Zionism During the War 1914–1918 (part 1)

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;

“וכימיך דבאך׃...”

דברים לג׳ כה׳¹

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.

¹ “... And as thy days, so shall thy strength be.”—Deut. xxxiii. 25.

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!”

¹ יהושע or Jesus, High Priest from 174–171 b.c.e., brother of the High Priest. חוניא = נחוניא, Onias iii.

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.

♦ “neverthless” replaced with “nevertheless”

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.

Conferences.

September, 1915.

Zionist Conference—Dordrecht—Holland.

Roumania. Annual Meeting of the Roumanian Zionist Federation, November 7th and 8th, held in Galatz. Country divided into four districts for Zionist work: Galatz, Bucharest, Jassy, Foscani.

Canada. General Jewish Conference held in Montreal, November 14th and 15th, together with the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Zionist Federation, presided over by Clarence de Sola.

December 5th, 1915.

West Austrian—Galician—and Bukowina Zionist Conferences (Adolf Stand in the chair). Resolutions:⁠—

“The Assembly expects to see the Jewish problem discussed at the peace conference, and trusts that the Actions Committee will find suitable means and ways to create a united manifestation of the Jews of all countries for the demand of securing for the Jews their civil and political equality of rights all over the world, and in the nationality states also recognition of their national existence.

“The Actions Committee is asked to prepare everything in a suitable manner, in order that the interests of political Zionism may be secured before the Forum of the future Peace Congress.”

December 26th and 27th, 1915.

Holland. At Nymegen one hundred and twenty delegates attended.

December, 1915.

Manchester. Conference of English “Poalei Zion.” Delegates from all parts of the country attended.

January 1st, 1916.

England. Conference convened by E.Z.F. attended by Rabbis, delegates of Synagogues, Friendly Societies and Trade Unions.

January 5th, 1916.

America. Annual Conference of the Federation of “Knights of Zion,” at Chicago. The Federation has fifty-three active branches and three thousand members.

January, 1916.

Australia. Annual Conference of the Sydney Zionist Society.

February 6th, 1916.

America. Annual Convention of the Zionist Council of Greater New York.

February 13th, 1916.

England. Annual Conference of the English Zionist Federation at Manchester.

1916.

Mizrachi. The Annual Conference of the “Mizrachi” was held at Chicago, May 26th–30th. The “Mizrachi” of America comprises one hundred and three associate-societies and twenty-four synagogues. The membership is six thousand.

Some of the principal American Rabbis attended the Conference.

A special Palestine Bureau was created. A new union, called “Achi Samach,” was formed, for the encouragement of the sale of Palestinian products.

1916.

Bombay. A Meeting of the Magen David Congregation was held at Bombay. The proceedings were all in Hebrew. Sir Jacob Elias Sassoon, Bart. (1844–1916), was re-elected president.

May 28th and 29th, 1916.

Scandinavia. The Twelfth Annual Conference of Scandinavian Zionists was held at Copenhagen. Thirty-one delegates from all parts of the country were present. Various resolutions were passed, expressing confidence in the work of the Central Executive.

1916.

Switzerland. A Conference of the Swiss Zionist Federation was held at Berne on June 1st.

1916.

South Africa. The Annual Conference of the South African Zionist Federation was held at Johannesburg on April 30th. Over one hundred delegates were present.

1916.

Canada. “Poalei Zion” of Montreal had a series of Conferences on June 2nd–4th.

America. Conference of American Zionist Federation held at Philadelphia on July 2nd. Over five hundred delegates present.

July 8th, 1916.

Conference at New York of the “Young Judea.” The membership is three thousand five hundred.

September 13th–15th, 1916.

Poland. A Zionist Conference was held in Warsaw, attended by one hundred and twenty-five delegates from Warsaw and the Polish provincial cities.

The following resolution was passed:⁠—

“1. That the Central Committee establish a special Palestine Office, to gather information and material with respect to the present situation in Palestine and with respect to the possibilities for work after the war.

“2. That it elaborate this material and spread it within wide circles. Further, it has to organize pioneer groups, who are willing to go to Palestine, as well as to work out a scheme for the preparation of these pioneers.”

September, 1916.

Russia. “Poalei Zion” Conference—the first since the outbreak of the war. Resolution passed:⁠—

“That we agitate among the Jewish masses instructing them the only solution for the Jewish problem is the creation of a Jewish Home in Palestine.”

September 18th, 1916.

Conference of Zionist speakers, held at New York.

Bohemia. The Annual Conference of Bohemian Zionists was held at Prague on November 1st.

America. Zionist Students’ Organization of America held its Second Annual Conference, November, 1916.

November 14th–19th.

America. “Poalei Zion” Conference at Boston. Attended by one hundred and nine delegates from the United States and Canada.

(During the year two thousand new members had been enrolled. Juvenile Societies, with eighteen branches and over one thousand members, had been formed.)

1916.

England. On December 24th and 25th the Order of Ancient Maccabeans held their Annual Grand Beacon Meeting in Manchester. Resolution:⁠—

“That this Grand Beacon Meeting reiterates its loyalty to the Zionist programme, as endorsed from Congress to Congress, and expresses the hope that the time may not be far distant when our brethren will be accorded full civil and political rights all over the world, and that the order co-operate with bodies that strive for the above objects.”

1916.

Holland. The Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Dutch Zionist Federation was held at the Hague on December 24th and 25th, 1916.

About one hundred and twenty delegates were present, including representatives of the “Poalei Zion” and the Belgian Zionist Federation.

The Dutch Federation comprises twenty-six societies, with a total membership of one thousand six hundred and sixty.

Collections: Palestine Fund, 11,453 fl.; Central Fund, 913 fl.; National Fund, 10,709 fl.

1917.

Poland. The Annual Meeting of the Warsaw Zionists, held on January 11th, attended by a thousand shekel payers.

1917.

America. In March, a Conference of Jewish Socialist Workers was held in New York, and attended by four hundred delegates. The Basle programme was adopted.

1917.

Mizrachi. Over two hundred delegates attended the “Mizrachi” Convention at Pittsburg, where the deliberations extended for over five days. Fifty of the most prominent orthodox Rabbis of the country attended. The “Mizrachi” has a hundred and nineteen branches in ninety-five cities spread over twenty-eight States.

1917.

America. “Knights of Zion” held their Twentieth Annual Convention at Minneapolis and St. Paul. The “Knights of Zion” had seventy-six societies with a membership of four thousand two hundred.

America. Hebraists Convention took place in New York on February 10th, 11th and 12th. Many Hebrew scholars from all parts of the country were present.

America. The Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Zionist Council of New York was held on February 16th, attended by eighty-eight delegates, representing thirty societies.

1917.

England. The Annual Conference of the E.Z.F. was held in February in London. About sixty delegates were present.

1917.

Switzerland. The Swiss Zionist Federation held a Conference at Berne on February 18th. Thirty-five delegates attended.

1917.

Russia. On March 28th–30th there was held a Conference of the Central Institutions of the Zionist Organization. About fifty delegates attended.

Conference of all Russian Zionist Organizations, held in Moscow, April 3rd. Dr. E. W. Tschlenow presided.

1917.

Greece. On April 9th a Mass Meeting, attended by over three thousand persons, was held at Salonica. After addresses delivered by several speakers, a resolution was passed urging the restoration of the oldest nation and its regeneration in Palestine.

1917.

Belgian Zionists. On April 29th the Belgian Zionist Federation held a Conference at Scheveningen, Holland.

1917.

Australia. Annual Meeting held at Sydney, March 18th.

1917.

England. Special Conference E.Z.F. in London, May 20th.

1917.

Russia-Turkestan. Early in May a Conference of Turkestan Zionists was held at Samarcand. The delegates were both Ashkenazi and Sephardi. Thirty delegates attended, besides delegates for the Bokhara Jews, and two hundred guests.

A Zionist Central Committee was formed for Turkestan.

1917.

Poland. June 3rd–5th. Conference of Zionist Central Committee for Poland, held in Warsaw.

1917.

Russia. On May 24th (O.S.) the Seventh Conference of Russian Zionists was held at Petrograd, and was attended by five hundred and fifty-two delegates, representing one hundred and forty thousand shekel payers, from six hundred and forty towns and villages. Eleven delegates came from Siberia. Bokhara and Mountain Jews were represented. Twenty-four delegates were soldiers coming by special permission of the Commander-in-Chief, who got free passes. Five hundred guests came from the country and one thousand guests from Petrograd were present. Ninety representatives of Russian papers were present. The Foreign Secretary, Teretschenko, sent greetings and best wishes for complete success.

Dr. E. W. Tschlenow’s speech was reprinted in half a million copies for the soldiers.

A meeting of Zionist Women was held in the hall of Kiew University in May. More than one thousand five hundred Jewish women attended.

1917.

In 1913 there were only twenty-six thousand shekel payers in Russia—now one hundred and forty thousand. Resolution passed:⁠—

“The Seventh Zionist Russian Conference proclaims its firm conviction that the nations, in settling the bases of the new national and political life, shall be conscious of the clearly manifested will of the Jewish people to colonize Palestine again as their national centre, and that they shall create conditions enabling the unhindered evolutions and concentration of all Jewish forces, for the purpose of bringing about a regeneration of Palestine.”

A representative body of the Jewish people should be admitted to the approaching Peace Conference, which shall obtain attention for the historic and national rights of the Jewish people.

1917.

America. Independent Order “Brith Shalom” held their Thirteenth Annual Conference in Atlantic City on June 13th. Over six hundred delegates were present. The resolution passed commenced thus:⁠—

“Whereas the Independent Order has adopted the Zionist platform in spirit and in fact, and has pledged itself to the furtherance of all principles it stands for, etc., etc.”

1917.

America. The Twentieth Conference of American Zionists opened at Baltimore on June 24th. Over a thousand delegates were present.

1917.

America. Twentieth Annual Convention of Progressive Order of the West was held at Detroit, Michigan. The Order has a membership of twenty thousand, and declared its allegiance to the Zionist cause.

1917.

America. Conference of “Young Judeans.” One hundred and twenty-five delegates present, representing five thousand members. The “Young Judeans” collected 3500 dollars for the Jewish National Fund.

1917.

England. Union of Jewish Friendly Societies, comprising fifty thousand members, adopt the Basle programme.

Conference of the Order of Ancient Maccabeans, held at Manchester, July 17th. Membership of the Order 2200.

1917.

Canada. The Fifteenth Annual Conference of Canadian Zionists took place at Winnipeg in July. Delegates from seventy-seven towns, of three hundred and fourteen Jewish organizations, attended.

The Governor of Manitoba came to the Conference, and expressed his sympathy with Zionism.

1917.

Russia. Poalei Zion. Conference in Kiew—September 8th. More than one hundred and sixty delegates attended.

1917.

Greece. Salonica. Great Meeting, attended by three thousand persons at Salonica, on 9th of Ab.

1917.

America. The “Mizrachi” in America celebrated in August the Six-hundred-and-fiftieth Anniversary of the First Settlement in Palestine by R’ Moses ben Nachman (Ramban). The “Mizrachi” started a Fund of 100,000 dollars, to aid Colonization and Industrial Development in Palestine.

1917.

Poland. The Third Delegates’ Conference of the Zionist Organization in Poland was opened in Warsaw on October 28th, 1917. More than three hundred and sixty delegates attended, representing forty thousand shekel payers.

1917.

Poland. Fifth Conference of the “Poalei Zion” of Poland, was held in Warsaw. Over forty-four delegates, representing twenty-six towns, participated in the Conference. The Organization had forty-six district groups, with a membership of eight thousand.

1917.

America. September 5th. Conference of Rabbis resolved to appeal to various powers, particularly President Wilson, asking them to give their consideration to the question of the Restoration of Palestine to the Jewish people.

1917.

England. In October, Zionist Demonstrations took place all over the country. In seventy-one synagogues, one hundred and twenty-three lodges and associations, and in fifty-four Zionist societies, resolutions were passed requesting the British Government to use its best endeavours to bring about a Restoration of Palestine as a National Home for the Jewish people.

1917.

Holland. Congress of Jews resident in the Netherlands, held in Amsterdam on November 18th, for considering emancipation of Jews, recognition of national rights in national States, and national concentration of the Jewish people in Palestine.

One of the most popular of Zionist funds is the Jewish National Fund. This Fund is outside the realm of discussion, and deals exclusively with hard facts, i.e., financial contributions from all parts of the world. The Jewish National Fund is in a very real sense an index of the people’s will. It would seem that the terrible misery of the Jewish masses occasioned by so many expulsions, evacuations, and loss of life and property would have had the effect of, if not entirely cutting off this source of revenue, at least, seriously reducing it. In point of fact, the reverse is shown by the figures.

The income of the Fund during the last few months of the year 1914 and during the year 1915, was about two-thirds of the previous years. But in the year 1916 the National Fund received about 1,000,000 francs, which equals the amount in 1913. During the first half of 1917 the average monthly contributions were doubled. The latest date up to which exact figures for the various countries are available is September 1st, 1917. During the eight months from January to September, 1917, more than 1,300,000 francs had been recorded. During the last four months of the year approximately the same amount was received, that is, the contributions were doubled once more in relation to the immediately preceding rate. At the present moment the contributions to the National Fund amount to about 150,000 francs per month.

The results attained by the National Fund must be attributed to the general growth of the Zionist movement as well as to the effective organization of its propaganda, to the popularity of its fundamental idea—the acquisition of land as National property—and the importance attached by Jewry at large to the rôle that the National Fund will have to discharge in the forthcoming colonization of Palestine.

Contributions to the Jewish National Fund from the different countries in the year 1917 were as follows: Russia, Rbl. 475,312; United States, $73,502; Holland, Fl. 28,767; England, £1396 1s. 10d.; Argentina, Pesos 13,378; Canada, $4056; South Africa, £639 8s. 4d.; Switzerland, Frs. 11,572; Belgium, Frs. 8,329; France (including Tunis), Frs. 6,978; Egypt, £255 11s. 4d.; Greece, Frs. 6,425; Sweden, Kr. 2,542; Denmark, Kr. 2,447. Various countries, about Frs. 600,000. The total amounts to Frs. 1,747,278. At the rate of exchange before the war it would be Frs. 2,730,011.

The Jewish National Fund

Statistical Table of Annual Income in Francs

Country. 1914. 1915. 1916.

