei Brith_ (Abraham Frais Lodge No. 35);
the Leeds Jewish National Fund Commission, the Leeds Jewish Workmen’s
Burial Society, the Leeds Banner of Zion, and the Leeds Young
_Shomerim_; and the following Zionist Societies: _Agudas Hazionim_,
Ladies’ Zionist League, Ladies’ Association, and a Mass Meeting
convened by the Joint Zionist Committee.
_Liverpool._ The following Synagogues: Central Synagogue (Islington),
Shaw Street, _Nusach Ari_, (Great Russell Street), Devon Street,
_Acheinu B’nei Yisroel_, Old Hebrew Congregation (Princess Road), _Beth
Hamedrash Ayen Jacov_, Wallasey _Hebrew_ Congregation, and Fountain
Road _Hebrew_ Congregation; the following Friendly Societies and Trade
Unions: Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Mount _Nebo Erez Yisrael_ No. 28
and Mount _Hermon_ Beacons), the Amalgamated Orders of _Achei Brith_
and Shield of _Abraham_ (_Deborah_ Lodge No. 70, Dr. Max Nordau Lodge
No. 13, and The Very Rev. Dr. Joseph H. Hertz Lodge No. 76), the Grand
Order of _Israel_ (Rev. S. Friedeberg Lodge No. 80), the Order of
the Shield of _David_ (Max Clapper Lodge No. 44), the Herzl _Hebrew_
Friendly Tontine Society, the London _Hebrew_ Tontine Society, the
Montefiore _Hebrew_ Tontine Friendly Society, the Order Shield of
_David_ Tontine Society (Joseph Morris Lodge No. 28), the _Hebrew_
Brotherhood Tontine Society, the Brothers of _Israel_ Tontine Society,
the _Hebrew Somech Noflim_ Society, the Liverpool Travellers’ Friendly
Society, the Jewish Students of Liverpool University, the International
Society of Philology, Science and Fine Arts (Liverpool Branch), the
_Hebrew_ Higher Grade National League, the Talmudical College, the
Jewish Literary Society, the Tailors’ Employees’ Association, the
National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association, the United Garment
Workers’ Trade Union, the Anglo-Jewish Association (Liverpool Branch),
the Wholesale Furniture Manufacturers’ Association, the Ladies’ _Bikur
Cholim_ Society, the Committee of the Association of Old Boys of
the Liverpool _Hebrew_ Schools; and the following Zionist Societies:
Liverpool Young Men’s Zionist Association, Liverpool Zionist Central
Council, _Agudas Zion_ Society, Liverpool Junior Zionist Association,
and Liverpool Ladies’ Zionist Association.
_Glasgow._ The Jewish Representative Council (representing all Glasgow
Jewish Institutions, Synagogues, _etc._); the following Synagogues:
_Chevra Kadisha_, Garnet Hill, _Beth Hamedrash_, Langside Road,
_Machzikei Hadath_, _Beth Jacob_, Queen’s Park _Hebrew_ Congregation,
and South Portland Street; the following Friendly Societies and Trade
Unions: Baron Günzburg Lodge, Lord Rothschild Lodge, Montefiore Lodge,
Michael Simon Lodge, Dr. Hermann Adler Lodge, King _David_ Lodge, Rev.
E. P. Phillips Lodge, Odessa Lodge, Lady Rothschild Lodge No. 67, Order
of Ancient Maccabeans (Leo Pinsker Beacon No. 12, and _Judas Maccabeus_
Beacon No. 15), Grand Order of _Israel_ (Dr. Herzl Lodge No. 12), and
the Independent Friendly Society; and the following Societies: Jewish
Young Men’s Institute, Master Tailors’ Federation, Jewish National
Institute (Elgin Street), _Hebrew_ Burial Society, _B’nei Zion_, Young
Girls’ Zionist League, Daughters of _Zion_, and Queen’s Park Zionist
and Literary Society.
_Birmingham._ The following Friendly Societies: Order of Ancient
Maccabeans (Theodor Herzl Beacon), Order of _Achei Brith_ and Shield
of _Abraham_ (Isaac Joseph Lodge), Lodge, Lord Swaythling Lodge, Rachel
Mendlesohn (Rev. J. Fink Lodge and Rev. G. J. Emanuel Lodge). Grand
Order of _Israel_ (Loyal Independent Lodge, Rev. A. Cohen Lodge, and
David Davis Lodge).
_Bristol._ Mass Meeting of Bristol Jews, Oct. 21st.
_Cardiff._ Mass Meeting of Jewish Community Oct. 21st, 1917; Order of
Ancient Maccabeans (Cardiff Branch).
_Swansea._ Mass Meeting, Oct. 15th (representing Synagogues, Friendly
Societies and Zionist Societies), Swansea _Hebrew_ Congregation,
Swansea Junior Zionist and Literary Society.
