ZIONISM IN FRANCE
David Wolffsohn――France――_M._ Léon Bourgeois――Michel Erlanger
――Zadoc Kahn――Baron Edmond _de_ Rothschild――Professor Joseph
Halévy――Dr. Emil Meyersohn――Dr. Waldemar Haffkine――The
brothers Marmorek――Bernard Lazare.
IN its early years the new Zionist movement showed perhaps
insufficient appreciation of the importance of Palestinian colonizing
work. Its attention was turned mainly in another direction, that of
paving the way for a great resettlement of the Jewish people by the
creation of favourable political conditions; and the plodding and
often blundering work of the _Chovevé Zion_ seemed to some of its
leaders and many of their followers to be poor, petty and uninspiring
by comparison with the wide sweep and the brilliance of their own
ideal. But as time went on, and it became obvious that in the main
the new movement must look for support to those who had worked for the
same end as “Lovers of _Zion_,” the necessary adjustment between the
new and the older methods had to be made; and the internal history of
Zionism since 1897 is one of the penetration of _Chovevé Zion_ ideas
into the large framework created by the master-mind of Herzl under
the stress of ideas somewhat different. It is not our intention to
trace this history here¹ (Appendix lxxxi): we are concerned less with
the inner history of the movement than with its repercussions in the
literature and the politics of England and France. It may suffice to
say that the Congresses, held first annually and afterwards biennially,
attracted an ever-growing number of delegates and an ever-increasing
amount of attention; that in its early years the movement established
a Jewish National Fund for the purpose of buying land in Palestine on
a great scale, and a financial instrument, the Jewish Colonial Trust,
which in turn founded the Anglo-Palestine Company for the conduct of
actual banking business in Palestine (Appendix lxxxii); that after the
death of Herzl in 1904, and the rejection of the offer by the British
Government of a piece of territory in East Africa, there developed a
somewhat serious fissure between the two tendencies in the movement,
the one looking to political activity and the other to Palestinian
colonization as the right line of progress; that Herzl’s friend
and follower, David Wolffsohn (1856‒1914) (Appendix lxxxiii), who
succeeded him as President, was able by a rare combination of gifts to
hold the movement together during the period of crisis; that after the
Turkish Revolution in 1908, which seemed to make political activity
impossible or useless, there was a marked concentration of effort
on Palestinian development; that meanwhile the Zionist organization
spread to the four corners of the globe, and societies and federations
were formed not only in every country in Europe, but also in all parts
of the British Dominions, and particularly in the United States of
America; and that the outbreak of war found the movement in a position
to point both to a large membership――about a quarter of a million――and
to substantial achievements in Palestine in support of its claim for
the definite reconstitution of the Jews as a nation in their ancient
land.
¹ For a general history of the movement see _Zionism_, by
Prof. R. Gottheil (Jewish Publication Society of America,
Philadelphia, 1914).
Illustration: DAVID WOLFFSOHN
We turn from this brief summary to the impression made by the new
movement in France and in England.
In France, where there had always been statesmen and writers who
had a proper understanding of the Zionist idea, the most notable
pronouncement from a non-Jewish source came from M. Léon Bourgeois,
one of the greatest French statesmen of the present generation. His
views, as imparted to Baroness Bertha _von_ Suttner (1843‒1914), were
published by her in 1899:――¹
¹ Zionisten und Christen ... Emil Kronberger ... Leipzig ...
1900. _pp._ 117‒119.
“Bourgeois held forth to me enthusiastically and explained the
various reasons why according to his view the movement should be
supported. Complete assimilation――not altogether impossible after
a long time――looms still in the far distance; until then very many
individuals――if they do not break away――must suffer. The individual
is still everywhere the highest consideration, collectivism is only
an abstract conception. Until now the Jews have been too strongly
differentiated from their surroundings to assimilate without being
noticed. They are recognizable for their shortcomings as well as for
their most outstanding virtues. Difference does not mean inferiority;
no one will allow himself to be insulted because he belongs to this
or that ethnical group. To be a Zionist means to make a stand against
anti-Semitism. The people among whom they live are even more injured
by Jew-hatred than the Jews; it is opposed to culture, and prevents
the realization of the ideal of peace. Culture happily unites all
its objects more closely and aims at an unattainable ideal, but all
good works are directed towards paving the way to future success.