United States 197,311 291,604 268,317

Russia 184,334 30,120 81,336

Holland 10,662 13,972 35,921

Argentine 4,196 4,334 22,807

England 24,655 12,061 20,766

Roumania 15,532 23,997 19,021

South Africa 27,511 21,905 15,001

Scandinavia 807 1,715 4,886

Canada 21,951 23,129 10,296

Switzerland 3,854 3,748 7,296

Greece 5,755 4,545 4,410

Belgium 10,472 — 4,161

Egypt 2,845 832 3,382

France 2,115 1,862 2,992

Far East 1,377 280 2,562

Australia and
New Zealand 3,305 1,080 1,915

Italy 1,630 2,641 1,312

Portugal — 280 937

Brazil 1,430 1,082 125

New Zealand — — 522

Other countries 224,962 197,597 425,110

744,704 636,784 933,075

With regard to the Zionist Organization, it must be stated that some of its functions, particularly those which were centralized in the headquarters, such as the periodical meetings of the Greater Actions Committee and the permanent contact and co-operation between the members of the Inner Actions Committee, had to be suspended. The Zionist Congress, the chief organ of the movement, which elects the executive of all the officers of the movement, to decide all questions of policy, could not be held owing to the war, and as a result the position had to remain as settled by the Congress of 1913. As, however, the events of the war threw upon the Organization not less but very much more responsibility than previously, and confronted the existing executive with problems of the greatest urgency and importance, new instruments had necessarily to be created to meet the new situation and to carry on the work of the movement.

In America, where the movement began to spread with great rapidity, the American Provisional Committee for General Zionist Affairs was formed in 1914, very soon after the outbreak of the war, and conducted the affairs of the movement with great skill. Their efforts in connection with Palestine relief were beyond all praise, and constitute one of the brightest pages in the history of the movement.

In Copenhagen, also, a Bureau was opened, which rendered invaluable services to the cause.

Zionism and Jewish Relief Work

The greater part of the practical work of the Zionist Organization consisted of Relief Work for Jewish sufferers from the war. The terrible catastrophe which fell upon Russian Poland, Galicia, Bukovina, Lithuania, Zamut and Courland, affected the Jews in a unique way. Hundreds of towns and villages, in which Jewish inhabitants had dwelt and woven into their lives the threads of their own characteristic customs for many generations, in which they had faithfully preserved their ancient spiritual treasures in spite of misery and poverty, which had been a perennial source of inspiration and a rich storehouse for the Judaism of the whole world, which had nourished and sustained almost the whole House of Israel in the Diaspora, suddenly became a field of slaughter and the arena of the grimmest struggle in the world’s history. Troops in numbers never seen before, with weapons of destruction, threatening to reduce the world to ashes, passed like angels of destruction to and fro over the battlefields, leaving not a stone intact, not a blade of grass, or a living man or beast. Thus far the wounds and misfortunes which befell the Jews were no different from the wounds and misfortunes of the other inhabitants. But there must be added the special Jewish affliction in these countries, the persecution and the fierce anti-Jewish feeling which were the special characteristics of the ancient regime in Russia, which was wont to take advantage of every opportunity of avenging itself on the Jews, attacking them and holding them up to scorn on every kind of pretext and false accusation. This made the war a specially terrible phenomenon for the Jews: it produced a war within a war.

The war called upon the Jews to make sacrifices in equal measure with all the other inhabitants of these countries; their youth and their strength were laid on the altar of the land of their birth; they also bore the burden of all the taxes and payments which the other inhabitants had to bear; they put forward tremendous efforts as tradesmen and workers, as doctors and nurses; they were active workers in all departments directly and indirectly connected with the war. Yet side by side with this they had to face an insufferable hatred, they had to wage a separate war with the powerful, who strove to reduce to nothingness the little remnant which the war itself could not utterly destroy.

That this impression became current among the Jews was inevitable, in consequence of an old phenomenon which appeared before them in a new guise. We refer to the curious mixture of expulsion and evacuation, of pogroms and slaughters, of which they were the victims. They were accustomed, from long and bitter experience, to expulsions from without the pale of settlement into the regions of the pale, from villages to towns, and to the suffering occasioned by the Russo-Turkish and Russo-Japanese wars; but these expulsions occurred when conditions in Russia itself were almost normal, and when the Jews who were left untouched by the decree of expulsion were able to render assistance to their unfortunate brethren. The combination of the two forms of trials, of war and of persecution by their fellow-citizens, was more than even a nation inured to suffering could bear. It was as though this nation, which had been a wanderer from time immemorial, had only just begun its wanderings. They were no ordinary wanderers—not merely expelled and outlawed; but they were taken and hurled as out of the middle of a sling from province to province and from district to district. Railway carriages were not enough to hold them, so they were transported in cattle-trucks, the doors of which were locked to prevent escape on the way. The cattle-trucks were not sufficient to cope with the numbers and horse-vans were impressed, and as the horse-vans were not sufficient, even though the Jews paid their last kopecks for places in them, they were sent on foot. Bands of wanderers—consisting of women, children, aged, weak, sick and infirm—were accordingly dragged, driven, knouted along every kind of road and over every kind of obstacle, not like cattle beneath the watchful eye of the herdsman, not even like animals led to the slaughter, on whom some mercy is taken because they can be used, but simply like wild beasts pursued by huntsmen; whoever fell by the way fell without attention, whoever fell sick was ruthlessly left behind. Families were split up, and that iron bond which unites parents and children was snapped; infants died of starvation pressed against their mothers’ shrivelled breasts; weary old greybeards grew faint and stumbled on the way and died without the last consolation of old age, without seeing around them their offspring whose souls were bound up with their own; tender infants were deserted without anyone to take pity on them, and the clamour went forth from one end of the earth to the other, “Where is my father?” “Where is my child?”

This tragedy was not included among the necessary tragedies of the war: it was a Jewish tragedy. When Belgium was ruined, her Jews too were ruined. Had the catastrophe to the Jews in Poland and Lithuania been of such a kind it would have found a place in the general history and not in the separate history of the Jews. When, however, bands of thousands of Jewish fugitives came to Warsaw from the inland towns, in rags and tatters, footsore, hungry and despairing, it was impossible to regard them simply as victims of the war, because it was only the Jews who came. They were not victims of the war, they were victims of the Galuth, these thousands and tens of thousands of Jews who were suddenly transplanted from the midst of their old homes in Lithuania. When whole congregations, including inmates of their Homes for the Aged, of their hospitals, and even of the asylums were evacuated, it was impossible to believe that this was military tactics or a measure of precaution, for it was only the Jewish congregations who were forcibly and suddenly removed in this extraordinarily cruel manner. In many places it happened that the expelled Jews before they left were able to see with their own eyes other people entering and taking possession of the shops which they had left behind them. There was no connection between these sufferings and the events of the universal war. These were incidents in the special campaign which had been waged against the Jews before the war. For centuries the Jews had been living in these places. Brest-Litovsk and Grodno were not only cities in which there were fortresses for the Czar’s army and his Tchinovniks. They were also centres of Jewish life, wherein the Torah dwelt, cities of the Jewish “Council of the Four Provinces,” cities which emanated intellectual light over all the Diaspora, cities with institutions of Jewish congregations, with Yeshiboth, with schools, with synagogues and houses of learning, with old cemeteries, whose tombstones recorded the happenings to Jews for many generations. All that was destroyed and all the Jews who lived and thrived in them have been uprooted and scattered, and that which they left behind them wiped out, and no one knows if these towns will ever be rebuilt, and even if they are rebuilt will the Jews and their communities, with their learning and their traditions, ever be restored?

Accordingly there was but one cry, one intense and bitter cry, which was heard from one end of the world of Jews to the other, a cry for help. “Save all who can yet be saved.”

The Jewish people had realized that it was unwise to depend upon governments or to rely on philanthropic effort in general. The needs of the Jews were great and peculiar, so that only Jews themselves could help their brethren. This help appeared to be necessary in two directions: immediate pressing help and permanent prevention. Immediate pressing assistance consisted in sending money, provisions and clothes to save Jewish lives from hunger, disease and want, to help them to find work and means of livelihood in the places to which they have been driven, as well as in the places in which they have remained. But at the same time, people began to realize more and more that the real help for the Jews would be to rescue them from the unnatural conditions which cause them to be the scapegoat for whatever punishment comes upon the world. A people which dwells in its own land is also wont to be smitten by the sword and the fortunes of war, but it is not accustomed to complete destruction. When a nation has its own land and its own soil beneath its feet, to which it is attached, all the winds of Heaven cannot move it from its place, no weapon can permanently destroy it. A whole nation cannot be driven by oppressors from its country, and even though for generations the hand of the oppressor lie heavy upon it, the day is sure to come in which its fetters fall away, and once again it can breathe freely. Not so with a nation which floats in the air: it cannot rise in time of trouble, for every passing wind carries it away like chaff and makes it turn like the wheel of a windmill. Every page of Jewish history teaches this lesson, and the present war has served but to emphasize it. Therefore if we wish to prevent this evil and to obviate such convulsions in the future, we must establish for the remnant of this people a firm foundation and a safe shelter in the land of their fathers. Thus once again the flame of war and the terrible sufferings of our brethren have revealed the truth of the Zionist idea in all its strength and clarity as being the only true solution of the Jewish problem, that problem whose consequences are written in the blood of myriads of our brethren.

History will relate that the present generation of Jews rose to the height of its responsibility in comprehending both these duties equally. Once again there was revealed the strength of the Jewish quality of mercy. The Jews of Russia and Poland did their duty. With their young ones and their elders they threw themselves into the work of relief: in many places it was the Zionists who were the most ardent in this work. The Zionist Organization had during the last generation become a school of discipline and communal work, from which came forth initiators and leaders. It is not our wish, however, to make in this respect any distinction between Zionists and non-Zionists. Many who stood far removed from the camp returned to their brethren: all sections of Jews united: the icy cloak of indifferentism was melted, the divisions between the observant and the Liberals were obliterated. The shadow of sectarian faction disappeared, and on the scene appeared one people. History will relate that American Jewry, that vigorous young branch of the Jewish tree, made a mighty superhuman effort and performed wonders surpassing the imagination. It was not charity, but greatness. Voluntary effort went as far as self-imposed taxation. The history of Jewish unity has never had a chapter more beautiful, more sublime, more uplifting. America was not alone—a similar spirit rested upon the Jews of every country, and not only with regard to relief work, but also in the more permanent work of prevention, which was Jewry’s second duty. The second duty was to watch over and safeguard the Jewish colonies in Palestine, the colonies from which will spring the National Home. It was necessary to provide the Palestinian Jews with food, and to support the colonization—this small heritage of ours, this child of our sorrow, conceived in anguish and in holiness. The difficulties were enormous. Palestine was cut off from the whole world, by the sea on the West and the desert on the East, without a government able or willing to help; the New colonization is a young plant needing tender care—the Old communities are poor and helpless. If in such circumstances Palestinian Jewry was not entirely wiped out, we must thank the Jewish nationalist heart, which was awakened in our brethren in every country, and especially in America.

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:⁠—

“We—Jewish soldier-delegates from the Army—who participate in this Convention, avow to the Convention, and to the Jewish people:

“Hundreds and thousands of Jews are in battle in the Russian Army. In a time of outlawry and terrible persecution, under the burden of false accusations, the Jewish soldiers fulfilled their full military duty. In the ocean of blood poured out by the heroic Russian Army, there is no little of Jewish blood.

“Now, having become free citizens of Russia, and fully privileged members of the Army, the Jewish soldiers will continue their efforts in a new spirit of enthusiasm. Believing that the strengthening of the revolution, and the strengthening of the peoples in Russia can be accomplished only through the union of all the peoples and by a strong discipline in the free army, the Jewish soldiers declare triumphantly that they are prepared to follow the call of the revolutionary democracy to defend Russia against her enemies.

“We believe that the Russian democracy, which has assumed the task of freeing all the peoples of the world, will understand the strivings of our people, and will support Jewry in its efforts to create a national centre for the Jewish people, on its historic soil, Palestine.”

The Conference carried the following resolutions:⁠—

“Considering first that the Jewish people, in view of its disposition and dispersion all over the world, can recreate for itself conditions for the normal development of its national, cultural, and economic life, only through the restoration of a national autonomous centre in its historic home, Palestine,

“Secondly, that the Jewish nation has never severed its ties with its ancient home, and has always longed for it, and that its moral and historic right to Palestine is incontestable and irremovable,

“Thirdly, that the aspirations of the Jewish nation, so manifested, fully coincide with the great principle of self-definition, of freedom and independence for the development of all nations proclaimed by the democracies and governments of all countries:

“The Zionist Conference in Russia unanimously expresses its firm belief that when establishing the basis of the future national and political life, the nations will recognize and count with the clearly-stated will of the Jewish nation for the resettlement and rebirth of Palestine as its national centre, and will consequently create conditions guaranteeing the free and successful development of the concentrated Jewish forces and of the restoration of Palestine.

“To ensure the concrete and full manifestation of the will of the Jewish nation, the Conference considers it necessary first to organize among the Jews a referendum on the question; secondly, to lay before the All-Russian Jewish Congress the question of Jewish claims in Palestine; and thirdly, to claim the admission of a representative of the Jewish nation at the future peace conference, to be held upon the closing of hostilities, for the expression of the wishes of the Jewish nation, and for the defence of its historic and national rights and interests.”

The same spirit was revealed also by the Jews of Poland. In May, 1917, a Zionist Conference was held in Warsaw, attended by nearly four hundred delegates representing a large number of committees, synagogues, societies and groups consisting of all classes of the Jewish population. A sort of plebiscite was arranged among the Jews of Poland, with a view to ascertaining their attitude towards Zionism. The plebiscite resulted in the acceptance of a resolution in favour of Zionism.

All these and many other facts prove that the Zionist idea has made great progress among the Jewish masses. But under the new circumstances Zionism required more than the usual propaganda: it required work, political work.

Political Activities in England and the Allied Countries

The introduction into this book of a comprehensive account of the various démarches on behalf of the Zionist cause recently undertaken in English political circles, and also in allied countries, is rendered difficult by the following considerations. In the first place, the publication of pourparlers which have taken place, and of schemes which have been, or are to be, submitted, is impossible, because they are still in progress, and their final issue is dependent on further developments. In the second place, the author feels great embarrassment, being compelled to break the rule hitherto observed of avoiding any reference to his own share in the work of the movement. In this section, however, he has participated so directly in the démarches referred to that it was quite impossible to speak of them at all without referring occasionally to his share in the political activities.

A glance, however, at recent political efforts appeared indispensable, in order to bring the history of Zionism up to date. But there is no claim that the following account is more than an outline of the most important events. With these provisos we pass to the facts themselves.