_Pontypridd._ Mass Meeting of Jewish Community, 21st Oct.
_Newport._ Mass Meeting of Jewish Community, 21st Oct., 1917.
_Merthyr Tydvil._ Mass Meeting.
_Durham._ Zionist Society.
_Maidenhead._ _Hebrew_ Congregation.
_Birkenhead._ _Hebrew_ Congregation.
_Bolton._ Jewish Community, meeting 19th Oct., 1917.
_Blackpool._ _Hebrew_ Congregation and Belisha Lodge.
_Stockport._ Jewish Tailors’ Union.
_Sunderland._ Mass Meeting of Sunderland Community, 21st Oct., 1917.
_Grimsby._ _Hebrew_ Congregation, and Order of Ancient Maccabeans
(Mount _Zeisim_ Beacon No. 7).
_Hull._ Mass Meeting of Jews of Hull, Oct. 14th, 1917.
_Bradford._ Zionist Society, Order of Ancient Maccabeans (_Jehuda
Halevi_ Beacon No. 30).
_Newcastle-on-Tyne._ Mass Meeting of all Jewish organizations, Oct.
21st, Ancient Order of Maccabeans (Mount _Gilead_ Beacon), Grand Order
of _Israel_ (Duke of Northumberland Lodge No. 14).
_Edinburgh._ Mass Meeting of Edinburgh Jews, 21st Oct., Order of
Ancient Maccabeans (Mount _Moriah_ Beacon).
_Sheffield._ Mass Meeting of Sheffield Jews, 18th Oct., representing
Sheffield _Hebrew_ Congregation, Central Synagogue, _Talmud Torah_,
Board of Guardians, Polish Refugees Fund, _Chevra Kadisha_, Master
Tailors’ Union, _B’nei Brith_, Grand Order of _Israel_, Order
of Ancient Maccabeans (Levison Lodge), Sheffield Junior Zionist
Association, and Worksop Jewish Community.
_Nottingham._ Mass Meeting, 21st Oct., representing Nottingham _Hebrew_
Congregation, Palestine Association, Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Mount
_Ephraim_ Beacon), Independent Order _B’nei Brith_ (Jacob Lasker Lodge),
Grand Order of _Israel_ (David Snapper Lodge), United Garment Workers
of Great Britain (Nottingham Branch).
_Belfast._ Belfast Synagogue.
_Dublin._ Mass Meeting of Dublin Jewry, 21st Oct.; Independent Order
of _B’nei Brith_ (King _Solomon_ Lodge No. 17); Order of Ancient
Maccabeans (Mount _Carmel_ Beacon No. 10); _Agudas Hazionim_; and
Dublin Daughters of _Zion_.
_The Times_, on Oct. 23rd, noticed these demonstrations of sympathy
with Zionism under the heading, “Palestine for the Jews: British
support of the proposal”; and on Oct. 26th, in an editorial strongly
urged on the Government the necessity of making an announcement of its
policy in favour of Zionism.
The anti-Zionist views of the representatives of a small section of
English Jewry were not only in opposition to Jewish public opinion, but
even more in striking contrast with non-Jewish opinion, as revealed by
the press of the United Kingdom.
_The Westminster Gazette_, in its issue of August 26th, 1916, published
an article on “Zionism,” in the course of which the writer emphasized
that:――
“All they ask for is for a home for the Jewish people――not
for all the Jews of the world, but only for the nucleus of
the Jewish people, and above all, for their special type of
civilization, for Judaism. They have no desire to dispossess
any other people. They point to a land, to the land which is
historically theirs, which to-day is lying vacant for want
of a people to rejuvenate it. There, they say, Judaism will
find that freedom which is unattainable elsewhere: at their
hands the land which has languished for centuries can again be
restored to the circle of bountiful regions, and become as of
old, a granary for other nations.”
Lord Cromer, writing in the _Spectator_ on August 12th, 1916, said:――
“What is it that Zionists want? The idea that they wish the
Jews of all races to be congregated together in Palestine
may at once be dismissed as absurd. Nothing of the sort is
proposed. Neither do they want to establish a mere colony
in the sense in which that term is usually employed. Zionism
stands for a national revival.”
_The New Statesman_, on July 8th, 1916, dealt editorially with “The
Meaning of Zionism”:――
“The creation of an autonomous Jewish State in Palestine,
or elsewhere――though only in Palestine is there any prospect
of such a State――and its successful progress and development
would raise the status of the entire Jewish people and restore
self-respect to Jewry as a nation. It would thus be a large
part of the solution of the Jewish question.”
_The Nation_, in the course of a leading article, on June 2nd, 1917, on
“What is a Jew?”, considered Zionism as the new force, and said:――
“An assimilated Judaism has little to give to the world,
save the individual talents of its adherents. Zionism, on the
contrary, is a vivid, positive, picturesque element in the
world, a distinctive tradition which adds something to the
common stock. We hope to see it recognized, preferably under
international institutions in Palestine, but we look askance
at proposals to make it subservient to British ends of Empire
and strategy.
