RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
A new Memorandum――The “Balance of Power”――Palestine and
“Rights” in other countries――A “Memorial of the Church of
Scotland”――Protection for the Jews in the East.
SOME time afterwards a new Memorandum appeared in the press, which
may be considered one of the highest eulogies of Zionism ever written
(Appendix lv). It combines religious conviction with an appreciation
of political realism. The writers――this article being the expression
of the opinions of a group of statesmen――deal with political problems
which were then of the highest interest and importance, and indicate
with sufficient clearness a probable solution, emphasizing the view
that “the cause of the Restoration of the Jews to Palestine is one
essentially generous and noble.” They do not fail to realize the
complexity of the problem and the many cross-currents and jealousies,
but arrive at the conclusion that there is a remedy for all these
conflicts in the colonization of Palestine by the Jews. They even
go much further than this, for they point out that “it would be a
crowning-point in the glory of England to bring about such an event.”
The writer of an article entitled “A Regard for the Jews,”¹ drew the
following historical parallel:――
¹ _Globe_, August 14, 1840.
“To afford the Jew an opportunity of returning to Palestine, if he
chooses, and of dwelling there in peace and security, will hereafter
form one of the brightest gems in the crown of Britain. Cyrus, for
permitting the captive Jews to go up to _Jerusalem_, was honoured with
an everlasting memorial upon the pages of inspiration. Britain will
not miss a recompense of equal worth and honour for an act of the
same enlightened benevolence. For this the present time is most happy
and opportune――for the stirring and philanthropic portion of the
public are alive to the case of the Jews, and would hail with loudest
applause that government which would thus lay the top-stone upon all
the kind exertions hitherto made in favour of that people.”
It is a common notion, particularly among some Jewish opponents of
Zionism, to suppose that some non-Jewish supporters of this idea may
be jealous of Jewish equality in the countries where they live, and
may hope to get rid of the Jews. As a matter of fact, however, the
promoters of the idea of Restoration have always been opposed to any
sort of persecution or degradation.
Here the writer touched upon one of the most important controversial
points: the alleged incompatibility of the Restoration of the Jews
to Palestine with their rights of citizenship in other countries.
This contention has been made use of by some Jewish opponents of
modern Zionism. We have dealt with the point in the Introduction, and
shall have to return to it again. Here we only call attention to the
broad-minded and lofty manner in which this English writer pointed
out the fallacy of this supposed contradiction between Palestine and
“rights,” which has arisen only through narrowness of judgment and
want of logic. It is curious indeed to find that Jewish opponents
were always wont to speak on this point in the name of Christians, but
in a strain quite opposed to expressed ideas and the attitude of the
Christians most competent to decide. The plain fact is, as the writer
says, that “the promoters of the idea of Restoration have always been
opposed to any sort of persecution and degradation.” This theory of
a supposed irreconcilability of Palestine and “rights” is logically
fallacious from another standpoint. The defenders of the theory refuse
to consider sufficiently the question of the nature of rights and
freedom. At times they seem to opine that Jews have to renounce their
traditions in order to get “rights”; at other times they appear to
emphasize that freedom which is obtainable by means of “rights.” But
in reality rights are not necessarily freedom; a man who aspires to
culture but is forced to renounce his aspirations is not free. On the
other hand, for a group of persons to abandon their traditions is not
freedom. Freedom in the positive sense, the only sense which gives it
any value, is the privilege of a wide choice, because the privilege of
choice is the primary condition of real development and productiveness.
Hence the only logical and liberal formula is that indicated by
the writer of the Memorandum; “to afford the Jew an opportunity of
returning to Palestine if he chooses.” Modern Zionism has expressed
the same idea in other words: Palestine should be for those Jews who
cannot amalgamate with others or are not desirous of doing so.
In the meantime, the question of the protection to be granted to the
Jews in the East continued to occupy English minds a great deal. _The
Times_, December 3, 1840, _p._ 6, has an article on “The Jews” which
reads:――
“The following Memorial has lately been presented by the Church of
Scotland to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs:――
“‘To the Right Hon. Lord Viscount Palmerston, Her Majesty’s Principal
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs....
“‘Your memorialists cannot help expressing the thankfulness which
they, and all others interested in the welfare of the Jewish people,
must feel to your Lordship, for the countenance which you have
given to other societies having at heart the same objects with
your memorialists at the Porte and with the Pasha of Egypt, and for
recommending the Jews to the especial protection of the consul sent
to Syria by Her Majesty’s Government.
“‘Your memorialists look with deep interest on the transactions now
going on in Syria, which they trust will result in the more firm and
more extensive establishment of British influence in that interesting
land: and deeply impressed with the conviction that it is a revealed
truth of the word of God, that the blessing of God is promised to
those who succour His ancient but now afflicted people, whether
nations or individuals, they are most anxious that, in any future
settlement of that country, under the auspices of Britain, your
Lordship and Her Majesty’s Government should take measures as far as
possible for protecting the Jews against oppression and injustice....’”
With reference to this Memorial the _Globe_ made the following
remarks:――
“Great Britain has taught the nations a lesson of charity, as well as
faith, by taking God’s ancient people under her special protection.
Whilst some of the Powers of the earth have wavered, and continue
to do homage to the spirit of unjust prejudice and the practice of
persecution, to Great Britain belongs the just praise of asserting the
claims of justice and mercy by interposing in several periods of her
history on behalf of the unhappy victims of national and religious
hatred. All that are interested in the cause of suffering humanity
turn their eyes towards Great Britain.”
The writer continues:――
“Why has England been so watched over and so preserved? Has any other
country such a history? The histories of many other countries are
made up of wars and rumours of wars in defence of their homes from
foreign invaders――England, save civil wars, chiefly in the struggle
for civil and religious liberty. Why should so small a speck on
the earth’s surface as England be able to control an enormous and
populous-scattered Empire on which the sun never sets? Why should
England be the terror of the oppressor and the asylum of the
oppressed? It is by the spirit of God, by the great zeal and industry
to be profitable and useful to the world, by readiness to take any
pains, and give any assistance to the furthering of justice. Therefore
England gave special protection to the Jews.”
From this we gather that public opinion regarded the protection of
the Jews in the East by England as an accomplished fact, though not
officially proclaimed.