Therefore every fresh sign of energy is welcome. From a nation newly
reconstituted, full of energy, and composed of such intelligent,
capable and talented elements, an increase in the general work of
culture may be expected. Therefore Zionism is to be encouraged. It
is self-understood that the first necessity is to bring relief to a
persecuted and unfortunate people. But I wish to clear up this side
of the question, which belongs to the future; to bring forward such
arguments as are debated. In our Chauvinistic circles, the following
argument will be brought forward: Let us be glad that in the Jews we
possess a cosmopolitan element; that the scholar, the artist and the
thinker amongst them work and create without reference to national
ideas. But that kind of argument is false, because to be cosmopolitan,
to recognize that the interests of humanity outweigh those of one’s
fatherland, or still more to understand this, one must, before all
things, have a fatherland.”
What is remarkable about these views is their similarity in some
respects to those expressed in 1866 by Moses Hess in his _Rom und
Jerusalem_. Hess, though himself a German Jew writing in German,
connected Zionism with the political rôle of France. He regarded the
French Revolution as one of the great events that were to prepare the
restoration of Israel, and therefore he looked to France for help.
France had extended her protection to the Roman Catholics of Syria,
and was the _beau idéal_ and the _avant courier_ of human progress.
The renationalization of humanity was his aim. He realized the
distinctiveness of the Jew. He said that Jews and Germans were as the
poles asunder in thought and conceptions of life, and the logic of
history and the necessities of humanity made him plead for _Zion_ to
be restored. Nature’s economy, he said, demands that the Jew should
lead his own life, in his own fashion, and in his own country. He
pleaded in the first place for a reaction against Hellenistic theories
of life: to him family life was sacred; the mother’s love was the
real sacred source of Jewish persistence, because it was spiritual yet
not unreal. From the family to the nation was but a step; the family
should possess in the individual what the nation should uphold in the
mass. He attacked most scornfully the German-Jewish Reform movement,
not because he was of the ultra-orthodox school, but because there
had been no real Reformation in Judaism. He believed in the upholding
of traditional observances not because of their religious utility,
but because they were expressive of the Jewish nation, because many
of them link us to the remote past. Seeing the gradual disappearance
of the little groups of emancipated Jews, and the great misery of the
bulk of the Jewish people, he watched most jealously and anxiously
over their destiny, desiring to preserve their original purity and
ancestral dignity. “The Jew should live his own life,” said Hess:
“Welcome to all fresh and sound symptoms of energy,” said Bourgeois.
It is the same idea, bespeaking the same sense of humanity and real
equality.
As regards the Jews of France, we have already shown how real were the
Zionist sympathies of the leaders of the “Alliance” in the sixties.
Their successors did not fall below them in this respect. Thus Michel
Erlanger (1828‒1892), an active member of the Central Committee of
the “Alliance” and Vice-President of the “_Consistoire_” _de Paris_,
promoted most energetically the colonization of Palestine. It was to a
great extent through his invitation that Baron Edmond _de_ Rothschild
came to assist the colonies. The success of the Baron’s undertakings
was largely due to Erlanger’s knowledge of the localities and their
conditions, to his practical understanding and to the energy which
he brought to bear upon the work, inspired by a love for the sacred
cause which triumphed over difficulties. His practical mind saw that
the Holy Land was far better suited than any other country to be a
real home for the Jew. We have already mentioned the Grand _Rabbin_ of
France, M. Zadoc Kahn, in connection with the first Zionist Congress.
No man played a more important part in the early colonization of
Palestine than this admirable spiritual leader, with his great
strength of character, personal influence and immense popularity. A
man of great dignity and wisdom, a fine personality in the noblest
sense of the term, he helped all undertakings in favour of Palestine.
All the Palestinian deputations, and those from other countries with
schemes for the benefit of Palestine, addressed themselves to him; all
their cares and troubles fell upon his shoulders. He was engaged in
this herculean task for some years, and rendered invaluable service
to the work of colonization. And there was always at Paris a group of
influential supporters of the Palestinian idea. Besides Baron Edmond
_de_ Rothschild, the great benefactor of Palestine, there were the
famous scholar, Professor Joseph Halévy (1827‒1918), who was already
half a century ago one of the pioneers of a _Hebrew_ Revival in the
East; Dr. Waldemar Mordecai Wolff Haffkine, C.I.E., member of the
Institut Pasteur, who afterwards made a great name for himself by his
important medical work in India; and Dr. Emil Meyersohn (at present
one of the directors of the Jewish Colonization Association), an
eminent scholar who, thanks to his exceptional experience, was able
to reorganize the old system of colonization in Palestine.
