HISTORY OF ZIONISM
1600‒1918

SIR MARK SYKES, BART., M.P.
(A TRIBUTE)

A most tragic event took place on the 16th of February, 1919, when the world lost one of the most valiant champions of Zionism, namely Sir Mark Sykes, Bart., M.P. He fell like a hero in the thick of the fight; he was suddenly extinguished, as it were a torch in full blaze. He stood towering above the crowd of sceptics and grumblers, viewing the promised land as from Pisgah’s height, his clear eye fixed on Zion. He was at once a sage and a warrior, a knight in the service of the sacred spirit of the national idea without fear or reproach, whom nothing could overcome but the doom of sudden and premature death. Sir Mark Sykes was but forty years old, physically a giant, a picture of perfect manhood, full of youthful vigour, a soldier and a poet, a fervid patriot and a kindly and self-sacrificing friend of humanity. He was one of the born representatives of that tradition which for centuries has inseparably united the genius of Great Britain with the Zionist ideal of the Jewish people. In him appeared to be harmoniously united the soaring imagination of Byron, the deep mysticism of Thomas Moore, the religious zeal of Cardinal Manning and the statesmanly and wide outlook of Disraeli.

The germs of Sykes’ Zionism lay latent in him in his earliest years. He was scarcely eight years old when his father took him for the first time to Jerusalem. He often related how when many years later he visited a certain spot in Palestine, an elderly Arab told him that years before an English gentleman had been there with a little boy, leaving behind him kindly memories. His father, a wealthy landowner in Yorkshire, was one of the principal churchbuilders in England of his time. He was a gentleman of the old style, a protector of the poor, fired with religious enthusiasm, who devoted untiring labour to the management of his family estate. Every foot of this extensive family estate with its churches and schools, its country houses and old and new farms and dwellings, with its great collections and its old and valuable library, bears the impress not only of marked diligence and refined taste, but also of an unusual sense of continuity and tradition. Long before the traveller from Hull reaches the estate, a high and slender tower strikes his eye. It is the monument that has been erected in memory of the grandfather, the old squire, an original character about whom Sir Mark was wont to tell so many amusing stories. Long after the introduction of railways he used to ride his steed to London, and on the way often used to stop, take the hammer from the navvies who were breaking road-metal, and perform their work for them for hours at a time. Now his statue is to be seen in a chapel-like recess crowned with a high tower on one of the main roads of the estate. His son, Sir Mark’s father, was not less of an original character. He had nothing of the tradition of feudal lords—the family was descended from an old and very rich shipbuilding family in Hull which flourished in the 16th century, had by the 17th century gained a great reputation, and later had business relations with Peter the Great—but he rather represented the type of a fanciful Maecenas, whose hobby it was constantly to remodel buildings or to erect new ones. His ancestors had built ships, he built houses. That amounted to a passion in him, a noble passion, a desire to build, endow and found. And as he was very religious he built churches. He also travelled widely and gathered large collections in his country house. His religion was nominally High Church, but he must have had strong leanings towards Catholicism. His wife, the mother of Sir Mark, was an ardent Catholic. Sir Mark was attached to his mother, and was brought up in the Catholic faith. On his mother’s side Sir Mark had a decided strain of Irish blood, but the English type was predominant in him. His features, however, were of extraordinary gentleness, his eyes large and clear blue in colour, and a wisp of hair would often fall over his brow. He was an English Catholic and cherished in his heart the memory of the not so far distant time when Catholics were persecuted, and restricted in their civil rights. He was a Catholic in a country where the Catholics constitute a small and weak minority, and often he remarked to me that it was his Catholicism that enabled him to understand the tragedy of the Jewish question, since not so long since Catholics had to suffer much in England. His Catholicism did not make him fanatical; it made him rather cosmopolitan, that is to say, catholic in the pure sense of the word. He received an exceptionally careful education and studied hard in Catholic schools before he took his course at Cambridge. The fact that in his early youth he had Jesuit priests among his teachers was often exploited by those who envied him, in a sense which suggested a leaning in him towards Jesuitism. If the term Jesuitism be taken to mean a zeal for Catholicism, then there can be no doubt that this assertion is correct, since Sir Mark was certainly very religious. But if this expression be taken in the customary sense, namely, as equivalent to clerical intrigue, hypocrisy and spiteful hate of other religions, nothing was more remote from the character, the mental outlook and all other attributes of Sir Mark than such a form of Jesuitism. He was incapable equally of dissembling or of servile conduct; he was proud without being arrogant, and was severe and inflexible when truth was at stake. His soul was an open book; he troubled himself neither of career nor of popularity. He possessed an ideal, and this ideal was the sole test of all his thought and actions. At heart he was pious, a good Christian and a good Catholic: he never prided himself upon his faith, which was a sacred thing to him: religious boast and propaganda were alike foreign to him: his relations with God were an intimate personal matter which concerned no stranger; but his faith was the moving force of his life which afforded him courage to go forward and strength to endure and to deny himself.

When I was with Sir Mark in Hull, where we came to speak at a great Zionist meeting last summer, the member for Hull disappeared from my sight for several hours on one occasion. I presumed that he had gone to the old Catholic cathedral to attend a service as he frequently did. On returning he told me that he had visited his old teachers, the Jesuit fathers, and that he had convinced them that it was the duty of Christians to atone for the crime that humanity has not ceased for many centuries to commit against the Jewish people in withholding their old native country from them. “This was not so difficult,” he added, “as one of these fathers is an avowed friend of the Jewish people. When, some years ago, a protest meeting was held in Hull against the Beilis trial (the trumped-up story of ritual murder that had emanated in Kiev from the Russian anti-Semites), this priest had appeared on the platform to declare in the name of his religion that the persecutions of the Jews that took place in Russia under the old régime were a blot upon civilisation.” The meeting which was to be held that same day was to be attended by Jews and Christians equally. He said with a humorous smile that his success with the fathers made him hope for equal success with the whole Christian audience at that meeting. “Perhaps people find fault with me,” he continued, “that I have neglected their local affairs. A member for Hull who gives all his time to Zionism may be rather a puzzle to the good people of Hull, but I think I shall manage them—will you be responsible for the Jews?” I replied, “Very well, I shall be responsible for the Jews, but only with your help; the Jews are more impressed by an English baronet who is a Christian than by a fellow Jew like me.” “It is to be regretted,” he said somewhat sadly, “that the Jews rather than follow leaders of their own race bow and scrape to Gentiles. How do you explain that?” I answered: “That is the spirit of the Exile, that can be combated only by means of Zionism.”

The meeting was most successful. There never had been such a Zionist triumph in Hull. The enthusiasm was shared by both the Christian representatives and the Jewish population, the latter but recently arrived for the most part from Eastern Europe. There was only one discordant note in the speeches, and that probably escaped the notice of most of those present, and did not detract in the least from the success of the meeting; this was an utterance that offended Sir Mark’s religious sentiment. “It is natural,” someone said, “for Sir Mark to be a friend of the Jews as he is such a good Christian, and must be conscious of the fact that the founder of Christianity belonged to the Jewish race; moreover, Sir Mark as a Catholic venerates the Holy Mother who was as we know a daughter of the Jewish people.” This utterance pained Sir Mark and hurt me very much. I afterwards had long talks with Sir Mark about this tactlessness, which could only have been committed by a quasi-assimilated Jew. The speaker may have meant it well, but a Zionist could never have made such a mistake, for to be a Zionist, means not only to desire immediate emigration to Palestine, but also to maintain the proper practical attitude to the non-Jewish world. This attitude is one neither of servility nor of arrogance, it is one of dignified yet modest and noble self-consciousness, self-respect and respect for others.

In order to understand the attitude of such as Sir Mark and others like him in his own and other nations, towards the Jewish problem, it is necessary to study the problem more closely than is common among the unthinking crowd who bandy about the words anti-Semitism and philo-Semitism, and, upon their superficial observations, condemn one man as an anti-Semite and laud another as a philo-Semite, according as whether they hate or love certain individual Jews. The crowd does not understand that one can be a great friend of the Jewish people and a great admirer of the Jewish genius and yet find such things ridiculous and repulsive as the apeing, the servility, the obtrusiveness, the hollowness and the empty display, the desire to intrude everywhere, the excessive zeal of the neophytes and all the unpleasant traits of some assimilated Jews. On the other hand, one may approve of all these qualities and rejoice that certain Jews have become rich, obtained titles or gained high office in so far as one desires the assimilation of the Jewish people and the extinction of the Jewish spirit.

Anti-Semitism is fractricidal in that it implies hatred and contempt for, and the desire to persecute a whole race. It is organised outrage, because it employs the brutal power of a majority to insult a defenceless minority and to deprive it of human rights. It is consciously calumnious because it instigates malice against the Jewish people or religion and exploits for this purpose actual weaknesses or failings belonging in reality to neither the race nor the religion. It is biassed and sophistical because it generalises from the faults of individuals and because it fixes itself upon the mote in another’s eye without perceiving the beam in its own.

Philo-Semitism in the true sense of the word resembles philhellenism. The latter does not mean simply friendly intercourse with parvenu Greeks, but sympathy for the Hellenic people as such, and with the spirit of Hellenism and an endeavour to aid these and to establish them. Of such a kind was the philo-Semitism of Sir Mark Sykes. I will speak plainly, and do not hesitate to state that he had no liking for the hybrid type of the assimilating Jew. He had no wish to interfere with such people; he emphatically condemned any attempt at suppression of rights or chicanery, but he did not like this type just because he was fond of the Jewish people. What was of the Jewish essence, of the Jewish tradition, was sacred to his religious sense and stimulating to his artistic sense. In this lay the secret, not exactly of our personal success with Sykes (for our cause is of too great an importance in the world’s history to be connected with personalities) but of the wonderful concord of minds which was the natural outcome of his outlook. The opposite poles attracted each other with irresistible force. Truly anglicised Jews could not have had the hundredth part of the same success with him, not because of their not being excellent patriots and capable men (for such many of them incontestably are and Sykes was fond of society and of making acquaintances and was amiable to all), but for him there were real Englishmen enough. Concerning English affairs, national questions and parliamentary matters he would discourse with anglicised Jews on the same footing as English non-Jews, but concerning the spirit of Jewish history, the ethos of Hebraism, the national sufferings and aspirations, that emerge only in national Hebrew literature, in the large centres of Jewish population in Eastern Europe and in the new settlements in Palestine—concerning all these matters he would and could seek information only from the fountain source. These are the things that have succeeded with Sykes and others and that will succeed further, not high diplomacy. There is no lack of this latter at the Foreign Office, which swarms with great diplomats, and it would be carrying coals to Newcastle to seek to add more trained specialists to the crowd of busy politicians in Downing Street. There could be no success with Sykes that way. He was, as it were, born to work with us Hebrews for Zionism.

The spirit of the East breathed in this Yorkshire gentleman. In his earliest youth he showed a keen interest for Arabia, for Islam and the Turkish Empire. At Cambridge he studied Arabic under Professor E. G. Browne, and there also he met the lady who was afterwards to be his wife and true helpmeet, a daughter of Sir John Gorst, who was at the time one of the members of parliament for the University. In the year 1898 Sykes, then a young student, undertook a second journey to the East, and stayed much of his time in the Hauran. He devoted himself with the entire freshness and sincerity of his youth (he was then but twenty years old) to his observations as a traveller. In the year 1900 appeared his first book, which recounts his impressions in an elegant style and light form.⁠¹ In this book he ascribes to his guide, a Christian Arab named Isa, the following words apropos of the Jews there, that they were “dirty like Rooshan and robber like Armenian.”⁠² Sykes himself had at that time no clear idea of Jews or of Armenians—of the two peoples for whom he strove and died nineteen years later. He cites an expression of opinion and repeats it in the bad English of an Arab guide. After his return from the East, he devoted his attention to military studies, in which he distinguished himself. He served in the South African War in 1900‒2. He gave a proof of his technical knowledge in his work on strategy and military training which he had compiled in collaboration with Major George d’Ordel.⁠³ In the year 1904 he was travelling again, and the literary product of his later and earlier journeys was his second considerable book on Islam and the Orient.⁠⁴ This book is dedicated to his fellow-soldiers in the South African War.⁠⁵ In this work already speaks to us a young but mature man who had travelled much in four continents and had been through the South African Campaign. Here we already perceive the fundamentals of his later Zionism. As regards the future of the Orient he looks not to modern civilisation and capitalism, but to the latent force of national life. He was not deceived by the specious platitudes so dear to that deplorable product of modern European democracy ‘the man in the street’ as to ‘extending the blessing of Western civilisation’; he regarded rather with unconcealed apprehension the contingency of the Western Asiatics becoming ‘a prey to capitalists of Europe and America,’ “in which case a designing Imperial Boss might, untrammelled by the Government, reduce them to serfdom for the purpose of filling his pockets and gaining the name of Empire-maker.” (Prof. Browne’s Preface, Dar-ul-Islam, p. iv.). He had a great predilection for all national individualities, and detested the desire to imitate and assimilate. “He hated the hybrid Levantine ... and faithfully portrayed the Gosmopaleet (Cosmopolite)” (ibid.). He condemned interfering tutelage. “Orientals hate to be worried and hate to have their welfare attended to.... Oppression they can bear with equanimity, but interference for their own good they never brook with grace” (ibid.). He shows a profound historic sense: “he does not disguise his preference for countries with ‘a past’ over countries with ‘a future’” (ibid.), and finds in the nature of the Oriental the conditions for a true equality. “He recognises the fact that there is more equality because less snobbery and pretence in Asia than in Europe” (ibid.). The only feature that is wanting in this book is a knowledge of Jews and of Zionism. He makes but once mention of this matter, in a short sketch of the Jews at Nisibin. “The Jews at Nisibin ... their appearance is much improved by Oriental costume ... in which they look noble and dignified.” He then adds: “I trust that the Uganda Zionists will adopt my suggestion” (p. 141). One who believes in the assimilation of the Jews may snobbishly consider this also as anti-Semitic, but in fact it is only the harmless joke of an artist, for Sykes was essentially an artist. His drawings were excellent, he was also very musical, and had a great predilection for all true individuality, for the archaic, the original, the unadulterated, for race, nationality, genius loci, for everything racy and natural, and for everything that was not cliché, mechanical and snippety.

This was the foundation of his latent Zionism. From 1904 to 1911 he pursued his military studies, managed his estates and travelled much. In 1911 he entered Parliament as member for Hull. Although nominally a Tory, Sir Mark was at bottom no party man, but a man of convictions. Full of faith, greedy for work, energetic, confident, capable, quick of study, charmed with a fight. Equally ready to defend or attack, he was unselfish. Over the Irish question he fell out with the Conservatives; he was an outspoken champion of Home Rule, and throughout his life he remained a loyal friend of Irish nationalism. His speeches soon made him popular in Parliament; they were never long and yet never trite. He showed the same qualities in his letters to the Press. He had always something to say, some original thought which he expressed in his own individual style. He told me once, how he had learned public speaking at school. He had to prepare the outline of the speech and afterwards to state in short and simple terms the substance of his speech. The latter, he added, was the more difficult task, because a facile speaker can make long speeches, and yet find it impossible to repeat later the essential facts of his speeches. He was not a facile speaker in this sense; he never spoke quite extempore, but always prepared his speeches carefully, often by means only of simple key words or of a few pictures, resembling hieroglyphics, as, for example, the sun with streaming rays. He never spoke to the gallery, never flattered, never perverted the truth under the mask of sincerity, and never sought to create effects. His speeches were full of beauty and deep idealism with a breath of religious fervour, as he leant forward to address himself to the hearts of his audience. This practical man was at bottom a poet. He could tell most fascinating stories. He had not been brought up in the chilling atmosphere of severe Puritanism, but in the medieval glamour of Catholic cathedrals and under the sun of the East. Yet he had remained a proud and staunch Briton. He was a remarkable and extremely unusual combination of a blue-eyed, simple and modest Englishman of childlike sweetness, and of a medieval knight full of Oriental reminiscences, with ardent faith and picturesque imagination. We loved him and he loved us, because his nature was gentle, kind and sympathetic. He chatted freely: he told all about his enthusiasms, his “castles in the air,” his stories about dervishes, his travelling impressions, with a lively dramatic touch with appropriate gesture and expression, often drawing his round, brown stylo pen from his pocket in order to explain the matter more pointedly by means of a rapid sketch. How often I regretted that no shorthand writer was present. His ways were dignified and courteous, his modesty so natural and so frank that he gave the impression of being himself unconscious of it. When the talk took a jesting turn, there was no sting in his witticisms, his jests were easy and never offensive. When he was angered, his emotion lasted but a few seconds, and afterwards he was as light-hearted as a child.

Such was the Mark Sykes of 1914 when the War broke out. He took up his part in the War with all his patriotism and with his idealistic faith in the victory of justice. In 1915 he was with his regiment busy in hard training and ready for the field. He often told me how it had come to pass that the East had become his sphere of action. One day Lord Kitchener said to him: “Sykes, what are you doing in France, you must go to the East.” “What am I to do there?” asked Sykes. “Just go there and then come back,” was Lord Kitchener’s answer. Sykes travelled to the East, made his way through accessible and inaccessible districts, and came back. His observations and experiences constituted the material upon which all the great things that afterwards happened were based. He then voluntarily entered the service of the Government as expert, as adviser, and as draughtsman of their policy. He was one of the pioneers of the new British War Policy in the East, one of the protagonists of the “Eastern School.” In the year 1916 he undertook with M. Georges Picot a journey to Russia. It was then the Czarist Russia with its eye fixed upon Constantinople; that was the occasion upon which the so-called Sykes-Picot agreement was signed. From the standpoint of Zionist interests in Palestine this agreement justly met with severe criticism; but it was Sykes himself who criticised it most sharply and who with the change of circumstances dissociated himself from it entirely. It was a product of the time, a time when there was as yet no decided plan formed of launching a definite campaign in the East, when the prime necessity was some sort of agreement, since otherwise no progress would have been made. This was long before Mr. Balfour’s declaration, and since at this time the Zionist interests in Palestine had as yet received no attention because they were unknown and not debatable, and also as it was essential to come to terms about Constantinople with the old regime in Russia, this agreement was a necessary prelude to action. This agreement Sykes regarded later as an anachronism.

Zionism had been at work in England for two full years without its coming to know anything of Sykes, who himself worked on his own lines for a year and a half, without knowing anything of Zionist organisation or a definite programme of Zionism. What happened resembled the construction of a tunnel begun at two sides at once. As the workers on each side approach one another they can hear the sound of blows through the earth. It seems at first a strange enough story; a certain Sir Mark appears, he makes some enquiries, and then expresses a wish to meet the Zionist leaders. Finally a meeting actually takes place and discussions are entered upon. Sir Mark showed a keen interest and wanted to know the aims of the Zionist Organisation, and who were its representatives. The idea assumed a concrete form; but this acquaintance, however, valuable as it was, had as yet no practical significance. Acquaintanceships were made and discussions took place during the years 1914‒16 by the hundred with influential people and with some who had more voice in affairs than Sir Mark ever had. They constituted certainly a most important introductory chapter, and one without which the book itself could not have been written, but they were naturally fragmentary, preliminary, without cohesion and without sanction. The work itself began only after the 7th of February, 1917.

The subsequent chapters describe this work in general outlines. A thousand details remain for the pen of some future historian, when the time comes for the archives of the Foreign Office, of the Ministries for Foreign Affairs of the other Entente Powers, and of the political offices of the Zionist Organisation in London and Paris to be made public. In the whole proceedings there are no secret treaties, no secret diplomacy, in fact neither diplomacy nor conspiracy; but they constitute a series of negotiations, schemes, suggestions, explanations, measures, journeys, conferences, etc., to which each of those who took a part gave something of the best in himself.

It is my duty both as historian and as one who took an active part in these negotiations and proceedings to record here that Sir Mark Sykes really gave of his best to this work. For more than two wonderful years we were in daily intercourse with him. Our friendship was of the most intimate. We shared in common all the delights and disappointments arising from the Zionist work. We instructed each other; he furnished his knowledge of the East, his profound understanding of the guiding political principles of Great Britain, his personal observations with reference to the possibilities of bringing our aims into harmony with the ideals of the Entente; we supplied Zionism, inspired by Jewish sufferings and hopes. It was not difficult for us to convince him what an excellent cultural type the Hebrew represents, since already in his youth, before he had the slightest idea of Jews and Zionism, he had intuitively perceived that the hybrid Levantine is hopeless in that direction. The idea was latent in him, and but awaited stimulus and direction into the proper channel. He was ready to understand what a great natural force the Jewish genius could be in the reawakening of Palestine, all the more because long before as a man of extraordinarily high culture—English to the last fibre of his thought, saturated with English tradition, English literature and English taste—and yet at the same time a broad-minded humanist, with great ideals not only for his own nation but for all other nations and races, he had seen that the ‘civilising’ of the East by assimilation was idle and superficial prating and a vain delusion. Deep sympathy of ideals had earlier formed an unconscious bond between us. When this sympathy ripened into consciousness through our meeting and soon after the commencement of our common work, the resulting harmony was not one of policy but one of outlook. The idea of a natural alliance between Jews, Arabs and Armenians as peoples of the Near East developed into something quite distinct and found in Sir Mark a convinced champion. He was an enthusiastic protagonist of the Jewish national renaissance in Palestine, an admirer of the Hebrew genius, who could not hear enough from me about national Hebrew literature, who took an interest in every detail of Jewish culture. At the same time he was a sincere friend of the Arabs and Armenians and made strenuous efforts to secure their liberation. We all worked together with him in this direction, but the main idea was his and remained his favourite project till the close of his life. Many superficial and petty individuals in our own ranks, who, not realising the great and difficult task and themselves taking no active part, busied themselves in spreading distrust and discontent, complained that Sykes was too much taken up with the Arabs. I am sure that among many Arabs of the same degree of political maturity Sykes was accused of being too much taken up by the Jews.

Our interchange of ideas resulted in a complete fusion of thought. But Sykes gave us his time and labour as well as ideas. It seemed as though in these two years his whole life’s energy reached its culminating point and spent itself. He worked at constant high pressure. But rarely he allowed himself a week-end in Sledmore with Lady Sykes and the children, and even there he was never idle. It was a constant round of church-going, of devotion to the estate and building repairs, of musicians, old French songs, and of hospitality. Holidays were out of the question. All his excursions were connected with political or Parliamentary business. Even prior to the commencement of his official connection with Zionism, Sir Mark was a man of extraordinarily wide activities. When on the 8th of February, 1917, one day after the first official meeting, our work began with the first conference with M. Georges Picot at Sir Mark’s private house, No. 9 Buckingham Gate, the latter place had already become an important centre for matters concerning the new and at that time scarcely completed plan of a kingdom of the Hedjaz, concerning Armenia and Mesopotamia, and was equipped with all such material as files of correspondence and telegraphic communications, etc. It was then that Zionism took its place in the system and came to dominate the situation more and more as our labours progressed. One was liable to be called upon at any moment, early in the morning or late at night. It became a joke with us to name his sudden telephone calls ‘brain-storms.’ Sir Mark had a ‘brain-storm’ which meant: danger in sight. This may appear as somewhat far-fetched to outsiders, but those who were in the thick of the work knew well what formidable obstacles stood in the way, and how well founded were Sir Mark’s doubts and fears. At every moment dangers had to be guarded against; there were elements that were in favour of the status quo ante in the Near East; vested economic interests that desired to uphold this status quo for their own ends; clerical, anti-Semitic and pan-Islamitic propaganda; certain Arab sections that opposed Zionism because, obsessed by fanaticism or misled by agitators or influenced by narrow and short-sighted considerations of the needs of the moment, they had no proper appreciation of the great idea of a Hebrew-Arabic national alliance; intrigues of certain Syrian concession-hunters who stormed with a ‘holy wrath’ against the Zionist idea; certain factions in England that would have nothing to do with an energetic policy in the East, and indeed ridiculed and belittled the importance of British interests in that region; a by no means small party that warned England against undertaking any new engagements; and finally, be it mentioned with regret, our Jewish circles of the assimilating school. The cause of Zionism was in the same dire case as Laocoon in the grip of snakes. Every day brought a fresh indication of some hostile movement, a new suspicion of enemy schemes each of which caused Sir Mark to sound a warning. These were the ‘brain-storms.’

I should like to record a few impressions of different occasions. The first was a day in April, 1917, in Paris. I was due at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to give information about Zionism. Sir Mark also came; he was a sincere friend of France and was anxious that Zionism should have the same appreciation in France as in England. He came in great haste by motor from the Front, where he had been making a visit, and went to the Hotel Lotti. He arrived early in the morning after a tiring night’s journey. At that time Doctor Weizmann was fully occupied with most important affairs in England. It fell to me to begin the official work in France, after we had together prepared all our plans. Sykes was impatient: in spite of his complete confidence in us, he could not refrain from remaining near me, always ready with advice and help. We worked together for some hours. I departed on my mission and we arranged for him to wait for me at the hotel. But as I was crossing the Quai d’Orsay on my return from the Foreign Office I came across Sykes. He had not had the patience to wait. We walked on together, and I gave him an outline of the proceedings. This did not satisfy him; he studied every detail; I had to give him full notes and he drew up a minute report. “That’s a good day’s work,” he said with shining eyes.

The second was a day in April, 1917, in Rome. Sykes had been there before me and could not wait my arrival. He had gone to the East. I put up at the hotel: Sykes had ordered rooms for me. I went to the British Embassy; letters and instructions from Sykes were waiting for me there. I went to the Italian Government Offices; Sykes had been there too; then to the Vatican, where Sykes had again prepared my way. It seemed to me as if his presence was wherever I went, but all the time he was far away in Arabia, whence I received telegraphic messages.

The third was at the London Opera House Meeting of the 2nd of December, 1917. It was a truly brilliant gathering in a packed house, a festive token of the bond of brotherhood between Great Britain and ancient Israel. Sykes modestly surveyed the assembly. The majority of the audience scarcely knew him, and only a few were aware that this was a great day in his life. When he began to speak the audience recognised that one was addressing them who had made Zionism a part of his life. He showed no flaring enthusiasm, but rather a quiet elation, a devotion to the subject. On leaving, he and I shook hands—no words were necessary because we understood each other.

The fourth was a mass meeting at the end of December in Manchester. In the morning there had been a small gathering with Sykes, and before the meeting a banquet in honour of Mr. C. P. Scott. The meeting itself was one of the largest that ever was held in Manchester. Sir Stuart Samuel was in the chair. Doctor Weizmann made one of his most brilliant speeches, and Mr. James de Rothschild roused the audience to enthusiasm. Then Sykes rose, and made a speech full of the dreamy poetry of an Eastern tale. The audience felt itself transported into another and better world. The poetry of the East diffused itself as a softening charm over the hard-cut lines of high political argument. After the meeting we sat down, tired out, to tea. Sykes hurried in in his rain-coat: he had no time to stay, as he had to catch the night train. He was due in London next morning to send urgent telegrams to Palestine.

The fifth was on a glorious June day in 1918 en route from Paris to London. Sykes insisted on my travelling with him. He was in company with a distinguished party containing nearly all the members of the Government. As there was no time to complete the passport formalities, he simply attached me to himself personally. I felt embarrassed and accepted his proposal with reluctance. But when he told me that it was necessary to remind people constantly of the Declaration, I made up my mind to venture flying if he should think it necessary. The journey almost assumed the form of a Zionist meeting. There were twenty-eight persons in all, the most prominent members of the Government. On deck the Prime Minister was talking with Jellicoe. The tall and imposing figure of Mr. Balfour, with his noble grey-haired head and the well-known small hat, stood above the rest. Sykes urged me to have a word with the Prime Minister. I seized the opportunity and in the course of our conversation I had from him the treasured words: that such a war as this would be in vain if we did not aim at succouring all peoples, the Zionist Jews included. I afterwards told this to Sykes, who was at the other end of the ship, but he knew already. “How, by an indiscretion?” “No, a favourable wind whispered it to me.” The ‘Favourable Wind’ was one of the company who had overheard the conversation.

Sir Mark’s work during the last few years falls into eight successive periods. (1) February‒March, 1917, the collaboration in London with M. Picot, and after the latter’s departure for France, with us; (2) March‒June, 1917, our journey to Paris; his journey to Egypt; (3) June‒November, 1917, preliminary work leading to the Balfour Declaration; (4) November, 1917‒March 1918, from the Declaration to the despatch of the Commission to Palestine; (5) March‒October, 1918, the work in London during the stay of the Commission in Palestine; (6) October‒December, 1918, the work after the return of the Commission; (7) December 1918‒February, 1919, the journey to Syria, and (8) February, 1919, the last days in Paris.

In the first period the foundations were laid; at that time Sir Mark was, so to speak, introduced into the world of Zionist ideas. The second was full of active negotiations with the Entente Governments. During the third Sykes was in busy relations with a number of the friends of our cause. In this period the work of Major Ormsby-Gore was of practically the same importance, as also during the fourth period. In the fifth period, during the time of the important work in Palestine of the Commission under the leadership of Doctor Weizmann, Major Ormsby-Gore was of great service there. The whole of the labours in London connected with the activity of the Commission and with a thousand other matters relating to Zionism fell upon Sykes, and necessitated daily work of an intensely difficult character.

To this period belong a number of most important measures which for the first time gave Zionism both internally and externally its proper position and its necessary prestige. Sir Mark had at that time his office in two rooms, afterwards partitioned into three, on the basement of the back wing of the Foreign Office, connected with the upper storeys by means of a lift, never used by Sir Mark, who mounted the stairs about twenty times daily at a lightning speed, which made it impossible for me to keep pace with him in spite of my most strenuous efforts. The first large room was dark because the big window was blocked with sandbags as a protection against possible air raids; it had long tables and was illuminated artificially. I had to be there often and for long periods at a time: my work, indeed, required my attendance there more than at the Zionist offices, and sometimes I had to go there three times a day and to remain there till late at night. On one of these occasions Sir Mark said to me, “Does not this subterranean room look like a medieval inquisition chamber, with those long tables upon which the victims of the Inquisition might be stretched for torture? Who knows,” added he humorously, “whether some of your forefathers had not to undergo treatment in chambers of this kind?” I answered, “Yes, as Scripture has it: ‘I will make the desolate valley into a door of hope.’” After that we often used to call this room the “Door of Hope.” This room opened into another where Sir Mark spent whole days at work except for the time at Westminster. The duties of Secretary were most ably filled by Mr. Dunlop, a young and energetic man; opposite, in the building in Whitehall Gardens, Sir Mark’s older colleague, the learned and highly experienced Mr. Beck, worked in conjunction with him. Between the two offices the faithful Serjeant Wilson, who accompanied Sir Mark everywhere on land and sea, passed to and fro. It was like a hive; there was a constant coming and going of Foreign Office men, M.P.’s, Armenian politicians, Mahommedan Mullahs, officers, journalists, representatives of Syrian Committees, and deputations from philanthropic societies. In the midst of this busy world Zionism maintained its prominent position. Everything had to pass through Sykes’ hands. In order to avoid confusion and divergence of effort he insisted upon what was readily conceded him, namely that he should pass an opinion on every question and every detail, and in this there was no hesitation, no delay. Among many others a couple of examples will suffice. The Oriental Jews, being Turkish subjects, were under the law regarded as alien enemies. They were certainly only technically such; at heart they were thoroughly pro-British and in any case politically harmless. Exceptions had already been made on the recommendations of personal standing, but no logical plan was followed. I maintained that the Zionist Organisation should be officially empowered to protect the Jews of Palestine and Syria, just as, for example, the Polish Committee protected the Poles from Galicia, who were also technically alien enemies. Sykes obtained this concession after considerable labour. This was an official recognition of the Zionist Organisation as competent authority. When at the time of the most strenuous military efforts, the later categories of the male population were called to the colours, the Zionist Organisation in England was threatened with losing the last of its secretaries, speakers, organisers, etc., and with seeing its activities restricted, if not completely interrupted. None were more patriotic than the Zionists, so many of whom were in the Army, but we had to deal with a number of men who could be of no value to the Army, and who, on the other hand, were indispensable to the Zionist Organisation. Previously some had been left with us, but now it was a question of large numbers. It was a generally recognised principle that people whose occupation was of national importance were allowed to continue at it. I insisted upon having this principle applied to Zionism. This matter could not be settled by any single individual or by any single tribunal. The question concerned a matter of principle, and had nothing to do with individuals. Since we had received the declaration of recognition from the British Government and the whole Entente, and as we had to prepare the field for the realisation of this declaration, this ought surely to have been regarded as a matter of national importance from the official standpoint. Sykes adopted this point of view and made strenuous efforts to have it realised. He was thoroughly convinced that our loyalty to Great Britain and her Allies was boundless, and that in all our demands the interests of both parties had been considered with equal devotion. On the other hand, we recognised that when he denied us something as inadmissible, though like any other man he might sometimes make mistakes, he was open to change of conviction upon good reason being shown, and that any stand taken by him against our proposals was due rather to the fact that he regarded the matter at issue as unfavourable in certain circumstances to Zionism, than that he had the interests of Zionism less at heart than we; thus a community of effort and a mutual trust was established, which led to a complete solidarity of aims. In this way our work in conjunction with Sykes became the foundation for our relations with the higher Government authorities, as also with Sykes’ colleagues and successors.

The most important and politically difficult task that had to be accomplished in London during the stay of the Commission in Palestine was to make possible the official laying of the foundation stone of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The recommendations and the instructions carried by the President of the Commission, Doctor Weizmann, to Palestine were most valuable, and will stand as a lasting token of the generous and kindly feelings of the leading men in the British Government towards Zionism. The influence of the Commission, the excellence of their work, their splendid relations with the authorities had ensured complete success. Nevertheless it was found that, particularly with reference to the foundation-stone ceremony, the instructions had been of too general and too vague a character to overcome the formal and legal administrative obstacles. It is my duty to one who is gone, to record the great services of Sir Mark in this direction. It goes without saying that the final decision lay with a man in higher office. However, before Mr. Balfour gave his decision and before the most detailed instructions had been telegraphed, we had to work strenuously day after day for several weeks, by correspondence and by interviews, with such devotion and enthusiasm as only so magnificent an object as the Hebrew University in Jerusalem could inspire.

During the period that followed, namely the sixth as above described, the Zionist programme was being prepared. The end of the War was in sight, but the cessation of hostilities was not to be expected so very soon. Sykes decided, then, the whole of Palestine and Syria being in British hands, to travel thither to gather fresh information and to bring the results of his latter observations to the Peace Conference. I tried to dissuade him from this journey, because I thought his presence in Europe important: he, on the other hand, wanted me to go with him to Palestine. He finally went alone and wrote to me from there that I should come without delay. His stay in Palestine was, however, only a very short one: he soon passed to Syria and did strenuous work in the direction of restoring order in Aleppo. In the meantime the Peace Conference opened here. We were all of us already assembled—except Sykes. We thought of him every day.

One evening there was a telephone call. On taking up the receiver I heard Sykes’ voice telling me that he had just arrived in Paris, and was staying as usual at the Hôtel Lotti opposite us. I invited him at once to dinner, and he came. He was the same lovable fellow, full of life and humour, but now frightfully thin. He had lived the whole time on “German sausages” and had suffered much from digestive troubles. It only transpired later, that he had spent sixteen hours a day in Aleppo working under almost impossible conditions on behalf of the Arabs and Armenians. He was himself never in the habit of talking about his work. It was two hours after midnight when he left us,—he had so much to tell about the ordinary incapacity for proper administration of the local Syrian population and their marked capacity in that direction under suitable guidance, about the prospects for Palestine, about the steps he had taken against anti-Zionist intrigues in Syria and other matters. From that time forward we saw each other every day. Some days later he went to London to see his family and returned in three days with Lady Sykes. Immediately upon his arrival he was in touch with us. He had a thousand ideas, and had brought reports and instructions from Syria that had to be elaborated. Our days were filled with appointments for visits, interviews, etc. Then Lady Sykes was attacked by influenza, which caused a little dislocation and the postponement of an accepted invitation, but gave no cause for alarm. On the 13th of February, Sir Mark hastily entered my room, and on finding me indisposed, he shouted, “There’s no time now for being ill.” The following morning he sent word to me that Lady Sykes was better, but that he himself was taken ill. “I have got it,” he said to Serjeant Wilson when he went to bed. On the 15th Lady Sykes sent for me, and told me that her husband would have to remain in bed for a few days, that afterwards she intended to go to England for a week or so to recuperate. “To Sledmore?” I asked. “No,” said Lady Sykes, “it is too cold there. I think the South will be better. And my chief reason for troubling you,” she added, “is because my husband wants to know how Zionist matters went yesterday.” I gave full details to Lady Sykes. In the afternoon of the 16th Sir Mark died.

He died on the threshold of the Peace Conference which was destined to make his dream a living thing, died in a hotel in the midst of us, bound up with our deepest affections, a radiant form full of love and sincerity. His life was as a song, almost as a Psalm. He was a man who has won a monument in the future Pantheon of the Jewish people and of whom legends will be told in Palestine, Arabia and Armenia. Just returned from a difficult task in the service of humanity in the service of the idea of nationality, and about to perform great things for the Jewish people, he fell as a hero at our side.

There it ends! Shakespeare himself could use no more than the commonplace to express what is incapable of expression. “The rest is silence!”

We say: “The rest is immortality—in the annals of Zionism.”

Paris, April, 1919.

CHAPTER XLIXA.

Chovevé Zion and Zionists in England—Louis Loewe—Nathan Marcus Adler—Albert Löwy—Abraham Benisch—The Rev. M. J. Raphall—Dr. M. Gaster—Rabbi Samuel Mohilewer—English representation at the Second and Third Congresses—The Fourth Congress in London.

The Chovevé Zion movement in England was not very powerful, yet it enjoyed a certain amount of popularity. If we examine, for instance, the records for 1892‒7—the years which preceded the First Zionist Congress (Basle, 1897)—we find among the leading representatives not only the Chief Rabbi of the Spanish and Portuguese Communities, Dr. M. Gaster, Mr. Herbert Bentwich, Rabbi Professor H. Gollancz, the late Colonel Albert Goldsmid, Dr. S. A. Hirsch, Mr. S. B. Rubenstein, Mr. E. W. Rabbinowicz and other English Jews of standing, who are even now more or less active in the Zionist Organization; but we read the names of the late Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, Dr. H. Adler, the late Lord Swaythling, Mr. Elkan Adler, Albert Jessel, Mr. Joseph Prag (who was one of the most active members), Joseph Nathan, Louis Schloss, Haim Guedalla, Captain H. Lewis-Barned, Bernard Birnbaum, Mr. Herman Landau and other distinguished members of the community, as among those of the prominent enthusiastic supporters of the Chovevé Zion movement who did not join the new Zionist Organization. The same phenomenon strikes us in France. There the new Zionism was confronted on the part of the Chovevé Zion by an opposition that was even stronger than in England.

An impartial historian, desirous of reviewing the facts as they were revealed in Jewish life and literature, would in vain endeavour to discover any essential difference between the Chovevé Zion and the Zionist fundamental principles. He could trace a complete and clear conception of political Zionism through centuries of English history or Jewish history in England, and on the other hand also efforts and undertakings in the direction of colonization pursued with great energy and care by forces that are generally found to be co-operating with political Zionism. A sober and dispassionate examination of all these ideas without regard to mere catchwords must lead to the conclusion that Sir Moses Montefiore’s representations to Mehemet Ali in 1838 were substantially the same as Herzl made to Abdul Hamid in 1898. However, both aimed at a legally assured home and both insisted that Palestine should belong to the Jewish people. And no real student of contemporary Jewish history will imagine that Sir Moses was an isolated dreamer. He never undertook anything in Jewish affairs without consulting the authorities of his time. One of his advisers was Louis Loewe, the well-known Jewish scholar and his secretary for many years.

Dr. Louis Loewe (1809‒88), who was educated at the Yeshibot of Lissa, Nikolsburg, Presburg, and at the University of Berlin, came to England in 1839 and was appointed by the Duke of Sussex to be his Orientalist. He then travelled in the East, where he studied languages. In Cairo he was presented to Mehemet Ali, for whom he translated some hieroglyphic inscriptions. On his return from Palestine he met at Rome Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore, who invited him to travel with them to Palestine. When, in 1840, Sir Moses went on his Damascus expedition, Loewe accompanied him as his interpreter. Since that time Loewe was attached to Sir Moses as his personal friend and secretary. He accompanied Sir Moses on nine different missions. He wrote several valuable works on oriental subjects: The Origin of the Egyptian Language, London, 1837; A Dictionary of the Circassian Language, 1859; a Nubian Grammar and several pamphlets—and translated J. B. Levinsohn’s Efes Damim (1871) and David Nieto’s Matteh Dan (1842). Dr. Loewe was an ardent supporter of all schemes in favour of Palestine and strongly assisted David Gordon, the editor of the Ha-Magid, who was an enthusiastic and outspoken political Zionist years before Herzl.

We have already mentioned to what an extent the Chief Rabbi, Dr. N. M. Adler, influenced Sir Moses’ works in Palestine. Nathan Adler was born at Hanover in 1803. He received his education at the Universities of Göttingen, Erlangen and Würzburg. Already as a youth his abilities proved him to be particularly adapted to the discharge of rabbinical functions. In 1829 he was appointed Chief Rabbi of Oldenburg; in 1830 his jurisdiction was transferred to Hanover and all its provinces. His fame spread beyond the Rhine and reached England just when the Jewish population there was in need of a spiritual leader. In 1844 the election took place for Chief Rabbi of the Ashkenazi Congregations of Great Britain and the choice fell on Dr. Adler. He was inducted into office on July 9th, 1845. His activity and influence during his lengthy career as Chief Rabbi proved a blessing and were attended with most invaluable results. His calling did not prevent him from contributing excellent literary productions, mostly in Hebrew, the principal of which is Nethino La-Ger’s commentary on the Targum of Onkelos. There is no doubt that this famous Rabbi and great Jew was in close touch with Sir Moses in all the steps the latter took for the colonizing of Palestine for a political as well as philanthropic purpose.

Many of the most important Jewish scholars arriving in England, and becoming in course of time the pride of English Jewry, were much attracted by the idea that England was the classical soil for a fruitful work in Palestine. It is worth noting that Dr. Albert Löwy belonged also to this group. He was born on the 10th of December, 1816, at Aussig in Moravia. After his barmizwah (attainment of his religious majority—the age of thirteen) he was sent to a public school at Leipzig. Later he attended the University and Polytechnic at Vienna. There he first met his lifelong friends, Moritz Steinschneider and Abraham Benisch. Löwy and his friends formed “Die Einheit,” a society whose object was to promote the welfare of the Jewish people. In order to realize this object the colonization of Palestine by the Austrian Jews was advocated. The first meeting of the new society was held in 1838, in Löwy’s room. The object, however, had to be kept secret for fear lest it would be defeated by the Government. England was regarded as the country likely to welcome the new movement, and, as an emissary of the Students’ Jewish National Society, Löwy was sent to London in 1841. Years afterwards he took a leading part in London in the foundation of a body with kindred objects, the Anglo-Jewish Association.

To the same group of noble-minded men who raised themselves to the height of a national and Zionist conception of a superior kind belonged also the afore-mentioned Abraham Benisch, one of the creators of the Anglo-Jewish Press, the author of the Jewish School and Family Bible (1851), the translator of Petahiah ben Jacob’s Travels (1856), and for many years editor of the Jewish Chronicle. If there ever was a Jewish nationalist, this important Anglo-Jewish writer was one beyond a doubt. He was a man of great abilities and learning, and rendered valuable assistance in the propaganda for and in the organization of the societies for the colonization of Palestine. In several leading articles written by him, with great tact and sagacity, he expounded—particularly in connection with the political events of 1856 and of 1861—the root principles of political Zionism.

Another remarkable Jewish scholar and pioneer of Zionism in his time was the Rev. M. J. Raphall, who was a brilliant writer and also a pioneer of the Anglo-Jewish Press. He edited the Hebrew Review and Magazine for Jewish Literature in 1837, which was resumed in 1859. Some years later he edited, together with the Rev. A. de Sola, the Voice of Jacob, which had been founded by Jacob Franklin in 1841. He afterwards settled in America and assisted there in the fifties of last century, together with some distinguished American Jews, in establishing in New York a society for the colonization of Palestine. He was later engaged in similar work in Canada. Essentially a student and a scholar, he devoted many years of his life to the propaganda of the Jewish national ideas.

It is impossible to conjure away all the facts showing, firstly, that the supposed differences between the Chovevé Zion movement and the new Zionism are mere phraseology, and, secondly, that the best representatives of Anglo-Jews were nationalist and Zionist. The refusal to accept the new Zionism on the part of some representatives of the Chovevé Zion movement for that reason can only be regarded as a temporary misunderstanding.

The new Zionism made headway in England especially through the efforts of the two organizations: the English Zionist Federation and the Ancient Order of Maccabeans.