It was at once clear that England was destined to play a most important part in Zionist politics. London from the beginning was the financial centre of the Zionist Organization and the Mecca of political Zionism. Even at the time of the Chovevé Zion Movement England was regarded, as it were, as the country that stands between the “Galuth” and “Salvation.” When the idea of Palestine had begun to be popularized among the Jews of Russia and Poland—long before the name “Zionism” had become current—Disraeli’s Tancred and George Eliot’s Daniel Deronda were translated into Hebrew. The name of Sir Moses Montefiore was in the mouth of all Jews in Eastern Europe, and his journeys to Palestine, in connection with his great plans, had long since grown legendary. English Jews were valued because of this famous individual; they were considered simply as national Jews, whether they really were so or not. From a distance the observer did not recognize the mediocrity, the parochialism and dissensions; he saw the summits only, and they appeared splendid. A man like Albert Goldsmid, who was an English colonel and also a national Jew, appeared to be a type such as could hardly be found in any other country. That was rich material for the Jewish imagination, which fed upon it and made it much greater than the truth. It was, however, not imagination, pure and simple; a sound political instinct was also at work here. The Jewish Ghetto had for long prophesied that it is England’s destiny to decide the fate of Palestine, and however much one may smile at the speculations of Ghetto politicians, these had, nevertheless, in their quick-wittedness understood much that is sometimes hidden from professional politicians. Moreover, this was not the politics of the Ghetto only. Herzl did not know the Ghetto, and received no information from it; notwithstanding this, all roads led him to London. It was in London that he for the first time in his life publicly took part in Jewish life. At a later period again, the offer of a territory in East Africa was made by the English Government; the El-Arish Expedition was organized by England. Zionist finance was English, and English was the Zionist political outlook.

In the pre-war period the Zionist Organization had everywhere sought connections. True to its programme, desiring a charter from the Ottoman Government, with the approval of the great Powers, it worked without intrigue and adventure, honestly anxious to get this charter with the approval of all nations. In this matter, England always took the first place. Herzl and his followers had worked zealously in England. This work was continued after Herzl’s death. The author also, in his capacity as member of the Zionist Executive, visited this country several times. The impressions gained here were always stimulating and interesting, but the Zionist question was not prominent.

The question became prominent with the outbreak of the war. The thought lay uppermost, that the work must be carried on here in England, that, if possible, it must be concentrated here. If this thought was evident to the Zionists of other countries, was it any wonder that it deeply stirred the English Zionists? Thus it happened that this thought found an excellent champion and representative in the person of Dr. Chaim Weizmann. He took counsel with his colleagues in England, and together with them began to consider the question of what was to be done in England, in order to make the political problem of Zionism a problem of the day. The idea that England was the most important centre, and offered the most promising prospect of success, was neither new nor the opinion of a single party; it had become rather the property of the whole Zionist Organization. But it was now something entirely different from what it used to be formerly. Formerly Zionism was an abstract idea; in spite of all Herzl’s great achievements, the problem remained merely a project. It is the political problem we are talking about, because the intellectual and practical labour of Zionists for Palestine had been a reality during the whole time of the Chovevé Zion and the Zionist movements. Now, however, political Zionism has also become a reality. If the war has taught us anything at all it surely is this, that nothing is more fatal than an attitude of indifference towards problems of international politics. The practical and intellectual members of the Zionist Organization, too, who used to look down upon politics, have changed their attitude towards them. Formerly, they may have been entirely or partially right—the intellectual were undoubtedly right in proclaiming that the spiritual in Zionism must be the soul of the whole movement, and the practical ones also were right in establishing the early colonies, and it is only a pity that more considerable progress was not made—but now all were agreed that, in consideration of the new possibilities, the movement must come into relation with the political forces, and the establishment of actual relations constituted a great many-sided and responsible work, which had to be carried out, at first in England, but also partly in other countries of the Entente.

One of the most distinguished representatives of the Zionist idea in this country is the Very Rev. Dr. Moses Gaster, the late Haham of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ congregations in England, who from early youth occupied a respected and influential position, in the time of Chovevé Zion as well as in Zionism, and devoted himself also with great zeal to the political question of Zionism. He also represented the view that a wide field for political efforts lay open here, and he freely gave his time and his eloquence in the service of the cause. In this direction he was very active, especially in the earlier stages.

The Very Rev. Dr. Joseph Herman Hertz, Chief Rabbi of the United Congregations of the British Empire, has evinced a sympathy with the Zionist Movement which at certain pregnant moments was equivalent to declaring himself at one with Zionism. His affiliation with the Zionist idea goes back to Chovevé-Zion days, and subsequently he became one of the founders of the “South African Zionist Federation.” The Spiritual Leader of British Jewry has ever been a sincere friend of the movement, and on various decisive occasions has championed the idea, defending it, explaining it, and encouraging it. In the new development, especially in the months preceding the “Declaration,” his help in connection therewith has been of far-reaching and lasting importance.

The inspiring spirit and the driving force, he who most successfully had made many distinguished non-Jewish personalities familiar with Zionism and who championed with all his energy and enthusiasm a Zionist political programme in England, was Dr. Chaim Weizmann. In the very earliest months of the war he began to collect the threads for the political work, to rouse the Zionist circles with which he was in touch, to revive old connections in non-Jewish circles and to form new ones, to prepare for negotiations—in a word, to open up the work that was destined later on to become a properly-organized programme. Herein he had the support of a group of enthusiastic and deeply sympathetic Zionists, and was strengthened and stimulated in his initiative by them. The first attempts to confer with the Government representatives about Zionism were made: the impressions were satisfactory. One foresaw that this contained the germs of promising possibilities. These impressions led to the conclusion that mere discussions alone were not sufficient, but rather that it was necessary to formulate plans. In order to formulate plans and in order to obtain authority from the Zionist Organization to submit these plans (for such appeared to be the next step) it would be necessary to establish a centre in London, and to obtain the necessary representative powers. It would also be necessary to write more about Zionism: to publish books, to undertake propagandist work—in another and more direct manner. The means were also considered to win over the non-Zionist, perhaps even the anti-Zionist, Jewish elements. All these aims were discussed, weighed, and elaborated by a small circle. It was not the whole of English Jewry, it was not even the then existing English Zionist Federation; it was really a circle of a few Zionists, mostly intellectuals who corresponded with Dr. Weizmann, and met and took counsel with him.

From that time forward the Zionist idea began to occupy the attention of the English Press. The question became topical, the old English traditions found new expression. Most people had no conception that they were speaking in the spirit of old traditions—for few knew of this remote chapter in ♦English history—but they did it unconsciously, which makes their action perhaps even more valuable. Many a journalist among the élite of the intellectuals not only gave assistance to the cause of Zionism in the Press, but went a step further, and helped vigorously in the political work. In connection with this matter the name of the doyen of English journalism, Mr. C. P. Scott, Editor of the Manchester Guardian, may be especially mentioned. Since the very beginning Mr. C. P. Scott has given the whole problem a very careful and sympathetic attention, and was an influential mediator between Zionists and leaders of British politics. He and Dr. Weizmann had conversations with some personalities, who strengthened them in their hopes that the ground was favourable for Zionism. Other Zionist workers in England also shared their view, and Dr. Gaster, too, in conjunction with Dr. Weizmann, had some important conversations with English leaders. The impressions which both had formed confirmed the hope that Zionism has a great future in England.

♦ “Engish” replaced with “English”

We can by this time, without committing any indiscretion, take this opportunity of mentioning one of the influential personalities who had given great and never-to-be forgotten services in the cause of the Zionist idea, that is the Rt. Hon. Herbert Samuel, late Home Secretary, who unites in himself the brilliant qualities of an English statesman with an enthusiastic attachment to Judaism, but had never yet taken an active part in essentially Jewish affairs. His wonderful energy, his distinguished talents and his patriotic zeal had for long been devoted to the services of the country, and both in the Asquith ministry and in Parliament he formed one of the most distinctive figures. Although he directed his activities exclusively to questions of Home administration, he turned his mind also from the commencement of the war to the great political problems of foreign politics, and when the opportunity was offered to become more acquainted with the Zionist idea, this idea won his sympathy, and he championed it with the full force of his convictions. It is sufficient to mention the words contained in his speech at the Demonstration of December 2nd at the London Opera House: “that he has stood for Zionism not only in the Cabinet, but also outside it.” These were modest words. As a matter of fact, he has not only stood for Zionism, but he has also done much to elucidate Zionist questions. He merits truly a page of honour in the history of Zionism.

For the sake of historical accuracy, other distinguished persons must be mentioned as well. We refer to some members of the famous House of Rothschild. Volumes could be written concerning what Baron Edmond de Rothschild has done for colonization in Palestine. Far removed from political activity and unwilling to play any official part in the Zionist Organization, devoted with love and attachment to his country, France, and at the same time inspired with the loftiest sentiments for Judaism, this Nestor of true philanthropy cherishes a love for the idea of regenerating Palestine that cannot be too highly valued. That he has made this ideal one of the most beautiful traditions of his family is shown by the fact that his son, James, has followed the example of his father. This stimulating and instructive example could not fail to influence the other branches of this great family also. The late Lord Rothschild of London, who stood at the head of organized English Jewry, was long regarded as an opponent of Zionism. But this opposition was not a matter of principle, it was simply determined by circumstances: the obstacles appeared to him insurmountable, and that was the only reason for his opposition. In view of the different circumstances caused by the war, he revised his former opinions, and shortly before his death he began to take an interest in Zionism. Following this lead, other members of this family also have taken up a favourable view towards Zionism, and this view grew to a complete alliance with the Zionist Organization on the part of the present Lord Rothschild.

In connection with this development, the very great services of Dr. Weizmann in this same direction must be mentioned. Shortly before the outbreak of war Dr. Weizmann had given much attention to the project of founding a University in Jerusalem. This project, which met with great approval, not only in Zionist circles but also elsewhere, brought him into closer relations with the House of Rothschild, and this did much to make the members of this family more closely acquainted with Zionism.

This was the position at the beginning of the war. The outlook was promising, and a sound start had been made. But all this was waiting for development, for deepening, for actualization. The English Zionist Federation, being a local organization, could neither speak in the name of the great masses of Zionists of the Entente countries nor could it undertake the great political labour of propaganda organization. Thus it happened that on the part of Dr. Weizmann, Dr. Gaster, and others, the invitation was sent forth to the main organization to delegate two of its representatives to London.

There was, however, still another matter which caused the coming of the delegates of the general Zionist Organization in London to appear necessary. Although the Organization remained uniform in its principles and aims, an actual collaboration of Zionists throughout the world in the pre-existing form had to be set aside for the time being. The greatest numbers of Zionists live in Russia: there exist the persons who are especially called to make Palestine their home, and there also the majority of the most distinguished Jewish nationalists and the leading spirits of a Hebrew culture are most strongly represented. The great Jewish community in America, which unites the intensity of national consciousness of Russian Jews with the fresh spirit of liberty of the New World, constitutes even more and more a reservoir, not only of powerful material resources, but also of great organizing motive-power, of influential initiative and endeavour, which are doubtless destined to play a decisive part in the solution of the Zionist problem. When, in addition to these facts, it is realized that the great resources for the colonization of Palestine have been contributed from Paris, by Baron Edmond de Rothschild, where also the headquarters of the Jewish Colonization Association are situated, which has the disposal of the millions of the late Baron de Hirsch, and which, if the issues in Palestine are favourable, is destined to develop its colonizing activities in this direction: when finally the fact is remembered that London is the centre of all financial institutions, then it will be easily understood that the whole situation has brought England to a place of first importance in the matter of Zionist activities, that it seemed a logical necessity that certain representatives of the Organization had to move their residence and their work hither, so as not only to maintain what already existed, but also to prepare systematically the conditions for the new and rich possibilities, together with the distinguished personal factors already at work here.

In conclusion, one more circumstance must be mentioned, the importance of which is also not to be under-rated. Though for a long time the Zionist Organization had endeavoured to make Zionism the cause of the entire Jewish people, the consciousness of the need for unity grew as the war progressed. It was very desirable that those Jews who did not consider themselves organized Zionists, should co-operate in the realization of many practical plans. All the peoples involved in the war had managed to create among their parties a so-called “Union Sacrée,” and to form a united front. Why should this be impossible to the Jews?

Soon after the outbreak of the war, the Zionist leaders in England had attempted to come to an understanding with those indifferent to their cause and with the so-called anti-Zionists, in order to render possible, without renouncing the principles of Zionism, collaboration in working out a practical scheme in Palestine.

All these motives led the leaders of English Zionism to request the general organization to delegate here two of their representatives—namely, Dr. Tschlenow of Moscow and the author, for the purpose of assisting in the important work to be done in this country. They arrived in London shortly before the end of the year 1914.

Space does not allow us to describe the work of these three years in detail; we must therefore confine our attention to the chief features. In the course of the first few months the work consisted in a searching test of the attempts in hand: this test yielded a perfect agreement and a verification of all reports made. In the early months of 1915 there were new conferences with many leading personalities, with favourable results. In March, 1915, Dr. Tschlenow, Dr. Weizmann, and the author went to Paris, after Dr. Weizmann had previously visited Paris again and again on Zionist business. Attention was then confined to Jewish circles, and so far as non-Jewish circles were concerned a certain general enquiry appeared to be necessary. At the same time, attempts were made through conferences with a group of leading Jewish personalities in London who stood aloof from Zionism, to bring about an understanding. The Zionist delegation which was in charge of these negotiations and this correspondence was composed of Dr. E. W. Tschlenow, Dr. Moses Gaster, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Mr. Herbert Bentwich, and the author. As an understanding just then appeared impossible, the negotiations were postponed until further notice. Dr. Tschlenow shortly afterwards left England, after a stay of five to six months, and returned to Russia. At the meeting of the Zionist Committee in Copenhagen and at the Zionist meetings that took place in Russia, Dr. Tschlenow was able to report that the political efforts in England had filled him with the best hopes. The Author remained in England and devoted himself, in addition to propaganda, to the political task in which Weizmann’s unwearied efforts became more and more important. The period 1915–1916 was more one of preparation than one of execution: Zionism had to be strengthened from within, the societies in London and the Provinces had to be maintained, new societies had to be created, pamphlets and books had to be written and published; externally, the work consisted in finding new sympathisers, and in an enlightening propaganda wherever a proper opportunity offered itself. The correspondence with the Zionist leaders and organizations in Russia and America became more active and the relations ever closer. In London a number of talented young Zionist writers and workers had grouped themselves round the leaders; many books and many pamphlets which were published during this period had won great popularity for the Zionist writers and publicists who had already proved their worthiness, such as Major Norman Bentwich, who subsequently became the first Procureur-General of Palestine under the British occupation, and Messrs. Paul Goodman, Albert M. Hyamson, Samuel Landman, Harry Sacher, Leon Simon; new personalities joined them, as, for instance, Semmi Tolkowsky and others. The temporary stay in London of many prominent Zionists of Russia and Palestine, such as Boris Goldberg of Wilna, and recently the agriculturist, Jacob Ettinger, and the manager of the Anglo-Palestine Company, David Levontin, who both came over from Palestine, and the great intellectual influence exercised by Achad Haam, who freely gave his invaluable advice in every important question—all these have done very much to make London the real centre of Zionist work.