“But the problem is far wider than Palestine. Zionism is
really a challenge to the tolerance of Europe for the modern
idea of nationality as culture. If that idea has vitality,
the Zionism of the future will be recognized and accepted not
merely in _Jerusalem_ but in Warsaw and Vienna, in Paris and
in London. If the West expects Austria and Russia to make
terms with their many nationalities, it must in its turn hold
out a welcome to Jewish nationalism.”
In _New Europe_, on April 12th, 1917, a writer dealt with the problem
of the Jews:――
“Whatever claim the Jews may make, it is clear that autonomous
Jewry in Palestine must have an adequate guarantee of
existence, whether by international pledge or by the
protectorate of a Great Power.”
The same periodical, in its issue of April 19th, had a long article on
“Great Britain, Palestine, and the Jews.” The writer gives his reasons
for stating that a British Palestine must be a Jewish Palestine, the
home of a restored Jewish people, the spiritual centre of the whole
Jewish race. He shows what the Jew has already done in Palestine, and
concludes:――
“Under a beneficent rule a Jewish Palestine would attract
wealth and talent and labour from every Jewish community of
the globe, and the progress of Palestine would be much more
rapid still. Compared with its past Palestine is an empty land,
to which only the Jews can restore its ancient property and
glory.”
The _New Europe_ devoted the first pages of its issue of September
27th, 1917, to an article on “Jewry’s Stake in the War.” The writer in
speaking of Zionism, said:――
“The value of Zionism is, that it tends to bring the
intense pride of the Jew in his own race, and in its all but
unrivalled contribution to civilization, into harmony with its
public bearing.
“... The existence of a Jewish State would certainly react and
react healthily upon the position of Jews who might elect to
remain in the Dispersion. The Zionists would fain make of the
Jewish name a clear title of honour.”
_The Weekly Dispatch_ of April 1st, 1917, in a leading article on “The
New Crusade,” said:――
“If any more romantic prospect than the spectacle of the
British Standard flying above the temples and mosques of
_Jerusalem_ can be visualized, it is the restoration by
Britain, which has always befriended the Jew, of the Jewish
polity which fell to pieces in the reign of Hadrian.
“But sentiment must be based on practical considerations.
To develop Palestine needs a skilled agricultural race. The
dreamers of the _Ghetto_, yearning for the return of _Zion_,
point to the Jewish farmers of Canada, America, and the
Argentine in proof that the instinct of a pastoral people of
Biblical time still survives in its sons.”
According to _The Sunday Chronicle_, in an article, April 15th, 1917,
on “British Policy in Palestine――A British Hebrew Necessity”:――
“There is no other race in the whole world who can do these
services for us in Palestine but the Jews themselves. In
the Zionist Movement, which has caught up within itself some
of the best brains and the warmest hearts among the younger
generation of Jews, we have the motive force which will make
the extension of the British Empire into Palestine, otherwise
a disagreeable necessity, a source of pride and a pillar of
strength. A source of pride; for after all, if we are fighting
for oppressed and homeless nationalities in this war, there is
none which has been so horribly oppressed in the past or for
so many hundred years without a home of its own as the Jews.
“A pillar of strength; for the fact that the Jews are not
only of one nation but of all, will give to the power which is
sovereign of its capital _Jerusalem_ a tremendous pull in the
councils of the world.”
_The Times Literary Supplement_ of August 16th, 1917, had an article,
“After Many Years,” which sketched the history of the Jews in Palestine,
and went on to say that:――
“The Palestinian Jew during the past decade has shown a
certain capacity for self-government, and has successfully
assumed many of the functions of administration which the
neglect of Ottoman Mutessarifs had left unperformed. Under
the influence of a renovated system of education, imparted
in _Hebrew_, he was rapidly forgetting his German leanings or
his Russian or Rumanian traditions, and was becoming a farmer
of his own soil. If this process can be resumed and its scope
widened after the war, Palestine may slowly grow from a State
with the status say of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan――and develop
into an autonomous protected State, with its own native
sovereign and administration and forming part of the Empire in
just the same way as do many States which are in full control
of their internal liberties.”
_Common Sense_, March 10th, 1917, dealt with the Jewish claim to
Palestine, and declared that:――
“If, when we make peace, we are to make a just and lasting
peace, the terms of the compact must run along the lines of
nationality. In such a settlement the Jewish claim cannot be
avoided, and we may hope that, as a consequence of the gentle
pressure now being applied, the British Government will regard
it as a duty to obtain a Hebraic Palestine as one of the terms
of peace.”