The English Zionist Federation was formed in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Clerkenwell Conference of March, 1898, for the purpose of finding a common platform upon which Zionists of all shades of opinion could co-operate. A committee was appointed by the Conference to draw up a scheme, and that committee established the Federation. When the Federation was started it received support from eight societies, representing five towns: after six months, sixteen societies, representing nine towns, had joined: at the time of the Fourth Congress, thirty-eight societies, representing twenty-nine towns, were affiliated. This was the first stage of development prior to the London Congress of the Zionist Organization.

The appearance of English Zionist Delegates at the First Congress has already been alluded to. After the First Congress Dr. Gaster published the following letter in the Times of the 29th of August, 1897:⁠—

“The movement aims at the solution of one of the most complex modern social problems in Europe, and the means which are to be employed towards the solution are the realization of deep-seated religious hopes and ideals. For this very reason men from all the ranks of Jewish society and all shades of Jewish religion are here united in the common, noble, lofty and humanitarian purpose—the restoration of Israel, which is, moreover, the true fulfilment of the words of our Prophets.

“It is surprising to find ... the incorrect statement that the agitation is the outcome of anti-Semitism. It existed long before this word even was coined. It prompted the Jews of Russia and Roumania many years ago to found colonies in Palestine. But this movement is felt to be inadequate to cope with the whole question. The political situation of the Jews has since made enormous strides. The number of Zionists with a definite aim before their eyes has grown rapidly. They are recruited from among the young enthusiasts on the Continent. University Professors and students, scholars and workmen are joining hands. They belong most exclusively to the orthodox and embrace the vast majority of the Jewish people. The Bible and the Prayer Book are the text, and this agitation is merely the practical commentary.... I, as an orthodox Rabbi, beg to differ radically from ... (the anti-Zionist views).... It is not here the place to enter upon dogmatic questions and I therefore refrain from discussing the ‘miracles’ that are to happen on that day when Israel is to return to the land of his fathers. God chooses human agencies to carry out His Will, and it is after it has been accomplished that we become aware of the renewing circumstances, unexpected and unlooked for, which have all contributed to bring about the result, which before would have appeared to be little short of a miracle. Whether the restoration will be accomplished by the purchase of Palestine, or by unexpected political combinations or by other peculiar circumstances, it would be idle to dogmatize about.

“One thing is certain. The whole orthodox and realistic Jewry, which does not volatilize the words of the Prophets, and does not look upon the Divine promises as so many spiritual symbols to be interpreted away according to each one’s fancy, is now assembled in spirit at the Congress and watches its deliberations with sympathy and elevated hope.”

We have already mentioned that Rabbi Mohilewer had sent his congratulations to the Congress. The contents of Rabbi Mohilewer’s expressions may be briefly noted as a supplement to Dr. Gaster’s letter. Rabbi Mohilewer wrote that as the state of his health did not permit him to travel, he sent the Congress his blessing in writing. Harmony and concord should exist among all Zionists, even if their religious views differed. The colonization of Palestine was recommended as a religious duty—religion should therefore be a leading factor in the Zionist movement. They should also bear in mind that it was a duty to construct and not to demolish, and they should preserve the honour of the rabbis, who were thoroughly patriotic as regarded the land in which they lived. For the past two thousand years, the Jews had awaited the advent of the Messiah, who would take them back to the land of their fathers. But in our country men had risen who had abandoned this hope and had eliminated it from the Prayer Book. Several of the rabbis in Western Europe had declared against the Zionist movement, and one of them had gone so far as to assert that the movement was contrary to the biblical prophecies, as the Messiah was only to be symbolized and the Jews were to remain in exile. He declared this to be wholly untrue. Their faith was that God would send a Redeemer to bring back the People to their own land, and that the Jewish people would, once again, be honoured among the nations. Zionism does not interfere with this deep belief; it is rather in harmony with it, and it prepares the way.

These two letters were a sort of profession de foi on the part of two rabbis representing different sections of traditional Jewry in England and Russia respectively.

The Second Zionist Congress at Basle, 1898, was attended much more numerously than the first one. There were over four hundred delegates, and the English Zionists had sent a larger contingent (the Haham, Dr. M. Gaster, had a Roumanian mandate; Jacob de Haas, Leopold J. Greenberg, E. W. Rabbinowicz, B. Ritter, A. Snowman, S. Claff, J. Massel, Dr. Moses Umanski, Herbert Bentwich and others). The presence of Dr. Gaster, who was one of the most energetic spirits of the Congress, was a great gain to the Movement. The English delegates adopted thoroughly English methods. They were not seen standing about in groups and knots in the passages and ante-rooms delivering impassioned speeches. The oratorical contributions of the English delegates were few, and none of them, except Dr. Gaster’s powerful address towards the close of the proceedings, took up more than a few minutes. But the English delegates worked hard in Committee and at special conferences.

At that time the number of Zionist Associations in Great Britain and Ireland had reached twenty-six (Leeds three, Glasgow, London, Liverpool and Manchester two each; Belfast, Cardiff, Cork, Dublin, Edinburgh, Exeter, Hanley, Hull, Limerick, Newcastle, Newport, Norwich, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Sunderland one each), and in France—three, out of the total number of the Associations all over the world of 913.

The Jewish Chronicle, writing about the Second Congress, remarked: “There is the remarkable point of the Congress—in strong relief with the comparative paucity of the personnel of the English representatives is the undoubted English influence that has been exerted. Indeed, the net result of the Second Basle Congress is that Zionism has made a distinct move towards England. Indeed, it would look as if events were so shaping themselves that the Mountain having refused to go to Mahomed, Mahomed is coming to the Mountain. The Bank is to be located in England, so is the Colonization Commission. This may have been the result—probably it was—of England’s supreme position among all the great Continental Nations, not only in regard to its undoubted stability politically, but also its unique position towards Jews.”

The Third Zionist Congress at Basle, 1899, was attended by a still larger number of delegates from the United Kingdom. There were: Dr. M. Gaster, Joseph Cowen, J. de Haas, Murray Rosenberg, Herbert Bentwich, L. J. Greenberg, S. Stungo, J. Massel, Rabbi Yoffey, Rabbi Dagutzky, M. L. Dight, Rabbi Wolf, and others—representing London, Leeds, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Belfast, Edinburgh, Sheffield, Limerick, Grimsby Associations. According to a report of Mr. L. J. Greenberg, who had already become an energetic propagandist of the new Zionism in England, the work was progressing. He referred also to the activities of Mr. Herbert Bentwich, for if it had not been for him no such organization would have existed in England. The Congress elected as members of the Colonization Committee Dr. Gaster, Mr. Murray Rosenberg and Mr. David Wolffe, and of the Propaganda Committee, Mr. L. J. Greenberg and Mr. J. de Haas.

The Fourth Zionist Congress was held in London at the Queen’s Hall, August 13‒16, 1900. London had been chosen with a view to further influence British public opinion, seeing that in no country had the Zionist propaganda been received more sympathetically and intelligently by the general public. Dr. Herzl said in his inaugural address at the Fourth Congress in London, 1900:⁠—

“I feel there is no necessity for me to justify the holding of the Congress in London. England is one of the last remaining places on earth where there is freedom from Jewish hatred. Throughout the wide world there is but one spot left in which God’s ancient people are not detested and persecuted. But, from the fact that the Jews in this glorious land enjoy full freedom and complete human rights, we must not allow ourselves to draw future conclusions. He would be a poor friend of the Jews in England, as well as of the Jews who reside in other countries, who would advise the persecuted to flee hither. Our brethren here would tremble in their shoes if their position meant the attraction to these shores of our desperate brethren in other lands. Such an immigration would mean disaster equally for the Jews here, as for those who would come here. For the latter, with their miserable bundles, would bring with them that from which they flee—I mean anti-Semitism.”

In the course of his address he uttered the following prophetic words:⁠—

“The land of Palestine is not only the home of the highest ideas and most unhappy nation, but it is also by reason of its geographical position, of immense importance to the whole of Europe. The road of civilization and commerce leads again to Asia.”

According to the report read at this Fourth Congress by M. Oscar Marmorek “they had thirty-eight societies in England as against sixteen last year, and all these Societies had increased their membership. Thanks to the activity of the English Zionist Federation, Zionism had greatly prospered in England and had won the esteem of Christians. In Canada there was scarcely a town with a Hebrew congregation where a Zionist society did not exist.”

CHAPTER XLIXD.

Turkey, 1910‒14—The New Turkish Cabinet of 1912—The Balkan War—The Tenth and Eleventh Congresses—Death of Wolffsohn.

We may as well now cast a glance at the aspect of the general political situation at the period this narrative has reached. Public opinion in England was greatly disappointed when the first enthusiasm for Turkish liberties had passed away. The ship of state in Turkey began to enter very troubled waters, and no one saw safety ahead. The defeat of the Committee of Union and Progress, the displacing of the Said Pasha Cabinet and the downfall of the other leaders of the Young Turkey party of 1908, followed by the amnesty of a number of officials of the Hamidian regime, had naturally led many in Europe to believe that reaction had set in, and that the Young Turks had once more been overthrown and were in danger of being stamped out by the Old Turks or reactionaries. On the other hand, some careful observers asserted that the new Cabinet of 1912 was the best Turkey had had during the past forty years, and that it was in no true sense reactionary, but really constructive and progressive. They maintained also that the Committee of Union and Progress had begun to use old methods and were now hated by a large proportion of their former supporters. But all these allegations were contradicted by rapidly developing events. Hardly at any time within this generation had the political situation in Turkey presented elements of greater uncertainty and danger than in the period 1910‒14.

The greatest misfortune was the impossibility of any improvement. Turkey undoubtedly had the desire for progress along those lines which Europe professedly was so anxious to see her follow; but she needed advice, guidance, credit and patience. She required men—advisers, counsellors—to give her practical help in carrying out the necessary reforms. But, unfortunately, such a development was made impossible by the disturbing political events.

The Balkan War broke out. The Balkan peoples took their fate in their own hands. They did not look for liberators from elsewhere, and asked no help in the settlement of their differences. Whenever the Balkans had flared up and gone into war before it had generally been due to the fact that other nations had drawn them into the struggle. The vital difference of this conflict was that, for the first time for centuries, all the peoples concerned thought themselves strong enough to decide their own future by the sword. A fierce struggle began. The outlook for the Turks was most gloomy from the very outset. The Turks were beaten. They were discarded by all those who in Europe had seemed to have supported them, abandoned by the Powers which once valued their friendship. Speculation as to what would happen was on everybody’s lips. One thing was certain: that the East was getting thoroughly aroused, and that the developments led inevitably to a crisis unparalleled in history. Meanwhile, the Zionist Organization continued its work with great energy.

The Tenth Zionist Congress at Basle, August, 1911, with Wolffsohn and Nordau again as Presidents, had an attendance of about four hundred delegates, including a considerable number of English: Dr. Gaster, Mr. H. Bentwich, Mr. Jacob Moser, Dr. Samuel Daiches, Dr. Weizmann, Mr. J. Cowen, Dr. Hochman, Mr. H. Sacher, Dr. Salis Daiches, Mr. S. B. Rubenstein and others. The question left over from the previous Congress was settled at this one. A new Small Actions’ Committee was elected, and David Wolffsohn retained his influential post as President of the Council, and from that time again devoted his energies mainly to Zionist finances.

The Eleventh Zionist Congress at Vienna, in September, 1913 (preceded by an International Congress of the Hebrew Language Revival Societies), with its attendance of five to six hundred delegates, its enormous mass meetings, exhibitions, lectures, entertainments and demonstrations, such as the visit to Herzl’s grave, the Gymnastic Display with 2500 national Jewish gymnasts and 25,000 Jewish spectators, was the greatest Jewish display of forces that had ever taken place. The importance of practical work in Palestine, the thorough, serious and systematic treatment of all colonization questions, the powerful influence of the Hebrew language, the great number of intellectuals present, the great power of the Students’ movement, were new elements which were apt to give the calmer and older Congress members the impression of something chaotic. In reality, however, that was only the way in which the growth of the movement, its development, and many-sidedness found expression.

Superficial observers, who have but vague ideas of Zionism, in its narrow political and financial aspect, might have been surprised at the sight of this Congress, but those who know how Zionism has grown up out of the Chovevé Zion and literature and education, with the University movement, which we have described elsewhere, will understand why the first “idyll” was bound to give way to a movement as reflected by the Vienna Congress. Dr. Gaster, Mr. J. Moser, Mr. H. Bentwich, Dr. Ch. Weizmann, Mr. J. Cowen, Mr. L. Simon, Mr. H. Sacher, and many other active and well-known members of the English Zionist Federation and of the Order of Ancient Maccabeans attended the Congress as English Delegates.

There was also a large delegation (fourteen members) from Canada. For the first time in the history of the Canadian Zionist Federation no proxies had been given, as all the delegates to whom the Canadian Federation was entitled attended in person.

The general Organization has since then been active in propaganda work, in development work in Palestine through the “Zionist Office,” and also in educational work in that country.

The Organization sustained a great loss by the death of David Wolffsohn. He had been ailing for the past few years and died on the 15th of September, 1914. He served the Zionist Organization with unequalled fidelity, with intense devotion and a singleness of purpose that nothing could divert. His passionate affection for the Zionist idea never wavered. He was proud of the Zionist institutions and watched over them with never-ceasing vigilance. All Zionists fully realize the great devotion to the cause that actuated this remarkable man. Unbounded industry, a passionate love of the work he had to perform, these were the characteristics of Wolffsohn, and won for him wide and deep sympathy and admiration during his life and have secured for him a lasting and cherished memory in the hearts of Zionists throughout the world.

ZIONISM DURING THE WAR
1914‒1918

GENERAL SURVEY

The year 1914 will stand out as the Great Divide in contemporary history. It was a year of endings and beginnings. Humanity left an age behind it, and entered upon an age in which old things have passed away and all things had to become new.

Long feared and long foretold, yet never seriously expected, the European War came at last. Nations, great and small, arose in their strength, and gathered, in an avalanche of excitement, all their manhood to battle, all their old age to guard, and all their womanhood, not only as in bygone days, to tend and heal the wounded and sick, but also to do preparatory work for the fighting armies. Generations, young and old, rushed eagerly to defend their countries, leaving home, property, calling; knowing no fear save that here and there one of their fellow-citizens might prove less patriotic than themselves. The world was thrown back to the moral level and the ethical conceptions of thousands of years ago: man became again a wolf to man, as in the Pleistocene Age. On the one hand, the vast and bloody epic produced a sort of ecclesiastical moratorium which, for the duration of the war, annulled all moral obligations and abrogated the Ten Commandments, while on the other hand, it developed, to the highest degree, all the great and noble feelings—sense of honour, unselfishness, magnanimity, courage. Nationality, patriotism, the sense of duty, the spirit of sacrifice, enthusiastic heroism and patriotic martyrdom filled the hearts and created a new atmosphere, in which every kind of human activity was intensified: industry, art, science, and literature. This great storm, the greatest storm that had ever stirred mankind, produced the greatest spiritual tragedy the world has ever known. The most terrible aspect of the war was not the fact that Europe was being bled white, that all the amenities of civilization were breaking down with the strain of the military operations, and that each day some new and more brutal engine of destruction was prepared and brought into use, but—the ethical conflict carried on with minds and nerves on the rack of tense emotion which not only upset mental balance and changed the outlook of peoples, hitherto industrious and peaceful, but developed moral and social fears and passions which will not pass away in a day. This universal catastrophe would indeed have degraded the world into “a sort of malign middle term between a lunatic asylum and a butcher’s stall,” if it had not finally become—as it has become—“a war against war.” The peoples turned their ploughshares into swords, they ceased to make useful, beneficial rails and plates and angles and girders of their iron ore and their coal, and they manufactured harmful, destructive shells and guns to project them to the slaughter of the enemy, hoping that when the time came they would again turn their swords into ploughshares. They realized that the enemy of society is militarist despotism, and that militarist despotism therefore must be ended, or it will end society. A great moral idea arose out of this war: the liberation of oppressed small nations. Another great moral idea arising from it is the de-militarization of humanity. The whole world is now involved in a life or death struggle for righteousness. This is the justification for all the sufferings and all the sacrifices. If this war were not a war of principles and for ideals it would be nothing, and could result in nothing except the further enthronement of the doctrine and worship of force, and the perpetuation of the untold misery and degradation which that form of religion carries with it. It should never be forgotten that this was a war for liberty of the peoples, and in particular of the small peoples.

This great war has aggravated and made terribly clear the position of Jewry and the tragic problem of its existence as a small and oppressed nationality. The war has turned numerous Ghetti of Galicia, Bukovina, Russian Poland, Lithuania, Courland and Roumania into heaps of ashes, and hell would be pleasant compared with the situation of great masses of the Jewish people. In this war, particularly in Eastern Europe, hundreds of thousands of Jews were fighting against one another in the hostile camps of the belligerent countries; and the significant factor is that they were not fighting because they were forced to, but from a sense of supreme duty. Even among those that were fighting in the Russian Army before the Revolution, there were many who were not acting under compulsion: they were giving of their best and from their heart. They wanted to take their places in the virile, the over-virile world—which is also their world, they wanted to live and die taking their place in the great living society which called to them. The spirit of Europe—rather the spirit of present-day Europe, which was the spirit of obstinate conflicts and of extreme courage of devotion—has seized the Jews also: they also have entered into this tremendous catastrophe, into this pilgrimage through chaos towards a new world.

But for the Jews this war meant infinitely worse evil and greater danger; the nations were divided one from another, Jewry was divided against itself; each nation opposed its fixed shape and character, untouched even by defeat, to the overflooding chaos, but the Jewish nationality seemed to be its victim, in its own wavering and chaotic form of the Diaspora. It almost seemed as though there existed Jews, and divided Jews, but no Jewry.

And yet it was not really so. It was a dark time, and the storm was ghastly enough, but the lightning has revealed things that might otherwise have remained hidden. Rather should we believe that the time of the greatest trial for Jewry denoted a high self-recollection, and with it the commencement of a true gathering and union. In times of great stress men discover their own deeper selves. Great trouble somehow digs into the very foundation of a man’s existence, and he cannot explore there without finding what is most essential in him. When some tremendous trouble sends its plough through his heart of hearts, then he becomes aware of wonderful things he has never suspected before.

Now it is well worth our while to weigh all this and to make it part of our outlook and equipment as we face the great present events. Because, for one thing, it should go a long way towards delivering us from the worst of all fears—the fear of to-morrow and the next day, and all the days that the future hides. Nine out of ten of us are perpetually spoiling what is happening by dread of what may happen, so that we can all join Disraeli in saying that we have had many troubles, but the worst have been those that never happened. If only we could let the morrow be anxious for itself! But, to a large extent, we can, if we will, school ourselves to it;

is a promise perpetually justified by the best psychological findings and historic experience in the life of nations. It is really the fact, that our “day” stirs and heightens our strength. Only when challenged, do we know what we are capable of. Modern psychology tells us that “the human individual lives usually far within his limits; he possesses powers of various sorts which he habitually fails to use. He energizes below the maximum, and he behaves below his optimum.” And to rise to our maximum and optimum we need some unusual stimulus or some unusual idea of necessity.

Jewish history has revealed this truth several times. One individual or another, one small group or another—separated from the masses of the people—may fall away from Jewry; whoever can do that to-day has never belonged to it. The majority, however, remain loyal, and are never more loyal than in times of stress. The illusion is destroyed that a man can live a truly moral life in a time of trial while he is only a spectator of the life of society. In the Jews, convulsed by the events of the war, the new unity of Jewry showed itself. The situation was so serious, so full of menace for all that we hold dear, that every thinking Jew saw that he must in these days help to create and maintain the moral energies which alone can carry him through the crisis. At this time the Jew had a duty to his country and a duty to Judaism. To his country he owed, as a citizen, duties which could not be shirked. Every support was to be given to all patriotic efforts for the prosperity, the victory, and the glory of the country. To Judaism he owed the obligation of securing and defending not only the existence, but also the development and the realization of its traditional ideals, and of strengthening its unity. The first expression of this unity was an increase of self-consciousness. Jewry was affected by the war, but the essential problems of the Jews in the modern world were not altered by the war.

When we speak of Jewry, we speak of a living historic, ethnic and cultural—although not political—nationhood, existing potentially in its unity, independently of the Jewries of the countries in the various forms of their divided destinies, and their dissensions at the present moment. We strive to fix and to assure it—as far as external conditions allow it—in the Diaspora. And when we wish to prepare for it a sort of central Metropolis, an organic chef-lieu in Palestine—we are not engaged in adding one more nationality to the existing nationalities which fight against and watch one another suspiciously. It is not the question of introducing Jewry into the divisions of the nations, to be absorbed by them, and thus to contribute to their conflicts, but it is rather a question of aiming at the union of all that is noble and just in the nations and in ourselves. We want our own centre of simple active life, because the spiritual and intellectual element without the simple active life degenerates into subtlety and trickiness. We want—at least, for a section of our nationality—normal life, with its variety and interpretation of different influences of Nature. This is a question in which every Jew should be interested, because not only does the nobility of a nation depend on the presence of the national consciousness, but also the nobility of each individual. Our dignity and our rectitude are proportioned to our sense of relationship to something great, admirable, pregnant with possibilities, worthy of sacrifice, a continual inspiration by the presentation of aims larger than everyday life and personal ease.

What was the attitude of the Zionist Organization with regard to these great events? Why was the Zionist Organization more interested in the war than any other section of Jewry? And why is Zionism at present more up to date than it ever was? In order to answer properly these questions we have to cast a retrospective glance on the history of the last twenty years, and to recall to the minds of the readers a few important facts which, although dealt with in this work in previous chapters, must be again reviewed in their connection with the present political situation.

Twenty years ago several hundred Jews from all parts of the world met in the Swiss town of Basle and held a congress—the first Jewish congress in history.

A strange community of Jews, a representative assembly of the great Jewish Diaspora—from the most modern European writers to teachers in Talmud colleges in small Lithuanian towns, quiet respectable citizens and fiery students, bankers and Hebrew writers—representing all kinds of civilization and all languages—and, nevertheless, some bond unified the whole.

At the head sat a man of the kind which appears like meteors but once in the course of generations—Theodor Herzl. A sage, a hero, a leader of men, an artist? Everything—even more than everything—the embodiment of an idea. In the body of this man there existed a soul, and that soul was Zionism.

At his side there stood (besides other worthies whose titles to honour we may not here linger to mention) a tribune of the people, in the person of Max Nordau—another famous man only just awakened suddenly and with great power to his Jewish nationality.

There the veil was torn away from the tragedy of the Jews. There it was stated that the Jewish problem was a disease, and that against a disease one should not protest and struggle wildly, but one ought to cure it. Moreover, it was said that at times one cannot heal a wound except by cauterizing it. And all were agreed that it was not a good plan to postpone difficulties, but on the contrary that they should be anticipated.

Speakers there indicated the “Galuth”—the serpent with a thousand coils. And they pointed to the Land of Israel, to freedom, to redemption.

In the Land of Israel, it was there affirmed, Zionism could become a living reality.

Nothing new indeed was there discovered. It was simply stated that two and two make four.

Out of the vocabulary of modern political nomenclature the word “national” was adopted. Is Zionism national? Certainly. It can also be called “human”; perhaps still more simply, “natural.” Let us learn, however, from Nature, in its simplicity and honesty, which knows of no sophistries nor manœuvring.

We Jews have become again children of Nature. There exist species in Nature. The eagle does not toil for the pike nor the lion for the cat; neither can the light of the stars replace that of the sun. Each fulfils its own purpose, and thence results the sum total. Behold the trees and the standing corn—would they be so splendidly developed, so rich and so fresh in their growth, if they were forcibly mixed and mingled together so that one drew its sap from the other? They are flourishing and rich and beautiful, because each keeps its own natural form and each draws its nourishment from the breast of mother earth. “Give us our country,” said the Zionists. “Give it to us for our exiled and wandering ones, who unwillingly find themselves mingled in the great seething pot of assimilation, who drag themselves from place to place. Give it to us for those who long and thirst for another kind of life; our garments, our bread, and our freedom we do not wish to have as alms. We wish to work and to obtain the fruits of our honest labour. We love that little country; waters cannot quench and streams cannot drown our love for it. Our love has the power to move mountains, it is stronger than all material obstacles. We demand a peaceful spot for our future and for our children who are becoming lost to us. Beholding this misery, we are willing to sacrifice ourselves. Even a she-wolf throws herself against danger to protect her young ones. Shall our love be weaker then than that of a wolf? And shall those whom we love be worse off than the offspring of animals? We want to rend asunder our chains, to blot out the mark of serfdom upon us, and win for ourselves true human rights, and the privilege of living equal to others, by honest toil.”

This was the Jewish claim—the demand put by Zionists to the world. And then the world turned against us, especially the little Jewish world.

We shall not talk about the levity, the insolence, the egotism, nor about those satiated folk who philosophize with their stomachs, nor about those others who do not know their own minds, whose shallow little heads float like foam in any current. We do not talk about those idle jesters who have found another opportunity of showing the sad wit of the Ghetto which takes pleasure in ridiculing and despising one’s own self. Indeed even respectable, serious and honest, though unfortunately shortsighted and obstinate men, who imagined themselves enthusiastic concerning Judaism, kind-hearted but automatic leaders of Jewish communal life who, though philosophizing about mankind, are inwardly divided from their own people, came to us with “fatherly” advice, with moral lectures, with sonorous phrases about humanity. They wanted to destroy most quickly, annihilate and extinguish the “dangerous chimæra,” the “reaction,” the “chauvinism,” the “Sabbatai-Zvi’ism,” the “decay of religion,” “religious fanaticism,” “tribalism,” and all the other things they ascribed to Zionism in their political delusion and contradictory nomenclature.

“You must scatter yourselves all over the world,” they said, “just as a handful of seeds, scattered by the wind, germinate, grow and ripen, all in different spots, replenishing the earth with their fruits! What do you want with a country of your own? You are made for something better! To be priests, teachers of ethics, missionaries of God—that is a higher ambition! Your contribution to mankind is social justice and the brotherhood of men. Why be a nation and for what purpose? You will be great in the memory of peoples. You have earned a golden throne in history’s temple of fame. You have been, to-day you are no more!”

The Zionists replied: “We want to live. We know better than you do what we are able to do, and how we ought to influence mankind; but we do not wish to abdicate, we do not wish to be destroyed like a broken vessel, whose contents have run out and have drained into the soil without leaving a trace. We do not want to be lost like a falling star, which for a time had shone brightly in space, only to sink into nothingness. Our star is not yet dead. Our ambitions are not very high, but they are based on reality. We do not want to be an exception, and we want to be excused from such a ‘priesthood.’ We want to create a sound settlement, a strong centre where we can develop our own nature and our character to the highest and purest perfection. Should the world wish to learn from us and accept our influence, we shall place no obstacles; on the contrary, we shall be glad of it. But to drag ourselves from place to place, to be the scapegoat of every ‘Azazel,’ and the sacrificial lamb for every calamity, to mix everywhere with others, to lose more and more that which is our own personality, and to imagine that we are a sort of schoolmaster for everyone—for such imposture we are too honest, for such megalomania we are of too normal a mentality, and, morally, too modest. We do not want to be driven ad majorem Dei gloriam (for God’s greater glory) or to be intermingled with others. We do not want to be like the goose that was offered the choice of being either roasted, stewed, or boiled. Neither do we wish to have lavished upon us the pity given to old people, because it is certain that they will not for long continue to disturb the peace of the living. We are old, it is true, but on that account we are experienced. From Pharaoh and Balaam to the foreign Antiochus [Epiphanes] (ob. 164 b.c.e.) and our own Jason,⁠¹ from the Hellenists to the modern Assimilationists, we have been constantly invited, as the spider invited the fly into her parlour, just to get it entangled in her web and afterwards to suck it dry. No! a thousand times no! And if you say the Land of Israel is of no value to any one, then you are not speaking in our name! Speak for yourselves alone! For you the Land of Israel means perchance only a cemetery, a legend, an amulet, an archæological relic; for us its every pebble and grain of sand is beloved, not only in a spirit of worship and of inactive enthusiasm, but also as a necessity to our life labour. And if you believe that the Jewish people are of a similar species to the Mammoth and the Megatherium, which have been devoted to extinction, then please speak only for yourselves! Perhaps the sense of Jewish nationality in you has gone to sleep or has even died entirely. That is your own affair, a personal question which you have to fight out with your own selves. In us it is alive, suffering, fighting, clamouring! Zionism is the movement of the Jewish people to reconstitute itself and to collect again its scattered members, to provide Judaism, the Jewish spirit, the Jewish soul, with a home once again after two thousand years of exile and of wandering. Zionism is the struggle of the Jewish people to preserve its existence. Zionism feels that the raison d’être of Judaism is not ended, that the Jewish race can still contribute its share towards the raising of humanity, but to enable it to do so more efficiently, in an organized form, and in accordance with its own natural affinities and historic traditions, a Jewish milieu is necessary. To create such a Jewish milieu is the purpose of the Zionist movement. Such a Jewish milieu can take root in one land and one land only, for there is one land only that has a real glorious Jewish history and Jewish past. That land is the Land of Israel!”

Both parties had exhausted the discussion—and, as is usual in such cases, did not succeed in convincing each other. Then they each went their own way.

The Zionists began to build straightway. No other colonial settlement in the world is of nobler birth than ours in Palestine. Tradition relates that young Rome was fed by a she-wolf. Some day it will be told in legends that our new settlement on old foundations was fed by a turtle-dove, by love, faithfulness, kindliness, and brotherliness. Not wild animals, but angels, stood round its cradle. Muses and Graces illuminated and crowned the morning star of its noble childhood. Jewish thinkers like Leo Pinsker, Perez Smolenskin, David Gordon; enthusiastic leaders and many others—a kind of Jewish Puritan pioneers, the “Bilu”—had started to build up the settlement even before our first and greatest, our immortal founder and leader of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl, had drawn up our programme, created our organization, founded our institutions, and had given us the impetus, method and form of the Zionist movement.

The success of a wonderful, personal, magnetic power, the method of large-scale propaganda, the labour through relations with Governments had for a certain time given Zionism a political bias. More considered and everyday experience, on the contrary, pointed to a slow method of practical labour. Different parties amongst the Zionists opposed one another, and we need not be ashamed of that. Jews are inclined to freedom in all their spiritual tendencies, they do not easily submit to formulæ, they criticize, analyse, and search for the truth. Finally, the whole struggle was reduced to a question of tactics. Whether one attempts to reach the goal by means of the plough, plantations, schools, literature, or propaganda, it is a question of time and circumstances. And the essential truth was, that all means must be employed.

What was the result? The net balance was not great; forty settlements, some farms, co-operative societies, Tel Aviv, the new Achuzoth, the Carmel, the Pardes, the Aggudath N’taim, modern machines; new methods of work introduced not only among Jews, but also among Arabs; malaria centres disinfected; the best conditions for planting studied in experimental institutions; our banks, the Bezalel, public health centres, the music school, two well-filled secondary schools, the girls’ school in Jaffa, the Tach’kmoni school in the same place, the Petach-Tikwah school of agriculture, the settlement schools, the committee organization of the settlements, the workers’ associations, the teachers’ union, the Hebrew newspapers and literature, the “Houses of the People”—these represent what Chovevé Zion, Baron Edmond de Rothschild and the Zionists have created, and what we call the new colonization of Palestine. The earlier rivalries have vanished. The Chovevé Zion and the Zionists are at one as to the policy of Zionism. The Zionist Palestine office in Jaffa is the head-quarters of the work of colonisation. The struggle for Hebrew has shown how Palestine is becoming more and more an intellectual centre. The visit of Baron Edmond de Rothschild to Palestine in 1913 had set the seal upon this unanimity. Even the blind could perceive that a true Jewish Home was in process of establishment. No further arguments were needed. The Jewish population in the land, although a minority, is the only one that is growing and has grown during the past generation. It is the only progressive population in the land, the others are stationary in regard to numbers. Let any one go to Palestine, not on one of Cook’s lightning tours, but as a Jew to the land of Israel; let him remain in the settlements but a few weeks—that will be a certain cure for anti-Zionism. If it should happen that any one could not be cured even in this way, then he must unfortunately be regarded as incurable. We, however, know of a great many that have been cured.

Thus the organization grew. It is sufficient to compare the beautiful first Basle Congress of 1897 with the enormous Vienna Congress of 1913; it is sufficient to compare the phantom Jewish National Fund of 1899 with the existing Jewish National Fund, which can show an annual income of over two million francs; it is sufficient to compare the two or three Zionist pamphlets of eighteen years ago with the Zionist press and literature in existence to-day.

Thus Zionism has grown to what it is to-day for the Jewish people: a spring of life, a signpost, the foundation of a mighty edifice.

In a few words the author can give the essence of the personal impressions which he received during the course of his three months’ stay in Palestine, in 1913, before the war: a model factory of modern Jewish national life; a nursery for rearing the fruitful parent-stems for the blossoming tree of a living Hebraism; a laboratory for sociological experiments in self-help and self-government in Jewish economic life; a compendium of elements and corner-stones for the erection of the Home; a systematic, laborious, slow preparation of the preliminary conditions for a great, healthy, original Jewish province; the genesis of a new world, naturally with many defects, with many premature and unripe attempts, but that was just most beautiful and most natural in people who search and strive and venture. And all this was enlightened by a clear understanding, and glowed with a youthful national enthusiasm. That is what Jewish colonization in Palestine is.

Do not try and count it over! The wisdom of the multiplication table is too dull to be able to estimate it. Do not try and weigh it! On the great scales of history a single unit sometimes weighs down a hundred thousand! Enjoy it, as one enjoys art, or as the free soul becomes intoxicated with and rejoices in freedom. As musical natures become enraptured with music, so national natures become enraptured with national life.

And if you will have net results, then do not forget one thing, namely, that all this has been done, not by the entire Jewish people, but by a small handful of Jews. When this small handful has become the entire people, then this edifice will grow even grander. Palestine is a land that stretches forth its hands to the future. For two thousand years it has been ravaged by war and by misgovernment, until a country that was once famous throughout the world for its fertility, has become a desert land, degenerate from lack of cultivation. According to the statistics of the Ottoman Board of Trade less than 9 per cent of the area of European Turkey has been brought under cultivation, and still less of Turkey in Asia. There are in Palestine twenty-seven inhabitants to the square kilometre, and in the valley of the Jordan four; while in the irrigated districts of neighbouring Egypt ten thousand are concentrated within the same area. Why should not Palestine be resettled like Egypt? Why should it not be made a happy home for an unfortunate people?

Now the Zionists, after twenty years of work, plead their case again. They have not succeeded in putting an end to the “Galuth.” Their opponents maintain that they had overestimated their strength. Perhaps so, but this does not prove that their labours have been to no purpose. They have laid a few foundation stones, they have shown the way.

They defend their cause in the midst of a hell-fire. Our ancient people that has lived so long, has now experienced the greatest of wars, such as has never been in the world before. We live to-day in the most critical period of the world’s history. It has been our lot to share in the greatest drama which humanity has as yet lived through, not only as spectators, but also as actors. The history of this world war is written in letters of blood on the ancient and holy parchment, on the brow of the Jew. No seismograph has indicated beforehand the coming of this earthquake, of this outburst of the volcano of the nations. But one thing the Zionists have foreseen: the force of national consciousness; the flood of hate, our pitiful situation, which cause every storm to tear away the ground from under our feet.

Herzl had written his first pamphlet under the influence of the Dreyfus affair. That cry of twenty years ago thunders now in unison with the cries of mothers, wives, orphans, from underneath the pyres and ruins which in their brutal reality leave the worst imaginings of a Jeremiah far behind. The dead arise from their graves, covered with blood, trampled in the dust, with the fiery name of God, the “Shaddai,” on their pale foreheads, and they demand to be heard. They lament, and say:

“Vainly we strove to secure a little life—we could not grasp it. Withered with sufferings, with pain and injury, shivering and frozen with cold, we used to hug the earth closely, but it would not give us warmth. We were teachers of the most ancient peoples, but death and insult were the recompense paid us by our pupils. We shone like the stars, but we were treated like silkworms, which have to die, so soon as they have spun the fine web of their threads, so soon as they have drawn forth and sacrificed their life-blood—they have fulfilled their duty, and farewell!

“On our shoulders we bore the burdens of our masters’ interests, just as the sea bears the little fishing-boats on its waves. We were more faithful in guarding their property than dogs are. For the labour which we performed, for our hard and humble services, for the sacrifice of all our strength on their altars, for the resigned and patient suffering of all the tortures of exile, we did not receive even the reward of protection extended to the beast of burden, to the cow, or to the sheep for its wool. Deprived of all human rights, even stripped of the scantiest rags of toleration, we wandered and fell under the iron yoke of serfdom, like a weary and impotent herd of cattle driven over rocks and brambles. They felled us as a forest is felled, and we went down without the slightest possibility of suitable self-protection, with the dull thud of an old oak prostrated by a storm, yet with the pain of bereaved, insulted and humbled human beings. We are the victims not of the war, but of the ‘Galuth.’ Let no one talk to us about Belgium, Serbia. Theirs is the well-known scourge of mankind taking the shape of tyranny, militarism, war. Had we suffered only from these things, then we should have suffered but in common with others. Our misery, however, is of a peculiar kind. It is a double misery: we suffer with the rest, and in addition we suffer specially as a people without a country. Belgium and Serbia and Montenegro are nations with countries of their own; they cannot be annihilated, they must be restored. We envy Belgium in her misfortune, and sorely assailed Serbia; we behold the strength and health of the Polish peasant. Truly, he has been ruined for the time being, but he has his country, and though he has been driven away ten times by the fury of war he will return, and once again plant himself on his native soil, where his golden corn will grow again. Not only could he not be uprooted, but he will regain more than he had lost: a new, free, independent Poland!

“Everywhere the rights of nations are triumphant. Let it not be said that only countries that had been stolen fifty or a hundred years ago shall be returned to their former lawful owners. Whoever says so, falsifies history, either intentionally or unintentionally. The right of the Greeks to Greece is also a right which has remained through thousands of years. The right of the Armenians to Armenia has also been suppressed by force throughout the centuries. And yet these rights will be granted. Let it not be said either, that a nation robbed of the country must have remained on its native soil, or otherwise it will have lost its rights. That is not true. More Greeks live outside Greece than in Greece, and there are still other nations, the majority of whose citizens dwell outside the frontiers of their old home. Nor let it be said that it is sufficient to grant equal rights to mankind. Were not equal rights given to the Greeks—and yet the problem was not solved till Greece redeemed herself!

“We, the orphans, the disinherited, the playthings in history’s sports, the step-children of a world founded on nationalities—we summon the world before the high court of history.

“For two thousand years past they put us off with excuses and false promises. Civilization has been progressing for thousands of years: mankind now flies loftier than the eagle and dives deeper than the Leviathan. Has it become better for us? Have we not remained the same scapegoats from the time of Rome to the Crusades, from these to the ‘Haidamaks,’ and from them to the Pogroms of the present day?

“We, the wandering souls, demand our rest. Enough of wanderings and being bandied about! Give us back our body, our country! We want to be equal with the rest, suffer with the rest, fight with the rest, live with the rest.”

Thus lament the dead, teaching the living. Will the world not listen to them?

“What do you wish?” the Zionists are asked. They reply: We want a home in the land of Israel. On the day of Judgment, when every historical right—from the smallest to the greatest—is announced, elevated, proclaimed, and demanded; when even the weakest, the most doubtful claims of half-forgotten and but recently-awakened little peoples, based on old, torn, ambiguous and now scarcely legible documents and traditions, assert themselves and demand rights of ownership; when history takes its place as judge on the throne of justice, and the national territorial idea is accepted as the world’s code, in order to resolve every doubt and to arbitrate every dispute; when the great in power penitently declare that every injustice, especially towards suffering peoples, must be righted; when these things come to pass, then (we Zionists say) the Jewish people is in duty bound to proclaim its old, holy, historical right to the heritage of its heroes, its prophets, its civilization, its religion, its language, and its labours!

It is an ancient right, but it has not lapsed. It is the ancient oath, the ancient covenant. No right has been earned more honourably. None has been paid for with more and nobler blood. None is so highly established and deeply founded.

In order not to lay itself open to a verdict of letting its claim go by default, the Jewish people will have to proclaim its immortal right to the land of Israel. It is the sacred duty-right of loyal children towards their parents. Not to demand the land of Israel means that we tacitly waive our rights to it, and this means a waiving of our rights to everything: tradition, honour, justice, the law of Moses, and the general historical idea.

We don’t trust a man who denies his mother, however much of a patriot he may be in his country. He is an opportunist, but no patriot, because patriotism is idealism.

Nothing will daunt us in our resolve to proclaim solemnly our historical right and to demand it with all our energy. Do not trouble us with intimidations, on the score of a possible growth of anti-Semitism, and so on! These fears are senseless. Anti-Semitism is a consequence not of Zionism, but of the “Galuth.” Those who have the courage of their convictions and a sense of honour, are not to be influenced by craven fears. Our duty it is to proclaim our right, and we shall fulfil this duty. Will this bring us sufferings? Good: we are prepared for that. Martyrs from of old as we are, we have been through fire and water during thousands of years, we have been the target of every attack, the victims of every persecution, and we fear no chicanery when it is a question of fulfilling a holy duty of our conscience.

Whoever understands Zionism, knows it is not our intention to raise conflicts. We stand for a peaceful movement. We began in a time of peace and we desire to renew our work and substantially to enlarge it, in the coming time of peace. We did not wish to harm anyone, to wrong anyone, and we wish to do so still less, if possible, now than before. We wish to make our country a model of social justice and human brotherhood; the spirit of our prophets shall fill our land, and the ancient Hebrew genius shall there have its dwelling-place.

We certainly, not less than all the other Jews and all just men, are strongly interested and are anxious that we, wherever we live, wherever we are, and wish to be citizens, should have our rights secured. Where the Jews are not yet emancipated, they shall be emancipated; where they are but half emancipated, their emancipation shall be completed and perfected; and where they are already emancipated, their emancipation shall be in no way checked or diminished. This question of rights we had better formulate in the following manner: Not that rights should be given us, but that our rights shall no longer be filched away, restricted and encroached upon wherever we have our domicile, wherever we fulfil our duties, and bear all burdens in order to defend the soil of the country to the death; wherever we work, live, and die together with its other inhabitants. Not that we should be emancipated, but that people should emancipate themselves from the instinct of persecution, from malice, from envy, which find expression in various forms: in pogroms, in boycott, in social ostracism, in open or masked disabilities; that we should not be shut up in cages like wild animals, whether it be in the brutal form of a Ghetto, a “pale of settlement,” or in the more subtle form of social exclusion and coldly polite hypocritical repulse: whether it be finally, in that cunning form not of Anti-Semitism, but of Asemitism which declares that, as in the case of poisons, the country can at best absorb only a limited quantity of Jews, while any excess is dangerous.

If the civilized world really intends to make an end of war, then, also, this war against the Jews must not be overlooked. It is a war in time of peace, a war that has not the heroic character of a struggle between two opponents equal in arms, but the character of a systematic and brutal oppression of the weak by the strong.

That is the problem of the rights of the Jews in the countries of the Diaspora!

Some sophists have, in their speculative, casuistical way, evolved a strange doctrine. They assert, that when the Jews surrender their claims to the land of Israel, when they deny their own nationality, then they will “receive rights.” Pedants and arm-chair theorists as they are, they paint in their luxurious imagination a picture that recalls the classical example of Paris with the apple: in one hand, Palestine; in the other, rights in the Diaspora. And as they point to this picture, they cry out to the Jews: Choose! One or the other!

Such pictures may please children, but not grown-up men—since children are innocent and do not understand the laws of logic. There are no two kinds of truth, nor of justice, only one. If justice is done to us, then our right to Palestine will be recognized, and we shall also be left in peace in the Diaspora.

Be assured the Land of Israel will not injure our situation in the Diaspora. Only Zionism, not self-betrayal, is calculated to lend us authority and prestige in the world. Avoid the old error, avoid renunciation, stand true to your flag, to righteousness, like men!

We are asked, What are your politics? Others say that politics should be indeed excluded. Zionism must be only either colonization or a spiritual movement. We must be Zionists in colonization, in the spirit, and in religion. In what each says, there is some truth. The error lies only in the fact that in each of these assertions, a partial truth claims to represent the whole truth. Zionism is not a part; it is the totality, the sum, the synthesis of these efforts.

However little Zionists wish to enter into politics they cannot close their eyes to the fact that Zionism is—at least, in part—a political problem. However spiritual its arguments, its origins and its motives may be, however metaphysical its aims may be, and however much its methods may accordingly strive to remain pure, ♦nevertheless, it is concerned with the problem of people desiring to settle in a particular country, under a particular form of social life. They, consequently, have to strive for a certain degree of political self-government, whether it be high or low, and thus they must come into relations with other groups and states already in existence, already formed, already in possession and having rights. The boundaries of rights will have to be drawn up, and these will soon become frontiers of existing spheres of influences, and these again, later on, will need to grow to new forms. Even if Zionism should devote itself entirely and with absolute exclusiveness to spiritual matters, its centre of colonization will have a political aspect, which must be developed as such. It is a good thing that the war has thrust political temptations upon Zionism. Nothing can become of greater advantage to it, than that it should always grow more clearly conscious of being something practical, the creator of life, of being conditioned and limited by frontiers, and not that it should simply fill the rôle of redressing grievances from a single point.