Towards the end of the year 1916 several months were spent in drafting outlines and projects for the purpose of drawing up a Zionist programme which should be as clear as possible and correspond with the present conditions, in which efforts Dr. Weizmann and the author were supported by a number of notable colleagues. Already in 1915 the work had commenced on the projects and memoranda, the drafting of which received many contributions from several members; and the work was continued from that time onwards. A committee, consisting of Dr. Gaster, Dr. Weizmann, Mr. Herbert Bentwich, Mr. Joseph Cowen, and the author, had towards the end of 1916 outlined a preliminary sketch of a programme which was afterwards discussed in a further committee. This programme was intended to serve as a foundation for the official representations which were then in view. At the same time, Dr. Weizmann was constantly occupied independently in preparing the ground for the coming official proposals, by conferences and propaganda; this he was able to do, thanks mostly to his personal connections, though he always acted in conjunction with the author.

The 7th of February, 1917, constitutes a turning-point in the history. Shortly before this date Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mark Sykes, Bart., M.P., had communicated with Dr. Weizmann and the author on the question of the treatment of the Zionist problem. Sir Mark Sykes, who is a distinguished authority on oriental matters and who had earlier given attention to the Arab question, was entrusted with the study of the Zionist problem. In conjunction with a representative of the French Government, M. Georges Picot, he had devoted great attention to the question, and both had had first conversations with Dr. Moses Gaster. At the commencement of the year 1917 Sir Mark Sykes entered into closer relations with Dr. Weizmann and the author, and the discussions held with the latter led to the meeting of February 7th, 1917, which marks the commencement of official negotiations. Besides Sir Mark Sykes, the following took part in this meeting: Lord Rothschild, Mr. Herbert Bentwich, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Dr. M. Gaster (at whose house the meeting took place), Mr. James de Rothschild, Mr. Harry Sacher, Right Hon. Herbert Samuel, M.P., Dr. Chaim Weizmann, and the author. The deliberations yielded a favourable result, and it was resolved to continue the work. For further regular consultations with Sir Mark Sykes and M. Georges Picot, the author was chosen. Discussions on questions connected with the Zionist programme took place. In consequence of these negotiations and of the great importance of the Zionist question to all the Governments of the Entente Powers, the author was called to Paris in March, 1917, by the French Government. On the 22nd of March he was received at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris, where he outlined the principles of the Zionist programme. He received the assurance that the French Government regarded the programme very favourably, and was authorized to inform the Zionist Organizations of Russia and America of this result by telegraph.

After a stay of one month in Paris, during which the author got into touch with the leading Jewish circles, he went to Rome, where he devoted himself to the same task. The conferences which he had with the leading Italian Jews led to the happy result that the programme laid before them by the author was accepted. With regard to the question of the Holy Places, it was considered advisable to enter into negotiations with the Vatican. The Author had conferences with the Cardinals (especially with Cardinal Gasparri), and on the 10th of May he was received in an audience by the Pope. These conferences led to a most satisfactory attitude on the part of the Vatican towards Zionism. Between the 12th and the 18th of May, the author, together with the President of the Jewish Community in Rome, Commendatore Sereni, was received several times at the Italian Consultà, and by the then Prime Minister Boselli, and he was assured that the Italian Government, in conjunction with the Allied Powers, would support the Zionist programme. He was authorized, just as in Paris, to telegraph this result to the Russian and American Zionist organizations.

Having returned to Paris, the author was received on May 28th by the then Prime Minister Ribot, and after that remained another month, during which various negotiations were conducted. He then received a document addressed to him, a statement from the French Government, the text of which, translated from the French original, runs as follows:⁠—

“Paris, June 4, 1917.

“Sir,

“You were good enough to present the project to which you are devoting your efforts, which has for its object the development of Jewish colonization in Palestine. You consider that, circumstances permitting, and the independence of the Holy Places being safeguarded on the other hand, it would be a deed of justice and of reparation to assist, by the protection of the Allied Powers, in the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago.

“The French Government, which entered this present war to defend a people wrongfully attacked, and which continues the struggle to assure the victory of right over might, can but feel sympathy for your cause, the triumph of which is bound up with that of the Allies.

“I am happy to give you herewith such assurance.

“Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my most distinguished consideration.

“(Signed) Jules Cambon.

“M. N. Sokolow,

Hôtel Meurice, Paris.”

From this statement it is clearly seen:⁠—

(1) that hereby the question of Zionism is recognized as one of those concerning small and persecuted nations;

(2) that the principle of the recognition of Jewish nationality and its historical right to Palestine is here accepted; and

(3) that the French Government is prepared to support this movement.

In the meantime, the Zionists in England—and especially their political leader, Dr. Weizmann—had continued the work with great zeal in this country. After his return, the author again took a share in this work. The great development which the political and propagandist work had in the interval made in England, led to the establishment of a larger consultative committee and to the opening of new offices,⁠¹ and a year earlier Dr. Weizmann had been elected President of the English Zionist Federation, and this did much to bring new life into the Federation. Two periodicals were founded, the monthly Zionist Review, in London, and the weekly Palestine, published by the British Palestine Committee, Manchester, and Zionism reached a popularity such as it never previously had in this country.

¹ Zionist Organization, London Bureau, Empire House, 175 Piccadilly, W.

Conference of English Zionist Federation in 1917

A Special Conference of Delegates from the Constituent Societies was held in London on the 20th of May, 1917, with the President, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, in the chair. The Conference was called partly in consequence of the disturbing news that had been received from Palestine and partly in order that a communication on the political situation, as it affected the Jewish National Movement, might be made to the societies through their delegates. The Conference occupied the whole of the day and was very largely attended. It was opened by the Chairman with an address, in which he reviewed the situation. He said:⁠—

“Grave and great events have taken place since we met last—events which will affect deeply the fate of Jewry all over the world. The first event of colossal magnitude was the Russian Revolution. By a miracle, in one night the chains and fetters which have enslaved a great nation of 150 to 160 millions for centuries have been broken, and a free Russia has emerged. It has become almost a current phrase in the Press that it was a ‘bloodless’ revolution, but those who know Russia, those who have lived in Russia, know very well that although the last act of the drama was comparatively bloodless, much blood has been poured out during many years, and it was this outpouring of blood which has prepared the dramatic developments which we witnessed two months ago. And we Jews know that in this stream of blood there was a considerable fraction—a very considerable fraction—of Jewish blood. It was common knowledge in the years 1905 and 1906 that there was not a single Jewish family in Russia which had not paid the toll in the form of a son or a daughter or a relative to the Moloch of Russian Tsardom. All those Jews who have bought so dearly freedom for themselves and for the rest of Jewry, will go down in history as heroes, as saints, and our hearty congratulations and wishes go out to all those who have fought for the Russian Revolution, and to those who are going to carry on the work under the new régime. It is clear that an event like this cannot pass without convulsions. It is marvellous that things should go in Russia as they do now, but it is equally clear that the fate of Jewry, the fate of the Zionist Movement, largely depends upon stable conditions in that part of the world, and it will be, I am sure, an honourable task for the Zionist Organization all over the world, and especially for our friends in Russia, to contribute as much as it is in their power to the stabilization of conditions in Russia. Some of us—some of our friends even, and especially some of our opponents—are very quick in drawing conclusions as to what will happen to the Zionist Movement after the Russian Revolution. Now, they say, the greatest stimulus for the Zionist Movement has been removed. Russian Jewry is free. They do not need any places of refuge somewhere outside Russia—somewhere in Palestine. Nothing can be more superficial, and nothing can be more wrong, than that. We have never built our Zionist Movement on the sufferings of our people in Russia or elsewhere. Those sufferings were never the cause of Zionism. The fundamental cause of Zionism was, and is, the ineradicable national striving of Jewry to have a home of its own—a national centre, a national home with a national Jewish life. And this remains now stronger than ever. A strong and free Russian Jewry will appreciate more than ever the strivings of the Zionist Organization. And truly we see it even now. Russian Jewry is formulating its national demands in a proud, open, free way, which may well serve as an example and an encouragement to the free Western communities of Jewry. You have all read of meetings which have taken place all over Russia—of a meeting which took place only recently in Moscow, and was attended by seven thousand Jews. Many Western Jews could learn from these meetings how a free and proud Jew ought to speak. We therefore look forward with confidence to the future of Zionism in Russia.

“Now what are our hopes? How do we think they will be realized? Of course, I do not propose to prophesy in this assembly, but I shall try to outline, as much as it is possible to do so, what are our plans, and how we think we shall be able to carry them out. And before I do so let me do away with one or two what I may perhaps call misunderstandings, or what may be called wrong phrases. One reads constantly in the Press and one hears from our friends, both Jewish and non-Jewish, that it is the endeavour of the Zionist Movement immediately to create a Jewish State in Palestine. Our American friends went further than that, and they have even determined the form of this State, by advocating a Jewish Republic. While heartily welcoming all these demonstrations as a genuine manifestation of the Jewish national will, we cannot consider them as safe statesmanship. Strong as the Zionist Movement may be, full of enthusiasm as the Zionists may be, at the present time, it must be obvious to everybody who stands in the midst of the work of the Zionist Organization, and it must be admitted honestly and truly, that the conditions are not yet ripe for the setting up of a State ad hoc. States must be built up slowly, gradually, systematically and patiently. We, therefore, say that while a creation of a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine is our final ideal—an ideal for which the whole of the Zionist Organization is working—the way to achieve it lies through a series of intermediary stages. And one of those intermediary stages which I hope is going to come about as a result of this war, is that the fair country of Palestine will be protected by such a mighty and a just Power as Great Britain. Under the wing of this Power Jews will be able to develop, and to set up the administrative machinery which, while not interfering with the legitimate interests of the non-Jewish population, would enable us to carry out the Zionist scheme. I am entitled to state in this assembly that His Majesty’s Government is ready to support our plans.

“I would further like to add that the support of the British Government, when given, will be in conjunction and agreement with the Allied Powers. Our friend, chief, and leader, Mr. Sokolow, who, owing to important Zionist duties, is prevented from attending this meeting, has been both in France and in Italy, and from both these Governments he has received assurances of full sympathy and full support. One of the important problems to be considered in connection with the future settlement of Palestine is the delicate question of the Holy Places. I need hardly say, in this Jewish assembly, that we Jews will be meticulously and scrupulously careful to respect the sentiments of any religious group or sect in Palestine. It is not for us to discuss how this complicated question, which forms an important point in international relations, is going to be settled. We trust to the fairness and justice of the nations which are going to build up a better world after this catastrophe, that they will see to it that the arrangements made are fair and satisfactory to everyone. We have assurances from the highest Catholic circles that they will view with favour the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, and from their religious point of view they see no objection to it, and no reason why we should not be good neighbours. And good neighbours I hope we shall be.

“Let us now turn our attention for a few minutes to the internal situation. Confident as we are of our final success, we cannot help feeling some disappointment at the fact that the whole of Jewry does not stand united at this present critical moment. Ladies and Gentlemen, it is not only a matter of regret, but it is a matter of deep humiliation to every Jew that we cannot stand united in this great hour. But it is not the fault of the Zionist Organization. It is, perhaps, not the fault of our opponents. It must be attributed to the conditions of our life in the Dispersion, which has caused in Jewry a cleavage difficult to bridge over even at a time like this. It is unfortunate that there still exists a small minority which disputes the very existence of the Jews as a nation. But there need be no misgivings on that account; for I have no hesitation in saying that if it comes to a plebiscite and a test, there can be no doubt on which side the majority of Jews will be found. And, ladies and gentlemen, I warn you that this test is bound to come—and come sooner, perhaps, than we think. You will have to show, and in this solemn hour I call upon you to prepare for it, that with all your heart and mind you stand united behind those leaders whom you have chosen to carry out, at this critical hour of the world’s history, this work. We do not want to give the world the spectacle of a war of brothers. We are surrounded by too many enemies to give ourselves this luxury. But we warn those who will force an open breach that they will find us prepared to stand up united in the defence of the cause which is sacred to us. We shall not allow anybody to interfere with the hard work that we are doing, and we say to all our opponents, ‘Hands off the Zionist Movement!’”

The statement was received with repeated applause, and aroused great enthusiasm among the delegates, both immediately after its delivery and also in the course of the discussion which ensued.

Zionism and Public Opinion in England

All these signs of Zionist activity naturally could not avoid creating a certain opposition. The attempts to bring about agreement, made at the beginning of 1915, had led to nothing, and the Zionists, from their point of view, could not have thought ill of their opponents, if they had limited themselves to a discussion within Jewish circles. But the opposition went so far as to publish a document which reads as follows:⁠—⁠¹

¹ The Times, May 24, 1917.

“In view of the statements and discussions lately published in the newspapers relative to a projected Jewish resettlement in Palestine on a national basis, the Conjoint Foreign Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association deem it necessary to place on record the views they hold on this important question.

“The Holy Land has necessarily a profound and undying interest for all Jews, as the cradle of their religion, the main theatre of Bible history, and the site of its sacred memorials. It is not, however, as a mere shrine or place of pilgrimage that they regard the country. Since the dawn of their political emancipation in Europe, the Jews have made the rehabilitation of the Jewish community in the Holy Land one of their chief cares, and they have always cherished the hope that the result of their labours would be the regeneration on Palestinian soil of a Jewish community, worthy of the great memories of their environment, and a source of spiritual inspiration to the whole of Jewry. Accordingly, the Conjoint Committee have welcomed with deep satisfaction the prospect of a rich fruition of this work, opened to them by the victorious progress of the British Army in Palestine.

“Anxious that on this question all sections and parties in Jewry should be united in a common effort, the committee intimated to the Zionist organizations as far back as the winter of 1914 their readiness to co-operate with them on the basis of the so-called ‘cultural’ policy which had been adopted at the last two Zionist Congresses in 1911 and 1913. This policy aimed primarily at making Palestine a Jewish spiritual centre by securing for the local Jews, and the colonists who might join them, such conditions of life as would best enable them to develop the Jewish genius on lines of its own. Larger political questions, not directly affecting the main purpose, were left to be solved as need and opportunity might render possible. Unfortunately, an agreement on these lines has not proved practicable, and the conjoint committee are consequently compelled to pursue their work alone. They are doing so on the basis of a formula adopted by them in March, 1916, in which they proposed to recommend to his Majesty’s Government the formal recognition of the high historic interest Palestine possesses for the Jewish community, and a public declaration that at the close of the war ‘the Jewish population will be secured in the enjoyment of civil and religious liberty, equal political rights with the rest of the population, reasonable facilities for immigration and colonization, and such municipal privileges in the towns and colonies inhabited by them as may be shown to be necessary.’

