ZIONISM IN ENGLAND
The first leaders――Herzl before the Royal Commission on
Immigration――The East Africa offer――Death of Herzl――Holman
Hunt――Report of United States Consul at Beirut on Zionism
――Lord Robert Cecil――The Palestine Exploration Fund――Colonel
Conder――Lord Gwydyr――Zionism and the Arab question.
WE turn now to England, where the Zionist idea continued to find
influential support after the foundation of the new movement.
Dr. Herzl’s appreciation of the importance of England for Zionism may
be illustrated by quotations from two of his letters:――
“VIENNA, _Feb. 28th_.
“MR. CHAIRMAN,――My friends in England know how much I feel
drawn towards them, and how much I expect from them for the
work common and dear to all of us. From the first moment I
entered the movement my eyes were directed towards England,
because I saw that by reason of the general situation of
things there, that it was the Archimedean point where the
lever could be applied....
“THEODOR HERZL.
“To the Chairman of the English Zionist Conference.”¹
¹ Zionist Conference held at the Clerkenwell Town Hall on
March 6th, 1898. Report of Proceedings. London ... 1898.
_p._ 22. (8º. 94 _pp._ in printed wrapper. [B. M.]) Special
number of Palestina. The _Chovevé Zion_ Quarterly.
Again, in a letter to Viscount Milner, dated January 3, 1903, he
wrote:――
“All the freedom and equality of rights of the British Jews, the
happy situation even of foreign Jews in the British Colonies, and the
humane protection which England’s Government grants, by their protests
against the persecution of our brethren, all this is a bond which
unites us all closely to your glorious nation.... Some day, we shall
be able to prove our gratitude to Great and Greater Britain.”
England was made, almost as a matter of course, the home of the
financial institutions of Zionism: the Jewish National Fund, the
Jewish Colonial Trust and the Anglo-Palestine Company are registered
as English Companies. Hence English Zionists have had a position and
an influence in the movement which would hardly have been warranted
on the ground of mere numbers. Conditions have, however, been
unfavourable to any rapid growth of the organization in this country.
The official Jewish community, with its rather parochial view, long
looked askance at Zionism, and until quite recent years those who
followed Herzl have been a minority struggling hard against a vast
amount of prejudice and of indifference. None the less, such English
Zionists as Dr. M. Gaster (_Haham_ of the Spanish and Portuguese
Congregations), Herbert Bentwich, Joseph Cowen, L. J. Greenberg and
Israel Zangwill (who left the movement after some years to found
the Jewish Territorial Organization) have played a prominent part in
shaping Zionist policy; and more recently, as we have remarked above,
a group of younger men has come forward.
If Herzl had the intuition as to the importance of England, it
may fairly be said that England more rapidly than any other Power
recognized the significance of Herzl’s movement. The holding of the
fourth Congress in London in 1900 evoked a great deal of favourable
comment in the English Press (Appendix lxxxiv). And more official
recognition was not wanting. In 1902 Herzl was invited to give
evidence before the Royal Commission on Immigration. That fact alone
sufficiently indicates that the title of Zionism to a voice on a
question affecting large masses of Jews was accepted in England, even
in those early days of the movement, as a matter of course. But a
still more striking recognition of Zionism on the part of the British
Government was to follow before long.
In October, 1902, the Executive of the Zionist Organization entered
into negotiations with the British Government for part of the _Sinai_
Peninsula to be granted to the Jews with powers of self-government.
These negotiations broke down owing to certain stipulations on the
part of the Egyptian Government, and the Colonial Office then made the
Zionists an offer of territory in British East Africa. The terms of
this offer are contained in a letter of the 14th August, 1903, to Mr.
L. J. Greenberg in regard “to the form of an agreement which Dr. Herzl
proposes should be entered into between His Majesty’s Government and
the Jewish Colonial Trust, Ltd., for the establishment of a Jewish
settlement in East Africa.” The letter states that the Marquis of
Lansdowne (then Foreign Minister) “has studied the question with
the interest which His Majesty’s Government must always take in
any well-considered scheme for the amelioration of the position of
the Jewish race.... If a site can be found which the Trust and H.M.
Commission find suitable, Lord Lansdowne will be prepared to entertain
favourably proposals for the establishment of a Jewish colony or
settlement on conditions which will enable the members to observe
their national customs ... the scheme comprising as its main features
the grant of a considerable area of land, the appointment of a Jewish
Official as the chief of the local administration, and permission
to the colony to have a free hand in regard to municipal legislation
as to the management of religious and purely domestic matters, such
local autonomy being conditional upon the right of H.M. Government to
exercise general control.” This announcement gave rise to considerable
excitement in the Zionist camp. The most ardent Zionists believed that
it meant that Zionism was to give up its efforts for the acquisition
of Palestine and to regard the settlement in East Africa as its goal,
and they accordingly, and rightly, opposed this presumed alteration
of the original programme. Others maintained that this alteration
was never contemplated. British East Africa was not to take the place
of Palestine, but only to serve as a place of temporary refuge for
those unfortunate Jews who, under the horrible conditions imposed
upon them, could not live in the unfriendly countries of their birth,
and wait there until Palestine became a Jewish country. After most
exciting debates, the Sixth Congress finally adopted a proposal to
express the thanks of the Jewish people to the British Government
for its magnanimous offer, which was unique in history, and to send
a commission of experts to East Africa to investigate the territory.