Thus French Jewry has never been the impregnable citadel of
assimilation which it is sometimes represented as being. Herzl’s
movement evoked a response in quarters which hitherto had been
strangers to the Palestinian idea; and though a fusion between the old
and the new Zionists was not effected for some time, yet essentially
the two sections stood for one and the same thing. The new Zionist
organization gained its footing in France through the formation, soon
after the first Congress, of the “_Fédération Sioniste_,” the chief
pillar of which was, of course, Max Nordau.
Dr. Alexander Marmorek, a well-known physician, and one of the most
prominent Zionists since the very beginning of the movement, was
for several years President of the Federation. Alexander and his
two brothers Oscar and Isidore were the principal advocates of the
national idea in academic circles. The youthful career of Isidore was
unhappily cut short by death. Oscar (1863‒1910) worked for a number
of years with Herzl, but an untimely death robbed the movement of him
also. The most gifted and most enthusiastic of the three brothers is
still active in the movement. These leaders of French Zionism were
assisted by the late M. Berr, Mdlle. Marie Schach, Dr. Jacobsohn, Dr.
Nahum Slousch, and others.
Special notice is due to one of the first followers of Herzl――Bernard
Lazare (1856‒1904).¹
¹ His name was Lazare Bernard.
Born at Nîmes, Bernard Lazare left his native place at an early
age and came to Paris. He studied paleography and history at the
Sorbonne, and was engaged for a time on archæological work, but soon
entered upon a literary and journalistic career. He contributed to
the _Figaro_, the _Echo de Paris_ and other dailies, founded _L’Action
Sociale_, issued a pamphlet about the Panama affair and was the author
of a few novels. The publication of his _L’Antisémitisme, son histoire
et ses causes_ led to a duel with Edouard Drumout.
Lazare was the pioneer of the agitation which led to the release
of Captain Alfred Dreyfus; his pamphlets on the _affaire_ were
undoubtedly the primary causes of the revision. Another subject
in which he was deeply interested was the condition of the Jews
in Roumania. He repeatedly raised his voice on their behalf in the
leading reviews, in that clear, incisive style which was his own. He
was also an enthusiastic adherent of Herzl and an ardent Zionist. He
came back to national Judaism after all his achievements for humanity
in the Socialist movement and in the literature and politics of his
great country, and became an eloquent champion of the new Jew. A clear
thinker and a gifted writer, he contributed brilliant Zionist articles
to the _Flambeau_ and the _Echo Sioniste_. It was surprising how
this real French patriot and intellectual came to lay bare his Jewish
soul and Jewish individuality, and with what power of conviction he
defended the immutable rights of this individuality.
“Le Sionisme,” he wrote in 1900, “c’est l’affirmation de notre
personalité. Nous avons confiance en nous mêmes, en notre génie, en
notre destin pour être dignes de notre passé.... Nous ne serions pas
dignes de notre passé, si notre histoire ne nous inspirait des pensées
pour l’avenir et si nous ne comprendrions pas qu’il faut que nous
ayons un foyer, un centre pour former notre univers, si grand ou
petit qu’il soit, à l’image de notre idéal, de notre civilization,
de notre pensée et de notre sensibilité. C’est la véritable solution
du problème. Nous ne voulons pas l’absorption et l’anéantissement, la
disparition, la paix du cimetière, la mort sans phrase. Pour hurter
avec les loups――est-ce-que c’est notre mission? Non. Nous réclamons
notre titre à nous d’être un ouvrier utile dans le grand atelier
de l’humanité. Notre rôle déjà grand, grandira encore. Ce sera la
triomphe du droit sur la force brutale, du droit de l’individuelle
personne humaine et des collectives personnes qui sont les nations.
On a beau dire que puisqu’il y a certaines groups des israélites
denationalisés, la nation n’existe plus. Mais ces petits groupes ne
comptent pour rien. Il y a un peuple juif qui compte, c’est la grande
majorité, ceux qui ont un passé et des traditions dont ils sont fiers
et dont ils ont la garde.”¹
¹ Le National Juif, Paris, 1898.
M. Lazare displayed a warm interest in the various questions of
Zionism, and always took a national and democratic view. Though
shortly before his death he retired from Zionist activity on account
of a difference of opinion between himself and Herzl on a point of
tactics with regard to Turkey (Lazare proposed an alliance with the
Young Turks), he remained a convinced Zionist. He will live in Jewish
memory much more as a Zionist than as a “Dreyfusard.” His death in
1904 was an irreparable loss to Zionism in France.