_The Manchester Guardian_, in an article on June 25th, 1915, on “Jews
and the War,” described the suffering of the Jews scattered amongst the
nations, and defines Zionism as follows:――
“Zionism is, from one point of view, the effort of the Jewish
spirit to establish a firm ground for its own continuance and
development in a changed world, which threatens by degrees
to overwhelm it. Such a movement was bound to come so soon
as danger threatened a race-life so tough and enduring, and
a spirit so distinctive and powerful, and it is, like other
spiritual things, essentially independent of material means.
But for the early realization of its immediate purpose
material means are necessary, and the future of Palestine
thus becomes for the Zionist a matter of pressing and capital
importance.”
_The Manchester Guardian_, in a leading article on “The Future of
Palestine,” in its issue of October 1st, 1917, asks:――
“How can we as champions of the cause of nationality, refuse
our sympathy to the attempt to end age-long exile of the
Jewish people from their political home in Palestine?”
_The Liverpool Courier_ of April 24th, 1917, in a leading article,
“Rebuilding Zion,” said:――
“A British Palestine must be a Jewish Palestine.... Given the
protection of the British flag, and the self-governing system
of the British Empire, Palestine might soon become a new and
living Zion. Such a consummation would be a triumph of the
British spirit. It would be a worthy object to strive for in
the great war, for it would fulfil a deep national aspiration
among a disinherited people of extraordinary genius, and to
that extent would add to the number and the weight of the
blows we should deliver against anti-national Prussianism.”
_The Liverpool Courier_ of June 15th, 1917, on “The Future of
Palestine”:――
“The Jews could make Palestine once more a land flowing with
milk and honey. The country has enormous economic
possibilities.
“... It must be the business of the Allies, in pursuance
of their policy of liberation, to restore to Palestine its
liberties, and to provide a centre of nationhood for the
Jewish race.”
In a leading article on “The Land of Promise,” _The Liverpool
Courier_――October 19th, 1917――again dealt with the Jewish claims to
Palestine, and says:――
“We may be as certain of a loyal Anglo-Jewry with a Jewish
Homeland reconstituted, as we are to-day. Britain has always
taken kindly to the idea of the Jewish Resettlement, and the
moment seems now at hand when an ideal――cherished both by
Britain and by Jewry――is not unlikely to find realization.”
_The Glasgow Herald_, May 29th, 1917, in an article on “_Zion_
Re-edified,” dealt fully with the anti-Zionist manifesto, and said of
the Zionists:――
“They are looking forward now not to a re-edified Zion which
the breath of a Turkish Sultan could tumble into ruin, but to
the establishment of a Jewish State, under the suzerainty of
some strong Christian power.
“Jews in every land have felt that what has been the dream
of long ages of exile and persecution may at last become a
reality on which their eyes shall gaze.”
_The Yorkshire Post_, April 12th, 1917, gave the history of “Jewish
Colonization in Palestine,” and concluded that:――
“Thus there is some foundation for the claim that in the
settlement after the war provision should be made for the
unhampered continuance and extension of the colonization of
Palestine by the Jews; and should that develop in process of
time into the establishment of a Jewish nation there, it will
be a result by no means inconsistent with the ideals for which
Great Britain and her Allies are fighting.”
_The Contemporary Review_ of June, 1917, had a short note on the
“Jewish Claim to Palestine”:――
“Evidently the principle of nationality is itself considered
sacred; it is an asset to the world, and it carries its rights,
moral rights, which are none the less rights, if they cannot
be enforced by the sword.
“The cynic might, perhaps, find more justification had Israel
ever forgotten or waived his claim to the Holy Land; but
a continuous chain of aspiration and prayer, and even of
political activity, binds him to the soil from which he was
driven early in the Christian Era.”
_The Review of Reviews_, September, 1916, thus defined Zionism:――
“Zionism means a complete Jewish, spiritual and national,
rebirth in the ancient land――a re-settling of Jews in their
own ancient home. To the idealist it is much more even, it
is love for the Land of the _Shekinah_ and the Holy Spirit,
a mystic rapture of the whole Jewish soul in the quest of
rediscovering the ‘Fountain of Living Waters.’
“To this end it is necessary for the Jewish people to have a
home in Palestine secured by public laws.”
The military correspondent of _The Daily Chronicle_ on March 30th,
1917, discussed the question of what should be done with Palestine when
liberated, and came to the conclusion that:――
“There can be little doubt that we should revive the Jewish
Palestine of old, and allow the Jews to realize their dream
of _Zion_ in their homeland. All the Jews will not return
to Palestine, but many will do so. The new Jewish State,
under British or French ægis, would become the spiritual
and cultural centre of Jewry throughout the world. The Jews
would at least have a homeland and a nationality of their
own. The national dream that has sustained them for a score
of centuries and more will have been fulfilled.”
In a leading article in the same issue on “The Victory in Palestine”
we read:――
“The project for constituting a Zionist State there under
British protection has a great deal to commend it. The
restoration to Judaism of what must always be the ideal focus
of its persistent national and spiritual life would be a noble
addition to the programme for emancipating small nations.”