The Zionist policy must always be controlled by the national idea. Great changes will arise in the political situation in the world, the extent of which cannot as yet be surveyed in detail. But one thing is already certain; the national, the historical idea will be victorious. The people that suffer most, the small and weak people, must weigh on the scales of the coming changes in proportion not only to their physical strength, but also to their moral strength, and in proportion to the intensity of their will-power and self-determination—and this will-power and this self-determination, although at all times needing and capable of development, develops most rapidly under the influence of such moments as the present. The first preliminary condition for political success, therefore, is self-determination and will-power. The first and most important political task is the awakening of will-power. Only then commences the policy of finding support in the outer world. And under this head we know of one policy only, namely, truth—absolute and unconditional truth. Out of love for it Zionists desire to be just to all men, even to their opponents. This may be disagreeable to short-sighted people, but it does not trouble Zionists. Should truth beckon in one direction and the greatest successes in the other, Zionists should without a moment’s hesitation choose rather the former and exclaim, “Away with falsehood.” Only truth can be of service to us; wherever any shadow whatsoever falls upon that, there can be no place for us.

No cause that is unjust, even if at the first glance it appears to bring immediate help, and is advanced by people who wish us well, is worthy of Zionist support, and, likewise, every righteous cause, even though it appears to be against us, and is put forward by people who are indifferent and even opposed to us, is deserving of our support. For high above the plans dictated by benevolence or malice, stands the loftiest cause which so rules it that injustice cannot help Zionism, and that justice, on the contrary, must help it.

It is sometimes pointed out that certain among those who profess sympathy for Zionism do not exactly belong to the most trusty friends of the Jews, while, on the contrary, many so-called Liberals seem to be opposed to Zionism. Truly, we say to you: this is of no concern to us. Personal motives have no interest for us; we do not sit in judgment upon individuals. We are neither flattered by friends nor deterred by the envious. The Zionist’s only concern is the righteous cause.

The Zionist policy is one of principles, and not an opportunist policy. A policy founded on principles can only base itself on truth. The assistance of strangers can be of service to us only when it sees in us the truth, sees us as we really are, as we are in the continuity of our history, in our numbers, in our distress and in our hopes. Not the plans of any individual, whether personal or general, only fidelity to the axioms of international morality can help us. And if it be possible to obtain such assistance, then it can be attained only through a leading policy of true equality, but never through assimilation, which is opposed to the truth.

Truly, to be on an equality with others means the solving of our problem on national lines. That in the highest sense is equality of opportunity. If the principle of self-determination is applied to all, then it must be applied to us too. If historical rights are recognized, then ours must also be recognized. It is right and fair that Armenia should become Armenian; it is just as right and fair that the Land of Israel should become Israelitish. Grant equal rights and compensatory justice; all else is hatred, cowardice, hypocrisy, ambiguity.

The error of Jewish policy since the beginning of the last century lay in the fact that it was an opportunist policy. We tried to please different parties, to utilize political situations. Perhaps this was formerly an opportunity—we have now outgrown this standpoint. Human progress, like every development, advances ever further and further. Every new advance leads to a new stage that could be reached only through the earlier stages, and every new stage when reached has been reached only to be left behind in its turn. As soon as a stage has been reached, the time has once more arrived for leaving it. That is the essential reason why the Jewish problem has now become a national problem. Hence it is the purest childishness to wish to solve the problem by the means adopted by the Sanhedrin in Paris, in 1806.

It is not, however, to be supposed that because Zionists hold to a policy of principles they are on this account incapable of profiting from favourable opportunities, of utilizing a fortunate moment, that may come and bring more with it than many years of hard toil. “Whoever wants to sail to the new-discovered isles must use the winds as they blow.” The centre of gravity lies in the Jews alone, in their will-power, in the independence of their spirit.

The Jewish people have seen the dominion of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and Rome, and still survive. Under the standards of Zion the Jewish people will rise to new life.

What ought Jews to do? To this question we answer: In these serious times all Jews should be united, all Jewish organizations, parties and communities should set to work, by all lawful means, through the press, literature, propaganda and personal connections, to attain the recognition of a national home for our people in the Land of Israel; and at the same time to carry through the abolition of all injustice against the Jews in the countries of the Diaspora.

And in view of the enormous importance of the already existing Jewish colonization in Palestine for our future, and, also, of the salvation of the Jewish people from want and misery accentuated by the war, the greatest possible assistance must be given to Palestine and to the suffering masses of Jews in the Diaspora. For the sake of these causes, and especially for the first, the Zionist Organization all over the world should not only be maintained, but also placed in a position to develop and enlarge its activities.

ZIONIST PROPAGANDA IN WARTIME

In the above the Zionist policy has been sketched. Experience has by this time shown that in spite of the incredible difficulties of all kinds, Zionism has not only not lost its power, but has also actively developed its work.

The present war has not affected the unity of the Zionist idea nor has it affected the unity of the Zionist Organization. As the Organization was established on the federative principle, it was found possible to continue the essential work of the movement by utilising the separate organizations of the different countries. The work of propaganda and the collection of funds, so far from diminishing, actually made great progress. The societies already in existence continued their work very effectively, and a considerable number of new societies came into being. Die Welt, the central organ of the movement, had, however, to be suspended; but a series of new Zionist publications made their appearance. The Zionist press—in Russia particularly—made great headway. The Zionist weekly, Razswiet, which is published in the Russian language, increased its circulation threefold. Three new dailies, Ha’am in Hebrew, Das Togblatt and Der Telegraf in Yiddish, were established, and rapidly attained a circulation comparable to the great European daily papers. A crowd of new journalists and publicists accepting the Zionist platform, joined the old guard of writers and workers in the cause. The Yiddish Press in Poland, which numbers its readers by the hundred thousand, put themselves at the disposal of the Zionist movement. One in particular, which had hitherto been territorialist, and only lukewarm towards Zionism, declared openly its acceptance of the Zionist programme. In England Zionist activity in press and literature made remarkable progress, such as had scarcely been imagined possible in this country. It is worthy of note that, quite apart from the Zionist Press proper, the Jewish non-Zionist Press evinced a much keener interest in the movement. The world’s general Press, in all languages, devoted to Zionism an amount of space second only to the events of the war. The mere fact that at a time such as the present, when the world is in the throes of a universal struggle, and every nation is concerned for its own safety, and even existence, so much interest was directed to our movement throws a dazzling light upon the naïve absurdity of the anti-Zionist assertion, that the whole movement is nothing more than an Utopia.

The Zionists have long realized the need of public meetings and discussions. The Zionist movement is the only Jewish national and democratic movement to attach great importance to the free exchange of opinions and to break down the somewhat autocratic method of conducting Jewish affairs in favour with the Kehillah leaders. It was the first movement to replace the dry bones of bureaucracy by the introduction of universal Jewish suffrage as a means of dealing with Jewish public affairs. As the Zionist movement in pre-war times found full expression in conferences and public meetings, it was to be feared that the War, by reducing greatly the facilities of communication and intercourse, would seriously affect this form of activity. But this was not the case. The long record of the meetings and conferences held since the outbreak of the war, and which by no means exhausts the total number, gives some notion of the vast scope of this form of propaganda.

We will make a short survey of the most important dates in Zionist activity during the course of the war, in chronological order.

THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

The downfall of the Czardom in Russia was undoubtedly one of the greatest events in the world’s history. Russia entered into a period of revolution which seemed to bring with it all the blessings of right and liberty. The restrictions affecting nationalities and creeds were removed. But far from destroying Zionism, the new liberty gave it an immense stimulus.

In Moscow a Zionist District Committee was formed, comprising many Provinces: Astrakhan, Vladimir, Vologda, Voronesh, Kazan, Kaluga, Kostrooma, Kursk, Moscow, Nijni-Novgorod, Simbirsk, Smolensk, Tambov, Tula, Ufa, Jaroslav, and the Don District.

At Odessa, a Zionist demonstration took place. Entire battalions of Zionist soldiers bore through the town blue and white banners, with the motto:⁠—

“Liberty in Russia, Land and Liberty in Palestine.”

A hundred and fifty thousand men followed these banners, to which the Military Governor of Odessa insisted on showing honour publicly.

Zionist meetings were also held at Minsk, Saratov, Juriev, Kharkov, Nijni-Novgorod, Ekaterinburg, Homel, Proskurov, Baku Dubrovno, Riazan, Ekaterinoslav, Moscow, etc.

At Kieff, when the procession approached the Town Hall, the Zionist flag was hoisted on the balcony, where the “Hatikvah” was played by the municipal orchestra.

At Berdicheff fifteen thousand Jews marched through the principal streets carrying Zionist banners. The Municipality, the Administration Executive of the town, and the chiefs of Ukraine National Organizations, greeted the Zionist demonstrators.

In Turkestan and Bokhara the Zionist movement made remarkable progress. The entire Sephardi element has adhered to the movement. The Ashkenazim and Sephardim worked together peacefully at the great Zionist Conference held at Samarcand. A meeting of five thousand Jews was held there, and a resolution adopted in favour of a Jewish Palestine.

In Moscow, in the Great Hall, a Jewish Mass Meeting took place. Dr. E. W. Tschlenow was elected president. The following resolution was adopted:⁠—

“The Jewish Mass Meeting in Moscow salutes freedom with great joy. We are firmly convinced that the Constituent Assembly, which is to be elected by universal suffrage, will establish in Russia a thoroughly democratic administration, and that not only civil rights, but also national rights, national autonomy, and a free national evolution, will be secured to the Jewish as well as to all other peoples of Russia. The Meeting resolves to convoke a general Jewish Congress in Russia.”

The Conference at Petrograd on May 24th, 1917, received official recognition. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, M. Teretschenko, wished the Conference success in its deliberations.

Dr. Tschlenow delivered an Address, in the course of which he said, among other things:⁠—

“We beg the Provisional Government to believe that it may fully depend upon our forces and our support in its heroic efforts directed toward the strengthening of the freedom and greatness of Russia.

“What is necessary, and what we strive for, is to create a national territorial centre for our scattered people. The construction of that centre is already begun, and it will continue. The centre will gradually be filled by the forces and means of the Diaspora.

“Who of you has not keenly followed for the last year and a half the life of the youngest branch of the Jewish people: the American? Hundreds of thousands of working men are unified in their demand for national rights in the Diaspora and an autonomous centre in Palestine. The New York Kehillah, representing a million and a quarter Jews, comes forward with the same slogan. Finally, the powerful Congress movement, embracing the entire three million Jewry, is to close the coming autumn with most important decisions. Weigh all the facts, and you will agree that the harmony of which we dream is already coming to pass. With hope and with love we follow the work of our Trans-oceanic champions, and send to them our brotherly greetings.

“But what could not have been prophesied and what fills our hearts with untold joy and pride, is the attitude towards our ideal on the part of the broad stratas of Jewry, which has revealed itself since the time of the Great Revolution.

“From all corners of our great Russia come to us, together with cheers of joy over the emancipation, assurances of unshattered faith in the eternal ideal—the renaissance of our native Palestine. Old and young, rich and poor, from the front and from the rear, orthodox and free-thinkers, declare in one voice: ‘Now, even now, freed from the chains of slavery, shall we be able zealously and gladly to give ourselves to the service of our ideals?’

“I cannot refrain here from underscoring, with the feeling of deepest recognition, the invaluable services which the Government of the United States has so nobly and warmly shown to our pioneers. The noble President of the United States has acted from motives of humanity and brotherly relation of peoples, but at the same time, also, from deep sympathy in our regeneration. The noble impulses of America have found a worthy instrument in the person of the former Ambassador Morgenthau, that faithful son of the Jewish people, whose services in these hard years Jewry will not forget.

“But all this time, while working and building, we have not lost sight of the basic point inscribed upon our banner—the public, legal character of the hearth which we are creating. We are convinced that the moment has come for reiterating our programme.

“We deem it necessary that the nations called upon to establish the standard of the future national political life should reckon with the definitely expressed will of the Jewish people, to populate and regenerate Palestine as its national hearth. We deem it further necessary that all obstacles should be removed from our path, and that guarantees and conditions should be created which will ensure the unobstructed and speedy development of our work in the land.”

The Conference was attended by five hundred and fifty-two delegates 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:⁠—

The Conference carried the following resolutions:⁠—

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.

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

“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
Chas. S. Henry
Matthew Nathan
Lionel Abrahams⁠¹
Isidore Spielmann
Edward D. Stern
Israel Abrahams
Leonard L. Cohen
Ernest L. Franklin   Israel Gollancz
Michael A. Green
H. S. Q. Henriques
Joshua M. Levy
Laurie Magnus
Edmund Sebag-Montefiore
Arthur Reginald Moro
Philip S. Waley
Albert M. Woolf

“May 29th.”

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:⁠—

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.

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:⁠—

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 Weekly Dispatch of April 1st, 1917, in a leading article on “The New Crusade,” said:⁠—

According to The Sunday Chronicle, in an article, April 15th, 1917, on “British Policy in Palestine—A British Hebrew Necessity”:⁠—

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”:⁠—

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:⁠—

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”:⁠—

The Review of Reviews, September, 1916, thus defined Zionism:⁠—

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.

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:⁠—

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.

“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.)

“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.)

“We speak of Palestine as a country, but it is not a country.... But it will be a country; it will be the country of the Jews. That is the meaning of the letter which we publish to-day written by Mr. Balfour to Lord Rothschild for communication to the Zionist Federation. It is at once the fulfilment of an aspiration, the signpost of a destiny. Never since the days of the Dispersion has the extraordinary people scattered over the earth in every country of modern European and of the old Arabic civilization surrendered the hope of an ultimate return to the historic seat of its national existence. This has formed part of its ideal life, and is the ever-recurring note of its religious ritual.... For fifty years the Jews have been slowly and painfully returning to their ancestral home, and even under the Ottoman yoke and amid the disorder of that effete and crumbling dominion they have succeeded in establishing the beginnings of a real civilization. Scattered and few, they have still brought with them schools and industry and scientific knowledge, and here and there have in truth made the waste places blossom as the rose.... The British victories in Palestine and in the more distant eastern bounds of the ancient Arab Empire are the presage of the downfall of Turkish power; the declaration of policy by the British Government to-day is the security for a new, perhaps a very wonderful, future for Zionism and for the Jewish race.... In declaring that ‘the British Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use its best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object,’ the Government have indeed laid down a policy of great and far-reaching importance, but it is one which can bear its full fruit only by the united efforts of Jews all over the world. What it means is that, assuming our military successes to be continued and the whole of Palestine to be brought securely under our control, then on the conclusion of peace our deliberate policy will be to encourage in every way in our power Jewish immigration, to give full security, and no doubt a large measure of local autonomy, to the Jewish immigrants, with a view to the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State.” (Manchester Guardian.)

The Manchester Daily Dispatch published a sympathetic interview with Sir Stuart Samuel, Bart., on the subject of the pronouncement of the Government.

Both The Liverpool Courier and The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury devoted leading articles to the subject on the 9th of November. The former said:⁠—

“Mr. Balfour’s letter stating the attitude of the British Government towards the establishment of a National Home for the Jews in Palestine may well be regarded as one of the most historic documents in the 5678 years of Jewish history. Its terms are eminently well considered, and the re-establishment of the Jewish National Home is to be accomplished on lines which are reasonable and just. Indeed, we note with satisfaction that the points to which we have already made reference in our consistent advocacy of the claims of Zionism (which has been thrust to the fore by world-shaking events of the past year or two) have been covered by the terms of the Government declaration.... Zionism has made a great step forward, and the world has now reason to look forward to the rise of an old-new nation in its natural home, where some of its ancient greatness may be revived in a national sense.”

The views of The Post took the following form:⁠—

“The important official letter from Mr. Balfour, as Foreign Secretary, to Lord Rothschild, as representing the Jews, more than justifies the suggestion we lately made in a leading article that our Government might be expected to encourage the Jewish national aspiration for a home in Palestine. We further said at that time that a ‘Palestine re-peopled by a Jewry bound to the Allies, and not least to Britain, by ties of affection for righting the oldest national wrong, would be a friendly neighbour to Egypt and to the newly enfranchised territories abutting upon the Holy Land.’”

The Edinburgh Evening Dispatch expressed the following views:⁠—

“The aspirations of the Jewish race to return to the Holy Land seem not unlikely of fulfilment. Scattered over the face of the earth, they daily turn their eyes towards Jerusalem and pray for the day when they will be restored to the land of their origin. We are fighting to-day not for aggrandizement, not for the acquisition of territory, but for the liberation of peoples crushed by the tyrant, and there is no just and reasonable demand which would not be sympathetically considered by the British Government. Our progress in Palestine has awakened in the breasts of the ‘chosen people’ fresh hopes of re-establishment in their Fatherland.”

The Glasgow Herald, writing in a similar vein, said:⁠—

“From their aeroplanes British aviators may have obtained a glimpse of the white domes and towers of the Holy City, high upon the crest of the Palestinian ridge. That possibility is symbolic of the effect upon the Jewish world of the British Cabinet’s declaration in favour of Zionism. What has long been the dream of virtually the whole Jewish race—even of those whose inward despair expressed itself outwardly by a cynical dismissal of Zionism as the mirage of over-heated fancy—has now taken definite shape on the horizon of practical politics.”

In the further article in the same issue the Government adoption of the Zionist policy was further commented upon:⁠—

“With singular timeliness, for it coincides with the victories of Gaza and Tekrit, Mr. Balfour has written a letter to Lord Rothschild announcing the adhesion of the British Government to Zionism. With the reservation of the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and without prejudice to the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country, Palestine, when it has been conquered, is to become a national home for the Jewish people. With numerically small exceptions this decision—on which we comment more fully elsewhere—will be accepted with joy by all the Jews of the Dispersion throughout the world. It will have an immediate political effect in America and in Russia, no less than in Poland and Hungary. It will tell to the advantage of the Allies even in Bagdad. In the Levant generally it should unite the Jews with the Arabs, Greeks, and Italians in revolt against the Turks. But its great ultimate influence, as all will pray, will be to affect for the better in many subtle ways the relations of Christian and Jew throughout the world. If that should happen one of the most insidious diseases from which civilization has suffered will have been cured.”

According to The Aberdeen Free Press:⁠—

“This is the first time that any Government has definitely put itself in touch with Zionist ideals, and the new departure is as important as it is timely.”

“... In many ways the moment appears to be a peculiarly favourable one for preparing to launch the scheme for providing ‘a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine’ in the sphere of the practical. The Zionist idea has passed through many changes, and may pass through many more.... Never until now have time and place and opportunity been in accord with the dream of returning and building up Zion. Mr. Balfour’s letter, read in the light of General Allenby’s march upon Hebron, may well sound like the long-postponed answer to the prayer of the exiled and persecuted race, ‘Next year, O Lord, in Jerusalem!’” (Scotsman.)

The Dundee Advertiser also put itself in line with its contemporaries which commented on the Government’s pronouncement:⁠—

“Palestine will, therefore, be a suitable field for immigration, and by tradition and inclination the Jews are the people to occupy it. Already before the war a number of colony settlements had been established, chiefly by Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, and without exception these settlements were thriving. One and all they were agricultural, and contradicted the prevailing belief that the Jew is bound to become a trader or an artisan, and will never undertake the tillage of the soil. The Jewish colonies were models of up-to-date agricultural enterprise, in which the best scientific knowledge of irrigation and dry-farming was applied. A very pleasing prospect is therefore opening up.... In the fulness of time a new page in the history of the Holy Land is being opened by Allenby’s army.”

The Irish Times expressed its views in the following passage:⁠—

“These fortunate circumstances invest with especial significance the important declaration of British policy in Palestine which we printed yesterday.... In this endorsement of Zionist aspirations at a moment when Jerusalem can hear the distant thunder of British guns the Government has declared a policy of great and far-reaching importance. It is at last an attainable policy, and it is from every point of view a desirable policy. From the British point of view the defence of the Suez Canal can best be secured by the establishment in Palestine of a people attached to us, and the restoration of the Jews under British auspices can alone secure it in this way. From the European point of view it would be a great gain that the Jews should become, in the words of The Jewish Chronicle, ‘a nation, and not a hyphenation.’”

A leading article in The Western Daily Press ran in part as follows:⁠—

“... There is no other solution so much demanded by historical association and living sentiment as that, if it be possible, the Jewish people should retake possession of the small but intensely interesting country over which they ruled, with some interruptions, for nearly two thousand years. Mr. Balfour’s declaration has delighted many influential British Jews. It can hardly fail to delight equally the Jews of Poland and Russia, who have suffered so much from the ‘religious’ bigotry of ignorant people, and the Jews of Germany and Austria, often very wealthy and influential, will be forced to ask themselves why they are at present helping to preserve Turkish rule over a country which the British are anxious to restore to the Jewish race.”

The Hull Daily Mail said:⁠—

“It is a wise and sagacious offer, and has given great satisfaction in Jewish communities. It will be a great thing if Palestine is delivered from the blighting, blasting influence of the Turk, and he must never again be given possession if it is finally won from his grasp. The Jews were a pastoral people, and, once they were in possession, this land, under the blessing of Providence, would again flow ‘with milk and honey,’ and blossom as the rose under the protecting hand of Britain and other guaranteeing Powers.”

And The Newcastle Daily Journal:⁠—

“The Zionist project has, at last, the prospect of achieving its purpose, under the very highest auspices, humanly speaking. It looks like a first step towards the restoration representatively of the long-persecuted and widely-scattered Jewish race.”

Other provincial newspapers that commented on the Government’s announcement were The Dublin Express, The Northern Whig, The Belfast Newsletter, The Bulletin, The South Wales Daily News, and The Northern Daily Telegraph.

The African World also welcomed the proposals whole-heartedly:⁠—

“The announcement yesterday that the British Government ‘view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’ and the Cabinet’s intention to further the scheme cherished by Zionists is an event of world-wide importance. A home for Jews on the soil traditionally sacred to them, and under British auspices and protection, is the happiest outcome of the dream of ages.”

The Shipping World said:⁠—

“For a number of decades there has been a movement, partly idealistic, partly practical, for restoring the Jewish race to their ancient territorial home. That movement is known as Zionism, and is strongly supported in the Jewish communities both in Europe and in America. Assisted by funds subscribed by the wealthier members of the race, some settlers had already formed under Turkish rule Zionist settlements in the Holy Land. But colonization under Turkish tolerance is a precarious thing. Now appears the dawn of promise, and Mr. Balfour has just addressed a letter to Lord Rothschild expressing the sympathy of the Cabinet with Jewish Zionist aspirations. The Government favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of that object. What form the endeavour is to take is, at this point, left obscure, purposely, no doubt. But we may in this hint perhaps see the nucleus of a free State where the children of Israel, gathered once more from the ends of the earth, shall again possess the land of their ancestors and live free from alien oppression.”

The Near East devoted its leading article to “The Land of Promise”:⁠—

“On the other hand, Palestine is for all true Jews a spiritual centre, and deep down in their being they associate with it, if not their own individual place of residence, at least the home of a sufficient number of Jewish people to make it the focus of Jewish life and Jewish civilization. Such a Jewish commonwealth can only grow up to fulfil its destiny under the protection of a strong and ordered State, which will guarantee it immunity from outside interference, security of life and property, and the impartial administration of justice. For its own material development it must look to itself, and in this connection it will be recalled that Jewish agricultural and urban settlements already exist in Palestine, and are a nucleus ready to hand for the new commonwealth. They point to the probable lines on which the development of the country will take place, expedited or retarded, according to the degree of assistance on which Zionism can count. The valley is full of bones, and, lo! they are very dry; many stages have to be passed through before these dry bones stand upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Of Palestine it will then be true that ‘This land that was desolate is become like the Garden of Eden, and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced and are inhabited.’ Towards that consummation it would seem that Great Britain in the dispensation of Providence will have played no small part.”

Palestine, the organ of the British Palestine Committee, was, not surprisingly, filled with enthusiasm and eloquence, for the Government pronouncement is the culmination of all its efforts:⁠—

“The decision of the British Government marks a turning-point in the history of the Jewish people, and will, we believe, be for ever memorable in the history of the British Empire.... The declaration is complete in form and substance. It can provoke no opposition from any quarter, and it will bind the Jews of the world in sympathy to the country which has thus taken the lead in their national redemption.... And when the Declaration becomes an act, when a Jewish Palestine from being an aim becomes a fact, then all the complex of strategic, political, and commercial interests which are concentrated for the British Empire in the Suez Canal and Palestine will have found their solution. This declaration is a memorable event in the history of the British Empire as it is in the history of the Jewish people and of humanity. We may be of good hope that it will at no very distant date become a fact, for the army of England has even now battered in the gates of Palestine. The statesmanship of this declaration of the Jewish nation’s right to Palestine is a statesmanship of deed, not of words.”

The Church, Catholic, and Nonconformist papers have devoted much space to the Government decision. In the opinion of The Challenge:⁠—

“If there is a considerable part of the Jewish people eager to make Palestine again their home, then we are glad that the Allied Governments should have made it possible for them to do so, supposing that the course of the war leaves that possibility still open. It must be for the Jewish people themselves to decide how much or how little advantage they will take of the offer which is made to them. Meanwhile no one can avoid feeling a thrill at a prospect so closely affecting the destiny of the chosen race. That wonderful people pursues its way through all the history of the world, and whatever concerns them is of universal interest.”

According to The Christian:⁠—

“By this dramatic declaration an age-long dream comes within the view of actual fulfilment. It ought to be apparent to everybody that the persistence of a people like the Jews during two thousand years—a fact unparalleled in history—despite every attempt to crush them, holds a meaning far deeper than that which the secular historian offers. The purposes of God are being worked out, and we can begin to see light.”

In The Church Family Newspaper the Rev. E. L. Langston, under the heading “Jews and Palestine: Epoch-making Announcement,” said:⁠—

“The declaration of His Majesty’s Government as to the future of Palestine must have far-reaching and vital effects....”

In the words of The Catholic Times:⁠—

“The settling down of Jews from Great Britain, America, and the Continent of Europe in the Holy Land is something like a romance of a war in the main features of which scarcely any romantic element has, so far, appeared.”

The Christian Commonwealth said:⁠—

“The historical interest and the religious importance of this promise will appeal nearly as much to non-Jewish people as to the Jews themselves.... We may yet live to see Palestine become the centre of trade and travel for the three continents of the Old World. The early colonization movement has crystallized into something more dramatic—the re-establishment of a whole people on the soil of the land where their national history began. Their long exile is drawing to an end. From this redeemed and rejuvenated people what new message may we not expect, seeing that their faith has so manifestly been justified and the vision of their prophets realized!”

“We are quite unable to find words,” said The Life of Faith, “wherewith to express the wonderful importance of the above declaration made by His Majesty’s Government.... It is not too much to say that this great declaration contains the making of history, even as it forms a new epoch for the Jewish race.... We welcome the declaration all the more because we, too, have an inborn love for the Holy Land, and because we can so deeply sympathize with the Jewish people, whose passionate affection for the land of their fathers has never been torn from their hearts, in spite of centuries of persecution and wanderings. There is, after all, some little excuse for the sentimental yearnings of the Rabbis who expressed their heartfelt passion in such sayings as:

“‘The very air of Palestine makes one wise.’⁠¹

“‘To live in Palestine is equal to the observance of all the commandments.’⁠²

“‘He that hath his permanent abode in Palestine is sure of the life to come.’”⁠³

The Methodist Times said:⁠—

“Naturally this declaration, which will be celebrated in history, has given the liveliest satisfaction to Jewry throughout the world. The pledge is as sagacious as it is opportune.” And prints in addition a long article by Mr. C. W. Andrews, entitled: “Palestine for the Jews: the Triumph of Zionism.”

And in the words of The Sunday School Chronicle:⁠—

“For two thousand years the Jews have been wandering among the nations. It looks as though a new day were dawning for them and for the world.... Apart from the moral significance of such a return, an independent Jewish State would make the Holy Land a centre of commercial and political influence of far-reaching importance to the British Empire and to the Far East.”

The British Weekly, The Church Times, The Christian World, The Inquirer, and The Guardian also commented editorially on the Government’s pronouncement.

The Jewish Chronicle, in a leading article, said:⁠—

“... It is the perceptible lifting of the cloud of centuries, the palpable sign that the Jew—condemned for two thousand years to unparalleled wrong—is at last coming to his right. The prospect has at last definitely opened of a rectification of the Jew’s anomalous position among the nations of the earth. He is to be given the opportunity and the means whereby, in place of being a hyphenation, he can become a nation. Instead of, as Jew, filling a place at best equivocal and doubtful, even to himself, and always with an apologetic cringing inseparable from his position, he can—as Jew—stand proud and erect, endowed with national being. In place of being a wanderer in every clime, there is to be a home for him in his ancient land. The day of his exile is to be ended. In this joyous hour we English Jews turn with feelings of deepest pride and reverence to great and glorious Britain, mother of free nations and protectress of the oppressed, who has thus taken the lead in the Jewish restoration. The friend of our people for generations, who has raised her voice times out of number for our suffering martyrs, never was she truer to her noble traditions than to-day—never more England than now! In the time to come, when Jewry, free and prosperous, lives a contented and, as we all hope, a lofty life in Palestine, it will look with never-failing gratitude to the Power which crowned its centuries of humanitarianism by a grand act that linked Jewish destinies with those of the freest democracy in the world.”

The Jewish people all over the world was deeply impressed by the Declaration. As the correspondent of the London Jewish Chronicle puts it, “The Jewish masses were literally dazzled.” A great demonstration, unparalleled for enthusiasm, occurred at Petrograd, and was addressed by M. Boris Goldberg and M. Aleinikoff, who styled England the “advanced guard of humanity.” He spoke in the highest praise of the English Labour Party for its sympathetic attitude toward the movement, and of the American Zionists for their defence of the Jewish colonies in Palestine since the outbreak of the war. Tributes were paid to the memory of Dr. Theodor Herzl and other leaders of the Movement who have passed away, of the British soldiers killed in the Campaign in Palestine, and to the Hashomerim who have died in defence of the Jewish colonies. Two soldiers, Levitzky and Kotlarevsky, greeted the Declaration on behalf of the Jewish Soldiers’ Union.

Tremendous enthusiasm prevailed throughout Russian Jewry because of the British Declaration; and reports received from Moscow, Minsk, Ekaterinoslav, Kieff, Kharkoff, Odessa and Kherson are to the effect that tens of thousands of Jews who had hitherto been either neutral or inimical, joined the Zionist Movement. Special services of thanksgiving were held in many synagogues and many mass meetings, vieing with one another in enthusiasm, were held almost everywhere. Many organizations of Jewish youth signified their intention to make whatever sacrifices might be demanded of them for the Zionist ideal. The Russian Press, with practical unanimity, spoke of the great importance of the Declaration, and described it as a momentous event for the Jews, offering the longed-for opportunity to build a national Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The enthusiasm in America found expression in thousands of telegrams, public meetings, resolutions, thanksgiving services. At the Baltimore Zionist Conference on December 15th a resolution was passed thanking the British Government for the Declaration, which stated, “Deeply we rejoice in the triumph of the British arms in Palestine, and the taking over of Palestine as another step in the march of the Allied Forces which is to establish throughout the world the principle of the liberty of smaller nationalities.” In all other countries the Declaration was discussed by public opinion in a most favourable sense.

On November 18, 1917, a reception was held by the English Zionist Federation at which Lord Rothschild officially communicated to the Federation the Declaration of the English government. Hundreds of congratulatory telegrams received from all parts of the world aroused enthusiasm. Lord Rothschild, Dr. Tschlenow, Dr. Weizmann, Mr. James de Rothschild, and the author delivered addresses in commemoration of this historic event in the life of the Jewish people.

LONDON OPERA HOUSE DEMONSTRATION

Some account must be given of the Demonstration at the London Opera House of the 2nd December held in order to express gratitude to the British Government. This great demonstration was attended by thousands of persons. The resolution read by Lord Rothschild, who presided over the meeting, expressed gratitude from all sections of Anglo-Jewry for the Government declaration in favour of establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people. Every member of the audience seemed to feel the greatness of the occasion.

Lord Rothschild said they were met on the most momentous occasion in the history of Judaism for the last eighteen hundred years. They were there to return thanks to His Majesty’s Government for a declaration which marked an epoch in Jewish history of outstanding importance. For the first time since the Dispersion the Jewish people had received its proper status by the Declaration of one of the great Powers. That Declaration, while acknowledging and approving of the aspirations of the Jewish people for a National Home, at the same time placed Jews on their honour to respect the rights and privileges not only of their prospective non-Jewish neighbours in Palestine, but also of those of their own people who did not see eye to eye with the Zionist cause. Feeling as he did that the aims of Zionism were in no way incompatible with the highest patriotism and loyal citizenship of the Jews in the various countries in which they were dwelling, he would like the meeting in passing the resolution which would be submitted to them to assure the Government that they would, one and all, faithfully observe both the spirit and the letter of their gracious declaration. He felt sure that the principal aim of the Zionists was to provide a National Home for those portions of the Jewish people who wished to escape the possibilities in the future of such oppression and ill-treatment as they had endured in the past, and he therefore held that all and every section of opinion in the Jewish people could work together for the establishment in Palestine of such a home, so as to make it a triumphant success.

It had often been said that the repeopling of Palestine by the Jews was bound to fail in so far as they were not an agricultural people, but they might dismiss that fear from their minds in view of the success of the great Jewish agricultural colonies which were established in Palestine before the war. The only thing necessary to achieve success in the movement was a thoroughly up-to-date organization for the development of the land, and for the guidance and selection of the settlers, who must act as pioneers. The aims of what now appeared to be antagonistic bodies of opinion, seemed to him to be so similar that he felt sure that when those objects had been properly examined in the light of experience they would find, sooner or later, that a common ground would present itself for all of those professing these apparently divergent opinions to work together in a common effort to make the re-settlement of Palestine a great and lasting success. Lord Rothschild then moved the following resolution:⁠—

“That this mass meeting, representing all sections of the Jewish Community in the United Kingdom, conveys to His Majesty’s Government an expression of heartfelt gratitude for their Declaration in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. It assures His Majesty’s Government that their historic action in support of the national aspirations of the Jewish people has evoked among Jews the most profound sentiments of joy. This meeting further pledges its utmost endeavours to give its whole-hearted support to the Zionist cause.”

The Right Hon. Lord Robert Cecil, P.C., K.C., M.P., who was received with loud cheering, said: “I have come here with the greatest possible pleasure at the request of those who represent, or who have led the representation of the Zionist movement of this country, to offer to you, and to all Zionism, my hearty congratulation on the event which you are celebrating to-day. And perhaps you will allow me to mention in connection with these congratulations, not only your Chairman, but also Mr. Nahum Sokolow and Dr. C. Weizmann, who have done so much for the cause that we all have at heart this afternoon. Surely all of us must feel what a very striking gathering the present one is. The keynote of our meeting this afternoon is liberation. We welcome among us not only the many thousands of Jews that I see, but also representatives of the Arabian and Armenian races who are also in this great struggle struggling to be free. Our wish is that Arabian countries shall be for the Arabs, Armenia for the Armenians, and Judea for the Jews. Yes, and let us add, if it can be so, let Turkey, real Turkey, be for the Turks. I should like to be allowed to say that the part that this country is taking in this movement is not a new thing. I venture to claim for this country that in supporting Zionism it has been merely carrying out its traditional policy. To me, at any rate, it seems that there are two great foundations upon which the policy of this country has always been based. I believe that they are often described by the two words ‘Liberty and Justice.’ Perhaps, more accurately they may be called the supremacy of the Law and Liberty, for, be well assured, if we are ever to obtain that security which we have been recently told is so important for us, if we are ever to lift European civilization and national relations in Europe out of the anarchy in which they at present are, it must be by the same means by which we have secured liberty and happiness in each country, namely, by the supremacy of Law. And it was because the invasion of Belgium, the lawless invasion of Belgium, was felt by the true instincts of the British people to be an attack upon the principle of Law, because they recognized that that was a real blow at the heart of civilization, that they felt then, and they feel now, that until that outrage has been expiated it is impossible even to think of talking of the terms of peace. As for the second foundation of which I have spoken, and which has more practical bearing on our proceedings this afternoon, may I say this, we hear a great deal of a new word: ‘self-determination.’ Well, I don’t know that it is a new thing. It certainly is not new in the British Empire. The Empire has always striven to give to all the peoples that make it up the fullest measure of self-government of which they are capable. We have always striven to give to all peoples within our bounds complete liberty and equality before the Law. We are adjured to respect the principle of self-determination, but I say that the British Empire was the first organization to teach that principle to the world, and one of the great causes for which we are in this war is to secure to all peoples the right to govern themselves and to work out their own destiny, irrespective of the threats and menaces of their greater neighbour. One of the great steps—in my judgment, in some ways the greatest step—we have taken in carrying out this principle is the recognition of Zionism. This is the first constructive effort that we have made in what I hope will be the new settlement of the world after the war. I do not say that that is the only thing involved. It is not only the recognition of a nationality, it is much more than that. It has great underlying ideals of which you will hear this afternoon, and of which it would be impertinent of me to speak. It is, indeed, not the birth of a nation, for the Jewish nation through centuries of oppression and captivity have preserved their sentiment of nationality as few peoples could; but if it is not the birth of a nation, I believe we may say it is the re-birth of a nation. I don’t like to prophesy what ultimate results that great event may have, but for myself I believe it will have a far-reaching influence on the history of the world and consequences which none can foresee on the future history of the human race.”

The Right Hon. Herbert Samuel, M.P., who received an enthusiastic welcome, said: “I rejoice whole-heartedly in the pronouncement that has been made by the British Government with respect to Palestine. It is a policy which for nearly three years I have urged in the Cabinet and out of the Cabinet at every opportunity that arose. The fears and the doubts which this policy has evoked are, I firmly believe, unfounded. Three conditions must indeed be observed in any new development that may take place in Palestine. In the first place, there must be full, just recognition of the rights of the Arabs, who now constitute the majority of the population of that country. Secondly, there must be a reverent respect for the Christian and Mohammedan holy places, which in all eventualities should always remain in the control and charge of representatives of those faiths. In the third place, there must be no attempt now or in the future to establish anything in the nature of political authority from Palestine over the Jews scattered in other countries of the world, who must probably always remain the great majority of the Jewish race. There should be no disturbance, large or small, direct or indirect, in their national status or in their national rights and duties in the countries of which they are, or should be, full and equal citizens. On all these matters there is no divergence of opinion in any quarter, and the controversies that have taken place, I venture to think, are disputes over differences that do not exist. The reason why, for my own part, I support the policy which we are here to-day to approve and celebrate, are chiefly these. First, it may be that the genius of the Jewish race will again be able to give the world a brilliant and distinctive civilization. The richness of mankind lies in its diversity. We do not want the world to be like some great library, consisting of nothing but innumerable copies of one and the same book. The Jewish mind is a distinctive thing. It combines in remarkable degree the imaginative and the practical, the ideal and the positive. This combination of qualities enabled it for one thousand five hundred years in Palestine to produce an almost unbroken series of statesmen and soldiers, judges and poets, prophets and seers—thinkers and leaders who have left for all time their impress upon the world. The Jewish mind is tenacious and persists, and now, when all the powerful Empires that over-ran that land have been overthrown and almost forgotten, the Jewish people exists and is more numerous to-day than it ever has been at any period of its history. Who knows, I say, but that if it again finds a spiritual centre of its own, soundly based on an industrious population, untrammelled, self-contained, inspired by the memories of a splendid past, it may again produce golden fruits in the fields of intellect for the enrichment of the whole world. And my other reason is this: If this comes to be, what a helpful effect it would have upon the Jewish proletariat that will still remain scattered in other countries of the world. I see in my mind’s eye those millions in Eastern Europe all through the centuries, crowded, cramped, proscribed, bent with oppression, suffering all the miseries of active minds denied scope, of talent not allowed to speak, of genius that cannot act. I see them enduring, suffering everything, sacrificing everything in order to keep alight the flame of which they knew themselves to be the lamp, to keep alive the idea of which they knew themselves to be the vessel, to preserve the soul of which they knew themselves to be the body; their eyes always set upon one distant point, always believing that somehow, some day, the ancient greatness would be restored; always saying when they met in their families on Passover Night, ‘Next year in Jerusalem.’ Year after year, generation following generation, century succeeding century, till the time that has elapsed is counted in thousands of years, still they said, ‘Next year in Jerusalem.’ If that cherished vision is at last to be realized, if on the Hills of Zion a Jewish civilization is restored with something of its old intellectual and moral force, then among those left in the other countries of the world, I can see growing a new confidence and a new greatness. There will be a fresh light in those eyes, those bent backs will at last stand erect, there will be a greater dignity in the Jew throughout the world. That is why we meet to-day to thank the British Government—our own Government—that has made all this possible, that we shall be able to say, not as a pious and distant wish, but as a near and confident hope:

“‘לשנה הבאה בירושלם.’ ‘Next year in Jerusalem!’”

The Chief Rabbi said it was indeed a rare privilege to take part in that wonderful meeting called together to express the heartfelt thanks of British Jewry for the striking sympathy of His Majesty’s Government with Jewish aspirations. The epoch-making Declaration on Palestine was an assurance given by the mightiest of empires that the new order which the Allies are now creating at such sacrifice of life and treasure shall be rooted in righteousness, and broad-based on the liberty of, and reverence for, every oppressed nationality. It was a solemn pledge that the oldest of national tragedies shall be ended in the coming readjustment of the nations which shall console mankind for the slaughter and waste and torment of this terrible world-war.

In the face of an event of such infinite importance to the Jewish people, ordinary words of appreciation or the usual phrases of gratitude were hopelessly weak and inadequate. For the interpretation of their true feelings to-day they must turn to Scripture. Twenty-five hundred years ago Cyrus issued his edict of liberation to the Jewish exiles in Babylon; and an eye-witness of that glorious day had left them in the 126th Psalm a record of how their fathers received the announcement of their deliverance:⁠—

Theirs was a similar feeling of joy and wonder. With them likewise it was the astonishment of the nations, the reassuring approbation of statesmen and rulers that caused them to exclaim: “We will see it done, and done consummately, the thing so many have thought could never be done!”

The spirit of the Declaration was that of absolute justice, whether to Jews out of Palestine, or to non-Jews in Palestine. They especially welcomed in it the reference to the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. That was but a translation of the basic principles of the Mosaic legislation. But it was the substance of the Declaration—the promise of a National Home for the Jewish people—that filled their souls with gladness. For only on its own soil could the Jewish people live its own life, and make, as in the past it had made, its characteristic and specific contributions to the spiritual treasure of humanity.

After the proclamation issued by Cyrus, the mass of the Jewish people still remained in Babylon. All told, only forty-two thousand men, women and children took advantage of the king’s proclamation and followed Ezra back to Zion, the land of their fathers. But that handful of Zionists and their descendants, because living on their own soil, changed the entire future of mankind. They edited and collected the Prophets, wrote some of the fairest portions of the Scriptures, formed the canon of the Bible, and gave the world its monotheistic religions. Now, as then, שאר ישוב “A remnant shall return.” But now, as then, it was the national rejuvenation of that remnant that is to open a new chapter in the annals of the human spirit.

Difficulties? Of course there were difficulties. The task of laying the foundations of a new Israel must be one of long toil and severe trial. But a people that for twenty-five centuries had stood victoriously against the storm of time, possessed vitality enough, patience enough, idealism enough, with the help of God, to rise to the level of this unique, world-historic opportunity.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mark Sykes, Bart., M.P., said: “My lords, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to say, before I say one other word, that the reason I am interested in this movement is that I met one some two years ago who is now upon this platform, and who opened my eyes as to what this movement meant. He is on the list of speakers; you will hear him presently; his name is known to most in the records of Zionism: I mean Dr. Gaster. I speak as one from without, as a watcher, but I feel, as everyone present must feel, that this meeting here to-day marks not a turning-point in the history of your own race, but I think certainly a turning-point in the history of the whole world. When one thinks of the years that have passed, of the immense spaces of history which stand between what was—and now is—promised, one is truly dazzled by the possibilities and prospects which open before us. I see, speaking to you as a watcher—now you, in a sense, are perhaps watchers also—perhaps you see something, perhaps you see three nations stricken with plague, cumbered with ruin, and Europe a welter of blood. Perhaps you see these three nations, and you realize that it may be your destiny to be a bridge between Asia and Europe, to bring the spirituality of Asia to Europe, and the vitality of Europe to Asia. That I firmly believe is the mission of Zionism. I see here something which is greater than a dream or a League of Nations. It is a league of continents, a league of races, and finally a league of ideals. That is a great vision. That is what I believe lies before you, but no one present realizes more than I do—I know the ground, some of it—and boldly I dare to say that there lie before you dangers, difficulties, possibly obstructions, but, ladies and gentlemen, your time of probation has been long, you are schooled in adversity, you can look to difficulties with calm, and you will overcome them. I do not look for a sudden magic transformation, but I believe you are beginning a great beneficial and irresistible transition. That is what you are beginning. Now, I believe, I hope you are going to set up a power that is not the domination of blood, not the domination of gold, but the domination of a great intellectual force. I believe you will see Palestine the great centre of ideals, radiating out to every country in the world where your people are, and if there is one thing that gives me pleasure to be here to-day, it is to feel that at this turning-point of your history, when the Government made its Declaration, you not only thought of yourselves but you thought also of others, and you will always look back with joy to the fact that when the promise, when the hope was held out to you of redemption, you thought not only of yourselves, but thought of your fellows in adversity, the Armenians and the Syrian Arabs. It is said that the Jewish people have a long memory. I believe that you remember Cordova, where your influence on modern civilization was at its zenith, and I think you remember what you owed to the Arabs in Cordova. You remember in the days when the Jews were so oppressed in Russia what you owed to the Armenians, who were your companions in oppression. These tragedies are very different in their nature, and three tragedies destined to unite in one triumph. If all three hold together, the realization of your ideal is certain. There are evil people who will desire that you should fail. If these three forces should be dismissed, there will be the danger of any one of them becoming the prey of a political adventurer, militarist, or the financier. For Palestine to be a success you must have a satisfied and tranquil Syria. For liberty to be certain in Palestine, you must have guarantees that no savage races shall return there. You want to see Armenia free because you want to know that all people are free. You want to know the Arab is free, because he is, and always will be, your neighbour. Lastly, I would also say this: I look forward through difficulty and through pain to see Armenia free, and to prove the inevitable triumph of right over the greatest might there may be. I look to see the Arab civilization restored once more in Bagdad and in Damascus, and I look to see the return of Israel, with his majesty and tolerance, hushing mockery and dispelling doubt; and all three nations giving out to the world the good that God has infused into them.”