“That is still the policy of the conjoint committee.

“Meanwhile, the committee have learnt from the published statements of the Zionist leaders in this country that they now favour a much larger scheme of an essentially political character. Two points in this scheme appear to the committee to be open to grave objections on public grounds.

“The first is a claim that the Jewish settlements in Palestine shall be recognized as possessing a national character in a political sense. Were this claim of purely local import, it might well be left to settle itself in accordance with the general political exigencies of the reorganization of the country under a new sovereign power. The conjoint committee, indeed, would have no objections to urge against a local Jewish nationality establishing itself under such conditions. But the present claim is not of this limited scope. It is part and parcel of a wider Zionist theory, which regards all the Jewish communities of the world as constituting one homeless nationality, incapable of complete social and political identification with the nations among whom they dwell, and it is argued that for this homeless nationality a political centre and an always available homeland in Palestine are necessary. Against this theory the conjoint committee strongly and earnestly protest. Emancipated Jews in this country regard themselves primarily as a religious community, and they have always based their claims to political equality with their fellow-citizens of other creeds on this assumption and on its corollary—that they have no separate national aspirations in a political sense. They hold Judaism to be a religious system, with which their political status has no concern, and they maintain that, as citizens of the countries in which they live, they are fully and sincerely identified with the national spirit and interests of those countries. It follows that the establishment of a Jewish nationality in Palestine, founded on this theory of Jewish homelessness, must have the effect throughout the world of stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands, and of undermining their hard-won position as citizens and nationals of those lands. Moreover, a Jewish political nationality, carried to its logical conclusion, must, in the present circumstances of the world, be an anachronism. The Jewish religion being the only certain test of a Jew, a Jewish nationality must be founded on, and limited by, the religion. It cannot be supposed for a moment that any section of Jews would aim at a commonwealth governed by religious tests, and limited in the matter of freedom of conscience; but can a religious nationality express itself politically in any other way? The only alternative would be a secular Jewish nationality, recruited on some loose and obscure principle of race and ethnographic peculiarity; but this would not be Jewish in any spiritual sense, and its establishment in Palestine would be a denial of all the ideals and hopes by which the revival of Jewish life in that country commends itself to the Jewish consciousness and Jewish sympathy. On these grounds the conjoint committee deprecate most earnestly the national proposals of the Zionists.

“The second point in the Zionist programme which has aroused the misgivings of the conjoint committee is the proposal to invest the Jewish settlers in Palestine with certain special rights in excess of those enjoyed by the rest of the population, these rights to be embodied in a Charter and administered by a Jewish Chartered Company. Whether it is desirable or not to confide any portion of the administration of Palestine to a Chartered Company need not be discussed, but it is certainly very undesirable that Jews should solicit or accept such a concession, on a basis of political privileges and economic preferences. Any such action would prove a veritable calamity for the whole Jewish people. In all the countries in which they live the principle of equal rights for all religious denominations is vital for them. Were they to set an example in Palestine of disregarding this principle they would convict themselves of having appealed to it for purely selfish motives. In the countries in which they are still struggling for equal rights they would find themselves hopelessly compromised, while in other countries, where those rights have been secured, they would have great difficulty in defending them. The proposal is the more inadmissible because the Jews are, and will probably long remain, a minority of the population of Palestine, and because it might involve them in the bitterest feuds with their neighbours of other races and religions, which would seriously retard their progress, and would find deplorable echoes throughout the Orient. Nor is the scheme necessary for the Zionists themselves. If the Jews prevail in a competition based on perfect equality of rights and opportunity they will establish their eventual preponderance in the land on a far sounder foundation than any that can be secured by privileges and monopolies.

“If the conjoint committee can be satisfied with regard to these points they will be prepared to co-operate in securing for the Zionist organization the united support of Jewry.

“(Signed) David L. Alexander,

President, Board of Deputies of British Jews.

“(Signed) Claude G. Montefiore,

President, Anglo-Jewish Association.

“London, May 17, 1917.”

On the day after the appearance of this Manifesto, The Times received more letters than it could make room to print from Jewish correspondents, “taking strong exception” to the statement of the Presidents. Mr. Elkan N. Adler at once resigned from the Conjoint Committee, and described the publication of the Manifesto as “inopportune, if not harmful, but he afterwards withdrew his resignation.” Mr. B. A. Fersht and Mr. S. Gilbert also resigned.

Mr. Gilbert did not resign from the Conjoint Committee, of which he was not a member. He resigned his membership of the Board of Deputies in order that the prospective president, Sir Stuart Samuel, might be elected in his place.

The Chief Rabbi, Dr. J. H. Hertz, wrote to The Times, expressing the following opinion:⁠—

“I do not propose to advance any arguments contesting the extraordinary statement on Zionism and Palestine which you published on Thursday last, signed by Mr. D. L. Alexander, K.C., and Mr. Claude G. Montefiore. But, as Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire, I cannot allow your readers to remain under the misconception that the said statement represents in the least the views held either by Anglo-Jewry as a whole or by the Jewries of the Oversea Dominions. Moreover, neither the Board of Deputies nor the Anglo-Jewish Association—on whose behalf their presidents signed the document in question—authorized its publication or had an opportunity of considering its contents.

“It is, indeed, grievously painful to me to write this in your influential columns. But I am impelled to do so in the interests of truth, and in justice to the communities of which I have the honour and privilege of being the spiritual head.”

Dr. M. Gaster, the Haham of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ congregations in England, declared:⁠—

“A settlement of the Jewish problem will, no doubt, form part of the general settlement which is to secure to the world a permanent peace resting on ‘national liberty and international amity,’ as Lord Robert Cecil only yesterday declared in the House of Commons. The Jew also wants a permanent peace resting on the same foundations, and he can only find it by the realization of the Zionist programme, a national autonomous life in the Holy Land, publicly recognized and legally secured. It embraces, of course, the religious as well as political and economic life, indissolubly united in the Jewish national consciousness.”

Lord Rothschild replied to several of the objections to Zionism advanced by the two Presidents in a letter which stated:⁠—

“In your issue of the 24th inst. appears a long letter signed on behalf of the Conjoint Committee by Messrs. Alexander and Montefiore and entitled ‘The Future of the Jews.’ As a sincere believer both in the justice and benefits likely to accrue from the Zionist cause and aspirations, I trust you will allow me to reply to this letter. I consider it most unfortunate that this controversy should be raised at the present time, and the members of the Zionist organization are the last people desirous of raising it. Our opponents, although a mere fraction of the Jewish opinion of the world, seek to interfere in the wishes and aspirations of by far the larger mass of the Jewish people. We Zionists cannot see how the establishment of an autonomous Jewish State under the ægis and protection of one of the Allied Powers can be considered for a moment to be in any way subversive to the position or loyalty of the very large part of the Jewish people who have identified themselves thoroughly with the citizenship of the countries in which they live. Our idea from the beginning has been to establish an autonomous centre, both spiritual and ethical, for all those members of the Jewish faith who felt drawn irresistibly to the ancient home of their faith and nationality in Palestine.

“In the letter you have published, the question also is raised of a chartered company. We Zionists have always felt that if Palestine is to be colonized by the Jews some machinery must be set up to receive the immigrants, settle them on the land, and to develop the land, and to be generally a directing agency. I can only again emphasize that we Zionists have no wish for privileges at the expense of other nationalities, but only desire to be allowed to work out our destinies side by side with other nationalities in an autonomous State under the suzerainty of one of the Allied Powers.”

Dr. Weizmann replied to two statements made by the anti-Zionists in a further letter which appeared in The Times:⁠—

“I have no desire to ask for space in your columns to examine with what justification these two gentlemen and the school they speak for claim that they have always hoped and worked for a Jewish regeneration in Palestine. But I am anxious to correct two statements which might possibly generate serious misconception in the minds of those not well informed as to Zionism and Zionist projects.

“1. It may possibly be inconvenient to certain individual Jews that the Jews constitute a nationality. Whether the Jews do constitute a nationality is, however, not a matter to be decided by the convenience of this or that individual. It is strictly a question of fact. The fact that the Jews are a nationality is attested by the conviction of the overwhelming majority of Jews throughout all ages right to the present time, a conviction which has always been shared by non-Jews in all countries.

“2. The Zionists are not demanding in Palestine monopolies or exclusive privileges, nor are they asking that any part of Palestine should be administered by a chartered company to the detriment of others. It always was and remains a cardinal principle of Zionism as a democratic movement that all races and sects in Palestine should enjoy full justice and liberty, and Zionists are confident that the new suzerain whom they hope Palestine will acquire as a result of the war will, in its administration of the country, be guided by the same principle.

“In conclusion I should like to express my regret that there should be even two Jews who think it their duty to exert such influence as they may command against the realization of a hope which has sustained the Jewish nation through 2000 years of exile, persecution, and temptation.”

These letters of protest led to the publication of a leading article entitled “The Future of the Jews” in The Times of 29th May, which showed that this paper is firmly convinced of the justice of the Zionist cause. The article was of so much importance that it is quoted in full:⁠—

“The important controversy which has sprung up in our columns upon the future of the Jews deserves careful and sympathetic attention. The war has given prominence to many questions that seemed formerly to be outside the range of practical politics. None of them is more interesting than that of the bearing of Zionism—that is to say, of the resettlement of a Jewish nationality in Palestine—upon the future of the Jewish people. In the statement which we published last Thursday from the Conjoint Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association exception was taken to Zionist plans for the creation of a national Jewish community ‘in a political sense,’ and pointed arguments were directed against them. In the opinion of the Committee, such plans are ‘part and parcel of a wider Zionist theory which regards all the Jewish communities of the world as constituting one homeless nationality, incapable of complete social and political identification with the nations among whom they dwell.’ Against this theory the Committee ‘strongly and earnestly protest,’ on grounds which, in so far as they are set forth in the statement, are sufficiently clear. The Committee claim that they are fully alive to the special meaning of Palestine for the Jewish race. They are anxious that in Palestine the civil and religious liberties of Jews should be secured. But they affirm that ‘emancipated Jews’ in this country have no ‘separate national aspirations in a political sense.’ Such Jews regard themselves ‘primarily as a religious community,’ and have always ‘based their claims to political equality with their fellow-citizens of other creeds on this assumption.’ They fear lest the establishment of a Jewish nationality in Palestine stamp the Jews as strangers in their native lands and undermine ‘their hard-won position as citizens and nationals of those lands.’ The Committee proceed to argue that since ‘the Jewish religion’ is ‘the only certain test of a Jew, the Jewish nationality must be founded on, and limited by religion.’ It follows, they believe, that a Jewish nationality would be obliged to ‘express itself politically’ by religious intolerance, and would thus undermine the very principle which Jews have invoked to secure their emancipation. The Committee further insist that the bestowal by Charter of ‘certain special rights in excess of those enjoyed by the rest of the population’ would be a questionable boon to a Jewish community in Palestine, because in all the countries in which Jews live ‘the principle of equal rights for all religious denominations’ is vital to them.

“It seems to us that in attempting to define Jewish nationality in terms of religion the Committee come dangerously near to begging the question which they raise; and no question can be solved by begging it. As Dr. Weizmann, the President of the English Zionist Federation, observes in the letter which we published yesterday, it may possibly be inconvenient to certain individual Jews that the Jews do constitute a nationality. The question is one of fact, not of argument, and the fact that the Jews are a nationality ‘is attested by the conviction of the overwhelming majority of Jews throughout all ages.’ This conviction, he rightly says, ‘has always been shared by non-Jews in all countries.’ But more immediately important than this discussion of a point which cannot seriously be disputed is the denial by eminent and influential Jewish leaders like Lord Rothschild and the Chief Rabbi of the title of the Conjoint Committee to speak for British Jewry, or, indeed, for ‘the larger mass of the Jewish people.’ Lord Rothschild writes: ‘We Zionists cannot see how the establishment of an autonomous Jewish State, under the ægis and protection of one of the Allied Powers, can be considered for a moment to be in any way subversive of the position or loyalty of the very large part of the Jewish people who have identified themselves thoroughly with the citizenship of the countries in which they live.’ The Chief Rabbi insists that the statement of the Conjoint Committee does not represent in the least the views held ‘either by Anglo-Jewry as a whole or by the Jewries of the Oversea Dominions.’

“Authoritative declarations such as these dispose of the contention that Zionism is not representative of Jewish aspirations. We believe it in fact to embody the feelings of the great bulk of Jewry everywhere. The interest of the world outside Jewry is that these aspirations, in so far as they may be susceptible of realization, should be fairly faced on their merits. It is too often imagined that the Jewish question can be solved by the mere removal of all artificial restrictions upon Jewish activities. Even a superficial acquaintance with the conditions of life in the congested Jewish communities of Galicia and Russia suggests the inadequacy of that solution. The truth is that the Jewish question cannot be exhaustively defined either in terms of religion or of race. It has important social, economic, financial, and political sides. The importance of the Zionist movement—apart from its territorial aspect—is that it has fired with a new ideal millions of poverty-stricken Jews cooped up in the ghettoes of the Old World and the New. It has tended to make Jews proud of their race and to claim recognition, as Jews, in virtue of the eminent services rendered by Jewry to the religious development and civilization of mankind. Only an imaginative nervousness suggests that the realization of territorial Zionism, in some form, would cause Christendom to round on the Jews and say, ‘Now you have a land of your own, go to it!’ The Jews who feel themselves to be British, French, or American would, doubtless, tend to identify themselves more than ever with the lands of their political allegiance and to become more and more a solely religious community. The rapid changes of nationality that have been so noticeable among Jews in the past would become increasingly discredited. The international solidarity of Jews would undoubtedly persist—though, with a lessening of the danger of religious persecution, the leading Jews of all countries might feel freer to make a public stand against tendencies which sometimes bring the Jewish name into disrepute. We note with satisfaction the assurance of the Conjoint Committee that, if their specific misgivings can be removed, ‘they will be prepared to co-operate in securing for Zionist organizations the united support of Jewry.’ It is in this direction, we believe, that progress lies.”

On the 1st of June The Times contained a letter adding the names of the Anglo-Jews who supported the view taken by the Conjoint Presidents. The letter read as follows:⁠—

“Sir,—As the representative character of the Jewish Conjoint Committee has been publicly challenged, we, being Jews of British birth and nationality, actively engaged in public work in the Anglo-Jewish community, desire to state that we approve of, and associate ourselves with, the statement on the Palestine question recently issued by the committee, and published in The Times of the 24th inst.