Even this tentative acceptance of the scheme in principle was bitterly
opposed by a large section of delegates, especially those from
Russia, who viewed with profound distrust any deviation from the
pure Palestinian programme. The Commission of enquiry started on its
journey towards the end of the year 1904, and in May, 1905, presented
its report, which was not favourable enough to justify Zionist action
for the purpose of establishing a Jewish colony. The death of Herzl
had taken place in the meantime (3rd July, 1904).
The British East Africa offer not only precipitated a crisis within
Zionism, but also――and herein lies its significance――raised Zionism
to the rank of a political movement of international importance, and
demonstrated the interest of the British Government in a solution of
the Jewish problem. But after this brilliant success circumstances
brought it about that the movement had virtually to leave for a time
the political arena into which Herzl had taken it, and to concentrate
on the strengthening of its organization and the development of the
Jewish holding in Palestine. The results achieved in both fields have
amply compensated Zionism for the comparative absence of _réclame_
and of more sensational triumphs. It is, indeed, largely thanks to the
quiet constructive work of the ten years preceding the outbreak of war,
that the movement is to-day in a position to assert with confidence
its claim to a hearing in the peace settlement.
Meanwhile, however, the opportunity was lacking for any further
co-operation between the British Government and Zionism. This was
partly due to the course taken by British policy in the Near East,
with which we shall deal in the next chapter. But there was no
diminution of the sympathy shown by English thinkers and writers for
the Zionist idea. We quote here a few characteristic utterances of
this later period, the period of Zionism in its modern form.
As early as 1896 Holman Hunt, the famous painter, advocated the
Zionist idea in its most radical form, that of a Jewish state in
Palestine. A contribution to the columns of the _Jewish Chronicle_, 21
February, 1896, _p._ 9, entitled “Mr. Holman Hunt on the Resettlement
of the Jews in Palestine,” contains a letter addressed by him from
Draycott Lodge, Fulham, Jan. 6th, 1896, to an eminent Jew, which
expresses ideas similar in every way to those of Dr. Herzl. He saw
looming in the distance an approaching war “which would entail the
destruction and maiming of countless legions of the choicest men
of the noble races of the civilised world, and with this would come
the disappearance of wealth, and the ruin of the richest....” “He
sought a remedy against the impending evil, and was led to suggest
the restoration of Palestine to the Jews, both for the sake of the
advantages which would accrue to the Jews themselves and in order to
remove a bone of contention out of the way of the European Powers.”
“Palestine will soon become a direful field of contention to the
infernally armed forces of the European Powers, so that it is
calculated to provoke a curse to the world of the most appalling
character. Russia and Greece will contend for the interests of the
Greek Church, France and Italy for the Latin, Prussia and Austria
for the German political interests.... In addition to the above-named
certain contenders for Palestine, there would be England....” Holman
Hunt spoke like a prophet, though not in every detail.
Nor was the actual colonizing work in Palestine without recognition in
the English Press:――¹
¹ _The Times_, Monday, May 8, 1899, p. 12.
_Jewish Colonies in Palestine_
The United States Consul at Beirut, in a report which has lately been
issued by the Department of State in Washington, (on) the condition of
the numerous Jewish colonies in Palestine.... The Consul thinks that,
whether the Zionist movement succeeds in its special aim or not, the
agitation aids in the development of Palestine――a country “which will
generously respond to modern influences....” The Zionist movement,
also, is said to be bringing out new qualities in the Jews inhabiting
the country; they are ... beginning to act on the principle that “to
till the ground is to worship God.”... On the whole, the Consul thinks
“the prospects are brighter than ever for the Jews in Palestine and
for Palestine itself. European influence has obtained a foothold in
the country, and the tide of modern ideas cannot be long debarred.”
It may be added that during the Parliamentary Elections of 1900 the
English Zionist Federation addressed to all candidates a letter asking
for an expression of sympathy with Zionism, and between ninety and a
hundred replies were received, the great majority of an exceedingly
favourable nature; and that in 1906 Lord Robert Cecil wrote: “The
central idea underlying the Zionist movement seems to me worthy of all
support. Apart from all other considerations, it appears to me that
the restoration of the Jewish nation offers a satisfactory solution,
if it can be accomplished, of those problems raised by Jewish
emigration, which are otherwise very difficult of adjustment.”