Dr. M. Gaster said he stood before them not as a new Zionist, but as an old friend. He stood before them, the old Zionist, deeply imbued with the spirit of faith, believing in the truth of the word of God and the glorious promise in store for our people, a dreamer of visions, if they would. People had mocked at their visions and ideals, at their aspirations and their hopes, and yet they continued their work, unswerving in their enthusiasm. What appeared to so many as a dream had now become a reality—and they were gathered there to begin to reap in joy what they had sown in tears and sorrow. He had originally acclaimed Herzl as the leader of the movement, and he had had to bear the burden of the difficulties, but he had been true to the trust and had kept the flag of Zion flying, and it was now for him, and for all of them, a day of joy to see the fruits which they had so long wished for. They had come together to thank the British Government for le beau geste, in the inimitable French, for their declaration of sympathy with their national aspirations. But Zionism was neither a local question nor did it affect English Jewry, except in a very small proportion. It was a movement which affected the whole of the race. Every Jew, therefore, wherever he might be, was united in that sentiment of gratitude. They were there, representing the feeling which animated the Jews of all the world. Therein lay the greatness of the British Government—that it had lifted the problem from its local geographical character and given to it that universally valued importance which they attached to it. But what Zionism stands for must be clearly apprehended, and also what the Declaration of the British Government was expected to embody. The term “National Home” was a circumlocution of the original word which formed part of the Basle programme, the foundation-stone of Zionism, and that word had been chosen when no definite political meaning could be assigned to it. Circumstances had changed. It was for them to give to the word its true original meaning. What they wished to obtain in Palestine was not merely a right to establish colonies, or educational, cultural, or industrial institutions. They wanted to establish in Palestine an autonomous Jewish Commonwealth in the fullest sense of the word. They wanted Palestine to be Palestine of the Jews and not merely a Palestine for Jews. They wished the land to be again what it was in olden times and what it had been for Jews in their prayers and in their Bible—a land of Israel. The ground must be theirs. They stood, indeed, as a people for the same programme as British statesmen were standing to-day in a larger sphere. Jews stood for reparation, restitution, and guarantees, and it was in the very application of those principles that the greatness and importance of the Declaration of the British Government stood out so luminously. England owed to Jews no reparation. Here they had liberty, full freedom, equality of right and equality of duty, and they had risen to the responsibility which had thus been placed upon them. For many of them there had their children now fighting the battles of England. But the British Government had now made itself the champion of reparation to the Jewish people for the wrongs done to them by the world. It had made itself a champion, too, of the restitution of the land to our nation for whom it is the old inheritance, and it had given them a guarantee—security of tenure, independence, right and freedom of action as a people, in their ancient land. The establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth in the land of their fathers would also consolidate and clarify the position of the rest of the Jews throughout the world. He believed that a new world was to arise in which the Jew as Jew would find himself a free man. In conclusion, he reminded them of an old legend which told that when the Temple was destroyed the stones were split into splinters and each one entered the heart of a Jew. It was this memorial of our fallen nation which the Jew carried in his bosom, and which bent his back. But they were coming together once again as a nation in Palestine, and they would take the splinters of the stones from out of their hearts—“and,” exclaimed Dr. Gaster, “I feel the stone in my heart already loosening.”

Sheikh Ismail-Abdul-al-Akki then addressed the meeting. He spoke in Arabic, which was translated by Mr. Israel Sieff, who mentioned that the speaker was under sentence of death by the Turkish Government for having joined the Arab national movement. Sheikh Ismail said he desired to tender deep gratitude to the British nation and the British Government for affording his countrymen and himself help and asylum in their hour of persecution. His country was held in chains by the Turks, who were supplied with German gold, and he looked with confidence to England and France to deliver them from bondage, as he believed in the ultimate good over evil, and was confident in the victory of the Allies. He not only spoke as an Arab, but as a “Moslem” Arab, having studied five years in theological schools and being granted a degree, and it was the duty of every Moslem to participate in the movement for the liberation of their countrymen. The meeting was to celebrate the great act of the British Government in recognizing the aspirations of the Jewish people, and he appealed to them not to forget in the days of their happiness that the sons of Ishmael suffered also. They had been scattered and confounded as the Jews had been, and now began to arise, fortified with the sense of martyrs. He hoped that Palestine would again flow with milk and honey.

M. Wadia Kesrawani, another Arabian representative, spoke in French, also to the effect that his countrymen appealed to England and France for their liberation, and applauded the Declaration of the Government.

Mr. Israel Zangwill, in supporting the resolution, said: “In my capacity of President of the Jewish Territorial Organization, I have been honoured with an invitation to appear on your platform on this momentous occasion. In that capacity I have often criticized your leaders. But to-day I am here not for criticism, but for congratulation and co-operation. I congratulate them, and especially Dr. Weizmann and Mr. Sokolow, upon their historic achievement in the region of diplomacy. To see that this is followed by a similar achievement in the more difficult region of practice is the duty of all Israel. Particularly is it the duty of the Ito, founded as it was to procure a territory upon an autonomous basis. For the Ito to oppose any really practicable plan for a Jewish territory would be not only treason to the Jewish people, but to its own programme. And as a first-fruit of the friendly negotiations with Zionism, which began in July, I am happy to be able to join with you this afternoon in welcoming the sympathy of the Government with Jewish aspirations.”

Mr. Zangwill, of whose speech the above were the opening words, spoke at great length, and with even more than his usual brilliancy. It is with great regret that we are unable, owing to lack of space, to include the rest of his oration, with the exception of the concluding paragraph, which ran as follows:⁠—

“And though our goal be yet far, yet already when I recall how our small nation sustained the mailed might of all the great Empires of antiquity, how we saw our Temple in flames and were scattered like its ashes, how we endured the long night of the Middle Ages, illumined by the glare of our martyrs’ fires, how but yesterday we wandered in our millions, torn between the ruthless Prussian and the pitiless Russian, yet have lived to see to-day the bloody Empire of the Czars dissolve, and the mountains of Zion glimmer on the horizon. Already I feel we may say to the nations: Comfort ye, comfort ye, too, poor suffering peoples. Learn from the long patience of Israel that the spirit is mightier than the sword, and that the seer who foretold his people’s resurrection was not less prophetic when he proclaimed also for all peoples the peace of Jerusalem.”

Capt. the Hon. W. Ormsby-Gore, M.P., said he was particularly glad the Zionist Declaration had been made by the British Government at a moment when British arms were saving that land, because it showed that the British Government was not out for gain. The Jewish claim to Palestine was, to his mind, overwhelming, and he rejoiced to see what an overwhelming mass of British representative opinions in the House of Commons was now supporting the movement. He supported it as a member of the Church of England, as Sir Mark Sykes had supported it as a Roman Catholic. In the return of Palestine to be the Jewish home, he held out the hand of friendship to the Zionists, who sought to bring it into effect. He felt that behind it all was the finger of Almighty God. From the moment he met their Zionist leaders, whether in Egypt or in this country, he felt there was in them something so sincere, so British, so straightforward, that at once his heart went out to them. They had in their leader in this country a man of great qualities, a statesman who had shown a skill, a determination, and a patience which had endeared him to everyone. He (the speaker) had done what little he could to help forward the movement, and in the future, if they were looking out for a friend, they could count him as one of them.

Mr. H. N. Mostditchian, a member of the Armenian delegation, said he availed himself of the opportunity of giving their Jewish brethren the heartiest greetings of the Armenians and sincerest congratulations for the dawn about to break upon the glad valleys of their ancestral land. He made a comparison of the two nations, who had gone through the same persecutions, but who notwithstanding were not willing to die, and had not died, and who stood to-day hand-in-hand on the eve of a new era, when both of them would be able to live once more their national lives, of which they had given good evidence in the past. They all knew that Armenia was one of the first countries mentioned in the History of the Jews, and there had reigned one thousand two hundred years ago a Dynasty of Armenian Kings who had in their veins a good deal of Jewish blood. After the loss of their independence the Jews had continued to live a life of captivity and exile, and the Armenians, after the loss of their independence, had suffered the same exile. It was not the time to say what the Armenians had suffered during the last three years, a state of things to which the worst pogrom was a heaven, but they, as well as the Jews, looked towards ‘to-morrow’ with great fervour as a result of the Declaration. They had waited long enough with their Jewish brethren, for centuries and centuries, and these two nations, as well as the Arabs, would make Palestine another promised land and a garden of Eden—a centre to which humanity might look up.

The author then proceeded to read a statement in behalf of the Executive of the Zionist Organization. The text of that statement is given later.

Mr. James de Rothschild said he stood there as the son of one who had spent his life in endeavouring to bring about what they were celebrating that day. Jewish ideals up to that time had been met at the gate, but they could not get through. With one stroke of the pen the English Government had flung open these gates. Therefore in every Jewish heart gratitude was overflowing, and they must not forget that all their aims of the future had been strengthened by the country whose Government had framed the generous and just Declaration.

Dr. Ch. Weizmann, President of the English Zionist Federation, referred to the many good and brilliant words which had been said about the Jews, and he hoped that the Jews of to-day and the Jews of to-morrow would rise to the occasion in the needed power and dignity, and give their answer to the great resolution, not only in words, but in deeds. It was a fact, and no metaphor, that twenty centuries looked to see if their actions were worthy of the opportunity which the British Government had given them. The present generation had upon its shoulders the greatest responsibility of the last two thousand years, and he prayed that they might be worthy of that responsibility.

He then called upon the meeting to rise, and with hands uplifted to take the old historic oath—each man and woman of them—

אם־אשכחך ירושלם תשכח ימיני.¹

The meeting rose en masse, repeating the words of the psalm amid great enthusiasm, which culminated in the singing of “Hatikvah” (the Jewish national song) and “God Save the King” by the Precentors’ Association.

Lord Rothschild, in rising to put the resolution, said it was a great honour for all of them to feel that they as Jews had met with a sincere welcome that day from representatives of no fewer than five different religions. He then read the resolution, which was carried with acclamation, the whole audience rising.

Among those who sent messages to the meeting were the following:⁠—

From the Right Hon. Viscount Grey of Falloden, K.G.⁠¹

I am in entire sympathy with the Declaration made by Mr. Balfour, and am very glad that this has been announced publicly as the view of the British Government.

From the Right Hon. Walter Long, M.P.⁠¹

Mr. Long desires me to thank you for your letter of the 14th ult., and to say that he wishes all success to the Zionist movement.

From the Right Hon. Arthur Henderson, M.P.⁠¹

Labour recognizes the claims generally of Jews in all countries to the elementary rights of tolerance, freedom of residence and trade, and equal citizenship, that ought to be extended to all the inhabitants of every nation’s territory. Further, it trusts that an understanding may be reached at the close of the war, whereby Palestine may be set free and form a State under an International Agreement, to which Jewish people may return and work out their own salvation without interference by those of alien race or religion.

From the Right Hon. the Marquess of Crewe, K.G.⁠¹

I have long hoped that it would be possible to make such a Declaration; and it is now pronounced in terms that should be equally welcome to those Jews who have found happy homes on friendly shores, and to those who have longed for the re-establishment of their race in the ancient land. Within its borders even now triumphs are being won, and noble lives laid down, for the common cause of which this hope forms part.

From the Right Hon. Viscount Bryce.⁠¹

For years past, and especially since my visit to Palestine in 1914, I have been in cordial sympathy with the movement for re-establishing the Jewish population in its ancient home, and rejoice to see that His Majesty’s Government have recently expressed their approval of the idea, which will, I hope, take practical shape in measures to be put through after the war is over. It will be a great benefit to the Jewish race everywhere to have this ancient home to look to as the centre of its national life, even though a comparatively small part of the race can actually find room to dwell in Palestine. The country seems to have been recently terribly devastated, but when its resources have been developed, it can support a much larger population than it has under the blighting rule of the Turk. Syrians, Arabs and Armenians are also interested in being delivered for ever from the alien domination of the Turkish invaders.

From the Right Hon. the Earl of Selborne, K.G., G.C.M.G.⁠¹

I warmly and altogether adhere to the policy of His Majesty’s Government, in sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations as announced by Mr. Arthur Balfour.

From the late John Edward Redmond, M.P.⁠¹

I am in complete sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations as I understand them.

From the Right Hon. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, K.T., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O.⁠¹

I am in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, and sincerely trust the policy will be successfully carried out.

From the Right Hon. John Hodge, M.P.⁠¹

I fully sympathize with the view expressed in Mr. Balfour’s letter to Lord Rothschild, and further, may I express the hope that the end of the war may speedily see the realization of the Zionist dream.

From Lord Hugh Cecil, M.P.

... I very cordially sympathize with the purpose of it, and heartily rejoice that there is good prospect of securing to the Jewish people a National Home in their own country.

From Lord Sydenham of Combe, G.C.M.G., G.C.I.E., G.C.S.I.⁠¹

... I am in fullest sympathy with the object, and I am glad to know that Palestine may again become the National Home of the Jewish people. This would be one of the many happy results which, we may hope, will arise from the appalling sacrifices and the abiding sorrow which the war has brought upon the world.

From the Right Hon. Lord Emmott, G.C.M.G.⁠¹

... The movement for the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people is one which has my most cordial sympathy, and I sincerely hope that your demonstration may be a success.

From the Right Hon. Lord Tennyson, G.C.M.G.⁠¹

... It seems to me that the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people would make for the peace of the world. This Jewish State should be, as George Eliot finely says, “a republic where the Jewish spirit manifests itself in a new order founded on the old.”

From the Rt. Rev. James Cooper, D.D., Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

The Church of Scotland cordially endorses the Declaration of the Cabinet in favour alike of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, and of the maintenance of the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in a land so dear to Christians and Jews, rejoices in the prospect of this double honour being given to Great Britain, and prays that it may usher in a day of the richest blessings to the whole Israel of God.

From His Excellency Boghos Nubar Pasha, President of the Armenian National Delegation.

On the occasion of the Zionist meeting, organized by your Committee, I am happy, as President of the Armenian National Delegation, to renew the sincere congratulations of the Armenians for the Declaration which His Britannic Majesty’s Government has made to you. We participate in a great measure in the joy which the powerful support gives you which permits us to hope that in the day of victory of those who are fighting for the liberation of oppressed peoples, the Armenian aspirations will be realized at the same time as the Jewish people will attain the reconstruction of its nationality and the realization of its historic claim to the soil of its ancestors.

The Jewish Chronicle gave a list of several hundred Jewish institutions in England which sent congratulatory messages to the meeting, as well as of an immense number of such institutions which were represented at the meeting in person.

An overflow meeting, over which Mr. P. Horowitz presided, was held in the Kingsway Theatre, which was crowded in every part. Among those who addressed the audience were the Chief Rabbi: Lord Lamington, G.C.M.G., G.C.I.E., Mr. Israel Zangwill, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Dr. Selig Brodetsky, Dr. David Jochelmann, and Mr. Israel Cohen.

In the course of his observations, Lord Lamington, who was very cordially received, expressed his pleasure at the opportunity afforded him to express his sympathy with and support of the Zionist movement. He cordially agreed with the statement made by Lord Robert Cecil at the Opera House, that the Declaration represented the first act of constructive statesmanship which the allied nations had so far carried out on the basis of the great principles of freedom and justice for the smaller nationalities, for which they stood. The Declaration was as much in the British interest as in the Jewish interest. Both races, as well as the East in general, stood to gain, and gain substantially, from an active British and Jewish co-operation in the Near East.

A resolution in identical terms with that carried at the London Opera House was passed with much enthusiasm.

The Author’s statement ran as follows:⁠—

The Zionist Organization in the Entente countries which I have the honour of representing is filled with feelings of the deepest and keenest satisfaction caused by the Declaration of His Majesty’s Government of November 2nd. The Zionist masses are grateful to His Majesty’s Government for their official and formal statement of their intentions in clear and unmistakable terms. Posterity will praise the qualities which are revealed by this historic document; the strength of will, the sentiment of uprightness, the unshakable fidelity to the spirit of Justice, and the beneficent and generous sympathy for the oppressed.

But the feeling of joy evoked by the Declaration is much more than the legitimate satisfaction aroused by the successful result of our representations to the British Government. Quite apart from and above all written conventions, we realize that the Declaration symbolizes that harmonious union of spiritual ideals and political considerations which have made and will make of the Zionist Movement a precious instrument working for civilization and for the brotherhood and emancipation of all oppressed peoples and for their final deliverance from the sad heritage of age-long hatreds and misunderstandings, which have dismembered them and subjected them to the forces of oppression.

Three problems confront the world at this hour: the problem of nationality, the problem of territory, and the problem of liberty. Nationalities are being reconstituted; peoples are seeking one another, joining together, or separating from one another; territories are being redistributed; the spirit of freedom is spreading, seeking incarnation in new forms, and giving a new lease of life to ancient peoples. Everywhere is instability, ferment, movement; from all sides are heard complaints, demands, claims; all things are being recast in new moulds; everywhere new groupings are forming round new interests. The world is fighting for the untrammelled self-expression of nations and races, for an unaggressive international order; the hundreds or thousands of years’ old aspirations, purposes, and aims of nations have become the demands of the moment and the programmes for the future. He only would be certain of harvesting nothing who had not sown during the present world storm. In this noise, in this welter, in this struggle, ancient Judea awakes, claiming her right to live again. This right is inalienable and unalterable. All the force of the indestructible Jewish race is in it. All the sadness of the two thousand years of Jewish martyrdom is in it. Is this right to be denied because of its being so old? Humanity, real humanity, will not extinguish old rights. It has not extinguished it in the case of Greece; neither will it extinguish it in the case of Judea.

History has demonstrated that a nation deprived of its heritage and liberty, which is determined to live and regain her lost country, no matter how long she suffers, cannot be exterminated by any conceivable means employed by her persecutors. And the Jewish people is determined to live and to work for all that is good and ennobling, believing firmly that justice would be but a word of mockery if the sun of liberty could not shine over it again.

In the midst of universal war, amid grief and desolation which go beyond the most tragic imaginings, Great Britain has proclaimed the idea of creating a centre of the arts of peace, and a model of justice. The idea is not only extremely practical, it is profoundly poetical. We are living in the most critical time in history. It is our fate to be spectators of and actors in the greatest drama ever known to humanity. The present war will take its place in history as one of the events which irrevocably divide two epochs. The Jewish people is fortunate in being able to consider itself one of the models which have inspired the noble initiative of Great Britain and her Allies. It is still more fortunate in having been found worthy of the generous protection of His Majesty’s Government, manifested in so striking a manner by the recent Declaration. And what glory awaits, on the other hand, Great Britain and her Allies, if they will be instrumental in the creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine!

What is it that we wish to preserve in our National Home? Our own precious heritage. You all know it. The sacred Jewish home-life, the intimately personal sentiment of our qualities and of our inner freedom. That is our heritage which we have been able to preserve intact during the eighteen centuries of our Dispersion, untouched by the ambition and hatred which sought to undermine them. We wish to live and to live by our labour and untiring efforts. We want to be invigorated by that force which the children of the soil absorb from contact with it. We want to give form and visibility to our mental conceptions. We desire to perform Israel’s allotted part in the purpose of the eternal progress of humanity in all branches of life, in all human activities. The Jewish National Home will stand out in the world as an inspiring symbol of the triumph of justice over tyranny, as a proof of the right of nationality to be itself. It will be a priceless monument to the future at a time when ruins of the past are everywhere, and the whole world stands in need of rebuilding.

Our object in establishing the Jewish National Home on the sacred soil of our fathers is to carry on the noblest traditions of our race in all their beauty and plenitude. Judea it was which revealed to humanity the path of progress, it was Judea which taught the greatest and noblest lessons in the life of nations—the lessons of Freedom and Right—and it is Judea which will become a centre of liberty and a blessing for the nations. Palestine is not to be weighed down by military powers. She is a home for a small and free nation, and not for a troop of subjects. The glory of invaders is to be conquered by humanity. The glory of tyrants is to yield to civilization. The glory of the land of shadows is to receive the lamp of light. The cloud passed and the star reappeared. And this star is not one of wrath. Nor is it one of hatred, or fanaticism. Christendom has its great sanctuaries in Palestine. Islam has there some of its important sanctuaries. All our glorious holy places are there. They will be respected and safeguarded with reverence and devotion, in peace and mutual love. But around the places of worship life will spring—honest, simple, pure life. We are a peaceful people. We are going to cultivate the soil; we are going to cultivate our ideas. Our future is the ploughshare, and not the sword; the book, and not the bullet. The beneficent spiritual influence of a regenerated Palestine is undoubted; its future, which is boundless, belongs to you; each of you already possesses a portion within himself. Let us but work together so that our people may preserve and improve its title to be considered the conscience of the human race.

We realize, however, that our position needs to be clearly defined. We must be fully conversant with every side of the problem. Vague complaints or expressions of yearning are not enough. There is, first of all, the problem of Emancipation. We have been accused of endangering by our aspirations towards a National Home the position of the Jews in the various countries of the world. We have racked our brains in trying to discover how the establishment of a National Home in Palestine could possibly harm the emancipation of Jews in the world. We have failed to solve this mystery. The British Government in their Declaration have put to flight this fear, which is a pure figment of the imagination without foundation in theory or fact. It would undoubtedly be a great elevation of the Jewish character in the eyes of the world at large, could the Jews prove themselves capable of conducting a Commonwealth harmoniously and successfully; and we are sure they will be able to do so. This is our belief, our ambition, our Jewish optimism. It is because we believe in Israel’s genius that we are Zionists. This will help emancipation. The Jews of the various countries who do not wish to participate actively in the work, who do not desire to take advantage of the right to settle in Palestine, can remain where they are at the present time. We are not emigration agents. We are apostles of a historic ideal, and we want the Jewish people to help in its realization.

It would be a crime at a stage of Jewish history like the present to paralyse by internal dissension a movement which may be productive of so much good. This should not be. Unity of Judaism before all, above all! The majority will support the efforts of their fellow-Jews with great enthusiasm for Judaism, and those who refuse to take any part (a type which is doomed to disappear, like the mammoth, from the face of the earth) must keep the peace. The least we can demand of them is not to disturb us or hinder us in our efforts. Where is the Jew who could neglect this duty which is inspired no less by reason and well-understood interest than by conscience and honour? Where is the Jew who would fail to offer the tribute of his humble share of effort, of help, and of faith to the old land of Israel, now so downtrodden, but all the greater and more beautiful, as its sufferings and trials—so heroically endured—are approaching their end and leading to its renascence which, far from being a mere satisfaction of national egoism, is an exaltation of the noblest Jewish and human ideal?

The attempt has also been made to put forward the non-Jewish population of Palestine and the neighbouring countries as an obstacle in our way. The breath of intriguers tends to poison every noble aspiration; they seek to create among us also a spirit of dissension, a spirit of destruction. We are firmly resolved to refuse them this satisfaction. In vain do they raise this kind of bogey. The deep sense of the realities before us guards us from any error of this kind. We have work to do which will prevent our interests from clashing with those of the Arabs. Are we, then, anti-Semitic?

The relations between the Jews and the Arabs have hitherto been scanty and spasmodic, largely owing to mutual ignorance and indifference. There were no relations whatever between the two nations as such because the oppressive bureaucracy did not recognize either of them, and whenever points of connection began to develop they were destroyed by intrigue to the detriment of both nationalities.

We believe that the present hour of crisis and the opening of a large perspective for epoch-making developments offers a fruitful opportunity for a broad basis of permanent, cordial relations between the peoples who are inspired by a common purpose. We mean a real entente cordiale between the Jews, the Arabs, and the Armenians. Such entente cordiale has already been accepted in principle by leading representatives of these three nations. From such a beginning we look forward with confidence to a future of intellectual, social, and economic co-operation. We are one with the Arabs and Armenians to-day in the determination to secure for each of us the free choice of their own destinies. We look with fraternal love at the creation of an Arab kingdom re-establishing the ancient Semitic nationality in its glory and freedom, and our heartfelt wishes go out to the noble, hardly-tried Armenian nationality for the realization of their national hopes in their old Armenia.

Our roots were united in the past, our destinies will be bound together in the future.

This is our declaration to our future neighbours. And now, one more word to our brethren. We Jews, we who hoped for a better future, an era in which moral rights would count, what were we before the present situation? Dreamers and madmen. Material power believed itself unconquerable. It produced an atmosphere of indifference in which all hope seemed Utopian. We slept in the general decadence. Now we arise, endowed with an unconquerable moral force by the Declaration of His Majesty’s Government. Our first and immortal leader, Theodor Herzl, insisted, many years ago, in having the institutions of Zionism established in this great, blessed country, for which every Jew has a warm corner in his heart. Was he a statesman or a prophet? I think he was both a statesman and a prophet. There is an old Talmudical saying:⁠—

הניחו להן לישראל אם אין נביאים הן בני נביאים הן׃
פסחים סו׃⁠¹

Twenty years ago 220 Jews from all the countries of the world met at the First Zionist Congress at Basle. They possessed, though everything else was wanting, that wonderful power of improvising things. And such was the power of right these 220 men, having nothing to support them but the goodness of their cause, made headway against millions of opponents among their people. During the long duration of the struggle, a struggle without truce, where all the strength and rage was on one side and all the right on the other, not a single section of those 220 men failed to respond to the call of duty, and, although divided in their views, not one section drew back from the fundamental national idea, not one gave way. They increased in numbers and they increased in activity. Let me, at this solemn hour, render honour to those men, to that insulted, calumniated and misunderstood Zionist Organization which always stepped gallantly into the breach, which never took rest for a single day, and which defended Zionism even when abandoned and momentarily hopeless, and that not only with tongue and brains, but also with heavy sacrifices. Thanks to them we exist, and thanks to the progress we made here new life and new energy will enter not only into our Zionist Organization, but into the whole Jewish people. Mr. Balfour has sent the Declaration to Lord Rothschild for the Zionist Organization. We received and accepted it joyfully; but, I am afraid—or I am rather glad—that we shall have to re-address it to the Jewish people, and I hope they will receive and accept it as joyfully as ourselves, the Zionists. This is perhaps the greatest achievement of the British Government that before having given us Palestine they already gave us something which is very precious and very necessary—Jewish unity. History will record that Mr. Balfour was the greatest peace-maker among the Jewish people, greater than many Rabbis and Conjoint Committees.

We were divided, distracted; and now we are indissolubly united, all one band of brothers in arms for Liberty! I welcome the representatives of the Jewish Territorial Organization, with their famous leader, Israel Zangwill. I welcome the oldest Jewish organization of this country, the Board of Deputies, and all other organizations which are represented at this meeting. The opponents of yesterday are our allies of to-day, and the opponents of to-day will be our allies of to-morrow, if they will read the signs of the time. Much is still to be done in this direction, but much has already been done. Yes; this is the miracle which has brought about our spiritual rebirth.

What does this mean if not that wrong has always feet of clay: that right, truth and liberty are from this time forward the true paths of the earth, the only ways which no physical force will ever dishonour?

Friends, brothers, our new society makes of you new men. This is a day of alliance and of reconciliation. Old words—Virtue, Love, Liberty—which had lost their brightness by long disuse have regained their lustre as on the day when they were first engraved on the heart of man. Awake from the long night. It is a new dawn which arises. The Jewish people which has endured, and will still endure, with great firmness of heart the heaviest sacrifices, rising to the heights of the great arguments of this War of Nationalities, affirms that it is ready and determined to work with all its power and full loyalty for Governments and peoples until the realization of its destiny. May this destiny be one in which Liberty will triumph—one from which man and humanity, the individual and the Nation, will derive benefit, one bringing to the Jewish people as to every oppressed people the possibility of living and of realizing its ideal. It is in this spirit that the Zionist Organisation recommends to you the resolution.

On the 14th of December the Zionist representatives, Lord Rothschild, Mr. James de Rothschild, Dr. E. W. Tschlenow, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, and the Author, were received by the War Cabinet. They offered to the British Government the gratitude of the Jewish people for the Declaration of the 2nd November and at the same time expressed their congratulations on the occasion of the capture of Jerusalem. Mr. Bonar Law, who replied to the deputation on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, thanked them for the kind sentiments they had expressed.

The following Manifesto was issued shortly after the British Declaration:⁠—

To the Jewish People.

DECLARATIONS OF THE ENTENTE GOVERNMENTS

After this most important achievement which is considered as the foundation-stone of future policy in and regarding Palestine, it was found necessary to come into closer political relations with the other Entente countries, in the light of the new situation created by the British Declaration.

Negotiations were carried on with the proper authorities in the French and Italian Governments: the negotiations were crowned with success, and the official endorsements by France and Italy of the British Declaration were communicated to the world in the following official documents:⁠—

The following is the text of the French Government’s Declaration communicated in a letter to the author:⁠—

The following is the Declaration which was made by the Italian Government to myself as representative of the Zionist Organization, through the Italian Ambassador in London:⁠—

In ♦President Wilson’s address to Congress of January 8th, 1918, a speech commonly regarded as a complete statement of the objects for which the Allied Powers were fighting, the twelfth of the articles in the programme of the world’s peace was stated thus:⁠—

“The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.”

This statement was regarded by Zionists as signifying the sympathetic attitude of the American Government, and especially of its President, to the Zionist movement. President Wilson is regarded as the spokesman of the Entente principles, and it is well known to Zionists that his attitude is favourable to the realization of Zionist aims, because the latter are in complete harmony with the principle of justice to small nationalities, of which President Wilson is the clearest and most outspoken exponent. His address makes no specific reference to the Jewish question or to Palestine, but his intention is perfectly clear.

In August, 1918, President Wilson wrote the following letter:⁠—

“I have watched with deep and sincere interest the reconstructive work which the Weizmann Commission has done in Palestine at the instance of the British Government, and I welcome an opportunity to express the satisfaction I have felt in the progress of the Zionist Movement in the United States and in the Allied countries since the Declaration by Mr. Balfour on behalf of the British Government of Great Britain’s approval of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, and his promise that the British Government would use its best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of that object, with the understanding that nothing would be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish people in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in other countries. I think that all Americans will be deeply moved by the report that even in this time of stress the Weizmann Commission has been able to lay the foundation of the Hebrew University at Jerusalem with the promise that that bears of spiritual rebirth.”

Public opinion in America regarded this letter as a precious document embodying full American support of the Zionist aims, in harmony with the British Declaration.

Many opportunities have been taken by British statesmen to refer to the British Declaration in terms which show that they attach the very greatest value to it. Thus, the Rt. Hon. George N. Barnes said, in a speech delivered on the 14th of July, a full extract of which appears below:⁠—

“The British Government proclaimed its policy of Zionism because it believed that Zionism was identified with the policy and aims for which good men and women are struggling everywhere. That policy is the policy of the Allies in the war. It is the policy to which we are pledged; it is the policy which we believe accords with the wishes of vast numbers of the Jewish people, many of whom have cast wistful eyes to Palestine as again destined to be their national home.”

Lord Robert Cecil, in regretting his inability to be present at the meeting held on July 14th to welcome the American Zionist Medical Unit, wrote:⁠—

“The Zionist movement represents a great ideal which may have incalculable consequences for the future welfare of the world.”

The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, in his address to a deputation of the Medical Unit (given in full further on), said:⁠—

“The destruction of Judea that occurred nineteen centuries ago is one of the great wrongs which the Allied Powers are trying to redress.”

Mr. Lloyd George wrote to the Author, on the 29th of June, in connection with the Government declaration safeguarding the rights of the Roumanian Jews:⁠—

On Wednesday, September 11th, the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, visited Manchester for the purpose of receiving the freedom of that city and of other towns. The Zionists took the opportunity of presenting to him the following address:⁠—

The Zionists’ address was signed by Mr. E. H. Langdon, the Rabbi Dr. Berendt Salomon, Mr. Nathan Laski, J.P., Mr. S. J. Cohen, Councillor S. Finburgh, Mr. L. Friedson, Captain Dulberg, and Mr. Simon Marks.

Mr. Lloyd George gave the following reply:⁠—

“It is with feelings of the greatest satisfaction that I accept the address which you have done me the privilege of presenting to me. The aspirations which you share with multitudes of your race scattered throughout the world found a natural response in the minds of those responsible for the government of this country, because they are in permanent accord with the sentiments of the people of Great Britain. I have to-day had the honour of receiving addresses from the representatives of three elements most intimately concerned in the establishment of a rule of order and justice in an area which has hitherto been the prey of tyranny and outrage. The fulfilment of the historic hopes and aspirations to which you refer in your address is, I believe, an essential corollary to the necessary enfranchisement of the oppressed peoples of the Near East.”

Considerable interest was taken everywhere in the evidences of the effect produced in America by the political success of the Zionist movement. The Zionists of America, unable to participate in many of the Zionist activities of the day, owing to the fact that America was not at war with Turkey, conceived the idea of helping in the reconstruction and extension of the Jewish colonies after they were relieved from disasters due to the war, by sending a Medical Unit to the Holy Land.

The Unit was organized by and at the expense of American Zionists, the principal promoters being a group of women Zionists who are banded together under the name of the Hadassah. It consisted of about forty-five persons—doctors, nurses, mechanics, chemists, specialists, secretaries, dentists, a social expert, an administrator, and a representative of the Hadassah. The Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs in America voted a sum of fifty thousand pounds from their Palestine Restoration Fund for its equipment. The plans in Palestine will necessarily depend upon the conditions prevailing in that country at the time of the arrival of the Unit, but the present intention is to set up a central hospital of one hundred beds in Jerusalem, a branch hospital in Jaffa, as well as dispensaries and a nursing school, and several travelling hospitals, which will be equipped for service in the colonies and wherever needed and will be supplied from permanent dispensaries in the large cities. A hospital in Jerusalem, originally owned by a German society, the L’maan Zion, was handed over to this Unit, as well as the Shaare Zedek Hospital. In connexion with the equipment of these “Red Cross” ambulances for the relief of civilians, the Hadassah collected quantities of clothes, bed-linen and towels, as well as medical stores for the use of the destitute of Palestine. Eighty-six cases, containing twenty-four thousand garments, one thousand pairs of boots, thirteen thousand men’s socks, and two tons of soap, have been sent out. Mrs. Mary Fels contributed largely to this stock.

The Unit is under the general control of Mr. Lewin Epstein, Treasurer of the American Zionist Organization.

On its way to Palestine the Unit passed through London, where it was welcomed by a great meeting at the London Opera House, on July 14th. The Right Hon. George N. Barnes, a member of the War Cabinet, in a speech then delivered, said:⁠—

“Palestine has for three hundred years been under the tyranny of Ottoman oppression, and I take it that it is now ready for the word of the teacher, and the knowledge of the scientist, to make the desert places again into smiling villages. Our visitors will take part in that transformation. They will link together the knowledge, the science, and material resources of the present and the future. It is a great thought and a happy augury that the first definite act of Zionism is to go East and to take part in the realization of a great ideal for the uplifting of all the people, irrespective of class or creed, or condition of any kind whatsoever. That is indeed a great ideal, and I congratulate our visitors in being pioneers in its achievement. They are going to help to lay in Palestine that basis of sanitation and conditions of healthy life which are the chief foundations of civilization. It is a work not only of interest to the Jewish race; it is a work which is of interest and value to the whole world, because the prosperity of Palestine is the concern of us all. Irrespective of race or religion, we look to Palestine as the Holy Land. From it there came those great moral inspirations which still guide the life and conduct of half the world. From it there issued forth those wondrous influences of which the mind of man can scarcely yet conceive the full meaning. It has been the inestimable privilege of the Allies in this war to have rescued this land, consecrated by religion and history, from the sacrilegious hands of the German and the Turk, who have slain and enslaved the people. It will be their greater privilege to rebuild the holy places, to create conditions under which opportunities will be given to all peoples to live together in tolerance and mutual help. It will be the aim of Zionism once more to make Palestine a fountain of knowledge and idealism, and by the creating of places of knowledge and education, open to all, again to clothe ancient truths in modern garb. The British Government proclaimed its policy of Zionism because it believed that Zionism was identified with the policy and aims for which good men and women are struggling everywhere. That policy is the policy of the Allies in this war. It is the policy to which we are pledged; it is the policy which we believe accords with the wishes of vast numbers of the Jewish people, many of whom have cast wistful eyes to Palestine as again destined to be their national home. Using the word in its largest and best sense, they are going on an errand of mercy, being the harbingers of health and happiness to a people who have been long oppressed and heavy laden. They have, I doubt not, many difficulties in front of them—perhaps a long road to travel, but I feel sure they will be borne up by the consciousness of what they are doing, and that they have the good wishes of all good men and women.”

In addressing the Unit in Paris, M. Tardieu, High Commissioner of the Government of the French Republic in the United States, said:⁠—

“Vous savez avec quel intérêt sympathique le gouvernement français a suivi le progrès de l’idéal sioniste. De cet intérêt, le gouvernement français a donné des preuves dès le printemps de 1916, aussitôt que l’amélioration de la situation en Palestine nous a permis de regarder du côté de l’avenir. J’ai à peine besoin, ensuite, de vous rappeler la déclaration publique et officielle que le Ministre des Affaires Étrangères, M. Pichon, publiait si heureusement l’année dernière. S’il existe une nation naturellement faite pour comprendre la cause des Juifs et l’idéal juif, cela a été assurément toujours la nation française.”

Shortly before they left England the American Zionist Medical Unit were received by Mr. Balfour, who said he was very happy to be able to address the deputation of the Unit on their way to Palestine, where they were going to contribute their share to the beginnings of a great National undertaking. The far-reaching importance of the idea represented by Zionism was not sufficiently understood; the influence of that great National revival would be felt not only by those Jews who would settle in Palestine, but also by Jewry in every country of the world, and even by the other nations of humanity, for though Palestine was but a small country, the good which it had done for mankind was immeasurable. The destruction of Judea nineteen centuries ago was one of the great wrongs which the Allied Powers were trying to redress. This destruction was a national tragedy. It deprived the Jews of the opportunities enjoyed by other nations, to develop their national genius and their own spirit to the full extent of which it was capable. The Jews occupied a unique position among nations of the present day, because they lacked that element of nationality which appeared to be indispensable to a complete National life—to the possession of a National Home. The present moment witnessed the entrance on the world’s stage of great and important National factors, and he felt sure that among these the Zionist idea, which had already accomplished so much in Palestine, would play a noble and beneficial part. He congratulated the members of the Unit on their great humanitarian mission. He knew they were moved by a high idea and not by any self-seeking. Nothing, he said, could be accomplished in this world except under the inspiration of a great ideal. He wished them Godspeed and complete success.

Direct evidence of the spread of Zionism in America was furnished by a resolution of the American Jewish Committee, a body which has hitherto been held to represent the assimilated American Jews and to be hostile to Jewish nationalism, at a special meeting held on Sunday, April 28th, which was attended by, among others, Mr. Jacob Schiff, Mr. Louis Marshall, Dr. Cyrus Adler, ex-Judge Mack, and ex-Judge Sulzberger.

The Committee declared by the resolution that it could not be unmindful of the fact that there are Jews everywhere throughout the world who, moved by traditional Jewish sentiment, yearn for a Home in the Holy Land for the Jewish people. This hope, which has been nurtured for centuries, had the Committee’s whole-hearted sympathy. When therefore, the British Government made the Declaration which is now supported by the French Government, that it views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People, and will use its best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, the announcement was received by the members of the Committee with profound appreciation.

The Committee regards as of essential importance the conditions annexed to the Declaration, “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.” The latter of these conditions corresponded entirely with the general principles on the basis of which the Committee had ever striven to attain civil and political rights for Jews the world over, and with the ideals of all American Jewry.

The opportunity foreshadowed by Mr. Balfour’s letter was welcomed by the Committee, which would help to the best of its power to realise in Palestine, placed under such protectorate or suzerainty as the Peace Congress may determine, the objects set forth in the Declaration; and the Committee resolved to co-operate with all those who, attracted by religious or historic associations, shall seek to establish in Palestine a centre for Judaism for the stimulating of our faith, the pursuit and development of literature, science, and art in a Jewish environment, and the rehabilitation of the Land.

The British and Italian Governments indicated to the Zionist Organization their interest in the welfare of the Jewish people by the opinion they expressed with regard to the clause in the Rumanian-German Treaty referring to Jewish rights. Ever since the Treaty of Berlin, the position of the Rumanian Jews had been one of the scandals of Europe. That Treaty forbade all legal discriminations on account of religious faith. This clause was made a useless “scrap of paper” by Rumania considering its Jews “aliens not subject to alien protection.” The Jew has been prevented from living in country districts or owning land outside towns. This does not prevent it from being a standing accusation against the Jews of Rumania that they do not work as agricultural labourers. They have been excluded from the civil service and the liberal professions; they have been disfranchised; factories and mills were forbidden to employ more Jewish workers than one quarter of their entire staff. Yet the Jews in Rumania by no means gave rise to this state of affairs by obvious separatism; the younger generation all spoke Rumanian, both at home and in intercourse with the outer world, and they wore no distinctive dress.

It should be stated that the Rumanians are a peasant people; the landowners, all Christians, are largely an absentee class, spending their money in Western Europe. Anti-Semitism has been a convenient safety-valve for diverting the discontent of the peasants from the real authors of their misery.

These anti-Jewish laws have caused an immense exodus of Jews from Rumania.

Rumania continued its anti-Jewish policy during the war. Rumanian Jews were registered and supervised as aliens, because, owing to defective registration, they could not prove that they were born in Rumania. Many elderly persons were born in places where no registers were kept. There were no registers before 1866, and it was only in 1880 that the whole country began to keep such registers. This brings us directly to the Jewish clause of the treaty with Germany. The German Government had led the Jews in Germany to believe that it would protect the rights of Jews in the treaty. But the treaty merely stated that those Jews hitherto considered aliens were to be naturalized by law if they could prove that they and their parents were born in Rumania, or that they had taken part in the war, either in active service or in army service (Hilfsdienst). Such a clause could only open the way to further equivocations. By the addition of this clause to the general statement that differences of religious faith shall have no influence on the legal rights of inhabitants, and in particular on their political and civil rights, the treaty of 1918 actually went back from the position taken by the treaty of 1878. It is not even found possible to make the officers of a regiment in Rumania give a Jewish soldier the paper necessary to prove that he has served in the army.

The letters to the Author, in which the two Entente Powers (England and Italy) expressed their desire to rectify this unjust state of affairs, are as follows:⁠—

The Italian Ambassador, the Marquis Imperiali, honoured me with a communication to a like effect, of which the following is a translation:⁠—

One of the first practical results of the British Government’s declaration was the appointment in March, 1918, of a Zionist Commission for Palestine.

The objects and status of the Commission were laid down as follows:⁠—

The Commission should represent the Zionist Organization.

It should act as an advisory body to the British authorities in Palestine in all matters relating to Jews, or which may affect the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in accordance with the Declaration of His Majesty’s Government.

The objects of the Commission were:⁠—

1. To form a link between the British authorities and the Jewish population of Palestine.

2. To co-ordinate the relief work in Palestine and to assist in the repatriation of exiled and evacuated persons and refugees.

3. To assist in restoring and developing the Colonies and in organizing the Jewish population in general.

4. To assist the Jewish organization and institutions in Palestine in the resumption of their activities.

5. To help in establishing friendly relations with the Arabs and other non-Jewish communities.

6. To collect information, and report upon the possibilities of the further development of the Jewish settlement and of the country in general.

7. To inquire into the feasibility of the scheme of establishing a Jewish University.

In order to be able to achieve the foregoing objects the Commission obtained permission, subject to military necessities, to travel, investigate, and make reports upon the above-mentioned matters.