“Your obedient servants,

Swaythling
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.”

¹ “Sir Lionel Abrahams signs subject to the opinion that, in view of the statement made by the President of the English Zionist Federation on May 20, a further attempt at co-operation between the Conjoint Committee and the Zionist organisations in the United Kingdom is now desirable.”

There were soon widespread signs that the congregations supposed to be represented by the Board of Deputies did not agree with the views expressed in the manifesto. Thus the seatholders of the New Synagogue, Stamford Hill, carried a motion calling upon their representatives at the Board of Deputies and the Conjoint Committee to resign. This was passed with only two dissentients. Synagogues in Manchester and Liverpool and the Committee of Deputies in Manchester, Yorkshire and Cheshire expressed regret at the action of the President of the Board of Deputies in “committing the Board to a policy for which the Board has given him no kind of authority.” The Belfast Congregation passed a similar resolution and also expressed confidence in Dr. Weizmann and the Zionist movement. Congregations in Birkenhead, Cardiff, Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Limerick, Merthyr Tydvil, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Newport (Mon.), Swansea and Wallasey took similar action. In Leeds a meeting was held representative of all the Jewish congregations and organizations; in Manchester the Jewish representative Council condemned the action of the Conjoint Committee. Indeed, throughout the United Kingdom Synagogues, Friendly Societies, Jewish Charitable Organizations and nearly every kind of Jewish institution made a public protest against the Manifesto, and declared in favour of Zionism.

These widespread signs of dissatisfaction with the existing leadership of the body which had hitherto claimed to be the official spokesman for Jewish opinion in England, was destined to lead to a complete change of government in that body.

It is true that at the meeting of the Anglo-Jewish Association on June 3rd Dr. Gaster’s resolution of censure was not put to the vote. But on Sunday, 17th June, at a meeting of the Board of Deputies a resolution of censure on the Conjoint Committee, calling upon the representatives of the Board to resign from the Conjoint Committee, was carried by fifty-six votes to fifty-one. Mr. H. S. Q. Henriques, the Vice-President of the Board, spoke in defence of the Manifesto. In his speech he said the Conjoint Committee had on the 17th May granted permission to the Presidents to publish the statement when they thought it advisable to do so, but he had himself been surprised that they had published it so soon. Mr. Gilbert said that in October he had asked if any Manifesto then existed or was contemplated and had been told that the suggestion was “malicious and wicked.” Sir Philip Magnus, Bart., said he had heard of the Manifesto a week or so before Mr. Henriques. From these statements it becomes clear that the document was compiled by a few of those thoroughly Anglicized Jews who, themselves very comfortably off in England, and about equally ignorant of the main currents of life in that country and of the main currents of Jewish life anywhere, were in their complacent self-satisfaction of opinion that they expressed the views of English Jews, when in reality they did not in the slightest degree represent the views of the overwhelming majority.

In consequence of the vote of censure, the Honorary Officers, Mr. David L. Alexander, K.C., the President; Mr. H. S. Q. Henriques, M.A., B.C.L., the Vice-President; and Mr. Joshua M. Levy, the Treasurer, resigned.

The Board of Deputies later attempted to restore the irresponsible power of a non-elective and unrepresentative committee having power to speak for the Jews of England. This new Conjoint Committee was to consist of the Foreign Committees of the two bodies, the Board of Deputies and Anglo-Jewish Association, meeting together to deal with Foreign affairs affecting the Jews. “Except in matters of routine or urgency,” the parent bodies have to be consulted before any action is taken. The question of Zionism was declared outside the province of the Joint Committee unless specially delegated to such Committee by both parent bodies. This scheme was adopted at a meeting of the Board of Deputies held on January 20th, 1918.

Meantime the question of a general manifesto in favour of Zionist aims, not only by organized adherents of the movement but by the Anglo-Jewish Community generally, having become of urgent importance, the Council of the English Zionist Federation issued an appeal to Jewish organizations throughout the country to convene meetings in order to pass resolutions in the following terms:⁠—

“(1) That this meeting being unanimously in favour of the reconstruction of Palestine as the National Home of the Jewish People, trusts that His Majesty’s Government will use its best endeavours for the achievement of this object.

“(2) That this Mass Meeting pledges itself to support the Zionist leaders in their efforts towards the realization of the Zionist aims.”

These resolutions were adopted at large meetings in London, at the Queen’s Hall, Monnickendam Rooms, at the Marcus Samuel Hall, New Synagogue, and in Bethnal Green, and at important meetings in Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds, Hull, Manchester, Swansea, Merthyr Tydvil and Bradford.

The following is the list, so far as we have been able to ascertain, of Synagogues and Institutions, which are known to have adopted these or similar resolutions.

Manchester. The Communal Council (representing 15,000 Jews, members of Synagogues, Trade Unions and Friendly Societies), the Lancashire and Yorkshire and Cheshire members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a special meeting of representatives of Synagogues at the opening of the Kovna Synagogue; the following Synagogues: Rydal Mount Hebrew Congregation, Kahal Chassidim, Beth Jacob, United Synagogue and Beth Hamedrash and New Synagogue; the following Friendly Societies: Grand Council of the Order of Ancient Maccabeans, Achei Brith and Shield of Abraham (Frances Annie Frankenburg, King Edward the Seventh, Nathan Laski, and Dr. Herzl Lodges), Independent Order of Achei Brith, Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Modin No. 24, Don Isaac ♦Abrabanel No. 11, ♠Rechoboth No. 29, Mount Horeb No. 9, Mount Lebanon No. 3, and Mattathias No. 14 Beacons), the Maccabean Club, the Order Shield of David (Broughton Lodge), and the Manchester and Salford Jewish Grocers’ Association; and the following Zionist Societies: Manchester Zionist Association, Poale Zion, and Manchester Daughters of Zion.

♦ “Abarbanel” replaced with “Abrabanel” for consistency

♠ “Rechobot” replaced with “Rechoboth” for consistency

Leeds. The Leeds Jewish Representative Council (representing all Synagogues, Trade Unions, Friendly Societies, and other Jewish organizations); the following Friendly Societies: Grand Order of Israel (Grosenburg Lodge No. 90 and Dr. Dembo Lodge No. 47), the Pride of Israel Independent Friendly Society, the Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Massodah Beacon and Mount Sinai No. 13 Beacon), and the Independent Order of B’nei Brith (Abraham Frais Lodge No. 35); the Leeds Jewish National Fund Commission, the Leeds Jewish Workmen’s Burial Society, the Leeds Banner of Zion, and the Leeds Young Shomerim; and the following Zionist Societies: Agudas Hazionim, Ladies’ Zionist League, Ladies’ Association, and a Mass Meeting convened by the Joint Zionist Committee.

Liverpool. The following Synagogues: Central Synagogue (Islington), Shaw Street, Nusach Ari, (Great Russell Street), Devon Street, Acheinu B’nei Yisroel, Old Hebrew Congregation (Princess Road), Beth Hamedrash Ayen Jacov, Wallasey Hebrew Congregation, and Fountain Road Hebrew Congregation; the following Friendly Societies and Trade Unions: Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Mount Nebo Erez Yisrael No. 28 and Mount Hermon Beacons), the Amalgamated Orders of Achei Brith and Shield of Abraham (Deborah Lodge No. 70, Dr. Max Nordau Lodge No. 13, and The Very Rev. Dr. Joseph H. Hertz Lodge No. 76), the Grand Order of Israel (Rev. S. Friedeberg Lodge No. 80), the Order of the Shield of David (Max Clapper Lodge No. 44), the Herzl Hebrew Friendly Tontine Society, the London Hebrew Tontine Society, the Montefiore Hebrew Tontine Friendly Society, the Order Shield of David Tontine Society (Joseph Morris Lodge No. 28), the Hebrew Brotherhood Tontine Society, the Brothers of Israel Tontine Society, the Hebrew Somech Noflim Society, the Liverpool Travellers’ Friendly Society, the Jewish Students of Liverpool University, the International Society of Philology, Science and Fine Arts (Liverpool Branch), the Hebrew Higher Grade National League, the Talmudical College, the Jewish Literary Society, the Tailors’ Employees’ Association, the National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association, the United Garment Workers’ Trade Union, the Anglo-Jewish Association (Liverpool Branch), the Wholesale Furniture Manufacturers’ Association, the Ladies’ Bikur Cholim Society, the Committee of the Association of Old Boys of the Liverpool Hebrew Schools; and the following Zionist Societies: Liverpool Young Men’s Zionist Association, Liverpool Zionist Central Council, Agudas Zion Society, Liverpool Junior Zionist Association, and Liverpool Ladies’ Zionist Association.

Glasgow. The Jewish Representative Council (representing all Glasgow Jewish Institutions, Synagogues, etc.); the following Synagogues: Chevra Kadisha, Garnet Hill, Beth Hamedrash, Langside Road, Machzikei Hadath, Beth Jacob, Queen’s Park Hebrew Congregation, and South Portland Street; the following Friendly Societies and Trade Unions: Baron Günzburg Lodge, Lord Rothschild Lodge, Montefiore Lodge, Michael Simon Lodge, Dr. Hermann Adler Lodge, King David Lodge, Rev. E. P. Phillips Lodge, Odessa Lodge, Lady Rothschild Lodge No. 67, Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Leo Pinsker Beacon No. 12, and Judas Maccabeus Beacon No. 15), Grand Order of Israel (Dr. Herzl Lodge No. 12), and the Independent Friendly Society; and the following Societies: Jewish Young Men’s Institute, Master Tailors’ Federation, Jewish National Institute (Elgin Street), Hebrew Burial Society, B’nei Zion, Young Girls’ Zionist League, Daughters of Zion, and Queen’s Park Zionist and Literary Society.

Birmingham. The following Friendly Societies: Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Theodor Herzl Beacon), Order of Achei Brith and Shield of Abraham (Isaac Joseph Lodge), Lodge, Lord Swaythling Lodge, Rachel Mendlesohn (Rev. J. Fink Lodge and Rev. G. J. Emanuel Lodge). Grand Order of Israel (Loyal Independent Lodge, Rev. A. Cohen Lodge, and David Davis Lodge).

Bristol. Mass Meeting of Bristol Jews, Oct. 21st.

Cardiff. Mass Meeting of Jewish Community Oct. 21st, 1917; Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Cardiff Branch).

Swansea. Mass Meeting, Oct. 15th (representing Synagogues, Friendly Societies and Zionist Societies), Swansea Hebrew Congregation, Swansea Junior Zionist and Literary Society.

Pontypridd. Mass Meeting of Jewish Community, 21st Oct.

Newport. Mass Meeting of Jewish Community, 21st Oct., 1917.

Merthyr Tydvil. Mass Meeting.

Durham. Zionist Society.

Maidenhead. Hebrew Congregation.

Birkenhead. Hebrew Congregation.

Bolton. Jewish Community, meeting 19th Oct., 1917.

Blackpool. Hebrew Congregation and Belisha Lodge.

Stockport. Jewish Tailors’ Union.

Sunderland. Mass Meeting of Sunderland Community, 21st Oct., 1917.

Grimsby. Hebrew Congregation, and Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Mount Zeisim Beacon No. 7).

Hull. Mass Meeting of Jews of Hull, Oct. 14th, 1917.

Bradford. Zionist Society, Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Jehuda Halevi Beacon No. 30).

Newcastle-on-Tyne. Mass Meeting of all Jewish organizations, Oct. 21st, Ancient Order of Maccabeans (Mount Gilead Beacon), Grand Order of Israel (Duke of Northumberland Lodge No. 14).

Edinburgh. Mass Meeting of Edinburgh Jews, 21st Oct., Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Mount Moriah Beacon).

Sheffield. Mass Meeting of Sheffield Jews, 18th Oct., representing Sheffield Hebrew Congregation, Central Synagogue, Talmud Torah, Board of Guardians, Polish Refugees Fund, Chevra Kadisha, Master Tailors’ Union, B’nei Brith, Grand Order of Israel, Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Levison Lodge), Sheffield Junior Zionist Association, and Worksop Jewish Community.

Nottingham. Mass Meeting, 21st Oct., representing Nottingham Hebrew Congregation, Palestine Association, Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Mount Ephraim Beacon), Independent Order B’nei Brith (Jacob Lasker Lodge), Grand Order of Israel (David Snapper Lodge), United Garment Workers of Great Britain (Nottingham Branch).

Belfast. Belfast Synagogue.

Dublin. Mass Meeting of Dublin Jewry, 21st Oct.; Independent Order of B’nei Brith (King Solomon Lodge No. 17); Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Mount Carmel Beacon No. 10); Agudas Hazionim; and Dublin Daughters of Zion.

The Times, on Oct. 23rd, noticed these demonstrations of sympathy with Zionism under the heading, “Palestine for the Jews: British support of the proposal”; and on Oct. 26th, in an editorial strongly urged on the Government the necessity of making an announcement of its policy in favour of Zionism.

The anti-Zionist views of the representatives of a small section of English Jewry were not only in opposition to Jewish public opinion, but even more in striking contrast with non-Jewish opinion, as revealed by the press of the United Kingdom.

The Westminster Gazette, in its issue of August 26th, 1916, published an article on “Zionism,” in the course of which the writer emphasized that:⁠—

“All they ask for is for a home for the Jewish people—not for all the Jews of the world, but only for the nucleus of the Jewish people, and above all, for their special type of civilization, for Judaism. They have no desire to dispossess any other people. They point to a land, to the land which is historically theirs, which to-day is lying vacant for want of a people to rejuvenate it. There, they say, Judaism will find that freedom which is unattainable elsewhere: at their hands the land which has languished for centuries can again be restored to the circle of bountiful regions, and become as of old, a granary for other nations.”

Lord Cromer, writing in the Spectator on August 12th, 1916, said:⁠—

“What is it that Zionists want? The idea that they wish the Jews of all races to be congregated together in Palestine may at once be dismissed as absurd. Nothing of the sort is proposed. Neither do they want to establish a mere colony in the sense in which that term is usually employed. Zionism stands for a national revival.”

The New Statesman, on July 8th, 1916, dealt editorially with “The Meaning of Zionism”:⁠—

“The creation of an autonomous Jewish State in Palestine, or elsewhere—though only in Palestine is there any prospect of such a State—and its successful progress and development would raise the status of the entire Jewish people and restore self-respect to Jewry as a nation. It would thus be a large part of the solution of the Jewish question.”