Naturally, the Palestine Exploration Fund had done a great deal to
keep alive interest in Palestine among Englishmen; and some at least
of those who worked for it were outspoken supporters of the Jewish
national idea. Prominent among these is Colonel C. R. Conder, who
devoted practically the whole of his life to the exploration of the
Holy Land, part of which he surveyed as far back as 1875. He not only
wrote a series of valuable books on Palestine from the standpoint of
the investigator; he did not fail when opportunity offered to identify
himself with Zionist views as to the future of the land. He saw in the
Zionists the natural leaders to whom the destitute and oppressed Jews
turn for counsel and guidance, and recognized that “a nation without
a country must be content with toleration as all that it can expect.”
Englishmen, he said, should be “only too glad to see Palestine
increasing in civilization and prosperity as an outpost in the
neighbourhood of Egypt” (Appendix lxxxv).
Finally, something must be said as to the views put forward by Lord
Gwydyr (1841‒1915) with regard to the relations between Jews and Arabs
(Appendix lxxxvi). In suggesting that Palestine can become Jewish
without any disadvantage to the Arabs, and that in fact the Jews,
being themselves a combination of East and West, are alone capable
of helping the Arabs to take their old place in civilization, Lord
Gwydyr is expressing precisely the sentiments of Zionists themselves.
Zionism has never desired to use its influence to the disadvantage
of non-Jews in Palestine. Its hope is that there will come a day when
even the Chauvinists among the Arabs, whose number is, happily, quite
insignificant compared with the noise that they sometimes cause, will
change their unfriendly policy, and that Jews and Arabs will work
together for the civilization of the East.
It is true that some English authorities are rather pessimistic as to
the possibilities of an Arab administration. One of the best-qualified
students of the Eastern question says:――
“Bad as Turkish government is according to our standards, native Arab
government, when not in tutelage to Europeans, has generally proved
itself worse, when tried in the Ottoman area in modern times. Where it
is of a purely Bedouin barbaric type, as in the countries of Central
Arabia, it does well enough; but if the population be contaminated
ever so little with non-Arab elements, practices or ideas, Arab
administration seems incapable of producing effective government. It
has had trials in the Holy Cities at intervals, and for longer periods
in the Yemen. But a European, long resident in the latter country, who
has groaned under Turkish administration, where it has always been the
most oppressive, bore witness that the rule of the native Imam only
served to replace oppressive government by oppressive anarchy.”
The same author writes concerning the Arab movement:――
“The peoples of the Arab part of the Ottoman Empire are a congeries of
differing races, creeds, sects and social systems, with no common bond
except language. The physical character of their land compels a good
third of them to be nomadic, predatory barbarians, feared by the other
two-thirds. The settled folk are divided into Moslem and Christian,
the cleavage being more abrupt than in Western Turkey, and the
traditions and actual spirit of mutual enmity more separative. Further,
each of these main divisions is subdivided. Even Islam in this region
includes a number of incompatible sects, such as the Ansariyeh, the
Matavcle and the Druses in the Syrian mountains; Shiite Arabs on the
Gulf Coast and the Persian border.... The ‘Arab Movement’ up to the
present has consisted of little more than talk and journalistic
comment.”
But we do not take this pessimistic view. We are inclined to give much
more credit to Arab capacity, and while we admit that the Arab problem
is a serious one, we believe that it can and will be solved.
And as to the alleged rivalry between Jewish and Arab claims we may
quote the opinion of an Arab authority, M. Farid Kassab, as to the
Jewish colonization of Palestine:――
“Nous avons vu de très près les Juifs en Palestine, nous les avons
observés et nous pouvons tranquilliser l’inquiet Azoury¹ et son Église.
Ils ne songent pas à former un empire, à batailler contre les Arabes,
à arracher aux chrétiens un caverne ou un tombeau, devenus pour
quelques-uns l’unique objet du culte, pour d’autres, les fourbes, un
moyen de vivre dans l’abondance et l’oisivité....
¹ One of the opponents of Zionism.
“Les Juifs en Orient sont chez eux; cette terre devient leur unique
patrie; ils n’en connaissent pas d’autres.... Ils ne l’exploitent pas
dans l’oisivité pour des intentions absurdes, comme les congrégations
cléricales, ... Ceux-là sont de vrais brigands et de vrais accapareurs
avec leurs couvents, leurs hôtelleries et leurs domaines....
“Si les juifs et les indigènes avec l’aide du gouvernement ottoman
réussissent à rendre à la Palestine un peu de son ancienne splendeur,
... ils recevront néanmoins les remerciements de l’histoire et des
génération futures.”¹
¹ ♦Le Nouvel Empire Arab et la Curie Romaine et le prétendu
péril juif universal. Résponse à M. N[edjib] Azoury bey
(_i.e._ to his book “Le reveil de la nation arabe”). Par
Farid Kassab. Paris ... 1906. (8º. 2 _ll._ + 47 _pp._ in
printed wrapper), _pp._ 42‒3, 5.
♦ Since this was a quote, none of the words or accents were
corrected.