The Commission left London on March 8th. It consisted of:⁠—

Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the Chairman of the Commission; Mr. Joseph Cowen, Director of the Anglo-Palestine Company; Dr. Eder, Medical Adviser, Representative of the Jewish Territorial Organization; Mr. Leon Simon, selected to be Chairman of the Relief Committee of the Commission; and Professor Sylvain Lévi, Collège de France. Mr. Israel M. Sieff, of Manchester, acted as Secretary to the Commission.

Two representatives of Italian Jewry joined the Commission after an interval of some time—Commendatore Bianchini and Dr. Artom.

The Commission was accompanied by the following gentlemen: Mr. Aaron Aaronsohn, Agricultural Expert, formerly of the Jewish Colony of Zichron Jacob; Mr. David Levontin, Manager of the Jaffa branch of the Anglo-Palestine Bank; Mr. Rosenack, Agent of the Jewish Colonization Association, and Mr. Walter Meyer of New York.

Major the Hon. W. Ormsby-Gore acted as Political Officer and communicated the Commission’s views and requirements to the Government and the military authorities.

It had been intended that representatives of the Jews of Russia should join the Commission, but the disorganization of communications in Russia caused by the revolution prevented them from doing so until about October, 1918, when Mr. Isaac Goldberg and Mr. Israel Rosoff started for Palestine.

A few isolated incidents alone can be referred to here out of a large amount of work which was done by the Commissioners. They succeeded in obliterating the ill effects of warfare, they restored refugees to their homes, restarted the normal course of peaceful activities, reorganized the hitherto unsatisfactory and disunited Jerusalem communities belonging to the old settlements of pre-Zionist times and pre-Zionist feelings, and extended the Hebrew system of schools.

The Commission started part of its work in Egypt before it reached Palestine. The Arabs had been given wrong ideas concerning the meaning of the British declaration and the intention of the Zionists: pro-German agents had spread rumours intended to be both anti-English and anti-Jewish. They declared that rich Jews would exploit the land of Palestine and would destroy Moslem holy places. Dr. Weizmann met certain Arab leaders in Egypt and succeeded in removing their fears and anxieties. It was found that the Felaheen cultivators in Palestine do not fear the Jews. They realize that the Jewish colonies increase the prosperity of the country by introducing improved agricultural methods. But the Effendi Arabs, who are landlords, fear the establishment of a just rule over the land. These Effendi are largely cosmopolitans and absentee landlords, living in Syria and Egypt. The Zionists are anxious to prevent, if they can, any speculation in land, whether by natives of Palestine or by foreigners. The prosperity of the colonies is bound up with a just land policy, which will prevent the fruits of a man’s labour enriching others and will place at the disposal of the Jewish colonies unused and State lands as well as badly cultivated large estates.

The Zionists have been fortunate in gaining the confidence of the King of the Hedjaz and of Prince Feisal.

Although by the Hague Convention the military authorities could not make any alteration in the laws of the land, they did in two matters of administration increase the power of self-government possessed by the Jews. They allowed certain colonies to appoint their own police and their own Jewish tax-collectors. So corrupt had the Turkish tax-collectors been, that the Jewish tax-collectors, while taking less from the colonists, were able to hand a larger sum to the Government.

Much consideration was given by the Commission to the work of strengthening and supporting the organizations for relieving distress—orphanages, hospitals, and so on: a work much needed owing to war conditions. Special reports on the utilities of the various hospitals, schools, and orphanages were drawn up. In Jerusalem great distress was found. The Halukah Jews, settled in Jerusalem to study and pray and entirely dependent on the support of the Jews of other countries, had been by the war cut off from their means of livelihood. Widows and orphans were many, the adult men having suffered excessively from epidemics. The Commission opened laundries and a kind of shirt factory to provide employment for women and did its best to find employment for the men, although the importation of raw materials was very difficult.

On 17th June there was opened at Jaffa the first conference of Jews of the liberated area of Palestine. Major Ormsby-Gore, the Political Officer in charge of the Zionist Commission, delivered the following speech:⁠—

On 24th July, 1918, the foundation-stones of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem were laid. This was an event which Zionists had conceived long before, an event likely to be of great importance in enabling Jerusalem to become a spiritual centre for the still dispersed communities of Israel, and destined, let us hope, to influence and elevate the mental life, social aspirations and religious conceptions of the Jews of the world.

The site of the University is a beautiful one. It is on Mount Scopus, on an estate purchased from the late Sir John Gray Hill of Liverpool, who was personally in deep sympathy with the scheme. It faces Jerusalem on the one side and the valley of the Jordan and the Dead Sea on the other.

At the ceremony of laying the foundation-stones those present included, besides the members of the Zionist Commission, the Commander-in-Chief and senior members of his staff, the Military Governor of Jerusalem, staff representatives of the French and Italian military detachments in Palestine and other officers, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Bishop MacInnes, Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, the representatives of the Armenian and Greek Churches, the Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Jerusalem, Baron and Baroness Felix Menasce of Alexandria, Maurice Cattaui Pacha, President of the Cairo Jewish Community, Mr. Victor Mosseri, the Chief Rabbis of Cairo and Alexandria, the Sephardi and Ashkenazi Chief Rabbis, and representatives of all Jewish organizations and committees in Jerusalem, Jaffa, and the colonies. The day was declared a public Jewish holiday in Jerusalem, and a crowd numbering about six thousand people witnessed the ceremony.

After the ceremony had been opened by a chant of praise, Dr. Weizmann laid the first foundation-stone of the University on behalf of the Zionist Organization. He was followed by the two Chief Rabbis of Jerusalem and the heads of the United Council, who laid a stone on behalf of the Jerusalem Community. The Mufti then laid a stone, and was followed by the Anglican Bishop. Stones were also laid on behalf of the following: The Zionist Organization, the Jewish Regiment, Baron Edmond de Rothschild, the town of Jaffa, the Colonies, Hebrew Literature, Hebrew Teachers, Hebrew Science, Jewish Artisans and Labourers, Isaac Goldberg (whose generosity it was that provided so largely for the purchase of the site), and the Future Generations.

Dr. Weizmann then added his signature to a parchment scroll inscribed with the blessing:⁠¹

ברוך אתה יי אלהינו מלך העולם שהחינו וקימנו והגיענו לזמן הזה׃

“Wednesday, the fifteenth day of the fifth month, the month of Menachem-Ab, being in the year Five Thousand six hundred and seventy-eight from the creation of the World, One thousand eight hundred and forty-nine from the destruction of our second Temple, and the twenty-first year after the first Zionist Congress called by Dr. Benjamin Zeeb ben Jacob Herzl, the first year of the Declaration of the British Government issued through the Rt. Hon. Arthur James Balfour promising to grant a National Home to the Jewish People in the land of Israel,—the day on which was laid the first stone of the building which shall become the first Hebrew University in Jerusalem. In testimony of which we add our signatures.” The signatures included that of the Sephardi Chief Rabbi Nissim Elyashar, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Zerach Epstein, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Bishop MacInnes, Chief Rabbi Uziel of Jaffa in the name of Baron Edmond de Rothschild, M. Libowitz, one of the last of the heroic band of Bilu, Dr. Thon, Mr. D. Levontin, and some boys and girls in the name of the future generation.

The signed scroll was buried under the first stone.

Dr. Weizmann then delivered an address. He said:⁠—

Dr. Weizmann then read the following message from Mr. Balfour:⁠—

“Please accept my cordial good wishes for the future of the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus. May it carry out its noble purpose with ever-increasing success as the years go on. I offer my warm congratulations to all who have laboured so assiduously to found this school of learning, which should be an addition to the forces of progress throughout the world.”

Captain Coulandre, on behalf of the French Government, presented the following message:⁠—

“Le Gouvernement de la République est heureux d’exprimer les sentiments de sympathie avec lesquels il accueille la fondation de l’Université Juive. Il forme des vœux sincères pour que de là rayonnent les grandes pensées de fraternité et d’idéal auxquels le Judaisme s’est si fermement attaché à travers les siècles au cours desquels il a resisté à toutes les persécutions, et pour que dans un monde débarassé des violences engendrées par les ambitions forcenées du régime Prussien les Juifs qui le desireront puissent trouver en Palestine en parfaite entente avec les autres groupements ethniques un foyer à la fois intellectuel et social.”

The whole ceremony was a deeply moving one, and produced an effect which will long remain with those who witnessed it.

The work of the Commission was made possible by the work of the British Army and its scope was greatly increased by General Allenby’s complete conquest of the country. In September, 1918, General Allenby secured a victory which resounded throughout the world by its completeness as well as by its brilliance. By most skilful procedure the Turkish line was broken in several places and Nablus and Beisan were captured. The bridge of the Daughters of Jacob over the Jordan was seized and British troops wheeling round by quick marches along the coastal plain, passed through the defile of Megiddo and cut off the greater portion of the Turkish army. The strong Turkish positions in the hills about Nablus were surrounded and positions which if directly attacked would have cost thousands of lives were taken with comparatively few losses.

Eighty thousand prisoners were captured and a vast amount of guns, munitions, and stores. The cavalry swept northward and captured Damascus within a few days, and even moved on to Beirout and Sidon on the coast, while the Arabs under the King of the Hedjaz defeated the Turks in the south-east of Palestine and Jewish troops were sent forward to the capture of Amman and Es-Salt. In a period of a fortnight, three armies were defeated and ceased to exist. Turkey’s military power was destroyed instantaneously. The only defences left to the Turkish Empire were bad communications, immense distances, and the submarines in the Eastern Mediterranean. The victories in Palestine stirred the world and gave new vigour to Zionist efforts. To the outside world, these victories marked the first decisive step in the final defeat of the German federation. To the Zionists, they brought great joy because they definitely ended the corrupt rule of Turkey. Supported by the most powerful nations in the world, the Jews are asked to create in Palestine a typically Hebrew society. A great responsibility and a great opportunity are thus offered to us. We have to consider many new and difficult problems. But for the solution of these practical problems, we confidently expect to receive much help from Jews all over the world. The Declaration of the Allies has been like a trumpet-call. Our wonderful successes in the world of diplomacy fascinate all to whom the fate of Israel is of importance. The history of the past few years, which has transformed, at the cost of terrible injuries to humanity, what seemed dreams into plain facts, and made what were facts into dream-like memories, will surely bring us active help from all who sympathize with our ideal, the ideal for which Jews have unceasingly prayed and hoped for twenty centuries.

This mighty war has now come to an end and the world breathes freely once more. The cruelties and horrors of more than four years seem now like a nightmare. That nightmare has vanished—let us hope for ever. Day has dawned again, a day of victory, whose power for good outweighs the evil powers let loose by the world-war. The great armies of the Western Allies and of the United States of America have been victorious. In consequence of this victory an old world order has been destroyed and a new and a better one brought into being. State organizations which had forced diverse nations into their artificial and incongruous structures only by power are collapsing like houses of cards. Those who ruled by the sword perished by the sword. Despotism, supported by militarism, is shattered. The victory of the Allies ought to be more than a victory of one group of states over another; this ought to be the victory of what is good in man over what is evil. This victory must benefit the conquered not less than the conquerors. One great idea has been victorious in this war, namely, the national principle: liberty, equality, and self-determination of all peoples, great and small, old and young. Every nation has the right to live, given the will to do so. Every nation has a right to the land in which it grew to be a nation. It is all one, whether this was accomplished a hundred years ago as in Belgium, or many hundreds of years ago as in Armenia, or as in Greece some thousands of years ago. The right of a people to its historical home cannot be limited by time.

On the basis of this principle a new Europe is shaping itself. Every nation must have its own land, its share in human civilization, with its own speech and customs, its right to do as it wills. Alsace-Lorraine wants to be French, and therefore it shall be French again. The Czechs and the Southern Slavs wish to form independent states; Poland, Belgium, Serbia, and others, too, are reasserting their independence. Wherever historical rights exist, these must now be realized. Every nation regains now its Zion for which it has longed and suffered. Although this is a great progress in itself, it would be a poor safeguard unless the other great principle were also adopted, the principle of freedom. With the regeneration of national freedom it follows also that the progress of human liberty, equality, and social justice both in the existing states and in the old ones now to be re-established will be assured. No despotism, no subjection of minorities, but liberty, equality, and fraternity for all citizens, equal duties and equal rights.

For this ideal seven millions of men, the vigorous youth of mankind, have sacrificed their lives, and many millions more have been crippled. For this ideal of justice several countries have been laid waste and civilization itself has been threatened with complete destruction. This great ideal of justice, however, will be worthy of the terrible sacrifices which have been made; it must now be attained.

A new Europe and—a new Asia. Light is shining again from the East. The glorious British Army has reconquered ancient East for civilization. The Arabs, our Semitic kindred, the descendants of a chivalrous and one-time famous race, side by side with inspired Jewish volunteer forces who had flocked together to fight with love and enthusiasm for the Land of Promise, have, with the assistance of French and Italian reinforcements, done their duty in assisting the British Army. Mesopotamia, Arabia, Syria, and Palestine are now freed for their nations. An Arabian Kingdom, a free, well-ordered Syria, the remnants of the unfortunate, hard-tried Armenian nation established as an Armenian State, and a new Erez Israel, all these will have to be created on a basis of historical rights and of the realization of the national principle, each under the protection of, and receiving assistance from, some suitable Great Power, in accordance with their own desire, in their gradual and peaceful progress towards their ultimate goal.

What, we ask, will now be the position of the Jews at this juncture? What will the great victory bring to this people who have been so hard hit by this war? Hundreds of thousands of Jews have lost their lives, most of them in countries where they had no share in human rights, and nothing to fight for. Dying on the Carpathian mountains or in the plains of Moldavia, the last glance of their closing eyes was turned to the East, to the hills of Zion. Innumerable masses have been maimed, millions nerve-shattered and starved out, tens of thousands of Jewish homes, thousands of old Jewish communities wiped out, never to be reconstructed. Will all this not be taken into account in the general reckoning of the great victory? Jews live in larger or smaller numbers in different countries, where they are faithful and devoted citizens. The majority of the Jewish people have suffered too long and too bitterly in many countries, and it must be the task of the nations and their governments, once and for all, to put an end to these unspeakable sufferings in the old states and in those soon to be founded, by solemn declarations and binding obligations. The Jews desire to be emancipated, that is, released from servile tutelage; in a free state they do not wish to be the only pariahs and slaves. They demand to be free; that means in the first place that they want to breathe freely, to breathe wherever they wish without fear that a policeman or a neighbour should point out to them that a Jew may not breathe everywhere. They demand to be free; that means in the second place, that they should have the right to use their powers of mind and body unhindered in any honest calling, in any useful art, in any branch of science; so that they can be active and industrious, follow skilled employments, or discharge the functions of office in order to maintain themselves and their families and not be a burden upon others. This they desire without having to fear that the Gentile competitor should be able to say to them: only Gentile hands, only Gentile craftsmen may be employed in skilled trades, only Gentile applicants are admitted to official positions, only Gentile abilities can assert themselves. And as there are too many of you, we must make laws to limit your activities—otherwise we shall boycott you! They demand to be free; that means in the third place that they must be free also as regards their conscience: if their sons possess sufficient talent and knowledge to serve the country as scholars or as public officials, they should be able to do so as honest Jews, and not be compelled to parade as dishonest Christians, that is to profane the ceremony of baptism and to use the certificate of baptism as a passport to office; they do not wish to act as hypocrites, they do not wish to enter Christian communities by lying and knavery, or to smuggle themselves in that way into civic life. They wish to live as Jews, that means to maintain and to develop undisturbed in their true spirit their customs, their traditions, their system of education, their communities, etc. In short, they wish to be human beings, since he that may not be a citizen with a citizen’s full rights in the place where he lives and works and bears his share in all social burdens, has been denied the right to be a human being; or if rights are granted to a man under the condition that he should become assimilated and cease to be what he has been, thanks to his race and the traditions sacred to him, against that man’s manhood the crime of murder has been committed. They wish to be free human beings.

This question indeed concerns humanity. It was raised at the end of the eighteenth century by the great French Revolution, and in some states with small Jewish populations it has been solved in a spirit of liberty. France, England, Italy were the pioneers of equal rights for all. The United States of America were an example in establishing the freedom of citizenship. Nevertheless the majority of the Jews presented during the course of the nineteenth century a pitiful spectacle of unceasing martyrdom—with many shades from semi-emancipation linked with anti-semitism, to boycott and massacres.

The world is changing all its values, and should there be in any country a continuation of tyranny, oppression, and barbarous persecution with regard to the Jews, under any pretext—of which there has never and nowhere seemed to be a lack—then the great ideal of this world-war will remain an idle dream. For justice can never exist together with injustice. This problem of humanity must now be and will be solved.

But the essential problem of modern political evolution lies deeper than this: it is the problem of the peoples that have been robbed of their lands. No matter how the position of the Jews may be ameliorated, and although many Jews may find a home here and there, nevertheless the genius of the Jewish people, the energy of its constructive power, its creative force will have no adequate means of expression. To have a strong impulse to live their own full life and not to be able to do so—that is the heart-breaking tragedy of this people. This essential dilemma is left untouched by the vague formula of Emancipation. Zionism is the only remedy for the deeper Jewish problem, because Zionism alone goes to the real root of the trouble. There can be no Emancipation worthy of the name without a homeland. The greatest danger to Zionism as well as to anti-Zionism is that the ideal of Zionism on the one hand and that of Emancipation on the other should be separated, and that people should come to regard as antagonistic objects which are essentially related and complementary to one another. Not all Jews will return to Palestine, but large numbers will. Zionism represents one of the highest manifestations of that aspiration to free national existence which is the basis of the reconstruction of the world. When a people, uprooted for centuries from its soil, scattered like dust over the whole world, wants to restore its homeland to-day, to have a land where it can be reunited, then we have before us a proof of the new power that lies in the national idea. Millions of Jews are attached to Palestine with all their soul and strength, just as on the first day of the forced expulsion of their ancestors from their old home: their prayers, their lamentations, their dreams have centred for generations upon this magnetic pole of their love and reverence. Hundreds of times they made desperate efforts to return, but were prevented by powerful circumstances from doing so, and as soon as they had the opportunity of beginning again the re-settlement of Palestine, notwithstanding unspeakable sufferings and the greatest sacrifices, they instantly and energetically availed themselves of it. If the millions of Jewish emigrants who formed the new ghettoes of Europe and America from about 1880 to now had had the possibility of going to Palestine, they would have gladly seized it, because they wished to live as a nation, but that was not possible at that time. Israel must have its own home. Palestine must become the spiritual and cultural centre of the Jews. Properly developed, it can hold millions of homeless Jews who will at last have their own homeland and their own full nationality. If it is a misfortune for a people to be robbed of its country, where it could live in peace and prosperity as a nation and enjoy in common with the rest of the family of nations the fruits of its labour, then this misfortune is not smaller but rather has become greater for having existed two thousand years. If it is an injustice to withhold from a people a land to which they have a right, then this injustice is not the smaller, but rather the greater, when a people has suffered it for two thousand years. Never has a nation governed its own home for a longer period; no nation’s history, religion, literature, and traditions are more closely bound up with its land; and no nation has ever suffered a more terrible martyrdom after having been disinherited. Can anyone doubt the right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel? The validity of the Jewish title to Palestine rests on the same basis as the title of any nation to any particular area of the world where it has ruled and existed for centuries. The Jews’ historical right on the Land of Israel, with due consideration for the rights and interests of the non-Jewish population which will be safe-guarded and respected, must become the decisive factor in the question of Palestine.

At last the time has come. The spirit of freedom is on the wing, the Great Creative Spirit is once more moving among the nations. The new territorial settlement is going to lay the foundations of the world’s peace on a basis of justice and national union. The liberation of oppressed nationalities, the restoration of territories violently annexed in the past, the recognition of the desire of racial units and groups for autonomy are the great objects in view. The wrongs of the centuries are going to be righted, and the Jewish race to be placed on an equal footing with other races. The Jewish people is standing at a momentous turning point in its history of four thousand years, to which the determined labour of Zionism has paved the way. The very roots of Jewish nationality are set in that soil which after being for ages in shadow is again turning to light. With the victory of the national idea Zionism also has won a victory. Now that Palestine is freed, much is possible which formerly was only an aspiration. The field is immense and ready. The evil demon of the Pharaohs and of Antiochus Epiphanes has been cast out; the glorious genius of Cyrus the Great hovers with wings of love over the wonderful destiny of the Jewish people. Powerful nations and governments—the guardians of freedom and the champions of justice—have solemnly pledged themselves to further with all the forces at their disposal the revival of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. Under this guiding symbol the problem of Palestine will be discussed and settled by the Peace Conference among all the important questions before it. The work is stupendous in its implications and its responsibilities. No one imagines that this result can be speedily attained. Its accomplishment will take time, and quite possibly a long time. To restore a scattered people to a land long neglected is not an easy task. The Jewish colonization of Palestine must be carefully built, stone upon stone, by the steady hands of Zionists with that spirit of self-sacrificing endurance which saved our nationality, with wisdom and self-restraint. Zionists are aware of what the Holy Places of Palestine, places of traditional associations and religious faith, consecrated by a thousand cherished memories, are to the great religions. These places will receive equal respect; they will be, not less, but more than hitherto reverently exalted as places of the rarest and sweetest memories in the world. Zionists have the most scrupulous regard for all spiritual things and needs of all religions, and are confident that all Holy Places will be safeguarded by arrangements to be introduced. Zionists are also alive to the legitimate interests and needs of the non-Jewish population, whose liberty and welfare, in peace and harmony and mutual respect, are most essential for the success of the Jewish national rebirth. The new Jewish centre must be made worthy of its glorious past. The noblest ambitions of Jews all over the world are concentrated on this point.

Zionists have now an opportunity never dreamt of—an opportunity that may never return. The Jewish masses, all those who want to live their own life, the clean, free life of farmers and settlers, will be enabled to cultivate all the possibilities of their nature. Industry, art, and science are to join hands in this great work. The long-desired goal of the Jewish people, the rehabilitation of the old national home in the land of their fathers, is nearing realization. This is a great historical event which must touch and stimulate the imagination of all for whom history, right of nations, and justice for small nationalities have any meaning or any message. Ancient Israel, reawakened to new life, is preparing itself to enter the family of nations as a small but free nation in its old home.

Zionism is not a mere abstract idea. It is connected by every bond with modern democracy and aspirations for liberty. All peoples for whom democracy is not a vain word owe it moral and material support. The Peace Conference must permit it to attain its ends. The League of Nations will not be complete if the oldest and most oppressed Jewish nationality will not have its place there. Of all the consequences of the Great War and the still greater Victory, none could be invested with so splendid a degree of romance as the re-establishment of Israel. Of all the small nations which shall spring full fledged from this world crisis, none will have so ancient a claim, so fascinating a history as the Hebrew people reinstalled among the consecrated hills of Judah and by the sacred waters of Galilee. This will be an everlasting memorial to the principle for which the free peoples of the earth have made the greatest sacrifice in the history of the human race. And the names of all those who have given their support and help towards this work of Peace, Justice, and Liberty will live for ever in the annals of the world and of Israel.

APPENDICES

B. M.: British Museum Library.

I. S.: Israel Solomons’ Collection.

I.

The Prophets and the Idea of a National Restoration

The first prophet who has left any definite revelation concerning the Dispersion of the Jews and their ultimate restoration in Palestine was Moses, our Law-giver.

Here we have a promise not to abhor or utterly destroy the Jewish people, but to remember the covenant which God made with their ancestors. We find the purport of this covenant in an early chapter of the Pentateuch:⁠—

It is impossible to understand how it can be said that this covenant will be remembered, if the Jewish people is to continue dispersed, and is to be for ever excluded from the land here spoken of. As to the return from Babylonian captivity, that will not answer the intention of the covenant at all. For to restore a small part of the Jewish people to its own land for a few centuries, and afterwards disperse it among all nations for many times as long, without any hope of return, cannot be the meaning of giving that land to the seed of Abram for ever.

Again we read:⁠—

This prophecy refers to the thirteenth chapter of Genesis, as is shown by this thirty-first verse; and confirms again the return to the Holy Land, and its possession for ever:⁠—

Amongst the “things which should come upon them,” which are described at large in the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth chapters of Deuteronomy, it is particularly said:⁠—

But observe that subsequently we are told:⁠—

which promises do not appear to have been fulfilled during the time of the Babylonian captivity, or after the return from Babylon.

Here we have in plain words, simple and clear, the fundamental idea of Moses: the Jewish national future and the possession of the land for ever. This cannot be explained away by sophistry. In vain some Jews declare: We are not nationalist Jews, we are religious Jews! What is the Jewish religion if the Bible is not accepted as an Inspired Revelation? It is strange and sadly amusing that some Jews, adherents of the monotheistic principle, describe themselves as Germans, Magyars, and so on, “of the persuasion of Moses.” If this is not blasphemy, it is irony. The real Moses, the Moses of the Pentateuch, brands Dispersion as a curse, and his whole religious conception, with all the laws, ceremonies, feasts, etc., is built up on the basis of the covenant with the ancestors, a covenant immovable and unalterable. No matter whether Jews call themselves religious or nationalist: the Jewish religion cannot be separated from nationalism, unless another Bible is invented.

Judaism, or the Jewish religion, is based first upon the teaching of Moses, and next upon that of the prophets, and it is a favourite claim of the modern school of Jewish reform that their Judaism is “Prophetic Judaism,” in opposition to the Judaism of orthodox Jews, who lay particular stress upon the Talmud. But what do the prophets teach?

The next revelation in chronological order after the inspired predictions of Moses, is that of Joel the son of Pethuel, who began to prophesy to the Kingdom of Judah about eight hundred years before the civil era:⁠—

Amos, who was among the herdmen of Tekoa, lived in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, King of Israel, and prophesied to the Kingdom of Israel from eight hundred and eight, to seven hundred and eighty-three years before the civil era:⁠—

Hosea, the son of Beeri, prophesied to the Kingdom of Israel, in the days of the same Jeroboam from about seven hundred and eighty-five, to seven hundred and twenty-five years before the civil era:⁠—

This prophecy, being given to the Kingdom of Israel in particular, cannot be applied to the return of Judah from Babylon.

Isaiah the son of Amoz (The First Isaiah) was the foremost of the four who are called the greater prophets. He lived in the time of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, Kings of Judah, and prophesied about seven hundred and sixty, to six hundred and ninety-eight years before the civil era:⁠—

This prophecy, alone, is sufficiently definite with regard to a second restoration of Israel, as appears from the eleventh verse, even if there were no other to be found.

As to the second Isaiah, his prophecies may be called the “Song of Songs” of the restoration of Israel:⁠—

“For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before Me, said the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.” (Ibid. lxvi. 22.)

Micah the Morashtite prophesied in the days of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, about 750 years before the civil era:⁠—

Here we again meet the covenant of Truth and Mercy sworn unto Abraham, that the land Abraham then stood upon should be given to him and to his seed for ever.

Zephaniah, the son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hezekiah, prophesied in the days of Josiah, the son of Amon, king of Judah, about six hundred and thirty years before the ♦civil era:⁠—

Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth, in the land of Benjamin, also prophesied in the days of Josiah, about six hundred and twenty-nine to five hundred and eighty-eight years before the civil era:⁠—

“In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.”  (Jeremiah iii. 18.)

Ezekiel the Priest, the son of Buzi, prophesied in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Cebar, about five hundred and ninety-five, to five hundred and seventy-four years before the civil era. In the thirty-sixth chapter he describes the restoration of Judah and Israel in words so plain and clear that nobody could possibly mistake them, and in the next chapter, by the wonderful vision of dry bones reviving, he shows that, however unpromising the state of Israel may seem, while they are dispersed through the world, yet will God most certainly effect the reunion of the tribes which is here foretold:⁠—

Chapters thirty-eight and thirty-nine give a most circumstantial description of the return, which excluded the possibility of an allegorical explanation.

Obadiah prophesied about five hundred and eighty-seven years before the civil era:⁠—

Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo, prophesied about five hundred and twenty years before the civil era, to those that had returned from captivity. He had the idea of a great future restoration.

Malachi prophesied about four hundred and twenty years before the civil era:⁠—

Daniel’s (Belteshazzar) prophecies from about five hundred and thirty-four, to five hundred and seven years before the civil era relate not only to the affairs of Judah and Israel, but also to the various monarchies and kingdoms that are to arise successively in the world. In the following verses he foretells the national future of his own people:⁠—

These predictions undoubtedly signify that the Children of Israel shall enjoy a kingdom and dominion under the whole heaven, i.e. upon the earth, which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people.⁠¹

VII.

The Humble Addresses of Manasseh Ben-Israel

To | His Highnesse | The | Lord Protector | Of The | Common-Wealth Of | England, Scotland, and Ireland.

The Humble Addresses | Of | Menasseh Ben Israel, a Divine, and | Doctor of Physick, in behalfe | of the Jewish Nation. |

(4to. 4 ll. + 26 pp.)⁠¹ [I. S.]

XXII.

Jacob Judah Aryeh d̅e Leon

Haham Jacob Judah Aryeh de Leon [Templo] of marrano origin, was born in Hamburgh in 1603. Here for some years he was teacher in Hebrew and Rabbinics to the Kahal Kadosh de Talmud Torah. Subsequently he was appointed Haham of Middelburgh in Holland, where in 1642 he published tracts in Spanish⁠¹ and Dutch,⁠² describing a model he had constructed of Solomon’s Temple. Shortly after he settled in Amsterdam and resumed his tutorial profession, and it was here that a French version⁠³ of the tract was published, and seven years later a Hebrew edition appeared,⁠⁴ translated by the Author from his original Spanish. Versions in German,⁠⁵ Latin,⁠⁶ and Ladino⁠⁷ have also been issued at various times. In anticipation of his visit to London to exhibit his model before Charles II. (1630‒1685) and his Court, he prepared an essay in English, which was printed and published in Amsterdam,⁠⁸ describing the model of Solomon’s Temple, and also that of the Tabernacle of Moses, of which he had also constructed a model. It was again on view here in the years 1759 and 1760.⁠⁹ In 1778 it was in the possession of a Mr. M. P. Decastro, who claimed to be a near relation of Haham de Leon. He exhibited the model here, and translated and published the essay describing it,⁠¹⁰ which he tells us was “First printed in Hebrew and Spanish.”⁠¹¹

Leon Templo,⁠¹ as our Haham is at times referred to, is supposed to have invented “The Arms of yᵉ most Ancient & Honorable Fraternity, of Free and Accepted Masons.” The original drawing was seen by Laurence Dermott (1720‒1791) when he saw the model of the Temple in 1759‒1760.⁠² He also wrote on the “Cherubim” and on the “Ark of the Testimony.” In 1671 he issued the Psalms in Hebrew, with a Spanish paraphrase and notes. This was his last published work, in the preface of which he tells us that although he was then sixty-seven years of age, he completed the work in seven months, at times that he could spare from his tutorial duties. Four works in manuscript are still unpublished. After his death, among his sketches were found over two hundred designs to illustrate and elucidate Biblical and Rabbinical passages. These his son Haham Solomon Raphael (ob. 1733 circa) de Leon Templo presented to Willem Surenhuis, who had them engraved for his edition of the Mishna.⁠³

Biographers do not seem to know when and where he died. David Franco Mendes (1713‒1792) tells us that after his London visit he returned to Amsterdam, and although he gives a transcription of his epitaph, consisting of eight lines of Hebrew laudatory verse, no date is mentioned.⁠¹ Dr. M. Kayserling suggests that he died after 1675, that is after his London visit.⁠² There is, however, good authority to surmise that he died in London during his visit.

XXVII.

“The World’s Great Restauration”
(continued).

Contemporary reference to the book is to be found in letters from the Rev. Joseph Mead (Mede) (1586‒1638), the eminent biblical scholar, to Sir Martin Stuteville.

(B. M. Add. 4176: 121, 123‒6.)

Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, James I. 1619‒1623.... Edited by Mary Anne Everett Green.... London ... 1851.

p. 247 April 18? (1621).

96. Petition of Sir Hen. Finch to the King. Disclaims the opinion which His Majesty thinks is asserted in his book; is sorry for having written so unadvisedly; begs liberty and restoration to favour.

p. 248 April 18, 1621 London:

Chamberlain [to Carleton.]

97. ... Serjeant Finch is committed for his book on the conversion of the Jews.

XLI.

[A Zionist] Letter, addressed by a [French] Jew to his Co-religionists in 1798

“Brothers,

“You who have groaned for so many ages under the weight of the cruelest persecutions, do you not wish to burst from the state of degrading humiliation in which intolerant and barbarous religions have placed you? Contempt accompanies us everywhere. Our sufferings are unpitied and despised. The unshaken constancy with which we have preserved the faith of our ancestors, far from procuring for us the admiration due to such a conduct, has only increased the unjust hatred which all nations bear towards us. It is only by affecting the exterior of baseness and misery, that we are enabled to secure our property and preserve our unhappy existence. It is at least time to shake off this insupportable yoke—it is time to resume our rank among the other nations of the universe. Vile robbers possess that sacred land which our ancestors were compelled to yield to the Romans. They profane the holy City which we defended with so much courage. Posterity has preserved a dreadful remembrance of the struggle—we, surely, have not forgotten it. That courage has only slumbered: the hour to awaken it is arrived. O my brethren! let us rebuild the temple of Jerusalem!

“An invincible nation, which now fills the world with her glory, has shewn us what the love of country can perform. Let us implore her generosity—request her assistance; and we may be assured that the philosophy which guides the chiefs of that nation, will induce them to give our demand a favourable reception.

“We are more than six millions of people scattered over the face of the earth; we possess immense riches: let us employ the means that are in our power to restore us to our country. The moment is propitious, and to profit by it, is our duty. The following are the means best suited for carrying this holy enterprize into execution:—There shall be established a Council, the members of which shall be elected by the Jews, who are spread over Europe, Asia, and Africa.”

[Here the writer divides the Jews into the 15 following tribes, viz. The Italian, Helvetic, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Northern, British, Spanish, Gallic, Dutch, Prussian, German, Turkish, Asiatic, and African. These the author proposes shall each form a body of electors in the capitals of the respective districts; and then he proceeds.]

“The fifteen deputies of these tribes shall form the Council, which shall hold its sittings at Paris. When they shall have assembled to the number of nine, they may begin to deliberate on the object of their mission. Their decisions will have with all the Jews the force of laws; they shall be obliged to submit to them. The Council shall appoint an agent, to communicate to the Executive Directory of France the propositions which it may think proper to make to the French government.”

“The country we propose to occupy shall include (liable to such arrangements as shall be agreeable to France) Lower Egypt, with the addition of a district of country, which shall have for its limits a line running from Ptomelais or Saint John D’Acre, to the Asphaltic Lake, or Dead Sea, and from the South point of that Lake to the Red Sea. This position, which is the most advantageous in the world, will render us, by the navigation of the Red Sea, masters of the commerce of India, Arabia and the South and East of Africa; Abyssinia, and Ethiopia, those rich countries which furnished Solomon with so much gold and ivory and so many precious stones, will trade the more willingly with us, that the greater part of their inhabitants still practise the law of Moses. The neighbourhood of Aleppo and Damascus will facilitate our commerce with Persia; and by the Mediterranean we may communicate with Spain, France, Italy, and the rest of Europe. Placed in the centre of the world, our country will become the entrepôt of all the rich and precious productions of the earth.

“The Council shall offer to the French government, if it will give us the assistance necessary to enable us to return to our country, and to maintain ourselves in the possession of it,

“The other arrangements, and the propositions to be made to the Ottoman Porte, cannot yet be rendered public: we must, in these matters, repose on the wisdom of the Council, and the good faith of the French nation. Let us choose upright and enlightened deputies, and we may have confidence in the success of this undertaking.

“O! my brethren! what sacrifices ought we not to make to obtain this object? We shall return to our country—we shall live under our own laws—we shall behold those sacred places which our ancestors illustrated with their courage and their virtues. I already see you all animated with a holy zeal. Israelites! the term of your misfortunes is at hand. The opportunity is favourable—take care you do not allow it to escape.”⁠¹

This appeal—a prototype of Pinsker’s Autoemancipation and of Herzl’s Judenstaat—produced a deep impression, but since the whole expedition proved a failure, Jewish opinion—not on the principle, but on the opportunity and the means—was divided.

LIV.

Restoration of the Jews

[The annexed documents have just appeared in a periodical entitled Memorials concerning God’s Ancient People of Israel, and are probably as yet but little known to the world at large:⁠—]

Memorandum.

To the Protestant Powers of the North of Europe and America—Victoria, by the grace of God, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland; Frederick (William) III. King of Prussia; William (Frederick), King of Netherlands; Charles (John) XIV., King of Sweden and Norway; Frederick VI., King of Denmark; Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover; William, King of Wurtemberg; The Sovereign Princes and Electors of Germany; The Cantons of the Swiss Confederation professing the Reformed Religion; and the States of North America, zealous for the Glory of God; grace, mercy and peace from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ!

“High and Mighty Ones,

“The Most High God, who ruleth in the kingdoms of men (Dan. iv. 32), by whom kings reign and princes decree justice (Prov. viii. 15), having in these days granted a season of repose to his witnessing church (Acts ix. 31; Rev. xii. 16), planted in the lands whereof ye are kings and governors (Isaiah xlix. 23); the vine of His planting among the Gentiles (Acts xxviii. 28) hath extended her boughs unto the seas and her branches unto the rivers (Isa. xlix. 6), that now in nearly all the world the gospel of the kingdom is being lifted as a witness unto all nations (Matt. xxiv. 14), and in the isles afar off. The days are drawing near (Rev. xxii. 20) when the dominion, and the glory, and the kingdom, with all people, nations and languages, shall serve Him, who cometh in the clouds of heaven (Dan. vii. 14, Rev. i. 7), whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed (Psalm xlv. 6). Blessed be He! He hath given his waiting people to hear the sound of His approaching footsteps, and to mark the signs of His drawing near (1 Thess. v. 4). The fig-tree putteth forth her leaves again (Matt. xxiv. 32). Israel’s sons are asking the way to Zion, by which we know that summer is at hand. Blessed are all they that wait (2 Thess. iii. 5), and hold fast (Rev. iii. 11), for quickly He cometh. Amen.

“In the prospect of the Christian Church, of the speedy appearing of her glorified head, the zeal of the Lord’s servants hath been stirred up (Rev. iii. 2) to a multiplied diligence in those labours of faith and love which were devolved upon her (Matt. xxviii. 19), when the Son of God, as a man taking a journey into a far country, bade his servants occupy, until he returned again (Luke xix. 13). With other responsibilities, the circumstances of one peculiar people, whom the Most High hath separated (Gen. xii. 1) and taken into covenant with him (Gen. xvii. 7; Exod. xxxiv. 7), and which covenant no act of theirs, however iniquitous or rebellious, can repeal or destroy (Mal. iii. 6), whom he hath scattered in all lands as witnesses of his unity and power (Isa. xliii. 9), connected with whom the welfare of mankind is bound up, and in the lifting up of whose head the most stupendous consequences are made to depend (Rom. xi. 15), are presented at this eleventh hour for the repentance and faith of Christendom, that the blood of our brethren of circumcision which has been unjustly shed may be atoned for in the blood of the Lamb (Isa. i. 18), and the fruits of forgiveness be manifested (Matt. iii. 8) in presenting the children of this people continually at the throne of grace (1 Pet. ii. 5; Ps. cxxii. 6) for the atoning sacrifice of Christ to cover them (Joel ii. 17); and as the Almighty, in his providential appointments, shall make the way plain to present the children of Israel who may be willing to go up (Ps. cx. 3) as an offering to the Lord of Hosts in Mount Zion (Isa. xxviii. 7).

“For 300 years the testimony of the churches, planted in the lands over which Almighty God hath made you rulers, hath been lifted up against that apostacy which hath usurped the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ in the earth (Rev. xxii. 5, and xxiii. 5) daring presumptuously to assert power over nations (Rev. xviii. 7), and over kingdoms, to root up and to pull down, to build, to plant, and to destroy (Dan. vii. 20, Rev. xiii. 2, 7). The millstone which shall sink the Great Babylon in the abyss of an unfathomable perdition (Rev. xviii. 21) when her hour arrives (and it is very near!) with the judgment under which she hath long lain, for being drunken with the blood of the saints and of the martyrs of Jesus (Rev. xvii. 6), shall include the avenging of the wrongs of God’s ancient people (Isa. li. 22, 23), and a terrible account it is; and the issue shall be joy and gladness to the whole earth, for it is written, ‘Rejoice, O ye nations, with His people; for He avengeth the blood of His servants, and shall render vengeance unto his adversaries, and will be merciful to His land and to His people’ (Deut. xxxii. 43). ‘Happy art thou, O Israel; who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help and the sword of thy excellency? and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee, and thou shalt tread on their high places’ (Deut. xxxiii. 29).

“In the events, on which the eyes of nations are fixed, taking place around, whilst the continuance and stability of your thrones and sway, O kings, is the earnest prayer of the Christian church (1 Tim. ii. 2), she cannot but uphold the witness that the days draw nigh, when, under the hallowed sway of Messiah the Prince, the now despised nation of the Jews shall possess the kingdom (Dan. vii. 27), and she directs, with reverential awe, your eye to that mighty empire in the east which is crumbling to dust, and drying in all her streams (Rev. xvi. 12) to make way for the event. Palestine hath been a burdensome stone (Zech. xii. 2) unto the followers of the false Prophet (Rev. xvi. 13), as it was to the ancestors of many of you, O Princes, when, under the banner of the Popish Antichrist, their mistaken zeal sought to recover the Holy City from the Saracen’s grasp. But the fulness of the Gentiles is at hand (Romans xi. 21) and unto Israel the dominion shall return (Micah iv. 8).

“The apostate Julian sought to plant the children of this people in the seats of their fathers, in despite of the holy faith, one of the external evidences of whose trust was, that their house was left unto them desolate, until they should say ‘Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord’ (Matt. xxiii. 38, 9). But is it anywhere declared in the word of our God, that the children of Israel, scattered and peeled, humbled and dispirited, impoverished and broken down, should not be presented as an offering in faith to Jehovah of Hosts in Mount Zion? that there they may be pleaded with face to face by the God of their fathers (Ezekiel xx. 13), that there the veil may be rent (Isaiah xxv. 7) which is over their hearts (2 Cor. iii. 15), that there they may look on him whom they have pierced (Zech. xii. 10). Your attention, high and mighty ones, is directed to the recorded fact that such an offering is expected. And before that full and final gathering which follows the judgments poured out on all the earth (Isaiah lxiii. 15, 16, 20), a power, and that power a northern one (Jer. iii. 12, xxxi. 6, 9, xxxiii. 7, 8—Isaiah xliii. 6, xlix. 12), shall be employed to lead a people wonderful from their beginning hitherto—a nation expecting and trampled underfoot—whose land rivers have spoiled, unto the name of the Lord of Hosts in Mount Zion (Isaiah xviii.). These designs and purposes of the Lord God of Israel, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, are declared unto you, high and mighty ones, his servants (Dan. v. 23), that you may ponder them, and know His will, from the voice, with which He is about to speak unto nations and unto men (Haggai ii. 6—Isaiah i. 10), for the time is at hand (Rev. i. 3).

“Your wisdom hath been exercised to mark the boundaries of kingdoms, and to define the limits of empires; and has not the aggressor overleaped all barriers, and the strength of treaties snapped asunder as tow? And why? Because when the Almighty awarded to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel (Deuteron. xxxii. 7, 8). By an unrepealed covenant, the Lord God declared unto Abram, concerning the land of Palestine, ‘Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates’ (Genesis xv. 18). This gift was ratified unto him for an everlasting possession, and to his seed after him, when the Almighty gave him the covenant, and changed his name to Abraham (Genesis xvii. 4, 8). For the purposes of infinite wisdom fast hastening to maturity, the Lord God hath scattered his inheritance to the four winds of heaven. But hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off. He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him as a shepherd doth his flock.

“As the spirit of Cyrus, King of Persia was stirred up to build the Lord’s Temple, which was in Jerusalem (ii Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23), who is there among you, high and mighty ones of all the nations, to fulfil the good pleasure of the holy will of the Lord of Heaven, saying to Jerusalem, ‘Thou shalt be built’ and to the Temple, ‘Thy foundation shall be laid’? (Isaiah xliv. 28). The Lord God of Israel will be with such. Great grace, mercy, and peace shall descend upon the people who offer themselves willingly; and the fire offerings of their hearts and hands shall be those of a sweet-smelling savour unto Him who hath said, ‘I will bless them that bless thee (Genesis xii. 3), and contend with him who contendeth with thee’ (Isaiah xlix. 25).

“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. Signed and sealed in London, 8th of January, in the year of our Lord, 1839, in the name of the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, on behalf of many who wait for the redemption of Israel.”

(Copy 1.)

“London, January 22nd, 1839.

“May it please your Majesty,—I have the high honour of laying at your Majesty’s feet the accompanying memorandum relating to the present condition and future prospects of God’s ancient people, the Jews. Your Majesty’s pious feelings, I doubt not, will be excited to give the Scriptural hopes and expectations therein set forth your earnest attention, considering the high station it hath pleased Almighty God to call this Protestant land to, as the great seat of the church.