The Nation, in the course of a leading article, on June 2nd, 1917, on “What is a Jew?”, considered Zionism as the new force, and said:⁠—

“An assimilated Judaism has little to give to the world, save the individual talents of its adherents. Zionism, on the contrary, is a vivid, positive, picturesque element in the world, a distinctive tradition which adds something to the common stock. We hope to see it recognized, preferably under international institutions in Palestine, but we look askance at proposals to make it subservient to British ends of Empire and strategy.

“But the problem is far wider than Palestine. Zionism is really a challenge to the tolerance of Europe for the modern idea of nationality as culture. If that idea has vitality, the Zionism of the future will be recognized and accepted not merely in Jerusalem but in Warsaw and Vienna, in Paris and in London. If the West expects Austria and Russia to make terms with their many nationalities, it must in its turn hold out a welcome to Jewish nationalism.”

In New Europe, on April 12th, 1917, a writer dealt with the problem of the Jews:⁠—

“Whatever claim the Jews may make, it is clear that autonomous Jewry in Palestine must have an adequate guarantee of existence, whether by international pledge or by the protectorate of a Great Power.”

The same periodical, in its issue of April 19th, had a long article on “Great Britain, Palestine, and the Jews.” The writer gives his reasons for stating that a British Palestine must be a Jewish Palestine, the home of a restored Jewish people, the spiritual centre of the whole Jewish race. He shows what the Jew has already done in Palestine, and concludes:⁠—

“Under a beneficent rule a Jewish Palestine would attract wealth and talent and labour from every Jewish community of the globe, and the progress of Palestine would be much more rapid still. Compared with its past Palestine is an empty land, to which only the Jews can restore its ancient property and glory.”

The New Europe devoted the first pages of its issue of September 27th, 1917, to an article on “Jewry’s Stake in the War.” The writer in speaking of Zionism, said:⁠—

“The value of Zionism is, that it tends to bring the intense pride of the Jew in his own race, and in its all but unrivalled contribution to civilization, into harmony with its public bearing.

“... The existence of a Jewish State would certainly react and react healthily upon the position of Jews who might elect to remain in the Dispersion. The Zionists would fain make of the Jewish name a clear title of honour.”

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

“If any more romantic prospect than the spectacle of the British Standard flying above the temples and mosques of Jerusalem can be visualized, it is the restoration by Britain, which has always befriended the Jew, of the Jewish polity which fell to pieces in the reign of Hadrian.

“But sentiment must be based on practical considerations. To develop Palestine needs a skilled agricultural race. The dreamers of the Ghetto, yearning for the return of Zion, point to the Jewish farmers of Canada, America, and the Argentine in proof that the instinct of a pastoral people of Biblical time still survives in its sons.”

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

“There is no other race in the whole world who can do these services for us in Palestine but the Jews themselves. In the Zionist Movement, which has caught up within itself some of the best brains and the warmest hearts among the younger generation of Jews, we have the motive force which will make the extension of the British Empire into Palestine, otherwise a disagreeable necessity, a source of pride and a pillar of strength. A source of pride; for after all, if we are fighting for oppressed and homeless nationalities in this war, there is none which has been so horribly oppressed in the past or for so many hundred years without a home of its own as the Jews.

“A pillar of strength; for the fact that the Jews are not only of one nation but of all, will give to the power which is sovereign of its capital Jerusalem a tremendous pull in the councils of the world.”

The Times Literary Supplement of August 16th, 1917, had an article, “After Many Years,” which sketched the history of the Jews in Palestine, and went on to say that:⁠—

“The Palestinian Jew during the past decade has shown a certain capacity for self-government, and has successfully assumed many of the functions of administration which the neglect of Ottoman Mutessarifs had left unperformed. Under the influence of a renovated system of education, imparted in Hebrew, he was rapidly forgetting his German leanings or his Russian or Rumanian traditions, and was becoming a farmer of his own soil. If this process can be resumed and its scope widened after the war, Palestine may slowly grow from a State with the status say of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan—and develop into an autonomous protected State, with its own native sovereign and administration and forming part of the Empire in just the same way as do many States which are in full control of their internal liberties.”

Common Sense, March 10th, 1917, dealt with the Jewish claim to Palestine, and declared that:⁠—

“If, when we make peace, we are to make a just and lasting peace, the terms of the compact must run along the lines of nationality. In such a settlement the Jewish claim cannot be avoided, and we may hope that, as a consequence of the gentle pressure now being applied, the British Government will regard it as a duty to obtain a Hebraic Palestine as one of the terms of peace.”

The Manchester Guardian, in an article on June 25th, 1915, on “Jews and the War,” described the suffering of the Jews scattered amongst the nations, and defines Zionism as follows:⁠—

“Zionism is, from one point of view, the effort of the Jewish spirit to establish a firm ground for its own continuance and development in a changed world, which threatens by degrees to overwhelm it. Such a movement was bound to come so soon as danger threatened a race-life so tough and enduring, and a spirit so distinctive and powerful, and it is, like other spiritual things, essentially independent of material means. But for the early realization of its immediate purpose material means are necessary, and the future of Palestine thus becomes for the Zionist a matter of pressing and capital importance.”

The Manchester Guardian, in a leading article on “The Future of Palestine,” in its issue of October 1st, 1917, asks:⁠—

“How can we as champions of the cause of nationality, refuse our sympathy to the attempt to end age-long exile of the Jewish people from their political home in Palestine?”

The Liverpool Courier of April 24th, 1917, in a leading article, “Rebuilding Zion,” said:⁠—

“A British Palestine must be a Jewish Palestine.... Given the protection of the British flag, and the self-governing system of the British Empire, Palestine might soon become a new and living Zion. Such a consummation would be a triumph of the British spirit. It would be a worthy object to strive for in the great war, for it would fulfil a deep national aspiration among a disinherited people of extraordinary genius, and to that extent would add to the number and the weight of the blows we should deliver against anti-national Prussianism.”

The Liverpool Courier of June 15th, 1917, on “The Future of Palestine”:⁠—

“The Jews could make Palestine once more a land flowing with milk and honey. The country has enormous economic possibilities.

“... It must be the business of the Allies, in pursuance of their policy of liberation, to restore to Palestine its liberties, and to provide a centre of nationhood for the Jewish race.”

In a leading article on “The Land of Promise,” The Liverpool Courier—October 19th, 1917—again dealt with the Jewish claims to Palestine, and says:⁠—

“We may be as certain of a loyal Anglo-Jewry with a Jewish Homeland reconstituted, as we are to-day. Britain has always taken kindly to the idea of the Jewish Resettlement, and the moment seems now at hand when an ideal—cherished both by Britain and by Jewry—is not unlikely to find realization.”

The Glasgow Herald, May 29th, 1917, in an article on “Zion Re-edified,” dealt fully with the anti-Zionist manifesto, and said of the Zionists:⁠—

“They are looking forward now not to a re-edified Zion which the breath of a Turkish Sultan could tumble into ruin, but to the establishment of a Jewish State, under the suzerainty of some strong Christian power.

“Jews in every land have felt that what has been the dream of long ages of exile and persecution may at last become a reality on which their eyes shall gaze.”

The Yorkshire Post, April 12th, 1917, gave the history of “Jewish Colonization in Palestine,” and concluded that:⁠—

“Thus there is some foundation for the claim that in the settlement after the war provision should be made for the unhampered continuance and extension of the colonization of Palestine by the Jews; and should that develop in process of time into the establishment of a Jewish nation there, it will be a result by no means inconsistent with the ideals for which Great Britain and her Allies are fighting.”

The Contemporary Review of June, 1917, had a short note on the “Jewish Claim to Palestine”:⁠—

“Evidently the principle of nationality is itself considered sacred; it is an asset to the world, and it carries its rights, moral rights, which are none the less rights, if they cannot be enforced by the sword.

“The cynic might, perhaps, find more justification had Israel ever forgotten or waived his claim to the Holy Land; but a continuous chain of aspiration and prayer, and even of political activity, binds him to the soil from which he was driven early in the Christian Era.”

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

“Zionism means a complete Jewish, spiritual and national, rebirth in the ancient land—a re-settling of Jews in their own ancient home. To the idealist it is much more even, it is love for the Land of the Shekinah and the Holy Spirit, a mystic rapture of the whole Jewish soul in the quest of rediscovering the ‘Fountain of Living Waters.’

“To this end it is necessary for the Jewish people to have a home in Palestine secured by public laws.”

The military correspondent of The Daily Chronicle on March 30th, 1917, discussed the question of what should be done with Palestine when liberated, and came to the conclusion that:⁠—

“There can be little doubt that we should revive the Jewish Palestine of old, and allow the Jews to realize their dream of Zion in their homeland. All the Jews will not return to Palestine, but many will do so. The new Jewish State, under British or French ægis, would become the spiritual and cultural centre of Jewry throughout the world. The Jews would at least have a homeland and a nationality of their own. The national dream that has sustained them for a score of centuries and more will have been fulfilled.”

In a leading article in the same issue on “The Victory in Palestine” we read:⁠—

“The project for constituting a Zionist State there under British protection has a great deal to commend it. The restoration to Judaism of what must always be the ideal focus of its persistent national and spiritual life would be a noble addition to the programme for emancipating small nations.”

The Daily News, in a leading article, on October 17th, on the “War and the Jews,” dealt with the claim of Zionists in all lands to be a nation, and the desire to see the land of their fathers restored to them. The article concluded:⁠—

“In a word, we are not sure that Zionism would not prove the solution of the obstinate problem of this wandering race that has perplexed the world for so many centuries. Whatever the decision of the Allies in regard to Palestine, it can hardly fail to improve the conditions and enlarge the liberty of life in Palestine, and if the Jews in large numbers choose to take advantage of the fact, the object of Zionism will in due time be accomplished, and the Jewish nation will live again under its own vine and fig-tree. When that happens, the Jewish problem that afflicts the rest of the world will tend to disappear.”

Co-Ordination of Zionists’ Reports

The months August–November, 1917, were an exceedingly busy time for Zionists in England. They had to defend themselves against the attacks made against them not only in manifestoes, but also behind the scenes. They had to continue the pourparlers and to endeavour to obtain some acceptance of their principle. Dr. Weizmann and the author were actively and energetically assisted in their endeavours not only by a group of representative Zionists of England, but also by a considerable number of Zionists abroad. They were helped, above all, by American Zionists. Between London, New York, and Washington there was constant communication, either by telegraph, or by personal visit, and as a result there was perfect unity among the Zionists of both hemispheres. The strength of conviction, the enthusiasm, the spirit of sacrifice, the enterprise, and the industry and energy of American Zionists, displayed by them in the last few years deserve more than a page of honour in the history of Zionism; they deserve a volume to themselves. The statesmanship, the genius for organization, and the beneficent personal influence of the Honourable Louis D. Brandeis, Justice of the Supreme Court, has raised, strengthened, and secured in every direction the position of American Zionism not only in America, but also has increased its prestige and dignity abroad. His well-weighed counsel, his great experience, his calm judgment, which unites deep democratic principles with the sense of responsibility of a national leader, were an important factor in the conduct of Zionist politics. In this matter he was supported by a number of zealous, expert and devoted fellow-thinkers. The older American Zionists, who had maintained for many years a Zionist Organization with great trouble and exemplary steadfastness, were now, since the outbreak of the war, considerably strengthened by a number of Zionist leaders from Europe. At the head of the latter—who, in the meantime, have become thoroughly Americanised—stood Dr. Shmaria Levin, a member of the “Inner Action Committee”; who, in addition to his distinguished services as a publicist and propagandist, in which directions he displayed a vigour scarcely ever equalled and certainly excelled by no one, also freely gave his knowledge and advice in the discussion of political questions. To this group, enlarged by the leaders newly arrived from Europe, was added another most valuable group, of strongly Zionist feeling, coming from Palestine. After the enforced exile of a number of distinguished pioneers of colonization and of national Hebrew culture from Palestine, many of them went to America to dedicate themselves there to the work of propaganda. Dr. Ben-zion Mossinsohn, Mr. Israel Belkind and Mr. Menachem Mendel Scheinkin—to mention only the best known—have worked zealously in America for the popularizing of the Palestine idea. The oratorical skill of Mossinsohn was most valuable. A number of distinguished workers belonging to the Poale-Zionist Federation also made their headquarters in America, where at the same time the orthodox Zionists of the Mizrachi Federation had made noteworthy progress in the organizing of their forces and in the winning of new members, especially through the efforts of Mr. Belkind. The Jewish Press in America, a popular actor of most widespread dimensions, devoted its main attention to Zionism. With very few exceptions the organs of different opinions vied in the publication of Zionist views and in the promoting of the national Jewish idea, in which matter the non-Jewish Press from time to time gave energetic assistance. The publication of Hebrew literature and press-matter, which previously was too little in evidence in America, was stimulated by the Hebrew authors and journalists recently arrived from Russia and Palestine, who founded new Hebrew weeklies (Ha’toren, Haibri) and established houses for the publication of Hebrew books. The pioneer and veteran leader of the idea of the renaissance of the Hebrew language as the everyday speech in Palestine, namely, Elieser Ben Jehuda of Jerusalem, found supporters and friends in America, who made it possible for him to establish his residence during the war in New York, and there to continue his life-work, the compilation of a great Hebrew dictionary. The rise of the national idea found striking expression in the agitation for the holding of a Jewish-American Congress, an idea which was violently opposed by the anti-Zionists, but was carried by an overwhelming majority. Nationality and democracy—these were the battle-cries of the supporters of the Congress, which carried away the Jewish-American masses with irresistible force.

The separate Zionist federations “Mizrachi” (containing Orthodox Jews) and “Poale Zion” (containing Socialists) have naturally been sorely affected by the war, which greatly impeded their work. They, too, however, have been able to keep up the contact between the various sections of their federations and continue their activities. The “Mizrachi” has been particularly active in America. The central office of the “Poale Zion” has been transferred to the Hague, though its main activities have been carried on in America. In close co-operation with the office of the Federation, the “Jewish Labour Correspondence Bureau” has issued bulletins giving information about Palestine, and the conditions of Jews in various countries, with special reference to labour questions and the needs of the Jewish wage-earner.

This was the milieu in which the political work of the London Zionist centre found great sympathy and ready assistance. The circle grew constantly, new elements joined the older experienced ones: the worthy Elisha Lewin-Epstein, who gave himself entirely to relief work and who for this purpose undertook the most difficult journeys during the course of the war, never lost sight of his leading idea, namely, Zionism. Mr. Nathan Straus, who but a few years ago took up the Palestine scheme, placed himself in the front rank of the promoters of Zionism; Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, one of the most popular of American orators, who many years previously had attended the Zionist Congress as delegate and afterwards left the Movement, returned with renewed strength to labour in the work of propaganda and in the development of the organization with those well-tried fighters, Dr. Harry Friedenwald, Professor Israel Friedlænder, Miss Henrietta Szold, Professor Richard Gottheil, Mr. Jacob de Haas, Mr. Louis Lipsky, and many others. It was a great pleasure to welcome into the Zionist camp a galaxy of new forces of great influence, such for example as Judge Julian W. Mack and Professor Felix Frankfurter. In synagogues and workshops, in the universities and in the clubs of the Associations for Mutual Assistance—everywhere Jewish national life began to throb more strongly than ever. The sphere of Zionism seemed to grow day by day: the great expansion which the Zionist university movement of young men, the “Menorah,” had shown, pointed to a great future national development.