_The Daily News_, in a leading article, on October 17th, on the “War
and the Jews,” dealt with the claim of Zionists in all lands to be a
nation, and the desire to see the land of their fathers restored to
them. The article concluded:――
“In a word, we are not sure that Zionism would not prove the
solution of the obstinate problem of this wandering race that
has perplexed the world for so many centuries. Whatever the
decision of the Allies in regard to Palestine, it can hardly
fail to improve the conditions and enlarge the liberty of life
in Palestine, and if the Jews in large numbers choose to take
advantage of the fact, the object of Zionism will in due time
be accomplished, and the Jewish nation will live again under
its own vine and fig-tree. When that happens, the Jewish
problem that afflicts the rest of the world will tend to
disappear.”
CO-ORDINATION OF ZIONISTS’ REPORTS
The months August‒November, 1917, were an exceedingly busy time
for Zionists in England. They had to defend themselves against the
attacks made against them not only in manifestoes, but also behind the
scenes. They had to continue the pourparlers and to endeavour to obtain
some acceptance of their principle. Dr. Weizmann and the author were
actively and energetically assisted in their endeavours not only by a
group of representative Zionists of England, but also by a considerable
number of Zionists abroad. They were helped, above all, by American
Zionists. Between London, New York, and Washington there was constant
communication, either by telegraph, or by personal visit, and as a
result there was perfect unity among the Zionists of both hemispheres.
The strength of conviction, the enthusiasm, the spirit of sacrifice,
the enterprise, and the industry and energy of American Zionists,
displayed by them in the last few years deserve more than a page of
honour in the history of Zionism; they deserve a volume to themselves.
The statesmanship, the genius for organization, and the beneficent
personal influence of the Honourable Louis D. Brandeis, Justice of the
Supreme Court, has raised, strengthened, and secured in every direction
the position of American Zionism not only in America, but also has
increased its prestige and dignity abroad. His well-weighed counsel,
his great experience, his calm judgment, which unites deep democratic
principles with the sense of responsibility of a national leader,
were an important factor in the conduct of Zionist politics. In this
matter he was supported by a number of zealous, expert and devoted
fellow-thinkers. The older American Zionists, who had maintained for
many years a Zionist Organization with great trouble and exemplary
steadfastness, were now, since the outbreak of the war, considerably
strengthened by a number of Zionist leaders from Europe. At the head of
the latter――who, in the meantime, have become thoroughly Americanised
――stood Dr. Shmaria Levin, a member of the “Inner Action Committee”;
who, in addition to his distinguished services as a publicist and
propagandist, in which directions he displayed a vigour scarcely
ever equalled and certainly excelled by no one, also freely gave his
knowledge and advice in the discussion of political questions. To
this group, enlarged by the leaders newly arrived from Europe, was
added another most valuable group, of strongly Zionist feeling, coming
from Palestine. After the enforced exile of a number of distinguished
pioneers of colonization and of national Hebrew culture from Palestine,
many of them went to America to dedicate themselves there to the work
of propaganda. Dr. Ben-zion Mossinsohn, Mr. Israel Belkind and Mr.
Menachem Mendel Scheinkin――to mention only the best known――have worked
zealously in America for the popularizing of the Palestine idea.
The oratorical skill of Mossinsohn was most valuable. A number of
distinguished workers belonging to the _Poale-Zionist_ Federation also
made their headquarters in America, where at the same time the orthodox
Zionists of the _Mizrachi_ Federation had made noteworthy progress
in the organizing of their forces and in the winning of new members,
especially through the efforts of Mr. Belkind. The Jewish Press in
America, a popular actor of most widespread dimensions, devoted its
main attention to Zionism. With very few exceptions the organs of
different opinions vied in the publication of Zionist views and in the
promoting of the national Jewish idea, in which matter the non-Jewish
Press from time to time gave energetic assistance. The publication of
_Hebrew_ literature and press-matter, which previously was too little
in evidence in America, was stimulated by the _Hebrew_ authors and
journalists recently arrived from Russia and Palestine, who founded
new _Hebrew_ weeklies (_Ha’toren_, _Haibri_) and established houses for
the publication of _Hebrew_ books. The pioneer and veteran leader of
the idea of the renaissance of the _Hebrew_ language as the everyday
speech in Palestine, namely, Elieser Ben Jehuda of _Jerusalem_, found
supporters and friends in America, who made it possible for him to
establish his residence during the war in New York, and there to
continue his life-work, the compilation of a great _Hebrew_ dictionary.
The rise of the national idea found striking expression in the
agitation for the holding of a Jewish-American Congress, an idea
which was violently opposed by the anti-Zionists, but was carried by
an overwhelming majority. Nationality and democracy――these were the
battle-cries of the supporters of the Congress, which carried away the
Jewish-American masses with irresistible force.