“According to the petitions of this peculiar people at a throne of grace, that in your Majesty’s reign ‘Judah may be saved and Israel dwell safely,’ is the prayer of your Majesty’s dutiful subject and servant.

“Her most Gracious Majesty Victoria, Queen of
Great Britain and Ireland.”

(Copy 2.)

“January 19th, 1839.

“My Lord,—I have the honour of transmitting through your Lordship a document which it is the desire of some of her Majesty’s subjects should be laid at her Majesty’s feet, relating to the Scriptural expectations of the church, connected with the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, the land of their fathers.

“I am induced to solicit your Lordship’s good offices in being the medium of communicating this document to her Majesty, as the substance of it relates to the present rights of an ally of this country—namely, the Sublime Porte.

“But I would respectfully press upon your Lordship’s attention, that, in holding forth the Scriptural hopes of God’s ancient people, those who emanate the accompanying document never for one moment dream of political force to accomplish the end desired. When the hour comes of Israel’s planting in, doubtless Almighty God will not fail to raise up chosen instruments, who, with willing hands and hearts, shall accomplish the good pleasure of His will.

“If we are wrong in the course we have taken to bring the memorandum before Her Majesty, we will be happy to be set right. Should your Lordship undertake the duty, desiring the glory of God in this matter to be furthered, the Lord God of Israel will not be slack to reward the labour of faith and love proceeding from a desire to honour His name.

“I have the honour to be, &c.,

“The Right Hon. Lord Viscount Palmerston.”

Lord Palmerston’s Answer.

(Copy 3.)

“Foreign Office, March 14, 1839.

“I have to acknowledge your letter of the 19th January, enclosing a letter and a memorandum from some of Her Majesty’s subjects, who feel deeply interested in the welfare and future prospects of the Jews; and I have to acquaint you that I have laid those documents before the Queen, and that Her Majesty has been pleased graciously to receive the same.

“I am, &c.,

“Palmerston.”⁠¹

LVII.

The Final Exodus

“And what now is the aspect of Palestine? Still, truly, it is a land rich in the grandeur and beauties of nature’s handiwork—still, in some parts, ‘... hills, plains, and valleys, fields of wheat and barley, vineyards and olive-yards, are spread out before you as on a map’—still does the benign influence of the sun’s warmth engender in the bosom of the earth the germs of fruits and flowers, that languish for want of culture, and never arrive at perfection—still do the hills uplift their heads amid the clouds, which drop down, as though with tears of sorrow, upon their barren and exposed sides, once covered with artificial soil and by the hands of a favoured race rendered fruitful as the vale beneath. The mountains remain unshaken, but where are the countless flocks? the stones of the water-course are there, but where is the limpid stream? Alas! the promised blessing has been withdrawn from the land; the flocks no longer multiply as heretofore, neither as in former days do springs and fountains burst forth everywhere out of the valleys and the hills; and her cities are desolate and forsaken, and of many even the site is not accurately known; literal, indeed, has been the fulfilment of the prophetic declaration ‘the land shall be desolate.’ Solitude now reigns where once the busy hum of voices enlivened many a glad city, ay, even in the wilderness—ruins now mark the spot where once rose the sound of harp and tabret, and where heart joined with hand in mocking with merriment the threatened desolation....”

“... But more than this—Britain! rejoice! it is for you to lead back to their beautiful land the long-dispersed members of Judah’s neglected race, and by planting in their native country a colony of whose attachment to its protectors there could be no doubt,...”

“... Jerusalem shall, indeed, become again the glorious city among the nations: no longer shall her name be Jerusalem, but ‘the City of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel,’ for there shall be holiness,’ and in the midst of her ‘the King of Israel, even the Lord;’ ... Her walls shall be called ‘Salvation,’ and her gates ‘Praise’; and her children shall enjoy the former and the latter rain; ‘the floors shall be full of wheat, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them....’

“Among these there are many whose wealth—... has caused the name of the Jew too often to be coupled with the idea of sordid gain...: but it will be well for the few, who by ... prosperity, ... occupy now an elevated ♦position, ... prepare to head with energy every warrantable occasion for furthering the restoration of their unhappy people to Palestine. Providential is it for them, that among them are men possessing influence and wealth sufficient to become their leaders....”

“Once again—Britain, beware! and hasten to exert the means which, lying at your disposal, may be made use of as a defence for your valuable possessions in the East, and for the advancement of God’s glory, by the return of His people to the land whither He has said He would bring them again ‘that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that He might be glorified.’”⁠¹

LXII.

A Hebrew Address to Queen Victoria (1849)

Translated Extract from an Address of Russian Jews in Safed on their coming under England’s protection, 1849.

(After compliments to the Consul in Jerusalem.)

“We acknowledge to the Lord and praise Him that He has put it into the heart of the Glory the Pity of the mighty Crowned Queen, the pious, the precious, the upright who reigns over the provinces of England and its dependencies, to do good to the people of Israel and to succour them with every kind of aid, for great and small, and to defend them from those that rise up against them.

LXVIII.

An Open Letter of Henri Dunant (1866)

“The disquieting circumstances in which Europe finds itself should not let us forget that the Eastern question, which has already troubled the Governments and peoples, may speedily reappear and complicate a position grave enough in itself. Instinctively every one feels that the day when this question will call for a definite solution, all Europe will perhaps be in inextricable difficulties.

“Diplomatic difficulties can only end in barren expedients, but the present, which is averse to a system of forcible conquest by fire and sword, has a much more powerful weapon at its disposal—that of pacific conquest by civilization.

“What is therefore to be done in order to prevent grave complications, and regenerate the East by rousing its vital forces and infusing into it the spirit of Western civilization?

“One of the most powerful means would be the formation of a large society, having an eminently international character, and which would have thereby the merit of reconciling the particular interests of the several European Powers with those of civilization. This Society would open for the West new and abundant sources of wealth: it would become for the East an efficient means of moral regeneration: and lastly would be for all nations co-operating in the matter a great honour and a great profit.

“The following is the manner in which such an association may be presented to the European public:⁠—

“Objects of the Eastern International Society:⁠—

“To promote the development of agriculture, industry, commerce, and public works in the East, and especially in Palestine. To obtain from the Turkish Government privileges and monopolies, whether in Constantinople or the rest of the Empire: notably the concession and the gradual abandonment of the soil of Palestine. To distribute for pecuniary considerations such portions of the land, the concession whereof might have been acquired or received by the Company, and to colonize the more fertile valleys of the Holy Land.

“The Turkish Empire contains virtues of all kinds, which, if they were utilized by a powerful company, would yield considerable results; but the Porte neither possesses the resources nor the necessary forces in order to create and lead to a favourable issue the works of public utility, which the internal development of the Ottoman Empire so urgently demands: left to her own resources she can neither augment her revenues nor form new ones, she is unable to give energetic support to either agriculture or industry, which are the only means of increasing public wealth and prosperity.

“It is therefore for the West, which possesses the capital and where the creative forces are superabundant, to turn to an account the real advantages presented by Turkey, and to take in hand a work capable of yielding excellent results. Skilfully conducted, operations in this new country bring in a very high interest: but new combinations must be devised, which should enjoy both the approval of the European Powers, and the support of the Sultan’s Porte. Therefore, in order not to weaken its forces, the Society must utilize certain special circumstances in which Turkey is now placed, and Palestine offers itself at first sight to the mind as the earliest field of activity.

“Palestine, as known, only wants human labour in order to produce abundantly: it is one of the most remarkable and fruitful countries on the globe: products of all latitudes are to be met with there, and emigrants from Europe find there the climate of their country. Commerce and private industry completing the work of agriculture, will draw hither in numbers merchants, colonists and capitalists. This resurrection of the East, uniting with the new rise of religious sentiment, will be aided by the co-operation of Israelites, whose valuable qualities and remarkable aptitudes cannot but prove very advantageous to Palestine.

“Having established commercial undertakings at Constantinople and other cities of the Turkish Empire, the Society will construct at Jaffa a port and a good road, a railway from this city to Jerusalem. The territory through which the railway runs should be granted by Turkey to the Society, which might sell it to Israelitish families. These in their turn would create colonies and make them prosperous, with the help and the labour of those of their Eastern brethren whose love for their ancient country has maintained itself as ardently as formerly. Special committees might at their cost send Israelitish emigrants from Morocco, Poland, Moldavia, Wallachia, the East, Africa, etc.

“The result pursued and obtained by the Society by means of a sincere international understanding, the co-operation of those interested in Turkey, and the establishment of Western populations in Palestine, will infallibly be in a less distant future than might be imagined.

“The reconstruction of Holy Places at Jerusalem, which might be carried out internationally, and in a manner worthy of Christendom: the end of conflicts which are being incessantly renewed between the Great Powers on account of the Holy Places: the transformation of ancient Jerusalem into a new city which shall rival in importance the finest cities in the West: the creation of European colonies which in time will become centres when Western civilization will spread into Turkey and penetrate the extreme East.

“Under the nominal suzerainty of the Sultan the Society will administer with intelligence and equity the territories that might develop upon it. Thus India has long been administered and governed by an English company. The Sultan, grateful for the financial support which will be given to him, might, perhaps, grant to the Holy Land a special administration, which, under the high direction of the Porte, would offer real security to the populations that might repair thither, and guarantees for the funds that might be employed there. Thanks to this combination, which would procure for her valuable resources, Turkey would not be obliged to contract new loans in order to pay the interest on previous ones.

“The rising colonies might diplomatically be neutralized, like Switzerland, and by a treaty which would have some analogy to the Convention signed at Geneva in favour of the amboulance, sanitary bodies, and wounded soldiers. It would not, moreover, be so difficult to neutralize Palestine by an agreement among the Powers, since there exists a remarkable precedent, which is the neutralization of the Lower Danube officially obtained from the Seven Powers, who signed the treaty at Paris. Now the Commission of the Lower Danube has created its flag and a small fleet, it possesses a numerous staff and revenues: it actually seeks to contract a loan, the same as an independent state.

“In order to prepare the organization of an International Eastern Society, it is necessary that the minds should be induced to occupy themselves with these great and interesting questions. It is indispensable for this purpose to form a committee composed of influential and honourable men of different nations and different opinions, having at heart the success of these views in the general interest. For the rest the elements of such a committee are quite clear.

“Its programme, at the same time economic, humanitarian, scientific, etc., is also international: it cannot hurt the susceptibilities of any nation. Influential men in France, England, and elsewhere are favourably disposed to the scheme.”⁠¹

LXXIII.

A Collection of Opinions of English Christian Authorities on the Colonization of Palestine

1. General Sir Charles Warren’s Views

“My proposal is simply an arrangement by which, ... Palestine, this unfortunate land may yet be placed in ... a position which may enable her again to take a place socially among the kingdoms of the earth....”

“It will probably at once occur, ‘And what of the Arabs of Palestine?’ I ask in reply, ‘Who are the Arabs?’ They are certainly not Turks in any degree; they are for the most part not Arabs of Arabia, of the Desert. Then who are they? It has long been known, and no person has thrown more light upon the subject than M. Ganneau, that the people of Palestine are of a very mixed race: some of Canaanitish descent, some Jewish, some of Arabia. It is evident that many of them being Moslems are so for convenience,... We cannot, therefore, look upon the natives of Palestine as rigid Moslems of one race; but we must recognize them as descendants of Canaanites, Israelites, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Crusaders, now professing the Moslem or the Christian faith, according to circumstances, but retaining above everything the ancient traditions—yes, and in some instances, I have little doubt, their veritable old religion.”

“Palestine is about the size and shape of Wales, and has now a population of about one and a half millions. Give her good government, and quicken the commercial life of the people, and they may increase tenfold, and yet there be room. The soil is so rich, the climate so varied, that within ordinary limits it may be said that the more people it contains, the more it may. Its productiveness will increase in proportion to the labour bestowed on the soil, until a population of fifteen millions might be accommodated there.

“Let us observe how the country may be improved. It consists of the hill country, or mountain districts; the Shephalah or swelling hills, or wolds; the maritime and Jordan plains, and the tablelands of Arabia.

“All these are most productive naturally; but are, for the most part, at present enjoying a long Sabbath.

“In the hill country, even now the white skeletons of the old system of terracing are visible in parts; but the rich loamy soil is washed down into the wadies, leaving the hillsides bare and desolate, and glaring in their nakedness. A cultivated strip may be seen at the bottom of the wady, subject to being swept away by any storm of rain forming a torrent down the bare hillsides, or withered before its time by the reflection of the sun from the bare rocks.

“Place the valley in proper hands, and note the results. The earth from the bottom will be carefully carried up the hillsides, and laid out in terraces, on which are planted young trees—those of a more delicate nature being placed on the northern declivity, in order that they may suffer less from the sun’s rays. The trees thrive rapidly, as they will do in Palestine; the rain falls, but not as heretofore, rushing fiercely down the bare rocks, and forming a torrent in the valley. No; now it falls on the trees and terraces, percolates quietly into the soil and into the rocky hillside, and is thus absorbed, scarcely injuring the crops at the bottom of the valley. The rain that sinks into the rocks will shortly reissue in perennial springs, so refreshing in a thirsty land. The trees, having moisture in the soil at their roots, spread out their leaves in rich groves over the land. The sun’s rays now do not fall on the ground, but on the green leaves and fruit, by which they are intercepted and absorbed, giving no glare or reflection. The heat of the sun causes a moisture to rise from the trees and soil beneath them, which, on reaching the higher and cooler winds, is condensed into visible vapour, constantly forming as the breeze passes over the grove, so that each grove, so to speak, supplies its own umbrella. The climate is thus changed. Where were hot, glaring sun, dry wind, dry earth, stony land, absence of vegetable products, are now to be found fleecy clouds floating through the balmy air, the heat of the sun tempered by visible and invisible vapours, groves with moist soil, trickling streamlets issuing from the rocks, villages springing up apace, Palestine regenerated.

“This is no dream. I have seen this change take place in Palestine in three years, on a small scale. Why is the Lebanon so different to the hill country of Palestine? In a great measure, because, by reason of its position and conformation, its woods have not been cut down....

“Again, on the east of Jordan, in Gilead, I have seen the same. After riding for miles through the ruins in the glaring summer atmosphere, through a country denuded of trees, nearly choking with the scorching wind, I came upon a district where the ancient woods had not been cut down. Immediately a change was felt: clouds were seen hanging over the woods, the air became soft and pleasant, the sun’s rays beat less fiercely, flowers were seen under the trees, blackberries on the brambles, water gushing out from the hillsides, birds chirping in the shade. This was not due to any change in the atmosphere generally, but was entirely local, and due to the presence of trees. In fact, there are spots where you can, on the same level, change the climate in an hour by passing from the bare land to that which is well wooded.

“This matter I have frequently examined into in Palestine. I mention one particular instance. During the prevalence of hot winds at Jerusalem, I noticed two clouds constantly stationary a few miles off, in an otherwise cloudless sky. On riding over towards them, I found them to be hanging over two large olive groves about seven miles off, recently planted by the Greek convents. Although the wind was blowing briskly, the moisture ascending was condensed as quickly as it rose, and formed an umbrella over these groves.

“In the wolds of Palestine the same process may be continued. Not so much terracing is wanted, but much planting of wood, particularly on the south side—trees of a hardy growth; so that, with a green southern slope opposite, the delicate fruit trees planted on the northern slopes may bring their fruit to perfection.

“The water, which will now be found gushing from the rock, from springs which have long been silent, will be carried in ducts along the hillsides, and used for irrigation purposes, passing thence into the plain, where it can still be used for irrigation, or else assist in filling up the wells near to the surface of the ground—wells which have hitherto been between thirty to ninety feet deep.

“Now again we shall find a difference in the crops in the plain. Hitherto there has been but one season, and then a long interval of desolation, from July to November, when the heaven is of brass and the earth iron. During this long period, scarcely a green blade can be seen over the vast plains—nothing but sticks, and stones, and dust; the monotony relieved only by the noise of the gulgul careering on the wings of the whirlwind....

“The presence of water brought down on the surface from the hills, together with the vast groves of trees to be planted, causes a change. The latter rains of June will be found to fall, giving a second season—a never-ending succession of crops. The fulfilment of the Prophecies will commence taking place—when the ploughman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed....

“The advance of the rolling sand-hills, which is now overwhelming the fairest of the maritime plains, may now be arrested. The rich ground between Gaza and Ascalon, which the sand has swallowed up, must again be recovered. This can easily be effected, by the planting of coniferæ along the sea coast, as has been done already at Beyrout.... If we examine the Jordan valley, we find even greater changes can be effected: it can be made far more fertile than it ever was....

“The whole valley, however, may be made one vast garden, not merely by rebuilding the great aqueducts, remains of which still exist, and by means of which the great cities were watered, but by means of the Jordan river itself. The Jordan, out of Tiberias, falls ten feet to the mile, or 600 feet in sixty miles.... The waters of the Jordan might be brought out of Tiberias in aqueducts falling one foot to the mile, and thus be brought over the great plain of Basan and of Jericho, and be made to irrigate all the lands which the streams have not touched. At the same time, the streams themselves will have increased exceedingly from the development of the country in the high lands.

“The country can thus be transformed.”⁠¹

2. The Rev. James Neil on the Colonization Movement

“At a moment when all eyes are turned to the East, it cannot be unimportant to learn that, after the slumber of ages, Palestine is awakening to new life, and Israel are actually returning to its shores in such numbers, and at the same time in such a way as they have never been known to do, or could have done, since their formal banishment by the Emperor Hadrian, in the year A.D. 135. Many Jews, it is true, driven ruthlessly out of Spain in 1492, found a home in the Holy Land. To go still further back, the celebrated Hebrew traveller, Benjamin of Tudela, tells us in the twelfth century that he found considerable numbers residing in the various towns of Palestine which he visited—descendants, perhaps, amongst others, of some of the 30,000 who joined the arms of Chosroes the Persian in his capture of Jerusalem, A.D. 616, or even of the Jews whom Julian the Apostate restored, A.D. 363, when he vainly endeavoured to discredit Christianity by rebuilding the Temple. But there is this all-important difference between what happened in the case of those who then returned, and those who are now flocking back to the land of their forefathers. While in the former instances, whether under Pagan, Christian, or Moslem masters, they were, as all history shows, equally the subjects of extortion, oppression and contumely: now they are beginning to hold a position of comfort, independence, and power. This remarkable change is in itself significant, and the whole movement should surely be watched by the student of prophecy with eager and expectant attitude....

“... The feeling everywhere seems abroad that the time has at last arrived to restore the desolations of Zion, and to rebuild the waste places of the land of Israel. The very existence of ‘The Syrian and Palestine Colonisation Society,’ which is about a year old, constitutes a striking expression of such a sentiment. This society, according to its prospectus, has ‘been formed to promote the Colonisation of Syria and Palestine and the neighbouring countries by persons of good character, whether Christians or Jews.’ This it proposes to effect by obtaining information for intending settlers, and making arrangements for their transport and reception; by assisting approved applicants with advances; and by making arrangements for the purchase of land by the emigrants, or securing suitable tracts of Government waste lands, under certain guarantees; and by exerting themselves to improve the communications. Having mentioned this association, let me plainly say, from an intimate experience of this matter, that there are at present a variety of reasons why emigration to Palestine by English people cannot possibly be undertaken with any hope of success, in the same way as emigrants to the United States or to a British Colony. In the first place, the heat of the plains is too great to admit of their labouring during summer with their own hands. The German colonists in attempting this have suffered a fearful mortality. Again, to employ Arab labour to advantage, and to hold any dealings with the people, the peculiar manners and customs of the East must be known, and colloquial Arabic to some extent be mastered. But, above all, the want of thorough protection to life and property so long as Palestine remains in Ottoman hands is greatly against any emigration scheme that does not include European government for the whole colony. Hence the evident wisdom in such a case of the plan put forth by Captain Charles Warren, R.E., in a pamphlet, published last year, entitled ‘The Land of Promise, or Turkey’s Guarantee.’ This officer, who has an intimate acquaintance with Syria, derived from his able work there on behalf of the Palestine Exploration Fund, proposes that, if only as a solution of the pecuniary embarrassments of the Porte, Palestine should be handed over to a company similar to the old East India Company, to be farmed and governed by such an association for a period of twenty years. He suggests that such a Company should pay to Turkey its present revenues, and to the creditors of Turkey a proportion of the interest due to them, taking for itself six per cent. on its capital and expending the remaining revenue in improving the country. What he considers the ultimate future of the land we learn from his own words. ‘Let this’ (the above arrangement), he says, ‘be done with the avowed intention of gradually introducing the Jew, pure and simple, who is eventually to occupy and govern this country.... Concerning what that settlement is in part to be, I can profess no doubt, because I feel none. It is written over and over again in the Word of God.... Israel are to return to their own land. This event, in its incipient stage, I have shown to be now actually taking place. That which is yet to be looked for is the public recognition of the fact, together with the restoration, in whole or part, of Jewish national life, under the protection of some one or more of the Great Powers....’”⁠¹

3. Colonel C. R. Conder on Palestinian Colonization

The greatest authority on Palestine in our generation, Claude Reignier Conder, wrote:⁠—

“It has always seemed to me that the future element of prosperous colonisation is to be found among the Jews of Eastern Europe. The thrift and energy of the race are not their only qualifications. Those who mean to thrive in Palestine must not only be prepared to work on the land, but they must be accustomed to the harder conditions of existence which are common in uncivilised countries, and almost unknown in the west. It is true that they will have to encounter the evils due to bad government and corruption, which are mitigated by civilisation; but if the accounts received from America are credible it is doubtful if these evils are less apparent in South America than they are in Turkish dominions. A people which has not only been able to live, but which has prospered more than the native born population, under Russian tyranny, will not find it difficult to prosper as subjects of the Sultan. A people which has lived under one form of Oriental despotism will be less discouraged by another similar condition than Europeans would be. It is from the Oriental, Jewish, agricultural class, expelled from Russia for their religion, that the colonists most naturally fitted for agriculture in Syria may evidently be drawn.

“I have often thought that the words of that famous passage in the Law, which predicts the future of Israel, must have come home with a sad and overwhelming force to the Jews in Russia during the last few years:

“‘And among these Goim shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest, and thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night; and shalt have none assurance of thy life. In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even; and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning; for the fear of thy heart wherewith thou shalt fear; and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.’

“But what is the other picture which the Law presents of Israel in its own land? ‘Blessed shalt thou be in basket and in store.’

“The proposal so to settle agriculturists, as freeholders tilling their own lands, is in accord with the general tendency of all enlightened statesmanship of the present age. We have too many artisans starved by competition, and too few tillers of the earth. Whether is it better for a man to sell penny toys in the streets of a foggy metropolis, or to till the red corn lands, and make food for himself, for his wife and for his children, for the citizens beyond the seas? Even if the whole of Palestine east of Jordan were covered with cornfields and vineyards, with mulberry and fig gardens, with cotton and maize, and pot herbs, and fruit orchards, there would not be too much produce useful to man. There would be markets in which the growers could compete with ease; and towns would grow up, where manufactories of silk and cotton might arise. There would be rice and indigo grown in the Jordan Valley, where now there are only flowers, and there would be petroleum and bitumen, and other minerals, to be worked near the Dead Sea shores. There would in short be a return of the old prosperity, which once covered this country with great Roman cities, and a prosperity yet greater because of the facilities offered by modern science.

“If then I were asked for advice on this subject I would say: Buy all the land you can get at moderate prices in Bashan and in Northern Gilead, and buy it soon, for the price will go up. Promote as far as possible the making of a railway, which is practicable, and which will bring this region within the pale of civilization. Send out as many fit men as you can, to till the land; and send their wives and children after them. They will be happy, and, if they work, they will be rich. The difficulties are less than those to be expected elsewhere, and the advantages are greater. The movement is not artificial, not merely due to religious sentiment, or to visionary philanthropy. It is a natural and healthy one, which ought to be encouraged, by giving power and money to the organization which seeks to aid it, and to control its direction in a wise course. The case has been laid before you fairly, and the details and precedents have been sufficiently studied. The experience of ten years will be of high value; and the consent of the Sultan, whose country it is, has been gained, both to the construction of a very important line of railway, and to the settlement of Jews, willing to abide by the law of that land as they have obeyed the much more tyrannical laws of the Czar.

“I confidently expect therefore, within a few more years, to see prosperity increasing in Palestine, and the empty lands filling up with an industrious population. And if this be so the Jewish people will have reason to remember with gratitude the name of Baron Rothschild as a generous benefactor, and the Society of the Chovevi Zion, as an organisation which undertook a very important work at a time when help was sorely needed.”⁠¹

4. Sir John William Dawson on the Future of Palestine

Sir John William Dawson, Professor of Natural History at Montreal University, the worthy disciple of Lyell and Darwin, in a description of the Holy Land, writes:⁠—

“From the higher parts of Jaffa one may obtain a good idea of the physical characters of the maritime plain of Southern Palestine. Along the shore stretch banks and dunes of yellow sand, contrasting strongly with the deep blue of the sea, and shading off on the east into the verdure of the plain. Near Jaffa this is covered with orange orchards, laden in February with golden fruit of immense size, and which forms one of the most important exports of the place. To the south the plain spreads into the fertile flats of ancient Philistia, interspersed in the distance with patches of sand, the advanced guards of the great Arabian desert. To the north it constitutes the plain of Sharon, celebrated in Hebrew song, and extends for fifty miles to where Mount Carmel projects its high rocky front into the sea. On the inland side, the plain is bounded first by the rolling foot-hills of the Judean range, the Shephelah or low country ... and then by the hill country proper, which, clothed in blue and purple, forms a continuous range, limiting the view eastward from Jaffa....

“The maritime plain was also a granary ... and it still produces much wheat and barley, though large portions of it are neglected and untilled, and the culture carried on is by means of implements as simple and primitive as they could have been in the days of Abraham. In February one found it gay with the beautiful crimson anemone (A. coronaria), which may have been the poetical ‘Rose of Sharon,’ while a little yellowish-white iris represented the ‘lily of the valley’ of Solomon’s Song....

“... Along the shores of the Dead Sea there are springs which produce petroleum; and this when hardened becomes Asphalt.

“Now the valley of the Dead Sea is an ‘oil district,’ and from the incidental mention of its slimepits, or literally asphalt pits, in Genesis xiv., was apparently more productive in mineral pitch in ancient times. It is interesting in connection with this to notice that Conder found layers of asphalt in the mound which marks the site of ancient Jericho, showing that the substance was used in primitive times for roofs and floors, or as a cement to protect brick structures from damp; and it is well known that petroleum exudes from the rocks both on the sides and in the bottom of the Dead Sea, and, being hardened by evaporation and oxidation, forms the asphaltum referred to by so many travellers.

“... Palestine, to the ordinary traveller, appears, especially in the drought of summer, a bare and barren country. Yet the climate and rainfall of Palestine, with the chemical quality of its rocks and soils, rich in lime, alkalies, and phosphates, render it productive to a degree which cannot be measured by our more northern lands. Its plains, though limited in extent and often stony, have very fertile soil. The olive, the vine, and the fig-tree will grow and yield their valuable fruit in abundance on rocky hills which at first sight appear barren and worthless. Whenever culture has been undertaken with skill and vigour, it has been well rewarded. In the olden times the Tirosh (often incorrectly translated ‘wine’), as the Hebrews called the fruit of their hill orchards and vineyards, was one of the main sources of wealth; and the vineyards, with their vines trailing over the warm rocks and clothing the ground with their leaves and fruit, realize the prophetic description of hills running with the grape juice, and of a land flowing with milk and honey, if by the latter we understand the ‘dibs’ or syrup of the grape. In Palestine a few olive-trees on a rocky hill, that in colder climates would be worthless, may maintain a family. There is also an abundance of nutritious pasturage, more especially for sheep and goats, all the year round, on the limestone hills....

“Palestine must originally have been a well-wooded country, and its forests are mentioned in the historical books of the Bible; but they have for the most part perished, and this had tended to make the climate more arid. The wild hill-sides are, however, often covered with an exuberant growth of bushes and young trees, which, if permitted to grow, or if replaced by cultivated trees, would soon clothe the land with verdure, and tend to produce a more abundant summer rainfall. With just laws, well administered, there is nothing to prevent Palestine from becoming as wealthy and populous as we learn from the Bible it was in the days of the Jewish kings, and it seems to have been at a later time under the Roman government....

“In Palestine, ... the country is gay with flowers, especially in early spring, and the conspicuous objects of culture are the vine and the olive. Even in the plains, cultivated fields are few, and much is merely wild pasture. The palm-tree is rare, though it still grows in the plain of Jericho and the sheltered valleys throughout the country, yielding dates smaller than those of Egypt, but of very pleasant flavour....

“That the future of these old lands may be more important than their present, it requires little penetration to see; and the old Book, whose history of these lands in the past we have been considering, has something to say of their future as well. Whatever belief men may repose in prophecy, they cannot doubt that the word of God has committed itself to certain foreshadowings of the future; and though some of these are shrouded in a symbolism to which varied interpretations have been given, others are sufficiently plain....

“We know, however, that physically these lands are still young, and capable of greater things than those of the past, and we may content ourselves with repeating the inspired words of an older Jewish prophet:⁠—

“The Holy Land is a fine tract of country well defined by natural boundaries, extending from the shore of the Mediterranean to the Syrian desert. It is a compact district, distinct and complete in itself, enclosed by mountain and sea, and consequently offering great facilities of defence against invasion. It has its highlands and its lowlands, its hills and its valleys, its streams and its lakes, its hot springs and its cold springs, a fine sea coast broken by bold promontories, cliffs towering above, beaches spreading out below, and is replete with all the capabilities essential for civilized life. The Holy Land is rich in vegetation, from the time-honoured ‘cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop on the wall.’ Groves of olive and mulberry trees, vineyards of grapes of extraordinary size and richness, interspersed with fields of golden grain, with magnificent hedges of the cactus almost reaching the height of trees; the sycamore with its thickness of foliage—these, and more can be enumerated in a brief outline, are there for the endowment and adornment of the Holy Land. Nevertheless, the wealth of nature is in a great measure of a passing character. The sloping terraces of the hills, made fertile by means of artificial irrigation, and now deprived of the help of the tending hand of man, no longer display that fruitful aspect which was formerly their glory. The land mourns under its present masters. The tillers of the soil do not even sow in tears to reap in joy. With listless fatalism they cast into the ground the seeds of a harvest which they know, as they watch it come into being, shall minister mostly, not to their wants or wealth, but to the greed of unrighteous local administration. And, wherever these people are crowded together in their miserable villages, all is mud, slum, penury, depression, chaos and picturesque misery. A goodly land, the almond tree white in bloom, orange and olive, everywhere lilies, the scarlet anemone; but no system, no industry, no skill, no capital. No nation has been able to establish itself as a nation, in Palestine, up to this day, no national union, and no national spirit have prevailed there. The motley, impoverished tribes which have occupied it, have held it as mere tenants at will, temporary landowners, evidently waiting for those entitled to the permanent possession of the soil.”⁠¹

LXXV.

(1) Chovevé Zion and Zionist Workers

A great deal of idealism, energy and capacity has gone to the making of the Zionist movement in its earlier and its more recent form. It would be outside the scope of a history of Zionism dealing mainly with England and France to attempt to do justice to the work of all those individuals—mostly Russian Jews—who have devoted themselves to the national revival, in Palestine or in the Diaspora. The purpose of this Appendix is to place on record the services of some of the most prominent workers (not mentioned in the text of this book) in the field of organization, of propaganda or of Palestinian colonization.

Young men of ability and studious habits founded the Bnei Zion Association at Moscow. This Society had indeed concentrated upon and developed most strongly the national and Zionist ideal. The position of the Moscow Bnei Zion was so conspicuous, because that organization was the headquarters of prominent Zionist workers who played a distinguished part in the national revival in Russia and in other countries. Among these the most active and important leaders were: E. W. Tschlenow, M. Ussischkin, J. Maze, A. Idelsohn, T. Brutzkus, B. Mintz, S. Mintz and M. Rabinovitz.

E. W. Tschlenow’s life of strenuous work was characterized by calmness and steadfastness on the one hand, and gentleness and high virtue on the other. Since his earliest youth he combined within him the noble spirit of idealism and great capacity for precise work. As a young student, he soon won his way to the foremost rank among the Chovevé Zion workers. The soundness and farsightedness of his views were remarkable. Simple but impressive as a writer, as well as platform orator, his generosity and devotion soon made him a favourite of the Bnei Zion, and brought him prominence as organizer, leader and orator. He graduated at the Moscow University in medicine, and distinguished himself, after further study at other universities abroad, in a special branch of his science. He then settled in Moscow. His successful medical career, however, never prevented him from devoting a considerable part of his time, and when necessary all of it, to useful Jewish public work in general, and to Zionism in particular. After his important and fruitful work in the Chovevé Zion movement he entered the Zionist Organization. He was in Palestine twice, not as a mere tourist but as an investigator. He wrote a great number of pamphlets, reports and articles, and a very good book against Territorialism (Zion and Africa, in Russian, 1903). His second journey to Palestine enabled him to increase his already extensive knowledge of colonization, and he laid down his observations and conclusions in another excellent work, which he wrote in Russian, and which has been translated into other European languages. The conspicuous service which he rendered amid formidable difficulties to the Jewish National Fund, of which he was the manager in Russia, his tact, his calm energy and his counsel were of inestimable value to the Zionist cause. After having been for many years a member of the Greater Actions Committee, he was elected at the Vienna Zionist Congress of 1913 a member of the Inner Actions Committee. He then gave up his brilliant medical career in Moscow to undertake a work of singular complexity and extreme heaviness. In this he won the same measure of confidence as that he enjoyed in Russia, and provided the most important personal link between the East and the West. In 1914 he was delegated, together with the author, for Zionist political work in this country; and he came here again in 1918 notwithstanding his failing health. During his brief but momentous excursus into the regions of politics and diplomacy he revealed the same high qualities which had elsewhere marked his mind and character. In consequence of his efforts, his health, which had some years ago been weakened, broke down, and his tragic death took place on the 31st of January, 1918, in London—the greatest loss Zionism has sustained since the death of Wolffsohn.

M. Ussischkin’s career as Chovevé Zionist and modern Zionist is unique as well as remarkable. In some respects, and in some quarters, his influence was far greater than that of anyone else. A strong, perhaps the strongest organizer, possessed of deep nationalistic convictions and of intense Jewish feeling, and endowed with the wonderful gift of being able to impress the masses, he succeeded in establishing a very high reputation when a mere student, and later on as one of the founders and leaders of the Bnei Zion, and subsequently among the Chovevé Zion leaders. He was also a founder of the Bilu. On his long visits to Palestine, in propaganda work for the purpose of raising funds for colonization, and throughout his whole long and fruitful career of nationalist work, he exhibited the most indefatigable activity and greatest courage. Having graduated at Moscow in Technology and Engineering, he settled in Ekaterinoslaw, where his strong, unbending personality, his power of leadership, and the general respect he commanded, soon brought him into prominence, and gained for him a high reputation in Russia, in Palestine, and elsewhere. The very strength of mind, energy, outspokenness and self-reliance, combined with inflexible determination and ardent zeal, distinguish his untiring efforts on behalf of the Zionist Organization. While others faltered and failed, he remained firm; while others despaired, he remained confident, and his zeal and perseverance gained for him the respect even of those who opposed some of his methods, while it increased the admiration in which he was held by many of his adherents. He greatly distinguished himself in his strenuous work for the Zionist financial institutions, and was also the most influential champion of the idea of immediate practical work in Palestine. His pamphlets on Palestine and the Zionist programme are written with admirable cleverness. He has lived now for some years in Odessa, where he is the Chairman of the Society for the promotion of Jewish colonization work in Palestine. Being Jewish Nationalist to the backbone, he naturally takes a great interest in the revival of the Hebrew language.

A. Idelsohn is the most modern and the most ingenious Zionist publicist in the Russian language. His influence has been underestimated rather than justly appreciated. While, on the one hand, the pathetic devotion and enthusiasm of others are undoubtedly most useful and indispensable conditions for the success of the movement, an analytical mind, as a temporizing element and corrective, is of no less importance. This mind was devoted to the cause by Idelsohn since his youth, and found expression in his writings in the Zionist organ, written in the Russian language, its name being Razswiet and Ievreiskaiu Shisn. A critic, and a somewhat ironical thinker, he never permits an emotional effort to mar his clear intellectual discrimination. In later years he formed, with M. A. Soloveitschik, A. Goldstein, J. Klebanow, A. Seidemann, M. Aleinikow, D. Pasmanik, S. J. Janowski, J. Brutzkus, Ch. Grinberg, J. Eljaschew, I. Gruenbaum, and others who comprised the editorial staff of his paper, a brilliant ensemble of Zionist intellectuals which has recently been augmented by L. Jaffe, who sometimes acted as editor. Idelsohn is an eminent Zionist and a member of the Actions Committee.

Julius Brutzkus was an active and highly appreciated member of the Bnei Zion. Most gifted and learned, with a clear mind, and generally well informed, he adhered to the national idea from early youth. He graduated in medicine at the Moscow University, and settled for some years in Petrograd, where he became active in matters communal, literary and journalistic. He wrote several excellent articles and pamphlets.

The two Mintzs were also appreciated for their faithfulness, sincere devotion, and excellent and tactful propaganda. B. Mintz has since settled at Rostow, where he takes a leading part in Zionist work. S. Mintz graduated at Moscow in medicine and settled in Warsaw, where he attained a high reputation in his profession as well as in communal activity. A sincere Nationalist, of a serious and studious turn of mind, deeply attached to Zionism, an excellent Hebraist, most active in all movements making for the revival of the national language, he has remained true to Bnei Zion traditions. There are, further, the zealous Alperin, and Michael Rabinovitch, resident at Rostow, a distinguished Zionist worker who was member of the Actions Committee.

The great earnestness and untiring assiduity of the Bnei Zion did not fail to attract attention and to produce a deep impression. The immense zeal for this cause dispelled the apathy of those around them. Thus the Moscow Chovevé Zion and Zionist Group became indeed one of the best, the most esteemed and the most active in the world. Of those in touch with the first pioneers was Kalonimos Wolf Wissotski (1824‒1904), the well-known Chovev Zion and Zionist, a zealous supporter of the colonization of Palestine, a generous friend of Hebrew literature, a patron of learning and learned men. The representatives of his great firm have to the present day remained faithful to the traditions of the founder in a most liberal-minded and far-reaching manner.

The following names are arranged in alphabetical order.

Elieser Ben-Jehuda, born in Russia, is a prominent representative of the revival of the Hebrew language and of the national renaissance. As early as 1880 he expounded his political views on Zionism in Smolenskin’s monthly Ha’shachar. In 1881 he went to Palestine, where he became a sturdy and independent fighter for Hebrew as a living tongue and for Jewish nationalism. In 1885 he founded the Hebrew weekly paper Ha’zevi, which he edited for several years, assisted by his wife (Hemda) and his son. Together they formed the first Hebrew-speaking family in the country. He has revolutionized Hebrew style and introduced many new colloquial and journalistic expressions. As a pioneer of modern methods, radically opposed to the old ways of thought and action, he defended his heterodox ideas with energy, became involved in controversies, and was arrested by the Ottoman authorities for his nationalistic propaganda. Many years ago he started the publication of his great Hebrew dictionary (Millon). He was one of the first Palestine Zionists who approached Herzl and devoted themselves to Zionist propaganda in Palestine.

Vassyli Bermann (1862‒96) was a young man of high intellectual attainments and endowed with exceptional literary gifts, and would undoubtedly have risen to great eminence had he continued to devote himself to literature. But he gave almost all his time to the Chovevé Zion movement. His name is closely connected with the history of the national Jewish movement in Russia. Born at Mitau, he received his elementary education at the school founded by his father, a capable pedagogue, in Petersburg, and completed his college studies in the same town. Already, as student of the faculty of Law in Petersburg, Bermann placed himself at the service of Judaism, and strove, through the foundation of a suitable association, to spread the idea of the liberation of the Jewish people into wide circles of the community. In the year 1884 he published the compilation Palestine. Even this first work drew general attention upon the highly gifted young writer. At the meeting of the Russian Chovevé Zion at Drusgenik, in 1887, Bermann was considered, by the side of the spiritual father of the national Jewish movement in Russia, Leo Pinsker, as the leader of the “Zionophiles,” as Bermann called the adherents of the national Jewish idea. When it was found desirable to obtain the authorization of the Russian Government for the “Odessa Association for Supporting Jewish Artisans and Agriculturists in Syria and Palestine,” the shrewd lawyer, Vassyli Bermann, employed his utmost energy in order to help in overcoming all difficulties which stood in the way of the foundation of this association. He was one of the members of the first official congress of the Russian Chovevé Zion which was held at Odessa in the year 1890. Once again in Petersburg, Bermann devoted all his zeal to the editing of his continued compilation, which he intended to transform into a year-book. In this way Zion, published in the year 1891, was brought out. It is considerably superior to its predecessor in contents and get-up. Zion, which is dedicated to Pinsker, affords an interesting insight into the phase of development of the national Jewish thought of that time. From Bermann, who was well aware of the influence of historical knowledge upon the strengthening of the national consciousness, came also the initiative towards the foundation of the “Historio-Ethnographic Commission” within the “Society for the Propagation of Culture among the Jews in Russia.” When, in the year 1892, the Petersburg central committee of the Jewish Colonization Association was formed, and the necessity for a scientific basis of the colonization question became evident, Bermann undertook, at the request of the J. C. A., a mission of study, the result of which he recorded in a comprehensive memoir, and thus afforded the central committee valuable material towards the work of colonization. The exertions of travelling had much affected Bermann’s health. But he would not allow that to prevent him from further work in favour of his brethren with the greatest devotion. At last he found himself compelled to seek the mild climate of Egypt. There, on March 18th, 1896, Vassyli Bermann breathed his last. His tombstone bears the inscription: “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget (her cunning).” The dying man had wished it so.

Gregor Belkovsky, a distinguished lawyer, born in Odessa, was one of the first pioneers of the Chovevé Zion movement. He was a member of the Societies Nes Ziona and Ezra. In 1895‒7 he was Professor of Law at the University of Sofia, Bulgaria. On his return to Russia, he entered the Zionist Organization and came into prominence from the First Congress onwards. He was one of the most notable workers for the establishment of the Zionist financial institutions. He also did important work in connection with the movement in Russia.

Jehiel Brill (1836‒86), born in Russia, and taken to Constantinople when he was quite young, was later brought to Jerusalem, where he received a talmudic education. In 1863, with the assistance of his father-in-law, Jacob Saphir, he established the Hebrew monthly, Ha’lebanon, which, after the appearance of the twelfth number, was suppressed by the Turkish Government. He then went to Paris, where he resumed publication of Ha’lebanon. After the Franco-Prussian War he removed to Mayence, where he renewed the publication of his paper. When the Chovevé Zion movement was inaugurated, Brill, who was well acquainted with Palestine, was chosen by Baron Edmond de Rothschild, on the recommendation of Rabbi Samuel Mohilewer, to conduct a group of experienced farmers from Russia to Palestine. He gave a vivid description of his mission in his Hebrew pamphlet Yesod Ha’maalah (Mayence, 1883).

H. Brody was, when in Berlin, a studious, scholarly worker, and at the same time active in Zionism. Later he was appointed Rabbi in Nachod, Bohemia, and, being a scholar and a prolific writer, he became very active in scientific and literary matters. He has contributed to Ha’magid, Ha’eshkol and Ha’shiloach; has edited (with A. Freimann) a Bibliographical Review, and has written valuable books on Jehuda Ha’levi and Moses Ibn Ezra. In defence of Zionism he has written, under the nom de plume Dr. H. Salomonsohn, an excellent pamphlet, in which he proves that Zionism is an essential principle of Jewish tradition.

Martin Buber, born in Galicia, was a member of the Vienna Kadima who afterwards studied in Berlin. He was closely akin to Berthold Feiwel in aspirations and activity. Buber was one of the founders of the Verlag and one of its principal contributors. He was really one of the authors of the Jewish Renaissance, not a product of it. He has no equal as an inspirer of the Jewish intellectuals in Western Europe. He has been a Zionist since the inception of the Organization, but he has devoted himself mostly to literary work in connection with the Jewish Renaissance. Sweet and pathetic legends, delicate Chassidic sketches, tales of wonder, mystic and philosophical treatises and allegories, profoundly Jewish and reflected in deep Murillo-like shades, such are the subjects of his Story of Rabbi Nachman (1906), Legends of the Baal Shem (1907), Daniel (1914) and other writings.

Rabbi I. H. Daiches, a great Talmudist, formerly Rabbi of Neustatt Shirvint, and now in Leeds, supported the Chovevé Zion movement, and was afterwards a delegate to the Zionist Congress.

Joshua Eisenstadt (Barzilai), the oldest, and, as far as enthusiasm is concerned, still the youngest among the propagandists in Palestine, a man of high aspirations, who looks at things from the standpoint of a devotee rather than of a critic, exercises considerable influence through his speeches and popular articles. He died in Switzerland in 1918.