Every idea born in London was tested by the Zionist Organization in America, and every suggestion from America received the most careful attention in London. Many Zionist representatives came from America to London, and others visited America. The negotiations in political circles in England and France were known in America, every success was welcomed there with enthusiasm, and often, also, received further support. Every opportunity was there taken advantage of to hold discussions, not only with the representatives of the Government and the political parties, but also with distinguished statesmen who were staying in America as visitors. The visit of Mr. Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, gave an opportunity to the prominent Canadian Zionist leader, Mr. Clarence de Sola, for a most encouraging conversation, in the course of which the noble intentions of the British Government were expressed. Similar interviews took place on various other occasions. The real work, of course, could only be carried on in London; but it must be observed that the interest, the goodwill, and the helpful efforts on the part of the Zionist organizations in the United States, Russia, Canada, and other countries, have been of considerable value.

In September, 1917, Dr. Tschlenow again came to London, attracted by the importance of the Zionist affairs which were in negotiation. After more than two years of absence, although in uninterrupted contact with London, the work was too advanced, and his health too poor to allow him to be so active as he was at the beginning. But he participated with his advice and influence, and he lived to experience some great moments.

The British Declaration and Its Reception

November 2nd, 1917, marks the end of a chapter in Zionist history: it is Declaration Day.

The following are the terms of the letter to Lord Rothschild in which Mr. A. J. Balfour, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, declared the sympathy of the British Government with Zionist aspirations and its favourable attitude towards the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people:⁠—

“Foreign Office,

“November 2, 1917.

“Dear Lord Rothschild,—I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:

“‘His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.’

“I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

“Yours sincerely,

“(Signed) Arthur James Balfour.”

It was at once clear that a great moment in the history of the Jewish people had arrived through this Declaration. Our ancient home has again arisen for civilization. For nineteen centuries it has been made a desert, for nineteen centuries the Jewish people deprived of their own land sought everywhere a place where they could have freedom of the spirit and room for their work, and generation after generation prayed and dreamt of the return to Zion. Generation after generation drew from this source strength to live and to struggle. Now the dreams of our ancestors are becoming reality. The testament of Herzl was approaching fulfilment. The British Government has spoken in solemn terms to the Jews of the world. The time has arrived to create anew a Jewish homeland on the ashes of the past, to rebuild a national centre and to proceed to work in freedom in a free Jewish land.

Mid storm and fire the people and the land seemed to be born again. The great events of the time of Zerubbabel (fl. 536 b.c.e.) Ezra and Nehemiah repeated themselves. The Third Temple of Jewish freedom is rising before us. The first stones were laid long ago by our heroic pioneers in hard struggle against obstacles without number. They created the first nests of culture in Palestine. With their blood and work they have shown the world that the Jewish people has not only historical claims on the land of its ancestors, but also priority in actual fact in the work of its rebirth. These leader heroes, the fathers of political Zionism, bravely proclaimed to the whole world the right of the nation to a free life in the homeland, and organized productive work in Palestine.

Great new horizons of free national constructive work are revealed before our eyes. The fate of the Jewish land depends not only on the powerful protection of Governments, but first and foremost on the steadfastness and capacity for sacrifice of the Jewish people itself. Zerubbabel’s call to the Jews of the Diaspora was heard once more—to return to the ancient land, to grasp the ploughshare and the hammer, and to forge their own destiny.

The Press was without exception most sympathetic.

“Epoch-making is perhaps not too strong a term to apply to Mr. Balfour’s letter to Lord Rothschild. At any time a formal endorsement of Zionism by a Great Power would command attention if couched in such terms. But at the present moment, when Gaza and Beersheba have fallen to British armies and the distant thunder of our guns is heard in Jerusalem itself, the declaration has a significance that cannot be mistaken.

“From the Jewish point of view such a restoration opens the door of wonderful possibilities; the hopes that have never been lost during eighteen centuries of the dispersion will return within the region of fact and accomplishment. Scarcely less important should be the consequences for Europe.... The family of nations would be enriched by the return of one of its oldest and most gifted members to a regular and normal place within the circle.” (Daily Chronicle, Nov. 9th.)

“... In deciding to give the Zionists their chance, the British Government have done a bold thing and a wise thing; and as an honestly inspired and intelligent disinterestedness is sounder policy than the most crafty selfishness, they have incidentally struck in this dark hour a very heavy blow for the cause for which the free peoples of the world are fighting. Considered merely as a gesture, what is there in the war to compare in effectiveness to this decision?... The promise of the restoration of Palestine will count for more in the judgment of the world than all the desolation wrought by the German legions among the nations whom they have trodden under foot.” (Daily News, Nov. 10th.)

“The restoration of Palestine to the Jews will fulfil the centuries old desire of that ancient people. Moreover, it will give them a home for the development of an individual culture, and will not affect other than beneficially the rights which they have won as citizens of the countries in which they have made their homes. Moreover, it will provide refuge for the persecuted, and a centre of Jewish life to which all the race will naturally turn. Then it will be well for the Allies’ interests in the Mediterranean that so important a place should become permanently neutralized and stand no risk of falling into the hands of the Powers which might make a mischievous use of it.” (Pall Mall Gazette.)

“Mr. Balfour’s announcement on the subject of Zionism, which forms an extraordinarily appropriate pendant to General Allenby’s brilliant operations in Southern Palestine, marks the conclusion of a strenuous struggle behind the scenes between the International Jews, to whom this country is much more useful than they are to us, and the National Jews, who are among our most valuable compatriots. For once the right side has gained the day, and the Zionist aspirations of the Chosen People receive for the first time the formal endorsement of a British Government.” (The Globe.)

“No more appropriate moment could have been seized by the British Government to declare itself in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people than the present time, when our Twentieth Century Crusaders have just carried Gaza, the ancient Philistine stronghold, and are pressing on to the capture of the Holy City from the hands of the infidel. British interests have for long made it plain that some buffer state must arise between Egypt and a possibly hostile Turkish Government, and Zionism appears to provide the solution.” (The Evening Standard.)

“Nearly two thousand years after the Dispersion, Zionism has become a practical and integral part of all schemes for a new world-order after the war.... There could not have been at this juncture a stroke of statesmanship more just or more wise. No one need to be told that it will send a mystical thrill through the hearts of the vast majority of Jews throughout the world.... It is no idle dream which anticipates that by the close of another generation the new Zion may become a State, including, no doubt, only a pronounced minority of the entire Jewish race, yet numbering from a million to two million souls, forming a true national people, with its own distinctive, rural, and urban civilization, its own centres of learning and art, making a unique link between East and West. Jews who dwell elsewhere will none the less be animated by a new interest, sympathy, pride, and will be able to contribute powerful help. So much for that aspect. We need hardly point out that for all the higher purposes of the Allies the importance of Mr. Balfour’s declaration is immediate and great. From the United States to Russia, new enthusiasm for the general cause of liberty, restoration, and lasting peace secured by many new international links, moral and practical, will be kindled amongst the extraordinary race, whose influence everywhere is out of all proportion to its numbers.” (The Observer.)

“... A large and thriving Jewish settlement in the Holy Land, under the supervision of Great Britain, our Allies, and America, would make for peace and progress in the Near East, and would thus accord with British policy. It is not to be supposed that Palestine could ever support more than a small proportion of the Jewish race. There are probably more than twelve million Jews in the world, of whom far more than half live in Russia and Austria. Generations may pass before Palestine is capable of maintaining with comfort a million Jewish inhabitants, though it is, as Mr. Albert Hyamson says in his very able new book,⁠¹ a ‘land laid waste’ and not by any means a desert. But a little Jewish state in Palestine would serve as a rallying point for Jews all over the world, and it would confer a benefit also on the Christian and the Moslem worlds, which are equally interested in the Holy Land and its undying religious memories.” (The Spectator.)

¹ “Palestine: The Rebirth of an Ancient People.” By Albert M. Hyamson. London, 1917.

“Mr. Balfour’s declaration translates into a binding statement of policy the general wish of British opinion. It emphatically favours ‘the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.’ If we were to analyse this sentiment we should find at its core the simple and humane instinct of reparation. Our own record towards the Jewish race is, from Cromwell’s day downwards, one of relative enlightenment; but it is on the conscience of all Christendom that the burden falls of secular persecution which this enduring race has suffered. One of our solidest reasons for welcoming the Russian Revolution was that it had freed the whole Alliance from complicity in the sins of one of its chief partners towards the Jews. To end this record by restoring the dispersed and downtrodden race to its own cradle is a war aim which lifts the struggle in this region above the sordid level of Imperial competition.” (The Nation.)

“The British Government’s declaration in favour of Zionism is one of the best pieces of statesmanship that we can show in these latter days. Early in the war The New Statesman published an article giving the main reasons why such a step should be taken, and nothing has occurred to change them. The special interest of the British Empire in Palestine is due to the proximity of the Suez Canal. The present has killed the idea that this vital artery ought to be used as a line of defence for Egypt, and there is a general return to the view of Napoleon (and indeed history long before his time) that Egypt must be defended in Palestine. To make Palestine once more prosperous and populous, with a population attached to the British Empire, there is only one hopeful way, and that is to effect a Zionist restoration under British auspices. On the other side of the account it is hard to conceive how anybody with the true instinct for nationality and the desire to see small nations emancipated can fail to be warmed by the prospect of emancipating this most ancient of oppressed nationalities.” (The New Statesman.)

“The forty-six Jewish colonies, with their co-operative societies, their agricultural schools, and their experimental station for agriculture, seem to have prospered before the war. Their wine and oranges were one-fourth of the total export trade of Jaffa, and while the war has set back their development the Turks are likely to have been less destructive than the Germans in France. Their labour—one of the chief difficulties foreseen by critics of Zionism—is partly Arab, but largely supplied by Jews from Russia, Roumania, and the Yemen. With sufficient capital—already furnished in part by Zionist organizations—the removal of the blight of Turkish rule, and the coming shortage of all food products, the economic future of a Jewish Palestine should be bright.” (The Economist.)

“The movement towards Palestine will be slow, and none of those who have sanctioned the great experiment may hope to live to judge it by the fruits; but it is satisfactory to remember that the British Government’s decision meets with the approbation of many Great Powers. President Wilson views the Zionist programme with the keenest sympathy, and has appointed a Jewish Commission to study in Palestine the question of a Jewish State. The Russian Revolutionary Government has declared its willingness to support the Jewish claim to Palestine, and even permitted a Zionist Conference to be held in Petrograd. Those who should be well informed say that the Pope is not opposing the Zionist ideal, and that the French Government favours it; one and all seem to be agreed that when this war is over the horrors of the Jewish situation as it affects the vast majority of the race must come to an end. The persecution and repression practised in Russia and Roumania down to little more than a year ago cannot go on in a world made fit for all to live in.... What will be the spiritual effect of this return to Palestine upon the pious Jew, who for two thousand years has said, If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning; upon the other class of Jew who will recover his Judaism when it has a centre, a point of focus; and upon the non-Jew to whom the return to Palestine is the fulfilment of prophecy and the foreshadowing of the Millennium?” (The Graphic.)

“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

¹ אוירא דארץ ישראל מחכים.
בבא בתרא ד׳קנה ע׳ב׃

² ... ישיבת ארץ ישראל שקולה כנגד כל המצות שבתורה׃
ספרי דבי רב פסקא ראה פ׳׃

³ ”... כל מי שקבוע בארץ ישראל ... יהא מובטח שבן העולם הבא הוא׃“
תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת שקלים פרק שלישי׃

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:⁠—

“When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion,

We were like unto them that dream.

Then was our mouth filled with laughter,

And our tongue with singing;

Then said they among the nations:

‘The Lord hath done great things with these.’

The Lord hath done great things with us;

We are rejoiced.”

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

¹ “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem,
Let my right hand forget her cunning.”

(Psalm cxxxvii. 5.)

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.

¹ Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 1905–1916.

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.

¹ Secretary of State for the Colonies.

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.

¹ Member of the War Cabinet.

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.

¹ Secretary of State for India, 1910–1915.

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.

¹ H.M. Ambassador at Washington, 1907–1913.

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.

¹ High Commissioner for South Africa, 1905–1910.

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

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

¹ Chairman of the Irish Parliamentary Party.

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.

¹ Secretary for Scotland, 1895–1903.

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.

¹ Minister of Pensions.

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.

¹ Governor of Bombay, 1907–1913.

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.

¹ Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1911–1914.

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.”

¹ Governor-General of Australia, 1902–1904.

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

¹ “Leave Israel alone!—If they are not Prophets, they are the sons of Prophets.”—Pesachim, 66a.

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.

The 17th of Marcheshvan, 5678 (2nd November, 1917), is an important milestone on the road to our national future; it marks the end of an epoch, and it opens out the beginning of a new era. The Jewish people has but one other such day in its annals: the 28th August, 1897, the birthday of the New Zionist Organization at the first Basle Congress. But the analogy is incomplete, because the period which then began was Expectation, whereas the period which now begins is Fulfilment.

From then till now, for over twenty years, the Jewish people has been trying to find itself, to achieve a national resurrection. The advance-guard was the organized Zionist party, which in 1897 by its programme demanded a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured by public law. A great deal was written, spoken, and done to get this demand recognized. The work was carried out by the Zionist Organization on a much greater scale and in a more systematic manner than had been possible for the Chovevé Zion, the first heralds of the national ideal, who had tried to give practical shape to the yearning which had burnt like a light in the Jewish spirit during two thousand years of exile and had flamed out at various periods in various forms. The Chovevé Zion had the greatest share in the practical colonization. The Zionist movement wrestled with its opponents and with itself. It collected means outside Palestine, and laboured with all its strength in Palestine. It founded institutions of all kinds for colonization in Palestine. That was a preface, full of hope and faith, full of experiments and illusions, inspired by a sacred and elevating ideal, and productive of many valuable and enduring results.

The time has come to cast the balance of the account. That chapter of propaganda and experiments is complete, and the glory of immortality rests upon it. But we must go further. To look back is the function of the historian; life looks forwards.

The turning-point is the Declaration of the British Government that they “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.”