The separate Zionist federations “_Mizrachi_” (containing Orthodox
Jews) and “_Poale Zion_” (containing Socialists) have naturally been
sorely affected by the war, which greatly impeded their work. They,
too, however, have been able to keep up the contact between the
various sections of their federations and continue their activities.
The “_Mizrachi_” has been particularly active in America. The central
office of the “_Poale Zion_” has been transferred to the Hague,
though its main activities have been carried on in America. In close
co-operation with the office of the Federation, the “Jewish Labour
Correspondence Bureau” has issued bulletins giving information about
Palestine, and the conditions of Jews in various countries, with
special reference to labour questions and the needs of the Jewish
wage-earner.
This was the _milieu_ in which the political work of the London Zionist
centre found great sympathy and ready assistance. The circle grew
constantly, new elements joined the older experienced ones: the worthy
Elisha Lewin-Epstein, who gave himself entirely to relief work and
who for this purpose undertook the most difficult journeys during
the course of the war, never lost sight of his leading idea, namely,
Zionism. Mr. Nathan Straus, who but a few years ago took up the
Palestine scheme, placed himself in the front rank of the promoters of
Zionism; _Rabbi_ Stephen S. Wise, one of the most popular of American
orators, who many years previously had attended the Zionist Congress
as delegate and afterwards left the Movement, returned with renewed
strength to labour in the work of propaganda and in the development of
the organization with those well-tried fighters, Dr. Harry Friedenwald,
Professor Israel Friedlænder, Miss Henrietta Szold, Professor Richard
Gottheil, Mr. Jacob _de_ Haas, Mr. Louis Lipsky, and many others.
It was a great pleasure to welcome into the Zionist camp a galaxy of
new forces of great influence, such for example as Judge Julian W.
Mack and Professor Felix Frankfurter. In synagogues and workshops,
in the universities and in the clubs of the Associations for Mutual
Assistance――everywhere Jewish national life began to throb more
strongly than ever. The sphere of Zionism seemed to grow day by day:
the great expansion which the Zionist university movement of young
men, the “_Menorah_,” had shown, pointed to a great future national
development.
Every idea born in London was tested by the Zionist Organization in
America, and every suggestion from America received the most careful
attention in London. Many Zionist representatives came from America
to London, and others visited America. The negotiations in political
circles in England and France were known in America, every success
was welcomed there with enthusiasm, and often, also, received further
support. Every opportunity was there taken advantage of to hold
discussions, not only with the representatives of the Government and
the political parties, but also with distinguished statesmen who were
staying in America as visitors. The visit of Mr. Balfour, British
Foreign Secretary, gave an opportunity to the prominent Canadian
Zionist leader, Mr. Clarence _de_ Sola, for a most encouraging
conversation, in the course of which the noble intentions of the
British Government were expressed. Similar interviews took place
on various other occasions. The real work, of course, could only
be carried on in London; but it must be observed that the interest,
the goodwill, and the helpful efforts on the part of the Zionist
organizations in the United States, Russia, Canada, and other countries,
have been of considerable value.
In September, 1917, Dr. Tschlenow again came to London, attracted by
the importance of the Zionist affairs which were in negotiation. After
more than two years of absence, although in uninterrupted contact with
London, the work was too advanced, and his health too poor to allow him
to be so active as he was at the beginning. But he participated with
his advice and influence, and he lived to experience some great moments.
Illustration: RT. HON. ARTHUR J. BALFOUR, M.P.
_Olive Edis, F.R.P.S._
THE BRITISH DECLARATION AND ITS RECEPTION
November 2nd, 1917, marks the end of a chapter in Zionist history: it
is Declaration Day.
The following are the terms of the letter to Lord Rothschild in which
Mr. A. J. Balfour, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, declared
the sympathy of the British Government with Zionist aspirations and
its favourable attitude towards the establishment in Palestine of a
national home for the Jewish people:――
“Foreign Office,
“_November 2, 1917._
“DEAR LORD ROTHSCHILD,――I have much pleasure in conveying
to you on behalf of His Majesty’s Government the following
declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations,
which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:
“‘His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment
in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and
will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement
of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall
be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of
existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and
political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.’
“I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to
the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
“Yours sincerely,
“(_Signed_) ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR.”
It was at once clear that a great moment in the history of the Jewish
people had arrived through this Declaration. Our ancient home has again
arisen for civilization. For nineteen centuries it has been made a
desert, for nineteen centuries the Jewish people deprived of their own
land sought everywhere a place where they could have freedom of the
spirit and room for their work, and generation after generation prayed
and dreamt of the return to _Zion_. Generation after generation drew
from this source strength to live and to struggle. Now the dreams
of our ancestors are becoming reality. The testament of Herzl was
approaching fulfilment. The British Government has spoken in solemn
terms to the Jews of the world. The time has arrived to create anew a
Jewish homeland on the ashes of the past, to rebuild a national centre
and to proceed to work in freedom in a free Jewish land.