Rabbi Mordecai Eliasberg (1817‒89), Rabbi of Bausk in Russia, an eminent Talmudist, a profound theologian and a diligent student of history, who wrote valuable books and articles on talmudic subjects, was one of the most ardent advocates of the ideas of the Chovevé Zion. By his numerous contributions to Ha’melitz he helped very much in the spread of Zionistic ideas, and his memory will be cherished as one of the representatives of orthodox Judaism who raised the banner of Palestine.

Berthold Feiwel, born in Brunn, Moravia, was a member of the Vienna Kadima, but did most of his work in Berlin. A young man of exceptional attainments, he early attracted the notice of Herzl, and was for some time editor of the Welt, for which work he was particularly well qualified. But the work of leader-writing did not satisfy the poetic and æsthetic side of his nature, and he turned to literature. The promise of his early writings, with their beauty and originality, is amply fulfilled in the literary activity which he subsequently developed in the Almanach and in other publications of the Jüdischer Verlag, which was founded by him and his friends. His poems, as well as his excellent translations of Rosenfeld and other works, have won him a lasting reputation. He has also taken an active part in the work of the Zionist Organization, and was a member of the Actions Committee. He was editor of the Welt for the second time in the years 1906‒9, and has written many pamphlets.

The brothers Isaac and Boris Goldberg hold a specially distinguished place both in Russian Zionism and in the movement at large. Isaac Goldberg has made himself indispensable to all Zionist institutions, and has attained the highest repute in the Zionist Organization, and in Palestine. Boris Goldberg is a very influential member of the Actions Committee, with a thorough knowledge of all matters concerning Zionism and Palestine, and an important contributor to the Zionist press. He was a member of the Zionist Commission of Inquiry which visited Palestine five years ago.

J. Grazowski has written popular and useful books on general Jewish history, and has collaborated in a Hebrew dictionary. He is now in the service of the Anglo-Palestine Company at Jaffa.

Mordecai (Marcus) ben Hillel Ha’cohen was even in his early youth an excellent, versatile contributor to the Hebrew and Russian Press. Possessed of great vivacity and a humorous and enthusiastic disposition, an enlivening speaker, with the national idea deeply at heart, he has worked for Zionism, Hebrew and the national idea with considerable success. His writings in Ha’melitz, Ha’zefirah, Razswiet, and other papers and reviews, as well as his own pamphlets, the description of his journey to Palestine, and his reminiscences, written in a brilliant style, have won him a well-merited popularity. After working several years in the Chovevé Zion movement, and in the Zionist Organization, he settled in Palestine, where he is active as one of the most popular leaders of the Tel-Aviv community, and is particularly engaged in educational, communal and literary work.

Dr. William Herzberg (1827‒97), a highly educated writer and communal worker, who, though not writing in Hebrew, greatly influenced the movement, and his work was translated into Hebrew. He wrote the famous book, Judische Familienpapiere (1875‒6). This book made a stir in the Jewish scholastic world. Zacharias Frankel welcomed the book as a modern Kusari. It was only after some time that the identity of the author was discovered, for it was published under the nom de plume of Gustav Meinhardt. Perez Smolenskin was much inspired by the nationalist spirit of this phenomenal literary production, and translated the most important parts of it in the Haschachar (he had made it a rule not to publish any translation, but in this case departed from the rule). Herzberg intended to obtain a professorship in a German University, but, finding that this was impossible for a Jew, he contented himself with a professorship in the Gymnasium. He passed his probationary year in the Gymnasium of his native town, Stettin, but, when his final appointment was recommended by the Head Master, who was much impressed by the fine scholarship of the young teacher, the Minister of Education confirmed it cordially, on the supposition, however, that the candidate had embraced Christianity, as a Jew could not be appointed Professor in a Gymnasium. In 1877 he was induced by his friend, Professor Grätz, to accept the post of Director of the Agricultural School, Mikveh Israel, near Jaffa. Dr. Herzberg remained one year in this position and then accepted the Headmastership at the Von Laemel School at Jerusalem.

Isaac M. Hirschensohn, born in Russia, has rendered great services to the progress of the Jews in Palestine as a publisher, bibliophile and Talmudist. He advocates rabbinical ideas, in harmony with the national principle.

Dr. N. Katzenelsohn, of Libau, Russia, holds an important place in the history of Zionist organization. After having joined the Organization at one of the first Congresses, he soon became a prominent member, particularly in the domain of financial affairs and institutions. One of the devoted friends of Herzl, he accompanied him on his visit to Russia in 1903, and took part in some of his political efforts there. In 1905 he was appointed President of the Board of Directors of the Jewish Colonial Trust, and regularly gave his reports of the activities of this Institution, as well as of those of the A.P.C. at the Zionist Congresses. He visited Palestine in 1907, and particularly investigated the financial and economic situation of the country. He also accompanied Wolffsohn in the same year to Constantinople on a political mission. Dr. Katzenelsohn was a member of the First Russian Duma, and was for many years very active in the work of the I.C.A. for the emigration of the Russian Jews, a question on which he also submitted reports to the Zionist Congresses.

Dr. Jacob Kohan-Bernstein, of Kishinew, was one of the earliest of the Chovevé Zion. His speeches and appeals when he was in charge of the so-called “Post-Centre” were most effective in kindling Zionist enthusiasm. As a member of the Actions Committee he has occupied a high position in the movement.

The late Abraham Moses Luncz (1854‒1918), born in Russia, lived since his early youth in Palestine. He rendered great services to the exploration of the Holy Land from the historical, geographical and physiographical standpoint, by means of his guide-books for Palestine, his Palestine annuals, and his Jerusalem almanac.

Joseph Lurie was born in Russia, and became a prominent nationalist at the Berlin University. He settled later in Warsaw, where he was engaged in educational work, and afterwards edited a Zionist Yiddish weekly paper, published by the Achiasaf. After the suspension of this paper he lived for about two years in St. Petersburg, where he was assistant editor of the Fraind. Thence he went to Palestine, and became a teacher at the Jaffa Gymnasium. Some time afterwards he was elected President of the Union of Teachers (Agudath Ha’morim) of Palestine. He has not, however, given up his journalistic work. His articles on Palestine are unequalled for clearness of exposition and logical argument.

Rabbi Samuel Mohilever (1827‒1903), of Bialystok, wrote many appeals in favour of the Chovevé Zion movement. He was a lifelong adherent of the national cause, helped to promote colonization, and gave his unqualified adherence to the new Zionism. Even in very advanced age he was still a fighter in the forefront, travelling, preaching, collecting funds and generously spending his own means. At the outbreak of the pogroms in 1881, he took the Jewish refugees to Lemberg. Here he became acquainted with Sir Samuel Montagu (afterwards Lord Swaythling) and Laurence Oliphant, and he sought to win the former for the Palestinian colonization movement. On his return to Russia he called a conference at Warsaw and formed a Chovevé Zion Society. In the same year he undertook a journey to Paris to obtain, through the Grand Rabbin Zadoc Kahn and M. Erlanger, Baron Edmond de Rothschild’s support for the colonization movement. Returning again to Russia, he went on a propaganda tour, agitating in several towns in favour of Palestinian colonization. In 1885 he presided at the Kattowitz Conference. In 1890 he journeyed to the Palestinian colonies and witnessed the founding of the colony of Rechoboth.

Leo Motzkin was born in Russia and educated in Berlin. His intellectual versatility made him a leading personality in student circles and Jewish societies, particularly in the Zionist Organization. He soon attracted attention at the Congresses, and was delegated to proceed to Palestine and inquire into the condition of the colonies, on which he prepared a report. As a member of the Actions Committee, he took part in 1914 in a Commission consisting of Zionists appointed to inquire into the state of affairs in Palestine. He has also written valuable books and pamphlets on the Russo-Jewish problem.

Isaac Nissenbaum, born in Russia, lives in Warsaw, where he was one of the sub-editors of Ha’zefirah and a lecturer at the Zionist Synagogue. Though not a Rabbi, he belongs by virtue of his education, associations and the nature of his occupation to the Rabbinical world. A learned Talmudist, a powerful preacher and a prolific Hebrew writer, he has a worthy record in all these spheres.

Alfred Nossig, scientist, artist and journalist, was one of the first, perhaps the first in Galicia, to publish pamphlets in Polish in defence of Jewish nationalism. He has pursued a line of his own in Zionism, and from the point of view of the Zionist Organization his activities have often been open to criticism. But he deserves recognition, both as a man of letters and as a strenuous advocate of Palestinian colonization.

Daniel Pasmanik is a Russian Zionist who has done much propaganda work and proved himself a writer and journalist of extraordinary capability. His book Die Seele Israels (written in Russian and translated into German) is a noteworthy contribution to Zionist thought.

Jehiel Michael Pines (1842‒1912), born and educated in Russia, a Hebrew writer and Talmudist, was elected delegate to a conference held in London by the Association Mazkereth Mosheh for the establishment of charitable institutions in Palestine in commemoration of the name of Sir Moses Montefiore; in 1878 he was sent to Jerusalem to establish and organize such institutions. Thenceforward he lived in Palestine, working for the welfare of the Jewish community and interesting himself in the organization of Jewish colonies. In his Hebrew book, Yalde Ruchi, and particularly in Part I., Rib Ami (Mainz, 1872), he expounded the Jewish national idea. He was a contributor to all Hebrew periodical publications, especially to those in Palestine.

Samuel Poznanski pursued his studies at Berlin, and was already, as a young man, a rising representative of the Hebrew Revival. Having graduated, he returned to Poland, where he is now the Rabbi and Preacher of the Great Synagogue at Warsaw. His achievements in the field of Jewish scholarship are great and universally recognized. He has written many valuable books and treatises, all of which are the result of careful observation and patient study, and are distinguished by depth of thought. A devoted Hebraist, he contributes to Hebrew literature and the Press, and as a communal worker he has succeeded in counteracting destructive assimilationist tendencies by the advocacy of a sound traditional nationalism.

Rabbi Samuel Jacob Rabbinowitch, of Sopotkin (now in Liverpool), was first a Chovev Zion and early joined the Zionist Organization. His calm piety and gentle nature won him the hearts of all Zionists. He was for several years a member of the Zionist Actions Committee. He contributed a number of articles to Ha’melitz, which later were published under the title Ha’dat Weha’leumit (Warsaw, 1900). He has also written talmudic works.

Rabbi Isaac Jacob Reines (1839‒1915) was a great talmudic authority, author of halachic works, in which he taught the rigid application of logic to the solution of talmudic problems, and founder and principal of a modern Yeshivah (Rabbinical College) in Lida. He was an ardent Chovev Zion, and joined the Zionist movement, in which he became one of the most prominent workers, orators and propagandists. He occupied a high and influential position in orthodox Zionism, and was the founder of the orthodox Zionist section, Misrachi.

Rabbi Pinchas Rosowski, a great talmudic scholar and prominent Hebraist, was an enthusiastic Chovev Zion, and later a member of the Zionist Organization. He wrote articles inspired by the nationalist idea.

Jacob Saphir (1822‒86), a Russian Jew, who settled in Palestine, was not directly connected with the new colonization. He was commissioned by the Jewish community of Jerusalem to undertake a journey through the southern countries, in order to collect alms for the poor Palestinian Jews. In 1854 he made a second tour, visiting Yemen, British India, Egypt and Australia. The result of this journey was his Hebrew book Eben Saphir (vol. i., Lyck, 1866; Mayence, 1874), in which work he gave the history and a vivid description of the Jews in the above-mentioned countries. There is in his book a touch of Haskalah (Enlightenment) and even of national sentiment.

His grandson, Elie Saphir, who died a few years ago, was a conspicuous figure among the pioneers of the new colonization by virtue of his great knowledge, especially of the Arabic language and literature, and the laws and customs of the country. A man of keen judgment, he occupied the position of assistant-manager of the Anglo-Palestine Company at Jaffa. The leaders of financial and agricultural institutions were always eager to consult and confide in him. But he was essentially a scholar. His Hebrew writings, and particularly his last work Ha’arez—a physiographic and scientific examination of the conditions of Palestine—are of great value.

M. Smilanski, of Rechoboth, has one of the longest and best records of work in Hebrew literature. His writings on Palestinian colonization are as sound as his literary sketches are instructive.

A. Tannenbaum, of St. Petersburg, was an ardent Chovev Zion and an excellent Hebraist. Of his Hebrew writings, his study on “The Architecture of the Synagogues” (in the first volume of Knesseth Israel) is of enduring merit. This group strongly supported the local Chovevé Zion Society, which was of considerable importance. At that period Rosenfeld undertook with great courage and determination the propaganda in the first Razsweet, which, however, had to be suspended after a period of brilliant journalistic exploits in troublesome and stormy times (in the eighties), in which period the two years of that organization happened to fall. Later on, the late Salomon Grazenberg, a medical man of great knowledge and an ardent Zionist, whose articles were characterized by soundness of argument, took up the same work in a new Russian weekly paper, entitled Boudoushtshnost, which managed to exist a little longer.

Vladimir Temkin was one of the most important and, undoubtedly, the most popular champion of the Bilu. An idealist, an enthusiast, an attractive personality and a powerful speaker, he possessed a special gift for propaganda, and became one of the chief organizers of colonization in Palestine. He belonged to the Zionist Organization from its inception, was a prominent Congress representative and member of the Actions Committee, and is to-day one of the leading Zionists.

Davis Trietsch has not always found the appreciation he deserved. He has been frequently drawn into controversies and misunderstood owing to the support he has given to schemes which appeared to be impracticable and fantastic, but in ordinary circumstances would not have given rise to opposition. But he is a man of varied experience and untiring activity, and his advice has often been very useful. He lived for a couple of years in Palestine, where he grappled with many forms of industrial work; he has written books, pamphlets and articles, and is an indefatigable advocate of the idea of colonization. He has given a considerable impetus to the study of Palestine and to many practical ideas.

Semion Weissenberg worked hard with Berman and Temkin in the St. Petersburg Students’ Palestinophile Association, took part in the Odessa Chovevé Zion meetings, and later entered the Zionist Organization, of which he is a prominent member. His bent lies in the direction of work in connection with the Jewish problem in Russia.

David Yellin (1858), a son-in-law of J. M. Pines, is one of the most eminent Hebraists and educationists in Palestine. The Zionist idea captured him early in life and grew upon him during his many-sided literary and educational career. He has written the best text-books of the Hebrew language, based on the principle of the modern method Ibrith B’ibrith (Hebrew in Hebrew), and has thus helped to make Hebrew a living language. He has been teacher and principal of several Hebrew schools and of the seminary for the training of teachers. He has many connections in England, and is on the Montefiore foundations in Palestine.

In St. Petersburg Zionism has now gained a strong footing, owing to the steady efforts of the distinguished, devoted and indefatigable member of the Actions Committee, Israel Rosoff, Michael Aleinikow, the able and gifted Abraham Idelsohn, A. J. Rapaport, as well as of the very able and devoted workers S. S. Babkow, W. Grossmann, A. Goldstein, S. J. Janovski, A. Seidemann, M. Sachs, and others. As far as Nationalism is concerned the learned and talented historian, Shimon Dubnow, and the group of his followers, are undoubtedly most faithful adherents to this idea, and the same may unhesitatingly be also said of N. M. Friedmann, M. Ch. Bomesch and E. R. Gurevitch, the members of the Duma, and many other leading St. Petersburg Jews. The old Zionist leader, Gregor Belkovsky, a man of high standing in the Zionist Organization, who has already been mentioned, has for many years been very active, his influence being still as great as ever.

The number of the Chovevé Zion societies increased. They watched each other’s activities and emulated each other in brotherly devotion. The University groups were influenced by the literature and the press, as well as by the old leaders; and the old leaders were in their turn again stimulated by the ardour of the younger men. To return to the older Chovevé Zion societies and later Zionist societies, a few of the most important should be mentioned, as, for instance, the Odessa Group (or the Official Society), under the leadership of Pinsker, Achad Ha’am, M. L. Lilienblum, A. Grünberg (who was for some years President of the Society), Ch. Tschernowitz, L. Lewinski, Rawnitzki, S. N. Barbasch, A. E. Lubarski, Frankfeld, J. Klausner, M. Scheinkin, Ben Ami Rabinowitsch, and at a later period, Ussischkin, Bialik, S. A. Benzion-Guttmann, M. Kleinmann, Ch. Grinberg, and others. The Bialystok Group, with Rabbi Samuel Mohilewer, Dr. Chasanowitsch (who deserves an honoured place as a zealous pioneer of Nationalism and a great worker for the Hebrew revival in Palestine, and for his noble, almost life-long efforts for the purpose of establishing his Hebrew library, “Baith Neeman,” in Jerusalem) and Nissenbaum was of great importance during the lifetime of Rabbi Mohilewer and retained a great practical influence later, especially in consequence of the fact that the Bialystok Chovevé Zion themselves took a prominent part in various colonization schemes. The Warsaw Group had a principal leader in Isidore Jasinowski, a man of great sincerity, enthusiasm and love for the cause. An ardent Chovev Zion, he afterwards joined the Zionist movement, and, till the Territorialist split, remained devoted to the cause. The most energetic workers there were Schefer-Rubinoscitsch; J. M. Meyersohn; Eleasar Kaplan, who died recently and was an able and enterprising Nationalist, a most zealous worker, to whom great praise is due in connection with the Achiasaf and other Hebrew literary enterprises; W. Gluskin (one of the most notable workers and leaders), who joined with L. Kaplan in the foundation of the Achiasaf and Ha-Zofe, undertook afterwards the Directorship of the Palestine Wine Company, “Karmel,” and settled in Rishon L’Zion, in Palestine, where he is now one of the leaders of the new colonization); Stawski; Mates Cohn; Dr. Bychowski; Samuel Luria; Dr. T. Hindes (who lived some years in Palestine, and takes a useful part in the propaganda); M. M. Pros; M. Feldstein (the well-known Chovev Zion and supporter of the literary movement, a prominent member and representative of Zionist institutions); J. Lewite; Jacob Braude; Rafalkes; Ginzburg; Friedland; L. Davidsohn; and others.

All these important workers were afterwards active in the Zionist Organization. The development of Zionism gave a new impetus to the Palestine propaganda and to the national movement. The University movement, though most vigorous in other parts of the Russian Empire, had only few adherents in Poland. It is worthy of note that Dr. Zamenhof, the inventor of Esperanto, was, during a certain period of his university career, a Jewish Nationalist of great zest, and a contributor to Rosenfeld’s Razsweet. Meierowitz, the old Bilu pioneer, as well as the pioneer Freimann, came from Warsaw; Mekler, Elie Margulies, Manson (who died young) were the most prominent Chovevé Zion among the Warsaw students in the eighties. Only with the new Zionist Organization a strong movement of a local character came into being with adherents who were natives of the country, and this resulted in the production of literature and a Press in the native tongue. In this respect, the activity of the late Jan Kirszrot was very helpful. A great idealist, an honestly and deeply convinced Zionist, who had been brought to the cause out of assimilated surroundings, a worker of the most generous impulses, and a writer par excellence in the Polish language (like many other young Zionists of assimilated education he had acquired the knowledge of Hebrew), he worked side by side with the gifted and devoted Isaac Grunbaum, who became in later years a prominent leader, a publicist of excellent abilities and a worker of great intellectual integrity; also with the zealous Nahum Syrkin, whose significant activities extended over a large sphere, with the remarkable, energetic, indefatigable worker Leon Lewite, with the keen, persistent and conscientious Zelig Weizmann, the graceful and judicious S. Seidemann, the sound and forceful Isaac Gruenbaum, the talented and consistent Hartglass (for a certain period), the keen and learned Shimon Rundstein, the intellectual and devoted Julian Kaliski, and a number of other young writers and organizers—in connection with older Zionists and men of letters, and together with the general Zionist Organization, particularly with the younger and more progressive element. They had founded a Nationalist group “Safroth,” issued a Zionist weekly in Polish (Prgyszlose), and published a very interesting miscellany in that language. Kirszrot’s life of devotion to the highest ideals and his brilliantly youthful career were unhappily cut short by the hand of death.

But the University nationalist Jewish movement had begun. A change was in process, the extensive scope of which was scarcely noticed by the representatives of Assimilation, to whom it seemed that the small group of students and intellectuals consisted merely of visionaries and dreamers. Yet there obtained in this apparently insignificant group a vitality which was destined to become a powerful factor in the life of Polish Jewry. The evolution of this young movement was the result of the whole Zionist movement, the rapid growth of Jewish cultural life, of Jewish education, of the Jewish literature and press, of which all Warsaw had become a very important centre. At that period we see already the influential Zionist leaders busy with great Zionist work. Zionism, the Hebrew Revival, national education, the defence of Jewish interests and of the national principle in communal affairs, now engaged the attention and support of the generous, experienced, and beloved Abraham Podliszewski, of the acute and energetic H. Farbstein, of the thorough and dignified Dr. Poznanski, of the calm and pacific Dr. Mintz, of the strong, vigilant and inflexible Isaac Gruenbaum, the devoted and popular Nissenbaum, Dr. Klumel, Olschwanger, M. I. Freid, Dr. Hindes, Horodischtsch, Dunajewski, Dr. Gottlieb, Zabludowski, the educational worker and excellent Hebraist S. L. Gordon, and of many others. In this camp we meet again all the Chovevé Zion of bygone days.The same development took place at Lodz, where the able, eloquent Dr. Jelski, Dr. Silberstrom and others had long been at work, and where afterwards a strong Zionist group, with the esteemed and influential Dr. M. Braude as guide and leader, was doing most useful work. In Minsk we find working in the Chovevé Zion movement Joshua Syrkin, the man of faith and energy, whose mind is well stored with treasures of Hebrew literature, and here we also meet with the zealous Neifach, the late Rabbi Chaneles, and the eminently able Wilbuschewitsch family. We come again across them later in Zionism together with the active Zionist workers Kaplan, Churgin, Berger and others. In Pinsk at the Chovevé Zion period, Eisenberg, Rosenbaum, Hiller, Naiditsch, Pinchas Breymar, J. Breyman, L. Berger, Maslanski were the leaders. The aged Reb Dowidel (Friedmann), the great Talmudist, pious and saintly, supported the Movement and took part in the Kattowitz Conference. Among them we can trace Naiditsch, now of the Actions Committee; Eisenberg, the great authority on colonization—in Rechoboth, Palestine; Maslanski, the powerful preacher at New York; Weizmann, a member of the Inner Actions Committee, and S. Rosenbaum, the lawyer, the member of the First Duma, and Lithuanian statesman, who proved his worth during many years as member of the Actions Committee, as legal adviser, as representative of several Zionist institutions, as a great worker in the Organization, and as a defender of Zionism in Russia. In Wilna, the late S. J. Finn, and his son the late Dr. Finn, Joseph Gurland, Ch. L. Markon, Triwusch, Gordon (who settled later on in Palestine), Miriam Zalkind, who founded the Society of the “Daughters of Zion”; Lewanda, Fischel Pines, who attended the Kattowitz Conference; Ben-jakob, Isaac Goldberg, Boris Goldberg, Neuschul and others very early took an interest in the Chovevé Zion movement. In the Zionist Organization, Wilna at a certain period was the centre of activity, from the point of view of organization, propaganda and press. Ben-jakob did good work for the Jewish Colonial Trust, Neuschul is a thorough and devoted Nationalist. Among those in Wilna who succeeded in rising to the height of national importance, doing at the same time great national work of a general character, and useful, indispensable local work in Russia, belong the two excellent and distinguished Zionists: Isaac and Boris Goldberg.

The influence of these Russian and Polish enthusiasts soon spread further. Mention has already been made of the Kadimah of the Vienna University and of Nathan Birnbaum, one of its leaders. Others of its prominent members were: Dr. N. T. Schnierer, the physician, scholar and editor, who was a highly respected member of the First Zionist Actions Committee; the gifted brothers Marmorek, supporters of Herzl and his political Zionism; Schalit, who represented the sympathetic, real Viennese type; the very capable and devoted Werner, who became later one of the secretaries of Herzl and editor of the Welt; the well-known polemical journalist, S. R. Landau; the reserved and learned Berkovitsch; the energetic and faithful Alkalai of Serbia, who has been a member of the Actions Committee since the inception of the Zionist Organization;⁠¹ the devoted worker, M. Moscowitz of Roumania, who was a member of the Actions Committee (he recently died in Palestine, where he was physician of the colony Rechoboth); the enthusiast, Caleff of Bulgaria; Erwin Rosenberger, and many others from different countries.

The similarity of their views on Jews and Judaism brought them more and more closely together, and they soon agreed that the fundamental views of the higher-educated Jews of the time were in need of a change, and that a vigorous attack against the theory of assimilation prevailing among Western European Jews would have to take place. They clearly realized that the lever ought to be applied to the academical youth, not only because those circles were nearest to them, but because in their midst the assimilation theory had found most adherents. The assumption seemed justified that the academical youth once converted would propagate the national Jewish idea with all the fire of its enthusiasm and authority among the largest strata of the population. These few young men soon obtained a small addition of courageous fellow-combatants, and a phalanx was at once formed which undertook the foundation of an academic Jewish national union. Their aspirations met with powerful support and advancement from a man whose name shines in golden letters in the history of Jewish literature—Perez Smolenskin. A profound judge of the human soul, an even more thorough investigator of the Jewish national psyche, he at the same time wielded in a masterly way the language of the prophets. He had fought for years in numerous writings, and particularly in his monthly publication Hashahar, against the dissolving tendencies and for the nationalization of Judaism with all the brilliancy of his mind and all the sharpness of his caustic satire. How welcome to him must have been the small band of Jewish university students who undertook to carry his ideas into practical life and to make them the common property of the Jewish academical youth. Until his death Smolenskin was to them a kind and wise leader. Among many other obligations, the Union owes him its name.

At the beginning of the summer term of 1882 there appeared for the first time upon the notice-board of the Vienna University an appeal of a Jewish national society, addressed to the corporation of Jewish students. The sensation produced by this appeal was extraordinary. The Christian students shook their heads incredulously, while most Jewish students poured out upon the innovators a flood of scorn and ridicule. And not only the students but the middle-classes, the official representatives of Judaism, opposed the Kadimah most mercilessly. It was a contest of all against a few. But the few went on, calm and undismayed; engrossed by the magnitude of the idea for which they fought, they unswervingly pursued their aim. The Kadimaner propagated the Jewish national ideal by innumerable lectures, meetings and publications. Their number increased constantly, and by and by a specific Jewish national student life developed at Vienna University, which began to throb with increased intensity when the Kadimah, compelled by the conditions of the Vienna University, was transformed into a fighting, “duel-bound” association. People may hold different opinions about duelling at most Western European Universities, but one thing must be admitted, namely, that it has had a favourable influence upon the physical development of the Jewish young manhood, and that the duelling Jewish student corporation gained the esteem of its Christian colleagues. Partly through this transformation and partly through the growing propagation of the national ideal among the Jewish students, the number of Jewish national academical unions was gradually increased. One association after another came into existence: “Unitas,” “Ivria,” “Gamala,” “Libanonia,” “Hasmonäa,” and others; so that there exists at the present day, at nearly every university at which Jewish students study, a Jewish national student association.

Old Assimilants looked upon this movement at first as a farce. Certainly no one at that time anticipated that the mainsprings of new life perceptible in many different places would soon become a powerful source of cleansing and reviving Judaism. As the preparatory work for creating a clearer conception of things was at first confined to groups of such young men, most opponents looked upon it as a pastime only fit for young, inexperienced schoolboys. Meanwhile, the movement continued to make rapid progress. At the end of the eighties there existed an important association in Berlin, which was at first somewhat theoretical in character, but very soon afterwards became a sister society of the Vienna Association, taking also the name of Kadima. In this organization we come across a great number of workers whose names are inseparably bound up with the history of the Zionist Organization and with Jewish national literature in all languages.

The large number of young men who have been associated with the Jewish National Students’ Association at Berlin would make a list too long for detailed enumeration. But the following must specially be mentioned:⁠—

Shemaryah Levin was born in Russia. He is an enthusiastic nationalist, a good Hebrew scholar, and as an exceptionally effective speaker he attained considerable popularity already as a young student. He lectured on Hebrew literature and attracted much attention. Having graduated, he returned to Russia, and was Rabbi in Grodno. Later, he lived for some time in Warsaw, where he devoted himself to Hebrew literary work in connection with Achiasaf, and possessing great mastery over the Hebrew language, he wrote books and pamphlets of great value. Since then he has contributed to numerous Hebrew reviews. Some time afterwards he was Rabbi in Ekaterinoslaw and Wilna, and was elected a member of the first Russian Duma, where he distinguished himself as a most able speaker and worker. Then he left Russia and settled abroad. Already as a youth he was most active in the Chovevé Zion movement; later he took a prominent part in the Zionist Organization, and is now a member of its Small Actions Committee and one of the most influential leaders. An excellent orator, closely attached to Palestine, where he has lived for a considerable time, a plodding worker, he has for some years been busily engaged in propaganda work in Europe and America.

Victor Jacobsohn was born in Russia, and brought up from his infancy in an intensely assimilated (Russianized) environment. His father was a judge at Simferopol, but the son became irresistibly drawn towards Jewish nationalism. He was much influenced by the Berlin Students’ Group. An accomplished young man, of splendid literary taste, a lover of fine art, thoroughly impressed with the righteousness of the national cause, he soon became one of the leaders among the students. After having graduated, he returned to Russia, where he took a large and active share in the Chovevé Zion movement, and took up the Zionist Movement from the time of its inauguration. He was very soon elected member of the Actions Committee, but, apart from his work for the Organization as a whole, he was, when still in Russia, a steady and successful local worker. He then moved to the East, living in Palestine and in Constantinople, where he devoted himself entirely to Zionist work, both financial and political. Being a business man as well as a man of letters, a political thinker as well as an able financier, he has become one of the most influential Zionist leaders. He is a member of the Small Actions Committee.

Chaim Weizmann, who was born in Russia, was already in his boyhood very active in the young Chovevé Zion movement. During his studies at the Charlottenburg Polytechnic he took a leading part in the Berlin Jewish National Students’ Association. Of amiable and genial disposition, a pleasant and persuasive speaker, inseparably bound up with the deep national affection and humour of the Jewish home in Russia, young Weizmann soon gained great popularity among his fellow-students. Later he came into great and well-merited prominence at the Zionist Congresses and Conferences. With Feiwel, Buber and others he was most active in the Students’ propaganda, and during his visits to Russia took a prominent part in the propaganda there. Having graduated, he went to Switzerland, and was soon appointed Lecturer of Chemistry at the Geneva University, where he became the central figure of the West Zionist Group. About that time he, with Feiwel, Buber and others, conceived the idea of a Jewish University. At the Basle Congress in 1901 the Actions Committee had included the question of the establishment of a Palestine University in their programme, and Herzl took steps to obtain a concession for the University from the Turkish Government; but, in consequence of the pressure of other problems, this project was lost sight of for some years. The movement in favour of this idea, however, continued to develop, and its inception as well as its popularity is due to Weizmann more than to any other Zionist. The general Zionist activity of Weizmann grew from one Congress to another. He was elected member of the Actions Committee and of several important Zionist institutions. He has been living in England for some years now, occupying a chair in the faculty of chemistry at the Manchester University and taking a leading part in the English Zionist Federation. (The new University Scheme, and Weizmann’s activity in this direction, are described elsewhere.)

Leo Motzkin, Berthold Feiwel, Martin Buber and Joseph Lurie, also prominent in this circle, have already been mentioned.

In the Berlin group we also come across Isidor Eliaschew, a refined critic of great artistic culture, an important contributor to Jewish literature—mostly in Yiddish. His talents and information are of the most varied character, for he is the author of charmingly written essays, studies, monographs and sketches extending over a wide sphere of thought. He occupied a leading position in the radical wing of Zionism and among the literary workers of the Renaissance. We also come across Soskin, a clear-minded, enterprising and practical Zionist, a young man of wonderful foresight and an agricultural engineer of renown; further, Berman, whose studies were concentrated on colonizing work. Both of them went to Palestine later, and supervised colonization work there, acquiring in that way much valuable information and experience, which they recorded in various instructive books. We also find there Nachman Syrkin, the radical propagandist, the leader of the Zionist-Socialists; the able and cautious Estermann; Elie Davidsohn, who took a prominent part in discussing the open controversy between the various sections; Wilenski, an active and enthusiastic worker of considerable influence, first abroad and later in Russia; Mirkin, powerful, energetic and highly respected; Meschorer, determined and broad-minded, who, though not identifying himself with the Organization, worked hard in Warsaw when first the propaganda for securing capital for the Jewish Colonial Trust was set on foot, and died recently; Grigory Wilbuschewitsch, one of the family of energetic enthusiasts for and in Palestine; Salkind of Minsk; Kunin, a loyal and devoted worker; Pevsner, who worked zealously; and—last, but not least—Ch. D. Gurevitsch, the excellent Hebrew writer and essayist, novelist and publicist, a contributor to the Hebrew and Yiddish Press, a learned economist who was particularly interested in introducing his economic programme into Zionism, who expounded the idea in a lecture he delivered at a Conference of Russian Zionists held at Minsk in 1902. Then there were also Davis Trietsch and Ephraim Lilien, who have already been mentioned.

In course of time the movement spread steadily and systematically. Similar associations were soon founded in Heidelberg, Munich, Leipzig, Königsberg, Breslau, Berne, Zurich, Geneva, Lauzanno, Montpellier and Galicia.

The Jewish University students, particularly those hailing from Russia, pursued their studies at different universities, often passing from one to another. We, therefore, find some of them changing their places and activities in the Movement. For this reason it is impossible to follow a precisely geographical or chronological course.

At Heidelberg, Joseph Klausner and Saul Tschernichewski were already active before the First Zionist Congress took place. Loeb Jaffe of Grodno, who combined idealism with practical astuteness, wrote emotional Zionist poetry, and at the same time did organization work perhaps more than any other Jewish student who happened to be at Heidelberg. Later he became a great Zionist worker, organizer, editor and member of the Actions Committee in Russia. Gurland of Wilna, Eliasberg of Pinsk, Feitlowitsch, J. Melnik, Blumenfeld and others were the pioneers of the Zionist idea who had rallied around Professor Herman Schapiro, that venerable and cherished veteran, who, aided by his devoted wife, made his home a rendezvous of the local Zionist group. In Munich, the intellectual and kind-hearted brothers Strauss, members of an old noble Jewish family, worked together with G. Halpern, who during his University career had already distinguished himself by his great talents, and who was a good economist, a journalist of great skill, and a devoted Zionist worker. At a later period he was elected member of the Actions Committee. Lew, Izkovitsch, Abramowitsch and Nemzer may be mentioned among others. The last-named had greatly endeared himself to his fellow-students by his sincerity and warm-heartedness. He died very young, in Riga (1906), in a tragic way, a martyr’s death. At Leipzig there was also Loeb Jaffe, working with the devoted Kunin, who became in the last few years one of the pioneer workers in Palestine, as manager of Medjdel; and also Gurland, the engineering student at Mitwreida, as well as others.

It is interesting to glance back upon the various stages of propaganda in order to discover how the Russian Jews influenced their brethren abroad, how Zionism infused new life into the older Chovevé Zion movement, and how the present important representatives of new Zionism gradually appeared upon the scene and took up so strong a position.

A little society for the support of Palestine colonization was already in existence in Berlin as recently as 1871, but there seems to be little on record about it. At the beginning of the eighties there was a venerable, orthodox Rabbi, Dr. Israel Hildesheimer, assisted by his son Hirsch, together with some other members, notably the philanthropist S. Lachmann, Willy Bambus, a devoted Zionist, who travelled in Palestine, and has published many pamphlets and articles, and in connection with a Chovevé Zion of Russia, M. Turow, took an important part in the Chovevé Zion movement, and the late Moses of Kattowitz. We read already, in Dr. Rülf’s appeal of 1882: “Do not divide us; take us to places where we can live together, remain together, and work together as a united community, arranged like any other human society, where we may be Jews, without being interfered with” (this circular was issued in English by Haim Guedalla), and that is a trumpet-call of Zionism. Rülf, the Rabbi of Memel, was a man of genius and thoroughness, who was well known for his talent as an author of philosophical works, a theologian, preacher, and above all a noble character: he afterwards took part in the Zionist Movement and in the Congress. In 1884, a society for the support of a Jewish colonization in Palestine, called “Esra,” was founded in Berlin. In Cologne a Chovevé Zion group was established through the efforts of David Wolffsohn, Dr. M. Bodenheimer, Rubensohn and others. The Jewish National Students’ Association, consisting first almost exclusively of foreigners, gradually attracted the best elements of the local Jewish youth. One of the first and foremost was H. Löwe, a young man of great enthusiasm and energy, of vigorous eloquence, who travelled in Palestine and appeared at the First Congress as a delegate from Jaffa.

Arthur Friedemann, an able student, a member of an old and honoured family; Gronemann, the son of a respected Rabbi, a brilliant student and an excellent Jew; Klee, a keen propagandist and attractive speaker; Jungmann, a humorous, attractive and talented writer; Hantke, who distinguished himself by profound honesty of purpose and love of detail, and as a highly gifted, indefatigable and successful organizer; Jeremias, a faithful adherent to the movement (he died recently); Elias and Israel Auerbach, who possessed, besides their noble Jewish national aspirations, the most excellent literary gifts; Zlozisti, a fine writer and a poet full of wit and humour; Kalmus, a quiet, steady and enthusiastic Zionist worker; Sandler, an eminently able young scholar; Kollenscher, a strong political Zionist; Chamitzer, a faithful and zealous adherent of the Organization; the late Pell, an eminent propagandist and organizer; Leszynski, a quiet, persistent and conscientious member of the party; Witkowsky, an intelligent and active supporter; Oscar Levy; Emil Cohn, an eminently able theologian; Goldberg, a determined worker in the Organization; Edelstem; A. Wiener, a wholehearted, ardent worker; and at a later period, Gideon Heymann, a young man of burning zeal and considerable attainments; Blumenfeld, a propagandist of great eloquence and literary talents; Brunn, Hildesheimer and other medical men, steady workers, who devoted themselves to medical work in Palestine; Salomon, the brothers Treidel, Biram, a studious and very clever pedagogical worker, who recently was engaged together with Tachauer in Haifa, Löwenberg in Jerusalem, and others in national educational work; Richard Lichtheim, a gifted adherent to the cause; Rosenblüth, an able worker; Weinberg; Goitein (the latter died recently), who assisted in the work of the Palestinian Office, and many others—all of them took part in the University movement.

We find most of them joining in later years the Zionist Organization, which was in course of time supported by a representation of the older generation. Otto Warburg, botanist, author and professor, was an active member of the “Esra” for a long time. He then joined the Zionist Organization, and placed his great scientific knowledge at the service of the Movement, especially for the purpose of colonization work. Simple-minded, of high integrity and unassuming, he worked with a quiet determination and an intense love of Palestine. He edited Palästina, Altneuland, founded the Palestine Land Development Company, was elected member of the Small Actions Committee and succeeded David Wolffsohn in 1911. Hantke, so devout in national aspirations and with such great capacity for organization, and an exceptional record of local work for some years, entered the Small Actions Committee at the same time. Dr. Bodenheimer, one of the oldest and most prominent Zionists, was an excellent practical worker in the management of the Jewish National Fund. Dr. Oppenheimer, the famous economist, gave a great impetus to co-operative work in Palestine. Dr. Ruppin, a man of great learning, high intelligence, wonderful energy, and an exceptionally active administrator, had the largest share in the management of practical work in Palestine, and a considerable record of literary work in connection with the problems of colonization. And in the work of organization Julius Simon proved an eminent worker; likewise Dr. Moses, an experienced Zionist; H. Schachtel, indefatigable in important work; Hermann Struck; Wagner, a splendid worker, the well-known painter and Zionist worker of high religious sentiment, and Dr. Frank, the leader of the “Misrachi.”

A similar development took place in all other countries. The revival among the Jewish students at the Swiss universities commenced in the eighties, and there again we come across many who in later years have achieved leading positions in literature, in the Zionist Organization, or in educational and practical work in Palestine. Among the names of note at the Bern University we may mention: Mossensohn, Bogratschow, Jacob Rabinovitscz, Metman-Cohn, Jochelmann, Aron Michael, Boruchow, Isaac, Loeb Boruchowitsch, J. Becker, Chissin, Glikson, Rabin, Salkind, Melamed, Klazkin, Bernstein, Seleger, Robinsohn, Marschak, Meir Pines and many others; in Geneva: Weizmann, Harari, M. and Mme. Aberson, Grunblatt, Stupnitzki, and later Daniel Pasmanik, Ben Ami Rabinowitsch, and others; in Zurich: David Farbstein, Felix Pinkus, Mlle. Reines (later Mme. Davidsohn); in Basle: Ezekiel Wortsmann—and many others.

Switzerland, the favourite place of students and political international workers, became of course a great centre of intellectual Zionist activity. The circumstance that the First Zionist Congress, as well as most of the following ones, took place in Switzerland, contributed much to the importance of this centre. The number of Jewish students from Eastern Europe, particularly owing to the great facilities with regard to university studies in Switzerland at that time in comparison with other countries, has for some time been very considerable. The pressure occasioned by the exceptional restrictions, which interfered with Jewish education in Russia, caused a steady increase in this number, while, as a natural and psychological effect, the baseness and injustice of the restrictions awakened in the Jewish young men a consciousness of their real position and of the necessity for a radical solution. It was there that the battles were fought between the young, enthusiastic champions of the different movements: Socialists, Bundists and various schools of Zionism, conservative, radical, political, practical, etc.

All the aforementioned pioneers could be found at work at those different periods, and afterwards. To mention only a few of them, Weizmann’s activities had considerably developed when in Geneva; Mossensohn, a man of striking individuality and an orator of renown, was a most active propagandist, thoroughly nationalist; he became afterwards professor and subsequently director of the Hebrew Gymnasium at Jaffa; Metman-Cohn and Bogratschow, both widely read and fine scholars, also Marschak and Harari did much to cause a great revival of Hebrew in Palestine; Rabin is a pedagogical worker who did good work in Palestine and Russia; A. U. Boruchow, pre-eminent among Zionist intellectuals, took a conspicuous part in the Poale-Zion movement; Chissin distinguished himself in practical work in Palestine; Klazkin, Boruchowitsch, Melamed and Bernstein are well-known Hebrew writers, most gifted and very active, and regarded as important in the Zionist Movement; Aberson was well known as a smart disputant and propagandist; Stupnitzki is a thoughtful Yiddish publicist; J. Becker, who really belongs to the Berlin group, has for many years been most actively engaged in the Movement, he has been editor of the Welt and has published many reports of the Congresses; in the same direction, and of a similar character, was the activity of Pinkus; Jochelman joined, after years of useful and honest Zionist work, the Territorialist movement, of which he is one of the leaders; Wortsmann is an arduous Zionist writer of inexhaustible energy. David Farbstein of Warsaw was one of the most prominent pioneers. A very learned and discreet lawyer, with a mind stored with useful information, and a good Hebrew scholar, he was highly appreciated at the First Congress, and was able to give valuable legal advice in matters appertaining to financial questions. Daniel Pasmanik developed considerable activity at a later epoch and devoted himself with exceptional sincerity to propaganda work; as a writer and journalist of extraordinary capabilities and of great vivacity, he became an invaluable contributor to the Zionist press, particularly in Russia. Lastly, we must mention the Montpellier group, with its leaders: Mohilewer, Kalwaryjski, Buchmil, Mlle. Imas (later Mme. Buchmil), Einhorn, Katzmann, Miss Ginsberg (later Mme. Krause), and others.

Old Zionists will remember what a significant impression the appearance of the Montpellier delegates created at the First Congress. Later experiences confirmed this favourable impression. Kalwaryjski is now successfully engaged as manager of the Rothschild Colonies in Upper Galilee, in Palestine; Mohilewer, the grandson of Rabbi Samuel Mohilewer, worthily upholds the traditions of his family, and occupies the post of a capable communal Rabbi in Bialystok; Buchmil is engaged in propaganda; Katzmann did good work in America, where he lives; and Einhorn, an excellent agricultural engineer and a fine Hebraist, has written a very useful book on this subject.

In Galicia, the Movement can be traced back to the early eighties, and it was closely connected with the Vienna Kadima. Some of the Galicians belonged to different groups in Germany, Switzerland and other countries. In later years the Universities of Lemberg and Cracow became great centres of the Jewish national movement. Ruben Bierer belonged to the founders of the Kadima, also Birnbaum, who is a Galician. Practically most of the Vienna Kadima students were Galicians, and also a certain number of the Berlin Kadima. To the most distinguished Zionist leaders belongs Mordecai Braude of Lemberg, who graduated at Freiburg, was Rabbi at Stanislau, and only missed by a small minority being elected to the Austrian Diet. He is now Rabbi and Preacher at the Great Synagogue in Lodz, Poland. A man of learning and high character, he showed immense capacity for Zionist work, as also in his rabbinical career.