Mid storm and fire the people and the land seemed to be born again. The
great events of the time of _Zerubbabel_ (_fl._ 536 _b.c.e._) _Ezra_
and _Nehemiah_ repeated themselves. The Third Temple of Jewish freedom
is rising before us. The first stones were laid long ago by our heroic
pioneers in hard struggle against obstacles without number. They
created the first nests of culture in Palestine. With their blood and
work they have shown the world that the Jewish people has not only
historical claims on the land of its ancestors, but also priority
in actual fact in the work of its rebirth. These leader heroes, the
fathers of political Zionism, bravely proclaimed to the whole world
the right of the nation to a free life in the homeland, and organized
productive work in Palestine.
Great new horizons of free national constructive work are revealed
before our eyes. The fate of the Jewish land depends not only on the
powerful protection of Governments, but first and foremost on the
steadfastness and capacity for sacrifice of the Jewish people itself.
_Zerubbabel’s_ call to the Jews of the Diaspora was heard once more――to
return to the ancient land, to grasp the ploughshare and the hammer,
and to forge their own destiny.
The Press was without exception most sympathetic.
“Epoch-making is perhaps not too strong a term to apply to Mr.
Balfour’s letter to Lord Rothschild. At any time a formal endorsement
of Zionism by a Great Power would command attention if couched in such
terms. But at the present moment, when _Gaza_ and _Beersheba_ have
fallen to British armies and the distant thunder of our guns is heard
in _Jerusalem_ itself, the declaration has a significance that cannot
be mistaken.
Illustration: _H. Walter Barnett and Co., Ld._
_Gen. Sir_ EDMUND H. H. ALLENBY
“From the Jewish point of view such a restoration opens the door of
wonderful possibilities; the hopes that have never been lost during
eighteen centuries of the dispersion will return within the region
of fact and accomplishment. Scarcely less important should be the
consequences for Europe.... The family of nations would be enriched by
the return of one of its oldest and most gifted members to a regular
and normal place within the circle.” (_Daily Chronicle_, Nov. 9th.)
“... In deciding to give the Zionists their chance, the British
Government have done a bold thing and a wise thing; and as an honestly
inspired and intelligent disinterestedness is sounder policy than the
most crafty selfishness, they have incidentally struck in this dark
hour a very heavy blow for the cause for which the free peoples of the
world are fighting. Considered merely as a gesture, what is there in
the war to compare in effectiveness to this decision?... The promise of
the restoration of Palestine will count for more in the judgment of the
world than all the desolation wrought by the German legions among the
nations whom they have trodden under foot.” (_Daily News_, Nov. 10th.)
“The restoration of Palestine to the Jews will fulfil the centuries
old desire of that ancient people. Moreover, it will give them a home
for the development of an individual culture, and will not affect
other than beneficially the rights which they have won as citizens of
the countries in which they have made their homes. Moreover, it will
provide refuge for the persecuted, and a centre of Jewish life to which
all the race will naturally turn. Then it will be well for the Allies’
interests in the Mediterranean that so important a place should become
permanently neutralized and stand no risk of falling into the hands
of the Powers which might make a mischievous use of it.” (_Pall Mall
Gazette._)
“Mr. Balfour’s announcement on the subject of Zionism, which forms
an extraordinarily appropriate pendant to General Allenby’s brilliant
operations in Southern Palestine, marks the conclusion of a strenuous
struggle behind the scenes between the International Jews, to whom
this country is much more useful than they are to us, and the National
Jews, who are among our most valuable compatriots. For once the right
side has gained the day, and the Zionist aspirations of the Chosen
People receive for the first time the formal endorsement of a British
Government.” (_The Globe._)
“No more appropriate moment could have been seized by the British
Government to declare itself in favour of the establishment in
Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people than the present
time, when our Twentieth Century Crusaders have just carried _Gaza_,
the ancient Philistine stronghold, and are pressing on to the capture
of the Holy City from the hands of the infidel. British interests have
for long made it plain that some buffer state must arise between Egypt
and a possibly hostile Turkish Government, and Zionism appears to
provide the solution.” (_The Evening Standard._)
“Nearly two thousand years after the Dispersion, Zionism has become a
practical and integral part of all schemes for a new world-order after
the war.... There could not have been at this juncture a stroke of
statesmanship more just or more wise. No one need to be told that it
will send a mystical thrill through the hearts of the vast majority
of Jews throughout the world.... It is no idle dream which anticipates
that by the close of another generation the new _Zion_ may become a
State, including, no doubt, only a pronounced minority of the entire
Jewish race, yet numbering from a million to two million souls, forming
a true national people, with its own distinctive, rural, and urban
civilization, its own centres of learning and art, making a unique
link between East and West. Jews who dwell elsewhere will none the
less be animated by a new interest, sympathy, pride, and will be able
to contribute powerful help. So much for that aspect. We need hardly
point out that for all the higher purposes of the Allies the importance
of Mr. Balfour’s declaration is immediate and great. From the United
States to Russia, new enthusiasm for the general cause of liberty,
restoration, and lasting peace secured by many new international links,
moral and practical, will be kindled amongst the extraordinary race,
whose influence everywhere is out of all proportion to its numbers.”