Stand, Korkis, Zipper, Rabbi Schmelkes, Malz, Schiller (living in Palestine), Thon, Wahrhaftig, Hausmann, Waschitz, Emil Reich, Silbermann, Kornhäuser, Reis, Waldmann, Schorr, Zimmermann, Samuel Rapaport, Balaban and many others—now important Zionist workers—were mostly influenced by the University movement. Stand has a fine record as a brilliant Zionist and politician. He, with Mahler, Straucher and the late Gabel, formed a Jewish National Club, composed of members of the Austrian Parliament. As a political speaker he always strove to spread the truth concerning the Jewish situation in all its purity and strength. Alfred Nossig, mentioned already in another connection, also came from Galicia.

Although Zionism played an important part in Western Europe, Russia has yet always been the most important centre of Zionist propaganda. The penetration of Zionism into University circles began, naturally enough, in that country, where Jewish life is so real, where the knowledge of the Hebrew language and of the national past is so widely diffused, and where the persecutions have always been so strongly felt. There were several centres of the movement; but, while one of those centres was considered the foremost as far as national aspirations were concerned, and others in other directions, there was one that seemed the most prominent from the beginning, and which seemed destined to rank far above the others, namely, Charkow.

A Chovevé Zion group was founded at Charkow in 1882, which was the Bilu—mostly composed of University students. Israel Belkind, the most zealous, true-hearted and indefatigable worker, was one of the first leaders; this group was in connection with another Chovevé Zion Society, which was at that time already in existence in Krementhsug, of which David Levontin (now Managing Director of the Anglo-Palestine Company), one of the first Chovevé Zion of Russia, and one of the first pioneers in Palestine, was the President. The latter Society was in touch with David Gordon in Lyck, and with some other societies which were already in existence in various parts of Russia. They were also in touch with Jehiel Brill, the editor of the Ha-Lebanon, and with M. Pines of Rishnoi. The banker Karassik in Charkow was the Treasurer of the Bilu Society. Joseph Feinberg, an intellectual communal worker and a good linguist, who had graduated in chemistry in Switzerland, was at the time in touch with Dr. Mandelstamm, in Kiew, who was greatly interested in the movement. The Bilu Society sent twenty propagandists all over Russia, with the result that 525 members joined. The central office was in Charkow. The Society eventually came into touch with Dr. N. Adler, Sir Moses Montefiore and Laurence Oliphant. An office was opened in Odessa and another in Constantinople, where an Appeal was issued (see Appendix LXXIX., “The Manifesto of the Bilu (1882)”). After a meeting in January, 1882, Levontin and Feinberg were sent to Palestine for the purpose of purchasing land. The negotiations with Oliphant, who was at that time in Constantinople, having fallen through, the representatives of the Bilu addressed themselves directly to the Ottoman Government, and were received by the Grand Vezir. And Levontin and Feinberg, having found some suitable plots of land in the South of Palestine, negotiated with the Bedouins for the purchase of them.

In June, 1882 (the 7th of Tammus), the first Bilu party, consisting of fourteen persons (among whom was one girl, Debora, the sister of Israel Belkind, now the wife of Dr. Chissin), and later joined by further six persons, arrived in Palestine. Grave difficulties arose, however, in connection with the formalities for the purchase of the land. Meanwhile, a number of new pioneers had arrived also from Roumania.

In Roumania, in 1882, the Zion Society at Galatz had voted ten thousand francs towards the project of the colonization of Palestine. At Jassy a committee, comprised of the most influential members of the Jewish community, was formed to collect subscriptions for the same object. The Palestine Colonization Society at Berlad sent a delegate to the Holy Land to confer with the Governor on the question as to the purchase of land. The office of the Central Committee of the Society for Promoting Jewish Emigration from Roumania (preferably to Palestine) was in Galatz, under the control of M. Samuel Pineles. The President was (in 1882) M. Isaac Löbel, and M. Abeles at Galatz, M. Neuschotz at Jassy, M. Marco Schein, L. Goldberg, Dr. L. Lippe, M. Mattes and M. Weinberg. Dr. Moses Gaster, at that time a young but influential man, strongly supported the movement. On the 4th May, 1882, a general meeting was held at Jassy concerning the Palestine Colonization Scheme. Laurence Oliphant was the central figure of this assembly, and power of attorney was given him by the Committee to negotiate on their behalf at Constantinople. It was also resolved to send a commission to Palestine to purchase land (E. Cohn, Helman, Denirerman). At that period there were forty-nine Palestinian societies in Roumania. A new Society was founded: “The Advanced Guard” (“Chaluzei Yessod Ha-Maala”) (see Appendix XCI.: “The Advanced Guard”), with David Levontin as President, F. M. Halsoferes, Treasurer, A. N. Hillel, A. Lande, S. Sogrisebas of Roumania, as members, and later on S. A. Schulman as Secretary.

At this period Mr. Moore was the British Consul at Jerusalem, and M. Hayman Amzulak, a respected Jaffa citizen, was British Consular Agent at Jaffa. The Chovevé Zion expected great help from England. M. Amzulak, who was himself a Jew, took a keen interest in the movement and, evidently encouraged by Mr. Moore, went to Constantinople for the purpose of helping to surmount the difficulties. Unfortunately, the war in Egypt had just broken out, and owing to the strained diplomatic relations between Britain and Turkey in consequence of the occupation of Egypt, the moment did not prove opportune for the intentions of M. Amzulak and Laurence Oliphant. It looked as if in that way nothing could be done. At last 3300 Dunan were bought at Rishon, but new funds were much needed. M. Amzulak was elected Honorary President of the “Advanced Guard,” and appeals were sent to England. Meanwhile new groups, which despatched their envoys to several countries, were formed. In April, 1882, M. Hirsch Braun and M. Isaac Temkin of Elizabethgrad, Russia, proceeded to Vienna, Paris and London on behalf of 150 families of Elizabethgrad, comprising nine hundred persons in all, who had raised a fund of thirty thousand roubles for the purpose of migrating to Palestine. But this plan and similar schemes were still in an undeveloped stage, while the Bilu business, which had already been started, was really pressing. The Company wanted a loan of thirty thousand francs. In 1883 M. Feinberg was delegated to go abroad to get this loan. He went first to Vienna, where the Chovevé Zion Society (called “Ahirath Zion”), with Perez Smolenskin, Dr. Schnirer and Kremenezky was already in existence. M. Feinberg was introduced to various committees which promised contributions, provided the Paris Chovevé Zion would head the list. M. Feinberg went to Paris holding letters of introduction from the former teacher, Professor Herman Schapiro, to M. Zadoc Cahn, the Grand Rabbin of France, and was well received by the French rabbi, who got him in touch with M. Michel Erlanger. In that way he was introduced to the Alliance Israélite, and to Baron Edmond de Rothschild, and succeeded in getting the required loan.

This was practically the first colonization experiment of Jewish immigrants. The die was cast. The nucleus of colonization by immigrants had been formed. This pioneer group naturally could not remain very long in that place, because it was badly suited for that purpose. There were no means, skill, method, or experience. Great privation was endured. The little group soon found itself in a deplorable condition; some of them, overwhelmed by hardships, anxiety, disappointment and despair, had to leave; but the “survival of the fittest” prevailed. Some went to Mikveh Israel, where they worked as farm labourers, others to Katra, twenty-five miles south-west of Jaffa, where M. Pines had bought some three hundred Dunam of land for them. But the fact remains that these students and idealists were the first in the field as Palestinian colonizers. The present writer had the moral satisfaction to meet survivors of these pioneers in Palestine six years ago: the old-experienced settlers, M. Tschernow in Rishon L’Zion and M. Leibowitz in Katra, and Israel Belkind, the most enthusiastic worker—all three veterans of the struggle for the survival on the land.

But all these difficulties only stimulated the efforts of other new pioneers. The Bilu stirred up the enthusiasm of all noble-minded Jewish students at the Russian Universities.

(2) Modern Hebrew Literature

The necessarily brief outline in the text may be supplemented by some account of the principal figures in Hebrew literature during the last generation. The names are in alphabetical order.

Ben-Avigdor (Schalkowitsch, 1866), born in Warsaw, was Secretary of the Bnei Mosheh, for some years assistant manager of the Publication Society, Achiasaf, and founded in 1897 the new Publication Company, Tushiah, which has published hundreds of new Hebrew books, particularly in the domain of education. His idea was to create a popular Hebrew literature, and he has greatly stimulated Hebrew writing and Hebrew education. He is himself a successful and prolific Hebrew novelist.

S. Benzion (Gutman), born in Russia, has done important literary and pedagogical work in Odessa, and during the last few years in Palestine. He is one of the best Hebrew writers of our time; his stories are remarkable for beauty, charm and vividness of language. He has contributed to many Hebrew reviews and newspapers, and has co-operated in the publication of Achiasaf, Tushiah, and Moriah, chiefly in the domain of pedagogical literature. He was also editor of the excellent review Moledeth at Jaffa. A selection of his sketches and tales was published not long ago.

M. J. Berditchevski is an original stylist and a prose-poet of great sensibility and mystic beauty, distinguished especially for his gift of allegory. His mode of thought is original, sometimes eccentric, but always spiritual.

Simon Bernfeld, born in Galicia, and graduated in Germany. He is one of the most prolific and distinguished of Hebrew writers. During the last years of David Gordon’s life he was a regular contributor to Ha’magid, and after Gordon’s death was for a time editor of that paper. At that time he ardently supported Jewish nationalism and the Chovevé Zion. After a couple of years as Chief Rabbi at Belgrade he returned to Germany and devoted himself entirely to literary and journalistic work, mostly in Hebrew. He has been a regular contributor to the Hebrew press all over the world. He has written also a large number of books on history and the philosophy of religion, and many biographies. His vast erudition and his popular style have won him a prominent place in Hebrew literature.

Reuben Brainin, born in Russia, has lived in Vienna and in Berlin, and is now in the United States. He is a critic, essayist and publicist. His contributions to the Hebrew press, as well as his biographies of Mapu, Smolenskin and others, have won him a high place in this domain of letters. His style is fresh and easy, and distinguished by correctness and taste. He edited Mimisrach Umimaarav, and has written novels and treatises of great literary value. He was one of the pioneers of the national movement in Vienna, and was in the closest connection with the Kadima and Herzl.

R. A. Broides, born in Russia, belonged to the old Wilna school. He had a pure and pleasant Hebrew style, and wrote some novels of value. He contributed to Ha’shachar, and was afterwards sub-editor of Gottlober’s Ha’boker Or in Lemberg. He worked for the Zionist movement in Galicia and Vienna, and wrote several articles for the propaganda of Zionism. He died in Vienna in 1902.

M. M. Dolitzky, born in Bialystok, Russia, lived for many years in America. He was a contributor to Ha’shachar and Ha’melitz, and wrote several novels and essays, as well as poems full of Zionist enthusiasm. Critics may differ as to the exact literary value of his poems, but there is no doubt as to their depth of feeling and beautiful Biblical style.

Drujanow, born in Russia, active in Odessa, in Palestine and in Wilna, belongs to the most prominent representatives of “cultural” Zionism. He was Secretary of the Chovevé Zion in Odessa, lived a few years in Palestine and acquired a high and well-deserved literary reputation as editor of Ha’olam. A conscientious publicist, of consistent and independent judgment, with an admirable mastery of the Hebrew language, he is an intellectual worker in the best sense of the term. Besides his work as a publicist, he has written some excellent essays.

Mordecai Ehrenpreis, born in Galicia, graduated in Germany, was Rabbi in Esseg, Austria, then Chief Rabbi in Sofia, Bulgaria, and is now Chief Rabbi in Stockholm. He is a Hebrew nationalist of genius and experience, many-sided, with international associations and wide knowledge. He belonged to the Nationalist Students’ Association in Berlin, and has been in the Zionist Organization since the first Congress, at which he played a prominent part. He represents the intellectual and spiritual side of the movement. A man of clear judgment and of strong character, he is very active in important work connected with the international Jewish problem. In Hebrew literature he is one of the best critics and essayists. He writes excellent Hebrew, and has sound literary judgment.

Eleasar Eisenstadt, born in Russia, was Rabbi at Rostow, and is now official and communal Rabbi at St. Petersburg. As a student at Berlin, where he graduated, he was one of the most enthusiastic of the young nationalists. Endowed with a keen perception, and intimately acquainted with the life of the Russian Ghetto, he is a master of anecdote, and has turned his gift to account in a series of Hebrew tales. A many-sided and energetic communal worker, particularly interested in Jewish education (in which he was formerly engaged at St. Petersburg), he enjoys a wide popularity.

Zalman Epstein, of Odessa, now in Warsaw, who belonged to the Achad Ha’am circle, and was Secretary of the Chovevé Zion in Odessa, is an ardent nationalist and a zealous worker for the Jewish revival. He contributed during several years to Ha’melitz and other Hebrew periodicals. His productions are distinguished by a vivid, nervous style, and by a deep earnestness of conviction. An acute controversialist, with a strong predilection for traditional ideas, he has written several articles against the extravagances of modernism.

A. S. Friedberg (Har Shalom), born in Grodno, lived in St. Petersburg and in Warsaw. He was one of the most popular Hebrew writers of his time. He wrote with ease and elegance and was at one time considered the successor of Mapu, particularly for his translation of Grace Aguilar’s Vale of Cedars—into Hebrew, Emek Ha’arazim. He possessed a wonderful Hebrew style, and had the closest acquaintance with current Jewish affairs. A convinced and enthusiastic nationalist, he was a member of the editorial staff of Ha’melitz, afterwards of Ha’zefirah, and of the first volume of the Hebrew Encyclopædia, and became ultimately one of the principal writers of the Achiasaf, for which he wrote a series of popular books.

S. I. Fuchs, born in Russia, graduated in Switzerland, and was a scholar of great versatility and deep learning. As a student he belonged to several nationalist students’ associations and was distinguished by his earnestness and high moral sense. His treatises dealing with Jewish historical and literary topics are of enduring value. He was one of the assistant editors of Ha’magid and had a considerable share in the propaganda of Zionism.

S. J. Hurwitz, born in Russia, a Hebrew writer of marked individuality. A learned Talmudist, with considerable erudition in ancient, mediæval and modern literature, a keen, inquiring and independent thinker, he pursued “Jewish science” and historical studies in a way which often brought him into collision with established and accepted traditions. He contributed to several reviews, and edited his own review, He’atid. He is a devoted champion of the Hebrew revival.

Wolf Javitz, born in Warsaw, scholar and writer, is a master of the Hebrew language, in the knowledge of which he has few equals. A student of extraordinary assiduity, he has amassed a vast fund of erudition, which is revealed in the writings of his later years. An enthusiastic nationalist and Chovev Zion, and at the same time an upholder of strict traditional principles, he is the most eloquent interpreter of the national idea in the spirit of traditional Judaism. He lived for several years in Palestine, and has written several books. Many years ago he began writing a complete History of the Jews, of which several volumes—works of great learning—have already appeared.

Isaac Kaminer, born in Russia, was a physician and a prolific contributor to the Hebrew press. His essays, causeries and parodies are distinguished by skill and “temperament.” His poems are full of fight and an honest zeal for the Jewish national cause. He had an original and entirely free metrical and rhythmical system. A selection of his works appeared posthumously in Odessa (1907), with an introduction by Achad Ha’am.

Aaron Kaminka, born in Russia, studied abroad, mostly in Paris. He contributed regularly to Ha’melitz, Ha’zefirah, and several reviews. He also translated classical poems and wrote original verses. He took a considerable share in the Chovevé Zion movement, preaching with great zeal the spiritual progress of the nation, and emphasizing the importance of a living Hebrew language. He was then appointed Rabbi in Slavonia, afterwards at Prague. He joined the Zionist movement, but left it through a difference of opinion. He has since become Secretary of the Israelitische Allianz at Vienna, for which he has travelled much. He has published records of his travels, as well as a selection of his Hebrew poems.

Dr. J. C. Katzenelsohn (1848‒1917) (Buki ben Yogli) wrote essays and short stories which are literary jewels. His scientific works in Hebrew are unequalled for learning and mastery of style.

A. S. Kerschberg, of Bialystok, Russia, is a Hebrew scholar and writer of great ability. He has contributed to Ha’zefirah and Ha’shiloach, and has written treatises dealing with talmudical matters. An ardent nationalist, he has been connected with the Chovevé Zion movement since it began. He has lived in Palestine and has published his observations and experiences in an interesting pamphlet.

Joseph Klausner, born in Odessa, a graduate of Heidelberg, is one of the most prominent disciples of Achad Ha’am, whom he succeeded in the editorship of Ha’shiloach. A devoted Chovev Zion and a keen Hebraist, he commenced Hebrew journalistic work in his earliest youth. At Heidelberg and elsewhere he assisted in the formation of the Nationalist Students’ Association, in which he took a leading part. He has done valuable work in the field of Biblical and historical studies. He was for many years lecturer at the Rabbinical College in Odessa. Palestinian nationalism and culture based upon Hebrew tradition are the guiding principles of his numerous publicistic writings. He is a pioneer of Palestinian Hebrew education. The impressions of his last visit to Palestine are given in his Olam Mithhaveh (A World in Evolution).

L. Levinski, born in Russia, lived during the most important period of his life in Odessa, where he was a prominent member of the Chovevé Zion, of the editorial staff of Ha’shiloach, of the Moriah, of the Zionist Synagogue Javneh, and other institutions. His quaint felicity of style, continual flow of wit, and easy, vivacious narrative won him a great reputation as a satirist. He contributed to the Hebrew press feuilletons and reviews of current events, and also wrote some pamphlets of value. A selection of his works has been published since his death by the Moriah.

Mordecai Zevi Mane was born in the village of Radoshkevitsch, in Russia. He studied at the Academy of Arts in St. Petersburg, and won distinction as a gifted painter, a Hebrew poet, and an excellent writer in prose. He contributed to He’assif and Knesseth Israel. Though he may not rank among the Olympians, he produced in his modest way many a Zionist poem of enduring worth. He died young, and a collection of his works appeared posthumously (Warsaw, 1907).

David Neumark, of Galicia, studied at Berlin, and was one of the most original and prominent figures in nationalistic students’ circles. After having graduated, he was appointed Rabbi at Rakowitz, Austria, where he officiated for a few years. He entered the Zionist Organization and became a loyal and zealous worker, with a strong inclination towards “cultural” Zionism. He soon devoted himself to philosophy, and, besides his History of Jewish Philosophy, first written in German, he contributed a series of philosophical articles, written in an elaborate and exact style, to Ha’shiloach. He also wrote other essays of value. Later he was appointed Professor at the Cincinnati Hebrew Union College, where he has pursued his educational and literary activity.

Saul Pinchas Rabinowitsch (Schefer) (1875‒1911) won a very prominent place among the distinguished pioneers of Zionism in Russia, as well as among the ablest and most popular Hebrew writers and publicists. He devoted many years of his life to the propaganda of the Chovevé Zion movement, and was for many years Secretary of the Warsaw Chovevé Zion. He was an ardent and active Zionist from the very beginning of the Zionist Organization. In close connection with Rabbi Mohilever, Leo Pinsker and Alexander Zederbaum, he often travelled on important missions, maintaining a world-wide correspondence with hundreds of Jewish leaders and writers, and occupied principally with Chovevé Zion affairs, but also with Russian-Jewish affairs generally, particularly during the period of the pogroms. He was a zealous and devoted Jewish national worker, was assistant editor of the Ha’zefirah, 1857‒80, contributor to several Hebrew and other newspapers, editor of the year-book Knesseth Israel, one of the editors of the first volume of the Hebrew Encyclopædia Ha-Eschkol, and author of many monographs and biographies. His greatest work was the Hebrew translation of Graetz’ History of the Jews (with many valuable original additions of Harkavy and of other scholars, as well as of his own).

J. Ch. Rawnitzki, born in Russia, author and educationist, whose activity has lain mostly in Odessa, has for many years been engaged in Hebrew literary work of a nationalist character in the Chovevé Zion movement. He edited Ha’pardes, contributed to several reviews, and is one of the principal editors and authors working for the Moriah in Odessa.

A. J. Slutzki, born and living in Russia, was an able and shrewd Zionist publicist. He contributed to Ha’melitz under J. L. Gordon, and actively assisted the Chovevé Zion propaganda.⁠¹

O. Taviev, born in Russia, lives in Moscow. He is one of the most prominent Hebrew journalists, authors and educationists. He is one of the originators of the modern Hebrew style. For several years he contributed regularly to Ha’melitz and other Hebrew papers and reviews. He has written causeries and critical essays in an easy and pleasant style, and has also translated some works of belles lettres. His principal services, however, lie in the domain of pedagogy.

Joshua Thon, born in Galicia, now Rabbi and preacher at the temple of the Jewish Congregation at Cracow, took an active part in the Students’ national movement as a student in Berlin, where he graduated, and distinguished himself by great learning and strength of character. A convinced Zionist and an enthusiastic champion of Hebrew, he entered the Zionist Organization, of which, owing to his oratorical powers and personal influence, he is one of the most active leaders. Besides his numerous writings in Polish and in German, he is a Hebrew writer of value, and his essays, mostly published in Ha’shiloach, exhibit a considerable critical faculty.

Chaim Tschernowitz, born in Russia, had a thorough talmudic education, was Rabbi in Odessa, then studied at a German University and graduated in Switzerland. His contributions to Ha’shiloach, under the nom de plume, Rav Zaair (A young Rabbi), attracted attention by the broadminded views and comprehensiveness of historical sense in dealing with religious and ritual matters which they disclosed. He has also written historical and talmudic sketches. He was for several years Principal of the Odessa Rabbinical College. He is in the closest touch with the Chovevé Zion movement, and is one of the leaders of those nationalistic Rabbis who unite faithfulness to the old traditions with a modern spirit of science and critical inquiry.

Hillel Zeitlin, born in Russia, active in Wilna, and more recently in Warsaw, was one of the editors of the Wilna Ha’zman, to which he contributed valuable essays and articles. A Talmudist of erudition, an authority on Chassidism, a semi-mystic enthusiast endowed with a poetical imagination, a master of the Hebrew language and of the forms and methods of modern literature, he achieves a degree of pathos and beauty unsurpassed in modern Hebrew literature. He joined the Zionist movement, but afterwards identified himself with Territorialism. In recent years he has gone over to the Yiddish press, of which he is one of the most gifted and influential writers.

Other Hebrew writers worthy of mention are Joshua Steinberg, from a scientific point of view one of the most important of the Hebraists of Russia; Bendetsohn, who exceeded Mapu in biblical purity of language in the form of an idealistic prose; Moses Reichersohn; Mordecai Wohlmann; T. E. Epstein; A. B. Gottlober, the popular poet, superficial yet clear and graceful; Eleazer Ha-Cohen Zweifel, the sweet Midrash-like moralist, homiletical critic and essayist; the wonderful modern novelists Feuerstein, Jehuda Steinberg, Berschadski and Grassin; Eleasar Atlas the sharp-witted critic, M. A. Schatzkes, who notwithstanding his loquacity had a rich style and some good ideas, and his other protagonist in the same field of Agada-explanation; Jehouda Schereschewski, distinguished by his concentrated calm—and their followers; Weissberg; Dubzevitch; Edelman (“Adulami”); Maskileison; the learned and thoughtful Joseph Rosenthal; the serious scholars Jacob Bachrach; A. I. Bruck; David Kahane; Salomon Mandelkern, the industrious scholar and skilled poet who translated Byron’s Hebrew Melodies with masterly skill; Slominsky; Lichtenfeld; Lipkin; Medalie; Barasch; Y. Margulies; Hirsch Rabinovitch; and Sosnitz, who introduced natural science into Hebrew literature; J. L. Kantor; Proser; Silberman; J. Kohn Zedek; Werber; Frumkin; Fischer; Ch. L. Markom; Joseph Brill, masters of journalistic style—all these writers and many, many others were the precursors of the revival of Hebrew. In this connection, special mention must be made of some of the living writers who, though not showing any special nationalistic or Zionist tendency, have greatly contributed to the enrichment and development of the Hebrew language and literature.

Great attention and acknowledgment are due to David Fischmann, the charming poet, the brilliant causeur and essayist, the wonderful critic who deals in a witty way with the most serious questions, the translator of many works of science and fiction; to the old Hebrew novelist and poet, Nathan Samuely, whose poetry is replete with sweetness and harmony; to the greatest of Jewish historians, bibliographers and critics of world-wide fame, Dr. Abraham Harkavy; the learned Israelsohn; the able Abraham Cahan; the Talmudist, N. A. Getzow; the learned and thoughtful Heller; the ingenious scholar and mathematician, Ch. J. Bornstein (who translated Hamlet into Hebrew); the bibliographer, Wiener; the orientalist, Isaac Marcon; the studious T. Ratner, magid; the old writer of lyric impulse, I. L. Levin (Jehabel), a poet and publicist of merit; the critic and essayist, A. J. Paperna, one of the last representatives of the old school; the able journalist and talmudical critic, Benzion Katz; the talented modern novelists: Brenner, Schofman, Berkowitsch, Kaabak; Sneur, the young poet of vigour and ardour, noble spirit and bold fancy, who refreshed Hebrew poetry by a new stream of modern fiction; and Isaac Katzenelsohn, Ben Schimon, Heftmen, Pinski and others, who gave us sunny thoughts and beautiful pictures, in which delicacy of taste is accompanied by versatile and roaming fancy. Shalom Asch, the greatest in the coterie of the artists of the Polish Ghetto, gave us some of his tales in Hebrew; the gifted Abraham Reisin, a master of Yiddish, and the talented Numberg, who masters the Hebrew language, and who besides writing essays and tales of value in Hebrew worked hard and successfully in Hebrew journalism, have contributed very much to the modernization of Hebrew literature. And, as regards the two greatest stars of the Yiddish literature, “J. L. Peretz” and S. Rabinowitsch (“Scholom Aleicham”), whose loss we so deeply lament, and whose undying names belong to the chief glories of our literature of the present age, it is well known that both of them were partly Hebrew poets and writers of considerable genius.

Finally, there are Ben Ami Rabinowitzch (Mark Jakovlevitch), born in Russia, lived in Odessa, and now in Geneva, Switzerland, who is one of the best writers of fiction on Jewish life in Russia. His writings breathe a noble passion of love for the Jewish people, his observations are those of a high-minded man and an artist, and are full of national, noble emotion. He joined the Zionist movement from its very beginning.

Vladimir Jabotinski, born in Odessa, studied in Russia, in Italy and in Austria, and graduated at Petrograd, is a brilliant journalist and an orator of great eloquence and power. He is a contributor to great Russian newspapers, and has established a reputation as correspondent and an essayist of admirable skill. He worked with great devotion and success in the Zionist propaganda. Having acquired a sound knowledge of Hebrew, he translated Bialik’s poems into Russian, and wrote also some articles in Hebrew.

It will also be interesting to mention that the famous Russian-Jewish writer of the last generation, Lewanda, who was one of the representative writers of the period of enlightenment, during his successful literary career adhered in the last years of his life to the national idea, and supported the Chovevé Zion movement.

It is impossible to enumerate all the literary and educational representatives of the National Revival in Palestine; but a few names of note, in addition to those which have already been mentioned, cannot be omitted.

Israel Belkind has given proof of considerable literary ability in a series of pamphlets dealing with Palestine. J. Menuchas, who was born and is still living in Jerusalem, is a prominent contributor to the Hebrew press, as well as an excellent teacher. Ahroni, the zoologian, a scholar of renown, is pursuing his idealistic, scientific work at Rechoboth. Isaac Epstein now lives in Switzerland, but he is in spirit and style decidedly a Palestinian. He lived for years in seclusion, in a rustic tent among the hills of Upper Galilee, and wrote his work by the light of heaven. He remained faithful, as few priests have ever remained to their calling, a priest of the Hebrew language, which was revealed to him in all its beauty. M. Scheinkin, the devoted and popular worker, is a prolific publicist. Freimann, the old settler of Rishon, writes excellent books. Aronovitz, with his contributors, made the Ha-Poel Ha-Zaiv one of the best Hebrew weeklies which have ever existed; the Ha-Omer and the Moledet, splendid magazines, had a real Palestinian charm. (Of the last-mentioned the excellent essayist, pedagogical writer and poet, Fischmann, was recently the editor.) The numerous and various writings of Ben-Zion Guttman have been added to in Palestine; the “Waad Ha-Lashon” (Committee for the Language) at Jerusalem, with Yellin, Ben Yehouda, Zouts, Dr. Mazie and others, has done good work. Nearly all the specialists in agriculture and in medicine write in Hebrew; and Brenner, the most modern belles-lettres writer in Jerusalem.

On the other hand, the new Hebrew schools brought into the country a host of intellectual workers: Metman-Cohn, Bogratschow, Turow, Mossinsohn, Alexander Rabinowitsch, Lurie, Zutta, Segal, Schiller, Ladyshewski, Marschak, Biram, Tachower, Rosenstein, Ziphroni, Feldmann, Mowschensohn, Ozerkowsky, Jehieli, Papper. Others added merely their young modern efforts to the brilliant abilities of a Yellin or of that admirable type of a national educator represented by Vilkomitsch at Yessod Ha-Maaleh. All these pioneers are inspired Zionists, and they are paving the way for a great Revival.

In addition to these writers, the following prominent Hebrew journalists may be mentioned:⁠—

Abraham Loudvipol, a writer of great ability and strength of conviction, who became editor of the Ha’zofeh; Moses Kleinmann, a shrewd journalist, and a publicist of sound judgment; Samuel Tschernowitz (the brother of Chaim Tschernowitz), a journalist of a high order, who worked with great success for Ha’zefirah and Ha’zman; Nahum Syrkin, a wholehearted Zionist, an orator and a publicist of keen observation, and an eloquent exponent of the national idea, author of hundreds of articles, sketches, causeries and speeches⁠¹; N. J. Frenk, a moderate and consistent publicist of wide experience, who takes a leading part in the work of Ha’zefirah; and S. Jatzkan, at present editor of the Haint, formerly a contributor to Ha’melitz and Ha’zefirah, a zealous journalist and fighter: and among those of the older generation, M. Braunstein of Roumania (“Mibaschan”), master of a flowery and elaborate biblical style, author of many pedagogical books, but best known by his innumerable contributions to the Hebrew press; Lazar, the able editor of Ha’mitzpeh in Cracow; M. M. Pross of Warsaw, a judicious writer of causeries and criticisms in the old style; Ch. Z. Zagorodzki of Warsaw, a polished Hebrew stylist, author of several fine sketches, for many years one of the principal collaborators of Ha’zefirah; Shimón Volkov, a talmudical parodist with a peculiar style of his own; Dr. Berkowitz, of Vienna, a Jewish scholar and an excellent Hebrew writer, who was at one time Hebrew Secretary of the Vienna Zionist Organization and a regular contributor to Ha’zefirah; M. Rabinsohn, author of several sketches and translator for Ha’zman and Ha’zefirah; Z. Prilutzki, an old Chovevé Zion writer and worker. These and many others have perhaps done more to make Zionism popular by their everyday work as journalists than many authors of books.

Other contributors to modern Hebrew journalism are: Leon Rabinowitsch, who was editor of Ha-Melitz in Petrograd after Zederbaum; S. Rosenfeld, who afterwards came into prominence as a Yiddish publicist; J. E. Triwusch of Wilna; Samuel Leib Zitron of Wilna; the late Hirsch Neimanowitsch and M. Weber of Warsaw; E. Goldin of Lodz; J. D. Berkowitsch, now in New York; P. Lachover of Warsaw; Hermoni of Palestine; and E. D. Finkel of Warsaw. To the new Hebrew pedagogical literature: Ch. D. Tawiow of Riga, Salomon Berman, P. Kantorowitz, A. Libuschitzki of Warsaw, P. Berkman of Lodz, and the two great Yiddish poets Simon Frug of Odessa and Jehoasch of New York have played important parts in the awakening of the national feeling.

LXXVI.

Note upon the Alliance Israélite Universelle and the Anglo-Jewish Association

In considering the relationship of the Alliance Israélite Universelle and the Anglo-Jewish Association to the Jewish National Movement, regard should be had to the foundation period of these institutions, when not only were those associated with their establishment men of Jewish Nationalist sympathies, but their activities were met by similar criticism to that which has confronted the Zionist leaders of recent years. Time has brought about a change in the personnel of the leadership of the Alliance and the Anglo-Jewish Association, but it is useful to bear in mind that this change is simply personal and that there is nothing changed in principle in the organizations which should prevent them being expressive of that nationalist spirit, characteristic of their earlier days. M. Charles Netter, Dr. Abraham Benisch, Dr. Albert Löwy and Mr. Baron Louis Benas, J.P. (M. Netter, one of the founders of the Alliance, Dr. Benisch, Dr. Löwy and Mr. Benas, associated with the establishment of the Anglo-Jewish Association) were all men of Jewish Nationalist sympathies. M. Netter is permanently identified with the foundation of the Mikveh Israel Agricultural School near Jaffa, the foster-mother of the Jewish Colonies of Palestine. Dr. Benisch, to whom the suggestion of an Anglo-Jewish Association on the lines of the Alliance Israélite was made by Mr. Benas, who had established in Liverpool the first branch of the Alliance in England in 1867, enthusiastically took up the idea and became the organizer of the English institution founded three years later. The formation of the first English branch of the Alliance at Liverpool called forth in 1868 at the end of its first year’s work the highest appreciation of M. Crémieux. Dr. Benisch had in his student days inaugurated with Dr. Löwy and Professor Steinschneider a Zionistic movement, and in the foundation of the Anglo-Jewish Association the two former saw the possibilities of the realization of many of the hopes and aspirations of their youth. Mr. Benas, Dr. Benisch and Dr. Löwy were active propagandists on behalf of the Association. Mr. Benas and Dr. Löwy were members of the International Palestine Committee which was formed in 1878 on the recommendation of the Palestine Section of the International Jewish Conference held that year in Paris, and of which section Mr. Benas was one of the two English representatives, the other being the Rev. S. Jacobs. The Palestine Section undertook to institute an examination of the general condition of the Jews in the East and especially of the Jews in Palestine with a view of effecting such improvements as might be needful, that country being known to several members who had visited it at various times. This section had the advantage of being attended by delegates from both Europe and America. This section of the Conference resolved “That the Alliance be requested to bring about the formation of a special commission on Palestine. This Committee is to be composed of persons of every country who take an interest in the welfare of brother Israelites and in the prosperity of the Holy Land.” On its formation, the Committee was entrusted with the establishment of new schools and particularly the control of the Institution Mikveh Israel. The report significantly added, “in entrusting the control of this Agricultural School to the Committee, with the view of further aiding in the development of that Institution, the Alliance would obtain a solid basis for its civilizing action” (Anglo-Jewish Association, 8th Annual Report, pp. 30, 36). In 1885 Mr. Benas and the late Chief Rabbi, Dr. Hermann Adler, visited Palestine together. En route they had an interview with Baron Edmond de Rothschild in Paris, at whose request materials were collected for a report of the condition of Jewry in the Ancient Jewish Homeland. The late Chief Rabbi gave an oral account of the educational institutions in Palestine to the Executive Committee of the Association. Mr. Benas’ “Report of his Travels in the East” was published as an Appendix to the Fourteenth Annual Report of the Association. The Report, which drew from the historian Graetz a most appreciative letter to the author, disclosing Graetz’ strong Zionistic sympathies, is not only valuable as one of the few historical documents in English giving a contemporary account of the early renascence of Jewish life in Palestine by a Jewish writer, but because of its accurate forecasting of the conditions of future development, the revival of Hebrew as a living language being particularly noted. The following are extracts from the report:⁠—

“Jaffa. Jaffa was reached on April 26th, and I at once, in company with Dr. Adler, visited the Mikveh Israel or Agricultural School. The director, Monsieur Hirsch, happened to be absent at Aleppo, but we were received by the sub-director, M. Haim.

The whole neighbourhood of Jaffa is most charming, full of the choicest exotics, whilst palms, citrons, and oranges luxuriate everywhere. The vines are in splendid condition. Everything seems to flower there in profusion, even wild roses and poppies in the cornfields, whilst the fig takes the place of our bushes and thickets. There are some charming properties about Jaffa.

As far as a model farm and beautifully cultivated garden is concerned, the Mikveh Israel holds its own with any institution of its kind, I would almost say, in Europe, and is a perpetual monument of the efforts of the late Mons. Netter.

There are 240 hectares, mostly under cultivation. They produced excellent wine, which, I am informed, is sold at a good profit. They have oranges, lemons, and various other fruit trees, besides cereals. The technical instructor, M. Klotz, an Alsatian, told me that there is considerable promise for the estate. There are now thirty-five pupils in the school, one of whom is a Moslem. They have a carpenter’s shop, where three boys are at constant work. They have thirty cows—ten giving a full supply of milk; they have eight calves, two horses and ten mules to assist the agricultural operations, and a good supply of water and a complete system of irrigation.

Everything in the establishment is thoroughly well kept. We were shown through the dormitories, and found twelve slept in each room, but the chambers were tolerably large.

Jerusalem. I arrived at Jerusalem on the night of the 27th April. The first thing that strikes the visitor is the fact that Jerusalem is a Jewish city. The Jewish population has so steadily increased as to tower head and shoulders above all others; this can best be noticed on a Sabbath, when almost all the streets and bazaars are silent. The native born Jewish population are in physique superior to their European co-religionists; they are taller, more dignified, and are decidedly of a handsome type. I am indebted for my statistics to M. Nissim Behar and the banker, M. H. Valero, both of these estimable gentlemen being natives of Jerusalem. The total population of Jerusalem is about 35,000. There are conflicting accounts as to the Jewish population; some put it at 20,000, others at 18,000.

There are two Jerusalems, the one within the walls of the city, the other outside the Jaffa Gate, which has sprung into existence during the last five or six years, and inhabited almost exclusively by Jews. I am undervaluing rather than exaggerating when I state that the villas and residences outside the city are quite equal in neatness and in their inviting aspect to some of the best parts of the Cheshire side of the Mersey, which they much resemble.

The Asiatic Jews are wealthy, and have mostly emigrated from the neighbourhood of Batoum, Poti and Tiflis. Their residences might almost be described as attaining a degree of positive comfort. They are a large community, and are quite independent in their means; they have their own rabbi, and give considerable assistance, when required, to their more indigent co-religionists. These Jews are scrupulously clean in their habits, are above the average height, and their flowing robes of spotless white cashmere betoken at once their manners. Credit must also be given to the Montefiore Testimonial Fund Buildings, which, if small, are decidedly clean and well kept, especially those tenanted by the Sephardi Jews—a great number of tenements having been built through the aid afforded by this fund. There are also the buildings of the Meah Shearim, a kind of building society, who have erected a large square block of tenements, which compare favourably with artisans’ dwellings in Lancashire cities.

The Judah Touro houses outside the city walls are fairly well kept, but, of course, the more modern houses have the advantage of superior construction. The defects in earlier constructions have here been carefully avoided.

The Yemen Jews are very poor; they present a most peculiar ethnological type. They have a very dark complexion, almost of a deeper shade than that of the Arabs; they have beautifully chiselled features, lustrous eyes, are most simple in their piety and devotion to the Holy City. They still retain their manuscript prayer books, which Dr. Adler states are most interesting. I saw a Yemen woman with her child working in the heat of the sun at what, in Lancashire, would be termed navvy’s work, and at the close of the day saw the clerk of the works give her sixty centimes as her daily wages. They were in terrible distress at first and slept in caverns, but, thanks to the exertions of Mr. Marcus Adler, who raised a fund in England, they are building cottages on the hillside upon which they work themselves, and owing to their thrifty habits and aptitude for labour, it is to be hoped that their worst difficulties are passed, and that they will attain some degree of independence. There are two sets of tenements being built for them, the one by the London Committee and the other by the help of the Society called Ezrath Nedachim. I may add, the Yemen Jews, both male and female, dress exactly like the native Arabs, from whom they are hardly distinguishable.

When I write upon the Jewish tenements in the interior of the city my report, of course, must be less favourable. I took the means of going alone with M. Valero, when unexpected, into some of the back streets and slums of Jerusalem; I dropped into various houses here and there, and saw matters from a practical point of view. It is most unfair for any one coming from Princes Park, Liverpool, or Kensington, London, or the Champs Élysées, in Paris, instituting a comparison between those neighbourhoods and the lanes of Jerusalem. But I maintain that the old streets of Marseilles and Florence, the Ghetto in Rome, the labyrinths in Naples, and the slums of Venice, are infinitely worse than the worst slums of Jerusalem. Nay, more, I maintain that the old Judengasse in Frankfort, the Judengasse in Worms, and some of the by-lanes in Vienna are decidedly no better than those of Jerusalem. They are more ancient and grimy than dirty; the absence of timber, and the constant employment of stone for building purposes in Old Jerusalem, gives a rough and jagged appearance to the walls, but there is nothing except the absence of drainage (and that is the same in every continental city, whether it be in France, Italy, or Austria) that calls for especial condemnation, nay, the dingy tenements inside Jerusalem, inhabited by the Sephardi Jews, are made presentable by a considerable use of clean white calico hung over the walls and covered over their simple furniture and beddings.

The future prospects of Jerusalem rest entirely with the rising youth, and I shall speak later on of the enormous value and high hopes I entertain of the Lionel de Rothschild School, conducted by the admirable and excellent director, M. Nissim Behar, of whose devotion, ability, and conscientiousness nothing too much can be said.

The Lionel de Rothschild School, or “Institution Israélite pour Instruction et Travail,” contains 140 pupils, all boys. The institution is singularly fortunate in possessing M. Behar as its chief. To be able to effect good work in Jerusalem it is almost imperative to be a native of the city. A teacher from England, France, or Germany who has longings for Europe or his native land, however able he may be, or however zealous, is incapable of infusing enthusiasm in his pupils, and when one is found like M. Nissim Behar, who is a man of great culture, and combines Parisian refinement with an ardent love and patriotism for the city in which he was born, and feels that he has a mission to perform and is perfectly oblivious to pecuniary advantages, it is to have already gained half the victory. Everything is neat, clean, and methodical.

The hours of instruction are from 8 o’clock until 12, and from 1 to 5.

I shall devote my report principally to the course of technical education, with which I believe the future prosperity of the Jews of Jerusalem is bound up.

The Technical School contains a forge, a carpenter’s shop, a cabinet-maker’s bench, a tailor’s department, a shoemaker’s shop, a turner’s lathe, a school of art for modelling, drawing, and sculpture, and a gymnasium for physical development.

Of these schools, the forge, the carpenter’s shop, and the school of art have produced capital results; we saw Jewish lads, who have only been a few weeks at the classes, making some excellent sketches, and in order to test their genuineness gave them several impromptu subjects to execute in our presence, which they did admirably.

The Forge is another successful institution.

Although the French language is the medium of tuition and the general language adopted, Hebrew is used side by side, not only as a language of prayer, but also as a means of conversation. French, as a medium of intercommunication amongst Europeans and officials, is very much required in the East.

The Girls’ School—Evelina de Rothschild Institute—contains 184 girls.

Hebron. I regret to have to report very adversely upon the condition of our co-religionists in Hebron. The pleasure and hopefulness I experienced in Jerusalem present a marked contrast to the disappointment I felt at the abject position of the Jews in the City of Abraham.

I met several Jews on the road who were trading with the neighbouring villages in butter and cheese; of course their profits would be exceedingly small. The soil around Hebron is most fertile, and the natural resources of the immediate neighbourhood decidedly good.

I venture to think that it is not eleemosynary aid that will do any real good for them. Food of all kinds and wine of a good quality is abundant and very cheap. I believe the Jews would work hard if taught what to do. Technical and general education would very soon transform an abject congregation into a happy and prosperous community.”

Mr. Benas delivered a large number of lectures upon the subject of his visit to Palestine and granted many interviews, all of which helped to arouse interest on behalf of the budding Jewish life in the Ancient Homeland. In its earliest days the Anglo-Jewish Association received from members of the Board of Deputies criticism not unakin to that which in later days members of the Board levelled at the Anglo-Jewish Association. In those days the Board was oligarchic, assimilative, and insular in outlook, while the Anglo-Jewish was popular, national and world-Jewish—true to the motto כל ישראל חברים. If to-day, while the Association cannot be called insular there are those who would ascribe to it the characteristic of the Board of Deputies of earlier days, signs are not wanting of a change towards the original outlook, particularly among the branches. It is in fairness due to the Anglo-Jewish Association to bear in mind that the Public Demonstration, the Conference, the International gatherings for Jewish purposes now a phenomenon of everyday life in Jewry owe to the Association and the Alliance their origin. To both no inconsiderable share of the foundation and the interest in the Western world in the foundation of the Jewish colonies in Palestine may justly be credited. Thus the organizations and those who established them merit the recognition and the gratitude of all who hold to the Jewish national ideal and strive for its fulfilment.

[The Reports of the Alliance Israélite Universelle and the Anglo-Jewish Association contain much valuable material for the History of the Resettlement in Palestine.]

LXXVIII.

The Jewish Colonies in Palestine

(The figures are taken mostly from the Report of the Jewish Colonisation Association for 1910.)