(_The Observer._)
“... A large and thriving Jewish settlement in the Holy Land, under the
supervision of Great Britain, our Allies, and America, would make for
peace and progress in the Near East, and would thus accord with British
policy. It is not to be supposed that Palestine could ever support more
than a small proportion of the Jewish race. There are probably more
than twelve million Jews in the world, of whom far more than half live
in Russia and Austria. Generations may pass before Palestine is capable
of maintaining with comfort a million Jewish inhabitants, though it
is, as Mr. Albert Hyamson says in his very able new book,¹ a ‘land
laid waste’ and not by any means a desert. But a little Jewish state in
Palestine would serve as a rallying point for Jews all over the world,
and it would confer a benefit also on the Christian and the Moslem
worlds, which are equally interested in the Holy Land and its undying
religious memories.” (_The Spectator._)
¹ “Palestine: The Rebirth of an Ancient People.” By Albert M.
Hyamson. London, 1917.
“Mr. Balfour’s declaration translates into a binding statement of
policy the general wish of British opinion. It emphatically favours
‘the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people.’ If we were to analyse this sentiment we should find at its
core the simple and humane instinct of reparation. Our own record
towards the Jewish race is, from Cromwell’s day downwards, one of
relative enlightenment; but it is on the conscience of all Christendom
that the burden falls of secular persecution which this enduring race
has suffered. One of our solidest reasons for welcoming the Russian
Revolution was that it had freed the whole Alliance from complicity
in the sins of one of its chief partners towards the Jews. To end
this record by restoring the dispersed and downtrodden race to its
own cradle is a war aim which lifts the struggle in this region above
the sordid level of Imperial competition.” (_The Nation._)
“The British Government’s declaration in favour of Zionism is one of
the best pieces of statesmanship that we can show in these latter days.
Early in the war _The New Statesman_ published an article giving the
main reasons why such a step should be taken, and nothing has occurred
to change them. The special interest of the British Empire in Palestine
is due to the proximity of the Suez Canal. The present has killed
the idea that this vital artery ought to be used as a line of defence
for Egypt, and there is a general return to the view of Napoleon (and
indeed history long before his time) that Egypt must be defended
in Palestine. To make Palestine once more prosperous and populous,
with a population attached to the British Empire, there is only one
hopeful way, and that is to effect a Zionist restoration under British
auspices. On the other side of the account it is hard to conceive how
anybody with the true instinct for nationality and the desire to see
small nations emancipated can fail to be warmed by the prospect of
emancipating this most ancient of oppressed nationalities.” (_The New
Statesman._)
“The forty-six Jewish colonies, with their co-operative societies,
their agricultural schools, and their experimental station for
agriculture, seem to have prospered before the war. Their wine and
oranges were one-fourth of the total export trade of _Jaffa_, and while
the war has set back their development the Turks are likely to have
been less destructive than the Germans in France. Their labour――one
of the chief difficulties foreseen by critics of Zionism――is partly
Arab, but largely supplied by Jews from Russia, Roumania, and the
Yemen. With sufficient capital――already furnished in part by Zionist
organizations――the removal of the blight of Turkish rule, and the
coming shortage of all food products, the economic future of a Jewish
Palestine should be bright.” (_The Economist._)
“The movement towards Palestine will be slow, and none of those who
have sanctioned the great experiment may hope to live to judge it
by the fruits; but it is satisfactory to remember that the British
Government’s decision meets with the approbation of many Great Powers.
President Wilson views the Zionist programme with the keenest sympathy,
and has appointed a Jewish Commission to study in Palestine the
question of a Jewish State. The Russian Revolutionary Government has
declared its willingness to support the Jewish claim to Palestine, and
even permitted a Zionist Conference to be held in Petrograd. Those who
should be well informed say that the Pope is not opposing the Zionist
ideal, and that the French Government favours it; one and all seem
to be agreed that when this war is over the horrors of the Jewish
situation as it affects the vast majority of the race must come to an
end. The persecution and repression practised in Russia and Roumania
down to little more than a year ago cannot go on in a world made
fit for all to live in. ... What will be the spiritual effect of this
return to Palestine upon the pious Jew, who for two thousand years
has said, _If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its
cunning_; upon the other class of Jew who will recover his Judaism when
it has a centre, a point of focus; and upon the non-Jew to whom the
return to Palestine is the fulfilment of prophecy and the foreshadowing
of the Millennium?” (_The Graphic._)